INDU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): Good morning. May I call the meeting to order. We are continuing our discussion on Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

As per our discussion and agreement this morning, we now have three sets of witnesses in front of us. From the Department of Industry we have Irving Miller. He is legal counsel. From the Department of Justice we have Louis Davis, senior counsel, constitutional administrative law section. And from Public Works and Government Services Canada we we have Pierre Tremblay, acting executive director, communications coordination services branch.

• 1535

At 4:15 we are going to switch and have the Minister of Industry with us for half an hour.

Monsieur Riis, you weren't here this morning. I would just like to explain that we're going to postpone the draft report until tomorrow's meeting at 3:30 and we're going to deal with Bill C-5 again this afternoon. Monsieur Brien had asked for further witnesses and we now have them in front of us.

None of the witnesses will have an opening statement. So we'll begin right away with questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): If we are not finished after the Minister appears, will the witnesses still be here?

[English]

The Chair: No, because the minister is going to be coming at 4:15 and at 4:45 the minister will be leaving. By 4:15 we'll have been with them for 45 minutes. You have plenty of time to ask questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Can we reassess this at that time?

[English]

The Chair: We wanted to go to clause-by-clause after the minister. That was the intention. That was the agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Are you referring to the study of Bill C-5?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that would be the three witnesses we agreed to. We agreed to delay clause-by-clause until we heard from three witnesses. We have the three witnesses here this afternoon. We'll have two right now and we'll have the third one at 4.15 p.m.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to reassess the situation at 4:15 p.m. If we have other questions to ask at 4:15 p.m., we can postpone the clause-by-clause study.

[English]

The Chair: Why don't we start and see how many questions you have, and we'll go from there?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: My questions are for Mr. Tremblay of Attractions Canada. I would like you to briefly describe the scope of your budget as well as your activities in tourism.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay (Acting Executive Director, Communications Coordination Services Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada): Thank you very much for your invitation. I must say that the notice was relatively short. At noon, I was in a retreat with my management committee preparing our strategic plan for the Branch. So, I put together some documentation as quickly as possible, but I will do my best to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Attractions Canada was established thanks to co-operation within the private and the public sectors, specifically the government of Canada, as you know. Its mission is to inform Canadians about all of the interesting things that Canada has to offer, from the various sites of interest to tourists, which we can promote, to different festivals or a variety of organizations. We want to encourage Canadians to discover them and to appreciate them.

This mission is possible thanks to partnerships with Air Canada and Cadbury. They are both partners this year.

[English]

Tim Horton was also a partner last year.

I should let the committee members know that Attractions Canada is a program run by Groupe Everest in Montreal and it's coordinated by the private sector. We're just a partner in Attractions Canada, and the program is not at all related to the Canadian Tourism Commission. It's completely separate from

[Translation]

the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Mr. Pierre Brien: What is the budget?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: The program was launched in 1997. For 1997-98, the budget was $4.3 million. In 1998-99, the budget was $7.3 million. In 1999-2000, it was $4.3 million and for fiscal 2000-2001, it is $3 million. Our goal was to help get the program on its feet in order to allow the government of Canada to gradually reduce funding in order to make room for the private sector to manage it.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So then, you work in partnership with the private sector.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Public Works and Government Services Canada, and more specifically the Communications Branch, has a contract with the Everest Group, an organization which manages Attractions Canada. There is no partnership with Air Canada, for example. Basically it is the program manager who signs contracts and seeks sponsors in other sectors.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So, you give sums of money to the Everest Group which, in turn, manages the Attractions Canada programs for you.

• 1540

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: They represent the Attractions Canada program, and the federal government, this year, is a partner and contributes the sum of $3 million. There are other private partners with Attractions Canada, like Air Canada. It is the Everest Group that is responsible for finding sponsors in the private sector. We estimate that for every dollar that the government invests in the program, there are benefits for the private sector on the order of between $3 and $7.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So, you have a contract with the Everest Group.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Is the nature and are the details of this contract available?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No problem. I can send you a copy. I don't have it with me, but I can send a copy of the contract to the committee clerk, who would be happy to distribute it to members of the committee.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. Is the Everest Group subject to the same rules that you would be subject to if you were to manage Attractions Canada yourselves? For example, with respect to signing partnerships, are there less restrictions because it is a private company that is managing the program than there would if the program were managed by the department?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: As I mentioned, they are responsible for managing the Attractions Canada program. They are the ones, for example, who organize the Attractions Canada gala. So they are the ones who come up with initiatives such as contests, and so on. We are consulted because we are a partner, but nothing more.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So, they are not subject to the same rules for calls for tender or other things like that.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No. They look for private partnerships and therefore are not bound by such rules.

Mr. Pierre Brien: There are no restrictions.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. So in the end, from what you are saying, we should have asked the Everest Group to come and testify. Is, for example, the Greater Montreal Convention and Tourism Bureau a partner?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I would have to check that. I don't have that information.

Mr. Pierre Brien: The reason I am asking you this question is because this is found in a document signed by a Mr. Guité. Does this gentleman work with you?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: He is the former executive director of the Branch. He is the person that I replaced.

Mr. Pierre Brien: In your answer to a question asked by the Bloc Québécois on your partnerships, you included the Greater Montreal Convention and Tourism Bureau in your list of partners.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: That is possible.

Mr. Pierre Brien: However, when this group testified before the committee, I asked them the same question and they told me that they were not partners.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I would have to check in order to clarify this.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. I would like to read a question and an answer that surprised me somewhat:

What is the media advertising plan produced for the government by the Everest Group, and is it possible to obtain a copy?

That is the question. The answer is as follows:

The Everest Group is an advertising agency that was chosen by a competitive tendering process to provide communications support for government-sponsored projects. Each case is unique and requires its own communications plan. Neither the Everest Group nor any other government agency have developed a general advertising plan for the government of Canada.

That was your answer.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: That is our answer, yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Were you not tempted to specify that they were responsible for the entire management of the Attractions Canada program?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: They promote Attractions Canada. They are not working on a visibility plan for the government of Canada.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So, your answer to the question was very limited.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Exactly.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Attractions Canada does not promote the government of Canada. It promotes tourist attractions.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Do you know the Canadian Tourism Commission at all?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I do virtually no business with them.

Mr. Pierre Brien: You never have business with them.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So, you promote tourist sites or all sorts of tourism-related events, you hand over public funds to the Everest Group and the government has invested $65 million in the Canadian Tourism Commission, yet these people don't talk to each other. Is this what you're telling me?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I'm not saying that we do not talk, but the Canadian Tourism Commission has nothing to do with Attractions Canada. It's a completely different program. There are no links between the two departments. I would never discuss Attractions Canada with the Canadian Tourism Commission, because it is managed by us, by the Communications Coordination Services Branch.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Is that normal? Does it make sense for two different departments to invest in tourism when they manage their affairs without consulting each other, come what may?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: That is the way it is done.

