1984-03-22

Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of Supply Bills. In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the Supply Bills be distributed now?
I should caution the House that the Supply Bill which is in order for presentation does not reflect the decision of the Chair at six o'clock last night to eliminate one item. Therefore, the Bill which would be distributed would be for the information of Hon. Members. The Bill actually introduced at the appropriate time would be amended accordingly. Is there unanimous consent to have the Bills distributed at this point with the proviso I have indicated?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for having allowed Canada's tourism deficit to reach a staggering $2.1 billion in 1983, and having thus caused over 100,000 Canadian jobs to be lost in that year alone, and for failing to remedy the overtaxation which is the underlying problem which plagues this labour-intensive industry and which pushes prices to non-competitive levels thereby counteracting any positive impact that might be generated by the Government's marketing expenditures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Party is presenting this Opposition Day motion today on tourism for a variety of obvious reasons. Less than a year ago, April 14 of last year, the Progressive Conservative Party had an Opposition Day on tourism headed by the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) to try to impress upon the Government the great importance of this sector to the Canadian economy. It is nearly a full year since that Opposition Day, Mr. Speaker, and the Government has yet to touch the root of the problem. In fact, the deficit, as the motion points out, has skyrocketed to a staggering S2.1 billion, resulting in over 100,000 Canadian jobs being lost in 1983 alone.
I will just very quickly review the importance of the tourist industry and the complete lack of regard by the Liberal
administration for the major problems facing that industry today. In dollar terms, Mr. Speaker, tourism and travel are worth $17 billion each year in Canada which accounts for roughly 5 per cent of the GNP. Travel and tourism employs over one million Canadians.
In these days of such high levels of unemployment, surely the Government should be putting a lot more emphasis on the tourist industry if for no other reason than the potential employment which exists in this sector. Jobs are being lost every day in this industry as the Government continues to take no action. Visitors from abroad last year spent as much as $3.9 billion, making tourism one of the biggest earners of foreign exchange in this country. According to the Canadian Government office of tourism, this industry has a higher employment multiplier than any of the 40 leading industries of our nation.
I could expand on the tremendous importance of tourism to this country, but because of time limitations, Mr. Speaker, I will just say very briefly that the travel industry in Canada is not living up to its potential. In fact, tourism in this country is an industry under siege. The Liberal Government cannot blame international conditions in this regard as it has in other matters, because on the international market Canada's share of world tourism fell from 4.6 per cent in 1972 to a dismal 2.7 per cent in 1981. In other words, in that decade we lost half of our share of tourism in the world market.
Why is it that tourism in Canada is decreasing while at the same time it is increasing in other countries? I repeat and underline the fact that the Liberal administration cannot blame international market forces in this regard.
There are nearly 100,000 more Canadians outside Canada every night of the year than there are foreigners in Canada, and the travel account deficit grows at over $3 million per day. This does not include the travel deficit with the U.S., because there are 74,000 more Canadians in the U.S. every night of the year than there are Americans in Canada. The deficit there grows by nearly $2 million a day. That is a total of over $5 million a day, representing a staggering figure of $2.1 billion last year and growing. That is unacceptable yet the Government is not acting.
Some want to blame the problem on our winters. I have news for them, Mr. Speaker. Last July, when the Canadian market should be at its strongest, travel to the U.S. was up by 37.3 per cent over the previous year. That throws that argument out the window because Canadians are travelling abroad in the summer just as much as in the winter. But the winter months can be taken advantage of. Canadians go skiing in Switzerland, Austria, Italy and to Aspen, Colorado. We could

March 22, 1984
Supply
be attracting tourists to Canada in the winter months as well as during our beautiful summers.
The main problem affecting the tourist industry in Canada is one of over-taxation, Mr. Speaker. We can throw all the other minor problems out the window, but if we do not deal with the overtaxation of the tourist industry immediately, we are going to find ourselves with a growing deficit which will bankrupt this country even more than it already is. In fact, the Tourist Industry Association of Canada estimates that unless there is a reversal of Government policy, our travel deficit next year is going to reach a staggering $4 billion.
We have over-taxed ourselves in lodging, food, gasoline and alcohol and what does the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism (Mr. Smith) say when we question him repeatedly in this matter in the House? He says: "Go and talk to the provincial Premiers; they should be dealing with the problems". Shame on you, Mr. Minister. You know it is the federal Government that has to take the initiative to deal with this major problem. When the Conservative Party forms the Government, I can assure you that its first priority in this regard is going to be to call a federal-provincial conference to deal with the problems of over-taxation and to set an example to the provinces by reducing or freezing taxation wherever possible in the tourist industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: We can no longer continue to put the blame on others. We must share the blame in this Parliament, in this House, and deal with it in a straightforward way. I know that may sound partisan to some extent.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


Otto John Jelinek: I knew the Liberal squeakers in the back-benches would agree with that. That is why I brought a letter addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) by the President of the Tourist Industry Association of Canada, Mr. Garth Campbell, who says:
-tourism is the one area of economic activity-employing over 10 per cent of the Canadian working population and potentially much more-where Canada's price competitiveness or lack of it is clearly exposed. Neither tariffs nor quotas nor clever advertising can hide these facts.
I want the back-bench Liberal squeakers to listen to this.


Mr. Harquail:: Can you read what he said?


Otto John Jelinek: The letter went on to say:
Sad to say, the budget of April 19 did virtually nothing to resolve any of the problems we had underlined. Nor did it offer any assurance that the message being advanced by this Industry was understood. Certainly the leadership we had hoped to see from the Federal Government was not forthcoming.
By their comments it appears that the Liberals are very interested in what I am reading. Therefore I will continue:
It is our sad prediction that if travel trends evident even in the first quarter of this year continue, the 1984 deficit will be substantially above $3 billion!
Translated into jobs ... The figure for 1984 could well exceed 150,000 jobs!
That is 150,000 lost jobs in the tourist industry. The Government is spending hundreds of million of tax dollars on non-productive, costly, make-work projects that are only temporary and which put the Canadian populace back on to the unemployment insurance roll after they have served their purpose.
In Mr. Campbell's letter to the Minister of Finance he went
on to say:
We submit... that investment in tax relief for tourism could well leave the federal government financial situation in a more favourable position ... tax reductions would be balanced against reductions in unemployment insurance payments and increased revenues generated by increased economic activity.
Those are some quotes from TIAC which is the most important assembly of tourist people from across the country who are trying to look after the welfare of the tourist industry. I know they have good communication with the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism. I know they are in constant contact with the Minister of Finance, but the Liberals do not listen. They sit in their ivory towers in Ottawa and have no idea what is going on in the real world of business and tourism. That is why the tourist industry, as well as other industries and sectors of the economy, is suffering, Mr. Speaker.
1 know the Minister has just returned from a trip in the United States where he promoted the great advertising budget which he has increased to advertise Canada abroad, particularly in the United States. I wish him well in that, I am glad he has finally increased that budget to match what it was over a decade ago. It is a step in the right direction and we respect that and agree with it. However, it is not going to solve the problem. The problem is over-taxation. I hope the Minister will deal with the taxation problem when he gets up, rather than just show that he has increased Government expenditures using tax dollars to advertise Canada. Tourists are not going to come into Canada if it is 30 per cent more costly to come to Canada than to travel to Europe or in the United States, no matter how many millions of tax dollars are used to advertise Canada. It becomes somewhat suspect that the Government is advertising tourism in an election year, using Liberal agencies to spread that money to perhaps advertise themselves. I will not dwell on that, but it does become suspect.
I believe I have two or three minutes left, Mr. Speaker. A Conservative Government would give greater recognition and consideration to this vital sector. That would become a PC policy thrust. The first thing we would do to recognize the sector, as we are doing now, is to give very serious consideration to establishing a separate ministry for tourism to deal with the problems of that vital sector of our economy. As I said earlier, the first step that ministry would take would be to call a federal-provincial conference to deal with taxation, to set an example and freeze tourist taxes wherever possible, and try to find ways and means of reducing them in certain areas. Federal and provincial taxes for alcoholic beverages, for example, account for 85 per cent of the retail costs in Canada. That is just one example of many and the Minister knows the others.
March 22, 1984

Since I do not have enough time to dwell on these, my colleagues on this side will dwell on some of the other matters throughout the day. The burden of payroll taxes should be reduced. We will look at ways to seek equitable tax measures that do not penalize labour-intensive industries like tourism. We shall develop a national tourism plan in co-operation with the provinces, utilizing the destination resort areas concept.
We will ensure departmental co-operation so that all federal decisions are arrived at with the complete understanding of their effects on tourism. Further steps will be taken to upgrade the status of tourism within the federal bureaucracy in order to protect the entrepreneur from potentially damaging government programs and legislation. In other words, to establish an advocacy role in the various other government departments. To this end, a Progressive Conservative Government shall establish in each relevant department a tourist co-ordinator to act as that advocate. We will provide incentives to promote the growth and development of a family owned tourism business in all regions to take advantage of Canada's tourist potential.
The list of our specific initiatives in policies which we will be outlining goes on and on. Since I am running out of time, I just want to repeat one major point. An election may not take place until a year from now or it may take place in August or November. We cannot wait for a Progressive Conservative Government which understands tourism and would take the necessary steps to deal with the problem. On behalf of the Conservative Party, I call on the Liberal Government to take action now in respect to cost competitiveness, to take action now to sit down with the provinces and start freezing and reducing, wherever possible, tourism taxes in order to be able to permit that advertising campaign in the United States which the Minister has just launched to become effective.
If it will not be cost competitive for tourists to come to Canada from the United States or elsewhere, I repeat that no matter how many millions of tax dollars the Minister will use in advertising, it will not attract tourists to this country. Not only do I call on the Minister and the Government to act now, but I plead with them because we are talking about jobs, we are talking about the economy as a whole and we are talking about the well-being of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There is a ten-minute question period permitted, but it has been our practice for the first round of speakers to speak before questions are put. However, it is the option of the House. If it wishes a ten-minute question period, there can be.


Mr. McCauley:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to what the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) was saying. I was wondering if he was ever going to get around to suggesting policy alternatives. I thought he spent a lot of time criticizing and very little time offering solutions, but toward the end of his address he did begin to deal with solutions. He outlined a shotgun approach in terms of what his side would do if they ever did form a government. What, in his opinion, are
Supply
the three main policies that his Party would introduce with regard to tourism?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member was during the last 10 or 15 minutes of my comments when I outlined the policies that the Conservative Party will take when we form the government. If I could be very brief in answering, it would be to deal with overtaxation, to deal with overtaxation, and to deal with overtaxation of the tourist industry, plus all of the other initiatives which I outlined in my speech.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) rightly pointed out that the tourist industry is very labour intensive. Many tourist areas are also very low-wage areas. Some of them have right-to-work legislation which undercuts the role of unions in establishing decent wage levels. Our Party is very much opposed to this legislation. Would the Hon. Member for Halton give his opinion on right-to-work legislation and whether he opposes it?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if we had to depend on the policies and wishes of the New Democratic Party, the tourist industry deficit in this country would not be $2.1 billion. There would be a $6 billion deficit.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I asked a very straight-forward question, whether the Hon. Member for Halton supports or opposes right-to-work legislation. That is very germane to a debate about tourism. We in this Party, the House and the Canadian people would like an answer, not further diatribes about the NDP.


Otto John Jelinek: What a ridiculous statement, Mr. Speaker! I will speak for myself in respect of the right to work. In Canada people should have the right to work whenever they want to work. I believe that people in Canada should have the right to do whatever they want in this free country. I was forced to escape from a country that was run by philosophies of the nature of the New Democratic Party. I escaped from that country to come to a country that has the rights and freedoms that are honoured in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, it is very good that the Canadian people can observe the lead speaker for the Official Opposition, the critic on the subject of tourism, giving what has to be termed a shameful performance this morning. He admits that it has been one year since he last raised this important issue. He did not bother to talk about the fact that this involves $16.5 billion for the economy of this country and over 100,000 businesses. This is very important. The Hon. Member did not say anything about the attractiveness, the resources and the reasons people come to Canada. He offered nothing of a positive nature concerning what this beautiful country has to offer in the sense of the tourism attractions.

March 22, 1984
Supply
What has he said? A couple of times he wanted to talk about an election, but he was not sure when it was going to be.


Otto John Jelinek: Are you? How about tomorrow?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, he admitted he does not know. When he said he did not know, he admitted quite a bit. He has obviously proved to us this morning that he knows very little about this subject. He admitted two or three times after quoting from the letter at length that that was the basis of his speech. He did not explain why it was he could not prepare a better speech than he tried to put across to the House this morning, pointing out some of the objectives of his Party and some of the positive things his Party might do. He might explain why he does not travel across Canada. He spends most of his time at ski competitions in Europe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Before I call for the response, I just want to clarify that this period allows for comments as well as questions.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say what you said. The Member is criticizing my speech. He does not even know how to pose a question because he did not pose one.


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter this debate, i am pleased that the Opposition has seen fit to allocate an Opposition Day to this very important topic. It is an exciting topic. Tourism does offer growth potential for the Canadian economy. I find it a challenge to be involved in selling Canada. I agree with much of what the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) said in terms of the importance of the tourist industry to this country. What I do not agree with are the conclusions that he has reached vis-a-vis what the Government is doing about it.
The motion we are debating deplores the size of the travel account deficit for 1983. I think most people know that the deficit arises because Canadians spend more abroad than we earn from visitors. The Hon. Member has approached this subject from a completely negative point of view. He made no reference to the fact that most Canadians did their travelling at home. In 1983, Canadians spent $14 billion travelling in Canada, three times what they spent abroad. That $14 billion spent by Canadians in Canada was a record high. Just to dwell on the deficit does not present a balanced perspective.
We have to concede that in terms of much of the travel Canadians engage in outside of the country, it is to sun destinations, particularly at this time of the year. I am sure all of us have had a warm winter vacation from time to time. Regrettably Canada does not have a banana belt area. To be fair, this is something we have to bear in mind.


Mr. McKinnon:: Have you not heard of Victoria?


