Madam Speaker, it is now my turn to speak to Bill C-5. I do not think I will have time to finish before members are called in for the vote, but I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois, for different reasons from those of the Reform Party—and I think the Reform Party will probably vote against this bill unless things change during consideration in committee—will vote against this bill. I will try to explain our reasons for opposing it.
Before explaining our position, I would like to draw a comparison with other bills now before the House—the first one that comes to mind is the one on the airline industry.
Often the government decides to indicate a direction without even legislating. In other cases, as we saw this morning, the House is not consulted until many years later, sometimes after an international treaty had been signed.
So that people are very clear, in this case, the Canadian Tourism Commission—because there is one—was established in 1995, and the purpose of this bill is to consolidate, as it were, something that already exists, something that was established by ministerial order a few years back.
It is an odd way of going about things to ask us to pass legislation after a number of things have already been done with respect to tourism. The question that comes to mind is this: why on earth use a bill now to create this crown corporation in order to make official what already exists?
If we look at the bill and examine the difference between the mandate the government wants to give the future Canadian Tourism Commission and the mandate of the former Canadian Tourism Commission, it becomes clear that this is a visibility operation. It is an opportunity for the government to promote Canadian unity by talking about Canadian unity and the integrity of Canada.
The mission of the previous commission was clear. It was short, but it was clear. The mission statement read “Canada's tourism industry will deliver world-class cultural and leisure experiences year-round, while preserving and sharing Canada's clean, safe and natural environments. The industry will be guided by the values of respect, integrity and empathy”.
There was also mention of promoting the growth and profitability of the Canadian tourist industry. That makes sense, since we are talking about promoting tourism.
What is the mission of the new commission? The bill says it all. It reads:
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identify and integrity of Canada;
Terrific. There is a huge difference. There is no more talk of promoting tourism or organizing activities. There is nothing of the sort. There is no talk of profitability either.
A little further along, it reads:
Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to Canadian tourism by establishing a Tourism Commission that would work with the governments of the provinces and the territories and the Canadian tourism industry to promote the interests of that industry and to market Canada as a desirable tourist destination—
We will recall the first paragraph, which provides:
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identity and integrity of Canada;
The government is going to use tourism for political ends, to make political propaganda. That is the intent of this bill. It is consistent with a certain view. We can see the reactions of the Liberal members opposite. They are beginning to get it.
My Reform colleague spoke a bit about this government's approach. It creates government agencies to control the information it intends to give us elected representatives. We have a mandate here in the House to question the Minister of Industry, who will be responsible for this commission.
We can guess in advance what the answer will be. The minister will say “This commission must report to me. Unfortunately, before we can answer your question, you must wait for the end of the fiscal year, in a few months, after the commission has tabled its annual report. I encourage you to contact the commission directly. Perhaps it will supply you with some answers”.
We are familiar with this kind of commission. As soon as economic activity is involved, the answer is “Given the commercial aspect, it may be our duty not to disclose all the findings of marketing and feasibility studies and so on”.
Quite naturally, this commission will hide behind the secrecy relating to commercial practices. We are familiar with that. It has been going on as long as we have had this government, and the Department of Industry specializes in it.
There are grounds for concern. We are not always in agreement with the Reformers, even if we share the same side of the House. We are in agreement with them on this, however. We are concerned about this, and rightly so.
The are other examples. The millennium scholarship foundation is not over with yet. When the government cannot do what it wants directly, when it wants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, then it sets up an agency, a foundation, to try and give scholarships directly to students. For what purpose? To hand out nice cheques with a maple leaf on them, to mark the millennium. We must never forget that maple leaf. People need to know that the money came from the federal government. That is one of the goals: visibility, seeking a high profile.
The government also created the society for health research and innovation. Same thing again. Health is a provincial jurisdiction. Because it cannot interfere too directly, the federal government does so through a foundation.
The universities, which normally come under provincial jurisdiction, are invited to apply for subsidies. Once again, the government is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly. More and more, it is interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Why? Because the government is looking for visibility.