Mr. Pierre Brien: That is the way it is done.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

• 1545

The Chair: Antoine Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Given what has just been said, do you believe it is possible that the Canadian Tourism Commission and Attractions Canada subsidize or sponsor the same event through the Everest Group?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Neither organization plays the same role. We don't exist to sell tourist destinations, airline tickets, hotel rooms or other things of that nature. That is not really what we do. We promote events or tourist sites which may interest Canadians.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You said that this way of doing things has been going on for a certain number of years. Have you used the Everest Group from the start?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Can you tell us why Attractions Canada chose the Everest Group from the outset, rather than another one?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Attractions Canada was presented as a project to the Canadian government by the Everest Group.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Everest Group is the promoter.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Indeed, it is the promoter for Attractions Canada.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: So that is how the project was presented to Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: That's right.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: And the project was approved.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Precisely.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Do you remember the reasons the Everest Group gave for looking after the program rather than the Canadian Tourism Commission?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Since I wasn't around at the time, I couldn't tell you. I could try to find the documents, but we receive partnership proposals from many companies in the course of one year. This project was thought up and designed by members of the Everest Group who then submitted it to the Canadian government, or more specifically to Public Works. In our opinion, it sounded like a good program to promote various tourist sites and festivals throughout Canada.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Do you think that the Group promotes events throughout the country? Does it take population and other factors into account?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I don't quite understand your question.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Is the money spent evenly across the country?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes. All kinds of events are promoted from Eastern Canada to Vancouver, in other words, everywhere. This year, for the second time, there is going to be a gala. It's a national gala, and every province is invited to submit events in six different categories. Two years ago, the gala was held in Montreal. I guess that was when the Greater Montreal Convention and Tourism Bureau got involved. This year, the gala was in Vancouver, and I don't know if there is going to be a third one next year. But we are working on it.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You mentioned six categories. Can you name them for us?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: The six categories include events and large-scale festivals. I can provide you with the exact list of the categories.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Is there an annual activity report?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes, there is an annual activity report. I have some copies here. I have a summary report for 1997-98 along with other documents and every visibility plan ever put out. I also have a report for 1999. Unfortunately, I don't have any copies of that report with me, but I could send them to committee members, if you wish.

Mr. Pierre Brien: You mentioned earlier on that the contracts were awarded by the Everest Group.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Dubé, are you finished? Mr. Lastewka has a question.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to make sure I understood, because we're getting into an estimates meeting rather than tying in Attractions Canada with the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Attractions Canada basically promotes attractions at Canadian sites across Canada to Canadians from sea to sea to sea, and the Canadian Tourism Commission promotes Canada to the world to come to Canada. So there's no overlap or duplication between the two.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Absolutely not. We don't have the same mandate.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The mandates are separate, and it's very clear what they are.

I guess I'm looking for how the questioning of Attractions Canada is in relation to the Canadian Tourism Commission, versus going through the main estimates, which should have been done in another committee.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Lastewka.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

• 1550

Mr. Pierre Brien: You say that it is the Everest Group that manages the contracts that are awarded and that sometimes you are consulted. Is the list of partners or the steps taken by the Everest Group public knowledge? Can we have access to it?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: It will be included in the summaries that I am prepared to send to the committee.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Is it specific enough for us to see that $250,000 has been invested in one area and $300,000 in another?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: It is relatively detailed. As I was saying, it includes, among others, contracts between the Everest Group and Air Canada, contracts to which I am not privy. I am not familiar with the contract between Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Everest Group.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does your report provide a detailed account of the amount of money earmarked for carrying out a contract like that one?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, in this case, we clarify our own participation.

Mr. Pierre Brien: That is what I want to know.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: With different partners.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Is a private business that enters into a contract with another business subject to the Access to Information Act?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So we cannot be told about the nature of the contracts it signs.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: You can be told about the nature of the government of Canada's participation in the Attractions Canada program. We have very detailed invoices for each promotional activity. It is possible to know how we spent our money, and so on. That information is available.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does any other part of your department fund festivals, special events or tourist attractions?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes, the Communications Coordination Services Branch is responsible for such a sponsorship program.

Mr. Pierre Brien: You have a sponsorship program to sponsor events, including festivals. When I went to the baseball season opener in the Olympic Stadium, I noticed that there was an awful lot of federal government sponsorship. Does your branch manage this sponsorship?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: What do you call the program?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: They are sponsorship initiatives that we have not named as such. It is not a program...

Mr. Pierre Brien: Do you manage this program?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Is it contracted out?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, we manage it.

Mr. Pierre Brien: You manage it.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: What is the budget for this program?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: It is $40 million this year.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Forty million dollars.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Could we get some details on its involvements?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes. You probably read an article that appeared this week in the Globe and Mail. Making the information public is not a problem.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Could you send...

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, I thought we were talking about Attractions Canada. We've now got on to another budget, which is not part of the mandate we're here to discuss.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: But Madam Chair, if Attractions Canada invests $4 million in an event or a tourist activity and the communications service on the side invests $40 million, the question seems very relevant to me. Moreover, Mr. Tremblay does not seem to have a problem with answering this question. If you do not allow me to continue, I will put in a request on my own, instead of as a member of the committee, because I'm interested in obtaining this information.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Perfect.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Monsieur Brien. We have other people who want to ask questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Pardon?

The Chair: Ask your last question.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. Do some of my colleagues want to ask questions?

[English]

The Chair: There are other people who have questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. I would like to make sure that this is clear. I was under the impression that contracts under this program were awarded to communications firms like the Everest Group. You seem to be saying that that is not the case.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Do you mean the Attractions Canada program?

Mr. Pierre Brien: No, the other one.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: The sponsorship program?

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: We use the $40 million envelope to establish partnerships with various organizations. The Attractions Canada envelope is part of the $40 million amount.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. But are there contracts similar to... You said that part of the $40 million...

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: A specific contract is awarded to a communication firm that manages each sponsorship activity.

Mr. Pierre Brien: In every case?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: In every case.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So a contract signed with a partner like the Montreal Expos or the Régie des installations olympiques is not something that you sign directly with them.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No.

Mr. Pierre Brien: It is done by an intermediary.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: It is done by an intermediary who manages the sponsorship on behalf of the government of Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Merci, Monsieur Brien.

Mr. Riis, please.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Tremblay, I appreciate your comments, and I realize we're coming at this from a whole variety of perspectives. I actually just have one question, though perhaps it will lead into others.

You referred to the article that was in the Globe and Mail, I think, a few days back, which broke down some of the festival allocations. I'm from British Columbia, so you can imagine what my question might be from that breakdown.

• 1555

Over the years that I've been looking at various federal programs and how they are administered and how the funds are allocated—I don't mean this to be a political question, but it will sound like a regional one—I haven't ever discovered a single federal program where, let's say a province such as British Columbia, with 12% of the population, would get nearly 12% of the funds allocated. It's maybe 2%, maybe 1%, maybe 3%, but hardly ever much more than that.

When I read that article in the Globe and Mail, I thought, here's another example with the festivals allocation. They didn't break out British Columbia. They broke out western Canada. So I'm just assuming that once again B.C. got probably 2% or 3% of all the funds allocated, in spite of the fact that it has over 12% of the population.

Would you tell me that in your areas I'm wrong in this assumption? Or if I'm not wrong, why is it that we seem to get less than some other parts of the country?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: As I said earlier, I thought I was here to talk about Attractions Canada. I don't want to start a debate on sponsorship. That could be done probably at another time. But I have to say—

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): It's a good time now.

The Chair: No, in fact, Mr. Penson, we called them here specifically to talk about Attractions Canada.

Mr. Charlie Penson: It's a very relevant question.

The Chair: Well, we are only going to have these witnesses until 4:l5.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Well, we've never had them before.

The Chair: They don't report to us.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Chair, maybe I can be helpful.

The Chair: Public Works reports to a different committee, Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Let me be helpful, okay?

The Chair: Certainly. Please be helpful, Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Okay. I'll be helpful by saying that is the only question I'm going to ask, so we can get on to others.

Perhaps Mr. Tremblay could refer to my question in the context of Attractions Canada, in terms of their allocation and how they operate their business. I would like some reaction, at least.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, I don't have a breakdown by region for Attractions Canada, but I may try to find the numbers for Attractions Canada. But as I said, the gala this year was organized in B.C. It was held in Vancouver. Next year we'll probably go to eastern Canada. So we're really trying with Attractions Canada to promote not only one specific region but all kinds of regions.

For the gala, as I said earlier, all the provinces and territories were invited to submit names of different events and festivals in categories and locations. It was a national gala, and all the provinces were treated equally.