David P. Smith: With regard to those who may be going overseas, Europe in particular, while our dollar has been down a bit vis-a-vis the United States, it has been at a very high level of exchange with Europe. That offers a further incentive to
Canadians to go to Europe, where the exchange rate is so much in their favour.
The deficit also reflects the fact that fewer visitors came to Canada in 1983. According to OECD, many countries suffered tourism declines because of the widespread economic recession. Canada was no exception. Our chief loss in the last couple of years has been in the number of visitors from overseas. From 1982 to 1983, the number of visitors from the United States was up 2.4 per cent. As a result of some of the efforts this Government has undertaken, that increase will carry on in 1984.
The Hon. Member for Halton talked about a loss of 100,000 jobs in 1983. That statement is not accurate. Those jobs were not lost. There were not jobs that suddenly disappeared. Statistics Canada data reveals that employment in tourism has increased steadily over the last decade. I suppose he could make the argument that had our slice of the world market continued at a pace with some other countries during the past decade, we could have had 100,000 more jobs. One could argue that. Quite frankly, I would have liked to see that. I hope that in years to come we will see those jobs being created. However, it is important to make it abundantly clear that jobs have not been lost, jobs that actually existed.
The motion speaks of taxation of the industry as a problem. Presumably the Hon. Member meant federal taxation. When Tourism Canada collaborated with the Tourism Industry Association of Canada in a survey of tourist businesses three years ago, the study revealed that the majority of businesses perceived municipal and provincial taxation as their main constraints, not federal taxation.
The motion states that our tourism industry is totally uncompetitive internationally. The retail price of gasoline in Canada is higher than in the United States, but this is due more to provincial taxes than federal. That is a fact. Everything is relative. Vis-a-vis Europe, gasoline prices in Canada are still favourable. Gasoline in this country is at the price it is because of an agreement between the federal Government and the producing provinces, primarily Alberta. For a couple of years this Government fought long and hard to reach the best possible agreement on behalf of Canadian consumers. Does the Hon. Member feel we should now rip up that agreement? That is not the way that this Government operates. When we enter into an agreement with the Province of Alberta and other oil-producing provinces, we honour that agreement. I have not heard of Alberta wanting to rip up that agreement because of the impact it has on tourism.
We also heard reference to the taxation of alcoholic beverages in Canada as compared to the United States. It is important to get the facts straight. In terms of tax revenue, the fact is that the federal Government share is 31 per cent. That means that the provincial government share is 69 per cent. However, the more interesting figure is that ten years ago the federal Government's share of tax revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages was 40 per cent. During that decade perhaps the price of alcoholic beverages has risen at an uncompetitive rate vis-a-vis the United States, but the feder-
March 22, 1984

al slice has gone down 9 per cent and the provincial slice has risen 9 per cent.
It is one thing for the Hon. Member to say that he just washes his hands of it and that the ball is in the provinces' court, but if provincial taxes had gone down at a rate comparable with federal taxes, perhaps we would not have this problem. We have to be realistic. We hear many speeches on the other side of the House about the deficit in the country. I do not think most provincial governments, which are all in deficit positions, will be forgoing revenues along the lines suggested here.
We in this country ought to accentuate the positive. This is a tremendous country. People can have a great vacation experience when they visit Canada. We should talk about the things in our favour. Let us look at the price of hotel rooms in large cities. In New York City, the average frist-class hotel room now costs $144 per night. In Montreal, a comparable room costs $77 or almost half. Recently I was in Washington, D.C. on business. Some of the people who attended this meeting with U.S. officials were staying in a Canadian-owned hotel and were paying $165 U.S. per night for a single room. That does not happen in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. Let us be fair. Why spread doom and gloom? Let us talk about the good news. The good news is that if Americans want to come to Canada, they can have a cosmopolitan experience. They can attend the theatre, go to museums and good restaurants in our big cities. Compared with New York City, they will get a bargain. We should be talking about that in a positive way.
The Government has recognized tourism as a major industry. In the December Throne Speech there were a number of upfront references to the importance of that industry. Since 1975 some $240 million of federal money has been invested in the development of an improved variety of facilities and services through federal-provincial tourism industry development subagreements, and $100 million of federal funds has been invested in new convention centres in all regions of the country. Tens of millions of dollars are being spent on tourism-related projects through the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. Since 1975 more than $200 million has been spent on tourism marketing, and so far I have not gone beyond the mandate of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Across the federal Government as a whole, over $100 million is spent annually to the benefit of the tourism industry.
While I am on that subject, the Hon. Member suggested that we should have a separate department. There are many sectors of the economy for which we could say there should be separate departments. Quite frankly, on balance the tourism industry is better off having its interests represented by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, which many people still think of as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is one of the main and most powerful federal departments. An industry is better off being up front and centre with a main department than being an orphan off on its own somewhere.
Supply
A year ago when there was a similar debate in the House the Government spokesman indicated goals of incremental funds for tourism marketing and tourism development support for all regions of Canada and the establishment of a Tourism Advisory Council for dialogue with the private sector. I believe all these goals have been met.
Let me illustrate the first point with the development side. Everyone knows that we must have the right product, at the right price, at the right time in the market. When the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion was established last year, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) established the new mainline program, the Industrial and Regional Development Program, otherwise known as IRDP, the Government's main delivery system for economic assistance throughout the country. Tourism is a beneficiary of IRDP. This is the first time tourism has ever benefited from a departmental core program. If that does not indicate recognition and support, I do not know what does. All regional offices of that department, which is one of the biggest in the Government, are assigning a high priority to tourism.
Tourism program delivery staff in the regions has been doubled compared with the staff under the former Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. IRDP channels significant financial assistance to companies, that is tourist operations, private sector operations, to assist them to be internationally competitive by stressing the establishment, expansion and modernization of facilities and services to attract international and interprovincial visitors. Increased productivity is a key objective. IRDP is clearly serving tourism. Current data shows that about 20 per cent of the proposals under IRDP are tourism related.
Also we are anxious to carry on agreements with all the provinces whereby we have subagreements under the general development agreements or the new economic and regional development agreements, so as to target tourism activity and identify things on which we and the provinces can work together to promote tourism in Canada.
The real challenge is the whole area of marketing. We have to step up our marketing efforts. In fact we are doing that, and we hope to do it in a way which will help us regain some lost ground. Every businessman knows that when competition increases it is time for increased marketing effort. The Government has accorded $22 million of incremental marketing funds to Tourism Canada for the 1984 calendar year. Offhand, I am not aware of any other department, agency or area of government activity which has had that amount of increase. The prime purpose of this is to make up the lost ground suffered when marketing budgets failed to keep pace with inflation.
Our research indicates that the market potential is there. We are convinced that additional marketing effort will bring positive results and that the moneys will not be wasted. Let us take, for example, the efforts in the United States. Within a few weeks we will be launching a major television campaign in the United States. I have visited New York City and Boston. Yesterday I was in Boston talking to three daily newspapers

March 22, 1984
Supply
and four radio stations promoting tourism in Canada. We met with travel agents, people in the travel industry and people in the travel trade magazine industry. We did that in New York as well. That is what we have to do and in fact is what we are doing. In 1984 we will be spending some $15 million in extra effort in the United States. We want to increase the number of American visitors to Canada.
In addition to being on television in the United States, we are currently on radio and are involved in a major magazine and newspaper campaign, all meant to reinforce in the minds of Americans Canada as a tourist destination. We are not just limiting that effort to the United States; we are going after overseas markets as well. For the first time, this year we launched a television campaign in Australia. That is a growing market for us. We are also very active in the United Kingdom and in Germany. I have met with people in the private sector in Great Britain who are interested in bringing tourists to Canada-airlines, tour operators and hotel chains. We are trying to co-ordinate our efforts, all for the purpose of increasing overseas dollars. It would appear that this has become a growth area over the past decade. About 10 years ago, only 3 per cent of tourist expenditures in this country came from overseas visitors. That has now risen to about 8 per cent.
I see that my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) is present. We are going after visitors from the Pacific Rim including Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and Korea. Last year the number of visitors who came from Hong Kong was up 14 per cent over the previous year. This is not just happening out of the blue but is happening because of the policy of the Government, which is to go after those markets quite aggressively.
The third main thrust of the Government is to improve the regulatory framework and to enhance the business environment for tourism. We are making progress in this area. I would like to commend the efforts of my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), in bringing about hearings to take a hard look at the regulation of air fares in the country. I for one think that we need a little more competition in that industry. I have appeared before that body and made my views known. I hope that we will move in the direction of liberalizing the regulation of air fares in Canada.
I would also like to commend the efforts of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), in simplifying port of entry measures for bringing convention material into Canada. I might add that later on this year the largest convention centre in the country will open. It is located in Toronto and will have 200,000 square feet of exhibit space. With that facility and with the over 20,000 hotel rooms in Toronto, we can go after the biggest conventions in the world. That sort of activity will benefit people in all parts of Canada because whenever international visitors come to any part of Canada for a convention, they usually have pre- or post-convention tours to various parts of the country. Of course, that convention centre is being built with the assistance of federal
funds, as have a dozen other convention centres throughout the country.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), has now designated certain of the skilled tourism culinary trades as a priority for his departmental training programs. A culinary school at George Brown College in Toronto was recently opened. A lot of federal funds have gone into that project which is also aimed at improving the quality of the tourist experience of a person who comes to this country.
We are working on development of the product and we are working on marketing. We are trying to improve the business environment. This is being done in consultation with the private sector. Just three months ago, the Tourims Industry Association of Canada and I worked out an arrangement whereby we established a permanent consultative committee with about 30 representatives from all parts of the country on the advisory council to act as liaison with the private sector.
I like to approach tourism from a positive viewpoint. Surely there are things we can do and we are trying to do those things. We have poured additional moneys into the tourist industry. The year 1984 has been called the year of tourism in Canada by the private sector. We in Government believe in that and are trying to co-operate with the private sector to make it true. We are trying to turn the figures around by reducing the tourism deficit. I think that we really should approach the issue in a positive vein and continue to sell what I think is the greatest country in the world to people from all over the world and bring those people here to Canada.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, I would hope that he would ensure that he made no misleading comments respecting the oil pricing agreement with the Province of Alberta. I think he left the impression that the federal Government could not extract a better deal from the Province of Alberta. The fact of the matter, which should not go unnoticed, is that when the deal was signed, the producing provinces were providing oil at a price which was approximately 55 per cent of world price. Yet at the retail level, that price exceeded the world price. That gap was essentially taken up by a federal Government tax. The consumer of gas and oil in the country did not receive the benefit of the low price that was negotiated with the producing provinces. Yes, our prices have been scaled up and international prices have come down, but Canadians in general did not receive the benefits of the low-priced energy agreement which was struck between the producing provinces and the federal Government.
The Minister spoke about being positive. I agree with him that we must be positive and do things that will enhance the tourist industry. If the Minister is interested in a constructive and positive approach, I wonder why the Government saw fit suddenly and unilaterally to dismantle 20 per cent of the VIA Rail passenger service in the country. That move created chaos and havoc in the tourist industry, particularly with the Japanese sector of the tourist industry. I think that some $40 million worth of tourist revenue was lost annually as a result of
March 22, 1984

the dismantlement of that service and one community in particular, Jasper, Alberta, lost $10 million annually. If the Minister is so positive about tourism in the country today, why did the Government unilaterally dismantle the VIA Rail service, not only hurting the tourist industry but undermining confidence in Canada as a viable country to visit?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, there is no easy answer to the Hon. Member's last question. The fact is that hardly a day goes by that we do not hear complaints from the other side about government spending and the deficit. The fact is that the subsidy to VIA Rail tickets has been at a cost of around $98 a ticket. To be in the railway business is to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Notwithstanding that, the Government has tried to pay particular attention to those areas which have been adversely affected by the railway cuts.
As the Hon. Member well knows, the service between Winnipeg and Edmonton has in fact been restored. I am going to be in Jasper myself in two or three weeks along with the Minister of Transport. I have been dialoguing with people from Jasper. We appreciate the problem and we are trying to see what we can do to resolve it in a satisfactory way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from that answer that the Minister is not in support of the reinstatement of the VIA Rail passenger service between Vancouver and Edmonton? Unless he is in support of that, then that issue will remain unresolved.
While I am on my feet, I might say that the Minister may wish to answer the question with respect to airline deregulation. I would remind the House that the current airline structure was established under successive Liberal regimes. What specifically does the Minister propose to do to reduce the burden of cost arising out of our extravagant airport system, our higher labour costs, higher fuel costs and higher operating costs which must inevitably be passed on to the travelling public? What will he do about reducing the losses to the airport revolving fund which this year, in the case of one airport alone, will chalk up a deficit of close to $50 million? Does the Minister have anything positive to suggest which would reduce the burden on the air travelling consumer?


David P. Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I appeared before the Air Transport Committee about two or three weeks ago and suggested that most Canadians perceive air costs in Canada as being higher than those in the United States. The airlines usually argue that the full fare rate for equal distances, taking into consideration the exchange rate, are comparable. That is true. However, what is misleading about that is that there is more access to discounted fares in the United States, both in terms of destination and in terms of the lead time required to get a discounted ticket. The end result is that about 90 per cent of the consumers in the United States are flying on some type of discounted ticket, whereas in Canada the figure is about 35 per cent to 40 per cent.
I recommended to the Air Transport Committee that there be some relaxation in the regulations so that in fact there can
Supply
be more destinations and less lead time for discounted tickets. The fact of the matter is that there are not as many airlines in this country as there are in the United States. In the United States it was possible for the industry to cope with a couple of airlines going into receivership. Most of the airlines in the country lost money last year. I think if we have a more liberal approach to the pricing of tickets in this country-I say that in a philosophical and not a partisan sense, as my colleagues know-and if there is some relaxation, then more people would fly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about the infrastructure?


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. The number of Canadians travelling to the United States has been increasing rather substantially and the reverse has been happening with Americans coming to Canada. In July of last year compared to July, 1982 the number of Canadians travelling to the United States increased by 37 per cent. It is all very well for the Minister to say that Canadians travel to the United States because there is better weather down there. I do not buy that. I wonder if the Minister could tell us why there was an increase of 37 per cent in the number of Canadians going south in July of last year.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I think you get a more accurate picture if you take the figures over the year as a whole. There was an increase of 2.4 per cent in the number of Americans coming to Canada from 1982 to 1983. My hon. friend is correct; during the warm summer months the weather in Canada is better than it is anywhere in the United States. We should be promoting that and we are. We have just launched a television campaign to encourage Canadians to vacation in Canada. I hope no one will disagree with that. We want to have Canadians thinking more about vacationing in this country. That is not to say that Canadians should never go to the United States or travel abroad. All we want to do is narrow the gap so we are trying to market this country as best we can. The number one medium these days is television and I have received a lot of positive comments about the television campaign that we have launched to address the very matter that the Hon. Member raises.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism (Mr. Smith) said a few moments ago that during the winter Canada had no tourist centres at all. I should like to welcome him to Victoria some time where we have a tourist trade for 12 months of the year. At the present time the daffodils are in full bloom, crocuses have gone but the tulips will soon be out and the flowering trees are in bloom. We could show him many tourist attractions.
I must admit that I might find some difficulty in digging up any Liberals to meet him. To meet an elected Liberal he would have to drive 1,500 miles east, traversing three big provinces before finding one. Outside of that I am sure it would be an eye opener for him to learn that we have a 12-month tourist

March 22, 1984
Supply
season in Victoria. We would like him to encourage Canadians and Americans to enjoy it.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that I was raised in Victoria and lived on the route where the Tally ho went by every day. I am well aware of the many features Victoria has to offer. It is a vacation destination for 12 months of the year.
What I said was that we do not have a banana belt in this country-I believe those were my exact words. With the greatest of respect to my friend from Victoria, I do not think there are too many people lying on the beaches of Victoria these days but I do think they are golfing. I am the first to sing and extol the praises of Victoria.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the end of the 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I may not take up my entire 20 minutes but I should like to put two or three views on the record. I spoke in a debate not unlike this one last April and at that time I expressed some of my concerns. I will restate some of those concerns today; I thought they were valid then, and in many cases I think they are valid today.
This is a difficulty that cannot be solely thrust upon the federal Government. I think provincial governments and the federal Government have not paid sufficient heed to the problems encountered by the tourist industry or, for that matter, have not devoted sufficient time to the development of a policy which would make Canada a more attractive place for those who want to take their vacation in their own country and a more attractive place for people who want to come to Canada on vacation.
At times I wonder why Canadians do not spend their vacation money in their own country. There are a lot of obvious reasons for this. If you get your vacation in January and you do not ski, you would not find it too comfortable to set up a deck chair at the corner of Bronson and Laurier in an attempt to catch a few rays. We all understand that there are certain climatic and environmental considerations that make it unattractive for people to take their vacation right here in the middle of the winter. There are people whose vacation is assigned to them during the months of December, January, February and even March.
For Members of the House of Commons to criticize Canadians who do not spend their vacation time at home is hypocritical. We all know that a significant minority, if not the majority, of Members of Parliament travel to areas with warmer weather during the winter in order to enjoy that kind of vacation. For example, I noted with interest that both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) spent their Christmas break in Florida. In fact, they attended a party at the home of one of Canada's best known industrialists on New Year's Eve. I do not think it would be proper for us to admonish Canadians for travelling outside the country when we do it ourselves.
Why do people travel, Mr. Speaker? Why do they go away? In many instances it is because they like warm weather. They go away because they believe that to travel and see other parts of the world is beneficial; it broadens their background and improves their education, gives them an insight into lifestyles and the development of other parts of the world. I do not think we want to discourage that. One of the main reasons people travel outside the country is that it is cheaper to do that than it is to travel in Canada. If we look at the weekend newspapers we find the travel sections full of ads for cheap fares to Florida for those who live in eastern Canada, cheap fares to California for those who live in western Canada, or vacation packages of seven, 14 days or longer in the Caribbean. If we calculate the cost of a vacation at home we may find that it costs a lot more to take a holiday in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver than it does for the same length of stay, including transportation costs, hotel costs, extra costs, in the southern parts of the North American Continent or the islands of the Caribbean.
What is the reason for that? One of the reasons is that while it would cost you $75 to $100 a day for a hotel in any one of the places in Canada I mentioned, summer or winter, it would cost $26 to $35 a day for similar accommodation in those other parts of the world. Four weeks ago one could fly from Toronto to Tampa or Orlando, Florida for $199 return. Where can you go in Canada for $199 return? There is more difficulty in finding the kinds of attractive package deals for vacationing in Canada than it is to find them for vacationing in other parts of the world. Whose fault is that?
If one wants to go out for dinner in many of the cities of our own country, it is a fairly expensive proposition. There has not been the development of the family restaurant which takes into account the average income families with two or three kids. These families cannot afford to lay out the big dollars, and neither do they want the exquisite and extravagant restaurants. They would be content with less expensive restaurants which serve plain but wholesome and nourishing food. But there has been no effort to develop that kind of restaurant across our own country.
Those are some of the reasons, I believe, that people who have the financial capacity to travel tend to make their plans in such a way as to take them away from Canada rather than to stay within the country. I believe we simply have to recognize that as a fact. The solutions, I feel, rest in part with the industry and in part with the various levels of government. There are arguments that the tax levels which the tourist industry must pay are overbearing. I suspect that the argument can be made that the levels of taxation in the tourist industry are indeed onerous. However, let us take a look at the consequences of reducing its taxes. Will we automatically receive a reduction in the price which will be charged to the individual who might want to take a vacation in Canada?
I have noted with interest that any time there has been a reduction in tax, the industry involved rarely, if ever, passes it on in the way of benefit to the consumer. In addition to that, if
March 22, 1984

we do reduce the tax-I am not arguing against it; I am just thinking aloud about the potential for benefit-there will still be the requirement on the part of government, I assume, to meet its cost obligations. By reducing the tax on the tourism industry and related industries, we would have to raise the money somewhere else.


