1983-04-14

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of the Canadian tourist industry and calls upon the Government to recognize this industry as a major generator of employment, new economic growth, and foreign exchange and that the Government accept its responsibility to increase the visibility of Canadian tourism both at home and abroad.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today in the House we are discussing the tourism industry in Canada. As our motion indicates, we are condemning the Government for not realizing and appreciating the value of the tourism industry in Canada. Proof positive of that attitude in this House is the fact that there are only three Liberal Members on the benches across the aisle. Where are all these people who are supposed to be interested in tourism? We outnumber the Grits today by five to one.
Tourism in Canada is an area which has been neglected by Governments for some time and must be brought to the level of priority which it deserves. First, I will begin by explaining the importance of tourism to this country, and its potential, which is relatively unassisted in development and just at its beginning stages. The tourism industry employs over 1.1 million people, providing jobs in all regions. In comprehending
1.1	million people, you can say that one out of every ten people in the work force is employed in the tourist industry. Tourism is irreplaceable as a supporter of regional economic development. Tourism offers employment to both skilled and semiskilled workers. It can provide work for many people who may not be suited to the high technology jobs which are being heavily supported by the current federal Government employment and training programs.
The tourist industry in Canada in 1981 contributed $16.5 billion to the Canadian economy. The multiplier effect accelerates the impact to $25 billion. This is an industry which contributes a tax yield in excess of $7 billion to all levels of Government, yet our Governments return only a few million dollars to help develop and foster this industry. Tourism is treated more as a source of revenue than a business. The federal Government refuses to give tourism the high priority status it deserves. Through the statistics I have just presented
we should be able to appreciate the importance of the industry to the Canadian economy.
It appears that the present Government cannot comprehend tourism's importance. The present Minister of State responsible for tourism (Mr. Rompkey), in a speech to the annual national conference of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada in Vancouver in February, 1983, stated that this Government recognizes the importance of tourism and that it is providing support for its growth development. However, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gordon Roston, Director-General of Tourism Marketing in the Canadian Government Office of Tourism, at that same meeting in Vancouver, stated that their advertising budget has been effectively eroded by more than 40 per cent over the last ten years due to cutbacks. In 1974 the federal Government spent $3 million to advertise Canada in key U.S. markets. In 1982 the commitment was $6.5 million. Considering that a U.S. marketing campaign costing $3 million in 1974 would cost $8 million today, and that the federal Government committed only $6.5 million in fiscal 1982-83, we realize that the Government has been inadequate in its support of tourism.
The Government will have to work diligently at maintaining a favourable long-term development climate. It will have to ensure that policies it has in place make investors in the tourist industry feel welcome and actively promote the earning of healthy profits. Governments have a responsibility to provide leadership through clearly demonstrated commitments to the industry. The federal Government must provide financial assistance, not only through direct grants but through financing of individual projects and joint ventures. There was $295.2 million in subagreements between the federal Government and various provinces, $266 million of which is still current and $30 million which has expired. On the average about $40 million per year has been spent over the past several years for tourist development. This is not as impressive as it sounds. Most of the $260 million under subagreements has already been spent with an estimated $5 million to $10 million available for this fiscal year. There is no indication that these agreements will be renegotiated.
What is needed, Mr. Speaker, is federal-provincial cooperation. However, the federal Government has not cooperated with the Provinces in developing a healthy tourism industry across this country. If appropriate and successful programs are to be initiated, co-operation between federal and provincial levels is essential.

April 14, 1983
Supply
At a meeting held in Saskatoon in the fall of 1980, the provincial tourism Ministers and the Minister of State responsible for tourism realized that there must be some guiding principle developed to foster tourism growth within Canada. At this meeting one of the guiding principles agreed upon stated that the Provinces were to be responsible for industry development and the federal Government was to have a supportive role in assisting provincial programs. Having come to this agreement, the Provinces developed programs for tourism growth in their respective areas.
In December of 1981 another meeting was held in Ottawa between the provincial Ministers of tourism and the then Minister of State for Tourism. At this meeting the Provinces were to present their development proposals to solicit funding support from the federal Government. However, the federal Minister scuttled the meeting, as a unilateral decision to directly fund Prince Edward Island's tourism plan was announced by the federal Government. The federal Government took over the Island's tourism plan and adopted it as their own. The other Provinces, on seeing what the federal Government decided to do in the case of Prince Edward Island, packed their proposals back into their briefcases and the meeting was adjourned. They would have nothing to do with a Government which had gone back on its promises and went around one of the guiding principles which said that the Province was to develop the proposals and the federal Government would offer assistance. They withdrew from that guiding principle. It merely thanked those responsible for putting together these proposals and programs that were developed through the industry and Government departments within the Provinces. It was thankful for the effort that was put into these programs which seemed beneficial but said that it would take over and administer them unilaterally.
The provincial tourism Ministers and the federal Minister responsible for tourism met again in September, 1982 in Digby, Nova Scotia. At this time they received the federal Minister's commitment to investigate the roles of the two levels of Government in tourism and to review statements and guiding principles that had been originally agreed to at the 1980 meeting in Saskatoon. At that time the federal Minister made a commitment to the Provinces to call another federal-provincial conference on tourism by the end of October, 1982 to discuss the problems they were having. However, that meeting never materialized.
I feel that we are safe in concluding that the federal Government is taking over provincial tourism projects not to benefit the tourism industry or assist tourism development in the provinces, but to receive some kind of recognition that it is actually taking action at the federal level.
Canada is facing tough competition on the world market. In 1981-82 the average state travel office budgets increased by 13 per cent over the previous year and average advertising budgets were up by a spectacular 48 per cent. Although international tourism has grown substantially in the past decade, Canada unfortunately did not share in this growth. The present travel deficit, which was $1.2 billion in 1981,
could exceed $2 billion in 1983 and become even greater if there is no renewed investment in the industry. Without capital to upgrade, expand and build new facilities, the present employment base and inventory will continue to decline. The owners of the existing 190,000 hotel and resort rooms, the
78,000	motel rooms and the 29,000 cabins across the country are all facing the same critical problem, which is the inability to generate new equity capital for expansion. In each Province there are millions of dollars worth of projects that are unable to proceed because of this central financing issue.
The operators within the resort communities are concerned that the survival of their very operations is being threatened unless there is renewed investor confidence in the industry. This disaster will reach catastrophic proportions by this summer unless immediate action is taken by the federal Government. This lack of confidence in the industry reflects the lack of confidence the country has in our economy as a result of the actions of the federal Government.
Throughout Canada, the past 15 months have uncovered a disastrously rapid decline of construction in the tourism accommodation industry. No new hotel, condominium or chalet construction has been reported by the 30 winter and a sample of summer resorts in 1982. No resorts anticipate recreation, commercial or accommodation construction activity in 1983 and the prospects for any 1984 development appear equally bleak. This lack of construction in new tourism plant will completely eliminate any opportunity to reverse the present annual negative tourism trade balance which stands at over $1.2 billion.
Canada has fallen behind internationally over the past 10 years in tourism growth, slipping from 4.9 per cent of the world tourism market to 2.5 per cent. We have lost almost half of what we had. The situation is worsening with the continuing drop in foreign visitors. The worst problem is that the federal Government has not given equal attention to this multibillion dollar industry as it does to forestry, fisheries, agriculture and other sectors. This attitude filters down to provincial Governments and investors' confidence in the marketplace. The financial community sees investments as high-risk and charge higher rates and impose more limiting terms and conditions.
The crisis of 1983 has been brought about by the impacting of two factors on an already high-risk industry. The first is the 1981 tax changes which abruptly halted business investment decisions in resort projects, and the second is the high interest rates and declining economy.
The proposals to eliminate soft cost deductions, and the elimination of the measure that allowed for one principal residence only for a married couple, also had a harmful effect on resort development.
The overall economic downturn has devastated the tourism industry in Canada. High unemployment, high interest rates and an uncertain economic climate are affecting the tourism industry. A poor summer season will send into receivership most of those resort operators who are in borderline situations.
April 14, 1983

Without immediate Government attention, many tourism establishments will have difficulty surviving the 1983-1984 season.
The federal budgets of November, 1981 and June, 1982 did absolutely nothing to encourage tourism development. By creating a climate of uncertainty, the Government has slowed investment to a point where many tourism and construction related jobs may have been lost for many years to come. Tourism is a labour intensive as well as a foreign exchange sensitive industry, and the Government should be seizing every opportunity-I repeat, every opportunity-to expand this sector of the economy. Tourism can be used as a method of easing the impact of the recession.
The tourism industry needs signals from the Government that there will be a long-term commitment to support the industry. The federal Government must develop tax provisions that would encourage major participation in the tourism industry. Government does not understand the tourism industry. Little is known about what makes the tourism industry work or the potential the industry has to create a healthy economy. If an investment incentive is introduced or the excise tax on liquor is increased, then what does this mean in terms of employment, foreign exchange and net revenues to each level of Government? We must make this Government understand these relationships and influence it to introduce policies to build a healthier industry.
The tourism industry has potential to create construction jobs amounting to over 2,500 accommodation units annually at over 50 summer and winter resorts across Canada. Tourism has the potential to create 40,000 jobs annually across the country in the construction and operating field. Tourism has the potential to stimulate rural economic growth across the country. Increased numbers of resorts across the country will encourage Canadians to vacation at home and help eliminate the travelling deficit while encouraging other people to visit Canada.
With an upswing in the tourism industry investment would occur, and with renewed investor confidence resort projects could be started across the country. It is estimated that tax incentives could encourage about $1.5 billion of annual construction. This construction activity will generate substantial tax revenues to the federal Government. All these things could be accomplished through recognition of the potential of the tourism industry, yet the Government allows the industry to be subject to high operating costs, high interest rates, restrictive loan terms, reduced advertising budgets and other measures which hinder development.
Tourism is of vital importance to the economy of the country as a whole and that of the Provinces. In Prince Edward Island, for example, tourism is the second major industry, falling closely behind agriculture. This important industry is ahead of fishing. Tourism in 1981 produced $66 million in non-resident traffic alone for P.E.I.
The three main industries on P.E.I. support and compliment each other like a three-legged stool. The industries are closely related as tourists consume agricultural and fishing products
Supply
and enjoy participation in activities related to these industries. The most important contribution that tourism makes on P.E.I. and across the country is as a major contributor to employment, both on a full-time and seasonal basis. Tourism on P.E.I. employs 4,000 full-time workers. During the summer season the number of workers employed rises to 9,000 to 10,000. This creates seasonal employment for thousands of students. The employment spin-off from tourism is tremendous.
Tourism has great potential for job creation and this is what is urgently needed in Canada today. We urge that this Government initiate an awareness of the importance of tourism to Canada which will lead to improved development within the industry. It is this Government that has created such a desperate need for jobs across this country and we urge that it realize the job creation potential of the tourism industry.
The federal Government should, through co-operation with the Provinces, develop a national tourism industry. I urge the Government to do everything it can to aid the tourist industry, thereby creating thousands of jobs for people in need of jobs, especially at a time when there has never been a greater need for jobs in Canada.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to spend a great deal of time on this topic. I confess that it is not one with which I am totally familiar from the point of view of the inner workings of the industry. Though, like most people-


Mr. Ellis:: Hamilton Beach is not big.


Ian Deans: The Hon. Member says that Hamilton Beach is not large. I want to say in response to that that Hamilton in fact has a potential which has never been realized. It distresses me frequently when I see not only Hamilton but many other municipalities across the country with potential left unused, undeveloped and if anything neglected. I will speak about that in a moment, but first I want to take a look at the industry as a whole as I understand it.
All of us in the House have travelled to various and different places. Some of us have travelled outside North America, many of us in North America and probably most of us in Canada. The question we must ask ourselves in my judgment is: Why would people want to go to a particular place? What is it about that place that is attractive enough to encourage those people who do not live there to visit it, to go there and spend time there? For example, in the Province of Ontario there are very many attractive places, such as Muskoka.


Mr. Darling:: And Parry Sound.


Ian Deans: Yes, Parry Sound, but I referred to Muskoka as one area. People go there because there is leisure activity available which is restful. It is a clean area. It is replete with lakes, rivers and wooded areas which make it attractive.
Why would people come to Ottawa? They come to Ottawa because it has been developed for the purpose of attracting

April 14, 1983
Supply
people. It is the nation's capital, but beyond that it has many parks, walkways and significant downtown development. It is of a nature that encourages people to want to spend time on Sparks Street, in the Rideau Centre, walking along the canal, visiting the river or even visiting the Houses of Parliament. They are evident attractions.
Why do people decide to go to Vancouver? It is because Vancouver similarly has attractive features. It is within easy access of mountain ranges. It has access to the Pacific Ocean.


Mr. McKinnon:: And to Victoria.


Ian Deans: As the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) says, it has access to Victoria which in itself has an attractiveness that if it were located elsewhere might not be the case. Its location or the nature of its geography is its attraction.
If we are to start an analysis of the tourist industry, we must first compile some kind of accurate listing of what are the attractions. For example, what attracts people to Orlando? Nothing in the world would encourage anyone to go to Orlando if it were not for Disney World. It is fair to say that in itself it is not a particularly attractive place, being in the middle of nowhere and generally speaking very hot. People go there because there is something to draw them to that place. Why do they go there rather than to Saint John, to Halifax or to Hamilton? It is because they feel, aside from the climate, they will have things to do and see that in their day to day lives they normally do not come across. They also go because there is considerable advertising about how pleasant it is to be there and how much enjoyment there is, so that people who travel to those places see that as being a worthwhile thing to do.
However, there are other reasons they go. Even though it is much further away, it is economically more practical for many families to travel in that direction than to travel across our own country. The cost of transportation within Canada is very high. Whether it be the cost of gasoline or the cost of rail, bus or air transportation, the cost is very high. I think the Government should seriously consider the impact of that cost and whether it is an inhibiting factor. I suggest that it is.
The cost of accommodation is much higher in Canada than if one were to travel south toward the United States. I admit that it is not higher than if one is going to Europe, but in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might think, there are not many Canadians who travel to Europe. Therefore, what we are really talking about is North American travel, to the extent that we are talking about anything at all.
There are three major problems. There is the problem of trying to promote the attractive features of the various parts of the country. I think the Government could in fact be more involved than it has been in the past. However, there are two industry problems, in a sense-the cost of transportation and the cost of accommodation.
For example, a friend of mine recently returned from Florida. I think he had been there for about a week. He
pointed out to me that the cost of accommodation in the Florida area and on the way there and back ran to about $22 to $26 a night. Even with the rate of exchange, that was the cost of accommodation. He owns land near Peterborough, which is an attractive area. It is an area which we are hoping to see developed as a tourist area. However, he points out to me, although I have had not had an opportunity to verify it motel by motel, but I think it is probably reasonably accurate, that the cost of accommodation in that area, which we believe is attractive enough to be a tourist area, would be no less than $40 per night.
Therefore right away, if one is travelling by automobile with a family, if one has two or three children, one must take into account the fact that a week in Florida at Disney World or on the coast some place will not cost one any more than a week in a motel outside Peterborough. That is therefore a serious inhibitor. There is nothing which would necessarily attract one to that area, unless one skiis in the winter. I mean that there is not the single attraction to entice one there. Even if one decides that one wants to travel in that area, the unfortunate truth is that the cost is at least as great as the cost would be if one went literally 1,500 miles to the south, whatever that may be in kilometres, to see something which is at least put up as being an attraction. Therefore, that is a problem with Canadian tourists.
If a person has a choice, I would choose, and I think most people in Canada would choose, to visit Canada. However, there is an economic factor which makes it more attractive to go some place else. After all, it is a little more difficult to sit outside one's motel room door on a chaise longue in the middle of January at Parry Sound than it is to sit outside one's hotel room door in the middle of January on the beach at Daytona. I think that is fair to say, so there is that factor to consider, that one can go to Daytona and live in a motel more cheaply than one can do the same thing in Canada. Not only that, but the climate is also a wee bit better in the wintertime for those who do not ski. So that is something we must consider.
Why are the costs so high? Why are the costs of accommodation so high in this country compared with those of our neighbour in the south? I suggest there may well be an answer. I hesitate to raise it, but having considered it over the years, both are free enterprise operations, as I see it. There is very little in the way of Government involvement in either of those areas. Therefore, either their actual costs are twice as high, or they are taking more out than their counterparts in the U.S. We should consider this and see which of those two is accurate. Whichever of the two is accurate, we must then begin to address it seriously if we think that tourism is to play a major part. I think everyone in the House agrees that it should be a major part of Canada's future economic well-being.
It also strikes me, as I recall from travels across the country and in the southern part of the North American continent, that if one were to consider a trip from Hamilton, Ontario, to Miami, the cost per mile, and even the cost per kilometre, is
April 14, 1983

less if one travels a similar distance in the United States, because the cost of gasoline there, is infinitely cheaper. It has always been cheaper.
I remember that when I was a youngster I would go down to visit my relatives in New Jersey. It amazed me to find how cheap gasoline was. It remains that way; it is not a new phenomenon. This is not something which has flowed only from the energy policy of the Government, even though from time to time we like to blame it for everything. It has always been the case that gasoline in the United States has been much cheaper than gasoline in Canada. That will quite clearly influence a person with, let us say, $400 vacation spending money. People will look and see where they can get to at what cost, and that will influence them.
Then, of course, there is the welcome that one receives. I happen to think that Canada is as beautiful a place, naturally, as anywhere in the world. There is such a wide variety of scenery and opportunity in the country. However, how do we sell it? If one goes from here, one enters the United States, and the first thing one finds is a welcome station which will tell one anything one wants to know about that particular state. The welcome station will provide one with a map to anywhere one wants to go, it will phone ahead on one's behalf or make arrangements for one to be able to phone ahead to obtain motel accommodation eight hours down the road, if one wants it. It will even give one free orange juice, if one happens to be in Florida. One begins with that. Then as one travels across the country, one sees visible, clear indications of every national monument, of every place of historical significance, every attraction that the state would want one to see. But travel from Toronto to Montreal on the 401 and show me the same kind of thing. It is not there. The effort is not made. The time is not spent in trying to encourage people to see those parts of our country which we believe are important.
Then, of course, as one travels from one state to the next one will be told in a brief historical plaque, perhaps, or on a parchment or in a small booklet, what there is in to see in that state. Not only that, but one will be told what is in the general area so one can see its history, and also what one can be entertained by and how. We do not do that. One travels across the provincial border when travelling from Ottawa to Montreal. As you pass from Ontario into the Province of Quebec, where is the information which says that within easy access there is a sugar bush that can be visited or an historic battleground, if there is such a thing, and where is the accommodation? If you are travelling on other than a superhighway, you can have a devil of a time trying to find accommodation. Therefore, something can be done about that.
On the down side, I want to say this. I admit that accommodation, entertainment and the travel industry does create employment. My one regret is that it tends to create low income jobs. That is probably true worldwide. It frequently worries me that many of the jobs created are relatively menial and pay very little. We have constantly to recognize that that
Supply
can be a problem, finding people to do the work and keeping them at work. It should be addressed, or at least reviewed to see whether the problem can be resolved.
In summing up, it is our own fault, to some extent the fault of those in the industry and to some extent the fault of Governments which could be assisting. In many ways it is caused by such things as the Prime Minister saying that the Deputy is in Europe skiing. That leaves the wrong impression. It was an unfortunate choice of words and probably reflected badly on Canada's tourist capacity.
There are serious problems in the industry. I believe we are starting at the wrong end. First, we should analyze and determine a program for the promotion of what we believe is attractive about our country, what we would like people to see. We should encourage municipalities to maintain the heritage that they have, to show off those parts of their development that reflect Canada's growth in the past, Canada's history, our roots. We should ensure it is advertised in a delicate and attractive way rather than in a garish way.
We should tackle the problem of the cost of moving people across a country the size of Canada. We should encourage our national airline, national railroad and alternate transportation methods to put together reasonable cost transportation packages to get people to various parts of the country so they can enjoy what is there. We should look seriously at the cost of motorized transportation in this country in relation to gasoline costs compared to our next door neighbour. We should look at the cost of living in a motel of no particular standing over and against similar costs in another part of the world just south of us.
As Members of Parliament, we have to begin to do this. I am not suggesting that this is not being done by others on the outside. If we think we can seriously come to grips with this, we as Members of Parliament should begin to analyze what I am discussing and try to see how we as individuals can make it more attractive for people to travel.
As I said at the start of my remarks, and I only have a moment or two left, I want to speak a bit about the area that I represent. For many years I have represented an area a significant distance into the Niagara Peninsula, down to the Grimsby line. It is almost halfway down the peninsula. It always disturbs me that that area never developed as a tourist attraction in the way that I thought it could. There is history there, ranging all the way from the battle at Stoney Creek down to many others fought there, including Lewiston and the battles of Niagara.
There is very attractive geography to be seen and enjoyed, but there is no development of the industry. What there was has been allowed to deteriorate to some extent. It is no longer as it should be. In my opinion, Hamilton has not done what it could have done with certain areas within the city. Areas that could and should have been attractions have been allowed to deteriorate. That is unfortunate.
I say to the Minister that there is a problem. I do not think we should battle over it in a partisan way; let us accept that it

April 14, 1983
Supply
is a problem. Let us accept it as one of those things we can agree on. There are serious deficiencies. Government cannot, nor should it, solve them all, but they can be solved.
I suggest these problems can be solved if we make this into a worthwhile debate centring around the philosophy of what the travel industry and the hospitality industry should be all about. We must ensure that wherever support from Government will be of real assistance it should be forthcoming. However, in a country this size, the expenditure of $1 million or $2 million will not change overnight that which has been allowed to deteriorate over many years.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am persuaded that with a bit more effort on everyone's part there could be substantial improvements. Those improvements would serve us well in the long run. I congratulate the Hon. Member for raising the issue today. It is a worthwhile debate for a day such as this.


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the very positive approach taken by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I hope throughout the day there will be a useful exchange and that all of us will contribute as we can to see how we can improve the tourist industry in this country.
I welcome the fact that the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) has raised this as an issue. It gives us an opportunity to debate what I consider, and I know he considers, to be a very important industry in this country. I know of his concern for and interest in the industry and his desire to see it improved. I do not want to be partisan, except I must make some clarification. As a Prince Edward Islander, I know the Hon. Member will forgive me. He knows how Maritimers debate.
I will not deal with everything the Hon. Member said. I do, however, want to deal with the Prince Edward Island portion of his speech. While the Hon. Member's motion states that the Government of Canada neglects the Canadian tourist industry, I am sure the Hon. Member will agree that it can hardly be said that it neglects Prince Edward Island, where we are involved in a comprehensive development plan costing $15 million over 15 years, 90 per cent of which is federal.
There is a $39 million federal development strategy in P.E.I. In addition, there is a $3.8 million contribution to a convention centre-hotel complex in Charlottetown. As we know, the developers had some financial difficulty. The Government of Canada is co-operating with the Government of P.E.I. and the developers and has said it will guarantee a $19 million bank loan to ensure that this convention centre-hotel complex goes ahead. That is $15 million, $39 million, $3.8 million and a $19 million loan guarantee. While the charge is made that there has been neglect, I do not think that is neglect.
There was also an indication that somehow unilateral delivery was not well received. I should like to read from an article which appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian on February 1, 1982, by Roseanne McCabe. She writes:
You'll not find many Island tourist operators knocking the federal government's recent dollar transfusion into the tourism industry.
"It's a first as far as major dollars going directly to help the operators," Don Groom, president of the P.E.I. Tourism Industry Association, says of the $5.4 million tourism development program announced last week.
Island politicians say the federal government stole their thunder ... but the operators don't seem to mind.
"I'm relieved to see the federal government funding the program," says Steve Bezanson, operator of Rustico Summer Haven.
Later she goes on to say:
Mr. Groom says the program is a "real break" for the industry. One in four persons works in tourism during the summer.
There is evidence from the people involved in the industry that they welcome these funds and the involvement of the Government of Canada in tourism in Prince Edward Island which is so important to that Province. Perhaps of all Provinces it is the one most involved in tourism and we want to see that continue.
Next year marks the 50th anniversary of active involvement of the Government of Canada in the marketing and development of tourism in this country. We began with a staff of three and an annual budget of $100,000 in 1934. That has grown into what we know as the Canadian Government Office of Tourism, or what I like to call "Tourism Canada". I do not know how Hon. Members feel about that but it seems to me to sum up the things we want to say about tourism in Canada. It is Canadian, it operates all across the country and it is unified. It has a ring to it. I put it to Hon. Members that with their support we might be able to call it "Tourism Canada" and one of these days we might even go a little further. I will not say anything more about that at the present time.