Mr. Nelson Riis: So what you're saying, Mr. Tremblay—and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth—is when it comes to at least Attractions Canada, a province such as British Columbia would get at least 12% of finances allocated on balance.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I cannot say yes 100%, but I think the regional representation from B.C. is well...

Mr. Nelson Riis: Then I have to congratulate you, Mr. Tremblay. I have now possibly discovered a single federal program where British Columbia gets its fair share.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Riis.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I just want to follow the same line Mr. Riis is on, because I think it is relevant. We only have you here on this one occasion.

The Chair: To talk about Attractions Canada.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I would like to see that information Mr. Riis asked about in terms of documentation. Why is it that provinces such as B.C. and Alberta do not get their share according to the population they have? It's relevant. If you don't have it at your fingertips, that's fine, but I think you could supply it to us.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I can tell you we receive a significantly lower number of requests coming from out west. With the article in the Globe and Mail last week, I'm expecting more demands from western Canada, as you can imagine.

Mr. Charlie Penson: That's the way it works? Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

I just want to remind Monsieur Brien and everyone here, all members, that we do have Mr. Miller and Mr. Davis here, if there are any questions for them.

Monsieur Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would have hoped that we could have had more time. I have questions for the other witnesses, but since the industry committee rarely has an opportunity to hear witnesses from Attractions Canada, I wanted to take advantage of their presence here today to question them at greater length. Have you ever considered...

[English]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: ...coming back.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It's not for our committee.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Hey, come on!

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: We are wasting time.

[English]

The Chair: There's a point of order.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: If you want to do the estimates, do them properly in the other committee, where they belong.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you. Since your work is designed to promote events in the tourism industry, have you looked at the possibility of joining forces with the Canadian Tourism Commission and incorporating your activities into theirs? Have you looked at that possibility? Have you looked at whether you can work together in a complementary way, since you have two budgetary envelopes to fund the same events?

• 1600

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: To the best of my knowledge, no, but I cannot speak on behalf of the Canadian Tourism Commission. As far as I know, Attractions Canada is a program that is managed by us and by us alone.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. So you have never done that analysis and concluded that you could give that money to the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay.

Earlier on, you said something that I did not really understand. I thought I heard you say, since you had the invoices, that you could confirm that your funding was based on something tangible.

If the Everest Group has a contract to promote an event and it buys advertising from Mediacom, do you receive a copy of the invoices from Mediacom or do you just receive a $4 million invoice from the Everest Group for services rendered?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: We obtain detailed invoices indicating how the funds from the government of Canada were spent under the Attractions Canada program.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So you can justify the spending of $4 million per invoice and per project?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: It is $3 million this year.

Mr. Pierre Brien: It might be $3 million this year; maybe you were farther ahead last year. I would like to obtain this information for this year and last year.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like to know whether Attractions Canada is an international program.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, not at all. Attractions Canada promotes events in Canada only.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: The Canadian Tourism Commission, for its part, has an international component.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In your organization, this aspect is not ruled out, but it is not...

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, we do no promoting at the international level; we promote Canadian attractions in Canada.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You do not take into account the composition of the visitors attending these activities.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: What major events have you funded in Quebec?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I could give you a list of major events.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Could you give a few examples from memory?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: One example would be the partnership we formed last year with the Granby Zoo, which was given an award at the Attractions Canada gala. I could provide you with a complete list.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: If I remember correctly, you are from Charlevoix, are you not?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, I come from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Did you not work at the ATR in Charlevoix for a while?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I thought that you were from a municipality closer to the Quebec City region. Do you recall any major events in which your organization has participated in the Quebec City region?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I do not have a list on hand, but I will send it to you.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Do you have any other questions?

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, I have one last one.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Brien has a final question.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to summarize what has been said, to be sure that we have understood each other correctly. We have asked you to forward to us a number of documents, namely the contract with the Everest firm, a list of the projects in which it has been involved, and the reasons for its involvement.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes, relating to Attractions Canada.

Mr. Pierre Brien: As for the other program, I will submit a separate request to you.

[English]

The Chair: No. Relating to Attractions Canada, yes.

Madam Jennings, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Tremblay, I apologize for missing the first part of your presentation on the Attractions Canada program. Could you tell us, once again, how long this program has been in existence, who is responsible for the marketing plan for making it known throughout Canada, and who is responsible for awarding grants to festivals.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: The program has been in existence since 1997 and it is managed by the Communications Coordination Services Branch of Public Works Canada. Our branch signed a contract with the Everest Group of Montreal, which is the main contractor for Attractions Canada.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Who is responsible for the marketing plan?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: The Everest Group is responsible for developing the plan, since it is the one that manages this program.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You were not able to answer the question regarding the percentage that goes to a province like British Columbia, for example.

• 1605

It seems to me that, if you set up a program that is designed to apply throughout the land, which in this case is the whole of Canada, and you realize that there are far fewer grant applications from one region than from the others, you would normally make readjustments and revise your marketing plan. Take the example of the under-representation of women in certain professions. Although there may be a multitude of reasons for excluding women, once it is realized that women are not applying for certain positions, the universities develop programs to attract more candidates to a profession. When Attractions Canada found that it was receiving far fewer applications from Western Canada than from Eastern Canada, did it change its marketing plan and consider putting more money into ensuring that it would be better known in the West?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Ms. Jennings, we are talking about two different things here. It is true that we received fewer requests for sponsorship from the West. I could read out the list of the various Attractions Canada activities, which are included in this handbook that I plan to send to committee members. In reading it, you will see that this involvement includes the Weather Network; a park in the Northwest Territories, Wood Buffalo National Park; one initiative in the Yukon; three initiatives in British Columbia, including Dawson Creek and the Vancouver Aquarium; two in Alberta; two in Saskatchewan; two in Manitoba; four in Ontario; two in Quebec; two in New Brunswick; two in Nova Scotia; two in Prince Edward Island; and two in Newfoundland. That illustrates the visibility of Attractions Canada. As for the MuchMusic campaign, we have...

[English]

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'd like a clarification, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Tremblay, the interpretation said that you said The Weather Network. Did you say that?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Did you say that Attractions Canada from western Canada supported The Weather Network?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, we were running clips of Attractions Canada on the weather channel.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you. The interpretation didn't come through.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: I think that the Attractions Canada program as such is pretty well spread out everywhere in Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: So you attribute the lack of adequate representation to something else. Whose responsibility is that?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: We receive the requests. In actual fact, we have never advertized or promoted our sponsorship program. Requests come in from everywhere in different ways. And there are fewer from the West.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Suppose I am a promoter in Lachine and I am part of an organization that puts together a folk music festival every year. How could I know that I can obtain funding from Attractions Canada to publicize the event and that I have to go to the Communications Coordination Services Branch? I am unfamiliar with the process and I would like to know who to turn to to obtain funds and ask you to do a clip on my festival.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: You should contact the Everest Group, which manages the Attractions Canada program.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And the Everest Group...

[English]

The Chair: Just a point of clarification, Madam Jennings. Is there not a website for Attractions Canada that would contain that information?

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: There's a website as well. You can also apply on the website.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but assume that I am part of an organization that wants to put together a festival and that is looking for advertising to bring in spectators and funding. If I type in the word “festival” and then “request for funding”, will the name Everest appear?

• 1610

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: No, absolutely not.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: So I have to know from the outset that the name is Everest.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Most festival organizers, the people who know the field, deal with their communications company. So most of the time, communications companies send the requests on to us.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but a small festival...

[English]

The Chair: This will be your last question, Madame Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: ...that might attract all of 2,000 people does not usually have the means to have its own communications company; volunteers look after communications. I am trying to see how I can gain access to information showing that Everest is responsible for advertising and can obtain sponsorship for my activity or something else.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: You can see the billboards that are up everywhere and the clips on TV that talk about Attractions Canada. So it is possible to know what it is Attractions Canada and to contact the organization.

