House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Before question period the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley had the floor. He has eight minutes remaining in his time.
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate on the bill.
Before question period I was talking about the problem members of parliament such as my colleagues and I have of getting information through the Access to Information Act regarding crown corporations. It is virtually impossible. It ends up certainly being an exercise in futility. That is why we are concerned about the tourist commission being taken out of the office of the Minister of Industry. That is exactly what will happen.
At the present time we at least have some access and some accountability through the minister who is obliged to answer questions, at least if he feels like it. The CTC is accountable directly to the minister and the minister is accountable to parliament, including those of us in the Reform Party when we are asking questions to pursue accountability in terms of the spending of taxpayers' dollars. That is the way it should be.
I suspect that the cost of running the CTC as a crown corporation is going to be a lot higher than it is now. The briefing I received suggested that moving the entire operation to Toronto is a distinct possibility. I can picture it. Instead of taking up a floor in the building that houses Industry Canada, it will need some prominent downtown real estate in Toronto at the top dollar the market demands.
The salaries will have to go up. It costs twice as much to buy a house in Toronto. Then there are the moving and relocation costs for the 62 current employees. That certainly will not be cheap. I am sure there will be the emotional costs of moving to Toronto for all of the families involved.
The Reform Party believes Canada is a spectacular tourist destination and we should promote Canada as a travel destination. Tourism is a big industry for Canada whether one is a parliamentarian or whether one happens to run a specialized restaurant in some city in Canada such as Edmonton for example.
We rely on tourists to come to our country and to spend their dollars. In fact, it is Canada's 12th largest industry. We are talking big dollars. Last year it generated jobs at twice the pace of Canadian business. It generated $44 billion in revenue to the Canadian economy. We are not talking small dollars here.
A press release issued by the CTC states that the international travel numbers for the first three months of 1999 indicate that this year may well be another record breaking one for Canada's tourist industry. Compared to the same period in 1998, international tourists made 11% more trips of one or more nights to Canada so far this year.
In conclusion, it is clear that Canada needs tourism and that we should market our wonderful country abroad, notwithstanding the high taxes. But it is not clear that we need a crown corporation to carry on this activity.
I believe that you would find, Mr. Speaker, consent for the following motion:
That for the remainder of this parliament, motions pursuant to Standing Orders 26, 56.1, 57 or 78.3 and motions that the question be now put shall not be receivable by the Chair. Furthermore, this motion shall not be subsequently revocable or amendable by a government motion.
Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The hon. member has put a motion before the House. Does the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague for the comments he made. Mr. Speaker, I have to pay a special tribute to you too, sir. The hon. member mentioned certain things in his speech that I think refer directly to the efforts you have made toward tourism and the establishment of industries in Canada and in particular, a certain establishment that has some taste, that makes some bread, and which has brought together some cultures in Edmonton. It brings to mind one of the purposes of the tourism industry which has to do with the promotion of culture.
My hon. colleague would recognize only too well that one of the functions of tourism is to bring people to Canada to let people see the culture we have here. It is such a varied culture. There is the French culture, the aboriginal culture and all the various ethnic groups that have come to Canada over the years. It is a real kaleidoscope.
It is a wonderful combination of the way people can actually work together. People of different ethnic backgrounds come from other parts of the world where they actually fought with one another and got into not just minor fights in the back streets but they would shoot each other, maim each other, kill each other, plant mines in the ground so that people's legs would be blown off.
Could my colleague make a comment about how Canada through the expansion of our tourist industry can demonstrate to the rest of the world how we can live together more harmoniously?
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am only too pleased to respond to my colleague from Kelowna. Certainly Canada is a marvellous country to live in. People from all over the world have come to Canada to take up residence and become Canadian citizens. There are those who are still seeking to become citizens of Canada. We have a lot to offer the world.