The Minister of Finance has confirmed that he has even more money than he thought he would. Money is flowing in from everywhere and has to be distributed. If only this money could be returned to the provinces through transfer payments. This is how it could be done. No; the government continues to cut, or maintain cuts—it is all in the wording and is developing new programs. This bill is more of the same.
While the government is trying to replace the old commission with a new one, with a stronger mandate for purposes of visibility and political propaganda, what is it doing? It is taking back money earmarked—I am not inventing this, it is to be found in the budget—for a subsidiary tourism agreement with the Government of Quebec. The amount involved is $700,000. This year, not a red cent is earmarked for that agreement; everything has been cut. Why? Beacause the Minister of Industry, through the minister responsible for economic development for the Quebec regions, told the House that the federal government had its own strategy.
Now we can understand better why it does not want to reach an agreement with the Government of Quebec on tourism. It wants to keep the money and spend it itself. Why? To improve its visibility. The same old story.
And are we sure that the money the new Canadian Tourism Commission might distribute will be consistent with the strategic plans approved by regional stakeholders in Quebec, for example by regional development councils, by local development councils, by regional tourism associations? No.
The member for Jonquière was talking about this very issue; it is the same in her riding. The member for Louis-Hébert has run into the same problem. The dreadful to-do over the aquarium at the Charlesbourg zoo is common knowledge. We are told that they cannot get involved in that. Yet this is a priority clearly expressed by the people in that region. So the question is “Is the aquarium in Quebec City really international?”. Well, I have seen international projects, and I will give an example of one.
I have nothing against the people in Gatineau, who have a fine hot air balloon festival, but an argument for the federal government's giving more in the area of tourism is an opportunity to fly the federal balloon. And it is not far, just in Gatineau. They cross the Ottawa river and reach Ottawa. So it goes beyond Quebec's jurisdictions and therefore money can go to it because the Canadian maple leaf can be seen floating in the air, and suddenly the thing becomes an international event.
You think I am joking? This is very serious. In the activity report of the former Canadian tourism commission, in an effort to get more federal government money, there was a place where they reported having stylized the fine federal maple leaf and that it had been flown as many times as possible and that, with a little more money, it could be flown even more.
Visibility is what this is about. The government is seeking visibility. But there are other aspects of this bill that concern us. It talks of 26 directors. That is quite a lot of people. When we look at the representation decided upon for the provinces, out of the seven board members, there is only one representing Quebec. For the private sector, the same distribution: seven people, just one for Quebec.
Finally, in the sector not associated with the government or designated by the minister, still only one person. Out of 26, three will be officially designated by Quebec stakeholders or by the Government of Quebec.
This is pretty far away from the concept of two founding peoples. Granted, in 1867, Quebec accounted for about 50% of the Canadian population, and now only about 24%. Normally, we ought to expect to have about a 25% representation still. And twenty-six divided by four is at least six, if we drop the decimals. But we are down to three, and even these three are not a certainty, because at least one of the three is to be appointed directly by the minister. It is highly unlikely that person would be a friend of the Quebec sovereignist regime.
We cannot be opposed to the idea of a Canadian Tourism Commission. What is tourism? I have looked in various dictionaries, and it boils down to an activity with an economic, a commercial, tinge. In the Constitution—which I look at far more often than the little catechism book my mother left to me—it is stated that all commercial activity is a provincial jurisdiction.
I can understand that sometimes a commercial activity can be interprovincial. I can understand outside promotion. But there are organizations that already do that very well. There is a commission that spends a great deal of money on that.
Once again—and I will conclude on this because time is passing and I know people want to vote, because Tuesday is voting day—the fundamental goal of this government in this bill is, yet again, to seek out visibility.
On the subject of identity, what government is in a better position to promote Quebec's cultural tourist events, such as the festivals in Montreal, the Festival de Jazz, the Festival de l'humour, the Festival d'été de Québec—