Stan Darling: I will.


Bill Rompkey: The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) will have more to say about that.
The CGOT uses the most sophisticated marketing development tools available and has an annual budget of $42 million. It attracts more than 40 million people per year to Canada. The Government knows that the tourism sector of the country is important. It is a sector that is largely Canadian owned and is operated for the most part by small businessmen. There are
100,000	businesses across the country-mostly small businesses-involved in the industry.
Every year it brings $16.5 billion into the country or 5 per cent of our Gross National Product. It means $28 billion income for Canadians and one million Canadians are employed in the industry. In 1981 it brought in $7.5 billion in Government revenues. If I were in my former portfolio I would be saying how great it is to have that tax money coming in. It brings in $2.5 billion in investments and $3.8 billion in foreign exchange. It is a prime way of acquiring foreign exchange. Tourism is big business and the Government is aware of that, but the country has been beset by economic difficulties. Despite that, however, the tourism industry has maintained its relative position within the overall economy and has performed
April 14, 1983

better than a lot of other industries. The growth and travel expenditure almost equals the rate of inflation. That can be matched by few other industrial sector. For a quick fix in the economy, we do not have to look beyond tourism in which a small amount of money can create a lot of jobs. Tourism outperformed forestry, manufacturing, construction and trade in levels of employment between 1979 and 1981.
That is what we have to say today to the unconverted. I assume that those Members who are in the House are here to preach the message. As the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain said, we want to send a message from all sides of the House to people in Canada who do not understand that the tourism industry is important and can perform a service for the country. It ranks first, second or third as an industry in every Province of Canada. Tourism employs women, young people, native people and unskilled people. The CGOT has more than 40 federal Departments and agencies that support the tourism industry through, for instance, Parks Canada, fisheries, the Department of the Secretary of State and others.
We should not forget the contribution of the Federal Business Development Bank. By volume and value, 23 per cent of the bank's lending flows into the tourism and recreation sector, so it is a very important supporter of the industry.
It is precisely because of the importance that the Government attaches to employment and economic growth that it has assigned a priority to tourism. The federal Government is telling Canadians, as we are doing today, about the importance of the industry.
Just recently I published a pamphlet which I hope Hon. Members will help to distribute. I know that visual aids are not allowed in the House but there it is. It says "Tourism is Big Business". More than one million jobs depend on it. I am borrowing this technique from my friends across the way, Mr. Speaker. This pamphlet has been distributed and I hope Hon. Members will help with wider distribution as we want Canadians to understand how important tourism is to them.
In the months that I have occupied this portfolio I have travelled from one end of Canada to the other. The Hon. Member for Malpeque knows that as he and I were together in Vancouver. I have been to the Northwest Territories and Yukon and before the end of June I will be back there. I have not been to Prince Edward Island yet but I am going. I think it is important that we tell the story all across the country.
Shortly after my appointment I spoke to the National Tour Association in Toronto. I was pleased when a number of American delegates said that they regard Canada as a great destination and were sending hundreds of thousands of Americans here year round. They spend $90 million per year. At that same convention, for the first time ever a Canadian was named the travel leader of the year. I was very proud that he was an official of the Canadian Government Office of Tourism.


Mr. Keeper:: The Prime Minister!


Bill Rompkey: Many Hon. Members are aware that we are in the process of creating the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion from the Department of Industry, Trade and
Supply
Commerce and DREE. I can tell the House that tourism is a priority of that Department. We have reviewed operational plans and I am pleased to inform the House that the proposed regional tourism initiatives will represent a significant increase in federal spending on tourism development and marketing over the next five years.
As Hon. Members will know, the reorganization provides that federal tourism marketing operations abroad become the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs. This means that effectively we have more horsepower. We have more horsepower overseas, and as a result of the reorganization of DRIE we are going to have more delivery agents all across the country in a decentralized way. I was in Vancouver recently talking to the DRIE people there is our office, and I can say that all across the country we have strong regional centres which are able to deliver our programs.
As a result of reorganization we, in tourism, are going to have more delivery agents, not less, across this country. We will have more trade commissioners in other parts of the world also. This increases Canada's marketing presence from 21 posts to over 100 posts overseas which are administered by the Department of External Affairs. I was overseas recently in West Berlin, and while I was there, apart from visiting the International Tourist Bourse, I addressed 18 of our trade commissioners who had been assigned tourism responsibilities in various countries. There is a real market overseas. There is a market in West Germany, in Switzerland and in Italy. Our foreign visitors are increasing. In my talk I impressed upon these 18 trade commissioners the importance of tourism and the fact that they had to get out and sell the product on our behalf. I believe they will respond and I will be doing a followup with them.
On that same trip I opened the Canadian exhibit at the International Tourism Bourse. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) was with me and was helping to promote Canadian wine, among other things. The International Tourism Bourse is the largest event of its kind in the world. The federal Government brought together some 55 Canadian participants in one place in a co-operative effort to promote travel to Canada. I want to stress as well that the reorganization has resulted in a doubling of the numbers of federal tourism specialists stationed across Canada.
Our real thrust will be next year, 1984. I believe it should be regarded as "The year of tourism in Canada". The year 1984 will be the 450th anniversary of the arrival of Jacques Cartier in Canada, to begin with-the birth of Canada, if you like. These observances will have meaning for all Canadians, not just Quebec. It is a significant Canadian event. The year 1984 will also be the bicentenary of New Brunswick as a Province. It will be the bicentenary of the Loyalist settlement in Ontario.
All these events all across the country will have a spin-off for tourism and we should take advantage of them. We should make a real effort in 1984 to promote tourism. We are gearing

April 14, 1983
Supply
up for that already. I can tell Hon. Members that the Government of Canada has put together some special teams in order to make sure of that.
1 would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the former Minister responsible for tourism, the Hon. Charles Lapointe. He did a great job for tourism, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that his involvement has not stopped. He is very active in putting together and promoting this 450th anniversary celebration, and so are other Ministers. We are trying to produce a comprehensive package which will really emphasize what is happening in this country in 1984.
As I mentioned earlier, 1984 will mark the 50th anniversary of federal Government co-operation and collaboration with the Provinces and Territories. I believe we should make it a launching pad for a new initiative in tourism because I want to see tourism get a higher profile in Government circles. I intend to impress upon my Cabinet colleagues the economic and social impact of tourism and point out to them the relevance to tourism of their policies and operations.
I believe, considering existing resource levels, that the tourism program of the federal Government has been demonstrated to be a very cost-effective one. There are, however, factors working against our getting the job done, and we might as well recognize that. One prime example is that the advertising budget, due to inflation and uncontrollable cost increases, has eroded over the last ten years. This has occurred in the face of worldwide competition. For example, Governments in the United States spent nearly $200 million on advertising and promotion last year. It was reported in yesterday's The Globe and Mail that British Airways plans to spend $50 million on travel advertising in Canada, all of it to encourage people to travel out of Canada. We know that there are more than 50 foreign national tourism organizations in Canada, plus some 75 foreign airlines, which are all singing the siren song of faraway places outside of Canada. There are people in Canada who are trying to get people to travel to other countries. It is the old story. Therefore we must make sure that as many as possible of our resources are used to keep Canadians travelling in Canada. That is where the great advantage is. That is where the bulk of our money is going to come from, from Canadians as well as people from the United States travelling in Canada. There is an increasing number of tourists from Europe, but the main thrust has to be in this country, first of all, and then the United States.
I can tell the House that I am certainly going to go after more funds for the federal marketing of tourism. Then I am going to press forward with regional initiatives, as we have in the past, to improve the resources and facilities we have in a marketing effort right across this country. I want to establish a tourism industry advisory council. I want to talk to the people, the entrepreneurs, in the industry. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain made the point that Governments cannot do it all alone. We must talk to the people who work in the industry and to the people who operate within the industry. I want to tell him I intend to set up that advisory board and I am going to listen to it. I hope that we will have business and
labour on that board. The future of tourism requires collective effort. It requires collaboration and co-operation and, for my part, I want to see that come about.
We are coming out of a tough time in this country when Canada has not been everything that we wanted it to be, and we have had problems all over the world. But one thing that tourism can do, apart from creating jobs and making money, perhaps as well as or better than any other Government Department, is to tell Canadians about Canada, what this country is like, what it means and how proud they should be to be citizens of Canada. Tourism can have a monumental effect on Canadian unity. That is one reason we should all be behind the program. It goes beyond dollars and cents. It brings Canadians together and it can bring Canada together. I know that all my colleagues in the House will support the efforts we make in the future to make sure that Canadians know the importance of this industry for making money, for job creation, but, most important of all, for the promotion of national unity.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the Minister's remarks that he for one, on the Government side of the House, appreciates the value of tourism. He made a speech in Vancouver and said that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of this industry. Well, I have some doubts about that. He went on to say: "If I had my way, the Government would do more". I was there when he delivered that speech. I believe he was sincere. I hope that he will follow through on his commitment that, as Minister responsible for tourism, he will do more.
In the speech he made in Vancouver he said: "I propose to establish a caucus committee on tourism to harness the interest that is regularly voiced by individual Members of Parliament. In time such an institution might largely evolve into a standing committee of the House of Commons". My first question, Mr. Speaker, is: What is happening with that commitment to the association? Has the Minister taken steps to initiate a standing committee on tourism?
Secondly, in his speech the Minister said: "I intend to examine your association's conviction", meaning TIAC, "and urge that tourism within the federal Government be a separate ministry". I would like his answers to those two questions, Mr. Speaker.


Bill Rompkey: With regard to the first question, I think the start should be made not only in caucus but the caucuses. I would like to have the caucuses on both sides of the House come and sit down with us in the Canadian Government Office of Tourism. I make that offer now. I know the Hon. Member's interest; I have talked with certain Members of the NDP about this and with certain Members on this side of the House, including our chairman of the national caucus. My staff is now in the process of setting up a timetable whereby all caucuses can visit with us. We can tell them what we have on our minds
April 14, 1983

and get some input from them as to how they think that should be modified, changed or proceeded with.
With regard to the standing committee, I think that will be something we can examine and look forward to. But I think the first step should be to get caucus input, and I can assure the Hon. Member that that is being worked on very actively.
With regard to the other suggestion from T1AC that there should be a separate ministry, I can tell the Hon. Member that from my point of view it will get very serious consideration. If we are serious about what we are saying today concerning the importance of this industry, we must use all possible vehicles to focus on it and promote it.


Mr. Chenier:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister not only has responsibility for tourism but for small business as well. I would like him to indicate what assistance is provided to small tourist businesses in Canada.


Bill Rompkey: As I said in my speech, Mr. Speaker, 23 per cent of loans by the FBDB have been for tourism purposes. Within our own Department we have a program which can make available up to $25,000, or 50 per cent of the effort involved in putting together tour packages, market research, promotion brochures and that kind of thing. We do have that kind of program which can be delivered directly to entrepreneurs in the tourism industry. Of course, there is a whole range of small business programs available to tourist operators. With the co-operation of the Opposition we recently passed an extension to the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Small Business Investment Grants Act, and those mechanisms are available to the people in the industry.
More than anything, I guess, we have had an effect on small business through the development agreements with the Provinces all across the country. In that way there has been direct lending and direct grants to motel and tour operators and people with tourist facilities. So there has been a very active program of assistance to small business. We know that most of the businesses in tourism are small businesses and we have to keep them happy and healthy.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, what tends to happen a lot in the tourist industry is that we see support and promotion for the already established areas in the southern part of the country. Can we expect any kind of emphasis or support from the Minister for tourism in the north or less developed areas?


Bill Rompkey: I am very glad the Hon. Member raised that question because I happen to represent the north. I know the potential and how important tourism can be to the north. I can tell him, as I said earlier in my speech, that 1 have already been to the Northwest Territories and Yukon. However, I have been invited to both places again. We do have now a very active agreement with the Northwest Territories and we have been discussing an agreement with the Yukon. I met Mr. Pearson from the Yukon when he was here a little while ago. I very much want to see an emphasis in those areas.
Supply
When I was in Yukon there were a lot of German tourists canoeing in the Yukon. There is a fair amount of direct involvement by German tourists in the Yukon. So not only Canadians but a lot of Europeans are going directly into the north because they want that wilderness experience. I can tell him that I am aware of it, I am all for it and I am going to see that it is promoted and enhanced.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the specific concern I have relates to Wood Buffalo National Park. As the Minister is likely aware, there has been conditional approval for a road through the park which would contribute a great deal to tourism in the Territories and in Whitehorse, but also in the northern part of Alberta. The difficulty is that no Government department is prepared to put any funding in place for the development of a road in that area to open it up to tourism. Can we expect some help from the Minister in that particular regard?


Bill Rompkey: I would certainly take a look at that situation to see what we could do. National parks, as he knows, is under a different Ministry.
I might take this time to emphasize the importance to tourism of those national parks. I said earlier that a great many Government departments have an impact on tourism. All the marinas, for example, created under the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries have been so important for tourism. Indeed, we have a special program in Quebec related to the celebrations next year, and a series of marinas that we hope will not only focus on the importance of the historical significance of the St. Lawrence River to Canada but, indeed, encourage tourists to go there.
As to national parks, I can name them all across the country. In my own Province, we have Gros Morne where the expenditures we made were so important to attracting tourists. I do not know all the details of the specific case the Hon. Member has raised, but I can tell him that I am quite prepared to discuss it with my colleagues and to be of any help we can be in focusing on that problem.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to take part in this Opposition day. I have been in this House for ten and a half years and seen Opposition days on wheat, fish and sundry other items. Perhaps my memory is not too good, but I believe this is the first one on tourism.
I assume that tourism is not a really big business; it is merely $16.5 billion. That is peanuts, I suppose. In other words, I am being slightly facetious, because if any industry is prominent and of great importance to this great Dominion of Canada, it is the tourist industry.
That brings up the position of the Hon. Minister as Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. I take exception to that title because, first of all, he should not be a Minister of State; that is a very high profile Department and, with all due respect to the illustrious Postmaster General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), the Minister

April 14, 1983
Supply
sitting behind him is bringing in money to pay for his Department as well as a great many other Departments. We call it CGOT. I do not like that; it does not sound impressive enough. The Minister's own idea, Tourism Canada, to me, is very important. I think that matter should come up before his caucus next Wednesday and be endorsed unanimously as Tourism Canada. That is easier to sell than the Canadian Government Office of Tourism. I am quite sure that Members on the Government bench will agree with that. This is a very important Department, a big money-maker, and it can be a much bigger money-maker in the years to come.
The Minister pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that $16.5 billion is 5 per cent of the GNP. Well, let us see some of these other Department heads get up and tell us what they are collecting or putting into the coffers. I am quite sure it will not be near that amount.
The other important thing he mentioned was the generation of foreign exchange, I think he said $3.8 billion. That is a lot of money coming in, especially offshore money.
The Minister also mentioned the Department of Regional Industry Expansion, known as DRIE. I do not know whether I like DRIE as well as DREE because I am afraid you are going to dry up the funds. I am aware that DREE has done a great job in promoting tourism in the Atlantic area, but when it comes to Ontario it has been pretty hard to get any money out of DREE. I believe that $4 million was allocated for the entire Province of Ontario under a DREE provincial co-operative deal. Let us hope that that amount will be increased a great deal more.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister mention the small craft harbours and how important they are. In the Province of Ontario there are 450 small craft harbours. It is pretty difficult, when we approach the officials in Burlington, to get money. They are most co-operative, but they say: "Well, yes, we know that it is important, but word has come down from on high that there will not be money available". Years ago it had even been reduced, and in the great Province of Ontario, which has more tourists than every other Province put together, the total amount for small craft harbours was somewhere in the area of $3 million to $4 million.
However, the Government can pump $30 million or $40 million into one particular harbour. I am thinking of the harbours at Montreal, Halifax, and probably those out west. Those are certainly important, but let us get down to basics and consider where we can get the biggest bang for the bucks. I am quite sure that it is in those small harbours, because an awful lot of boats are tying up there and much gasoline is being sold there, of which rumour has it that the federal Government takes a pretty healthy cut.
In questioning the Minister one Hon. Member mentioned the fact that the Minister was the Minister responsible for small business as well as tourism. To me, small business and
tourism are pretty well synonymous, because most of the tourist operators are small businessmen.
It is also important to remember that in this time of high unemployment a great many of the unemployed, I believe over half, have been laid off by small business industries and individual entrepreneurs who have not been able to continue to grow and prosper, who have had to cut down, and who, in many cases, have just closed up their doors and said they could not continue any longer. Then, of course, a staggering amount of them have actually declared bankruptcy. That is certainly very important to consider, in my view. It is why the Government must give a much higher profile to the tourist industry and should also see that money is provided in special ways, at least with long-term, low interest rates, and guaranteed interest rates. This should be done now rather than in a year or two.
Many tourist operators came to me last summer and fall with tears in their eyes. They were faced with having to renew mortgages. Sure, they could gamble. However, they had to renew for five years at 17 per cent or 18 per cent when their mortgages were probably in the 10 per cent or 11 per cent bracket before. It made the difference as to whether they would be able to keep their doors open.
I know that money is scarce. I am well aware of the staggering deficit with which the country is faced. Tuesday night will be the night when we will see what will happen. I hope that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism has been able to have a word with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and his officials to see that something is done to help the tourist industry, because that is all-important.
I consider the fact that the Government can most blissfully find money for some other projects. Some of them have been given quite a bit of money, such as $500 million to bail out Dome Petroleum. Would it not be nice to give that amount to the tourist operators across Canada? Speaking of Dome Petroleum, $2.6 million will be given as a golden handshake to Mr. Gallagher when he turns over the reins of Dome Petroleum in September. The sum of $2.6 million would certainly help a good number of tourist operators to improve or possibly save their businesses. The sum of $1.4 billion was given for the takeover of Petrofina, with $600 million given to BP Canada to take over just the unproductive part of that particular firm. Then in the newpapers yesterday we heard about Canadair, another Crown-owned company. The Hon. Member shrugs his shoulders. We do not know just how serious it will be. The Government can find money for all these massive projects, but when it comes to the little, individual businessman, the tourist entrepreneur, the money is just not there.
If one goes to the Federal Business Development Bank, yes, it will provide money but the rates are certainly scary to a great many. Innumerable tourist operators have gone there and have then gone to ordinary banking or trust institutions and done better. I will admit that the FBDB is sort of a lender of last resort. However, when the Government can loan money
April 14, 1983

out at very advantageous rates to some of these huge multinationals, surely it could do the same or more for some of these small businesses, these tourist operators across the country who will probably be providing a great many more jobs per dollar loaned than those massive ones are providing.
The tourist industry is certainly one of the most important ones. Because of its nature, it is widely spread over the entire country, perhaps more than most other industries. That would possibly include agriculture as well. It is rooted in the rural areas of the nation: Parry Sound-Muskoka, out west, Newfoundland, Labrador, the Minister's own backyard. For that reason, it seems to me that if the Government really wants to trigger a widespread recovery in our country, this is the place to start. I do not think we have done nearly as well as we should have in this area.
Conversely, there are a number of things we could do which would make a real difference. Let us consider a few statistics for a start. First, we know that over the past few years we in Canada have been running a deficit on our tourist account with the United States alone of $1 billion a year. That means that Canadians are spending $1 billion more every year than Americans are spending here. That does not take into consideration all the millions of dollars spent in Europe and elsewhere. In 1981, for example, Canadians spent $3.5 billion in the United States while visiting Americans left $2.5 billion here. That is a shocking spread which does not need to be so. Such was not the case before. In fact, the spread was always in Canada's favour.
Let us bear in mind just how big in industry it is that we are discussing. We all admit that last year was not a good year, but Ontario alone saw revenues of $7.4 billion which generated a ripple effect throughout the economy in Ontario of some $12.6 billion. That is big bucks any way one looks at it.
What, then, could we do to improve the situation for this very key industry? There are a number of things which I have been pressing personally, as has been my Party. Of course, I re-emphasize that there should be higher priority and profile given to the Ministry. There should be a Minister of Tourism per se, not a Minister of State for Tourism.
Let us next discuss taxes. Every dollar which is left behind by a tourist in the form of profit to an operator generates income tax and taxes for various other Governments. Businessmen are familiar with the idea of spending a dollar to make a dollar. Perhaps Governments should think about doing the same. In their case, of course, spending a dollar would mean cutting the taxes a bit so as to encourage more tourism.
The Minister stated that the advertising budget for tourism had been cut. While money can be saved by cutting down on advertising, the end result will be a greater deficit. It is necessary to advertise because it pays to advertise. The product must be sold. I have heard it said: "You do not sell the steak, you sell the sizzle." We need advertisements that will induce people to come to this wonderful country of Canada. Once they come here they have to be encouraged to come to the
Supply
fabulous tourist area of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I assume that Prince Edward Island also has many attractions, as does Newfoundland and Labrador.


Bill Rompkey: I have been to Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Stan Darling: The Minister should certainly be speaking strongly about the money he needs to advertise this great country. This should be done through Tourism Canada, not that CGOT. Let us hope that will end before too long.
The Government is certainly well known for its advertising, as has been suggested to the Government from this side time and again. It squanders literally millions of dollars on advertising its own programs. But we are speaking of advertising Canada which will bring money back into the country fourfold. If advertising was not valuable, why do the automobile companies still spend millions of dollars on advertising even though they are feeling the pinch? The soap companies know the importance of advertising. Therefore I hope Members of Parliament recognize that advertising is extremely important in order to sell Canada and bring tourists here.
A factor which disturbs tourists, Canadians as well as others, is the cost of a holiday in Canada. A major cost of that holiday is the price of gasoline. That is the real horror story. By the time the Provinces and the federal Government take their share, gas is quite costly. With all due respect to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a gallon of gasoline - I did not say litre - costs almost twice as much here as in the United States.
This raises another point. Many American tourists who visit Canada are not enamoured of the metric mess which is occurring. The Minister may smile even slightly but he knows that that is bloody well right. Do not shake your head that way, shake it the other way.


Mr. Ouellet:: I am much more tolerant than you.


Stan Darling: You are the intolerant one. I am tolerant. I am willing to accept metric on a voluntary basis but I am not willing, nor are many other Canadians, to have it shoved down our throats under the threat of "You do this or you go to jail". You have not put that guy Halpert in jail or the Members out at Carleton Place because this is still a reasonably free country.


André Ouellet: They are coming here because they are seeing something different. They do not want to be in America.