Tourism gives people from all over the world an opportunity to come to a country that perhaps they have never visited before. For the first time they can see how people can live and exist together despite their cultural or religious differences, their differing points of view. We are a free and democratic country. I think we are able to hold ourselves up as a standard to the world. I can only say that—and I have to add this—I really believe that the people who come to Canada from different countries can best exhibit and accomplish this spirit of co-operation, not with the help of government but rather without the help of government. People come to Canada recognizing that it is a beautiful country.
In the last 30 years, the current government and past governments have done more to foster the divisions amongst the different types of people in the country than bring them together. The government should just stop trying to make people so different in the country. It should let the people themselves embrace what it is like to live in a multicultural country without its involvement. They will do a far better job and a job that will move along the lines of getting together, rather what the government does, which is to promote divisions among the people of Canada.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Prince George—Bulkley Valley for his intervention and for his recent remarks.
As I think about this bill, I remember, when I was the deputy critic for industry with responsibility for the Canadian Tourism Commission, an instance that took place over a period of time where I wanted to have a meeting with the director of the commission. This was not as simple a matter as I had thought it would be. We had been told how open it was and how they were looking for opportunities to discuss the business of the commission with various people.
I had a meeting in British Columbia with some of the tourism people and wanted to take some of the information and discuss it with the director. It took a long time for this meeting to be arranged. The director was busy in town or out of town. One day we finally made an appointment. It was not in the near future, but after some time passed and I was preparing for the meeting, guess what, I got a phone call saying “I'm sorry, the appointment has been cancelled.
I began to explore the reasons why. I was told that I could have no meetings with members of the commission without the minister's approval. I took this directly to the Minister of Industry and, to his credit, he said that he would never stop me from doing that. Regardless, in his name, I never did have a meeting with the director of the commission.
This, in my mind, brings up the question of accountability. The Canadian Tourism Commission is accountable to the minister and accountable through the minister to parliament. Yet a parliamentarian, myself, the deputy critic responsible for this commission in my party, wanting to represent the constituents of British Columbia to the commission, was not able to have a meeting.
I am asking myself, with this further separation, this inch and a half arm's length that has been created between the commission and the government, how much more opportunity is there for a lack of accountability by the new crown corporation and members of parliament and the citizens of Canada who are vitally concerned about this issue.
I want to ask the member what his concerns are. Does he recognize some of the dangers I am alluding to? Could comment on them?
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is little enough accountability presently through the Minister of Industry with regard to the CTC, or for that matter through any of the government ministers, does concern me. If they do not want us to know something about their departments they simply throw up as many roadblocks as possible to keep us from getting the answer to our question.
As I have spoken about before, if we move the CTC out of the minister's department to a crown corporation, it automatically becomes almost 100% immune to anyone from the opposition looking into how it runs the new institution, how it spends taxpayers' dollars or how it operates. It will simply say that it is a crown corporation, not answerable to parliament and therefore does not have to reply. It can always say something to give it some credibility in its own mind that if it were to reply to our question or inquiry it would be letting out some strategic secrets which it cannot do.
Here is a strategic secret that we would like to have let out, and that is just how it is spending the taxpayers' dollars. That is a secret to which I think the Canadian people have a right to know the answer.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.
When I looked over the bill, I paid particular attention to the objectives, and my first reaction was that the government had said it was getting out of tourism in a throne speech a few years back. And now, in the House of Commons, in the Parliament of Canada, the government introduces an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.
From the outset, it is rather incomprehensible. Why is the federal government bent on interfering in this sector, which is outside its jurisdiction? Why is it bent on using a Canadian tourism commission to do so? I looked to the objects of the commission as stated in the bill for some answers.
The first object is to sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry. I told myself that the Canadian tourism industry is really the sum total of the tourism industry in each of the provinces. In Quebec, we have a tourism policy which was developed some years ago and which has been very successful.
Since the 1978 summit on tourism, Quebec has made important progress as a tourist destination. In 1996, revenue was $5.4 billion. In Quebec this industry comprises 29,000 businesses and over 100,000 workers concentrated in the sectors of accommodation, food services, transportation, travel agencies, entertainment and recreation.