[English]

Mr. Charlie Penson: Watch The Weather Network.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Jennings.

Monsieur Brien, we have time for a brief question.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Do other partners, like departments or federal government bodies, have links with Attractions Canada? I'm thinking specifically about the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Pierre Tremblay: Not as far as I know. We might have been involved in one or two Millennium events this year, with the Millennium Bureau of Canada. There were some attempts to join the two together, but otherwise no.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Very well. We will eagerly await your detailed information.

We will now direct questions to another witness, Madam Chair. I sense that this makes you happy.

Mr. Davis, thank you for coming this afternoon. I recall reading in one of the federal government's Throne Speeches—unless I am mistaken, it was in 1996—that the federal government was withdrawing from some jurisdictions and that it intended to limit its involvement in tourism, for example.

I would like you to tell me what the federal government's role is in the field of tourism, according to the Constitution. What is under its jurisdiction and what is not?

I would also like to know whether you remember the 1996 Throne Speech.

Mr. Louis Davis (Senior Counsel, Constitutional Administrative Law Section, Department of Justice Canada): First of all, I do not remember the 1996 Speech from the Throne very well.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Neither does the government.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Louis Davis: Your question about fields of jurisdiction is a broad one. What is relevant in relation to the Bill that I have been shown, is that Parliament is not attempting to legislate or to regulate tourism by means of this Bill. Its purpose is not to define the limits of federal or provincial action in the field of tourism, but to create a commission that would have the capacity of a natural person. This is not legislation that is intended to regulate the tourism industry. That is why the Bill does not deal with defining powers.

Moreover, I believe, of course, that the provinces have broad jurisdiction over companies involved in tourism. There is no doubt about that. I do not know exactly where the boundaries lie with regard to federal aspects.

You must realize that many fields, such as tourism, may be related to others in one way or another. For example, they may be related to aviation, to the airline industry, or to other fields, depending on the situation. This raises a number of questions. If you want to know whether something comes under federal jurisdiction or not, you must refer to specific cases.

However, as I said, the Bill before us does not deal with regulating the tourism industry.

• 1615

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does it matter whether it is the government itself that is involved in the tourism sector, or it is a Crown corporation that takes measures or forms partnerships directly with private enterprise?

Mr. Louis Davis: From a constitutional standpoint, if I may come back to the point that I just explained, this Bill gives this commission the powers of a natural person. A natural person has the right to promote tourism, if it so desires. In this sense, I do not think that it matters if it is the Canadian government, a commission or some kind of agency. It can only do what any other natural person may do.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Okay. Moreover, with regard to the limits of federal or provincial jurisdiction over tourism, or with regard to their interpretation, you are telling me that this is unclear or that you cannot be more specific about it.

Mr. Louis Davis: Based on my experience of 24 years as a constitutional lawyer, I think that there is almost nothing that is clear with regard to the division of powers, when the question is set out in very general terms.

Certain things, as you know, are mentioned in the Constitution. Education, for example, is expressly attributed to the provinces. However, in the case of things that are not mentioned as such—we can in general say that certain fields are a provincial responsibility and certain others are a federal responsibility, but we cannot definitely affirm anything in the case of other fields. There is nothing in our system that would allow us to do so.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Things are even worse than I thought. As far as tourism is concerned, it is as though the two levels of government had no sign posts to guide their actions.

Mr. Louis Davis: I can try to help you better understand.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, I would like that.

Mr. Louis Davis: The federal government and Parliament, as well as the provincial governments and legislatures, have a constitutional power, the power to spend money. This spending power is the power to spend their own money. When they exercise their power to spend their money, they are not subject to the constraints that apply when they legislate in a given field.

For example, suppose the federal government did not have jurisdiction in a certain area of tourism. It could nevertheless spend money to help people and join in partnerships that, with the provinces, help promote tourism. Similarly, a province may, if it wishes, spend money in a field that is not under its jurisdiction.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I am not sure that what you are saying is legal from a constitutional standpoint.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I am not sure of the exact wording, but in the 1996 Speech from the Throne, the federal government expressed its desire to limit its involvement in a number of areas. It said that it was going to withdraw from some areas, which were referred to as the "Six Sisters" at the time. I am no longer sure what they were; one of them was the forestry sector. It said that it intended to limit its involvement in other areas. It wanted to withdraw from one group of sectors and limit its involvement in a number of others. I recall that tourism was in this second category.

How could the federal government limit its involvement in tourism, in keeping with the Constitution?

Mr. Louis Davis: It is very simple. When we are talking about the Speech from the Throne, we are talking about policies, and the federal government can restrict its initiatives or determine where it wants to allocate money. It has the authority to decide on the areas in which it wants to implement policies. The federal government has no obligation to exercise all its powers in a given field. It is a matter of policy choices. That was probably what the government meant in the Throne Speech.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does the premise of this bill appear to be in keeping with a desire to restrict involvement?

Mr. Louis Davis: I am not a constitutional lawyer. I can tell you that what is in the Bill is constitutional. As for policy questions, I am not in a position to answer them.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Fine. Perhaps Mr. Miller too could give us his point of view.

Mr. Irving Miller (Legal Counsel, Department of Industry Canada): Perhaps that is a question that should be directed to the Minister.

• 1620

[English]

The Chair: I think you've answered that well, and that's perfect timing, because the minister has just arrived.

We are now going to suspend for 60 seconds while we change witnesses.

I want to thank Mr. Tremblay for arriving on short notice, and Mr. Davis, and Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.

We are going to welcome the minister to the table.

• 1620

• 1622

The Chair: I'm going to call the meeting back to order.

We're very pleased to welcome the Minister of Industry here. We understand the minister has been excused for half an hour, so we will do our best to have him back in the House as quickly as possible.

Mr. Minister, do you have any opening comments? We were just going to go right to questions, if that's okay.

Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Perfect.

The Chair: Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you, Minister, for coming to this meeting of our committee. We have a few questions to ask you. I will begin with the last one I put to our constitutional expert a few minutes ago.

You said in your Speech from the Throne—when I say “you”, I mean the federal government—that you were going to withdraw from a number of sectors of activity, and that you were going to limit your involvement in other sectors, including tourism.

How is this Bill, which transforms the Canadian Tourism Commission into a Crown corporation, in keeping with the commitments you made in the 1996 Throne Speech? In it, you said that you intended to place some limits on your involvement in certain jurisdictions.

Mr. John Manley: It has no bearing on the subject of involvement. We have contributed to tourism promotion initiatives for many years. We have increased our partnerships with the private sector and with the provinces. We established the Canadian Tourism Commission in 1995, if I am not mistaken. It is only normal that we would make it into a Crown corporation, given the way it has developed. Nothing has really changed. The provinces feel that this is a system that has worked well up to now.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I will come back to what you just said, but first, I would like to ask a question. When you created the Canadian Tourism Commission, why did you not make it a Crown corporation from the start?

• 1625

Mr. John Manley: First of all, it was an experiment, an idea that came from the private sector. Private sector people came to see me and said that they wanted a special agency to organize tourism initiatives. They wanted to limit the federal government's role in tourism promotion, and that is what we did.

We increased our funding. When I first became Minister, Tourism Canada's budget was approximately $15 million, which was not very much. The private sector people told me that, if we created a special agency with an increased budget, they would come on side and put money into it; they said that it would be possible to form a partnership with the provinces, to ensure recognition of Canada's role in tourism.

Prior to that, these $15 million was divided up among all the international markets. I clearly remember someone explaining to me, during a briefing session, that in Japan, the money in our budget would not buy advertising space in a newspaper for a single day. So it was necessary to find a way to form partnerships, and that is what we did. It has worked very well. Five years later, we are proposing to establish a Crown corporation, to take advantage of the benefits that such an entity can bring. That is all.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Therefore, the commitment that was made in the 1996 Speech from the Throne was a vague one. Do you have any recollection of it?