Stan Darling: They are seeing something different all right, and expensively too.
In any event something must be done to attract tourists to our country. As has been mentioned here, the Minister has been told how tourists will be attracted to our respective regions. I am aware of the fact that the Government agency, Tourism Canada, has the job of bringing people to the borders of Canada. It is then up to the Provinces to entice those people to their respective regions.
I hope that there will be 100 per cent co-operation between the various provincial offices of tourism and Tourism Canada

April 14, 1983
Supply
to prevent any overlap and allow money to be distributed and spent more efficiently. This co-operation would allow the federal Government through Tourism Canada to do a much better job. Tourism Canada is a very important agency. This industry is one of the best money-makers that exists. It is not necessary to build million dollar plants to generate taxes, and that is an important consideration.
Another issue I wish to raise, which indirectly concerns tourism but has a great effect upon it, is acid rain. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) at this moment is hosting a lunch for the Subcommittee on Acid Rain. I am well aware that the Government recognizes the seriousness of the acid rain problem and that the Minister of the Environment is doing his very best to convey that message to our neighbours in the United States. If we do not address this problem in a meaningful way, our tourist industry will suffer because acid rain is already having an adverse affect on many of our lakes. I am certain the fish population in those lakes is being depleted, and while the mature fish may not be affected by acid rain, serious problems will occur during spawning and the growth of young fish in the years to come.
Once again, the funds needed to address this problem will be hard to get from the Minister of Finance or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) in these times but there are certain matters which are very important. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will be able to do a selling job on the Secretary of State in the United States. He was certainly not too optimistic yesterday in answering questions from our critic, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). The Secretary of State for External Affairs is adept at not saying anything while talking a great deal, but he did not say anything too promising.
I want to emphasize once again for the Minister just how important the acid rain problem will be to the tourist industry through the years. We have heard statistics on the thousands of lakes that have been damaged by acid rain. Some say there are 4,000 lakes in Ontario that are in a pretty serious situation, but there are 140,000 lakes. We are among those most blessed with the facilities for tourists, including Canadians, Americans and others from offshore. It is up to us and the Minister through his department to try to attract as many of these offshore and American tourists as possible. I know that they want the most for their money.
I close by saying that we must put more emphasis on the attraction of European tourists. German tourists are coming here in greater numbers each year and they are the ones who have the money. They are the ones we want to see here.
I hope next Tuesday's budget will provide some relief for the tourist operators so that they can improve their facilities and get money for working capital. I know it is difficult to get money when one goes to a hard-nosed bank which will only lend money based on one's assets. Yet Massey-Ferguson and other companies like it can borrow with assets which do not meet what the Government shells out for them.
I want to commend the Minister for the job he is doing. I am aware that he is having difficulty with his own Cabinet colleagues but he should speak that much louder and get the support of his backbenchers. Perhaps the Treasury benches will stop and listen to how important his department is. Once again, I say that he should be the Minister of Tourism and nothing else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments and answers?
Before I recognize the next Hon. Member in debate, it would be appropriate if I now look to my right. However, the Chair was advised that one Hon. Member has a travel problem. I have heard nothing since then. Unless I hear something now, I will look to my right.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the Hon. Member with great interest. I was also very impressed by the comments made by the Minister responsible for Tourism Canada. I think we should remember that in addition to the financial aspects there are also cultural and technical factors to be considered. It is very easy to make speeches in the House and try to prove that the Government has failed to support tourism in Canada, but if we take a closer look at the facts, it becomes clear that the Canadian Government is doing a lot to develop an industry that, at first, was relatively marginal.
A good example, Mr. Speaker, is that in Quebec, the tourist industry comes first, even before the pulp and paper industry. This proves more clearly than anything else that both in Canada and in the provinces individually, tourism is recognized as one of the prime factors of development at both the provincial and the federal level.
Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that Canadians themselves must be willing to become tourists in their own country. It is all very well to emphasize advertising abroad to encourage people from other countries to visit ours, but it is also very important for Canadians from all parts of this country to visit each other and learn to know their own country.
One of the basic elements of tourism is novelty. We like to exchange our own environment for something new, to experience contrast, enjoy a change of scene and see other people instead of always seeing people we know. As a country, Canada is able to provide that change of scene within its borders, and we can enjoy our differences while understanding what holds us together. I thought it was very interesting to hear the comments of the Hon. Member on Newfoundland, Canada's North and Labrador. I think that as a result of its diversity, Canada provides an incredible range of scenery and impressions. I think there are very few other countries that have so much worth seeing within their own borders. As far as
April 14, 1983

the tourism industry is concerned, we have a federal agency supporting federal initiatives, and we have ten provinces, each with their own tourist offices. Some provinces even have Departments of Tourism, and all this adds up to a formidable instrument for developing the industry. In addition, there are many joint efforts being made by the Canadian Government with the provinces and the municipalities. In fact, the contribution of the latter is often overlooked.
When I was listening to the Hon. Member just now, he was wondering what the Federal Government was doing to demonstrate the vitality of the tourist industry. There are a number of brochures, and I have one here, that describe quite admirably the various regions of our country. This is a brochure that is distributed in Canada for Canadians, and there are others that are distributed in Europe and in other parts of the world such as Japan and which describe the attractions of tourism in Canada.
It would have been interesting to hear just now how many foreigners actually visit this country. Figures are always interesting. In fact, in 1982, 32.5 million Americans came to Canada. They crossed the border to visit Canada, on trips of varying duration, but the fact remains that more than 32 million people did so. That is more than the total population of Canada. I think that on both sides of the House Members will agree that if 32 million Americans came to Canada, that is primarily because there are adequate transportation facilities, the right infrastructures and finally, the right tourism facilities to make it possible for them to stay here. I feel that is important. Of course, the number of tourists may fluctuate from year to year, and the recession in this part of the world may also affect this number, but on average, these figures reflect the number of Americans visiting our country.
We had 474,097 visitors from the United Kingdom, 219,000 from West Germany, 139,000 from Japan, 132,000 from France, 79,000 from The Netherlands, 67,000 from Australia,
62,000	from Italy, 48,000 from Switzerland, 44,000 from Mexico, 44,000 from Israel, 39,000 from Hong Kong, 24,000 from Sweden and 19,000 from Belgium. I am mentioning these figures to show that we already have a substantial number of people, other than Canadians and Americans, who visit our country.
At this stage, we should find out whether our Canadian representatives abroad and our commercially oriented Departments are doing everything they can in this respect and whether more can be done to increase the number of tourists visiting our country. That is a very important point. I think that criticizing and saying that nothing is being done is of no help at all in the debate on this question. It would have been far more interesting to hear some concrete proposals from the Hon. Member on the other side of the House. We must not forget that there have been many Canadian events, subsidized by the Federal and Provincial Governments, which have attracted people from other countries to Canada, for instance,
Supply
Expo 67 in Montreal and the Olympic Games in 1976, the Calgary Games, the Commonwealth Games, and in fact, Vancouver will soon be hosting a world event Transport 1986. These are events that attract tourists from all over the world to our country, but when we ask the support of the House in preparing for these events, that support is not always unanimous. Many Members of the Opposite side of the House object from time to time to these events, while they should in fact be supporting them, because it is this kind of events that will make our country better known. It is a fact that people who come to visit these events return to their own country with a better knowledge of what we have to offer.
Mr. Speaker, there are some very well designed and very well written brochures distributed world-wide that provide a host of details on our country. And for the information of Members on both sides of the House who have had occasion to travel throughout the world, I would like to add that in all airports and cities they will find quite substantial documentation on what Canada has to offer in the way of tourism.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point I would like to raise and that is, that the provinces should work together with the Federal Government to maximize the benefits of tourism for our country. The contribution of Parks Canada was not singled out earlier. If tourism was able to develop as quickly as it did in Western Canada, it is perhaps due to Parks Canada and the major impact of Jasper and Banff, and it is because of the railroads that tourists have been better able to appreciate the West and the Rockies. Then, there is Newfoundland, and 1 believe that the Hon. Minister responsible for Tourism Canada is very familiar with this issue. When we look at the extraordinary Bonavista Park on Bonavista Bay in Newfoundland, we can see what the Federal Government has accomplished with the cooperation of the province of Newfoundland. I think that Canadians have many wonderful things to discover in that region.
The same is true in Ontario, where Parks Canada and the federal government in designating and developing natural areas for all Canadians to visit so that future generations may continue to develop them while maintaining their touristic and natural potential. In Quebec, we have real touristic jewels in the Forillon and St. Maurice Parks. However it is unfortunate that Quebec is reluctant to participate in other such developments because more and more Canadians appreciate the great outdoors. While 60 per cent of Canadians used to live in rural areas, the trend has reversed in the last 15 or 20 years; two thirds of Canadians now live in cities and only one third in the country. Urban residents increasingly want to find recreation outside the cities, and in this regard, I believe that the development program of Parks Canada is one of the major elements of tourism development in Canada.

April 14, 1983
Supply
It is a fact that if Quebec participated more in the development of other Canadian parks on its territory, more Canadians from other provinces would visit Quebec, just as many Quebecers now go elsewhere in Canada to visit other parks. All these elements together promote tourism development in Canada. As I said earlier, it is a matter of attitude. It might not be essential to spend more money for Tourism Canada, even though it is important to have enough money to meet our various needs, but it is really important to change the urge people have to travel outside the country. It is important to change this attitude because we have too great a tendency to go outside Canada for our holidays when, with a little effort, we could perhaps benefit from what our own country and the various provinces and municipalities can offer us throughout the year. In this regard, the Canadian Government has published a brochure called Events 83. This publication lists the events which are held in various municipalities, as well as the dates of these events and a summary of activities.
So, something is being done. Perhaps Tourism Canada could be criticized for not being close enough to the people. Its brochures are kept in offices which might be somewhat overspecialized. Tourism Canada could perhaps provide more information to Canadians so that they might examine what is available, make their decision and visit their own country more easily. It is a fact that other governments, other countries, travel agencies and even transport companies in their advertising are using an approach which is closer to the people than our own government. I suggest that we should up-date our marketing methods and bring tourist information into the homes of Canadians in order to convince them to change their attitude.
Time permitting, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal now with regional tourist offices. I think we should increase our presence within provinces and municipalities, so that people may have easy access to information. It is rather surprising that Canadians are to a great extent ignorant of their own country. This is due in part to the government, the school systems of our various provinces which have no serious programs concerning the many dimensions of our country. This is something which should be checked with the provinces and municipalities. Going over my notes earlier I noticed that there have been meetings of the federal and provincial ministers responsible for tourism since 1934, I think that we should go a step further and come closer to ordinary Canadians. An effort should be made to change our attitude which compels us to stay home, instead of traveling to get to meet other Canadians, who, after all, live in the same country, are faced with the same difficulties but in an environment perhaps different from our own.
I would urge the Minister to consider my remarks carefully, to see whether there is a possibility that Tourism Canada might conclude agreements with the provinces and the municipalities. When someone spends all his time shuffling papers, he has no contact with the public. It is not necessarily a question
of spending more money on a program like this one, but rather to make sure that the money is well spent and that the public does benefit from it. Even if huge amounts of money were spent to advertise Tourism Canada, if the promotional literature remains piled up in warehouses or in offices whose address is very often hard to find, not to mention the offices themselves, all that information is useless and the money is not spent or used for the intended purposes.
That is a problem faced by a lot of people who travel throughout the country. Where are those offices? Perhaps there should be agreements with the various hotel chains so as to be in more direct contact with the public and travellers. Crown corporations such as VIA Rail or CN and CP ought to publish brochures on transport facilities available to get to know our country better. There is very little tourism literature available on the Ottawa-Quebec City or Ottawa-Toronto trains. It is possible to get some information from VIA Rail, but precious little is provided about Northern Canada and about prices in the middle North Shore, the lower North Shore and the Gaspe area. Perhaps we should revise our policies so that the public will have ready access to information, and possibly that is our greatest problem right now. There is no need to spend more money, but maybe we should check with Tourism Canada to see whether all the money is well spent through Government measures or by Tourism Canada officials.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make at this point, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister gave us very clear figures when he spoke earlier. Instead of repeating those figures, I think that the important point is to tell the House and the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) that we must change the attitude of the people by getting them to know their country. There are all kinds of support measures which could be brought forward. When I speak of support, I have in mind not just large amounts of money, but also the specific avenues by which Tourism Canada is trying to make people travel within our own borders. In that respect Hon. Members might have cause to hang their heads, because we may be more inclined to travel abroad instead of travelling in this country. We merely have to recall where our own party leaders spend their holidays. Everyone is going south! I appreciate their position, but if we really want Canadian men and women to travel in this country, we should show them the way. Let us compare current temperatures in Vancouver and Montreal. I think that in Vancouver they are now more or less enjoying summer. It may not be Florida, but this is in our country and I feel that Members of Parliament should be an example in that respect. We should be travelling in Canada to a larger extent, but instead we learn from press reports that some of our ministers, or some prominent Canadians involved in the arts, in politics or in industry are vacationing abroad. A change of attitude would be more warranted than appeals for more and more public
April 14, 1983

funding. At this stage, the need would be less for money and more for talent, in order to change the current approach and increase significantly the impact of funding.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since I understand I have roughly one minute left, I would like that at the next standing committee meeting where tourism will be dealt with, both opposition and Government Members come up with suggestions concerning this matter of changing our attitudes. We might then have an opportunity to evaluate, and assess them, and see what we might be doing for the future, without criticizing whatever has been done and just asking for money. If from both sides we were to put forward realistic programs, we might then reach the same goals and even double the impact, since this would involve talent rather than mere money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) for debate.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As the Hon. Member indicates, we will call it one o'clock, which assures the Hon. Member that on the calling of Orders of the Day after three o'clock he will be recognized as having the floor.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, tomorrow a young woman will be shot to death in Guatemala. She is currently in jail with her five month old twins. Her husband was killed some eight months ago. It is a crime that this should happen any place in the world.
I have written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and asked that he attempt, on behalf of the Canadian House of Commons, to intervene. I am asking Member of Parliament who are here to intervene also, to call the Embassy of Guatemala here in Ottawa, ask them to express to the President of Guatemala our concern over this matter, and ask that he not have this execution or the four others intended to be
proceeded with tomorrow. Let us ask that every effort be extended to try to find a solution to this problem that will ultimately halt the death of people who, because of their political involvement, face the kind of persecution this woman has faced and the threat of death that she now faces.



LABOUR ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS ACT

Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I should like to deal once again in the House with Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. Pursuant to this bill, more specifically with Clause 13 which deals with eligibility, a 50 year old person who has been employed for 30 years in any of the designated areas of employment, namely the textile, clothing, shoe or leather industries, and who has worked some
1,000	hours in each of these 30 years may be allowed to go on what is called early retirement when his or her financial situation is jeopardized as a result of at least 10 per cent of the work force being laid-off in the plant where he or she has been working. In this connection, Madam Speaker, there are always particular cases which are brought to light of people who are
49	years of age and who have worked for 31 years, which adds up to 80, who are not eligible for early retirement, or of people
50	years of age who are receiving for the first time Unemployment Insurance benefits. These people would like to become eligible for early retirement. Maybe the Department of Labour would be well advised-


Madam Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, today I want to express my indignation at the squandering of tax dollars. In his report, the Auditor General has confirmed a fact of which we were already aware-the Government has lost all control over the Crown corporations. Perhaps it does not even know how many there are now. Is that not the best evidence of mismanagement in this country? Here are some examples of the shoddy administration and of the waste of public funds. In 1976, the Government invested $3.6 billion in Petro-Canada, claiming that it was ours, but it never said at what price. Petro-Canada even found a way to spend $6.5 million to keep empty offices in Calgary. According to the Financial Times. the profits of Petro-Canada are sheer fiction! I could also

April 14, 1983
mention Air Canada which has recorded a $32 million deficit this year, and the $10 million it has overspent on its head office. I could also talk about Canadair, the latest scandal and a waste of over $2 billion. And what about Mirabel, the white elephant, the real estate firm which pokes fun at Quebecers who were needlessly expropriated?
I will conclude my remarks, Madam Speaker, by saying that the present Government has run out of wind, as evidenced by the pools, and it does not know which way to turn to make Canadians believe its management is sound. Madam Speaker, how can anyone hope the public to have faith in the credibility of the Government when it keeps on wasting public funds as it does, and when it lacks courage and demonstrate its incompetence with respect to its own Crown corporations?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I share the concern expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and would like to give a little more detail of the crisis that will occur tomorrow. This problem was brought to my attention by Amnesty International. The person involved is Dr. Graviola Ruth Brooks Martinez, a general medical practitioner. She is scheduled for execution tomorrow morning in Guatemala. Dr. Martinez is the mother of five-month old twins who are presently in prison with her. Her husband was killed before the twins were born.
The alleged offence is unknown, due to the secrecy of the special military trial that was conducted. Dr. Martinez is the first woman sentenced to death by the Guatemalan military tribunals since the creation of these military tribunals when a state of siege was imposed on Guatemala in July, 1982.
I would like to request the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), on behalf of all Canadians, to protest urgently and in the strongest possible terms against this inhuman, unjust and evil sentence which was based on a trial conducted without legal safeguards. I ask this in the hope that there might be a stay of execution for Dr. Martinez, thereby sparing her life and also providing some security for the welfare of her infant twins.
The Guatemalan Embassy denies that these executions are planned. I fervently hope that this is true, but previous experiences have shown that the Guatemalan embassies have not always been accurately informed by their Government.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, over four months ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) announced policy that would protect the Canadian shipbuilding industry and stimulate activity in the yards. The policy was welcomed by the industry as being meaningful.
Four months have lapsed and the Government has given no indication why introduction has been delayed or when the shipyards and the workers can expect the policy to be implemented. This is four months lost at a time when such policies are urgently needed, at a time when more and more shipyard workers are losing their jobs and fearing for their future.
At the Saint John shipyard employment has decreased from 2,089 in 1978 to only 820 last year. The projected figures for 1983 see a decrease to between 200 and 300 workers this year if no further work is received. This is a scenario that can be prevented.
The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) implied Canadian shipbuilders were crybabies who wanted the Government to lead them by the hand. I say this is not so. These men want to work, and want security for themselves and for their families. The Government has tantalized the industry with a program that would get shipbuilding workers back on the job and reverse the shipbuilding decline in Saint John and all across Canada, but has failed to follow through.
On behalf of Canadian shipbuilders I strongly urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to quit fiddling around and use next Tuesday's budget to introduce the shipbuilding policy and get our workers back to work.



AIR TRANSPORT


André Maltais: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House on a section of my constituency which is on the North Shore, that is the middle and the lower North Shore, with respect to air transport. I would like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) who has done so many things to this date for the middle and lower North Shore to become aware of the need to set up infrastructures as far as navigational aids are concerned in order to organize landings and take-offs at four main airports of the middle and lower North Shore, that is in the Havre-St-Pierre, Natashquan, la Cheverie and Blanc-Sablon areas. I would also like to point out to the House that some assistance should be provided to the provincial government with respect to the Saint-Augustin airport because in an Indian Reserve last week,
April 14, 1983

a newborn baby died as a result of severe weather conditions due to the lack of a landing strip or ground instruments. Consequently, it is vital that Transport Canada should become acquainted with the needs of that area. We know that for the past three years, tremendous amounts of money have been spent there but even if runways were asphalted, without a system of ground instruments to allow landings and take-offs, the situation is hopeless. This area is situated opposite Newfoundland and considering weather conditions, a system of ground intruments should be a priority. I think that the matter could be dealt with during the negotiations between Quebecair, Nordair and Air Canada. It is very important to consider the entire vital issue, since there are no roads in that part of Canada.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, at a time when farmers are being stressed to the limit by increasing costs of production and all indications are that world prices will not increase this year, the Canadian Wheat Board Minister is allowing the initial prices for grains to plummet, instead of holding prices at last year's levels. Initial prices for 1983-84 are down 12 cents a bushel for the base grade of wheat, 33 cents for feed barley, and 23 cents for feed oats. Depressed prices such as these are in no way justified at this time.
With farm bankruptcies doubling out West since last year, and such things as fuel, fertilizer and spray prices constantly increasing, how can any farmer look to the 1983-84 crop year with any optimism? To add insult to injury, the Wheat Board Minister, without batting an eye, told farmers the Government wants a 5 per cent reduction in wheat acreage and a 15 per cent reduction in barley acreage. These farmers cannot afford to cut back their production if they are to meet their debt payments.
When competing countries ask their farmers to cut back production they assist the producers with their treasuries. In Canada, as usual, the Liberals place this extra burden on the backs of those least able to afford it, in this case the farmers.
I could not believe my ears yesterday when the Minister of Transport answered a question with, "At the price level at which they are, the general view is that the incentive to produce is still quite high." I want to assure the House that this is a Liberal view and not a general view.



S O. 21 RAILWAYS CROWSNEST PASS RATE-GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING IN SUPPORT OF CHANGES

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a major public advertising campaign which the Liberal Party is undertaking this weekend to promote changes to Crowsnest Pass freight rates.
I am informed that the Liberal Party has placed a four-page colour advertising supplement in newspapers in Ontario and western Canada. The commercial rate for this ad in one of the newspapers alone is $9,200. Obviously the total cost for ad production and newspaper space will be well in excess of the $350,000 estimated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the House on February 22.
Our Party regards this as a flagrant waste of public money to promote the policies of the Liberal Party. We find it doubly reprehensible that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is attempting to buy legitimacy for a policy that has been so universally repudiated in western Canada.
These advertisements are also misleading. For example, they promise 375,000 person years of work on the railways, while on May 1 Canadian National will be laying off 837 workers in shops in Winnipeg, Montreal, and Moncton.
This is typical Liberal Party advertising. Its slogan is, "Promise anything. The truth comes later and can never fully catch up."
Madam Speaker, that may be true, until the next general election.



MANPOWER


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, the objective of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program may be quite desirable, and undoubtedly many Canadians have benefited from it, but there is one aspect of its administration that requires correction.
Instances have been brought to my attention when applicants were forced by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to take more money from the Government than their actual moving expenses even when they, being honourable citizens, did not want it. All they wanted was reimbursement of their out of pocket expenses. They did not want to profit at the taxpayers' expense.
Letters to the Minister have brought about an almost incomprehensible reply boiling down to "rules are rules and must be enforced regardless of how silly they might be".
It is high time that the regulations governing the Canada Manpower Mobility Program be amended so as to restrict payments to a maximum of the actual out of pocket relocation expenses.

April 14, 1983
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who is no doubt aware of a certain program aired on the CBC last night, touching on Canadair. It included the statement that in October, 1982, he and Members of his Cabinet were informed that the full range of federal involvement in Canadair would be from $1.8 billion to $2.3 billion. In that report it was also made clear that, indeed, Canadair was on the ropes.
Would the Prime Minister inform the House if, in truth, that was the report that was received by him and his Cabinet and, if so, would he care to elaborate on it today?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the question, but I have to point out that it is not within the rules to ask the Government if such and such a report is correct or not. A news report is something which should stand by itself. I did not see the program as I was busy with other things and could not watch television.
It is true that the problem of Canadair has been one with which the Government has been concerned. It is also true that when we took the measure to transfer the management of Canadair to the CDIC it was done because we wanted to see business judgment applied to a business difficulty. Therefore, we know that there are difficulties with it.
There is a likelihood that we will have to come to Parliament and ask for a supplementary estimate to assist Canadair in order to turn it into a profitable business venture. I foresee that Parliament will be able to discuss the question at that time.


AMOUNT OF INVOLVEMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister could indicate if the total federal Government involvement - in short, the people of Canada - in Canadair may reach $1.8 billion, or possibly $2.3 billion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm those figures. I can give the assurance that if we do come to Parliament for a supplementary estimate we will want to make sure that the financial statements of the company are made available to Parliament so that it can check them.


QUERY RESPECTING CONTRACT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister
of Justice who will undoubtedly be aware that the same program contained the following comment:
Unusual deals have been referred to the Department of Justice for investigation and it in turn has asked the Toronto law firm of Goodman and Goodman to look into some of the contracts.
Would the Minister confirm or otherwise if contracts entered into by Canadair are being examined? Specifically, could he elaborate on the contract between KRS and Canadair, which seems to be strange indeed, bearing in mind that it involves the lease of a Challenger aircraft back to the factory and the possible financing of it by the Government of Canada for certain executives of Pepsi? Is this indeed the Pepsi challenge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is over there.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Here comes Brand X.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I think the context in which the allegation is made by the Hon. Member is substantially untrue. The truth is that legal advice was given through the Department of Justice and through the engagement of outside counsel on, I believe, a single contract. This was not an investigation of any illegality or anything of that kind; it was normal advice given with respect to the interpretation of a contract. That is the only involvement of the Department of Justice in this whole matter.


ALLEGED DECLARATION BY MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who was responsible for Canadair at the time, told CBC that no member of his government could have agreed to the lay-off of 7,000 employees of Canadair because of the referendum. What I want to know is whether this means, and Canadians would be happy to be informed in this regard, that the Prime Minister or his government had decided to throw away the taxpayers' money to save the face of the Liberal government at the time of the referendum?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, it is not at all what this means. It simply means that, like any other country which is interested in maintaining a presence in the aeronautical industry, Canada must invest public funds in the industry. This was at the bottom of this whole affair when the private sector did not seem to be able or to want to maintain a Canadian presence in this industry. The Canadian Government did what the government of any other industrialized country would do, I believe, and decided to provide public funds to guarantee a Canadian presence in this
April 14, 1983

high technology industry which is of major importance for the industrial development of Canada.