As well, it is the 6th ranking Quebec export next to aeronautics, with international exports of $1.9 billion. Tourism investments in Quebec total $1.3 billion and its annual tax revenues $1.2 billion. As well, it offers considerable employment to young people, as 28% of workers are under the age of 25.
Quebec has therefore equipped itself with a policy to intervene in this sector which is a provincial jurisdiction. It has the means required, and has set in place some highly pertinent structures, such as the regional tourism associations. It therefore has an approach to tourism and to services to tourists that has been highly successful. We attract tourists from all over, other Canadian provinces, the United States, South America and Europe. We boast a number of truly interesting tourist attractions and it is not mere chance, but rather the result of a well-organized tourism effort, that has led to worthwhile results.
The tourism industry in Quebec is guided by Tourisme Québec, a department which directs government actions relating to tourism. There are 19 regional tourist associations, like the one I have already referred to, and their mandate is to group together those involved in tourism in their region, encouraging concerted efforts and co-ordinating the development and promotion of tourism in the region. I believe they are doing this very successfully.
I will give as my example the Lower St. Lawrence region, the one I represent here in the House of Commons. It is a region that had problems 10, 15 or 20 years ago convincing tourists passing through our region to stop and spend some time there, instead of simply heading on to Percé and the maritimes. Creation of the regional tourism association has really borne fruit.
We eventually established tourism commissions in several municipalities, participated in the effort to promote our tourist attractions, proposed nominees for national tourism awards across Quebec, because there is a contest to choose the province's best tourist businesses, and so on. Thanks to this promotion and emulation, the Lower St. Lawrence has become a major tourist area in Quebec.
We have very distinctive attractions. For example, there is our heritage. We have families that were among the first ones to settle in Quebec, such as the Lévesques, the Ouelettes and the Pelletiers. They organize family reunions in our region. These families have been in Quebec for 250 or 300 years. They get together and tour our heritage. We also have an extraordinary religious heritage. It is one of the most vibrant in America, thus making it another interesting attraction for those who come to visit us.
In addition, we have a whole network of hotels and restaurants with a well established reputation at the national level. I am thinking of the hotel Lévesque and the hotel Université in Rivière-du-Loup. These facilities can accommodate a fairly large number of people and are nationally renowned for the high quality of the food they serve.
We also have a network of inns and other attractions, including ecotourism. Ecotourism is a sector promoted by Quebec with the result that we now have a very good structure at the Canadian and European levels, and we do not need a parallel structure.
In our region, ecotourism involves anything that has to do with nature, including the St. Lawrence River. The new Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park will attract tourists from all over the world. That is an interesting prospect. Mountain climbing is also becoming a popular activity in Saint-André-de-Kamouraska, among other places, which offer incredible opportunities.
Therefore, we made the lower St. Lawrence a reception area and we established an area people want to visit in terms of new tourist values and what they want to see. The result—and it is not just with us as an ATR, but it applies to all regional tourist associations—is the promotion of the appeal of these regions.
I think Tourisme Québec's mandate already contains everything necessary to ensure that we manage our tourism industry well. When we look at the objectives of the bill, we realize that there is duplication. Tourisme Québec talks of “orienting and co-ordinating public and private action in tourism”.
The board of directors they want to establish for the Canadian tourism commission is the same sort of representation as for this commission. They will select people representing a province from within the population of the province, but these people may not be the actual delegates of the province, and this fact may cause problems.
The mandate of Tourisme Québec also provides for “the development of a knowledge of tourist products and clients”. It is also found in the mandate of the Canadian tourism commission as “to support the improvement and development of tourism”. I spoke of this earlier: “to inform clientele on Quebec's tourist products and to develop and operate tourist facilities”.