Mr. John Manley: Read me the quote that you have problems with.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I will find it.

Mr. John Manley: It is clear in my mind. We have a role to play: to promote tourism. Tourism is one aspect of our foreign trade, because we benefit from it internationally. It is only normal that we would play a role. We have done this through partnerships; over half of the budget now comes from the private sector. I believe that there are five provincial government representatives on the board of directors. It is a model that shows that this can be effective.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Your goal or your job, then, since your arrival, has been to improve partnerships with the private sector and provide increased funding to it. As the Industry Minister, why did you not attempt to bring the other money spent on tourism by your government under the control of your Department? We met earlier with the representatives of Attractions Canada, which spends millions of dollars annually—in some years $4 million, in others $7 million or $3 million. It varies. Attractions Canada sponsors events, pays for billboards. It is involved in tourism promotion, without any connection, it would appear, with the Canadian Tourism Commission. As the Minister responsible for tourism, you continue to be responsible for managing the public money within the Commission. Do you not find it a little strange that the Department of Public Works and Government Services manages a budget that funds initiatives in the same sector as you?

Mr. John Manley: No, because I am not interested at all; I am not interested in empire-building. We have something that works very well; we have a partnership with the private sector. They are satisfied and I am too.

Mr. Pierre Brien: As a taxpayer, I am less satisfied, because I pay income and other taxes to a government that has a department that should be responsible for tourism: the Department of Industry. Now, I am told that the Department of Public Works, for its part, spends $4 million annually in the same sector, and that the two do not even talk to each other.

Mr. John Manley: No, it's not the same sector. It's not the same sector at all.

M. Pierre Brien: Let me give you a concrete example. If you go to the Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean...

Mr. John Manley: Are you opposed to promoting Canadian sites?

M. Pierre Brien: If it's done in an inconsistent, uncoordinated way, I don't think it's effective.

Mr. John Manley: But why do you conclude that it is not effective?

M. Pierre Brien: I am sorry, but it is the same sector. Attractions Canada, for example, promotes a particular tourist site at a particular place. They take a huge Mediacom billboard and advertize a specific event or site. I think this is tourism promotion. At least I would like this to be included in the action plans of the Commission or a provincial organization that does the same thing. However, Attractions Canada manages money, outside your department, for the same sector, with the same objectives. The Commission spends part of its budget to promote Canada within the country. This is what Attractions Canada does as well, and the two entities do not talk to each other. We asked the question when they were here, and they said they did not know each other.

• 1630

[English]

An hon. member: It's different sectors.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I'm not asking you. I'm asking the minister.

[Translation]

Mr. John Manley: These are two different questions. I don't think it is the same thing. If I understand correctly, this exists to help cultural sites, but even the private sector, which now contributes over 50 % of the Canadian Tourism Commission's budget, also has other tourism promotion programs. The Commission's promotion of airlines is not exclusive to Air Canada. It is reasonable that there would be another way of promoting some of the cultural sites, but this is not a large amount of money. A Commission of this type has other things to do than to spend its time trying to determine the budgets of other departments. That is of no interest to me at all.

M. Pierre Brien: Do you understand that the taxpayers or groups involved in tourism would be interested to know that there is money at Attractions Canada, that there is a sponsorship program at the Department of Public Works and that Economic Development Canada finances the construction of infrastructures?

An hon. member: Heritage.

M. Pierre Brien: Within the same federal government, there are a number of players involved. Attractions Canada may be one of the smallest. There's the Public Works Sponsorship Program and Economic Development Canada's funding of promotional activities and sites development, and these two groups do not talk to each other. We asked them some questions when they appeared before us. They talk to each other very little. In some cases, they hardly know each other.

Mr. John Manley: I think we have a commission that works very well, and we are now planning to make it into a Crown corporation for some valid reasons, that are supported by our partners in the private sector and most provincial governments. This was passed by the board of directors, which includes provincial representatives, and I find it rather strange the way we are debating the budget of another department.

As far as taxpayers go, I think they are in favour of promoting these sites because they want information. And the people who run these sites want people to come and visit them. So this is a necessary activity.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brien.

Mr. Penson, please.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Minister, you said a couple of times that you think the Canadian Tourism Commission is working very well. If that's the case, why would we want to move it into a crown corporation? We had a number of witnesses come before our committee suggesting that it needed to be turned into a crown corporation, but I certainly didn't hear any good justification for that to happen, and there was a lot of opportunity for that.

I don't know if members will be frank around the table, but I certainly believe that most people didn't believe a strong compelling case was made for that. In fact, some witnesses said that the commission couldn't move as quickly as the private sector and that government regulation gets in the way, that type of thing. There were several people who made a fairly compelling case as to why it may need to be privatized, if anything.

Essentially, some people came and said that at one point 70% of the money for the organization was being supplied by government and 30% by the private sector. Now that's even reversed. Why not just go the whole way, if government is too slow and they are feeling inhibited, and let them operate on their own as a private commission?

Mr. John Manley: Essentially they've operated with a great deal of independence since we organized them as a special operating agency. In fact, all of the marketing decisions are made by the board of directors. I've never been consulted upon nor have I sought to approve their decisions with respect to their allocation funds in marketing. It's all been driven by their process, which ultimately ends up with their board of directors.

• 1635

I understand there are some flexibilities that they would find desirable, particularly to put them more in line with the private sector by being a crown corporation. There is some financial flexibility in terms of their ability to enter into contracts, to retain funds year over year. There's some capacity for doing that within the government, but it's a complicated process with Treasury Board. This would give them greater flexibility on that...the authority to keep revenues that they generate from merchandise, for example.

You may know that, among other things, the CTC has entered into an arrangement with Roots Canada, where the use of their logo and so on generates some revenue. So instead of that going into the consolidated revenue fund, it can go back into the tourism budget with that flexibility.

The authority to open bank accounts, including local accounts in foreign countries, will facilitate paying local staff in other countries. Right now they have to make some kind of accommodation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is complicated. It facilitates their record-keeping, because they would then be able to have both the public and the private sector funds under one accounting method. There would be more flexibility in human resources, because as a special operating agency their human resources requirements require them to comply with the Public Service Employment Act. As a crown corporation, although all the employees would be covered under the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Employment Act restrictions would not apply. That would improve their flexibility in terms of hiring.

So those are the kinds of operational things that brought them to the conclusion that they should seek from the government that greater degree of independence.

Mr. Brien asked why we didn't do it in the first place. Frankly, this was a bit of an experiment in the first place. We were trying something new, and we've now tried it for five years and this is really the natural evolution of it to the next phase.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Manley, I understand all of those concerns. It just seems to me that going to a private commission would offer all of that and there wouldn't be the government involvement.

I don't know if you can appreciate, from our point of view, the difficulty in trying to get any information out of crown corporations. For members of the opposition it's difficult. The transparency isn't there. And I guess they would report to you as the minister, but it's a more difficult situation. There's still substantial taxpayers' money here.

It would just seem to me that perhaps they needed some help for a period of time and perhaps there could be a transition out of it, but why go to a crown corporation? Why not say, “Look, things are working fairly well here. You're on your road to recovery. Let's just turn it over to you and you can run it from here on in”, and give them five years down the road or whatever.

Mr. John Manley: If the question is whether or not the government should put any money into tourism promotion at all, I'd say there's good reason why we should. If you look at the countries that were examples to us when we started this process, like Australia, they adopted this kind of approach where they increased their budget for tourism promotion and their tourism receipts went up significantly. It's an important industrial sector. It's a lot of jobs of very quick response and a lot of entry-level jobs.

And as I said to Mr. Brien, in part, it's really an aspect of foreign trade, because a lot of our receipts are international receipts. They go under our current account and so on. So that's why we're there.