Roch La Salle: The Prime Minister should also know that the Minister responsible at the time stated yesterday that he had received a report from the company and that the Cabinet was already aware of its financial problems. In view of the circumstances and since the Minister accepted the proposal of Mr. Lear on a simple phone call, does the Prime Minister not recognize the unprecedented incompetence of his Minister in making such a commitment on behalf of his government, and will the Prime Minister have at least the decency to say so publicly today and invite the Minister to resign because of his incredible incompetence which will cost the Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars? To what extent is the Prime Minister willing to comment publicly on the incredible attitude of the Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am willing to comment on this attitude, Madam Speaker, and I shall do so in the context that I mentioned earlier when I gave my first reply, namely that we knew that the industry was in difficulty. If such had not been the case, the private sector would not have asked us whether we were willing to get involved in this company. The private sector would have continued to operate and to make profits for its shareholders. Therefore we knew that the company was having problems, and as I just told the Hon. Member, the question for the Government was whether we should let this important sector of the Canadian aeronautical industry in Quebec go under or whether we should try to maintain the presence of the Government, in other words of the Canadian people, in the industry. This was the decision we had to make. The Minister was certainly aware that there was a risk since the private sector wanted to get rid of its assets. The Cabinet's decision at that time was to maintain a Canadian presence in the industry. I would be surprised if the Hon. Member really wanted me to dismiss a Minister because the Canadian Government wanted to use a joint venture, and such ventures have been a Canadian tradition since the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, to keep a high technology industry in Canada with the assistance of public funds. If Sir John A. Macdonald could do so for the railroad, I do not see why the Progressive Conservative Member would not want us to do the same for the aeronautical industry.


Mr. Broadbent:: Madam Speaker, John A. Macdonald did it for the CPR, as the Prime Minister knows.


SELLING PRICES OF AIRCRAFT TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue, as the Minister responsible for the details of this fiasco. Would the Minister explain to the House why it is that the people of Canada, through the Government of Canada, are the only
Oral Questions
people who are paying what could be called a "fair" price for these aircraft? It has been reported that Petro-Canada is picking up one of these planes for SI 1.3 million, and that the Department of National Defence is going to get two for $11.3 million. I have been told that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Argus Corporation have each bought one aircraft for less than a quarter of this price, $2.3 million each. Could the Minister tell the House if this is true? And could he possibly explain why the private sector is getting such a fantastic deal, but the people of Canada are paying through the nose?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should not forget that from the outset, the Challenger program as introduced by Canadair was a great success, that it still is, and that if we continue to support this program, it will continue to be a success. The selling and pricing practices of Canadair can be readily examined by all Hon. Members when representatives of the Canada Development Investment Corporation appear before the Standing Committee, and I am sure it would be much easier to provide details on specific cases in Committee than to do so in a more general way in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there is nothing general about that question at all. It is quite specific. The Minister just chose not to answer.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF MEMORANDUM ON COMPANY'S DEBT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for over-all policy in this area. My question concerns a memorandum which was given to the Cabinet last fall. If what was said on television last night is accurate, it is clear that the management of Canadair has been totally reprehensible. It is also clear, if the report is true that the Government received a memorandum indicating that the company was going to go even deeper in debt, that the Government is quite probably reprehensible in terms of its exercise of control over this operation and in terms of its responsibility to the House.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that there was a memorandum submitted to the Cabinet last fall which indicated that the corporation was going to go much deeper into debt, up to the $2.3 billion level? And if that report exists, and if freedom of information means anything, will the Prime Minister provide that report for all Members of the House so we can see what we are getting into on this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have dealt with the substance of the question. I will not answer questions as to what documents are circulated in

April 14, 1983
Oral Questions
Cabinet, and I certainly will not undertake to make those documents public. The Cabinet system works on a system of confidentiality. Advice we receive from officials operates on that basis. I do not believe it advances the question to raise this red herring. I have admitted that the Government knew that the company was in great difficulty.


Roch La Salle: You were warned!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the Member for Joliette wants to put in his two cents' worth, Madam Speaker! Perhaps you could recognize him later on, since he forgot to phrase his questions properly just now. Perhaps the Hon. Member would have the courtesy to let me answer the Member on the other side, who did not interrupt him when he was asking his questions.

I have recognized that the company was in difficulty. I have recognized that we had to make a very important decision there, whether to cut loose from support of the aeronautic industry in Canada, particularly in the case of Canadair, or whether we should try to find some way to ensure that better commercial decisions were made by that company. What we have done, as is known by the House, is transfer the assets to a Crown corporation operating in the commercial sector, and we believe that there will be better decisions in matters of commercial decisions taken by the CDIC than could be taken in the previous circumstances.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has a different notion about the responsibility of Government to the people of Canada than we have on this side of the House. We believe the people of Canada are spending millions, indeed billions of dollars, and they ought to know how that money is being spent. That is the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since it has been quite seriously alleged that this company has given literally millions of dollars to a private American corporation, that this company's senior management has misled a committee of this House, that this company in fact, if the allegation is true, is overcharging the Government of Canada for these planes while undercharging private corporations-given all of these allegations would the Prime Minister do what he ought to do, use the authority of the Inquiries Act and set up a thorough, competent, and fair-minded public investigation into this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is not interested in the subject; he is interested in the
process. He says the people ought to know how their dollars are being spent. If he had listened to my previous answers he would have seen that I said exactly the same thing and that I think the House of Commons will have an opportunity to see how the dollars are being spent. But why this leads him to ask to look at the Cabinet documents, Madam Speaker, just shows that he is trying to bring a red herring into the subject.


Mr. Waddell:: You are bringing in the red herring.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is trying to see a scandal where there may or may not be one.


Some Hon. Members:: We want to know.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exactly. That is why I said the House will be in a position to look at the figures. We intend at that point to bring the financial statements down and have the Opposition ask every legitimate question. After that, if they think, and if it is obvious, that there should be room for an inquiry, we will look at that question.
Once again, there is an admission by the Government that we took over a failing company and it was deeply in trouble. The only question at this stage that I can answer is that the Government, rather than cut it loose and see another industry die in Canada, a high technology industry, decided to try to find some way of saving it. I should have thought that the NDP, of all parties, would not have objected to the Government of Canada trying to save a high technology industry, and do it in a rational way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. A. DELEHEDDE, M.P., SECRETARY GENERAL OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCHSPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS
Madam Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery of Mr. Andre Delehedde, M.P., Secretary General of the International Association of Frenchspeaking Parliamentarians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
In view of the amazing decision, to say the least, made by Quebec's French Language Monitoring Board, that St-Mary's
April 14, 1983

Elospital in Montreal was guilty of not adequately respecting the right of Mrs. Marie-Marthe Larose to be treated and to die in French; in view of the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Province of Quebec have reached a blanket agreement providing for certain minimum services for veterans in four Montreal hospitals; in view of the importance to all Canadians of the Charter of Rights, and more specifically language rights, could the Minister assure this House that in spite of Quebec's Bill 101, despite the French Language Monitoring Board, each and every English-speaking veteran in Quebec will be entitled to be treated and to die in English, just as much in the St-Luc and Maisonneuve-Rosemont hospitals as is certainly the case in Montreal General and St-Mary's hospitals?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. He is quite correct, the provision of hospital services to veterans in the Montreal area is through four different hospitals. I have no indication that the particular situation he suggests in fact exists, and that veterans are not being provided service in both languages. If the Hon. Member has a particular case, I certainly invite him to bring it to my attention and I would be happy to look into it.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue regarding the Canadair matter. I want to refer particularly to what I consider, and what would be considered in the commercial world, as sleazy deals which apparently have been made. Would it not be closer to the truth to say that Canadair played the Government and people of Canada for suckers, and that Federal Express agreed to place an order for 25 Challengers on the understanding that they could cancel at any time without penalty, and that this manoeuvre was undertaken in order to pad the order book of Canadair 50 that they would get Government of Canada backing? Will the Minister confirm that the truth of this matter is that Canadair rented the name of Federal Express in order to fill their order book?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to comment on any specific contract that might have been entered upon by Canadair and some of its clients. However, I would like to take this opportunity to tell Hon. Members and Canadians generally that the Canada Development Investment Corporation is currently engaged in a careful examination of all contracts entered into by Canadair and its clients, both as to the legal aspect and the
Oral Questions
matter of business practices generally followed in that sector. When that examination is completed, the Corporation will decide upon a ruling and will act accordingly.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Leader of the NDP said, the only purchaser who pays the full price in this country for aircraft from Canadair is the Government of Canada.


SALE OF CHALLENGER AIRCRAFT TO TECHNIQUE AVANT-GARDE
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister to explain the sale to TAG, Technique Avant-Garde, particularly deal number seven, where they purchased a Challenger aircraft for $5 million and then, through a series of paper transfers, that plane was repurchased by the Government of Canada for more than $10 million. Would the Minister explain this?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would repeat my earlier general comment concerning any specific contract between Canadair and any of its clients. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that the contract signed with the TAG Corporation is under review, like the other contracts, and indeed it is currently being renegotiated.


COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the House knows that we are in a scandal which is at least 20 times as large as the Consolidated Computers scandal of last year, so my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he advise the House why the Canadair financial statements certified by independent accountants for the year ending December 31, 1982, are not now available?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I will inform myself and report back to the Hon. Member.


CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, while the President of the Treasury Board is doing that, will he also inform this House that the reason for the delay in the financial statements is because of representations made last year that there were 142 firm orders for the Challenger Jet, which orders turned out to be so much smoke and mirrors, and that the chartered accountants will not certify the Canadair financial statements?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am certainly not in a position to agree with

April 14, 1983
Oral Questions
the premise of the Hon. Member's question, but I will see what information I can properly provide on the subject.


GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE-KNOWLEDGE OF CANADA1R AFFAIRS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said earlier that he did not have time to watch television last night. It is a sad day when Members of the Opposition have to watch television to find out what on earth is going on within the Government backrooms of this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How sad for you.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is well known that the Government appointed a special task force in 1981 to look into the financial fiasco surrounding Canadair and the Challenger aircraft. The Prime Minister has indicated that the Cabinet received a document in October, presumably outlining a number of the problems. So is it fair to assume, on behalf of Members opposite, that the Cabinet, and perhaps the Government itself, were well aware of the difficulties and the fiasco surrounding both the financial and marketing aspects of Canadair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member did not waste his time watching television he would have heard me say that very thing in the House just a moment ago. He is so obsessed with what he saw on the airwaves that he did not hear me say, yes, that was one of the great worries of the Government and that is why we took the steps I indicated to have better business judgment put into this matter. That is why we transferred the assets of Canadair to the CDIC.
As I put it in previous statements, the matter is really- should the Canadian people, the Canadian Government and, particularly, the NDP lose their nerve when there are difficulties in areas of high technology? We know that these-


John Edward Broadbent: You've got to be joking.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -difficulties exist in the United States, they exist in Germany, they exist in France and they exist in Britain in the aeronautic industry. It is not a very profitable industry at this time, and the real question-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Buy a restaurant next time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -we had to address was: do we lose our nerve and bail out, or do we stay in and try to make a better turn of events? We took the second option, and that is why we turned the assets over to the CDIC.


TESTIMONY TO COMMITTEE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, a few months back, Canadair came to Parliament Hill with a
number of slick presentations about the Challenger aircraft. Canadair also appeared before each of the caucuses, clearly explaining how well it was doing. Canadair appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, again to explain its case, while it requested an additional $200 million in borrowing.
At that time it was very clear that Canadair knew of the financial difficulties and this rather shameful attempt at marketing in which it was involved. Government Members opposite knew, yet nothing was said during all of those presentations and all of those hearings and not a single iota of information that was presented last night on television came out.
Can the Prime Minister tell us is this not really saying that the Government Members opposite, the Cabinet opposite, and Canadair purposely misled the House of Commons and, therefore, the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member described it as being a shameful attempt at marketing. Obviously, the Canadair executives were in the business of marketing a product.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why didn't they explain it to us then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think it would have been a good marketing approach to come and say that it was a terrible aircraft, that it could not fly, and that nobody should buy it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Television's the way to introduce it; is that it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, television has done, I understand, a responsible job in reporting the facts as it sees them, but does not have to make the decision which I said the Government had to make, and that I wonder how the NDP would have made.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We want it from you, rather than television.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, give us the information. We'll tell you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Leader of the NDP would once again listen, I said that we would give the information, that he would have the figures, that the financial figures would be brought before Parliament. I do not happen to have them today. I do not think they are ready. My understanding is that the year end is June 30, not December 31.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They changed it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have them today, and I do not have them just because, by happenstance, television happened to have a program last night. Parliament will have to follow its own processes and not only be guided by the timing of television.
April 14, 1983


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to a program announced in the spring of 1981 which was called the Caribbean Basin Initiative. It was to include all countries of the region and to exclude military activities of any sort. Now, after two years, I would like to know what this Basin Initiative has meant to the developing countries of the region. Also, in view of the huge military involvement of the USA in the region, I would like to know if we are still willing to be part of that program.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell us about the Soviets.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the full Caribbean Basin Initiative has not yet been legislated in the United States. The aid component has been approved by Congress, but the trade and investment portions, to my knowledge, have not yet been approved by Congress, so that the five participating countries have not yet been in a position to implement the over-all initiative which, in our view, had the advantage of increasing, by a very substantial amount, American aid to the Caribbean countries and which, if implemented, would open access, without tariffs, by the American markets to these Caribbean countries.
In our view the Caribbean initiative stands on its own feet as a valuable, constructive effort to assist the economy and social structure of these countries. It is not, in our view, associated with any military or security thrust, either.


Miss Jewett:: That's baloney.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, is with respect to the Canadair matter. Having regard for the seriousness of the allegations and the burden which is presently imposed on the Standing Committees of the House, and the seriousness of the allegations which the Prime Minister himself recognizes by his reference to the possibility of the matter being scandalous, would he agree to the establishment of a special committee of this House charged solely with the responsibility of making an in-depth inquiry into all facets of this affair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member draws out of context what I said about the possibility of it being scandalous.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That it may be.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said that it was impossible to have a judgment on that. I think that my understanding of those who watch television and my interpretation of some questions from the Opposition indicate that they sensed or hoped there would be a scandal here. I have no such evidence. The Minister of Justice has indicated that we have no evidence of that, but that we are happy to have the matter dealt with in the proper way by Parliament.
I do not see any need, at this stage, for a special committee of Parliament. When the estimates come before the House, if the Opposition reaches that same conclusion at that time, I think the Hon. Member for Yukon could find out that there is something called "usual channels" to discuss the matter between the various House Leaders.


Erik Nielsen: I am fully aware of the usual channels which reside in the mind of the Government, and they usually lead one on a constant sidetracking operation.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO AUDITOR GENERAL
Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister, if I am to take him sincerely, believes that Parliament should deal with the matter. He seems unwilling to submit that which he has referred to in his previous answers as a matter which may be a scandal to a special committee of this House which would have no other responsibility than to look into the matter. Will he, then, adopt the impartial and responsible course of agreeing to a special order of the House to refer the matter to the Auditor General for a focused and special study in order that he, as an impartial servant of the House, may report his findings to Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I take the opposite view to that of the Hon. Member. From the talks I have had with the Ministers involved, with the head of the CDIC and with the Minister of Justice, I am of the opinion that there is nothing scandalous. There may have been some business judgments which could have been taken or should have been taken otherwise. That will be a matter for the House to examine. I suggest that, after that, the concern of the Hon. Member and his suspicions should be brought to the fore, and then we will decide whether there should be a special inquiry of one kind, or not.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Cabinet has authorized our ambassador in Washington, Allan Gotlieb, to expend, as a beginning, the sum of $650,000 to engage lobbyists in Washington. Is it true that our relationships with the United States are deteriorating to the

April 14, 1983
Oral Questions
extent that we must now hire American public relations firms to represent our country in Washington?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the conclusion of the Hon. Member is justified. I think that if he has been following, for example, the efforts of both the Governments of Manitoba and Canada in support of the Canadian objectives on the Garrison Diversion, he would have known that both Governments have retained the services of a professional lawyer in Washington to assist in that particular project.
In particular instances of that kind where Canadian interests are involved, it has proved useful to engage local professionals who know the scene and know how to carry the requirement objectives of the Government of Canada forward. I think it was rather a good idea, myself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I take it from the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that there is no point in having any diplomatic representation there. All one does is hire American public relations firms to represent Canada-to line up with the National Rifle Association or Friends of the Earth.


ROLE OF FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider this allocation of funds, which is just a beginning, as a reflection on the competence of the foreign service officers who are representing Canada in the United States, and can he say whether or not he thinks there is any point now in building Erickson's palace to house all these public servants to represent Canada? Can they not do the job and deal with Congressmen, or is it necessary now to hire public relations firms?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member continues to demonstrate his ignorance of the complexity and the diversity of the relations that exist between Canada and the United States. I have the greatest confidence in the professional capacity of the embassy staff, all of whom are doing a first rate job. It was on the evaluation provided by the embassy in the first instance that this particular initiative has been approved by the Government of Canada, which was recommended to the Government by myself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now I understand.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Hon. Member ought to understand that the sum of money which he has indicated is just another indication of his ignorance of what is happening in Washington.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to return to the Canadair matter. Surely the issue here is the need to divulge all the information on this Canadair matter, whether it is a scandal, bad business judgment, or whatever.
Surely the Government cannot be a judge in its own case. Would the Prime Minister agree that what is being questioned here is not just the mismanagement of the company but the Government's handling of the affair which is being criticized? Therefore it is not sufficient to wait for the estimates to come in front of the House. Without an independent inquiry in the matter, the Government simply gives whatever information it wants and is, indeed, the judge in its own case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the Hon. Member.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I will rephrase the question to the Prime Minister so he can perhaps understand it. We are dealing with CDIC which is responsible for Canadair. We are dealing with Senator Jack Austin who is responsible for Canadair, but we cannot question him in the House of Commons. We are dealing with a Government that seems to believe in excessive secrecy.
If the Prime Minister wants to be fair, as he has indicated, and wants to get all the information out on this important matter, and if he has nothing to hide, why will he not allow a public inquiry so that we can put all these questions? For the good of public enterprise in the future we can get all the information out and show the Canadian public that these enterprises can indeed be run properly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, once again the Hon. Member seems to ignore the answers that I gave to the previous questions. We in the Government intend to put these figures out. The Government intends to have the financial statements looked at by the Opposition, but I explained that we do not have the financial statements now. I believe they are due at the end of June.
Today I was discussing with the officers of the company the possibility of getting them out earlier so that Parliament could indeed look into this matter.
Those are the steps I have taken. That is the pledge that I give. If we can get the financial statements out earlier, we will do so. The Opposition will then be in a position to ask its questions on the basis of real facts.
As I said in answer to the first question, we recognize that they will find a very distressing financial situation calling for a basic decision, either the injection of more funds-which is why I talked of supplementary estimates-or a bailing out completely.
April 14, 1983

Even though not all Members of the House have that long of a memory, I think most Canadians remember that there was a circumstance when the Diefenbaker Government decided to bail out of the aeronautics industry and got out of the Avro-Arrow. I think it has been regretted in this country ever since by those who know about aeronautics.
Once again, I would think that on this subject we would at least have a temporary understanding from the NDP and that they would set partisanship aside for the moment and remember their own philosophy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask him rather simply and directly whether he has made representations to the Government of Guatemala with respect to the impending executions tomorrow morning?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, at the suggestion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I did make representations to the Guatemalan authorities with respect to intended executions or reported executions that would take place. I have been informed today by the ambassador of Guatemala in Ottawa that no such executions will take place nor are they proposed to take place.


REQUEST THAT INQUIRIES BE MADE THROUGH CANADIAN EMBASSY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows that representations on this matter had been made by a number of Members in the House. I would just ask him if he will in fact ask further questions, or make further contacts with our own embassy in Guatemala City, to determine the veracity of this matter. The last time that a protest was lodged with regard to executions in Guatemala, it was lodged by as notable a person as His Holiness the Pope, and the executions still took place.
I would like the Secretary of State for External Affairs to give us his word that he will go further than he has at the present time to try to head off what might be the execution of six persons in Guatemala.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have already done what the Hon. Member suggests. I have been in touch with our embassy in Guatemala. The information from the Canadian embassy in Guatemala confirms the
Oral Questions
information which I received today from the ambassador in Ottawa.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Is he, or any Minister for that matter, aware of any high ranking public official being asked to produce or producing a list of corporations doing business with the Government, with the intention that that list will be used by Liberal Party fund raisers for partisan purposes?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any requests of any high ranking official. However, the hon. gentleman is free to ask for any information he wants relating to the contracting activity of the Government at any time, and I would be pleased to provide him with the fullest information that is available.
I can tell the hon. gentleman that I have had requests from individual Members on both sides of the House for information relating to the contracting activity of the Government. I want to tell the House that our contracting activity is open to public scrutiny. It is open on an annual basis and, indeed, the Auditor General himself, having reviewed the total process, has nothing but commendation of the contracting process of my Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROLE OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister unequivocably state that no high ranking public servant, and Mr. Michael Kirby in particular, who was employed in the Prime Minister's office, did not collect a list of companies, corporations or individuals doing business with the federal Government, as he did so readily when he was a deputy minister in the Liberal Government of Nova Scotia, with the purpose of Liberal Party fund raising in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure whether the Hon. Member has asked me to give a blanket statement about a certain type of activity of which I know nothing. I do know that the raising of funds under the Canada Elections Act is available to all Parties and is published annually. The Hon. Member could see that this Government introduced that legislation-


An Hon. Member:: The PCs just want the list.

April 14, 1983
Business of the House


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -so there could be no reason to hide anything, and the Hon. Member should know that. He is at least ten years out of date.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) on Wednesday, April 13, 1983 and finds the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, could the Government House Leader give us some idea regarding business of the House for the next week or so?


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Madam Speaker. But first, before outlining the schedule of House business for next week, week and a half or so, I might inform the House that the House Leaders have had a discussion and agreed to the following. On Wednesday, April 20, 1983 the order of business shall be that established by Standing Order 18(5) for Friday. On Friday, April 22, 1983 the order of business shall be that established by Standing Order 18(5) for Wednesday, provided that the House shall adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on April 22, 1983.
If the House could give its unanimous consent to that, I would be in a position to outline the business of the House. This procedure merely transfers Private Members' Business from Wednesday next week to Friday next week.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this proposal?


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to grant unanimous consent on behalf of my Party, but I would point out that since this matter involves Private Members' Business I did contact the Private Member of the Progressive Conservative Party who will be affected by this change and he, the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton, is in agreement with the change.