We can see there are many things that are similar to the mandate of the Canadian tourism commission. The federal government has told us that it wanted to get out of this sector, but it is now presenting a bill to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission. One wonders why. The reason is stated under the second goal of the act: b ) market Canada as a desirable tourist destination;
We are talking here about tourism in Canada and from abroad. That is a roundabout way to engage in propaganda.
The hidden motive of this bill is to promote and increase the visibility of the federal government and to reinforce national unity, one of the preferred themes of this government. I think it is going beyond what is normal and acceptable.
The promotion of Canada that is being done by the federal government in Canada does not deal only with tourist attractions, but also with the value of Canada itself as a federation. That is a way to compensate for the weaknesses in the operation of the federation, all the more because this government lacks flexibility and is unwilling to change.
Instead of trying to meet the needs of the various members of the federation, it is content with setting up tougher hurdles in the path of the sovereignist or nationalist movement in Quebec, which should be able to express itself and and develop to its full potential. We see this in all the federal government's areas of activity.
Today, the Canadian tourism commission is one more tool for promoting the Canadian federal system. When the stated object is to promote tourism within Canada, it is very clear that this is the goal.
If the bill had been limited to promoting Canada in international markets, the tourism structures of each province might perhaps have agreed to establish a common fund for international promotion.
But when the government starts talking about a domestic mandate, and tells us that the Canadian tourism commission will organize and promote tourism within Canada, we know very well that, further down the road, the present Liberal government will use these words in the bill as justification for promoting not Canadian tourism but the Canadian federal system. I find this unacceptable.
The objects in the bill also include the following: c ) support a cooperative relationship between the private sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories with respect to Canadian tourism;
No account has been taken of what I mentioned earlier concerning the tourism development policy of Quebec, which held a tourism forum in 1997.
In the fall of 1996, the government held a summit on the economy and employment. This was followed by a tourism forum in March 1997, which brought together over 200 people representing all sectors, products and regions, as well as the main departments having anything to do with tourism. The forum produced a number of observations, consensus, and various courses of action.
Quebec's current tourism policy incorporates all the conclusions of this meeting and the work done by the chair of tourism of the Université du Québec à Montréal at the forum, the consultations of public departments and agencies by Tourisme Québec, and the August 1997 consultation of the tourism industry.
So, the province of Quebec has come a very long way in terms of tourism, thanks to a tourism policy that makes sense and which has concrete goals.
The policy includes the priorities and intervention strategies developed by both the government and the industry in order to ensure the growth of tourism businesses and to maximize the contribution of the tourism industry to our economic, social and cultural development in the year 2000.
We, Quebecers, have trouble feeling at home within the Canadian Tourism Commission. We do not really understand why the federal government is promoting this vision of tourism development.
Let us turn to the constitution of the Canadian Tourism Commission and its board of directors. There will be twenty-six directors, including the federal deputy minister of Industry. The chairperson and the president will be appointed for five years. Sixteen directors from the private sector will be appointed by the industry minister for a term of not more than three years, with the approval of the Governor in Council and under the advice of a committee set up by the board of directors.
Seven of these 16 directors will be tourism operators and nine will be private sector representatives. Seven public sector directors will also be appointed.
This is a huge structure that will work in parallel with what we already have in the province of Quebec. Again, we feel that our money goes to finance two parallel operations, one from the Canadian federal government and one from the Quebec government. We do not need this kind of duplication. We know from experience that this way is not right for us.
Clause 26(1) of the bill reads as follows:
26.(1) The Commission may enter into an agreement with the government of any province or territory to carry out its objects.
This means that, before entering into an agreement with a province, the Canadian Tourism Commission may want to make sure that the goals of the agreement are in line with its own. These goals might be different from those in the tourism policy of Quebec.
The language issue also comes into play if we want to attract French-speaking tourists to Quebec. It naturally appeals to people from France, Africa and many other countries. There is a tradition. In setting up this service, we must make sure that we are not required at the same time, under an agreement with the Canadian Tourism Commission, to pursue other goals in terms of mobility and the clientele we want to attract, in return for benefits and funds.