If you were to hypothesize that there was a private sector entity that had that cooperative element to it, which there isn't at the moment, you'd have less ability as an opposition member to ask them questions than you have with a crown corporation, because then you'd be totally outside the government.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes, that's true, but there wouldn't be any government money, any taxpayers' money involved.

Mr. John Manley: That's question one. That's a legitimate debate. Should the government be supporting tourism promotion? We think it should.

Mr. Charlie Penson: My understanding is that one reason industry came to government was that it was quite a down time in the economy, and that certainly isn't the case these days. The arguments they made for why government should support it might have been valid at the time, but it would be hard to make that case today, I think.

• 1640

Mr. John Manley: At the same time, we know this is one of the fastest-growing sectors. As more and more people worldwide enter into the range where they're capable of being tourists, the growth is going to be significant. There's ample reason to believe this is a sector where we can make a difference by coordinating this kind of approach.

I would guess that a lot of the industry would tell you that without the government's involvement, it would be impossible for them to arrive at this kind of cooperative, concerted approach. We're kind of the catalyst for making that happen, and our money is obviously an important part of that. We get a lot more for our contribution than was the case when it was a much less organized approach.

What we're able to do, working with this kind of agency, is to really target the potential visitors to Canada. Working with the private sector, we can get our message across to them. I think it's effective.

The issue is whether the government should do it at all, not whether this is the right kind of vehicle to do it on. We might choose to differ on the first, but I—

Mr. Charlie Penson: I think we probably do. But even there, I would suggest that this agency hasn't been in business very long and it seems to me that... How is it that some of those problems weren't anticipated? It's only been three or four years.

Mr. John Manley: What problems?

Mr. Charlie Penson: The problems they are identifying as to why they need to change it to a crown corporation from a tourism commission. It seems to me that there is some empire-building happening. The potential is certainly there with that particular organization once it moves to a crown corporation. It would be very difficult for us to monitor it.

Just for the record, I want to say that I think we shouldn't be going to the crown corporation. I would support the other aspect of it, to continue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Penson.

We have about 10 minutes left, and I have a number of people who still want to ask questions.

Mr. Riis, please.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, I want to start by saying I only had a chance to talk with two provinces in terms of their participation—B.C. and Saskatchewan, not surprisingly. They were both very happy with the way things have unfolded. As a matter of fact, they have set up similar organizations themselves to complement the work being done at the federal level. From what I can gather, things are moving ahead well.

I only have one question for you, and it takes off after a line of questioning before you came in, Mr. Minister.

With such a vast country and the fact that the commission is abroad promoting Canada and attractions within Canada, you have to choose where you go in Canada. I think for most people, once you get to one part, it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to end up in another part because of the huge costs involved.

How can we feel comfortable that the commission will in fact be balanced in their approach in terms of tourism promotion? I realize they don't go after specific things necessarily, but it is a concern. It's a concern because, as I stated earlier—and I'll just repeat it for you, Mr. Minister—I'm not aware of a single federal program where moneys are allocated across the country and a province like B.C. receives its fair share. It's not a rhetorical comment. I have made a kind of personal hobby of studying this over the last two years and I've yet to find a single program. We may have found one under Attractions Canada, but we'll be looking at the evidence to ensure that is the case.

In terms of this kind of almost paranoia I have in terms of making sure there's a balance to this, is there anything built into the structure that would give you comfort to say that every region of Canada, provinces and territories alike, will get a fair share?

Mr. John Manley: We tried to achieve that, Mr. Riis, through the structure of the board of directors, which takes provincial representatives from the tourism ministries generally. It's usually the deputy minister, although in some provinces where they've set up a commission like the CTC, they've asked for the head of that commission to be put on the board of directors instead. I think we've acquiesced in that.

With the representation that's there from most of the provinces and with the understanding in some regions that provincial representation may move but they're a regional representative, that's part of the discipline.

• 1645

In addition to that, the partnership of the private sector tends to be national organizations. CP Hotels, for example, has properties in all parts of Canada. The transportation companies have an interest in moving people not just to Canada but within Canada. I think the experience has been... Certainly I've received no complaints from any of the provinces that this has been inadequate to meeting any of their expectations with respect to the level of promotion for their region.

So I guess the proof is in the pudding. It seems to have worked to satisfy everyone, and with the participation on the board, there's reason to think that can happen. Our choices for directors are very much in consultation with the industry. They come forward with the names.

There are two constraints. One is that there's regional representation, not just from the bureaucratic level but from the industry, as well as sectoral representation. So you have that mélange. Then they actually have regional marketing committees that exist below the board of directors that look at the planning on how they're going to go about their marketing campaigns. Those proposals flow up to the board of directors. I think there are a lot of checks and balances in the system they've devised.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Riis.

Again, I just want to remind members that we're going to be very short on time here.

Mr. Pickard, very briefly, please.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We've continually heard from the opposition on this committee, Minister Manley, that they're worried about taxpayer dollars and they want to see privatization. They feel that is the direction we should go in. That leaves me with a feeling that there's no vision from the opposition that government has a role in promoting tourism and tourism benefits in this country.

I'm wondering if we have any hard facts. I know you mentioned that for every dollar the Canadian—

Mr. Nelson Riis: I have a point of order.

The Chair: I'm sorry, we have a point of order.

Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I don't want to interrupt my honourable friend, but when he describes the opposition as though it's some amorphous—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: All opposition except the NDP. Is that okay with you, Nelson?

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's accurate. Maybe then I can go to—

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does that include the Bloc?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: —the point you had mentioned. For every dollar you put in, you see seven private sector dollars come in. Do we have any clear evidence? I know it would be feedback you get from industry, feedback you get from your targeted dollars that are going abroad, feedback you get from the actions that are being taken that would give more confidence to this committee and more confidence to Canadians that those dollars are really positive dollars and are paying great benefits to Canada in financial ways. I think that should be brought out here.

Mr. John Manley: We've seen a significant increase in the level of tourism over the years the commission has been operating. We've seen a reversal of a significant tourism deficit, which is a component of our current account. We've seen a lot of investment in Canada in new facilities, both large and small, in many parts of the country. I think all of that attests to the growing success in the industry.

I didn't come equipped with these numbers, but the other thing I would say is that we know that if we were to get out of promoting our tourism, we'd be one of the few countries in the world that have done so. Effectively we would be requiring our industry to compete on a very unlevel playing field with others that are trying to attract tourism to their shores.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: If the numbers are available, could you forward them to the committee?

Mr. John Manley: Absolutely.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much. I think that would be helpful.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Dubé, you have one question?

[Translation]

M. Antoine Dubé: I was interested in festivals when the tobacco industry could provide them with funding. We asked people a lot of questions. I won't go into individual cases, but people could have access to four sources of sponsorship from the government of Canada. There was Heritage Canada, Economic Development Canada, the Canadian Tourism Commission and the previous agency. As the Minister, does it not disturb you that these agencies do not talk to each other and that there are some small festivals that are missing out on the gravy train, because other festivals manage to get sponsorships from two or three departments?

• 1650

The Mr. John Manley: It is not the Canadian Tourism Commission's role to sponsor festivals. Its role is quite clear: to promote tourism in Canada. The Commission should not be identified with festivals of this type. I don't think that is part of its job.

An agency often has other roles. Economic Development Canada, for example, has a role in promoting the economic development of the regions of Quebec. Sometimes, a festival may be good for economic development, and it may be decided to sponsor it, but that is not the role of the Canadian Tourism Commission.

The Chair: Is this your last question?

The Mr. John Manley: And I don't want that role.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I understand that you were talking about the Tourism Commission, but you are also the Minister responsible for Economic Development Canada for the regions, whatever the agencies may be. You are responsible for other Industry Canada programs, and you are a member of Cabinet.