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party is willing to accept that change to allow the budget debate to take place.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to determine the order of business for the next few days, that is, until the budget is brought down. The House is aware that tomorrow will be an Opposition Day and Monday as well. Furthermore, I now wish to formally designate Monday, April 18, as an Opposition Day. On Tuesday, April 19, we shall consider the report stage of Bill C-95, an Act to provide for sports pools and which, as we all know, also provides for substantial funding for the Olympic Games in Calgary. As agreed, next Wednesday will be a day that can be used for purposes other than consideration of private members' bills, and since it is the day following the Budget Speech on Tuesday evening, we intend to use it for the first day's debate on the budget.
The second day of debate on the budget will be next week Thursday and if a subamendment is proposed, the question will be put on the subamendment, as provided in the Standing Orders, at 5.45 p.m. next week Thursday. Next Friday, April 22, will be, as we have just decided, a Private Members' Day, which would otherwise have been on Wednesday.
I can inform the House that Monday, April 25, will be the third day of debate on the budget, and that Tuesday, April 26, will be an Opposition Day, which I shall be designating formally some time next week. Wednesday, April 27, will be a Private Members' day. Thursday, April 28, will be the fourth day of debate on the budget, and if an amendment is considered, the question will be put on the amendment, as provided in the Standing Orders, at 5.45 p.m. on Thursday, April 28.
Madam Speaker, that is what I can confirm for the time being, and, subject to unforeseen events and changes, this will be the Business of the House for the next few days.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I just want to be sure that Tuesday, April 26 is officially designated as an allotted day. That is the only question I have.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, Tuesday, April 26 is hereby designated as an Opposition Day. I would have preferred to do it next week. However, I want to do it today. We are still free to change our minds, but we do not intend to.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McGrath:: Madam Speaker, dealing with House business, why is it that the important Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration is the only Committee, apart from the Standing Committee on Printing and the Standing Joint Committee on the Restaurant of Parliament, that has not been convened to elect a chairman and to get on with the business of the House? This is a very important Committee. It has to deal with estimates, the question of unemployment, the impact of unemployment, the state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, manpower training, and I
April 14, 1983

could go on and on. Could the Minister tell the House why that Committee is not being struck so that it can get down to the very important business that it has facing it?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, when that question was asked yesterday of my Parliamentary Secretary-I apologize for not having been here to answer but I was in negotiations with the Hon. Member's House Leader on something else-I looked into the matter. I want to reassure the House that this Committee will be organized during the next few days, next Monday or Tuesday at the latest, so that it will be able to deal on time with the estimates and the other matters relating to labour that are very important. The Government wants that Committee to sit as early as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-680, an Act to amend the Holidays Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure in introducing this Bill, an Act to amend the Holidays Act. The purpose of this Bill is to emphasize the fact that the constitutional independence of Canada was achieved on April 17, 1982 by the proclamation of the Canada Act, 1982. This day should therefore be celebrated in the future as Canada Day. The naming of July 1, marking the beginning of the Dominion of Canada, as it was known in 1867, would be restored to its historically more appropriate name of Dominion Day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize the magnificent job being done by a Member of this House, who has been discharging her responsibilities with unusual ability and competence, and has been doing so for three years today. Although I shall be very brief, I would not
Supply
want to let this moment pass without publicly drawing attention to the magnificent job you are doing as Speaker of the House of Commons. I wish to offer the Chair our sincere congratulations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I wish to thank the Hon. Minister. As he can see, Speakers of the House are a tough lot.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,673 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,673 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN FOREIGN AID
Mr. Ogle: 1.	For each year 1971 to 1981, by Province, what was the total value of contracts awarded as Canadian foreign aid through (a) the Canadian International Development Agency (b) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) all other agencies?
2.	For the same period, what percentage of the aid was "tied aid"?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gass:
[Stage Direction]
April 14, 1983
Supply
That the House condemns the Government for its neglect of the Canadian tourist industry and calls upon the Government to recognize this industry as a major generator of employment, new economic growth, and foreign exchange and that the Government accept its responsibility to increase the visibility of Canadian tourism both at home and abroad.
John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, a year ago, but for two years, Queen Elizabeth II signed the Constitution Act. It was said that that Act was typically Canadian and that it was a compromise among all Parties. One must assume that the Government feels that it is a typical compromise with regard to tourism since no special Minister or special Department heads up tourism. Indeed it has been allocated to the Minister responsible for small business. If it has to be under the auspice of some Minister as a part time job, I am delighted it is with the Minister who represents that delightful part of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, it does not give the significance to that particular industry that it deserves.
Before lunch the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) adequately set out the jobs, the dollars, the lack of Government support and other points necessary to set the tone for those of us who follow him to expand on. Briefly let me indicate that this afternoon I will speak on behalf of my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings, but I would like to expand it slightly to include all of Hastings since the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankough-net) will not have an opportunity to speak on this matter, and as he in the past has adequately represented my feelings on gun legislation and other matters, I know I speak for him when it comes to tourism in that part of Ontario.
There is no specific thrust for this second largest Canadian industry. There was very little for the first, especially when we consider that the timber industry has no Minister as well. The things which happen in the area of tourism continue to depress me. For example, recently a marina in the Bay of Quinte asked for a small business investment grant. The man very rightly wanted to use that money to purchase used equipment rather than brand-new equipment, and he was told by another Minister that it could not be done under the regulations. Surely a Minister completely responsible for tourism would have undertaken his cause, seen the sensible approach he was taking and as an advocate looked after the matter.
There is another marina called the Baycrest Marina which is dealing with the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) is a very decent chap, he is not much concerned about marinas in the Bay of Quinte. This is not a reflection upon Mr. Moffat and his staff. As a matter of fact they were recently helpful in another harbour in Prince Edward Country, the Wellington Harbour. It is the only harbour on the west coast of Prince Edward County where the direct winds from Lake Ontario beat against it and it is necessary to have a safe harbour for sailing ships. The Small Craft Harbours Branch has approved a grant to study the opening up of this particular harbour. Just so that no one will think I am hitting at one Government only, let me make the point that the Province of Ontario has not been very cooperative in picking up the other half. We may be able to get some funds out of the Province before we are done.
The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) mentioned this morning that the extra cost of gasoline was a very important factor in deterring tourists from coming into the area. In Prince Edward-Hastings drivers who come up from the United States are still working on tanks of fuel which they purchased there. It does not matter whether we are talking litres or gallons, United States or Canadian dollars; when they fill up their tanks at stations in the Belleville area, they remember very clearly what dollars they spent in the United States and they know very well that they are spending more money in Canada.
Also this morning TIAC was mentioned. For the record that is the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, which has done a tremendous amount of work and has co-operated very well with the Hon. Member for Malpeque. Referring to the study which it put before the Government some time ago, it indicated that Governments seemed to have the philosophy that people should not really enjoy themselves, that therefore it was fair to heap extra taxes on items such as meals, liquor and hotel rooms, and that they failed to realize the provision and sale of these items provided employment for 10 per cent of our work force. That 10 per cent or the one million people about whom we talked this morning indicates the size of the tourism industry.
The spirits industry is very important in Prince Edward-Hastings. We have a large distiller there. It seems to me that there is a lack of concentration on the tourism aspect of this industry. The indexation of federal taxes on the spirits industry at present is such that just last year the returns to the federal Government started to decrease. They have finally broken the camel's back. They have added taxes to the point where the return to the federal Government is now decreasing. I hope in the forthcoming budget next week that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will take a look at this very unpopular and unfair tax. I do not think there is anyone in the House or throughout the land who does not agree that the taxing of those vices which some of us enjoy is fair game for Government. When we consider that $400 million worth of distillery business brings in $1.6 billion of taxes to both levels of Government, we have some idea of the inequity. I doubt there is any other industry of which it could be said that the taxes total four times its gross income.
Distillers are the only segment of the entire food industry which has to submit its labels to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for approval before they are put on their products. Sometimes this approval is held up for eight to 12 weeks. This may sound like a very small matter but when one is in a business which is as competitive and price conscious as the distillery business, one has some idea that a hold up of eight to 12 weeks on labels is not required by any other part of the industry and is totally unfair.
Once again, if I am to be fair to the different levels of Government, the provincial laws are not much better when it comes to bars and that sort of thing. Bars are closed on
April 14, 1983

election day, as all of us know. That brings about inequities which are very difficult to stomach. The most recent byelection which comes to mind was the one in the Spadina riding in Toronto when bars on one side of the street were open and the ones on the other side of the street were closed. Surely we must get away from this. American tourists coming into Ontario would not be aware of a by-election and they certainly would not be impressed if they had to change restaurants from one side of the street to the other just to have a drink.
The Province of Ontario has just completed a study which is of major importance to the tourism industry in Prince Edward County. West Lake Lodge is in the throes of being brought back. While it means very little to people in this House, nonetheless to people in the area it is of great importance.
One of the criticisms I have of the federal Government is that there are no tax incentives to allow, assist or encourage a private entrepreneur to get involved in the tourist industry. The Minister mentioned this morning the need for individuals to assist in tourism. I say to the Minister that there is a need for some encouragement. I suggest that encouragement come by way of tax incentives to help private entrepreneurs develop the tourist industry. There has been no growth in accommodation in the tourist industry for many years.
Prince Edward County is a part of the Prince Edward-Hastings constituency. It is not unlike the Prince Edward Island of my colleague from Malpeque. It is a blessed, beautiful area with lakes and beaches. I tell my friend from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that we have miles and miles of beaches in Prince Edward County, some of them untouched by man for weeks, months and perhaps years at a time. It is a rural area with orchards. If I had the ability to describe the scene from Lake of the Mountain, looking at the Bay of Quinte, I would indeed be eloquent, but I cannot. It is one of the most beautiful parts of all of Canada. We are prepared to share that area. It would indeed be profitable to share that area with tourists. It would not only be profitable for the local people but profitable for the federal Government. Tourism is like the goose that lays the golden egg: it is in danger of being killed.
In 1984 we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the landing of the Loyalists in that part of Canada. It will be a year of celebration, a very exciting and historic time. I know that the Province is participating. I know of some of the student programs which I approved in the past few weeks and sent on to the proper Minister. These projects will lead up to that.
The Minister about whom I said such nice words a few moments ago has now entered the House. He might reciprocate and prove me slightly wrong by taking part in this tremendous and exciting celebration of the landing of the Loyalists. It would be a time for the Government tourism office to show its sincerity and get deeply involved.


Bill Rompkey: Tourism Canada.
Supply


John Raymond Ellis: Make it Tourism Canada. We will put that on all the flags, providing that it gets involved in this anniversary.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak today on a very important industry in Canada, tourism and the tourist industry. Long gone are the days when tourists flocked in avalanche numbers to Canada from the United States and many other countries of the world. Some call them the good old days. Long gone are the days when tourists were taken as a matter of course, were taken for granted, that we were doing them a favour to let them into our country and leave their holiday money with us.
Long done are the days when our operators and tourist personnel really did not extend themselves, did not really practise good hospitality, did not really practise friendliness, in many cases provided only mediocre accommodation and served unappetizing food. They were not too concerned whether the tourist would come back another time, not interested in repeat business, as there were always plenty of other tourists to take their place.
Today, perhaps because of our economic crisis, perhaps because there are other more hospitable and more tourist-oriented countries which know the great potential of tourism and the positive effect a thriving tourist industry has on their total economy, but whatever the reason, we have not been holding up our end in attracting more tourists to our country.
Some countries actively cultivate and greatly depend on the foreign exchange earned through tourism to keep their economy viable. Over the years I have had the good fortune to visit many countries around the world. I am sure many of my colleagues have had the same opportunity. I was always impressed by the courteous, hospitable and friendly way in which I was received and attended to, whether I was shopping, in a restaurant, hotel or any other place. I was always left with the good feeling and the desire that some day I would like to revisit those countries and relive and enjoy their outstanding hospitality and friendliness.
Many of those countries, to encourage an even greater flow of tourism to their country, give special concessions to tourists in the form of vouchers to purchase gasoline at a cheaper rate, special rates on accommodations, travelling, special rates on sightseeing, etc., all kinds of gambits to cultivate and encourage this very important industry. This is what Canada has to compete with and emulate if we are to improve our tourist industry and encourage more people to visit our country.
Although international tourism has grown substantially in the past decade, Canada did not share to any great extent in this growth. For example, the number of visitors entering Canada from the United States fell some 7.5 million in 1982, mainly because of a decrease in short-term automobile traffic.
Long-term U.S. visitors numbered 10.9 million in 1982, down almost 4 per cent from the year before. In contrast to this, the number of Canadians leaving the country totalled 34.8 million in 1982. In fact, the relative growth in travel outside Canada has resulted in a tourist deficit for us ranging

April 14, 1983
Supply
between $1 and $2 billion a year since the mid-1970s. The latest forecasts indicate that Canada's travel deficit could rise over $2 billion annually by as early as 1987 if something is not done to curtail the trend.
Many of the factors affecting Canadian tourism, like the changing economic climate, energy issues and travellers' attitudes and expectations, are some of the things that we and the tourist industry have to come to grips with. Another reality is the fierce competition for tourist dollars worldwide. As more and more countries develop their tourist industries, we have to work harder, much harder, to maintain and hopefully increase our current market share.
I seem to sense that one of the difficulties that has to be overcome is to get it across that tourist operators are not the only ones who benefit by the tourist dollar, but that retail businesses, such as restaurants, shops, hotels and motels, get the highest percentage of the tourist dollar. These outlets have a direct responsibility to become more active than they are now in greater promotion locally and nationally of tourism.
Collingwood in my constituency, which is noted as a ski resort in the winter, because of the lack of snow a couple of years ago suffered a considerable set back to its economy during that season. Even this year the lack of sufficent snow had an adverse effect in the community. Every businessman complained of lack of business. One thing it did bring out most forcibly is how much the town really depended economically on the ski business in the winter. It also served to increase substantially financial support and interest for the promotion of tourism in the area.
In the area around Owen Sound and in Grey and Bruce Counties, tourism is estimated to be worth $250 million and generates some 10,000 jobs. Even with this, some people in the area, according to the Owen Sound Sun Times, are still surprised to hear that tourism is here and wonder why Government should support the industry. I believe what needs to be done is to make people more aware of the importance of tourism and how everybody in a tourist area benefits either directly or indirectly, and that they do everything possible to maintain and expand it.
It is important too that people work together, not at cross purposes with each other. Resources for promotion and advertising should be pooled, have one good organization locally and be fully supported. Duplicating efforts is both timeconsuming and generally less productive. Some people still do not understand or are not aware that tourism in Canada is big business, despite our mediocre supportive ways for the industry. In 1981 tourism generated over $28 billion of income and provided employment for over 1,130,000 Canadians. There are approximately 100,000 tourist businesses today in Canada. I believe this is a firm base on which to build and to regenerate the industry, because there is room for a great deal of improvement.
These improvements should start to take place as soon as next year. In 1984 we will be observing the 450th anniversary of the arrival of Jacques Cartier in Canada, and 1984 will also
be the bicentenary of the United Empire Loyalist settlement in Ontario. All these events and others are a spin-off for tourism and we should take account of them. As the Minister said, 1984 also marks the 50th anniversary of the co-operation of federal and provincial governments and the Canadian tourism industry in the growth and development of tourism. The first federal Government agency entirely devoted to tourism was established in 1934.
We hope that all these events and others will give tourism all across our country a much needed shot in the arm and the impetus to raise the whole tourist industry to even greater heights. However, Mr. Speaker, rhetoric alone without concrete physical support for the tourist industry will not suffice to bolster the industry.
The owners of the existing 190,000 hotel and resort rooms, the 29,000 cabins across the country, the 78,000 motel rooms, are all facing the same critical problem-the inability to generate new capital for repairs and expansion. In each Province today there are millions of dollars worth of projects that are unable to proceed because of this financial crisis. The banking community has shown little interest in this problem and has largely refused any assistance, considering the tourist industry on the whole as very risky. It is up to the federal and provincial Governments to take a more active role in this area and to come forth with the financial assistance that is so badly needed.
In Ontario alone in 1981 $600 million worth of tourist resort building and renovations were halted due to financial difficulties. This has resulted in the loss of 17,000 construction jobs and 5,270 permanent operational jobs.
Despite the size of the tourist industry in Canada, the federal Government and the Provinces have not given attention to this multibillion dollar industry equal to that given to the forestry, mining and fisheries industries. This in itself has a negative impact on investors' confidence in the marketplace. The result is that there is a desperate lack of both capital and mortgage funds for tourist resort projects in all parts of the country. High interest rates and the declining economy have not helped either.
I believe the federal Government has a duty to support the tourism industry in a more aggressive manner. New life has to be breathed into the resort construction industry, possibly in the form of tax incentive measures and other measures that would contribute to the betterment of the industry so that it can attract a larger share of the Canadian and international tourist spending.
With the better availability of equity funds the Canadian tourism industry will be better able to develop to its full potential. It has been estimated that the right mix of tax incentives could encourage about $1.5 billion of annual construction. This construction activity plus the future employment in the tourist facilities will, in turn, generate substantial tax revenues to the federal Government. It has been estimated that the cost of providing the tax incentives will be substantially less than the future revenue generated.
April 14, 1983

Without positive solutions many more Canadian resort operators, resort hotels and resort facilities will be bankrupt in 1984. To facilitate more federal involvement I would like to see a separate department of tourism set up with its own minister in charge. Tourism is and can reach an even greater potential when full focus is applied to the tourism industry, as would happen if it had its own entity in the Cabinet. I believe the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey) has voiced approval of such an undertaking. It is to be hoped that this will be approved by Cabinet as it would indeed result in a better deal for the operators, more permanent work for their employees and a better and a more attractive deal for tourists.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the importance of having good, pleasant, friendly personnel serving the needs of tourists. Nothing turns anyone off more than sloppy service, slovenly and unkempt personal presentation, poor accommodation and often poor food. All efforts should be made to rectify these problems where they apply. A happy, contented tourist generates by word of mouth more business in the tourist industry than all the brochures and pictures combined. An unsatisfied and disgruntled tourist can, again by word of mouth, devastate a tourist business, possibly to the point of no return. Brochures will help tourists get to an area but the bottom line and the most important area is service.
As one who grew up in the food business I know that the slogan "The customer is always right" is not an idle one. Everything should be done to ensure that the customers are really being looked after and do indeed receive value for the money spent. A contented customer is a satisfied customer. Repeat business is the lifeblood of any business, including the tourist industry. It is a source of revenue that an operator can count on which influences his cash flow, his buying and his planning. It is also a sign that the operator must be doing something right. On the other hand, if such ingredients are lacking or only partially present, that will indeed spell bankruptcy and doom to those affected. Perhaps that is the way it should be. Perhaps those operators who have no business being in the tourist business in the first place should take their leave of the business so they may be replaced by more experienced people, those with more know-how about tourism, more knowhow about accommodations, more know-how about the preparation of food and meals and how to treat people as important guests in their homes.
I am sure that if all this is accomplished, Mr. Speaker, tourism in Canada will take an upswing toward greater prosperity for the whole tourist industry and tourism.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some comments about Canada's growing tourist industry. The motion of the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) reads as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of the Canadian tourist industry and calls upon the Government to recognize this industry as a major generator of employment, new economic growth, and foreign exchange
Supply
and that the Government accept its responsibility to increase the visibility of Canadian tourism both at home and abroad.
The motion is very appropriate when we consider that because of the old-fashioned approach to economic development taken by the Government in the last few years, by and large tourism has been overlooked. An indication of this is the fact that there is no federal department of tourism as such; it is just something that is tacked on to the responsibility of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey). That demonstrates how the Government feels about tourism as a major growth area in the country.
I do not want to cast aspersions just at the federal Government. We see the same thing with most provincial Governments where tourism is an area of minor interest or is handled by a minor department, if indeed there is a department at all.
I know that the Minister feels very strongly about tourism and recognizes it as a potential growth area in the economy. Tourism has a lot of good things going for it, Mr. Speaker. It is a labour-intensive industry. It tends to be family oriented, community oriented and regionally oriented. It is a reflection of the true Canadian spirit. Canada calls to the world to come and visit. Yet those voices are spread throughout the country as a result of a lack of focus, lack of direction and, indeed, because there is no over-all industrial strategy for the country. It does not fall within any framework of an industrial strategy or a national recovery program. There is simply an industry, in a sense, crying out in the wilderness. When people from beyond our borders think of Canada, what images come to their minds? What do people perceive as being Canada? I believe what they perceive is a great country, a country of open spaces, a country which is relatively pollution free, a country of streams and forests and mountains with a kind of pristine environment. Most people in the world today are living in large metropolitan areas, and as any demographer will tell you, in the years ahead more and more of our global citizens will be located in densely populated urban areas which tend to be polluted with industry. Canada, as a clean, pristine, friendly environment becomes more and more an international attraction when it comes to tourists.
First and foremost of Canada's major resources are the people of Canada with their ingenuity, talents, abilities, their expertise and their zest for life. One could even say it is our most critical resource. Our resources which are often overlooked are our location as a country mid-point between Europe and Asia and our relatively clean, pleasant and attractive environment. If we were going to identify a sector which is going to attract foreign currency to the country in the years ahead, I believe tourism is that sector. Twenty years from now tourism will not be a sort of afterthought of Government activities. Tourism will in fact be one of our major thrusts in terms of economic development and job creation in Canada.
It is disturbing to look at our newspapers these days, particularly the weekend supplements, to see that the thrust now is to get Canadians out of Canada and down to the sunny

April 14, 1983
Supply
climes. There are all sorts of deals by all kinds of transportation systems to encourage Canadians to leave Canada. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should look very carefully at the reasons why people come to Canada. I believe that people come to Canada now, and have in the past, and will likely come in the future because there are some unique experiences which they can have here. Why do they go to Florida, the Caribbean or Mexico at this time of year? Because it is a unique experience. You can get rid of your winter clothes, lie in the sunshine and enjoy the heat. You can enjoy different music, different sounds, different foods. You can have an altogether different experience than you can in a Canadian city, village or rural area.
Why do people come to Canada? I do not believe we have addressed that question adequately, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to the Minister responsible for tourism that he and his colleagues look very carefully at developing tourist packages so that when tourists leave Canada they leave having had a Canadian experience.
In western Canada we have two languages with respect to our tourist season. They are not French and English; they are English and Japanese. The thousands and thousands of Japanese tourists who are now visiting Canada tend to visit western Canada because they are represented in that cultural landscape through the Japanese language and Japanese catering facilities. When they come to that part of Canada they want to have a unique experience. They want to see a cattle drive, a rodeo or a stampede. They want to see the wide open spaces they do not see in Japan, and they do experience Canada as a place quite different from the heavily populated areas of Japan.
But there is so much more that can be done in terms of taking advantage of the wonderful tourist opportunities which exist in this country. For example, in most parts of Canada there is an opportunity to hunt and fish at certain times of the year. Yet I suspect that across this country today those families or individuals who are developing fishing camps, resorts and hunting lodges are being pushed into bankruptcy.
These are very difficult times for these people. They are hanging on right now, but if there is not some significant turnaround in the economy in the weeks and months ahead, we are going to begin to lose that very critical tourist infrastructure. If these people do not receive some level of assistance and support from Government, Mr. Speaker, we will begin to see the hunting and fishing lodges, and the resorts disappear from the Canadian landscape. And if they do remain in place, they will no longer be the family-oriented enterprise; it will be the international chain which will take over. Who is it that advertises tourist opportunities? Who is it that caters to international tourists? It is too often the national and international chains which operate in Canada. While one may say, thank goodness they are at least doing it, the point is that the small operator is being left out of the action. And I am not certain those small operations can continue to limp along with the inadequate support given by provincial and federal Governments.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we look at this industry much more seriously. I believe that a great deal of attention is being paid today to Government grants of one kind or another which provide assistance to the manufacturing sector. We realize that tourism is the one sector of our economy which has eroded in terms of importance and which has never been developed adequately. Existing tax breaks and grant programs tend to be focused almost exclusively on the processing and manufacturing sector. While that focus is well intentioned and, indeed, I feel should be supported, there is still the one sector which is obviously overlooked, that is, tourism. I do not believe there is a Province in Canada which has a healthy tourist infrastructure. I listened not long ago to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) when he was talking about air fares which encourage Canadians to go southward, and he was quite appreciative of these reduced air fares so Canadians could find holiday relief in the United States or other countries. But I do not see that same initiative and encouragement for Canadians to holiday in their own country. As a matter of fact, I see quite the contrary. In the mountainous region of British Columbia where I come from, what has attracted tourists from around the world and is one of the finest tourist experiences which foreign visitors can have is to travel in a domed car from Jasper to Vancouver through the Rocky Mountains, the Coast Mountains and through the interior plateau. It is a fantastic experience. I would say it is one of the most unique experiences in the world. There was also an opportunity to travel by Via Rail, get out at a stop and hike in the Alpine Meadows. Almost inevidently, you will see all kinds of wildlife alongside the train tracks or on a very simple walk up a well developed trail system. The Government has now decided they should cut off that Via Rail arm, and that particular line of track will no longer be open to the tourist traffic. Now, Mr. Speaker, for the Government to say on one hand, "We support tourism, the tourists, the entrepreneur, the developer", and then take away his or her very lifeblood, tends to make those comments ring somewhat hollow. It tends to make people a bit suspicious and cynical about the validity of the Government's intentions, be it federal, provincial or in many cases local.
There is a great deal of work that can be done to encourage the tourism sector. It ought to be done for the reasons I have stated, but there is one other which is perhaps the most important of all in the long term. Of all industrial economic pursuits, the one which tends to favour the long-term preservation of Canada's environment is tourism. That industry has a vested interest in maintaining one of the cleanest, most attractive, unpolluted and pristine environments found anywhere in the world on this scale. You cannot say that about many other sectors of our economy which have had such a devastating impact on the state of the Canadian environment.
Considering the long-term benefits of tourism to Canada, its contribution to our balance of payments and to developing one of the few growth sectors in our economy, I encourage the Government to take to heart today this motion presented by
April 14, 1983

the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass). It should recognize that adequate emphasis has not been placed on this industry and that to generate more and new employment and new economic growth and to improve our foreign exchange picture, the Government would be miles ahead if it provided a very clear and encouraging signal to many Canadians in the upcoming budget by including in it a major component to stimulate, encourage, nurture and recognize the value of the tourism sector of our economy.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be involved for a few minutes in this debate and say a few things on the Opposition motion presented today. I think when you look at the over-all tourism program which the Government sponsored, you would have to say that, quite to the contrary of what we heard this afternoon, albeit in a positive way, the Government does in fact support in various generous ways the entire tourism industry in Canada. In fact, I was just looking through some material which shows how the Canadian Government Office of Tourism is using its advertising budget to promote tourism in Canada. This campaign is being carried out in many countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Japan and Germany. I think we are seeing the benefits of that support because we know for a fact that people from foreign lands visit Canada on a far more regular basis than we have experienced in recent years.
Speaking for my own area in south-west Ontario, particularly the City of London, just last weekend the London Free Press, the major newspaper in the area, sponsored a three-day travel Canada seminar, which it has done now for a few years. I think they should be congratulated. Here again the Government of Canada co-operated by setting up a booth on the premises and distributing much worthwhile information. I think about 10,000 people went through this three-day seminar. Not all the Provinces were represented, but Ontario and, I believe, some of the Maritime Provinces were. I do not believe any of the western Provinces were there, and I think that is a shame because here was an opportunity for at least the residents of southwestern Ontario to find out more about what accommodations and tour attractions are available across this great country of ours. I just mention this, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Hon. Members and to show that there is much going on across this country, certainly in southwestern Ontario and particularly in London, to promote tourism in Canada, all supported by the Government.
As I think has been alluded to this afternoon, we know that tourism in Canada is big business; $15 billion a year, one million jobs and something like 100,000 businesses. When Hon. Members opposite talk about the importance of this industry from the economic standpoint, they are right on target. There is no question about it and no one is denying that. Members on this side of the House equally support greater involvement by the Government and all interested parties in promoting tourism in Canada. We have a great
Supply
country with a lot to offer and there are tremendous opportunities, not only for people to visit, but I think there are tremendous investment opportunities which perhaps private investors should become more interested in.
I think it has been stated that by the year 2000 tourism will be a $500 billion a year global industry. It is estimated that more than two billion people will travel every year. To maintain an increase in Canada's share of this market, our commitment goes beyond just the promotion of Canada as a world travel destination; it extends as well, as I am sure Hon. Members realize, to public awareness campaigns, staff training and hospitality workshops, really to make every visitor a VIP. But I do not think the Government can do it alone. It is up to individual operators to take advantage of some of these programs and, as I believe one Hon. Member mentioned earlier, to keep their facilities in good working order and make sure their staff maintains a pleasant and presentable front to the visitors who might be making use of their facilities.
I think the Canadian Government has shown it is committed to the development of Canada's tourist industry, and the public and private sectors together can increase investment. We can try to encourage greater facilities to meet tomorrow's demands. Already we see across Canada new hotels and convention centres being built. There are special attractions going up, special visitors' services are transforming every area of the country and creating an even more exciting atmosphere.
For example, if I may just illustrate some of the areas in which we see new growth, there is in St. John's the new Hotel Newfoundland, which is a joint venture by Canadian National and private enterprise. Hilton International is expanding across the country with properties in Winnipeg, Hamilton, Charlottetown and Windsor. Here in the nation's capital we see three new hotels. Montreal has a new 825-room Sheraton centre. New hotels are planned for Saskatoon, Regina, and in Banff National Park, Alberta, two hotels and a 200-bed hostel. Many major hotel chains are undergoing renovation of existing properties. For example, Delta's Chelsea Inn in Toronto is now undergoing a 600-room expansion. The King Edward Hotel, long a well-known landmark in Toronto, has just gone through a magnificent restoration in the finest European tradition. In all, over $500 million in renovation, expansion and development of new hotels has been created across the country. New restaurants are springing up, catering to every taste and budget, not only in the first-class hotels but on an individual basis as well.
Canada certainly has a reputation for fine foods. Our chefs have proven that by winning top awards at many international culinary competitions. Coupled with that, we cannot overlook the fact that our cities are safe. This is one of the main areas of attraction. When people come to our country, especially from the United States, they marvel at the fact that they can walk on our streets feeling that they are very safe and will not be set upon or attacked by anyone. That has helped our tourist industry to a great deal. We must continue to preserve that type of atmosphere. I think it will attract a larger share of the lucrative market that is out there.