In its present form, the bill contains many elements the Bloc Quebecois finds unacceptable.
The government should take the time to go and see what is being done in other jurisdictions, get reacquainted with the policy developed by Quebec in the area of tourism development and look at what has been accomplished in this area. If after that it still wants to introduce a bill, it should be one that gives enough manoeuvring room to those who are already organized in this regard, and makes sure that they can access the necessary resources to implement their own policy.
This sort of action, this recognition of Quebec's dynamism in the area of tourism development are not reflected in the Canadian Tourism Commission Act. This leads the Bloc Quebecois to the conclusion that it cannot support this bill in its present form.
It would need to be either referred to a committee for in-depth examination or quite simply withdrawn, but it is totally unacceptable in its present form. It is unacceptable not only because it requires many amendments, but also because its very basis, the very mandate the government assigns to the commission, will not yield satisfactory results for Quebec.
It is not worthwhile for Quebec to get involved in the action to be carried out by the Canadian tourism commission under its present mandate. Certainly, on the practical level, there can be areas of co-operation, but in the long term there is no future for Quebec in the way they want to organize tourism within the commission and the way the present federal government perceives it.
There is one other aspect I want to address, which I have not touched so far. It is one often found in legislation passed by this government in recent years. This concerns the way accounts will have to be rendered to the government by the commission. It is part of a trend on the government side, and a fine example is the millennium scholarship foundation. I use this as an example because we had concrete information on it in the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development yesterday.
Two officials appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources to speak on interventions in the field of education, which is not under federal jurisdiction, but which the federal government would really like to invest in. I asked them if they were aware of the differences remaining between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada in resolving this issue. They indicated that they were not.
The representatives of the department did not know what point the millennium scholarship negotiations had reached. They were unable to tell us, because the foundation had inherited the mandate. This is the same sort of situation we could end up with in the case of the Canadian tourism commission and, furthermore, this is an area where little action may be taken.
This is an area where a lot of contracts are handed out. It is an area where firms are told, for example, that the government wants to establish trade policy to sell Canada on Asian or American markets, and this sort of thing costs lots.
They could be sectors of activity where things must be done properly, but because of the way in which the government opts out of its responsibility for administering sums of money, there will be an opportunity for patronage without any requirement for accountability before the House of Commons.
I think that even for a federalist, even for someone who thinks it is a good idea for the Canadian tourism commission to invest in a provincial sector, questions remain. Questions on the relevance and fairness of making it very easy to reward one's friends.
I will conclude by stressing again that the Canadian tourism commission does not have the proper mandate to adequately promote tourism in Quebec.
We have developed tools to promote tourism in Quebec and we have a concerted approach. While there can be levels of services, common initiatives and exchanges in that area, there is no need for a superstructure such as the Canadian tourism commission, which will get involved in jurisdictions where Quebec is already very active.
I think Quebecers will see with this initiative, as with others, that Canadian federalism does not serve them properly, it does not provide them with what they expect. For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am Canadian, I come from Ontario and I am an anglophone.
I often visit Quebec, and I really like Quebecers, their culture and Quebec City. I am proud that the world's most beautiful francophone region is a part of Canada. As a Canadian, as a member of this House and as a colleague of the Bloquistes, I want to tell everyone that Quebec is the world's most beautiful francophone region.
I have a question for the hon. member: Why can we not share with you and tell people that Quebec is one of the world's most beautiful regions? I like that region, but unfortunately I do not speak French very well. It is the first time I ask a question in French in the House of Commons.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
This is an important moment, because it is a question that comes from the heart.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his intervention in French. I have known him for several years now and I can tell he has made remarkable progress. I think he deserves our congratulations.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
However, I think that he proved the point I was making earlier. We are here to discuss the Canadian tourism commission and its mandate but we just heard an intervention aimed at selling Canada.