Otto John Jelinek: It would come in additional revenue.


Ian Deans: My friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), says that the increased revenue would compensate for lower taxes. I am prepared to concede that that is a possibility. However, I am suggesting that there are no guarantees that the reduction would automatically be passed on. It has not been passed on in most areas in the past. Therefore, taking into account the other factors I mentioned, there is no reason to believe there would be a concurrent increase in revenue as a result of a reduction in the tax. I concede, however, it is an arguable point.
The same argument, incidentally, can be made for any sector of the economy. The chances are-in fact, it is almost guaranteed-that the increase in tax will be levied on the average wage earner. I feel that a reduction in taxes would be desirable and that we should make a careful study of it; but if we are going to reduce the taxes on the tourist industry, the same argument can be made for other industries, and quite legitimately, based on much the same information.
If we are going to do that, it is quite clear to me that we will still have to raise taxes and those taxes will come from those who now pay the overwhelming majority of the tax dollar, the average wage earner, who will not have the additional revenue to take his vacation anyway so he will be no better off. The average wage earner will pay more in taxes because we have reduced taxes somewhere else and will not be in any better position to travel.
Many of those who take advantage of opportunities to travel do so at public expense. I heard someone talking about conventions. I think to myself, how wonderful it is. It is a tremendous boost to the local economy to have a convention in one or another of the many centres in the country. However, the people who go to conventions, in the main, have their expenses paid for by the company for which they work. The company writes off the cost against their taxes as a cost of doing business. So ultimately the poor guy who never gets to take a holiday, who pays the bulk of the taxes, has his taxes raised in order that those people can go to conventions. I cannot help but think that perhaps it is a little bit like a dog chasing its tail. The whole argument begins and ends in the same place.
I believe what we must do is try to catalogue what it is about Canada which is attractive. There is a multitude of things which are attractive about this country. We must try to make people believe that coming to and staying in Canada for vacations, even though it does cost a little more, is desirable because they would enjoy themselves and have fun. We cannot sell the argument that they should do so because of some national interest to be served. They must believe it is better for them individually because it is nice to have a vacation in
Supply
Canada. We are only going to be able to accomplish that if we can convince the hotel chains that $100 a night for a hotel room is too much, that it is more than an average family can afford. We must convince the airlines that if they are capable of flying people all the way from Toronto to Tampa for $199, they could fly people a similar distance to other parts of Canada for the same price.
We are going to have to suggest to the restaurant operators that the family-style restaurants which grew up in many parts of North America as an attraction to families on vacation should be more developed and in greater numbers here in Canada, with prices held to levels similar to what is charged elsewhere. We must try to convince the tourist industry to advertise good, solid value vacations in Banff, Montreal, Ottawa, the Gatineau, the St. Lawrence River, the East Coast, taking advantage of the beauty and enjoyment of those areas, rather than filling the pages of the travel sections of The Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, the Montreal Gazette, with pictures of Antigua, Barbados, Florida and California. If we could get the tourist industry to put those kinds of ads in the newspapers, rather than selling the idea that a palm tree wafting over your head is better than a pine tree waving beside you, then maybe we would not be fighting a losing battle.
I concede that taxation may well play a part and should be looked at, as should taxation in general. I would support the careful review of that aspect of the tourist business. However, there are other things that should be done to make vacationing in Canada more attractive.
I was musing about this on my way over here and I remember a colleague of mine some years ago, Max Saltsman, saying that if Canadians are going to go south anyway, why do we not have, like the U.S., a Canadian island in the Caribbean? He suggested the Turks and Caicos. I understand the island was not necessarily opposed to that suggestion. In fact, they thought it was not such a bad idea. A lot of people here thought it was kind of humorous; a lot thought it was kind of ridiculous. However, when you think about it, it was no more ridiculous than the U.S. having Hawaii or Puerto Rico. The distances are not all that much different and, given the potential for development of a southern clime vacation spot, with the money spent in Canada, it was not really all that dumb. Maybe it should have been pursued a little more and maybe it would have resulted in our not having to have this kind of debate year after year after year. It is worthy of consideration, although I can appreciate the downside of taking on that kind of responsibility.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us look at why the Government cannot or does not or will not reduce the tax burden. That is important. As in all things, we should not collect one penny more in tax than is required. Neither should we tax people who cannot afford to pay. Nor should we make it impossible for business to be successful because of the tax burden they must bear. We stand by those principles. But let us also look at the industry itself, and why its promotional arm continues to promote the

March 22, 1984
Supply
need for Canadians to travel to other parts of the world rather than at home. Let us look at what the industry itself has done to try and make low-cost vacationing in Canada a reality.
Is it unreasonable for us to expect that if you can go half way around the world on vacation for $400 inclusive, you ought to be able to stay in your own country and have a similar kind of vacation-albeit in the winter without the sunshine-which does not cost any more? If we were to address that issue, then I think we would probably serve the industry better and help develop the job opportunities in Canada that people are speaking about. We would also help to provide more stability for the country and in the long run we would sell Canada as a good place to spend some time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There is a ten-minute period for questions or comments. If not, the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankough-net).
Mr. Harquaih Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was rising for debate. Perhaps there was an interpretation that I had a question. I did not; I was rising to continue the debate and I am ready to proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I realized that. If the Hon. Member had a question to put, I would have recognized him. It is now the turn of the Hon. Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into this very important debate on tourism. It is big business in Canada and my riding is no exception. My riding is located in southeastern Ontario, midway between Montreal and Toronto, and midway between Ottawa and Toronto. It is very accessible to millions of people in the northern U.S. The area I have the honour to represent is a prime example of the potential we have to attract not only interprovincial tourists but those of our neighbour to the south. The area is known as the Land O'Lakes region because of its vast number of lakes, stretching from Lake Ontario to the Bay of Quinte in the south, to the thousands of lakes of the north, not including the beautiful area of Hastings County which touches on Algonquin Park.
The Land O' Lakes tourist region is a part of the Canadian Shield. In the southern area is the limestone bed of an ancient sea, an area better protected from the industrialized acid rain of urban areas. This gives way to the glacier-scarred ridges of the pre-Cambrian Shield as you travel north. Covered with mixed coniferous and hardwood forests, a land of bold and rugged contours but quiet beauty. This area is composed of the County of Lennox and Addington, part of the County of Hastings and most of the County of Frontenac. It is the home of the United Empire Loyalists who settled in this area in 1784. The year 1984 marks the bicentennial of the arrival of these United Empire Loyalists from the U.S.
The promotional budget for tourism has been increased from $14.5 million to $22 million, but I ask how much is being
spent promoting the visit of our Head of State, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, to Canada, or that of His Holiness the Pope? This would mean a great deal to all Americans and Canadians across this country. A great deal has been spent to date promoting the explorer Jacques Cartier and the first setting of a white man's foot on the shores of the Gaspe in 1534, and the arrival of the majestic, full-rigged, tall ships in Quebec during this coming summer. But I ask what about the federal support for comparable functions in Ontario such as the arrival of the loyal Americans known as the United Empire Loyalists? This selective approach to advertising is only one further example of why tourism is under siege everywhere in Canada, not just in southeastern Ontario.
Over the past ten years Canada has lost almost half of its share of the international tourism trade, but if this had not happened we would today have at least 150,000 more people of all ages working in Canada. Yearly industry revenues would be $2.2 billion greater. Strangely, because of this and previous Liberal Government policies, we had a $2.1 billion tourism deficit in 1983. Canada's share of the international tourism market is measured by the number of foreigners coming to our country, not by the number of Canadians who travel abroad. This has created another problem adding to the additional problem of Canadians not spending their vacations in Canada. In 1983 alone 17.5 per cent more Canadians travelled outside Canada than in 1982, while only 0.2 per cent more foreigners came to Canada. This means that 17.3 per cent more Canadians contributed to the growth of world tourism, while 0.2 per cent more foreign tourists contributed to our share at home.
It is time Canadians addressed this growing problem and stopped the erosion before our tourist industry is in complete shambles. If this trend continues, it is expected that the deficit in tourism alone by 1987 will be $4 billion. Spending more money on advertising, especially through Liberal ad agencies, will not address the serious problem.
We as politicians must recognize the importance of this industry. There is no question that we in the Progressive Conservative Party understand the importance this industry has, not just in urban centres but in rural constituencies such as Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. Part of our problem in Canada, from a foreign viewpoint as well as our own, is one of perception. Canada is just too expensive in comparison to alternatives. The price of such items as liquor, tobacco, gasoline, accommodation, wages, property taxes, fishing and hunting licences and income taxes create the problem of comparisons. I realize these taxes and regulations are not all under federal jurisdiction. This underlines the fact that provincial tourism Ministers and the federal Minister of Tourism must work more closely to co-ordinate research and effect tax changes and regulation changes at all levels in the tourism industry.
Canada can become a tourist attraction year round. However, tax incentives, affordable loans and interest rates must be available in order to establish and upgrade facilities which the
March 22, 1984

public expect today. Speaking of our summer tourism trade in Canada, we face a season of less than 100 days with a good summer. Unfortunately, no one can control the weather, but we can control taxation.
Tourism is one of Canada's largest employers and creates over one million jobs in a variety of diversified fields. Presently one out of every ten Canadians, from taxi drivers to resort and marina operators, earns a living from tourism. I believe we in the Bay of Quinte and Land O' Lakes area are a choice destination.
The year 1984 marks a very special occasion for the Canadian tourism industry. Because of the large number of special events, anniversaries and other celebrations, 1984 has been designated the year of tourism in Canada. Unfortunately, one has only to travel to northern New York state to see how economically uncompetitive we are. The Americans do get an advantage with their dollar, but even that is not enough to balance the effect of Canadian taxation policies and over-regulation. The price of high profile products is raised automatically in many cases, which raises the question of taxation without representation. Provincial governments have legislation which automatically raises the tax provincially when federal taxes increase. This type of arithmetic makes no sense and does not assess the negative impact these taxes have on this industry.
Aside from taxation we must also create an attitude in our communities which welcomes tourists, whether they are spending money in our businesses or not. A person asking for directions must be treated with courtesy. If they are not, that is what the travellers will remember about that particular community. A positive attitude must be expanded to include all governments and individuals if we are to regain our share of the tourist market. It costs nothing to be polite and to smile.
The optimism of changing the Government and electing the Progressive Conservatives will certainly help in a major way. Long-term economic prospects will mean jobs for the 1.5 million people officially unemployed today. Only with fair taxation and regulation coupled with competitive prices and good quality service can we hope to regain our lost tourism market. This is not likely to happen in 1984 alone, but our message should be that we as politicians realize we cannot raise taxes without first knowing what effect they will cause. The practice of squeezing every ounce from the business community, only to have it wasted by government, must stop. The investment community and small businessman must have confidence and encouragement that hard work and common sense will pay dividends which they, rather than just government, will benefit from. This confidence can create a rippling effect in Canada which could realistically create thousands of permanent jobs as well as thousands more part-time, seasonal jobs.
Our job is to attract our American friends. The UEL bicentennial and the four hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Jacques Cartier are only two events which could be invaluable in attracting visitors from the northern United States to see Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to take part in the many events which have been planned in eastern Ontario. Advertis-
Supply
ing alone will not do what has to be done, especially when it is tainted with Liberal advertising agencies just before a federal election. We must make commitments to support tourism with a cost-competitive policy which encourages investment as well as a fair return on this investment. After tax it must give encouragement and incentive for others to invest in tourism throughout Canada.
In the past the federal Government has ignored southeastern Ontario under the old DREE Program. Due to past performance, if the Government stayed in power this porkbarrel approach would continue under the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. All indications look to a change in government which will not ignore eastern Ontario. The eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement, signed by the Clark Government in 1979, will end its five-year term this year. As yet there is no prospect of replacing it with a new agreement.
One project which would stimulate tourism in the Bay of Quinte area and Napanee is the development of boating facilities on the Napanee River. This could be provided for in an agreement to develop this potential in co-operation with the provincial and federal governments through the Industrial and Regional Development Program. Presently we in Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington have been placed by the Government in tier II for maximum level assistance of 60 per cent. I believe this should be changed to tier III or tier IV in order to encourage investment and a competitive industry with American facilities and also to develop new, viable services. Tier III and tier IV would mean a level of assistance of 75 per cent rather than 60 per cent.
I would also like to touch on the promotion of tourism abroad. It is of great importance as tourism has become one of the major industries of the world and one of the fastest developing. Over the past two decades the volume of activity has increased four-fold. Some increase is due to inflation, but most is due to sheer growth in activity, in terms of both more arrivals and greater per capita expenditure.
Countries from all ends of the economic and political spectrum have, in the past two decades, come to establish and develop overseas networks of tourism offices. These range from one small room in a neighbouring capital to over 20 substantial concerns scattered across the world. Geographically most offices are situated in Europe and North America. Countries in developed regions, including Japan, Australia and South Africa, receive most of the world's tourism income and also account for the source of nearly all the global tourism expenditures.
I am very concerned about the level of overseas representation carried out by Canada. Many nations which are not rich recognize the great importance of tourism to their economies and spend considerable amounts on promotion. The world tourism organization has reported that in a sample of 42 countries over 60 per cent of all overseas representation in the tourism sector was undertaken by national tourism offices. Canada's tourism offices are under the control of the Department of External Affairs. I feel it is impossible for embassies