April 14, 1983
Supply
As I mentioned, convention facilities are in the process of being built in something like 12 of Canada's major cities, with a price tag of over $450 million. In Ottawa we know that the Rideau Centre will change the face of the downtown core. The project includes a hotel, theatres and shops to complement the new convention facilities.
Canada, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is on the threshold of change, not only in our cities, but in the wilderness areas as well. Our parks are among the most magnificent in the world. They are being developed year-round in various recreational programs. We know that we really have a wonderful land of recreational facilities in our natural resources of lakes, woods and forests of which many people from all over the world avail themselves. Wilderness retreats and resorts are expanding to meet the growing demands for the outdoors, both winter and summer. Time-sharing is becoming an increasingly popular leisure investment alternative, so that now vacationers can purchase time accommodation and lifestyle of their choice from a variety of prestige resorts across the country.
Let us go out to the West Coast for a moment. In British Columbia, Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains, two hours north of Vancouver, are being transformed into one of the largest resorts in North America, able to handle nearly 13,000 skiers a day. Combined with first-class convention facilities, accommodation and food outlets, Whistler will be a world-class resort.
More than $550 million is being spent on Panorama in B.C.'s Purcell Mountains and at Big White Ski Village in Kelowna. In Quebec, and here in Ontario, $120 million is budgeted to upgrade and expand the facilities of Mont Trem-blant, Mont Ste. Marie and Blue Mountain. These are just some of the resorts already under development. I am sure that tomorrow we will see others created from coast to coast.
Then we have the multiple special attractions. At a cost of $100 million, private industry has just completed Canada's Wonderland just north of Toronto. In Niagara Falls, Ontario, Marineland is undergoing a $75 million expansion which will include a monorail and a midway. With an investment of $415 million, Calgary is now preparing for the 1988 Winter Olympics, while Edmonton will host the World University Games this year.
I suggest that the Canadian tourism industry is also keeping pace with the latest development in technology. Telidon, which has been developed by the federal Department of Communications, will give consumers access to travel information 24 hours a day. Travel Canada, a computerized booking service between world tour operators and Canadian tourist facilities, will handle bookings and all negotiations at no cost. This makes Canada accessible as well as shows a commitment on the part
not only of the private investors, private operators, but certainly of the Provinces and of the federal Government as well.
More than $40 million is being spent to upgrade eight international airports in our country, and over $120 million on 11 national airports. Air Canada and CP Air are spending more than $800 million on Boeing 767s, the newest generation of fuel-efficient jet aircraft. VIA Rail is upgrading equipment and facilities to the tune of $100 million. The new ferry between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will double the carrying capacity next summer.
Major developments are enhancing Canadian tourism from coast to coast and, I think we would have to agree, offering not only Canadian citizens, but also those from countries around the world, a multitude of great adventure vacation opportunities.
As I am sure Hon. Members opposite have suggested today, I think that much more can certainly be done and should be done. The Government of Canada, through support programs, in trying to help private investors through advertising, through promotion, through public awareness campaigns, and also providing free information facilities to tourist operators to let them know of Government programs of assistance which are available to them in various areas across the country, has shown a definite commitment to support and promote the Canadian tourist industry.


Mr. Aithouse:: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) spoke of the upgrading which is going on with VIA Rail, would he tell us just what sort of upgrading, if any, is occurring on the route through Jasper, which just recently, about a year and a half ago, lost its rail service and therefore cut off many Japanese and other tourists from across North America from that market? Has he any information as to what has happened with the VIA Rail service there? Is that one of the areas which will be upgraded, and can rail service of Jasper be expected to return to its old state or to be upgraded?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, concerning the matter as to whether that service will be restored, it is perhaps a question which must be addressed to the Minister of Transport, (Mr. Pepin). However, when I referred to the upgrading of VIA Rail facilities, I was referring to the entire country, not only to this one particular area. I think we realize that VIA Rail, certainly in many parts of the country, is upgrading its service by way of new rolling stock, new equipment. We know of the new passenger trains which are running now in many parts of the country. This is certainly creating added facilities and will mean a greater attraction for tourists travelling across the country.
I have no information as to whether or not that particular service will be restored. I think that is something for the Department of Transport to consider.
April 14, 1983



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand)-Official Languages-Request that Minister be appointed to enforce legislation; the Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish)- Income Tax-Treatment of income derived through service tips-Request for ministerial action; the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Shipbuilding- Request for acceleration of vessel replacement orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gass:
That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of the Canadian tourist industry and calls upon the Government to recognize this industry as a major generator of employment, new economic growth, and foreign exchange, and that the Government accept its responsibility to increase the visibility of Canadian tourism, both at home and abroad.
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to be able to take part in this debate on the motion put forth by the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) which, amongst other things, calls upon the Government to recognize the tourist industry as a major generator of employment, new economic growth, and foreign exchange and that the Government accept its responsibility to increase the visibility of Canadian tourism both at home and abroad.
There is little doubt in the minds of most people who are involved in the tourist industry, which is the second largest industry in this nation, that the Government could indeed be spending much more time planning and preparing for the implementation of a reasonable and respectable tourism industry policy across the country.
The Hon. Member for Malpeque has very ably pointed out, as have other speakers in the House today, many areas where the Government might produce a better climate under which we would see a greater number of tourist dollars coming into the country both from within and from abroad. I certainly encourage the Government to heed what has been said this afternoon and I hope that we will see some positive results from the motion that was introduced by the Hon. Member for Malpeque.
Supply
I was encouraged to hear the Minister responsible for tourism suggest to the House earlier today that he would open his Department's doors and have his officials contact the various Party caucuses in the House. He is prepared to listen to suggestions and take the opportunity to have discussions with various Members who have a distinct interest in tourism either because of the location of their constituencies or the vital fact that tourism is indeed the second most important industry in our nation.


Bill Rompkey: The first.


Robert Alfred Corbett: The Hon. Member states that it is the first. I can only take that as an indication that at the first opportunity he has to meet with his caucus colleagues he will advocate the Government's establishment of Tourism Canada as was mentioned earlier. Unless there is an election, hopefully we will see him in charge of the most deserving Department to be.
I intend to spend the short time that is available to me this afternoon discussing tourism in Canada's picture Province, the Province of New Brunswick. Indeed, tourism is the third largest industry in New Brunswick and it is extremely vital. It is probably a little known fact even to New Brunswickers that tourism is that important to the economy of that Province. In 1982 we saw some S350 million generated in revenue directly from the tourist industry. It is a major employer because in 1982 it created some 12,600 man-years directly and approximately 13,500 man-years in indirect employment. That is certainly not an insignificant amount. Since these people were drawing salaries and paying income tax, and the establishments that they were working for were receiving revenues from outside the Province and the country in many instances, a fair amount of money has been realized by the federal Government as well.
I want to refer to some of the remarks that were made by the former speaker, the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt), particularly those which have already been addressed by my hon. friend from the NDP, that is, with respect to his comment that VIA Rail has been upgrading facilities. It is interesting to note that the majority of tourists, some 91 per cent, who have been travelling to the Province of New Brunswick during the past year, have come by automobile. Of course they must purchase gas in order to travel, and they are faced, as we all are, with the unrealistic cost of gasoline in this nation, which is a direct result of an unrealistic taxation policy that was certainly implemented by a Government which gave no intention of doing so when it was asking Canadians to place their confidence in it during the last election.
Be that as it may, the point I wanted to make is that the Hon. Member for London West made reference to VIA Rail's upgrading of facilities. I wonder if he is aware that as far as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and parts of Quebec are concerned, the Government's apparent view of upgrading a railway facility is to remove it. For example, the Atlantic

April 14, 1983
Supply
Limited has been removed. It was the most popular run in Atlantic Canada and had one of the highest user rates in the entire country. Indeed, it served the needs of the people of southern New Brunswick as no other public mode of transportation has or will in the foreseeable future, until such time as that train is restored to its proper place which I am confident will happen after the election of the Progressive Conservative Government, which I am looking forward to in the near future.
I would suggest that the trains that have been substituted locally for the Atlantic Limited are totally inadequate. Certainly no tourist or local resident can now be encouraged to travel through the southern part of New Brunswick, or indeed to and from the northern section of the Province, for recreational purposes because not only is the timing poor, the train often runs at capacity and, on other occasions, beyond standing room only. That is an indication of the importance of that rail service.
I would also be extremely remiss if I did not draw to the attention of the House the fact that 1983 will be the two hundredth anniversary of the Loyalist landing in New Brunswick at the port City of Saint John. It will be a marvellous occasion and celebration. We certainly look forward to an active participation by our fellow Canadians and hopefully from a great many visitors from the United States and abroad.
Many events will take place in the port City of Saint John. For instance, there will be a re-enactment of the Loyalist landing, various youth rallies, parades and blessings of the fleet. June 17 will be a very special and happy occasion at which time the Prince and Princess of Wales will be visiting the port City. I am pleased to say that during that time they will also be visiting my constituency of Fundy-Royal.
Another celebration will occur in 1984 in New Brunswick. It is the bicentennial anniversary. Many communities throughout the Province will be conducting their own bicentennial projects, and it should prove to be of a great deal of interest. Hopefully that will draw many tourists as well.
The year 1985 will be the two hundredth anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Saint John. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that Saint John is Canada's oldest incorporated city, but for the benefit of the rest of those sitting in the House, I pass that information along. I know that you will want to convey to the residents of Saint John every good wish on their two hundredth anniversary in 1985. Of course, during that time we will be having the Summer Games in Saint John which will be a very exciting time for us.
I would like to speak briefly of the facilities available to tourists in southern New Brunswick. The St. John River system is one of the most beautiful river systems in the world, as well as its many tributaries, including the Belle Isle, the Kennebecasis, the Washadamock, the Grand Lake, the Jemseg and the Salmon River, and many other rivers which flow into the St. John River or through its system. It is rightfully known throughout the world as the Rhine of North America. We have over 460 miles of navigable water in the St. John River
system. I invite anyone who is a boating enthusiast to take advantage of that river system.
We have a series of wharves. I know that wharves do not fall under the purview of the Minister. Wharves comes under the purview of the Small Craft Harbours Directorate in the Department of Fisheries. I am delighted to see the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry here in the House this afternoon. Perhaps I can depend upon her to put in a good word with her caucus colleagues for some upgrading of the wharf system. I have been after the federal Government now for the last several years to spend some money on the wharves so that boaters, particularly from the United States, who come up in large fleets from time to time are able to dock. A great number came last year. The cruising club of America was in the St. John River system. Their fleet was a beautiful sight to behold. Members of the club spent some time on the river. Unfortunately the wharves, about which I have been talking to the Department of Fisheries for some time, were not in the best condition. The system did receive some money last year, for which I was grateful. I know the visitors and boaters to our area were grateful to have some small repairs done, but a great deal more attention could be paid to this situation.
I want to talk now about my own constituency and in particular, about Fundy National Park. A year ago last June I brought to the Government's attention, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the fact that Fundy National Park exists. It is located in New Brunswick. I see the Minister responsible for parks is here in the House. I welcome him to this debate in the House of Commons this afternoon. I bring to his attention now that Fundy National Park does exist in New Brunswick, in the constituency of Fundy-Royal. This fact had gone unnoticed for a number of years by the federal Government. An advertisement in 1978 placed in the Reader's Digest stated that Fundy National Park was located in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia is our sister Province across the Bay of Fundy. I am sure that all Nova Scotians would be delighted to have Fundy National Park in their Province. But it is located in New Brunswick. I want to clarify that point.
It was brought to my attention a year ago last June that the Government had finally resolved the difficulties with Fundy National Park's location. At that time the Government inserted another advertisement in the Reader's Digest concerning our national parks, and Fundy National Park was deleted altogether. Despite the fact that Fundy National Park was first misplaced by this Government in Nova Scotia and subsequently deleted altogether from Government advertisements, the park remains in New Brunswick. I understand the Government will open the gates this summer, and I hope the Government will be a little more positive in the future about Fundy National Park.
I have a few suggestions for the federal Government which deal with Fundy National Park. I hope the Government will take Fundy National Park into consideration in its upcoming budget. I hope the Minister responsible for Tourism will take
April 14, 1983

this subject under his wing and perhaps encourage his counterparts to allocate some more funding to encourage tourists to come to Canada, to New Brunswick, Fundy Royal and to Fundy National Park. I believe, and many other people believe, that this park is one of the most beautiful in Canada. Perhaps even the Minister would like to visit my constituency. I would be delighted to take them on a tour of the area.
Nevertheless, there are a good many things that bother us in New Brunswick about the Government's attitude toward Fundy National Park, not the least of which is an advertising program. Not very much has been done in the line of advertising over the past number of years for Fundy National Park. We would like to see the federal Government put some emphasis on the unique aspects of Fundy National Park. The highest tides in the world occur in the Bay of Fundy. Emphasis also should be placed on the flora and fauna of the area. The Government should be putting out brochures explaining the park and all of the things that are available and what a beautiful place it is.
I notice with some interest the budget of Fundy National Park seems to be falling behind in comparison to the moneys being allotted to Kouchibouguac Park which is in the constituency of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc), the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I would like the Government to address the inequity of an entrance fee. There is a charge for Fundy National Park but not for Kouchibouguac Park.
We would like the facilities in Fundy National Park to be upgraded. We would like to see facilities for trailers increased. We believe the number of senior citizens travelling with trailers now is increasing. We should be providing more facilities in addition to those already in existence in the park. I might add that the trailer sites are always filled and there would be no problem filling more. We would like to see the Government improve and upgrade the swimming pool facility. There are not many parks in Canada that have a swimming pool. Fundy National Park does. This swimming pool draws its water from the Bay of Fundy. That is a unique situation. The water is heated, but because of changeable weather conditions it has limited usage. If the pool were enclosed this would be a definite asset.
We have a beautiful golf course which was originally intended to be an 18-hole golf course. It was built in 1948 and has nine holes. Although the original intention was for an 18-hole golf course, there has been no move since then to extend it from 9 holes to 18 holes.
There was a craft school in Fundy National Park. We would like to see that revitalized. It was supported and financed by the provincial Government. We would like to see some federal participation in that area.
Children's programs are something that should be addressed. I have some suggestions for some new facilities which might include such things as a maple sugar operation, a sawmill, a museum, and an original homestead modelled on one of the old homes there at the time of the takeover. A fishway should be built at Pointe Wolfe to improve salmon fishing facilities.
Supply
There are many things we can do in the area of physical activities which promote health. I am thinking of trails for jogging, cross-country skiing and other activities which come to mind for Fundy National Park.
In closing I should like to say that the Province of New Brunswick should be commended for the work it has done in the past as far as promotion of salmon fishing, which is second to none anywhere in sports fishery, is concerned, and for the co-operation it has extended to the federal Department of Fisheries. It seems it has not been repaid in kind and now we are faced with some very ridiculous salmon fishing regulations which are not at all in the best interests of the sports salmon fishery in New Brunswick. I would like to see some attention paid to that industry as it is very important and very vital.
We have a great opportunity to exploit an area indigenous to New Brunswick in the Atlantic salmon sports fishery. We have some of the greatest salmon rivers in the world in the Province of New Brunswick. Certainly we would be unwise to continue on this course with reference to the sports salmon fishery in New Brunswick. I will have more to say about that at another time in another debate.
I support the motion of the Hon. Member for Malpeque. I look forward to a renewed and vigorous revitalization of the tourist industry, the tourist platform and the tourist Department by the federal Government under the auspices of an able and capable Minister who will give it every consideration. We look forward to grand and wonderful things in the department of the industry through the efforts of our tourism critic and his co-operation with the Minister who is now responsible for tourism in Canada and who should have a sole Ministry to administer under that portfolio.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, ours is a large country. It offers travellers, both Canadians and foreign, the widest choices in meeting their interests. Our cities have museums, art galleries, theatres and restaurants which are of world class. They offer those interested opportunities to watch the best in athletic competition, whether it be baseball, football or hockey, just to mention a few. Away from our cities we have scenery, mountains, rivers, lakes, forests, wilderness areas and wildlife the equal of any country or continent in the world.
People from all parts of the world should be flocking to Canada. Canadians should be visiting areas in Canada away from their homes. If we commissioned a study, I am sure we would find that very few people from Atlantic Canada have visited the Pacific Coast, that very few people from Winnipeg have been to Halifax or Saint John, and even fewer have been to Newfoundland. Most Canadians live in a belt 100 miles north of the American border. When they travel, they do not visit other parts of Canada. They go to Florida, Hawaii, Mexico, England, France and the Scandinavian countries. We ought to ask ourselves why they are doing this.

April 14, 1983
Supply
Canadians, especially those who do not live in British Columbia, know that the main reason for getting away from Canada is our winters. Canadians like to take winter holidays and get away to warmer climates, whether it be in the southern United States or in places like Hawaii. There is another important reason. It is the same reason that many non-Canadians do not come to Canada. It is because in Canada we have not worked out the kind of arrangements or package deals which are available in other countries. If Canadians want to take their holidays in Florida, Hawaii, England, France or any other country, they can usually work out a package deal which includes not only air fare but hotel accommodations.
Recently I had my office contact a travel agency here in Ottawa. We were told that we could obtain a package tour to fly from Montreal to Miami, Florida, and stay there for a week at a price of between $400 and $500 per person. This included the air face and hotel accommodation. Or we could take the same trip and stay for two weeks at a price of between $600 and $800 per person. We have nothing in Canada to match that.
In recent years our airlines finally realized that if they wanted to tap the big market, the people who were travelling but not in Canada, they would have to offer cheaper air fares. If one flies from Ottawa to Vancouver or from Halifax to Toronto, it is still necessary, even if one obtains cheap air fare, to pay $50 to $100 per day for a decent hotel. If we compare that with the deals one could make to travel to Florida, Hawaii or London, England, we see why Canadians and non-Canadians are not travelling in Canada and taking advantage of the facilities and the scenery available here. It is for this reason that many people flock to other countries.
Many countries in the world, both the industrialized and less developed ones, have recognized the benefits derived from promoting the tourist industry. The industry provides employment for large numbers of people. These jobs can and should be of a permanent nature. Unlike manufacturing industries which have gone into decline and the high technology industries we hope to encourage, both of which are highly capitalintensive, the tourist industry is labour-intensive. It should employ even more people. It will not become obsolete if it is modernized. It should be non-polluting. It should be promoted in ways it has not been promoted up to now.
Of course, the federal and provincial Governments have spent money on advertising to tell Canadians and other people about Canada's great scenery and events which take place such as concerts, ballets, folk festivals and multicultural events in various parts of Canada. Until the federal and provincial Governments get together with the transportation industry, with the hotel and motel groups and with restaurant groups in ways they have not already done, we will not succeed in convincing travellers, whether they be Canadians or foreigners, that they are as welcome in Canada and can obtain the kind of enjoyment when they travel here as they do in other countries.
To a large extent tourist industry facilities are operated by Canadians in small individually-owned operations. They have been very seriously and adversely affected by the recession. Business is down because people do not have money. When there are 1.5 million people unemployed, they will not travel to
the same extent as they did in other years, nor do they have money even if they do travel to spend like they used to. Business is down and the high interest rates to which the tourist industry and other industries have been subjected in recent years have driven many people in that industry, particularly small independent operators, whether they own a motel, hotel, restaurant, fishing facility or campsite, into bankruptcy or close to bankruptcy. They need to upgrade their facilities. They need money to continue to operate until the economy improves. What do they find? They find that the banks, having overextended themselves in loans to some of Canada's largest corporations, now have over $4 billion in noncurrent loans. That means that companies are not even paying the interest, let alone the principal which they borrowed from the bank. They find that the banks, having been burned by their mistaken loans to many of Canada's largest corporations, have been getting more and more tough with the small businessmen. Most operators in the tourist industry can be included in that.
Over 80,000 Canadian small businesses closed their doors in 1982, according to the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen. Among them were tourist operators. While this tragedy continues, the Canadian dollar is a bargain to foreign tourists, yet the Government is reluctant to advertise the tourist virtues of this great country in other but the most perfunctory way.
This same Government decries the fact that the national economy has been dragged into recession by the forces of the international market. We know that, along with everybody else, the small business sector has suffered. A large percentage of the 700,000 to 800,000 jobs that have been lost to the economy through lay-offs and shutdowns have been in the small business area. The coming summer period should provide an excellent opportunity for the tourist industry to attempt to recoup some of the jobs, but it needs a real program of support for its facilities. International tourism could be attracted to this country if the Government could work with the industry to provide support.
Earlier this week the Minister pointed with pride to the fact that 62 per cent of the applicants for the small business investment grants were farmers and fishermen. It is good to hear that, but it is strange that the same Minister who is responsible for tourism does not realize that his program missed the mark. These are the figures for small business loans. If the majority of the loans have been made to farmers and fishermen, it is obvious there has been very little assistance to the tourist industry.
If the small business sector in 1982-83 provided 700,000 to
800,000	fewer jobs than in 1981, it is time that this Minister rethought his strategy and started to provide Canadian small business with some access to working capital to improve and refurbish these facilities. He should begin today by participating with provincial Governments, municipal Governments, the
April 14, 1983