I'm going to ask you a question. When the issue of tourism expenditures and increased funding was raised, you must definitely have spoken to the other ministers. Personally, I see incredible inconsistency in the government's actions, and you are part of the government. We see that through the creation of this Crown corporation, you are trying to get more flexibility. You want to avoid some of the constraints connected with a department, but at the same time, we see Attractions Canada using all sorts of means to achieve more or less the same objectives. Where's the consistency in that? After all, you are the Minister responsible for this matter in this government.

The Mr. John Manley: The objectives are not the same. If I understand correctly, Attractions Canada advertises cultural sites. It is very restricted. It has a very restricted budget. That does not concern me. I don't understand exactly what your problem is with that. For my part, this is not important in the context of a bill such as this.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Manley, we want to thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Can the Minister stay a little longer in case members have other questions for him?

[English]

The Chair: No, Monsieur Brien. The half hour is finished, and the minister has to go. We regret that, but that's what we agreed to very clearly.

Minister, we want to thank you very much for being here with us this afternoon.

We're now going to move to clause-by-clause.

In front of us we all have the agenda: pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble, and clause 1 is postponed. I would propose, since I have no amendments and I'm aware of no amendments, that we do the clauses together.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Please wait a second, Madam Chair; some sheets are being distributed.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, I thought everyone had them. I apologize.

Mr. Pierre Brien: No.

The Chair: There were two different agendas, I apologize.

Okay, you should have this in front of you. As I said, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble, and clause 1 is postponed. I would propose that we do clauses 2 through 51 inclusive together, since we have no amendments. Is that agreed?

Mr. Charlie Penson: On a point of clarification, why is it postponed?

The Chair: It's always postponed until the end. Sorry, I was just reading it. I apologize, Mr. Penson.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: We don't have an opportunity to discuss things that may have been omitted from the bill during the clause-by-clause study. Before we get to that study, I would say that the representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada suggested some amendments to the bill when they appeared before us. If I understand correctly, it has been decided not to consider the amendments they suggested to determine whether or not they should be included in the bill.

• 1655

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that witnesses from time to time will propose their own amendments. However, it's up to a member of the committee to put them forward. Secondly, both of the amendments that were proposed by the PIPS union are out of order. Since no one put them forward, I didn't have to make that formal ruling. But I'd be more than happy to make it now. They both are out of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: You say that they are both out of order. Is that your opinion, or did someone tell you that?

[English]

The Chair: No. We had it researched the day they were there. I sent our researcher off to meet with Mr. Rumas, our legislative counsel, and they returned.

They went beyond the scope of the bill. There were things that were not in front of us at the time, so they were deemed to be out of order.

I don't make these rulings on my own. I obviously do my homework here. Those were the only two that were proposed throughout the entire set of hearings, and I have no others in front of me. So I would propose we proceed now.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to ask a short question on that. Were you informed of this opinion? Personally, I did not see anything about whether or not this amendment was in order or about the opinion you received.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, you're not entitled to see any document. As the chair, I make a ruling on whether something is in or out of order. Before I make that ruling, I research it. I did the proper research. I made the ruling that if it were to come forward, it would be out of order. And there's no reason for me to rule it in or out of order, because it's not before us. We don't take recommendations from witnesses on their own.

I'm not going to entertain this because... You're very well aware of the proper procedure that this and every committee follows.

[Translation]

Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I just want to make sure I understand. Some witnesses suggested two amendments to the bill, but no committee member, either from the opposition or from the government, drafted any proper amendments along these lines or tabled them with the committee. So, as we say in English, the question is moot.

[English]

The Chair: That's correct.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Please allow me to continue. If a government or opposition member of the committee felt that the suggestions made by these two witnesses were appealing, they would still be able to present them at report stage in the House. I know that some opposition parties are very familiar with this way of presenting amendments.

The Chair: Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Chair, do not presume any bad faith on my part. If you feel that these amendments are not in order and you have asked for the researcher's opinion, I would appreciate being kept informed even though you have said that this is your responsibility. I would like to know, for my own benefit, why these amendments are not in order. When they were presented to us, they were, in my opinion, quite relevant and pertained to issues that many of the government members had acknowledged as being very legitimate.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, I have given a ruling on that. We are moving on.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Madam Chair, we're getting into total speculation.

The Chair: Order. Let's have order here.

Let's be very clear. In anticipation of a member of Parliament bringing forward either one of those proposed amendments, I did research. No one has brought them forward. No one has tabled them as a member of Parliament. We have no amendments in front of us.

Shall clauses 2 to 51 inclusive carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried on division.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: We need to discuss this. We are not going to pass all these clauses at once. We are going to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration. That is what they are saying. I would like you to explain why you want to pass them all at once. There may be some clauses which we would like to discuss further before passing them. We can't do this if we pass them all at once.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The officials will provide us with explanations.

Mr. Pierre Brien: What are they doing here if we can't ask them questions about the clauses?

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, we have no amendments in front of us. We often group together clauses when we have no amendments. That's the common practice of this committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, no, no, no.

[English]

The Chair: First of all, we have two members from the Bloc who are official members of this committee, and those are the two who are allowed to speak.

• 1700

Mr. Penson, do you have a question?

Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Chair, from our standpoint, I don't have a problem with grouping these. I do want to say at the outset, though, that we're opposed in principle to this becoming a crown corporation. That's the basis of our opposition to it, but I'm happy to do clause-by-clause by grouping them together.

An hon. member: Sure. That's fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to be told whether or not this is a procedural rule in committees. Perhaps the clerk could clarify this issue. Why should all of these clauses be lumped together?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We are talking about the clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Pierre Brien: That's right. I would like someone to show me where...

[English]

The Chair: You know, Monsieur Brien, we had an agreement this morning. We made a motion this morning that we proceed to clause-by-clause. It appears that you wish to cause further delay of clause-by-clause. In good faith, I would be hopeful that you would accept that we would group clause 2 through to and including clause 51. If you have any questions on those, you could ask them at that time.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: We are going to proceed one by one.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: As we always do.

Mr. Pierre Brien: We may agree to group several clauses together in the case of certain bills, but not... We have people from the Department here.

[English]

The Chair: Then I guess we're going to be here for a very long night, Monsieur Brien, because—

Mr. Pierre Brien: That's possible.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: This will be done by a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): It's unfortunate, Madam Chair. You dealt, and we all dealt, in good faith this morning. I find this despicable, if I may say so. I've been patient until now and held my comments, but I find it very unprofessional to make a commitment for this side and for the other side to keep that commitment, and then today they renege on that commitment. I think that's shameful, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

We're now going to proceed on clause 2. Shall clause 2—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Chair...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brien, I have heard everyone's comments, and we are now going to move to clause-by-clause. You've said that you will not agree to everything being together, so we are going to proceed—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: A different point of order...

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes. Some committee members have stated that this was part of this morning's agreement. Madam Chair, I discussed the matter with you. Our comments were recorded, and I will not allow committee members to state that we had agreed to group the amendments together. Reread the motion. We had agreed to hear certain witnesses...

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: ...before moving to clause-by-clause consideration.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brien—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: That was what we had agreed to.

[English]

The Chair: And we're proceeding to clause-by-clause. That was the agreement. We did not know that you were going ask questions on every clause. We just assumed that in good faith, once you had all your questions answered by the witnesses—

Mr. Pierre Brien: It's in good faith.

The Chair: —and the minister, you would be willing to proceed.

Mr. Pierre Brien: If I do my job... I don't do yours. It's your problem. I can ask questions if I want.

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, you can ask all the questions you want—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Great.

[English]

The Chair: —and we stay here until tomorrow morning. I don't really mind.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Do you have question on clause 2, Monsieur Brien?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Instead, I am going to begin with clause 3.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: A recorded vote.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, I want a recorded vote on clause 2, please.