March 22, 1984
Supply
and consulates to adequately fulfil the role of a national tourist office abroad.
There are several reasons why this is so. First, embassies operate in an environment totally different from that of the travel and tourist industry of a country.
Second, diplomatic missions generally lack marketing expertise and are ill-equipped to cope with the organization and implementation of a fully comprehensive marketing plan. Additionally, press or information attaches are unlikely to possess specialist knowledge in tourism and are more likely to be in contact with political and diplomatic people of the host country rather than tourists.
Third, embassies are often physically located far from the travel centres of a nation. In West Germany, Canada, Brazil, Australia and the U.S., for example, embassies are far away from the major market regions for tourism.
Fourth, the travel trade world-wide, now the main commercial partner of a national tourist office, prefers to conduct business with a tourist office staff rather than with diplomats. Tourist office staff speak the same language, technically speaking, and form a direct and effective channel to the tourist industry back home. Evidence also suggests that such representation is regarded by the relevant national tourism administrations as temporary and provide a useful but somewhat crude means of test marketing before the eventual hoped for opening of a fully-fledged, independent tourist office.
In markets which are considered of secondary importance, embassy representation is considered only as better than nothing. Canada must promote tourism as it promotes trade, with separate and independent trade offices abroad which can specialize in a very competitive business.
It is understandable that smaller countries with limited resources cannot invest considerable sums of money into the creation of a network, however small, of national tourism offices overseas. Instead, they rely on alternative means of representation such as departments of external affairs and diplomatic missions, and many conduct promotional campaigns from their home base. Perhaps Canada cannot have separate tourism offices everywhere it would like, but I feel it is imperative that national tourism offices be put in place wherever possible with qualified overseas representation and promotion in order to be competitive in the international tourist industry. It is not good enough to just buy slick TV and media advertising.
Tourism being one of Canada's largest employers, it creates over one million jobs in a variety of diversified fields. One out of every ten Canadians, from taxi drivers to resort and marina operators, earns a living from tourism.
Southeastern Ontario is a choice location with wide open spaces of unspoiled natural beauty complemented by beautiful towns and villages that are on a comfortable human scale and yet full of interest because of our culture and our own diversity.
The year 1984 marks a very special occasion because of the bicentennial of the arrival of the first permanent settlers in 1784. The Government has done little to promote this historical event in or outside of Canada. The slogan "The Year of Tourism" is a good one but again, people want to know why large amounts of money are being spent to promote selective events while other events, such as the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in the Maritimes and Quebec in 1783, and in what is now Ontario in 1784, are all but ignored.
Lack of recognition for this major event is unfortunate. With all the local activities in southeastern Ontario, needless to say this is very important or could be very important to the number of Americans which could be attracted here this summer. The average American visit of over 24 hours will last for 4.5 days and about $180 will be spent. There is no question that the Bay of Quinte, Land O'Lakes area is a choice destination for our American friends. The number of American visitors between 1972 and 1982 declined by over 6 per cent in Canada, causing our largest tourist deficit of $2.1 billion for 1983.
Eastern Ontario has the best sports fishing, with the widest variety of species in North America and over 40,000 lakes. Tourism is important to us all. All I ask is that the Government treat all major events and promotion of choice destinations on an equal basis across the country in its advertising campaigns.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments. Debate.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate today. While I cannot agree with everything the previous speaker said, I want to begin by congratulating him on the manner in which he has participated and for his thoughtful approach in the speech which he just delivered to the House.
I also want to express my appreciation to the Official Opposition for focusing on this topic because I believe it is a very important aspect of our lives in Canada. Since tourism is big business it is very appropriate that we have this opportunity to discuss this topic in the House of Commons.
Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) who has been devoting his energy to touring the country and co-operating with provincial Ministers of Tourism. I believe he is injecting new life into the entire question of tourism in this country. Recently, he came to visit my constituency in northern New Brunswick. Not only did this give me the opportunity to highlight some of the attractions that we have there, but I could also stress the need for additional funds in that area and ask the Minister to discuss this need with his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley), the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), and other Ministers who have a direct effect on the growth of northern New Brunswick.
March 22, 1984

I am particularly pleased to speak in this debate in this, the year of tourism in Canada. Other Members have referred to a number of special events which will be taking place. We look forward to a number of anniversaries and special events across the country that range from the first Viking landing in Newfoundland to the celebration of the birth of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, 50 years ago.
Of course, the important celebrations that are now under way for the bicentennial in my Province of New Brunswick are of great interest to Atlantic Canada. One point on which I could not agree with the previous speaker concerns the great deal of planning and organization that has gone into the preparations for the celebration of the bicentennial year in our province. The federal Government is investing $2.5 million to match the provincial contribution toward this celebration. A total of $5 million has been budgeted for 1984 for New Brunswick alone.
We also know that a good deal of planning has gone into the celebration of the four hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the arrival of Jacques Cartier in la belle Province de Quebec. We know of the excitement in anticipation of the arrival of the tall ships that will come to Halifax and then to the beautiful city of Quebec. All this preparation certainly gives a positive initiative for all of us to make a special effort in tourism during this year of tourism in Canada. As Members of Parliament, we should make every effort to encourage business people, the Chamber of Commerce, the Junior Chamber of Commerce and all others involved to collaborate to the highest degree in order to sustain this most important industry.
Let me emphasize that the tourist industry is one which involves dynamic people who professionally respond to the opportunities and challenges of the future. These challenges include establishing new facilities and training and developing the skills of personnel to be gainfully employed in the industry. Of course, it is in this respect that the Minister of Small Businesses and Tourism is co-operating with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) in bringing forward these programs in preparation for visits by our friends from the United States and Europe. As the previous speaker said, we will not only meet them with a smile but in a competent way in order to look after their every need while in this country.
The figures are quite impressive. This industry generates $17 billion a year in Canada and contributes over 5 per cent of our Gross National Product, which means jobs for over one million Canadians. In addition, tourism income spreads throughout the economy, creating more jobs and income to the tune of more than $28 billion in related generated revenue. Tourism spending represents at least $700 a year for every man, woman and child in Canada. This money is earned by Canadians in all walks of life, from waitresses to welders to tellers and tailors.
As I said earlier, tourism is big business. We welcome 34.4 million visitors per year. Every 100,000 visitors to a commu-
Supply
nity can mean $9 million in revenue, money that makes its way through the economy from the butcher to the baker and from the barber to the banker. From all of these related facts it becomes clear that we must support in every way the development and promotion of tourism in Canada.
In my own Province of New Brunswick, in terms of economic impact tourism in 1981 represented $561 million of income. In Quebec it represented $5,229 million and in Ontario $8,900 million. These very impressive figures substantiate without a doubt the tremendous importance of tourism in terms of revenue in this country, and as being something we must all support in terms of the expenditures referred to by the Minister earlier when he talked about the theme "Canada, what a country!" Some of the ads have appeared over television recently. They are most impressive, timely and needed. One of the ads made reference to Village Acadien in northern New Brunswick. This blend of heritage between French and English is very important in our country. The thrust of the Minister of Tourism in this area will bring the desired positive results we all want, namely more jobs, more opportunities for Canadians to find work in this industry. This is a year of turnaround. With the co-operation between the Tourist Industry Association and Tourism Canada, the Ministry and other departments and various travel associations, and all others directly involved in the industry, we will achieve even greater goals.
I wish to refer to some of the events that will take place in 1984, the New Brunswick bicentennial year. There will be a visit to our province by His Holiness the Pope. He will be visiting the City of Moncton. Various committees are now making ready for his visit. It will indeed be a highlight of the bicentennial celebrations. In addition, Her Majesty the Queen will also visit New Brunswick during the bicentennial celebrations. It is evident that a lot of thought and comprehensive planning has gone into the preparation of bicentennial celebrations. The same is true in the Province of Quebec with the four hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the arrival of Jacques Cartier.
We have many visitors from Germany, France and the United States. Following a tour of the Gaspe coast, they enter New Brunswick through the gateway to the Atlantic area, crossing the interprovincial bridge which leads to Campbellton and on into my constituency. During the summer and autumn, the leaves are very beautiful. People who have travelled throughout many countries of the world state that the banks of the Restigouche are one of the beauty spots of the world. I am pleased to make that public today.
When we talk about tourism, we talk about such beauty spots as the Restigouche in northern New Brunswick. There is a blend of the Acadians and the Loyalists who settled there 200 years ago. Organizations such as the Restigouche Tourist Association have been very active in recent years. They have developed very attractice pamphlets and brochures. They have received co-operation from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the provincial Ministry of Tourism, other agencies and, indeed, the federal Minister. This positive movement will result in even greater participation than in the past.

March 22, 1984
Some facilities are now in place. There is a beautiful ski lodge in the County of Restigouche. There is Sugarloaf Park, a provincial park. Millions of dollars have been invested there by the provincial and federal governments, providing a chair lift and other appropriate facilities. In the summer there are trailer facilities, tennis courts and walking trails. A new slide, the first of its type in eastern Canada, will be in operation this summer. As a result of co-operation from the federal Government, completion will be this spring. It will cost between $700,000 and $800,000.
As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Tourism was in my constituency not long ago. There are a number of other projects that will require his support. Other development required in the region involves marina facilities. These essential attractions must be provided to draw people to our area. The number of people who ski in our area has a very positive impact on our economy. Because of our unemployment problems, we must direct more funds to tourism. We must develop the facilities that are needed. We must not only be ready to attract people to share the beauty of our region, but we must provide attractions so that they will spend some time there.
The annual salmon festival brings thousands of people to the area. I have been privileged to participate in this event. I want publicly to salute those who give of their time, not only those in the business of tourism, but all those willing and ready to lend a positive hand to continue bringing developments to the area, thereby creating more jobs and stimulating the economy to an even greater degree.
May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. 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.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) was host to Environment Ministers and their officials from nine European countries and the ten provinces to wrestle with the acid rain problem. At the conclusion a pact was signed to cut sulphur
dioxide emissions by at least 30 per cent by 1993. Canada has already gone on record as approving acid rain reductions of 50 per cent by 1994.
Canada's auto emission regulations are three times more lenient than those in the United States. I hope and pray the Canadian Government will move quickly to follow the United States in this respect. Over 80 per cent of cars manufactured in Canada are sold in the United States and are equipped with stricter controls. It is simple logic that new regulations could be approved immediately requiring all models, starting with 1987 cars, to have tighter controls.
I am aware the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and other Departments are involved in this decision, but now is the time. This will show the United States that we mean business and help to get it to move in a positive way to reduce its acid rain which is pouring across the border into Canada, especially into my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka where 70 per cent of all acid rain comes from the United States.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of the Environment for his efforts, for his great concern, and for hosting this important conference-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



ACID RAIN


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) in applauding the signing of an agreement on sulphur dioxide emissions yesterday here in Ottawa, especially since, during the past four years, we have been working together on a sub-committee on acid rain. The agreement signed yesterday in this country is unique in the world today. Ten countries agreed and have committed themselves to reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by at least 30 per cent over the next ten years.
Mr. Speaker, this is a powerful political gesture, made on Canadian soil and demonstrating above all the will of the Canadian Government to take action against acid rain, this phenomenon of a modern age, and to ensure that present and future generations of Canadians will live in a healthy environment.
Throughout preparations for this agreement, people have been helping us. Groups made representations across Canada and also in foreign countries such as the United States, explaining the problem to politicians and stressing the importance of fighting acid rain. Today, I am just as pleased as they are and I want to thank them all, without singling out anyone one group, for the work they have done. Yesterday, the signing
March 22, 1984

of this agreement marked the beginning of the real fight against acid rain.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has publicly stated that the Government has erected one Taj Mahal after another because there is no one to complain about these horrendous monuments to the Liberal Party. There have always been complaints. The real problem is that the Government does not listen to them.
I, for one, will speak out against the billions of dollars that the Government has wasted, and intends to waste, sponsoring uneconomic megaprojects. Nine years ago $500 million went to build the great Mirabel airport which was proven unnecessary before it was built. It now operates at less than one-tenth of its capacity.
This morning, newspapers suggested that the $514 million Bell Helicopter Texron project financed by the federal Government would likely cost additional millions of dollars because the Agriculture Lands Protection Commission has refused to reclassify the originally chosen land for industrial purposes. This is something which should have been checked out in the first place. Who knows how much this one will end up costing taxpayers in the long run?
Government spending is simply out of control. It is time to put an end to uneconomic spending for political reasons, and time to begin using logic to get the country back on the track to recovery. My Party will do that after the next election.



LICENSING OF FOREIGN BORN DOCTORS

Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), who in fact is a medical doctor by profession, drew the attention of the House to the serious and long-standing problem which has developed regarding the licensing of foreign-trained medical doctors to practise in Canada.
For over a year I have been closely monitoring the situation of foreign born doctors who fled hostile environments and have received landed immigrant status. Most of these doctors have successfully completed their training, have acquired important specializations, and have practised medicine prior to coming to Canada.
I have taken the initiative to make representations on behalf of these refugee doctors to federal and provincial authorities so that they may be granted internships on a special basis. To
date all I have received from them is a lot of buck-passing between the two levels of government. I am told that, due to the shortage of residency training facilities in Canada, they are unable to complete their internship requirements in order to qualify for licensing examinations.
It is crucial that all provinces begin to address this problem by providing additional openings each year, specifically to refugee doctors. Such exceptions have been made in the past for refugee doctors and dentists from Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
I would also call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to convene a meeting of federal and provincial health officials to discuss various options which would allow these doctors to practise in Canada. We can no longer accept the argument that Canada is over supplied with doctors when there is a serious shortage of medical personnel in remote areas. I urge the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, we have been treated to quite a spectacle in the House over the last few days as the Conservatives try to come to grips with their policy on rising interest rates. One day they are concerned about interest rates, and the next day they are concerned about the falling dollar. Perhaps it is the approaching election which is causing such confusion among the Conservatives, so perhaps I can help by reminding them just what their policies have been over the last few years.
When he was Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) told the House of Commons that there was no reasonable alternative to high interest rates. When he was back in Opposition in 1981, he told a CTV interviewer:
Yes, I would continue to back Mr. Bouey. I agree that our interest rates have to track those in the United States.
The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) was even more blunt in 1982. He said, at the height of our interest rate prices, that lowering interest rates was "a quick fix" and that he agreed with the course of the then Minister of Finance, the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen).
Perhaps we cannot depend on what the Conservatives say; perhaps we should look at what they do. When they were in power, interest rates began their climb and were at 14 per cent by the time they lost the election. Maybe those facts will help the Conservatives in their confusion, and remind both the Conservatives and the Canadian people of what we could expect from a Tory government.

March 22, 1984



S.O. 21 SPORTS MISSISSAUGA DOMED STADIUM PROPOSAL

Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I urge Hon. Members to study the proposals for the Trillium Dome sports stadium of Mississauga. These proposals suggest a sports facility for southern Ontario which can be built without excessive demands on the public treasury. The Trillium Stadium would be built in Mississauga, only a half-hour drive away from either Hamilton in the west or Scarborough in the east, and less than one hour from Barrie, Oshawa, Kitchener, Guelph, and Niagara Falls. Our site offers a stadium to serve all southern Ontario, not just Toronto.
Equally important are the financing aspects of this plan. The stadium corporation now owns 2,000 acres of prime land. As land values around the stadium increase, land will be sold to pay for operating costs and to repay loans made for the initial construction.
Other ideas all involve massive public subsidies. Their costs can never be recovered. Taxpayers will never be repaid for initial public investments.
The stadium site in southern Ontario will be decided by the Ontario Government. I urge Members to study the Trillium proposal. If Members agree that a domed stadium should be built by private enterprise, then I ask that they contact Premier Bill Davis.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as deputy critic for small business and tourism, I have been requesting businesses in my riding to indicate the most important problems they are facing in their day-to-day operations. Mr. D. R. Dineen, President and General Manager of Canadian Tampax Corporation Ltd. of Barrie, wrote to me as follows:
Your letter was indicative of one of the problems facing small business today. Your letter was typed on the 16th of January and arrived in my office on February 9th. Small and medium businesses all across this country are spending incredible amounts of money on private courier services, in order to be able to manage their business efficiently and profitably. Waiting for Canada Post would be a disaster.
This is not an isolated incident, and the Minister responsible for Canada Post knows it. Taking 22 days for a parliamentary letter from Ottawa to arrive in Barrie is imbecilic. How then will employees of Canada Post find the time to perform additional duties on behalf of Consumers Distributing?
Canada Post has a mandate to move the mail, and until it manages to do so in a reasonable amount of time it should not be moving in on private enterprise in an unfair way. How much is Consumers Distributing paying for this service? How many more employees will the Post Office have to hire in order
to move the merchandise? Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, on what basis does Canada Post presume that it will be any more successful at this venture than it is at trying to move the mail?
I urge the Minister to reconsider this shortsighted venture which is discriminatory to business.



NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, direct investment by the present Government in high risk oil exploration on Canada Lands is a reckless waste of the taxpayers' money. One of the main goals of the National Energy Program was oil self-sufficiency by 1990. To date not one commercial oil discovery has been made on Canada Lands since the National Energy Program and a system of PIP grants was implemented.
The technology to bring oil to commercial production has yet to be developed. High risk exploration should be left to the major oil companies. Just over 35 years ago, major oil companies were spending millions of dollars on high risk exploration in western Canada, drilling hundreds of dry holes. Oil was finally found at Leduc.
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, many large Canadian companies have been developed because major foreign oil companies accepted the task of high risk exploration. If we are to reach oil self-sufficiency by 1990 or 1995, we should be concentrating on oil sands development. We have the technology, we have the resources, we know where the oil is, and we have the people who are trained to get the job done. Give Canadian companies the incentive to develop what we know we have; put Canadians back to work.
One oil sands mining operation creates thousands of jobs across Canada. Encourage the major oil companies to explore in the high risk areas of the Beaufort, Arctic, and offshore, which will create and sustain much needed economic activity-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: One of the most sensitive issues in Canada today is the extension of bilingual services. In Quebec and Manitoba court cases are proceeding because of the failure of the Legislatures to protect the rights of the minority. Confusion over this issue has been created by statements made during the Liberal leadership race, and by the lack of a clear signal from the present Government.
March 22, 1984

While confusion reigns over Liberal intentions on the Manitoba question, the Government is engaging in a process with regard to the Yukon and Northwest Territories that can only be destructive to national unity. In a speech I made last month dealing with Manitoba I appealed for tolerance, and called for passage of a made-in-Manitoba solution to the bilingual problem. The Government of Manitoba made that valiant effort. The Conservative opposition prevented the passage of that legislation. The matter will now go to the Supreme Court.
The federal Government, which urged the passage of Manitoba solution, is not moving in a similar manner in the Territories. The Government refused to wait for an initial court decision there. It acted without consulting the elected Assemblies, without consulting native representatives, and without allowing for a made-in-the-North solution. Those who for their own reasons claim that the federal Government is ramming French down their throats will use the method by which the Government handled this matter to create division within our nation, and to promote hatred.
The federal Government must act where Legislatures fail to protect minority rights. That is its constitutional obligation-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, many thousands of students will be entering the job market within days. Those students face a bleak and dismal future when it comes to finding jobs. All governments must do everything possible to provide meaningful summer employment for these students.
All across the nation, municipal, provincial and federal Governments are not sufficiently concerned with efforts to generate these needed jobs. Some of the job-creation programs are excellent. On February 28, 1984, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) unveiled his Department's Youth Training and Employment Program. However, this solution is just tickling the problem. Surely the Minister can find the means at least to triple the size of this worth-while program, creating 15,000 jobs rather than 5,000 jobs.
Canada's ability to be a leader of nations or to be simply a follower is contingent upon our providing youth with all of the education, experience, and opportunity possible. To do less in a country which has so much to offer is unthinkable not only to our citizens but to the world.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am sure he is aware that interest rates have again risen today, having gone up 20 bases points on top of the 20 bases point increase this week, and this trend will probably continue over the next little while. My question to the Minister deals with two other countries.
Germany lives side by side with France and has continually experienced interest rates which are three or four percentage points below those in France. There is a tremendous amount of trade as well as great interdependence between the two economies.Would the Minister tell us what we in Canada must do to develop the same degree of independence from high United States interest rates?


An Hon. Member:: Go to Germany.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, one member of the New Democratic Party just suggested to me that I should tell the Hon. Member to move to Germany. However, that will not be my answer.
The Hon. Member knows that the sizes of the French and German economies are more similar than are the sizes of the American and Canadian economies. The level of independence between Canada and the United States in terms of size is certainly very significant. The possiblity for Canada to have what would be a totally independent interest rate policy is a possibility which is of an academic nature, I would say. We have discussed this in the House and in parliamentary committees. The issue was also raised with the Governor of the Bank of Canada on numerous occasions.
We can see that the inflation rate is as low as possible, we can increase productivity as much as we can, and we can be as competitive as possible, and perhaps even more competitive than the United States. In that event we would grow faster and might have more room for lower interest rates. However, that obviously implies that we in Canada would be in a situation of lower inflation and higher productivity than the United States on a consistent basis and in many intances, and we would need the readiness to accept a lower standard of living in order to compete. However, that, very shortly, is the answer to the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was obviously groping. I think that he was less convinced by his answer than were we on this side of the House.


IMPACT OF INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Minister that Switzerland is right next door to

March 22, 1984
Oral Questions
France as well, and interest rates in Switzerland are even lower than those in Germany, and have been for a consistent period of time.
I would like to ask the Minister a question for which I have been trying to get an answer for two days. I would remind him that when he is answering his questions he is not just not answering me but he is insulting the many people who are watching and want an answer to this question.
Since the Budget did not anticipate the higher interest rates, and the higher unemployment that will result from them, and since he has said that we have no alternative but to follow the interest rates in the United States which are expected to go higher, what steps is he taking today to offset the impact of these higher interest rates? They are totally inappropriate for the Canadian economy and will cause higher unemployment and more bankruptcies for farmers and small businessmen.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to Switzerland. I wish he were more serious in his comparison. For decades Switzerland has been the banker of the world. The Hon. Member knows that in Switzerland there were situations where people had to pay interest in order to deposit money in Swiss banks, rather then having interest paid on their accounts. How can the Hon. Member make such a comparison and allege that he is seriously asking a question on this subject?
As far as the rise in interest rates is concerned, the allegation that this would necessarily lead to higher unemployment is not correct. We will see what will happen to unemployment figures in the next few months. We have seen interest rates go up by a slight margin, and I believe there is significant movement toward growth in the economy. I would argue with my friend that the next unemployment figures will indicate that we will have continued to create jobs in this country, not diminish the number of jobs.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister displays an incredible ignorance of what goes on in Switzerland. The reason Switzerland is the banker of the world and has low interest rates is because so much money comes into the country in response to its good economic policies. These policies have not been duplicated by the Government of Canada for the past 20 years.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer to my question clearly indicates that he has given no thought to the consequence of these higher interest rates that will affect so many parts of the economy. Is the Minister saying that he thinks the higher interest rates we are facing today are a total aberration and that they are going to be reversed? Is he wearing his rose coloured glasses? Is this situation only temporary, or is the Minister concerned? Can he show that concern to the people who are suffering from high
interest rates and who will suffer more if he does not do something about it?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, of course I am concerned about the increase in interest rates, just as I am concerned about the level of unemployment in the country, I am also concerned to ensure that the country will have economic growth and that there will not be a resurgence of the inflation that led to the recession. One has to govern in a responsible way and not resort to the kind of knee-jerk reaction that my friend suggests. He does not suggest any constructive or positive steps that may be taken.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I did that yesterday.


Marc Lalonde: He comes back to Switzerland. No doubt his Party would support the Swiss policy of shipping out tens of thousands of workers when that country gets into trouble, as it has done. It has migrant workers who can be shipped back to other countries in Europe and the Middle East when they are not needed in Switzerland. We do not have such a policy in this country and it is not one that I would be ready to recommend to the Government, even if the Conservatives were to advocate anything of the kind.


SIZE OF GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL RESERVES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, today in the Finance Committee the Governor of the Bank of Canada was not prepared to tell us why the Government's bank account has increased by over $3 billion since the date of the Budget. He could not tell us whether it was because tax collections were exceptionally good, or whether the Government had ceased spending money and therefore had lots of money on hand and so had increased its bank account by $3 billion.
Is the truth of the matter that the reason the Government's accounts are up by $3 billion is that it has been selling off foreign reserves in unprecedented amounts in order to prop up the Canadian dollar? Is that why we have over $3 billion more in our bank account?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that every month, the Government publishes a statement of its reserves. These figures are published on the third day of each month. I would ask my hon. friend to wait until the figures are published, so that he can see them in detail, and he can then speculate about whatever he wishes. He also knows perfectly well it is not the Government's policy to speculate daily on the state of its reserves.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that with the strength of the U.S. economy growing several times faster than ours, and with employment
March 22, 1984

burgeoning in the United States, our dollar is likely to fall. Exchange dealers say it will go down to 75 or 77 cents. Will the Minister have some sense and not waste our foreign exchange reserves by tring to prop up the dollar? Will he stop trying to be the King Canute of the Liberal Party, using all the foreign reserves to prop up the dollar? Will he give that undertaking to the people of the country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have stated repeatedly what the policy of the Government is, in the House and before parliamentary committees. I stated it quite clearly in the House as recently as 10 days ago when the Conservatives presented an opposition motion. That position was expanded upon by the Governor of the Bank of Canada before a parliamentary committee this morning. I have nothing to add to what we have already said about our policy in that regard.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTEREST RATE POLICY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the economic foolishness of the Government is only exceeded by the hypocrisy of the Conservatives who raised interest rates four times in about as many weeks when they were in government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: For once the Tories are a bit concerned about their hypocrisy, and I am glad to hear that.
Yesterday the Minister said that the Government does not have a high interest rate policy. Today, for the fifth week in a row, the Bank of Canada raised interest rates. This means higher costs for farmers, for small businesses, and for home owners. Will the Minister at last acknowledge that constitutional responsibility for interest rate policy rests with the federal Cabinet and with the Minister of Finance? Will he use that authority to reverse this disastrous high interest rate policy for the people of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House yesterday that the Government does not have a high interest rate policy. Its policy is to keep interest rates as low as it can possibly keep them.
I would remind my friend that up until 12 noon today, as far as I know, four out of the five major banks in Canada still had a prime rate half a point below the prime rate in the United States, which is 11.5 per cent. One of the major banks has been at the American level for a few days.
I have indicated to the Hon. Member before that it is not realistic to expect that we can keep lower levels of interest in this country than in the United States over an extended period. That is my policy and my point of view. It is a point of view shared by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
I want to repeat to my friend that we do not have a high interest rate policy; we are doing everything we can to keep interest rates in this country as low as we can.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to stop trying to snow the people of Canada.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, interest rates have gone up five weeks in a row. The Government has Constitutional authority and responsibility for that, but the Minister tries to tell us that it is not his policy. The people of Canada know that it is his policy, we know it, and everyone wants that policy to change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows that the last time we went through this, a couple of years ago, the result was disastrous for the people of Canada. The economy did not grow, it shrank; the number of unemployed was not reduced, it was increased, and the number of businesses that went broke also increased. Will the Minister quit putting us through this re-run of a bad old movie, and change his policy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have never asserted that it was not our responsibility. On the contrary, I recognize that monetary and fiscal policy fall under the authority of the Government, and more particularly of the Minister of Finance. I have never tried to pass that responsibility on to anyone, least of all to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. However, I want to repeat to him that our policy is not a high interest rate policy. Our policy is to keep interest rates as low as we can sensibly keep them in this country and still have an economy which will grow.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is going to have a hard time trying to explain how we have interest rates going up day after day, week after week, but the Government does not have a policy which sanctions that. The Minister knows if he had a real, low interest rate policy, he could telephone Governor Bouey and tell him to reverse the trend. He has not done that because he accepts high interest rates. That is the truth.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION ON INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Would the Minister go back to information of which he was aware and which was brought to his attention today? There are countries side by side in Europe with very different interest rate structures. The countries with low interest rates happen to be growing more rapidly than countries with high interest rates. Why does the Government now follow the low interest rate policy of countries which are, in fact, having better rates of growth and better job opportunities for their people, instead of having our interest rate policy set initially in the United States and then followed in a lock-step way here in Canada by Governor Bouey?

March 22, 1984
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is not only naive, it is reckless. The motion that somehow the Government could arbitrarily dictate an interest rate level in this country, and that this would lead to growth and prosperity, while the United States has interest rates significantly higher than in Canada, is a notion which is pure imagination-


John Edward Broadbent: And one you believed a week ago.


Marc Lalonde: It is fairyland. The Hon. Member knows very well that if we had, in Canada, interest rates at 9 per cent, and they were at 11 per cent in the United Sttes, even Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party would be the first ones to ship their money to the United States. He knows that.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Minister of National Revenue, I shall put my question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is aware, as are so many other Members of this House, that a number of people who receive gratuities as part of their income and declare that income do not receive commensurate benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Especially considering the fact that the Government of Quebec has now passed Bill 43 which will oblige all employees receiving gratuities to declare such income, can the Minister of Finance give the House the assurance that unemployment insurance benefits will be commensurate to declared income for all Canadians and especially for Quebecers as a result of Bill 43?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to discuss this matter not long ago with the Quebec Minister of Finance. The Hon. Member is also aware that Quebec has a new Minister of Revenue who is looking into the matter at this time. He has read the press reports just as I have. It seems that the Bill introduced by the Government of Quebec is now being revised, so I am going to wait and see how the situation develops. I am following developments very closely, and as soon as we are able to reach a decision, I shall let the Hon. Member know.


TAXATION OF TIPS CALCULATED AS INCOME
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister. Since the Government of Quebec stated before the association of restaurant owners, restaurant employees and hotel workers that it would drop consideration of incomes for 1983 and previous years, could the Minister inform the House, considering the fact that these
workers have no fringe benefits for this income, whether the Government is prepared to act in the same spirit as the Government of Quebec in dealing with workers who earn tips?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous reply, the matter does not seem to have gelled quite yet at the National Assembly and within the Quebec Government, I am first going to see exactly what transpires from current negotiations, and we shall then be able to review the situation in the light of whatever definitive decision Quebec will make.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister will know that he has a very serious problem in his Department. Veterans who are applying for exceptional incapacity allowance are having to wait an unreasonable length of time for the process to be completed. One example is Mr. Alan Bell of Toronto who had to fight for seven years before he received his allowance. An 84-year-old veteran in Vancouver, Mr. Fred Carter, applied three years ago, and still no decision has been reached. Mr. Carter has a heart problem, arthritis, and a bad hip. What is the Minister going to do to correct this ridiculous situation?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised those two particular cases before the Standing Committee just this week. I did indicate to the Hon. Member, in response to his criticism of the processing time, that we were working diligently to reduce that processing time. As Hon. Members know, I am not at liberty to discuss individual cases on the floor of the House. However, I did indicate to the Hon. Member that I would undertake to look into those two particular cases and report back to him.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to that stock answer for years. Obviously the Minister cannot find a solution to the problem. He has been responsible for that portfolio for the last three years. Will he resign, and let someone else take over who can find a solution to this ridiculous situation?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been trotting out the same type of statistics for the last three years. I have indicated to him on numerous occasions that not only has the issue of the backlog been addressed, but the processing time on average has been reduced from some 334 days two years ago to less
March 22, 1984

than 120 days on first applications. So, Mr. Speaker, if that is not progress I do not know what it is.