tourist industry and the provincial industry in rethinking policies to develop ways of pursuading Canadians and others to travel in Canada rather then outside Canada as has been done so frequently in the past.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do one of the outstanding tourist areas of Canada, I commend the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) on the motion he has presented to the House today. The motion reads:
That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of the Canadian tourist industry and calls upon the Government to recognize this industry as a major generator of employment, new economic growth, and foreign exchange and that the Government accept its responsibility to increase the visibility of Canadian tourism both at home and abroad.
I want to deal with some of the major thoughts in connection with tourism from the federal angle. Today most provincial Governments spend large sums of money on tourism. They have Tourist Departments. Along with the municipalities, they are doing the job, but they receive very little assistance or encouragement from the Canadian Government.
Tourism is not recognized by the federal Government as an industry, but more or less as a promotion. It employs a large number of people and should be recognized as an industry. Until it is, it will not get its proper share of attention. It is a small business.
All of the Bills dealing with small business should be applicable to our campgrounds, motels and to those who provide any tourism service which makes the visit of people to this country more enjoyable. Until that is done, those trying to build up the tourism industry in this country will not get their full share. The Bill passed the other day in connection with the 4 per cent interest assistance for loans could be of tremendous advantage to the owner of some of our campgrounds who are having to pay high rates of interest. Even though they operate and are taxed as a business, they are not recognized as an industry by the federal Government. I would like the Minister to ensure that tourism does become an industry in this country.
There are no tax incentives for the tourist industry, none at all. Those who help bring thousands of visitors to this country, resulting in the spending of millions of dollars, should receive some tax incentives the same as those who drill for oil and dig for coal, as well as the many other activities in this country which produce wealth.
Tourism produces wealth for this country and, for the most part, takes nothing away other than souvenirs on which millions of dollars are spent. This adds to our foreign exchange. Visitors look at our beautiful mountains, hills, badlands, dinosaurs and whatever else a Province has to offer, and they enjoy it. All they take away is a beautiful memory of a beautiful country. However, no tax incentives are provided for this industry. There should be tax incentives for businesses catering to the tourist industry as with any other business in this country.
How many times do we hear talk about the "Dirty Spoon Cafe"? If there are such places, it is because there are no incentives or encouragements for them.
Supply
There is an association in western Canada called the Yel-lowhead Route Association. The route runs from Winnipeg to Brandon, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Lloydminister, Edmonton on to Vancouver or Prince Rupert, B.C., depending on which route you take. That organization has advanced the necessity for good tourist facilities. It has encouraged people to open good restaurants, serve good meals and maintain the beauty around campgrounds. All this is paying off. Many people now travel the Yellowhead route to Vancouver. This route has the lowest grade through the Rockies and the lowest snow fall. Tourist operators need tax incentives as an encouragement, particularly when they are contributing to the finances of the nation by attracting people back to this country.
Every time a tourist is disgruntled or frustrated and goes home angry, it is not likely he will return. Many of his friends will decide not to come either. Tourists must be kept happy if the industry is to grow, so more consideration must be given to public relations.
There are many restrictions on development, Mr. Speaker. In this country it is difficult to invest in a business. There are municipal inspections, environmental inspections, provincial inspections of utilities, planning board inspections, sewage disposal inspections-just one inspection after another. People become so frustrated that instead of investing in the industry they buy a Canada Savings Bond or put their money in the bank in order to avoid the hassle. Sometimes it is almost impossible to invest money because of Government restrictions. Some people claim that free enterprise does not work, but it is the shackles placed around it by the Government that make things difficult. It is very important to have proper facilities if people are to be encouraged to come to Canada, but at the present time too much red tape is involved.
I am glad that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is in the House as I want to deal with a case that he knows very well involving the Fleishman Cup. In 1981 110 young people from eastern and western Canada attended a ski meet in eastern Canada and planned one for western Canada in 1982. Every room was booked for the event at beautiful Lake Louise. Suddenly the Park's superintendent announced that it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Minister because it was a national event. But it was not a national event, Mr. Speaker. There was no hassle when it was held in eastern Canada. Just two weeks before the event, when all the arrangements were made and thousands of dollars had been spent, this is what happened. The event was not going to be attended by thousands of people but just by the parents of the skiers. These young people were likely to become Olympic competitors at some time. The competition is for the Fleishman Cup, previously called the Pontiac Cup, and it is held for amateur Canadian athletes between the ages of 15 and 20.
I telephoned the Minister's office and the secretary said that the event would not be accepted. I do not know how she knew that and I asked her to let the Minister decide. She said that it would not be accepted, that is all. I asked her to let it go to the

April 14, 1983
Supply
Minister at least. After several letters and two or three telephone conversations, the Minister said that in spite of all the inconvenience to people from eastern Canada, it could not be held. I asked him if it would do any harm to the snow, and he said, "It may". Mr. Speaker, it would not do any damage to the environment. The ski hills were there and the lifts were there. It was just a matter of red tape and letting some underling run the Department instead of the Minister.
This was not a national event but we could not persuade the Minister to change his mind, so 50 or 60 young people from eastern Canada will probably never go to Lake Louise again. They were so fed up after having made reservations and having a beautiful hill to ski on and then being told they could not go. It is not as if the resort was too busy either.
When I was teaching school there was a lad in grade four who was subnormal. Apparently there was a sheet of ice on his father's land and the other youngsters in the school yard were talking about going over there. He told them to go to another farm saying, "I don't want you to wear out our ice". I explained to him that you do not wear out ice, you enjoy it. Eventually the hockey game was held on that ice. That was the attitude of the Department of the Environment in this instance. It was as if these young people were going to wear out the snow.
We import chairs for ski lifts, Mr. Speaker, because they are not manufactured in Canada, but the importers do not receive a tax exemption. These ski lifts bring people to Canada and that helps our exchange and makes our community more buoyant, but no assistance is given for customs duties. There is assistance for many things but not for chairs for lifts. People are frustrated and discouraged. The red tape is worse in the national parks than anywhere else in Canada.
Every Province has its own unique beauty and attraction. I have been in all Provinces and the Territories and there is something for everyone in them all. I have enjoyed trips to the Arctic, the Maritimes, Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. I have enjoyed the wheat lands of Saskatchewan even though I live in a wheat land area. I have enjoyed the beautiful scenery of the oceans and mountains of British Columbia. When people come to Alberta, they have a chance to see the majestic Canadian Rockies which are more beautiful than anything on the continent. I go there often because they are in my constituency, and I never fail to be inspired by the majesty of those mountains and have a greater appreciation of the omnipotent God who created them.
A man and his wife in the Banff area own a cottage which they purchased from the CPR in the red earth district beside Shadow Lake. It is a beautiful spot and I hope the Minister will go there if he has a chance. This family arranged for a bus to take handicapped people who could not walk very well to a point two miles from Shadow Lake so that they could then walk to the lake. Parks Canada wanted to close the area off. When I asked why, I was told they thought we did not need it. I wrote to the then Minister responsible for Parks, Mr. John Fraser. He was from Vancouver and he was good enough to come out and look at it. He said there was no reason to close it. At the meeting Hon. John Fraser told the park superintendent
that the road shall not be closed. It was not closed and it has not been closed since. It provides a wonderful holiday for people who cannot walk very well. It would not have bothered me as an individual if they had closed it. I walked the whole nine miles and enjoyed every step of the way. All around is one of the most beautiful scenes you could ever see, and the handicapped can enjoy it because a man is providing a chance to get there at reasonable cost. That is what we need to do with our tours. Let the handicapped come also. They do not take the mountains or the lakes away with them, but they do take away a tremendous memory and they want to come back again and again. I talked to a man in Calgary who was crippled and he told me he had gone to Shadow Lake every year for 15 years. He said, "Are you telling me I can't go anymore? That is cruelty." It was cruelty and, besides, we were killing an industry. However, it was not done, because that Minister used common sense in this matter and the Shadow Lake Route will remain open.
I am not going to say that the Province of Alberta is more beautiful than any other Province. I believe every Province has its own beauties. But I would like to outline some of the things we have in Alberta that you do not find elsewhere. My own home town, Drumheller, is nestled in the hills along the canyon of the Red Deer, as we call it, and the Red Deer River. People drive from Saskatchewan on Number 9 Highway through Drumheller, and almost every time I go by the Horseshoe Canyon I see 5 to 20 cars and trucks with Saskatchewan licence plates. They stop there to look at those badlands, that mass of little hills. They stop and the young people go up and down the hills and they enjoy it. And for those who have time to stay, there is a dinosaur trail. This is the place where the dinosaurs used to roam, and you can find their bones in the hills. As a boy I remember the Chamber of Commerce uncovering the bones of one of those huge monsters which weighed tons but had only a very small brain. When the vegetation changed through time they could not adjust their eating habits and so they died, and they are buried in the hills. The Chamber of Commerce uncovered the remains of one of these creatures, varnished the bones and left it in the hills. Tourists could see a dinosaur skeleton in the state in which it died. The trouble was, however, that everyone who came along wanted a souvenir, so they would take one of the bones, and it was not too long before our beautiful dinosaur had disappeared. Since that time, protection has been provided, and they are still there.
There is also the paleontology museum which is being established in that area by the provincial Government. It is going to bring scientists from all parts of the world into that beautiful Drumheller valley, the Canyon of the Red Deer. We have Lake Louise, one of the seven wonders of the world. We have Banff with all of its attractions. We have the foothills west of Longview and Kananaskis Park. All of these places draw people, and we should be encouraging people to build campgrounds, restaurants, motels. We should give them some
April 14, 1983

tax incentives and some help because they can bring people back and back again, and all they will take away is memories. They will eat our food, which will help the farming industry. They will buy our goods which helps the people who produce souvenirs. This is a tremendous opportunity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) knows, tourism is important to me and to the people I represent in the constituency of South West Nova, as it is probably important to his own constituency. It has been interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear how beautiful Canada is from sea to sea. There are many Canadians who have not had the opportunity to speak about the beautiful places there are to see here in Canada.
I welcome the topic of this Opposition day because I think for once we should sit down and think about the importance of tourism in Canada. I have learned, from listening to Hon. Members who have spoken here in the House, that they all have their own special area they want to talk about. That is realistic. It is also very isolating when it comes to the whole total picture of the role of Canada and the federal Government in tourism. It is interesting to note, when one looks at the figures, that more and more Canadians are travelling across Canada, whether it be expensively or cheaply. They are taking advantage of this great country called Canada and what it has to offer, not only to Canadians but to Canada's many visitors. It is perhaps quite natural for Canadians to take these areas for granted. However, once Canadians began to realize the importance of tourism to Canada, both for employment and as a source of revenue, they began to question the roles of Government in this industry, federal, provincial and municipal governments which benefit from the tourist industry. The Minister mentioned this morning that there were 40 federal Departments and agencies which have programs which support and advance the Canadian tourism industry, from Parks Canada to Fisheries and Oceans, to the youth exchange programs of the Secretary of State. Perhaps I might be a little parochial, since I am speaking as the Member for South West Nova, and say there is one agency which has taken a very active part in promoting tourism in the southern end of Nova Scotia, and that is the Crown Corporation CN Marine. CN Marine operates two facilities in the area. I read with pleasure a recent press release which reads as follows:
Cruise ship luxury and amenities will greet tourists travelling between Maine and Nova Scotia this spring when CN Marine introduces a new MV Bluenose to year-round service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor.
The 1,100-passenger ship which will provide the improved level of service is the newest addition to CN Marine's fleet, MV Jutlandica. She will be completely refitted for her new role and undergo a name change to maintain the tradition of "Bluenose" service.
I would add here, between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor, Maine. It goes on to say:
The Bar Harbor gateway to Nova Scotia was established 26 years ago by the original Bluenose auto ferry. During that time almost 2.5 million passengers have enjoyed the crossing of the Bay of Fundy and come to regard it as an enjoyable part of their vacation.
Supply
Upgrading this service will bring many more tourists to Nova Scotia. We have in the southern end of the Province two ports of entry for tourists, the ferry services and Air Canada. This is federal Government involvement. We have Parks Canada, the Kejimkujik Lodge. We have historic sites, Fort Anne and Fort Royal. These are all tourist attractions maintained by, as the Minister said, one of 40 federal Departments and agencies.
I was pleased as well to hear the Minister say he was seeking incremental funds for federal marketing of tourism, as well as pressing forward with regional development initiatives for tourism. We also know there have been regional development tourism packages between the federal Government and many Provinces, in particular Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, which have been very effective in creating interest in advancing tourism in Canada.
We have heard today, Mr. Speaker, that there should be federal tax incentives. I would like to point out to all Members of the House that the Provinces and municipalities also receive revenue. Perhaps they should be asked to provide tax incentives. What type of tax incentives are the Opposition Members talking about? Perhaps they should go back and talk to the Provinces. I would think that tourism is a much more local matter, and tax incentives might be looked at from the provincial level. They might look at liquor and food taxes, for example.
I have already mentioned that tourism is an essential element of economic activity in South West Nova. Each year thousands of American and Canadians enter Nova Scotia through the Ports of Yarmouth or Digby, or via Air Canada which has a direct service from Boston to Yarmouth. Perhaps Nova Scotia is lucky in that we have had a long-time connection with the eastern United States seaboard. We have welcomed visitors and tried to keep them here. Tourism is an important economic activity in Nova Scotia. Expenditures in 1981 by a total of almost 4.5 million resident and non-resident visitors to and within the Province totalled approximately $460 million. Where did the visitors come from? On an international basis we saw 40,861 visitors from overseas, and 325,016 from the United States, for a total of 365,877 visitors to Nova Scotia from outside the country. How much money did they leave behind? Forty-nine million dollars. On the other hand, non-resident Canadian visitors numbered 723,000, with provincial resident visitors totalling 3,295,000, for a total of
4,018,000	visitors. They left a total of $410 million in the Province. The total of international and Canadian visitors comes to 4,383,877, with a total expenditure of $459 million in the Province.
We must have been doing something right in the Province because I know for a fact that although tourism decreased considerably in some areas, Nova Scotia did not feel the great impact some areas did. Perhaps it is the beauty of Nova Scotia. Perhaps it is its accessability for those visitors. Our own people of Nova Scotia were travelling around the Province, which says it is a good place to visit.

April 14, 1983
Supply
The expenditures I mentioned produced an income to the tourist industry of $600 million, or 8.4 per cent of the gross provincial product. This makes tourism the sixth largest revenue earner in the Province. The 8.4 per cent in turn generated $62 million in tax revenues, which is about 3 per cent of total provincial Government revenue and .3 per cent of total Canadian Government revenue. It produced $25 million induced investment and 25,000 person years of employment. This tourism-related employment represents about 7.3 per cent of the provincial labour force. That means that the economic activity generated by tourism is important to Nova Scotia, and it is important that all levels of Government recognize that.
We heard earlier a Member talk about the Loyalist Days and the ongoing celebrations. Well, there has been a hive of activity in the southern end of the Province which I represent, and in other areas across the Province, on Loyalist Days. Activities to date have been very successful, and we are looking forward to them as they occur throughout the summer in the various communities. I might mention this means that tourists will be attracted to the area, and I hope these activities are successful. I know that many groups in heritage programs in the southern end of the Province have put a lot of time and effort into them, and they look forward to the approval of their visitors.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to spend a few minutes on the federal Government's direct involvement in Nova Scotia, in particular the Canada-Nova Scotia tourism industry development subsidiary agreement which was concluded at the end of March. The federal Government has been most actively involved in planning and programming the tourism industry in Nova Scotia through this agreement. The agreement evolved from a tourism development policy and strategy for Nova Scotia prepared back in August, 1976. The original duration of the agreement was from April, 1977 to March, 1982.
I remember when it was being developed. I know the time and effort put into that agreement by both the Province and the federal Government. There was an extension from March, 1982 to March of 1983 for a completion of commitments, and the Minister approved that extension. Therefore, all money committed under that program was used in Nova Scotia. What were the objectives of that agreement, Mr. Speaker? They were to create employment opportunities and increase incomes by increasing the length of the tourist season, increasing the total number of visitors, extending the length of stay, increasing the expenditures per traveller per day, and distributing travel expenditures geographically.
As a result, that agreement provided destination areas which include Annapolis Basin, Lunenburg, the eastern shore, Pictou County, Bras d'Or and Louisbourg. In my constituency the destination area was the Annapolis Basin, the funding for which was to create a major attraction in the Annapolis basin which would have international significance.
Under that five year agreement, $2,198,160 was spent in the Annapolis basin. What did it achieve? The Annapolis Royal Community, through its development commission, fully supported and implemented the tourism plan. The botanical
gardens, the restoration of the Adams-Ritchie House and Kings Theatre, streetscape improvement and the waterfront walkway project have all been undertaken in order to attract the tourists who are coming to Nova Scotia to stay longer and to visit and learn about the history of one of the oldest settlements in North America. I say that because we have the historic Habitation at Port Royal and the historic Fort Anne in Annapolis Royal, both being very old areas of the cradle of our history of the settlements which came to Canada.
The total funding under that agreement was budgeted at $13.75 million, based on an 80/20 cost-sharing formula. The federal Government, of course, picking up the 80 per cent, contributed $11 million and the provincial Government contributed $2.75 million.
I hope that in the future we will see a new agreement, a new program coming into play between the federal Government and the Province of Nova Scotia. No matter what shape or direction it takes, I am sure that having had the experience of the last six-year agreement, we have learned a lot. I will not presuppose what the Province is suggesting to the federal Government, but I do hope that the federal Government is listening and that there will be some destination and areas.
Before closing, I would again like to thank the Hon. Member for Malpeque who has allowed me to speak on tourism, such an important economic activity in the constituency of South West Nova. I would say to all Hon. Members opposite that anyone who would like to come and visit down in the southern end of Nova Scotia, the most southern area aside from the Niagara Peninsula, is most welcome to come.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the Hon. Member who has just concluded his remarks that we are looking forward to visiting Nova Scotia, I hope. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) for enabling us today to debate a very interesting and very important subject, because it is widely acknowledged that the tourist industry ranks second in our economy. I also want to commend all Hon. Members who have spoken so far, because I have the impression today that the debate has been very constructive. Naturally, we have made some instances to the Government concerning the development of the tourist industry, which is very important in terms of investments and the number of jobs involved. I know for a fact that in the past three or four years inflation has hit that industry very hard, as it did so many others. Given its importance, we cannot miss the opportunity to urge the Government to review its legislation, to acknowledge the leading role of that sector, and to try to promote the industry in close co-operation with the provinces and various organizations. I believe it would be to our advantage to keep in close touch with the Tourism Industry Association of Canada which rightfully does not mince words now and again when it makes recommendations to the federal and provincial Governments.
April 14, 1983

As others have done, I want to take this opportunity to say that my province is interested indeed in promoting the tourist industry. And so does my riding, for even though all my colleagues may not come often to visit my riding, I could say that my friends opposite do visit my riding at certain times. Of course, they usually come at election time, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure they found some very interesting spots to visit. We also have some very good areas for hunting and fishing that could be developed. We have a wonderful museum in Joliette which is known nationally, and I think we have some pieces that compare very favourably with those in world famous museums. In Rawdon, near Joliette, more and more people are visiting Darwin Falls, which has been developed very satisfactorily for several years as a tourist attraction.
I would also like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that in Sainte-Marguerite, we have the Doncaster Indian Reserve. The reserve is under-utilized by the Indian Band. It covers six square miles and has beautiful lakes and hunting areas. I did make a number of recommendations a while ago, and I hope my comments will be considered with a view to making the reserve accessible to the general public and the surrounding municipalities, while of course respecting the rights of the Indians. Perhaps agreements could be concluded with the Indian Band, under which the general public could make use of the area and visitors from outside Quebec and outside the country could enjoy a few days of wonderful peace and quiet.
When we talk about the investment or funding required to build up the tourist industry, and we realize that $400 billion is spent directly or indirectly throughout the world, and that $15 or $17 billion in Canada creates one million jobs, and that $7 billion goes to National Revenue I think it is quite interesting to consider this question, especially in Quebec where we are talking about $900 million for the tourist industry which will create 100,000 jobs. I think we are entitled to ask the Government for this kind of help, especially in the present situation, where it is not easy to maintain a number of industries. However, there is no doubt in my mind that trade and industry deserve our special attention.
There are three basic principles we should remember. One is to try and keep Canadians inside Canada. I feel it is important to encourage Canadians to visit Canada and to visit other provinces, so that we can learn to know each other and again a better understanding of each other's needs and aspirations. We must also consider how we can attract larger numbers of visitors to Canada to enjoy the natural wonders this country has to offer. We should also concentrate on ways of getting people to prolong their stay in Canada.
These three concepts are very important, and I know that nothing will happen unless we do something about it, and I think, as others have said before me, that we should enter into
Supply
agreements with the provinces. We should also know how to handle their priorities in a spirit of honest cooperation. I feel that we should work together with the Canadian Tourist Association and other associations that promote tourism. There are all kinds of activities that come to mind. Montreal has the Expos and the Canadiens, Quebec City has the Nor-diques, and they attract people from outside the country. However, I think the Government should try to play a coordinating role with respect to this industry which is extremely important to our economy. As far as my own province is concerned, I am aware that agreements do exist, under which the Province of Quebec can get a financial contribution on a 60-40 basis-60 per cent from the Federal Government-for projects submitted by the Province to the Federal Government. This is being done elsewhere, there is no doubt about that, and I want to congratulate the Government on taking this approach. I think we should continue the good work, considering the importance of this industry, not only financially but also from the employment point of view. There is no doubt that our country is extremely interesting to visit; we could probably do even more to promote our tourist attractions and the dual character and diversity of Canada which millions of visitors to our country find interesting and of which we are aware ourselves, but even so, I believe that we should probably think about encouraging Canadians to travel throughout the country, for instance by providing certain tax cuts.
I believe that the possibility of offering certain benefits to Canadians who visit another province could be seriously considered. We could also think about implementing a policy to reduce transport costs between provinces. I am aware that the country is facing enormous deficits, but in view of the tax revenue produced by this industry, I believe that a serious evaluation would show that every dollar invested in the tourism industry could bring many more.
I would not want to omit to mention the efforts made by the Government to promote convention centres and the hotel industry. We all know that our Canadian cities have an increasing number of hotels sufficiently modern and well-organized to accommodate guests. However, it is one thing to have the hotels and convention centres required, but it is another to see that they are booked and used.
Mr. Speaker, I know that others will want to speak after me, but I would like to make a few comments about the importance of this industry. In view of the present situation, I believe that the Government, the Minister and the Members on the other side can count on a loyal and objective Opposition if the Government decides to suggest something in keeping with the point of view that we defended today. Of course, we want our various provincial Governments to examine this issue. However, we would like the Federal Government to become even more readily involved in this industry and to discuss this issue with the provinces.