I am glad that the hon. member spoke in French. We understood clearly that what he was telling is that, basically, the mandate of the Canadian tourism commission is to promote Canada as a federation. That is what he said.
I respect his opinion, but I do not think that we need the Canadian tourism commission to do that.
As far as beauty is concerned, I agree with him that Quebec is a fantastic region, which is very unique in North America due to its French speaking majority.
However, I do not think that there is only one French speaking area in Canada. I believe that we are one of its two founding peoples, one of its two distinct societies. We have a right to try to find the best way to be represented within Canada, on large, medium and small issues.
I submit, however, that the Canadian tourism commission is not the good vehicle to sell our tourist attractions to the world.
We have developed all the tools we need to be able to do that adequately. What we need much more from the federal government is to project, outside Canada, the image of a country where there is a francophone people. If this were the image projected in all Canadian embassies, it would make a much stronger contribution than creating a tourism commission with a very large board filled with the government's friends. The fact is that it will be able to get federal money in a sector it has no business being involved in.
Two years ago, the federal government said in the throne speech that it would get out of certain sectors, including tourism. Today, it is introducing a bill to establish the Canadian tourism commission. Where is the logic? It is an unseemly action similar to the Prime Minister's position on the issue of the majority.
We are used to dealing with such situations. Our only wish is to end this debate by forming an economic partnership with Canada, on an equal footing, where we will have control of all the levers and where there will be no useless third party interventions.
Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The member for Scarborough Centre, on questions and comments.
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. You have just recognized a member from across the way for questions and comments. You are recognizing another member from across the way. Is it two for one or three for one? Is that what 50% plus one means?
Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Yes, it is. I must repeat it in English just to be sure. Whenever there is a member from a party contra to the party that has just made a discourse, the other person will always be recognized before a member from the same party.
The notion is debate, and there is much more likely to be debate from an opposite point of view. It goes the other way around from time to time.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for respecting the rules of the House. The member who spoke on the bill said that they could not support the bill in its current form. That does not surprise me because they would not support it anyway, no matter what form.
Before I get on to my question, I was disappointed because the member took this opportunity to take the bill in an entirely different direction, which is unfair to the industry, unfair to us, and unfair to the country. For years the member for Broadview—Greenwood has been promoting tourism. I commend him for it. We have been presenting it as a pan-Canadian initiative.
I compliment the member when he talks about the beautiful areas of Quebec. I am very proud to say that my daughter will be teaching French next year. We share its beauty and that of the rest of Canada. On other hand, as the CTC is unfolding I want to clarify for members and the listeners out there that the Canadian Tourism Commission was there, is there and will continue to be there.
It is a partnership agreement where the stakeholders come in and provide financial support along with government appropriations and proper accountability. The sad part I heard while listening, as much as I heard many wonderful things, was the way it was portrayed in terms of marketing Canada or promoting federalism. The word propaganda was there. There is no propaganda when we talk about the beauty of our country from coast to coast to coast, helping small businesses grow, bringing about employment and capturing the market.
Could the member tell me how the CTC, the government or any Canadian, could prevent any French speaking individual from any part of the globe from coming to Canada? That I cannot see.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member says he is surprised and that our party would vote against the bill in any case. I wish to remind him that, in this House, the opposition party that has most often voted with the government when bills were appropriate is the Bloc Quebecois.
There is no way that we can be accused of not making a constructive contribution to the debate. And as for the reason behind our present position, we wonder why the government introduced this bill. The provinces, and more specifically Quebec, already have their own infrastructures, well developed tourism networks, and strategies geared to the needs and characteristics of their respective regions.
This is particularly true for Quebec, as I explained in my speech. It has a policy, and it has regional structures, in the form of regional tourism associations. Tourism has taken off in Quebec in recent years, since we pooled all our resources, and we do not see the need for this kind of agency to help promote tourism in Quebec.