INSOLVENCY ACT
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Prior to the Christmas prorogation the Finance Committee was seized with the Bill dealing with insolvency. We had hearings on this. We realize that there are many important decisions which have to be made, but the committee, after hearing many extensive representations, would be best equipped to deal with these important issues. Can the Minister tell us why Bill C-17, which deals with insolvency, a matter of such importance to so many people in Canada, has not yet been referred back to the committee for further hearings?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a very good question. I must say that I share his frustration. We tabled the Bill several weeks ago. We have put forward the amendments we intend to put before the committee. I have had indications from the Party opposite that they are anxious to see this Bill proceed to committee. However, I must confess that I have had virtually no co-operation from the New Democratic Party. It would be most helpful if those Hon. Members would agree that the Bill should go back to committee so that those people who are anxious to appear before the committee may be allowed to do so. It is an extremely important Bill to wage earners, small business, to everyone in Canada. Let us get on with it.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A Statistics Canada study of unemployment shows that government high interest rate policies have put the burden of unemployment on the backs of the poor. Only one-third of poor Canadians worked steadily in 1981. Does the Minister now agree that it is his Government's economic policies which have deprived poor people of jobs? What does the Minister intend to do about this gross unfairness to low-income Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the statement made by the Hon. Member. The fact is that, indeed, there has been the impact of unemployment in Canada the same as in practically every other industrialized country I know. The impact of unemployment tends to be harder on the workers who are at the lower
Oral Questions
end of the income scale. That is a factor in every single industrialized country that I know.
New workers, new entrants into the work force, tend to lose their jobs earlier than those who have been in the work force for a long time. The Hon. Member knows that in a lot of collective agreements it is a standard rule that the last in are the first out if there is a decline in employment. The solution is to try to create jobs as fast as we can to reduce unemployment. This is what we have been attempting to do with our policy in fighting the recession this country has known, together with the rest of the industrialized world, where there are still around 30 million unemployed today.
We are doing our very best, but it is not a phenomenon exclusive to Canada, or even more prevalent in Canada than in any other particular country. However, in our actions we have taken care to maintain the social safety net in this country, contrary to a lot of other countries, and contrary to the admonitions of the Conservative Party in particular. We have maintained our social programs to help those most in need.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON JOB CREATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the two million poor people in Canada do not think the Government is creating jobs as quickly as it can. The best safety net for those people is jobs. They do not want unemployment insurance or welfare, they want work. With interest rates rising again, they are about to take another thrashing. What is the Minister going to do about jobs he is destroying by allowing interest rates once again to go up, and up, and up?
[Translation\


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, an increase of one-half of one per cent in the interest rate does not necessarily mean there will be fewer jobs in Canada. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that if, for instance, we look at recent developments in the United States since the month of January, and I am referring to an increase in their interest rate, this development has not prevented an increase in the number of jobs. The interest rate is not the sole factor that determines the employment rate.
Furthermore, I wish to emphasize that we have no reason to believe there will be a substantial rise in interest rates within the next few weeks. We have every reason to believe that interest rates will experience or will have experienced a slight increase and with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, I am doing everything in my power to prevent interest rates from rising further.
All this will depend a lot on what happens to interest rates in the United States, but here again, there is reason to believe that U.S. interest rates will not experience a substantial increase in the coming days and weeks.

March 22, 1984

Oral Questions AIRPORTS


FRANCO-MANITOBAN RIGHTS CHARLOTTETOWN-TERMINAL BUILDING PROJECT-CALLING OF TENDERS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Earlier in the week the Minister told The New York Times in a lengthy interview about federal capital projects that, "right now we are spending $25 million on a new terminal building for Charlottetown." Does the Minister realize that the Government of Canada has not even called tenders for that terminal building, much less started construction? In light of that fact, will he assure the House and the people of Prince Edward Island that his Department will get on with the job and invite tenders, which are now many years overdue?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small correction. The figure should have been $27 million, not $25 million, allocated for improvements to the Charlottetown airport. As far as calling tenders is concerned, I expect that would be some time in early July. We have sent them back to the consultants for some revisions so that they will be in closer concert with the original Treasury Board submission. There is some technical work that needs to be done before the final tenders are called, but it should be in a matter of about two months.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROJECT WILL PROCEED
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the redevelopment of the Charlottetown airport and the building of the terminal in particular were announced with great fanfare some seven years ago. Yet announcements have been made over and over again only to be cancelled or postponed, with excuses made for the delays. Will the Minister assure us that this time he and his Department will honour the commitment to the Island, that tenders will be released, that construction will begin, and that we will finally have a terminal building for Charlottetown which is a credit to the capital city of Prince Edward Island, to his Department and, indeed, to the country as a whole?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to confirm the fact that the federal Government is proceeding to call tenders on the work at the Charlottetown airport. We have obviously been greatly assisted by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the regional minister for that area, in expediting the work, and we are very pleased to know that the work will go ahead on schedule.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In answer to a question I put to him about two weeks ago concerning the language issue in Manitoba and, more specifically, the implications of Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, the Prime Minister answered that Cabinet would be considering the possibility of an appeal, or rather a referral, to the Supreme Court in order to obtain an interpretation of Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, and would also be considering a resolution under Section 43(b) of the Constitution Act of 1982. I wonder whether he could inform the House today whether his Government has reached a conclusion on this matter and whether he could let us know and give us further details on the direction he intends to follow.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly try to answer this question. The present situation is that we are having some final consultations with the Government of Manitoba to find out whether they have any preference for a referral or a resolution. I think it is pretty clear that a political approach, in other words, a resolution in the House that would be effective, is now excluded, especially considering the attitude of the Progressive Conservative Opposition in Manitoba. We shall therefore have to go before the Supreme Court. The Hon. Member is aware there already is a case before the Court-the Bilodeau case-in which we would be making a plea for justice for Franco-Manitobans. There is also the possibility of a referral. This morning, Cabinet agreed on the principle of a referral, but first, we want to have some consultations with the Government of Manitoba and we also want to examine the option of being an intervenor in the Bilodeau case, before deciding when the referral would be made and what its terms would be. A decision will probably be made next week.


PETRO-CANADA PRICE OF GASOLINE-CONTRACTS WITH OTHER OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and deals with an item which probably has the most serious inflationary effect on consumers of anything in Canada today. That is the high cost of energy, namely, home heating oil and, in particular, gasoline for the car. I wonder if the Minister, who is responsible for Canada's own Petro-Canada, would look into the matter of Petro-Canada signing long-term, 15-year contracts with the Seven Sisters fixing the price of gasoline at the refinery gate? According to evidence supplied, it is costing
March 22, 1984

consumers far more for gasoline today than the product is really worth.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Hon. Member asks me if I will look into the question. 1 will certainly look into the question.


DETERMINATION OF PRICE AT RETAIL LEVEL
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister is doing that, would he also look into the fact that Petro-Canada, in the riding of Peterborough, and I am sure in other ridings across Canada, will not give franchises to sell Petro-Canada gasoline unless a dealer agrees to buy only from Petro-Canada? In that way Petro-Canada consigns the product, and fixes the price not only at the wholesale level but at the retail level under the contracts signed by those dealers which our Crown corporation has taken over.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Just like the Russians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in principle Petro-Canada is operating in the marketplace like any other corporation. It signs contracts according to the practice of the trade and it tries to be a fair competitor in the marketplace. That is its mandate. The Hon. Member refers to some specific problem. If there is price fixing and so on, there are laws in Canada which apply to this company like any other company. They cannot have a coalition of companies to fix prices. If there is a specific accusation of price fixing there is a Ministry which is always looking into these operations. The company has to abide by the laws like anyone else.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is very simple, very easy, and only requires a yes or no answer. I would like him to listen very carefully so that we on this side can hear him say yes or no. Did the Minister know it is possible to have an income of $40,088 and pay no income tax? Yes or no?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously it depends on the situation. It is possible, as it is possible to have an income of $10,000 or $100,000 and pay no income tax. It depends how you run your affairs in terms of the income laws of the country. If you had losses last year of $50,000, which you can claim against your income, you will not pay taxes. If you have accumulated tax credits by way of investments you have made, such as research and development credits, you can claim them against your income. This is all spelled out in the income tax laws of the country. The laws
Oral Questions
operate this way not only in our country but in every democratic industrialized country I know.
Sometimes you can have large losses which you cannot claim in one year but may claim the following year or two years after they have been incurred. This Parliament has passed a law according to which you can claim losses accumulated three years in the past against your current income. You may look at a particular year and say that this individual or company is not paying taxes and that that is terrible because it has $50,000, $100,000, or $200,000 profit. It is forgotten that they have $500,000, $600,000 or maybe $1,000,000 of losses which may be claimed against such profits. That is the way the system operates.


Mr. McDermid:: Is that yes or no?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Minister has taken to smoking. I think it is some kind of funny weed that grows south of the border.


REQUEST FOR INSTITUTION OF MINIMUM INCOME TAX LEVEL
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting that question from Wood-Gundy. They circulated that this week to taxpayers who make lots of money. I would encourage taxpayers across the country who are filling in their income tax forms now, to write the Minister's answer on their tax forms and send it to the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Member please ask his question?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in the United States where Reaganomics is operating, regardless of what income level people are at they still have to pay a minimum level of income tax. Is the Minister prepared to tell Canadians today that, regardless of what income level they are at, and regardless of all that text tax credit gobbledegook and falderal, everyone in the country, corporations included, is going to start paying a fair minimum share of tax in this country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my hon. friend wants us to restore to the American taxation system which has a lot more loopholes in favour of corporations than we have in Canada. The same is true as far as individuals are concerned. I am certainly not going to follow the American system, thank you very much.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services, but in his absence I will direct it to the Solicitor General as it does deal with his responsibilities relating to the RCMP. Will the Minister indicate whether the cost of the new Cadillac limousine recently
2334

March 22, 1984
Oral Questions
purchased for the Prime Minister was considerably higher than the vehicle could have been obtained for, from another firm? Was it purchased from the same company which supplied the seven vehicles for the Summit, bought a couple of year ago and which are apparently now proving to be defective in a number of areas?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it was purchased from the same company, General Motors, and it was armourized by the same company that armourized those other vehicles. I am not aware of defects showing up on the other vehicles. I would be very interested to look into that and to have information from the Hon. Member about that.


Miss MacDonald:: Does it have a short term lease?


COST OF CONTRACT
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to share with the Minister the telegram I have, which indicates that two of those vehicles are defective. There have been four more cars tendered, three of which were awarded again to Hesse-Eisenhardt at a cost of $95,728 U.S. per vehicle. Is it true that another equally capable corporation had a bid in for $65,924 U.S. per vehicle? If so, why was the tender of some $30,000 less not accepted for the vehicles?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the contract was sole source and not put up for tender. The company chosen was, in the opinion of the RCMP, the only firm in North America capable of doing the job to the standard which the RCMP required.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Relations. It is now over six months since the Korean jetliner was downed. On September 12, 1983, the House unanimously passed a resolution which condemned the unwarranted attack resulting in the destruction of the Korean airliner on the orders of Soviet authorities, and demanded a full and truthful explanation of this brutal act from the Soviet Government. What reply has the Government in fact had from the Soviet Government? Has there been any explanation to date?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has made its position on this subject eminently clear to the Soviet Union and has repeated it. We feel it is up to the Soviet Union to respond and indicate what action they are going to take by way of compensation. To this date they have not given any indication that they will provide compensation.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. On the evening of September 12 the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the House that the Soviet leadership must abandon its current stonewalling and come clean about this terrible hit and run tragedy. He then referred to what our ambassador to the United Nations had said, including calling the downing of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -jet murder. What is the position of the Government today? Is the downing of this jet still murder? Has the Government any plans in position to ensure compensation for the relatives of the victims?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is fully aware of the record of the reaction of the Government to the very serious loss of life in the KAL Jetliner. The Government of Canada took a very firm position on the matter. Our position remains the same. Our demand for compensation from the Soviet Union is not only justified but is still in full effect. The Soviet Union is fully aware of our position.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, if I can get his attention. The Montreal Gazette of March 20 quotes the Minister as follows:
We agree to the inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan and to the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan.
I have two questions. Is it now Government policy to include homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan? What does the Minister mean by "expansion of the Canada Pension Plan"?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we were going to put on the agenda with the provinces the question of homemakers' pensions under the Canada Pension Plan. I remind the Hon. Member that we have already taken steps with a number of specific measures we want to propose concerning the Canada Pension Plan. One particular measure is the immediate introduction of credit splitting, either at the time of marriage breakup or at age 65. These measures indicate a readiness to consider ways of ensuring that homemakers will have a direct right to pensions under the Canada Pension Plan.
As to further expansions, again we are ready to discuss this with the provinces but, as the Hon. Member knows, we require the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of
March 22, 1984

the population before we can proceed with an amendment in that regard. This is what we intend to discuss with the provinces at the first opportunity.
With respect to the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan, I have announced in the Budget immediate measures that we would like to see implemented if the provinces, as they are likely to do, will agree. For instance, there is the possibility of improving one measure which I have announced specifically in the Budget, but have forgotten its name. I will check.
We also have discussed enlarging disability benefits, with the provinces, which would also mean an expansion of the plan. We are ready to discuss these issues with the provinces at the first opportunity, and if we can get agreement we will come up with specific additional proposals to the House dealing with both of these issues. Indeed, we are in favour of both aspects.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who will recognize that one of the administrative provisions of the Income Tax Act that flies in the face of what everyone must probably believe is basic justice, is a provision contained in Section 231(1 )(c). That provision permits assessors to obtain from taxpayers statements under oath in the course of their investigations which then may be used in a prosecution that may follow the obtaining of such statement under oath.
Having regard to the concept of nonself incrimination by individuals who are subsequently accused of criminal offences, what view does the Minister have with respect to this specific provision of the Act? Will he take steps to remove the same?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would care to examine various provisions of the Income Tax Act which are very specific and reflect the very nature of this legislation and the kind of tax system we have in Canada. If he does, he will see that these provisions exist because of the nature of the legislation and the tax system we have in Canada.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, March 21, 1984 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Standing Orders BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader what the business will be for tomorrow and next week? It may help him in his response if I tell him that if he were to call Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act, on Monday, in all likelihood it will get through the entire report stage.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, first of all, consultations have led to an agreement for adopting forthwith, without debate, the motion appearing on the Order Paper in the Government's name, actually in my name, under No. 11 on page 16. If you would call the motion proposing to make the Committee on Official Languages a Standing Committee, I can confirm, since there has been consultation, that you will obtain unanimous consent for adopting the motion without debate or amendment. I would therefore ask the Chair to call motion No. 11, a motion in my name, which is as follows:
"(d) On Official Languages policy and programs to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 15 members;''


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council has suggested that there might be consent to put motion No. 11 standing on the Order Paper under Government Orders to the House. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: That Standing Order 69(3) be amended by adding the following:
"(</) On Official Languages policy and programs to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 15
members;"
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, certain members to represent that House on the proposed Joint Committee.-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1984
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Yvon Pinard: As regards the business for coming days, I welcome the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Yukon that if Bill C-3 was to be called on Monday we might get through the report stage that day. I have sought a firm commitment but have not obtained it. Certainly what he says is not a firm commitment that we would get report stage completed by Monday evening. I do not have that commitment from the NDP either. Therefore, the business for tomorrow will be-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I just interrupt before the President of the Privy Council gets too far along and say that the Government House Leader has that commitment. He will get his report stage on Monday.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is very likely that he will get the report stage of the health Bill on Monday.


John Horton McDermid: That sounds like a firm commitment, an NDP commitment.


Ian Deans: I was not privy to this arrangement. If it is called on Monday, the report stage will be completed by five o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I thank both Opposition Parties for their firm commitment. We will take it for granted that report stage will be completed by five o'clock on Monday and we will call Bill C-3 only on Monday.
With respect to the business for tomorrow, we will start debating Bill C-24 dealing with Crown corporations. Next Tuesday we will resume debate, if necessary, on Bill C-21 and the back-up Bill in case we come to some arrangement will be Bill C-12, the Fiscal Arrangements Act, which is at report stage.
Next Wednesday will be the first allotted day of the new period of supply. The business for next Thursday will be resuming debate on what was under consideration at the end of the day on the previous Tuesday.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions my colleagues and I have been asking the Government House Leader when the Bill which will remove the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act will be introduced. We asked him this last week and at other times. The Prime Minister told us that it would be a priority but what we and many other people, particularly Indian women who have been disenfranchised, want to know is when?


Yvon Pinard: If that important matter had been raised by the House Leader of the Hon. Member's Party, I would have been able to give a firmer answer today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House, in both official languages, a copy of the Government's proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice, I wish to say that there have been consultations among the Justice critics. I believe that if you seek unanimous agreement to refer the draft Bill which I referred to previously to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, you will find that such consent exists.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was distracted for a moment. I do not know what consent is being sought here. I have not been consulted on this. The Parliamentary Secretary might elaborate by way of explanation on what he is seeking to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has tabled documents. I believe he has asked for unanimous consent to refer them to the Justice Committee.


Arthur Allister MacBain: The Justice critics have been consulted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the documents that have been tabled to be referred to the Justice Committee?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent. It is so ordered.