April 14, 1983
Supply
As for the Canadian Tourism Association's interesting suggestions, I feel that we need everyone, and of course this also means businessmen, to use all our potential and have all the benefits of a well-organized and well-structured tourism industry. This is my wish, and I am pleased to see that everyone in this House can make such objective comments today and that so many Members can show their interest in this industry, all of which, of course, aims at putting back our economy on the right track by every means available, at creating a certain number of jobs and maintaining those which now exist, as well as improving the state of our economy.
This debate provides an excellent opportunity to make suggestions and assure the Government that we are willing to cooperate with any initiative which would improve this industry and urge Canadians to visit their own country so that they will know it, defend it and serve it better, and at the same time, there is no doubt that if our foreign visitors sense a greater unity in Canada and are more aware of the sites to visit, they will use their vacation in Canada more profitably. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the comments of all my colleagues and the Members opposite, who have shown a lot of interest in this matter, will catch the attention of the Minister and that we shall be able to work together for a good case, namely the development of the Canadian tourism industry.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I join all the previous speakers to congratulate the Hon. Member of the riding of Malpeque (Mr. Gass) on introducing this motion. I congratulate as well all those who took part in the debate today with a non-partisan approach and, I must say, in a very positive and very objective way, because all Canadians agree that the tourist industry plays an extremely significant role in the Canadian economy. It has been said that 1.1 million jobs are related to tourism and that one out of ten Canadians works in the tourist sector. I should think that we all agree that tourism is very important in Canada and that we must do our very best to make people feel that they are welcomed in Canada.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) (Mr. Rompkey) mentioned only a few of the many initiatives taken by this Government to support the tourist industry in Canada. Unfortunately, perhaps some Members cannot appreciate or are unaware of the extent of that support.
I am grateful for this opportunity to enlighten the Hon. Member for Malpeque and his colleagues on the initiatives of the Government and our successful efforts to support Canada's tourist industry. I should like to emphasize particularly the close co-operation between federal Government, the Provinces, the Territories and the private sector to develop that very important industry.
Ever since 1946, Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial ministers responsible for tourism have met every year to deal with major issues, to exchange ideas, to discuss matters of
serious concern and to act in consultation with one another. The officials at both levels of government have frequent meetings by themselves and with industry representatives to develop marketing plans and to co-ordinate their implementation throughout the world. Hon. Members who have taken part in international tourist events either overseas or in the United States are aware that the federal government is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the various provinces and the private sector under the Canadian flag. The federal officials in charge of tourism are co-operating with their counterparts in the public and private sectors and setting up advertising and marketing programs in all parts of the world. These initiatives not only obtain marketing awards in international competitions, they are also an economical way to invest our taxpayers' money.
Hon. Members are certainly aware that since 1974, thanks to ancillary agreements on the expansion of the tourist industry, the federal government has invested, together with the provinces and the territories, over $220 million to expand and up-date tourist equipment and facilities. Without this financial assistance, such tourist attractions as those of Whistler Village in British Columbia, or Acadian Village in New Brunswick, would not exist today.
One realizes just how serious this Government has been about tourism in Canada when one discovers that it set up as early as 1978 a Consultative Task Force on Tourism. Made up of representatives of both management and labour, it advises the Government on ways and means to improve the performance of the industry. It has submitted many recommendations, most of which have been accepted and implemented by the federal authorities. If the Government is doing nothing to develop the tourist industry in Canada, as the motion now before us would have it, why then did the Minister of State (External Relations) (Mr. Lapointe), while he was Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) come to launch in cooperation with provincial and territorial tourism authorities a national tourism program that included a series of individual programs setting forth the strategies and priorities of each participating Government for industrial growth and development?
If the Government is doing nothing to improve our tourist industry's competitive situation, what is to be made of the national program we launched in 1980 to foster the construction and expansion across Canada of international trade centres and convention centres by providing a total of nearly $200 million worth of support to nine major facilities? Let us recall the Canada Marketing Support Program launched in 1982 to help organizers develop all-inclusive travel plans to and within Canada? It is estimated that the program, with a $1 million funding, will generate this year $37 million in allinclusive travel plans within Canada.
April 14, 1983

Mr. Speaker, if the Government does not recognize or believe in the tourist industry, how is it that in September 1982 it did recognize and honour, on World Tourism Day, 20 Canadians from all across Canada who made significant contributions to the growth and expansion of the tourist industry? How is it that also in 1981, the Government allocated an additional $9 million over a three-year period to improve the marketing of Canada as a travel target?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) has already referred to some 40 federal Departments and agencies that have programs designed to influence and help the tourist industry. For example, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (Mr. Munro) has recently reached with the Northwest Territories an agreement with a major component for the development of small business and tourism. A similar agreement is under consideration with the Yukon. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, (Mr. De Bane), who is here this afternoon, is implementing a small craft harbour program supplying pleasure boating services that are used each year by thousands of Canadians and visitors. The Minister of Environment (Mr. Roberts), who was in the House earlier, is much too modest to say so, but as Minister responsible for Parks Canada he knows that many of our national parks and historic sites have been designated as world heritage sites by Unesco.
Mr. Speaker, if the Government does not acknowledge that the tourist industry plays a major role in job creation, why do tourism projects account for such a large share of this Government's employment programs? The summer employment program for students, the new NEED Program, is of great assistance to employers in the tourist industry. In addition to that, we also have training programs for specialized workers in fields related to tourism which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).
My colleague the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) may have been too modest to refer to himself, so it is with pleasure that I mention the efforts he made on behalf of tourism when he was Minister of National Revenue. I am glad to point out to Hon. Members that it was he who launched a review of the customs program which will soon make it easier to hold international conventions in Canada. He is the one who undertook to set up duty-free shops at various ports of entry. He is the one who decided that Customs inspectors would provide visitors driving in from the United States with a tourist information booklet welcoming them into Canada. And since he became Minister responsible for Tourism, my colleague has decided to hold regular meetings with leaders of the Canadian Tourist Association, the national organization speaking for the industry, in order to obtain their views and advice on matters the Association feels are essential and advantageous to the growth and development of the industry.
Supply
This may be news to some Hon. Members, but seven years ago the Government of Canada put out the program "Rendezvous in Canada", which is now internationally recognized as one of the most significant travel scholarships plan in the world. Have Hon. Members heard of TOURCAN, the national market for Canadian buyers and sellers of tourist products? Do they realize that together those markets, operated by the Canadian Government Office of Tourism and supported by all the Provinces, Territories and the private sector, have generated will over S250 million in new tourist revenues for Canada since 1977?
Hon. Members certainly did not forget the support given by this Government to Expo '67 and the Summer Olympics in 1976, and they know the Government intends to support over the next five years important events, such as the 400th anniversary next summer of Sir Humfrey Gilbert's landing on the shores of what was later to be called Newfoundland, the 450th anniversary of Jacques Cartier's coming to Canada, which will be celebrated in 1984, the bicentennials of the Province of New Brunswick and of the Loyalists' settlement in Ontario, the international meeting of clans in Nova Scotia in 1985, Expo '86, the World Transportation Exhibition to be held in Vancouver three years from now, and, of course the Winter Olympics to be held in Calgary in 1988.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the tourism industry in the National Capital region. I would like to point out how important it is for this region to recognize visitors to the Canadian capital, to have well-maintained roads and to insist on the participation and involvement of the provincial Governments.
I would also like to point out to the House that a recent study of the National Capital Commission stated that 2.5 million visitors came to Ottawa each year, 65 per cent of which were Canadians, which means that 1.6 million Canadians visit their capital. Of these, 70 per cent came to Ottawa by car, and the rest came by plane, bus or bicycle; 30 per cent or nearly
330,000	came from Quebec, more specifically from Montreal, the Eastern Townships, Quebec City, the North Shore or the Gaspe Peninsula, and 15 per cent of these 330,000 Quebec visitors to the capital region crossed the Ottawa river to visit Gatineau, Buckingham, Thurso or Hull.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because here we have a number of people, very smart people for the most part, I believe, who took highway 417 near Rigaud on their way to Ottawa after having left Montreal through the Metropolitan Boulevard. When they needed gas, well, they simply bought some. I have nothing against people who sell gas along highway 417 but I would rather have seen them take highway 50 which is supposed to be completed in 4, 5, or ten years, and buy gas in my constituency, that is quite normal. Furthermore, it generates employment, and that is true also of restaurants. I mention that because we have forgotten lately about highway 50 and how important it is for Quebecers to travel and leave a

April 14, 1983
Supply
few dollars here and there in the various constituencies around Montreal as they head westward. I am not the only one to raise that issue. Even the strongest advocates of independance in the Outaouais region refer quite often to highway 50 which is vital to the economic development of that area.
I wanted that to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker, because in the Outaouais region, this issue is of the highest importance. In conclusion, I would like to thank again the Hon. Member for Malpeque who has given us the opportunity to let all Members know that the Government of Canada is deeply concerned with the tourist industry in the best interest of Canada and of all Canadians. I am satisfied that all Members are looking forward in 1984 to the 50th anniversary of the continuous support directed at the tourism industry by the federal Government.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to speak on the Private Member's motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass). This motion is timely. I want to talk about the tourist industry, not only in the east but also in northern Ontario and particularly in the riding from which I come, that of Timiskaming.
I would like to take this opportunity today to express the concerns of many areas of Canada. The tourist industry should be an umbrella comprised of provincial and municipal Governments and individuals with the federal Government being the top part, co-ordinating that industry, whether it be in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Northern Ontario. We should ensure that we all work together in what has to be one of the most important small-business industries in Canada. Approximately 1.3 million individuals are employed seasonally across Canada in the tourist industry. This takes in students who have just graduated from high school, university students returning home for summer employment, trappers and fishermen who work during the summer months. The people of northern Ontario and in other parts of the country are concerned about energy-related problems and their effects on the tourist industry.
1 would like to make a few comments relating to the reliance of the tourist industry on the energy program. If we look back five years ago, we see that the costs of travelling, for example, from nothern Ontario to the Province of Alberta were relatively low, or if Albertans wanted to travel to northern Ontario or Prince Edward Island, the costs were likewise relatively low. When one went to fill up the gas tank it used to cost $15. Now we are looking at $30 or $35. That is one of the problems which is hurting the industry across Canada.
In my riding we rely upon people from the larger centres in southern Ontario to visit our small fishing camps that might have as many as four employees. I imagine there are Members on both sides of the House who certainly enjoy during the summer months (flying) into remote areas to fish for lake trout, speckled or whatever. At one time the cost of such a flying trip amounted to $75 to $100. Now we are looking at
$500 to $1,000 for the same trip. This is causing grave problems for the tourist industry because tourists are no longer coming.
Energy is a key part of the tourist industry across Canada, and people have expressed their concerns to me, and the Hon. Member for Timiskaming, in terms of interest rates, a very crucial problem affecting the survival of the industry. Most operators in northern Ontario rely upon a five or six-month period of time in order to make sufficient funds to carry them over the year. In the last two or three years the staggering costs of money they have been required to borrow in order to start up in the spring and to get in their supplies have affected their ability to survive. In the last year numerous small industries across the country which have tried to refinance, have ended up closing or have been put into a financial bind trying to operate their camps and to find extra employment to help offset their operational costs.
Another concern of Hon. Members on both sides of the House is the issue of acid rain. Acid rain has become a crucial consideration of tourism. For years and years fishermen were able to go into various lakes and catch speckled trout, lake trout and pickerel. The camps on such lakes relied on the literature they sent out each year showing the size of lake trout and various other fish. Those lakes are now in trouble, in grave trouble. When this happens, the industry on the lake is also in severe trouble. This is happening not only in northern Ontario but across the country.
I am pleased the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) sits on the Committee on Acid Rain because he knows the concerns of the tourist industry. This Committee has to work closely with this industry in an attempt to resolve the problem of acid rain. If we do not work strong and lobby hard in the years to come, the industry in northeastern Ontario and all across the country will be jeopardized. If we look at the various ministries of natural resources and their restocking programs, we see that year in and year out they stock lakes with fingerlings. I must say that these fingerlings do not reproduce. We are taking dollars and investing them back into the lakes. Until we resolve the problem of acid rain, the lake stock will not multiply and reach the levels of the past.
Over the last few months Air Canada has offered special rates for trips out of the country. I would like to see special rates being given for people to travel to my riding of Timiskaming from St. John's, Newfoundland or from Vancouver, British Columbia. I would like to see them provided with an opportunity to travel to my riding at a reduced rate rather than being faced with the outrageous costs of travelling via Air Canada to the area. It is very important for us to look at that and do our utmost in years to come.
Also in the area of transportation, I remind the House that we have the huge and beautiful Trans-Canada Highway which passes through my constituency. In years gone by people enjoyed towing their trailers across the country, visiting various communities. How many trailer manufacturers have
April 14, 1983

we lost over the years due to the rising cost of energy? I hope the budget which will be brought down next Tuesday will contain something to alleviate this problem. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) should do something for the tourist industry in terms of the cost of energy.
In closing I wish to say that I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on a subject which I feel is important and has been often neglected. We must remember that at least 1.3 million people are employed in the tourist industry. Unless the federal Government, the provincial Governments, the municipalities and individual tourist operators start working together, we will be in trouble in years to come. We must provide the industry with some incentives, whether it be special bank interest rates for those who purchased resorts over the last five years or incentives in terms of the employment of students. In days of high unemployment we realize that people who would like to travel cannot do so because they are receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits or some social assistance.
It has been a great pleasure to participate in the last ten minutes of this important debate concerning tourism, and I thank my colleague for allowing me the opportunity to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. With the conclusion of this debate, proceedings on the motion before the House have expired pursuant to Standing Order 62(11).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on March 24 I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the continuing violations of the Official Languages Act and asked that he appoint a Minister with special responsibilities to enforce the legislation in all Departments, agencies and Crown corporations.
My question was prompted by the recent report of the Official Languages Commissioner wherein he cited a number of examples of the law being ignored or contravened.
During the past year I have personally brought several cases to the attention of this House, the Government, and the Official Languages Commissioner. First, there was the case of the Old Port of Montreal, a federal agency which advertised entirely in French, even in the English language Montreal Gazette. Second, there were cases of English-speaking citizens in Montreal visiting their families at the federal penitentiaries at Laval, Quebec who were unable to get service in English at
Adjournment Debate
the gate and in some cases were refused entry. Third, there have been many Montrealers who have been unable to get Manpower retraining courses in English, and often other Manpower services in their own language. Fourth, there have been several examples in the past year of federal Government Departments putting up billboards entirely in French in districts of Montreal which are predominantly English.
The Official Languages Act requires the federal Government and all agencies to provide services in both official languages to the citizens of this country, and obviously that they be well prepared to do so in bilingual areas such as Montreal where there are large numbers of the official language minority.
Unfortunately, this is not being done, and in many cases there does not seem to be an understanding among the Civil Servants of their obligation to do so. Time and again, even in Ministers' offices in this city, I run into Civil Servants and staff who think that everything in Quebec should be in French and outside Quebec, bilingual. Even among some Ministers and Deputy Ministers, there is no political will to enforce the official bilingualism policy.
What I have described so far has taken place at the federal level, but it has taken place at a time in Quebec when there has been a provincial Government situation that is much worse. As Hon. Members know, Quebec Bill 101 has been very hard on English-speaking, bilingual and immigrant Quebecers. In some cases they have been forced into French-speaking schools. They have been forced to take down their English and bilingual signs. There are many places where they cannot get service in English at Quebec Government offices. I have many examples of senior citizens who cannot get any kind of service in their own language. These measures have been extremely coercive and oppressive.
The most recent scandal was the St. Mary's Hospital case where the Office de la Langue Fran?aise condemned the hospital because not all of its employees were able to speak French to certain patients. This was despite the fact that the hospital had a very good bilingual capacity and was very capable of providing services in French. Historically, this hospital was built by the English-speaking community in Montreal. What is particularly grating in this case is that approximately 50 per cent of the moneys for hospitalization and medicare in Quebec, as in all Provinces, comes from the federal Government.
On several occasions I have recommended that the federal Official Languages Act should apply to provincial institutions where there is substantial federal funding under joint federal-provincial funding agreements. At the present time the responsibility for enforcing the Official Languages Act is under the Deputy Ministers. Obviously this is not adequate. The Official Languages Commissioner can report violations and work with Departments to correct short-comings, but he has no administrative responsibility. The Prime Minister must assign a Minister who will have the responsibility of enforcing the Official Languages Act in all areas of the federal Government.
[Stage Direction]
April 14, 1983
Adjournment Debate
If a good law is to have credibility, and I think the Official Languages Act is a good law, it must be enforced. In addition, the time has come for amendments to that Act. At the present time a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons is discussing such amendments to improve the law, bring it up to date and make it more just for all Canadians, both English and French speaking.
André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine-East (Mr. Allmand) for his concern regarding the application of the Official Languages Act. I would like to point out that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), who is the Minister responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act, meets annually with his officials to evaluate the annual report submitted by the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Act has been in existence for ten years, and although much progress has been made during the past decade, the Government realizes that much remains to be done, although we should be careful in our evaluation of the Official Languages policy. The important thing is to ensure that Crown corporations and federal agencies and departments observe not only the spirit but also the letter of the Act. This is very important. In his last report, the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed out, in referring to Air Canada, that a great deal of work had been accomplished during the past ten years, but it was also true that although Air Canada continued on its expedition to the Official Languages summit, a lack of qualified climbers was still impeding the final phase of the ascent.
Nevertheless, I would like to give the Hon. Member the assurance that the Government is following very closely what is happening to the practical application of the Official Languages Act, and that at the present time, considering the projects that have been realized, the Government entirely approves of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board should be responsible for the application of the Act. However, if other points were brought to the attention of the House, perhaps some other action would be taken. Before finishing my comments, I would like to point out that between the 1981 and the 1982 reports, the Commissioner of Official Languages noted a drop of 20 per cent in the number of complaints regarding the application of the Official Languages Act. This means that Canadians have learned to live with the Official Languages Act but that we must remain vigilant to ensure that the basic rights of both French and English Canadians are respected throughout the country.


INCOME TAX-TREATMENT OF INCOME DERIVED THROUGH SERVICE TIPS. (B) REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on March 9 I rose in the House to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) concerning what seemed to me then, as it does now, to be a very unfair
policy regarding the tips given to waiters and waitresses in the country. The problem arises from the dual standard that seems to have been set by the Government on these tips. They must be claimed as income by those who receive them and therefore are included in taxable income.
The other side of the dual standard is that the waiters and waitresses cannot claim benefits on that total income. They are taxed on the larger amount which includes the tips but the benefits are provided according to the lesser amount. They are not allowed to include the tips for unemployment insurance, Canada Pension Plan, Quebec Pension Plan, Workman's Compensation, and in fact holiday pay could be brought into this as well. If they are taxed on the income which includes tips or gratuities, they should also be entitled to the social benefits according to that income.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this affects some 200,000 workers across Canada, I understand some 85,000 workers alone in the Province of Quebec. These are workers who are difficult to organize or unionize because of the high turnover in their occupations. I was asking the Minister to take some action to rectify this apparent inequity or dual standard which the Government has chosen to place upon waiters and waitresses.
I believe that employers should be obligated to contribute to these benefits just as it is the duty of the employees to contribute their fair share to these plans. The Minister stated in concluding his answer to the question I asked him back on March 9, 1983 that the matter is a complex one and that it also requires the co-operation of the taxpayers to state their entire income. That is not a very fair statement. It seems to me that it is not a complex question. It is a matter of an inequity that is created for one group of our society; a dual standard which is set up by the Government, so it has the best of both worlds. It collects income tax on the increased amount, but will not give the benefits which these employees should receive on the maximum amount. It uses the lesser amount to determine the benefits to these workers.
I ask the Government to take immediate action to overcome this inequity, and to deal with the respective departments. I understand this would include the Department of Revenue and would need to include the Ministers who are responsible for the Canada Pension Plan and for the Unemployment Insurance Commission as well. I believe it is a very simple matter to have rectified, by this Government, in light of the many people who are involved as waiters and waitresses across this country.
There are many single parents who are employees in this profession. There are certainly people on the lower end of the
April 14, 1983

salary scale, and fluctuations in our economy certainly affect those people who work as waiters and waitresses. I ask the Government to take this action at the earliest possible opportunity. It is not complex, as the Minister stated in his answer to my question on March 9, and I would like to know today what action the Government is going to take, and how long it will take for this apparent inequity I have outlined to be rectified.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: The Hon. Member, as his Party's critic for the Department of National Revenue, should understand the responsibilities of that Department, particularly as they relate to those of other departments. He will be aware, of course, that National Revenue administers the Income Tax Act. I would assume that he does not suggest that the income from tips and gratuities should not be income subject to tax. The Department is carrying out enforcement activity in many areas across the country regarding this type of income because it found that a great deal of it has not been reported. Incidentally, I am not talking here about trifling amounts, but about thousands of dollars of income received over a very few years in this form by certain individuals. I say this because certain media reports have conveyed the assumption that this was a project directed at low income workers.
The question that concerns the Hon. Member is the eligibility of this income under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan. As I understand it, income from tips is regarded as self-employed income and is therefore not insurable earnings under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I also understand that if a person in receipt of tips chooses to do so, he or she could have the income treated as pensionable earnings under the Canada Pension Plan, but would have to pay the higher contribution associated with self-employed income.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) are responsible for the legislation governing the treatment of tips for UIC and CPP purposes. Any changes to the respective acts comes within their purview. The responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue does extend to determining what are insurable or pensionable earnings. These are subject to the provisions of the legislation administered by his colleagues.


SHIPBUILDING-REQUEST FOR ACCELERATION OF VESSEL REPLACEMENT ORDERS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I must say at once that I am honoured and flattered that the Minister is here. It shows usual care and attention to procedural matters, particularly where they concern the extended grievances of Members concerning responses they receive to questions they ask, having regard to the shortness of the time and the necessity for brevity, and the difficulty of getting at the heart of the matter in such a short time.
I am here this evening largely because the Minister was quite positive in his response to my question, Mr. Speaker. It had to do with what the Government felt might be desirable
Adjournment Debate
and perhaps possible with respect to bringing on Canadian Government account orders for Canadian shipyards.
As the Minister will be aware, Canadian shipyards provide some 14,000 to 16,000 or 17,000 direct jobs under normal circumstances. He will now be aware that we are down to something of the order of 6,000 or 7,000 jobs, direct and indirect jobs.
That is a little alarming. I hope the Minister can take a minute or two to elaborate, not just on the specific matter I put to him with respect to bringing on a Maritime command fleet replacement program, but also on the requirements of the Department of Oceans and Fisheries for new vessels.
Our Oceanographic Institute at Bedford, one of the most prominent in the world, is now serviced by obsolete ships with obsolete equipment. We have literally hundreds of field programs which must go to sea to be tested and we do not have the vehicles to take them. The potential loss of standing by the Bedford Institute in the world oceanography community disturbs me.
Will the Minister not recognize and address, or at least become an active advocate among his colleagues in the promotion of advancing shipyard orders for fleet replacement programs, first for the navy because we can bring that on now and it will mean thousands of jobs? This would not only mean bringing people back who have been let go, but, perhaps even more important under the circumstances, it will mean the retention of skills and capabilities already there. If we can reach out to the ferries, the coastguard, and the Bedford Institute, which needs a complete fleet replacement program- there is no doubt about that whatsoever-then we would in turn spill benefits back to at least our east coast yards, possibly out to the west coast, with a lot of jobs which will help stabilize one community in the job security area. I am sure this is of interest to the Minister.
I would invite him tonight, in the brief time available to him, to address himself philosophically to whether or not he has been an advocate of early advancement of possible programs, and an advocate of bringing on even earlier mid-term or short-term programs which we know in fact that we do need.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that, and I welcome this opportunity offered me by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) to address this issue which I feel is of tremendous importance. I appreciate his having raised it in the House on two occasions to date.
Though my riding does not border on a coastline, it does border on an inland lake. Shipbuilding to me, therefore is not something which is pertinent to my area. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman that since I have accepted my present responsibilities, one thing which has come to my mind is that the shipbuilding industry is one of the most important to
24514

April 14, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Canada historically, and also in terms of today's economic circumstances.
I feel very strongly that Canada has lost the position it once held in terms of shipbuilding importance. A mere 100 years ago we were third in importance; today we are down at the bottom of the pile, close to 20 per cent. However, I wish to indicate to the hon. gentleman that I am doing something about that in the sense that I have accelerated the procurement action of my Department. We are coordinating that procurement action in order to have the greatest impact possible on the situation faced by the shipyards in Canada today.
I will describe to the Hon. Member, of course, the program which is the nearest and dearest to my heart, namely, the frigate replacement program. That one is on schedule; we will have it decided in July of this year. It involves 1,700 person years in the first year.


J. Michael Forrestall: Two years late.


Mr. Blais:: I know, but the fact is that since I have been around, it has been going on schedule.
1 call the hon. gentleman's attention to the Polar Icebreaker Program, and I would hope that he would use his good offices to put on pressure, in order for us to proceed with that particular program. The design stage is now completed. We ought to be proceeding with that program as rapidly as possible.
We have the reinforced 1050, the ice-strengthened ships, which hopefully will be the subject of a contract in July of this
year. Again, 200 person years of work is involved. We also have the 1100 series, the Navaid tenders, which are going out to tender as well. I would again hope-


J. Michael Forrestall: When?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -to be in a position to award this contract-


J. Michael Forrestall: When?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -by July of this year.
There is the Delex Program, about which the Hon. Member knows very well, and there is the Trump Program which will provide for more than $1 billion worth of repair and overhaul activity.
I want to tell Your Honour that I am encouraging greater co-operation between the shipyards, the steel manufacturers, as well as all the ancillary support industries, because I feel very strongly that in terms of job creation it is not only in the shipyards, but also in the propulsion manufacturing capacity, in the radar shops, in the telecommunication and onboard communication programs that jobs will be created. That can only be done with the presence of a viable shipbuilding industry within this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
At 6.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 15, 1983