Would the needs of each of the provinces be better served by the Canadian tourism commission, whose object is to promote several competing tourism products? It will become a battle over whether to put more money into promoting Ontario, New Brunswick or Quebec, rather than letting each province organize its own tourism supply.
This is not how tourism operates, and it brings politics into a sector where it is not needed.
Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Unfortunately, the time allotted for questions and comments has now expired.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will begin my debate by recognizing how significant is the tourism industry. I commend the level of debate that has taken place up to this point, especially by the hon. member opposite when he said how beautiful the provinces of Quebec and Ontario were, how people move back and forth between them, and the significance of tourism to them.
The constituency of Kelowna which I represent is actually in another world known as paradise. It is a great and wonderful place. It is a place that would stack up to anywhere. I notice an hon. member clapping. I agree with him. It is a wonderful place.
This demonstrates that western Canada, Quebec and all the rest of Canada benefit from tourism. We need to get together in this whole operation. The part that bothers me is that we would use this debate as some kind of a vehicle or wedge to drive between Canadians. This should be a unifying activity, not a divisive one.
Before I move to the actual substance of the bill I would first like to ask a question. Why has the bill come before us? The bill creates a tourist commission that already exists and will somehow create a crown corporation. Why would this happen?
At the present time we have the Canadian Tourist Commission. The bill will establish a crown corporation to be known as the Canadian Tourism Commission, which is the same agency that presently exists. If the name is the same and if it is simply to create a crown corporation for something we already have, what is different?
I looked at the objectives of the corporation. The bill says that the corporation shall sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry. That is the first point. The second one is that it shall market Canada as a desirable tourist destination. The third is that it shall support a co-operative relationship between the private sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories, with respect to Canadian tourism. The final point is that it shall provide information about Canadian tourism to the private sector and to the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories.
These are wonderful objectives, but are they different or more comprehensive than what exists at the present time with the Canadian Tourism Commission? I went to the commission and asked what was the issue. Here are the exact statements from the Canadian Tourism Commission.
As it exists at the present time the major purpose of the Canadian Tourism Commission is to create a vibrant and profitable part of the Canadian economy. Let me go back to the first objective of the crown corporation: to sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry. With the exception of one or two different words the meaning is identical.
I will go to the next one. It states that the main thrust of the tourist commission as it exists today is to position Canada as a desirable destination to both international and domestic travellers. If I look at the bill before us it states that its second objective is to market Canada as a desirable tourist destination. What is the difference? There is no difference.
Finally, the Canadian Tourism Commission as it exists today is a partnership among tourism industry businesses, provincial and territorial governments and the Government of Canada. Lo and behold the bill before us states that it shall support a co-operative relationship between the private sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories with respect to Canadian tourism. The only difference is in the order in which the words are presented.
I fail to see that the bill creates anything different from what we have today, except the relationship with the government is a bit different in the sense that it is now a crown corporation. It is currently an agency within a department and under the bill it will become a crown corporation.
I thought then if there is not a difference in the objectives perhaps there could be a difference in the preamble that gave rise to the bill. Very often it is in the preamble that we find the rationale that gives rise to the bill. I examined it to see whether it materially justified and created a solid, sound and very substantive reason for the creation of a crown corporation. The preamble states:
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identity and integrity of Canada;
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry makes an essential contribution to the economic well-being of Canadians and to the economic objectives of the Government of Canada;
Whereas the Canadian tourism industry consists of mainly small and medium-sized businesses that are essential to Canada's goals for entrepreneurial development and job creation;
And 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;
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, creates an act. I emphasize the last paragraph I just read. We have that, so what are we doing here?
What on earth possessed whoever it is who had the audacity to bring this matter to the House? Why would something like this be done? We have the commission. We have the agency. We have the minister. Now we are to do it all over again. How many different ways is a spare tire put on a car?
Canadian Tourism Commission ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Perhaps that question will be answered the next time the bill comes before the House because the hon. member will have 13 minutes remaining. Unfortunately there is no time to hear the rest of his comments today.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.