[English]

The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry on division?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No.

Mr. Pierre Brien: No.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bellehumeur, it's the last time I'm going to tell you: you do not have the ability to speak at this committee right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: A recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: We are in a vote, clause-by-clause, and you are not a member of this committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: A recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: Leave.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like a recorded vote. I am a member in good standing of the committee and I am asking for a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Dubé. I'm glad to hear you have a voice for yourself.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(On clause 3—Establishment)

The Chair: Clause 3: do you have a question, Monsieur Brien?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I have a question for Mr. Miller, the legal counsel.

Clause 3 reads as follows:

3. There is hereby established a corporation to be known as the Canadian Tourism Commission.

From a legal standpoint, when a Crown corporation is established, that body must be recognized as a corporation. What are the restrictions in doing that? What distinguishes a Crown corporation from other corporations?

Mr. Irving Miller: That means that the Crown corporation can do anything that a natural person can. They can do the same things as corporations: do sign agreements, contracts and so forth. It has all the powers of a corporation. However, as you can see in clause 6(2), there is a restriction in terms of the Commission. But apart from that, there is no limit to what the Commission can do, as in the case of a corporation. A corporation is a legal person with the powers of a corporation.

• 1705

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does this clause which gives it the legal scope of a corporation exempts it from contractual obligations which would normally govern the government or any particular rules? Does it apply to access to information? Since it is a corporation does that mean that it is not subject to the rules which govern an entity within a department?

Mr. Irving Miller: No, that's not what it means. Look at the consequential amendments. For example, there are clauses 47 and 50. clause 47 applies to the Canadian Tourism Commission. That means that the Access to Information Act applies to the Commission. As to clause 50, it states that the schedule to the Privacy Act applies to the commission as well.

Since we have these provisions in place, the corporation is subject to these pieces of legislation, as well as to other constraints under the Financial Administration Act, and act which also governs Crown corporations.

Mr. Pierre Brien: You talked to me about consequential amendments. For example, the Access to Information Act must specifically state that its scope covers this new corporation. It doesn't happen automatically. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Irving Miller: Yes, that's correct. We always make consequential amendments such as these when we establish a Crown corporation. Provisions are put in place for this type of situation.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like to ask a question about the name of the Commission. It used to be called the Canadian Agency, I believe. It could have had any other type of name. Why call it a commission?

Ms. Chantal Péan (Manager, Industry Issues, Department of Industry Canada): We were never a Canadian agency. We were called Tourism Canada when we were not a special operating agency. Since 1995, the official title has been the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Would names other than commission have been possible?

Ms. Chantal Péan: Given that we have had the same name for five years, we felt it appropriate to keep it.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Shall clause 3 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: A recorded vote, please.

[English]

(Clause 3 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 4—Agent of Her Majesty)

The Chair: Do you have a question?

[Translation]

M. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

• 1710

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Thank you very much. This is a question for the legal counsel. Clause 4 reads as follows:

4. The commission is, for the purposes of this Act, an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

I heard certain witnesses describe how the Commission operates. We were told that it granted contracts to a company and that another company distributed money. There seems to be a lot of transfers of jurisdiction. The rule that I learned in law school and that I'm going to quote to you applies both to the provinces and the federal government. I would like to hear your opinion on the application to this legislation of the delegatus non potest delegare rule.

If you write these provisions into the Act, that means that you want them to be legal. How can we state that they are legal if they stipulate that powers are delegated to the Commission and that the Commission can delegate powers to other entities? That involves an awful lot of transfers of jurisdiction and we're told that it's all legal. I would imagine that you have looked into this legal concept. I would like to hear your comments.

Mr. Irving Miller: It's not a matter of delegation of power. The Crown corporation is an agent of Her Majesty pursuant to clause 4. That is a provision that is found routinely for Crown corporations because it does have a certain number of advantages. It means that the government remains responsible for Crown corporations, but that a mandate has been given to the Commission, who may do what is required to meet the conditions of the mandate. I don't see any delegation of powers here.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: And I agree that the government can delegate this authority to the commission, but I don't think that the Commission could then delegate the responsibility for distributing money and for administering certain programs in the field to yet another entity. Is that not one delegation too many, and a illegal delegation? I have heard that is how the Commission operates.

Mr. Irving Miller: No, I don't think so. In my opinion, if the bill grants authority to a Crown corporation to respect its mandate, then it has a right to do so. For example, clause 26 states:

26(1) The Commission may enter into an agreement with the government of any province or territory to carry out its objects.

The bill contains other similar provisions. It's not a matter of delegation. Parliament can give any power it wants to Crown corporations.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: But there is a difference that you and I can agree upon. Whether the Commission reaches an agreement with a provincial legislature or whether the Commission has an agreement with a private corporation to do just about the same thing as the province would, there is a difference. In delegating powers to the Commission in such a manner under clause 4, is it then authorized to re-delegate its powers to a private company?

Mr. Irving Miller: As Mr. Brien and myself have just discussed, clause 6(1) states that the Commission has the capacity of as a natural person. It can sign any contract, spend money and do any other thing that is not prohibited by law. There is no other restriction other than those which are expressly stated.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Are you a lawyer and a constitutional expert?

Mr. Irving Miller: No I'm not a constitutional expert, however my colleague Davis...

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Ah, it's Mr. Davis. I am convinced that you'll understand that there is a difference. We all agree that the Commission does have these powers.

• 1715

Pursuant to clause 26, the Commission can sign an agreement with a province. There's no problem in terms of this delegation because the province is subject to the same legislation and the same rules in terms of access to information, to clarity and so on.

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute, Mr. Bellehumeur. We're talking about clause 4. Your question needs to be relevant to clause 4—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: —

The Chair: Yes, it does. We'll get to clause 26 eventually.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Chair, if you had been listening to me instead of chatting with someone at the table, you would know that it is the witness who mentioned clause 26 while explaining clause 4. All I am doing is reviewing Mr. Miller's explanation in order to try to understand the delegation of authority which is provided under clause 4. Madam Chair, if you had been listening a little more closely to what I was saying...

[English]

The Chair: It sounds like we're getting into debate on clause 26. Fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: ...you would realize that I was on topic. I would appreciate it if you would stop interrupting me.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Monsieur Bellehumeur. I heard—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We will get along; stop interrupting me and you'll see that things will proceed very quickly and we'll be out of here before midnight.

I'm going to start again before I get interrupted again. If we adopt this bill, the delegation mentioned in clause 4 will mean that the Commission will manage the objects of this legislation. We all agree on that. There's no problem.

In response to my question you've said that under clause 26, the Commission could enter into agreements any territories or provinces. We also recognize that. The rule of law delegatus non potest delegare will be followed.

Will the Commission follow the rule of law that I have just quoted if it enters into a contract with a private business so that the latter may manage the objects or some of the objects that the legislation gives to the Commission?

[English]

Mr. Irving Miller: I just want to be sure I'm understood on this point.

The commission is not sub-delegating any authority, in my view. It's entering into partnerships. It's carrying out its mandate, which allows it to do those things—to promote tourism, to enter into partnerships, to enter into agreements with provincial governments. That's not delegating its authority. It is acting as it's supposed to be doing under the law.

It is comprised of a board of directors that has members of the public and private members, so there is a public and a private element to their board. This is the board of directors that manages the commission.

In regard to your question, it would be different if the commission were to turn around and say that instead of the commission promoting tourism it is giving it over to a private company to do that. It's not doing that. It's only entering into agreements and partnerships to carry out its mandate. It's allowed to do that as a crown corporation.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, I've heard examples...

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bellehumeur, I will have to interrupt you. The bells are ringing and we have a vote at 5:30. We're going to adjourn the meeting until tomorrow at 3:30.

The meeting is now adjourned.