PETITIONS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, may I present 500 separate petitions signed by Canadians in the federal constituency of Halifax West and other parts of Canada. In most cases there are two or more petitioners. The prayer offered in each petition is simple and clear. It is that the petitioners want the Parliament of Canada to restore the navy blue uniform to Maritime Command, which is Canada's navy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 22, 1984


Howard Edward Crosby: If these petitions do not prompt action by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), I can assure the House of Commons I will be presenting many more.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-230, an Act respecting the appointment of deputy, associate deputy and assistant deputy ministers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to standardize the method of appointment and tenure of the senior officers of the Public Service and to tie their appointments to the duration of a Parliament. The Public Service would thereby be more accountable to the government of the day and to the electorate.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 253, 511, 522, 538 and 579.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Since September 12, 1983 how many applications under the Industrial and Regional Development Program were (a) received from (b) approved for from applicants in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton and in what amounts?
2.	Was there a board which advised the Minister on applications for the Program in Victoria-Haliburton and, if so (a) what is a list of the names of the board members (b) did the board members receive any remuneration and, if so, in each case, in what amount, to date?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: 1. (a) Three, (b) To date, no decision has yet been rendered.
2. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (i) Yes; the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council (CEIAC) was established by Act of Parliament in 1977 (Bill C-27, Part II, Section 17) and remains active.
(ii) The current membership of CEIAC is as follows:
Chairman
Tom Sosa Vice-President
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Toronto, Ontario
Vice-Chairman
Albert G. Hearn
Retired (Canadian Vice-President Service Employees International Union)
Agincourt, Ontario
Members
Barney Batise Treasurer
National Association of Friendship Centres North Bay, Ontario
Ralph B. Brenan President
G.E. Barbour Company Limited Sussex, N.B.
Constantine Constantinou President and Chief Executive Officer Primeco Investments Inc. Montreal, Quebec
James F. Derksen Chief Development Officer Disabled Peoples'
International Central Development Office Winnipeg, Manitoba
Frank Fazio Lawyer
Fazio Law Firm Windsor, Ontario
William F. Iverson Business Manager International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen
Local No. 1 Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba
Howard Kostiuk Secretary-T reasurer Alberta Federation of Labour Edmonton, Alberta
Michel Matte Education Representative Quebec Federation of Labour
Montreal, Quebec
James McCambly President
Canadian Federation of Labour Ottawa, Ontario
Katherine McGuire National Representative and Secretary
Canadian Labour Congress Ottawa, Ontario
Paul R. McKeown President
Paul R. McKeown & Associates Inc., Insurance and Financial Planning Consultants Toronto, Ontario
Barry Moore Family Life Director Family Service of Eastern Nova Scotia Sydney, Nova Scotia
Helen A. Patterson Manager-Communications North East Coal Development Vancouver, B.C.
Marcel G. Pepin Research Services Confederation of National Trade Unions Montreal, Quebec
Michael Solski Retired (Inco)
Coniston, Ontario
Jack Thorpe
President-260138 Alberta Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta
Pierre Tremblay President and Director General Pierre Tremblay Publicite Inc. Quebec, Quebec
Emile Vallee Federal Legislative Representative
United Steelworkers of America Ottawa, Ontario


Mr. Howie: Is there a Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council and, if so, what is a list of its members' names and what total amount of remuneration was paid to the members during the last fiscal year for which figures are available?
(iii) The total amount of remuneration paid to members in f/y 1982/83 was $128,700. For compensation, see report on Governor in Council appointees tabled in the House of Commons on November 17, 1983.

March 22, 1984
Order Paper Questions DOT-WOMEN PERSONNEL 
Question No. 522-Mr. Howie:
As of the last date for which information was available, what proportion of the employees of the Department of Transport were women?
With the exception of Mr. Juneau who receives no special remuneration for serving on the CBC Board of Directors, Board members receive honoraria of $250 per meeting day.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is 20.8 per cent.


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) and (b)
CBC Executive
President
Executive Vice-President Senior Vice-President General Counsel Internal Auditor
Vice-President, Communications Vice-President, Corporate Affairs Vice-President, Engineering Vice-President, Finance Vice-President, Human Resources and Administration
Vice-President, Planning and Evaluation Vice-President, Regional Broadcasting Vice-President, English Television Network Vice-President, English Radio Networks Vice-President, French Television Network Vice-President, French Radio Networks
Pierre Juneau William T. Armstrong Franklin Delaney Jacques Alleyn, Q.C. Erik Peters Therese Sevigny Gordon Bruce Guy Gougeon Ronald J. Fournier
Guy Coderre John Shewbridge Douglas Ward Denis Harvey Margaret Lyons Pierre DesRoches Jean Blais
The Governor in Council appoints the president of the CBC. The Corporation, on the recommendation of the president and with the approval of the Governor in Council, appoints the executive vice-president. The ranges of compensation into which the salaries for these two positions fall have been published under the terms of the Public Compensation Restraint Act. (Tabled November 17, 1983)
With regard to the salaries paid to other members of the CBC executive, while the salaries in question are in the $75,000-$100,000 range, it has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the salaries of individual employees. The background to this custom was explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530 answered November 6, 1975.
CBC Board of Directors Pierre Juneau Howard Aster James G. Carr James de B. Domville Paul Fraser Daniel P. Hays Maria Masson Joyce Mongeon Philippe Roberge George G. Sinclair Michel Vennat John A. Young


Mr. Howie: 1.	What (a) types or models of aircraft (b) designs of aircraft make up the Air Canada fleet and, in each case, how many and of each, what number are currently in active service?
2.	What cities does the airline serve?
3.	Does Air Canada plan to acquire any new aircraft and, if so, what number and type over what period?


Lloyd Axworthy: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1.	(a) and (b) See below for this answer.
2.	In addition to the cities served by Air Canada as listed below, scheduled cargo flights serve Shannon, Ireland, are Brussels, Belgium.
3.	Six Boeing 767's currently on order are due for delivery during 1984. No other aircraft are on order.
Air Canada Operational Fleet
DC-8 Series 54F	1
DC-8 Series 63F		6
	Total	7
DC-9 Series 32		35
	Total	35
B-747 Series 133		3
B-747 Series 233B		2
	Total	5
L-1011 Series I (Domestic)		8
L-1011 Series 100/15 (Overwater)		4
L-1011 Series 500		6
	Total	18
B-727 Series 233		39
	Total	39
B-767 Series 233		6
	Total	6
Total Operational Fleet		no
Air Canada Fleet Inventory
DC-8 Series 54 F	6
DC-8 Series 61	7
DC-8 Series 63	6
DC-8 Series 63 F	6
Total	25
DC-9 Series 32	35
Total	35
B-747 Series 133	5
B-747 Series 233B	2
Total	7
L-1011 Series	I (Domestic)	8L-1011 Series	100/15	(Overwater)	4L-1011 Series	500	6Total	18B-727 Series 233	39Total	39B-767 Series 233	6Total	6Total Fleet on	Inventory	130
March 22, 1984

Destination Points	Canada YC	AMCharlottetown	YG	Sept-Iles	ZVEdmonton	EG	Stephenville	.ITFredericton	FC	Saint John, N.B	SJHalifax	HZ	Sudbury	SBHamilton	HM	Sydney	QYLondon	XU	Thunder Bay	QTQM	TSUL	YZYB	Val d'Or	VOOW	Vancouver	VRQB	YJRegina	QR UY	Windsor	QG 	WGSaskatoon	XE	Yarmouth	Qi
Caribbean/Bermuda-Alphabetical List by Country: (Airport name in brackets)
Antigua	
St. John's (Coolidge)	ANUBahamas	
Freeport (Freeport International)	FPOBahamas	
Nassau (International)	NASBarbados	
Bridgetown (Grantley Adams)	BGIBermuda	
Hamilton (Civil Air Terminal)	BDACuba	
Havana (Jose Marti)	HAVGuadeloupe	
Pointe-a-Pitre (Le Raizet)	PTPHaiti	
Port-au-Prince	PAPJamaica	
Kingston (Norman Manley International)	KINJamaica	
Montego Bay (Sangster International)	MGJMartinique	
Port-de-France (Le Lamentin)	FDFTrinidad	
Port of Spain (Piarco)	POS
Switzerland
Zurich	 (Zurich)	ZUR
* Geneva	GVA
Belgium
Brussels-Scheduled cargo service
United States-Alphabetical List by City: (Airport name in brackets)
Boston	
(Logan)	BOSChicago	
(O'Hare)	ORD/CHICleveland	
(Hopkins International)	CLEDallas/FW	
(Dallas/FW International)	DFW
Order Paper Questions
Houston	
Los Angeles..
Miami	
New York	
New York	
Tampa	
San Francisco.
United Kingdom
London	
Glasgow	
Ireland
Shannon-Schedule cargo service France
Paris	 (Charles de Gaulle)	PAR/CDG
West Germany
Dusseldorf	DEL
Frankfurt	FRA
*	Munich	MUC
*	Service to be introduced April 29, 1984


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary secretary to pay attention to Question No. 368 which is on the Order Paper in my name. It was first put down some three years ago. It asks the simple question:
What was the increase in real terms in the Department of National Defence's expenditures, including the statutory costs and expressed in percentages, for each fiscal year 1970-71 to 1979-80?
It is a very simple question. In speeches by a variety of Ministers of National Defence, they are forever telling us what they are getting. I would like them to put it in writing on the Order Paper. If there is anything about the way the question is phrased and it could be changed to make it simpler so that their minds could comprehend what I am after, I would be pleased to do that.
(Houston International)	I AH
(L.A. International)	LAX
(Miami International)	MIA
(John F. Kennedy)	JFK
(La Guardia)	LGA
(Tampa International)	TPA
(SFO International)	SFO
(Heathrow)	LHR
(Prestwick)	GLA/P1K

March 22, 1984
Supply


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the question and the number and I will look into it. I will try to get an answer to the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jelinek:
That this House condemns the Government for having allowed Canada's tourism deficit to reach a staggering $2.1 billion in 1983, and having thus caused over 100,000 Canadian jobs to be lost in that year alone, and for failing to remedy the overtaxation which is the underlying problem which plagues this labour-intensive industry and which pushes prices to non-competitive levels thereby counteracting any positive impact that might be generated by the government's marketing expenditures.
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the House for setting aside this day for a debate on tourism. It is not a subject that gets a lot of attention in this House, certainly not the kind of attention it deserves. I suppose it is because the budgets of other Departments, whether it be Health and Welfare, Energy or any other Department, are so large. It seems that in our country the value system is built entirely on budgets, dollar value and so forth.
There are other reasons why this is an important subject. Tourism is important if for no other reason than that there is a natural desire on the part of our citizens to know, enjoy and understand their country. They deserve to be able to travel throughout the country and enjoy the benefits of their land. I wish to add that it is not right that in many cases the Government, rather than helping our people visit the rest of the country, throws impediments in their path by making it more difficult for them to see their country. It is good for our people because it is good for their health to be able to get around.
Beyond that, it is good for people of other countries to visit us. It is good for our relationship with other countries. All Members will agree that when people from other countries visit our land, they never forget its beauty and grandeur and the hospitality of its people. It is wrong for the Government not to make it as easy as possible for the tourism industry of Canada to survive and prosper. That is the burden of my remarks.
It is ironic that for other industries our geography is their impediment, but for the tourism industry it is a bonus. The
very fact that we have large spaces and large sections of country that are mountainous is for every other industry an impediment, but it is an asset for the tourism industry. All of that is free except for the cost of providing access to it. In other industries, travel and transportation are the obstacle. In the tourism industry, travel and transportation are the pleasure. It is an indescribable God-given heritage that is ours but which we are not exploiting properly.
After listening to the remarks of the Minister and other speakers, I wish to say that it is not that the Government is doing nothing for tourism that bothers us. I will concede, as have other Members, that the Minister in charge of tourism is spending megabucks on advertising in the United States, particularly in periodicals in the northern states. That will have a beneficial effect upon the tourism industry in Canada. I think all of us would concede that. As the Minister mentioned this morning, the Government is literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars helping to build and perhaps subsidize convention centres across Canada so that conventioners, particularly from the United States, will find Canada an attractive place in which to hold conventions. That is a given.
The problem is not that the Government does not do some things, but rather that it has a shallow understanding of people dynamics or tourist dynamics. Because the Government does not understand people dynamics, its policies contracdict each other and sometimes cancel each other out, so that one government department is trying to encourage tourism and another department is putting impediments or taxes in the way so that tourism is in fact discouraged.
Let me say as an aside that my home overlooks the United States border, so I understand somewhat the accessibility of the tourism market. It is easy for Canadians to go down to the United States and save 25 per cent to 30 per cent on a tank of gas. American tourists can come up the western coast of the United States, tank up and spend $25 for a tank of gas in the State of Washington, or come to Canada and pay $35 for the same tank of gas. If one is driving a recreational vehicle, that does not encourage tourism. As the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) pointed out this morning, since two-thirds of that extra cost is government taxes, it seems government has some influence on whether or not it encourages tourism in Canada.
1 would like to illustrate how these policies contradict each other. On the one hand the Minister advertises in the northern states in order to encourage particularly Americans from those states to come to Canada and spend their dollars here. On the other hand the Government puts a 9 per cent tax on the printing of tourism advertising which sends those dollars to the United States as a result. On the one hand they are trying to encourage; on the other they are trying to discourage.
The Minister may well be right that the Government is subsidizing or at least helping with construction and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on convention centres. Hon. Members will recall that several years ago there was almost a
March 22, 1984

crisis between Canada and the United States regarding that particular policy. At that time Canada took it upon itself not to allow expenses for attending conventions as tax deductible expenses, to the point where the United States threatened retaliation because of our tax policy. U.S. centres were threatening to boycott Canada instead of holding their conventions here because of Canadian tax policies.
If the Government wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building convention centres and then it builds a tax structure to discourage people from holding their conventions here, it seems to me there is a very poor understanding of people dynamics. The underlying principle is that people really do not have to come to Canada for their vacations. No one is obligating Americans, Germans, Brits, the French or the Japanese; no one says to them that they have to spend their vacation dollars in Canada. It is the role of government to make them want to come to Canada and to put some kind of encouragement before them so that they will want to spend their dollars here. At present the Government discourages them by putting impediments in their way.
We have the curious spectacle of encouraging on the one hand and discouraging on the other. The most graphic example of this, which hit us hard in western Canada, was that for years tours operators or tour companies in British Columbia, Alberta and other western Canadian provinces spent thousands of dollars advertising in Japan the beauties of western Canada-the Rocky Mountains, the Columbia icefields, salmon fishing, steelhead fishing, skiing and all other great attractions in western Canada. They spent megabucks sending four-colour pictures all over Japan. As a result everyone in Japan understood and instantly knew something about the beauties of western Canada. All one would have to do is ask a Japanese tourist why he came and he would say that he came to see western Canada. The tour industry built that trade to the extent that there were 60,000 Japanese per year visiting western Canada, 25,000 of whom were going by train from Vancouver to Edmonton on VIA Rail, so much so that every train was filled to capacity all summer. There were bookings ahead of time and full capacity for those trains.
What happened in 1981? Suddenly there was the announcement by the Minister of Transport cutting VIA Rail service between Vancouver and Edmonton with not so much as a by your leave. The travel industry had spent thousands of dollars, probably hundreds of thousands, in other countries to advertise the Canadian tourism industry and suddenly, in one fell swoop, because of the policy of the Department of Transport it was cut out. Approximately 2,000 travel agencies across Canada had done a great job of promoting land cruises across the country, and government departments worked against them. That one decision on the part of Transport Canada cost the travel industry, the Jasper industry, something like $40 million. It was estimated that those tourists would spend $2,000 apiece, so a conservative estimate of 25,000 people travelling VIA Rail would be $40 million to $50 million. What kind of impact did that have on Jasper, Edson, Hinton, Edmonton,
Supply
Tete Jaune, Barriere, Clearwater, Blue River, all those places along the CNR roadbed.
A common denominator in the tourism industry is that many of those businesses are family businesses, small businesses. All the money of the families is invested in those businesses, and all of them are in jeopardy. It is their own money and their own employment. In one fell swoop the Government threatens every family livelihood in that industry. One of ten people in Canada works in tourism. If we extrapolate what that one VIA Rail decision did to British Columbia and Alberta, with absolutely no consideration for the investment the tourism industry had already made in other countries, we must conclude that the Government has absolutely no consideration at all for people dynamics and how decisions are made within each family planning a vacation. It would not so much as consult another Department in order to see what impact such decision would have upon the industry. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government wants to help the tourism industry which has a $2.3 billion deficit, the first thing it needs to do is to look at the interdepartmental decisions which are made and see what impact a decision of one Department has on another Department.
That leads me to the consideration of the current talks on deregulation. I will not deal with that subject in depth, those hearings are going on right now and none of us are fully informed of the impact that that will have on the country. However, I do wish to say that as long as the Minister keeps making statements like those he made in the House yesterday and those he made on camera throughout the previous week, he will create an atmosphere of insecurity within the entire industry.
Insecurity is something which the business sector cannot stand. It may be that certain areas of the industry may some day have to be deregulated, but I do not know. However, the first thing the Minister ought not to do is to shoot his mouth off all the time so that the travel and tourism industry and the airline industry become nervous. The second thing he needs to do with respect to deregulation is to make certain that whatever decisions are made regarding deregulation will not affect air traffic safety. He must see that passengers will feel secure no matter what happens to the airline industry.
As I said before, it is important that the business community feel a sense of security that allows it to plan. As has already been illustrated by Via Rail, one of the things the Government does best is to give the business community the impression that it does things on impulse. The business community does not know where it stands any longer relative to government decisions.
I say to you, Sir, that if tourism is going to prosper, the Government must first understand how people feel. It must understand that people from other countries are under no obligation at all to spend their hard earned money in Canada. If we want people from Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom to spend their dollars in Canada, we must

March 22, 1984
Supply
make them feel as though they were at home and we must make sure that it becomes profitable for businesses to make them feel that way.
As well, Canadians are not obligated to spend their money here in Canada. It is easy enough for Canadians to go to the United States and spend their money there. The fact that our dollar is now worth about 78 cents American does not seem to stop Canadians from going south of the border, particularly when they can save 30 per cent on a tank of gas and when hotel and food bills are cheaper because taxes are lower. We need a Government that understands these kinds of dynamics and does not implement one policy to encourage tourism and then implement another one to discourage it.
Those of us who live in western Canada enjoy the beauties of our area just as those who live in every other sector of the country enjoy the peculiar beauties of their own areas. We in the west do not particularly appreciate the fact that the Government institutes the kind of policies which make ti difficult for people to come and visit us. Tourism is good for the health of the nation and is good for mutual understanding. I trust that the Government will do something to give Canadians and the tourist industry the understanding that we are for them rather than against them.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) who, in his usual fashion, has delivered a very eloquent speech on a very important topic. Tourism is a big business in Canada. He talked about some of the elements of tourism which affect western Canada. However, I am wondering if he would be prepared to elaborate further.
Earlier today, we were speaking of some of the celebrations which are going on in Canada. In Newfoundland, there is the re-enactment of the first Viking landing. There are celebrations in Yellowknife, and New Brunswick is celebrating its bicentennial and the visits of His Holiness, the Pope, and Her Majesty, the Queen. In Quebec, there is a celebration called "Tall Ships", and there is a program which the Minister responsible for tourism has implemented called "Canada, What a Country". There will be many celebrations and festivals in my own home province, including the "Bon Ami Week" at Dalhousie.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would be prepared to tell us about his impressions of Expo '86 and the preparation and planning which are going into this major event that will draw many, many people to Canada and certainly to his own constituency.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has overlooked the fact that I did not read my speech. I wish he had complimented me for speaking strictly from notes.
I do welcome the Hon. Member's question. First, I wish to point out to him that I am a westerner and I am not as familiar with Central Canada as I would like to be. However, I believe that the federal Government was not very generous toward the United Empire Loyalist celebrations in Ontario. I recall some of my colleagues making representations on behalf
of constituencies in which such celebrations were taking place and getting short shrift from the federal Government.
All of that aside, Sir, I know that these kinds of investments are being made. The Hon. Member did not mention the Jacques Cartier celebrations and a great many others. What I was trying to tell the Hon. Member is that it does not matter how much money is invested in such celebrations if, on the other hand, people are discouraged from coming here. People hear about all of these great things. They want to come here and are encouraged to come here, but when they get here, they find out that they cannot afford to stay. With the one hand we give and with the other we take away.
Let me conclude my remarks by referring to Transpo in Vancouver. I am glad that the Hon. Member reminded me of that. Earlier this afternoon, I heard the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) expounding on the greatness of the Trillium Centre in Mississauga. He wants federal support for that. B.C. Place was built with British Columbia money, not with federal money. B.C. Place is doing a very good job, thank you. The fact is that some federal money is going into Transpo. One of the things this project did was to invest British Columbia and federal money in a transportation system that was developed in Ontario. As a matter of fact, Vancouver is pioneering the use of Ontario transportation technology in Canada. They have not been able to sell that technology anywhere else but British Columbia is taking a chance on a Canadian product. We are spending good provincial and federal dollars to bring that transportation system to Vancouver.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should not be surprised to find that it is difficult to get a positive reply from someone to your left. We know of the doom and gloom tactics and the negative positions of most Tory members. However, I was hoping that this particular Member would show me some consideration. Instead, he went off the topic to speak about the time when I gave a speech and was referring to facts and figures. At that time, he was upset about a document to which I was referring. It was my right and indeed my privilege to refer to that document.
I was stressing the point of federal contributions to the provinces. With respect to the bicentennial celebrations in my own province, federal contributions will be $2.5 million this year. The province will contribute an equal amount of money, making a total of $5 million. We know of the millions and millions of dollars that go into facilities such as the ski facilities in our own area.
The Hon. Member talked about the dynamics of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) who has spent an awful lot of energy touring the country trying to get people to come on side with this promotion of Tourism Year 1984. As a Member from the west, would he join the effort to attract more Americans to our country? Would he comment on the number of Americans who visit his
March 22, 1984

province? I am sure they must come in very great numbers because of the devalued dollar.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, a report entitled "The Last Straw" says that the Sherbrooke Tourist and Convention Bureau indicated that as many as 35,000 tourists and 12,000 convention visitors coming to that area each year arrive on "The Atlantic". That is the VIA Rail train which is being cancelled, which is a tragedy.
I would say to the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) that I am happy about the investment of tourist dollars and I am glad of the celebrations. There will be a large native Indian celebration in Ontario next September and I want it to succeed. All I am saying is that you cannot make things succeed if you make them counterproductive at the same time. If we encourage all these celebrations and then make it difficult for people to enjoy themselves, things will not work. Much as we want to entice them, people do not have to come here.
Even with the devalued dollar Americans do not come to Canada as much as they used to. Those who come generally live within 150 miles of the border. An RV vehicle gets five or six miles to a gallon of gas, at $2.25 per gallon. Those vehicles do not get good mileage through the mountains. The visitor knows that of that $2.25, two-thirds is taxes. That is not a good way to encourage tourists to come and see this country. It is the reason that the number of visitors from other lands is decreasing and also that Canadians keep going south. That is too bad, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that there are no further questions or comments. Before proceeding to debate will Hon. Members allow the Chair to refer to Standing Order 15(1), which provides that the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and also to subparagraph (3) which provides that when a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair. I should like to draw to the attention of the House that since the resumption of the debate this afternoon, eight Members, including one Minister, have passed between the Hon. Member who had the floor and the Chair. I have no choice but to apply the rules of the House and I seek the co-operation of all Hon. Members in respecting that particular rule of decorum.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. I think we should do our utmost to preserve the traditions we have respected so long in the House of Commons. I hope no one crosses while I am on my feet.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak to the motion concerning the tourist industry, moved by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Jelinek), and in the twenty minutes I am allowed, I shall try to explain, in my own words, how we should interpret a deficit of $2.1 billion for 1983.
There are a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, but there is one very simple reason, for instance, for the loss of about $600
Supply
million, and it appears in the report published by Tourism Canada. In the last report, according to the latest figures available which are for 1981, 10,000,968 Americans visited Canada and spent an average of $169, while 10,000,000 Canadians, so not quite as many Canadians, spent a much higher average per person, namely, $230. This works out to a difference of $600 million for 1983. Of course there are other reasons, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to correct the assumption that these reasons are the cause of the Canadian Government's failure to improve tourism in Canada.
First of all, we see that although, in 1981, international trade dropped by 1 per cent, tourism increased by 1 per cent. Here we already have a difference of 2 per cent, which shows the vitality of the tourist industry, because although all other industries connected with international trade showed a drop of 1 per cent, the tourist industry showed an increase of 1 per cent, and income from international travel increased by 16.2 per cent annually over the last few years.
Mr. Speaker, this proves tourism is alive and well, and how important it is to Canada. In Canada, the tourist industry employs 1.2 million people four times as many as the construction industry. The latter industry is often taken as an example of one of our vital industrial sectors, and so it is, because of the materials it uses and the economic impact on other industries such as furniture and carpet manufacturing, to name only a few. However, tourism employs four times as many employees and twice as many as agriculture ranking second right after the manufacturing sector. It provides jobs for workers at all levels of skill and in all parts of the country. According to Statistics Canada, between 1979 and 1981 tourism had outstripped forestry, manufacturing, construction and trade with the number of new jobs provided, which demonstrates the vitality of this industry.
The amount of foreign currency generated by the tourist industry exceeds that generated by oil exports, which will come as a surprise to many. People used to think that Canada's oil industry, that is, crude oil, was a major industry, but tourism comes first in generating foreign currency. Unfortunately, although it is not the case throughout the country, I must be critical of the present provincial Government, since a large part of the deficit Canada is showing is due especially to poor administration by the Government of the Province of Quebec. While tourism is showing increases, in terms of the number of jobs created and expansion of business in all provinces, ranging from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, the Province of Quebec is on the low end of the scale, although other industries in Quebec showed a drop of only 0.2 per cent and this was 2.1 per cent in other provinces. In the Province of Quebec, compared to all other industries, growth in the tourist industry, was only 5 per cent. In Ontario, for instance, this figure was 6.7 per cent; in British Columbia, 7.9 per cent; and in Alberta, 10.1 per cent. In Quebec, it was only 5 per cent.

March 22, 1984
Supply
Now let us look at some of the reasons why the tourist industry in the Province of Quebec is not doing as well as in the other provinces, despite the fact that Quebec is probably closest to the largest population centres in North America, if we consider Toronto, Ottawa, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and so forth. One of the major reasons why the tourist industry in Quebec is not doing as well as it should, is that it costs S3,084 to create one job in the tourist industry, while in Ontario, it only costs $2,077. Only Alberta has higher figures for the cost of creating jobs.
Let us we compare now the performance of other provinces to that of the Province of Quebec as far as the tourist industry is concerned. In New Brunswick the industry is growing steadily and represents 5.7 per cent of the province's total industry, while in the Province of Quebec, this figure is only 5.4 per cent.
If we look at what is happening in the other provinces, the Province of Ontario, which certainly does not have twice the population of Quebec, does have more than twice the gross income from tourism, namely, $8.9 billion, while in the Province of Quebec, this figure is approximately $5.2 billion. In Ontario, tourism accounts for 6.3 per cent of the total industry, while in the Province of Quebec, it is only 5.4 per cent. And so it goes across Canada. Although Quebec has so many advantages and natural beauty spots to offer, it happens to be the province where the tourist industry is the weakest.
In the next few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to consider the main reasons for this very serious situation. First of all, let us consider the harassing measures introduced by the present Quebec Government in recent years. My colleagues may recall the introduction of Bill 101, Bill 17 and Bill 43, as well as higher taxes-much higher where gas is concerned. The excise tax on liquor is much higher than the Canadian average. Municipal taxes are in many cases higher than all taxes levied by other provinces.
A few years ago, figures showed that the annual tax burden per room and per year for a hotel like the Queen Elizabeth in Montreal was $1,800. The hotel had to pay, per room and per year, a total of $1,800 for all kinds of taxes: municipal taxes, school taxes, property taxes, liquor taxes, taxes on bar licences, dining rooms, etc., while for the competition in the industry- and I am referring to the tourist industry in Boston or Philadelphia or Vermont or Niagara Falls-the total tax burden was from $300 to $800, which in many cases meant much less than half the tax burden on hotels in the Province of Quebec. Bill 101 ... Obviously, people who are going to turn their backs on the Province of Quebec as an interesting place to visit are not going to write to the Quebec Department of Tourism or its Canadian counterpart to explain: "I am sorry, but the last time we went, we had to stop quite often to ask for directions because there were no signs in our language ... And if you think only French Canadians live in the Province of
Quebec and those are the only people you care to have, we intend to go elsewhere."
This is' probably why, Mr. Speaker, the figures for Ontario, which I gave earlier, show a much better performance in the tourist industry. While in Ontario, as I said earlier, the industry accounted for almost $9 billion, or $8.9 billion, to be exact, in Quebec the figure was barely $5 billion. Almost half!
I hope that the future Liberal Government of Mr. Bourassa will correct the injustices caused by Bill 101 and repair the damage done to the tourist industry in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 43 is sheer nonsense because it will force the tourist industry to pay higher salaries to its workers and to those who receive part of their salary in tips. The whole industry will be in turmoil because some employers will have to increase pay rates for their staff, and then turn around and fire some of them, with the ultimate result that tourists will no longer have the first class service to which they are entitled. That is one of the difficulties.
So now we have a new Minister, the MNA for the riding of Prevost which I know is tourist-oriented, because I live there. I hope that the new Minister will heed the representations which will be made to him, to the Government and to his predecessor by the people who work in the tourist industry. I hope that those people who work in the restaurant industry will be able to convince the Minister and the PQ Government that this Bill will create many problems for the tourist industry. And the same thing goes for Bill 17, Mr. Speaker. Under that legislation, restaurants and hotels would have to close their doors if a handful of unionized workers were to decide to go on strike, because even the owner, his wife and their family are prohibited from providing services while employees are out on strike. There is increasing talk about more restaurant employees being forced to join unions, so it is altogether absurd to introduce such a Bill at a time when unemployment is rampant in the Province of Quebec.
Let us talk about other taxes of every kind and every description. A tax has been imposed on clients which come mainly from Montreal and are on their way to the Lauren-tians. In addition to gas taxes which are much higher than anywhere else in the rest of Canada, they now have to pay on average no less than $4 or $5 every time they use the roads. It is the only region in Canada where people are so harshly penalized and have to pay to drive on highways.
Mind you, if the Laurentian Autoroute was a paying proposition because of the tolls collected, others could be turned into toll roads. Unfortunately, despite its high tolls, the autoroute is always in the red because the accounting and the institution established by the provincial Government have made it impossible to write off the outstanding debts of the Regie des autoroutes. Quite simply, one has to admit that the operating costs take up a major share of revenues.
March 22, 1984

For several years, in fact from the day our expressways were built, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy) has been reminding the population, as he did last Monday, that Autoroute 13, for instance, was built with the help of a very low interest loan of $100 million and a grant of $30 million which were provided to assist the Province of Quebec in building this part of the expressway because there was no parallel road. If there were an alternative route,people who do not want to pay a dollar to travel this short distance of thirteen miles or twenty kilometres could use it. However, there is no highway parallel to Autroute 13. There is Autoroute 17 or 117, which is former Highway 11 and which runs along Autoroute 15 between Montreal and Sainte-Agathe. However, there is no road parallel to Autoroute 13, and if you want to get home the fastest way, you will just have to pay the toll. This is totally unacceptable and I hope that the pressures which we have all brought to bear in recent years, especially my colleague from Laval, will convince the Quebec Government of the stupidity of these tolls which impede the development of the Lower Laurentians economy and tourism industry.
Other difficulties, Mr. Speaker, complications and annoyances are created by the Quebec Government whenever agreements are to be signed to help the industry. As I recall, the only business related to the tourist industry receive assistance under a shared cost program with Quebec was the Mont-Tremblant resort. This happened because at that time it belonged to the Caisse d'entraide economique whose management had probably prevailed upon the then Member for Labelle, Jacques Leonard, to get going and take action. However, we were not able to sit down with the provicial government and bring it to signing agreements to promote tourism in my constituency and in the Labelle area. Yet, I believe that there is a very great need for federal-provincial cooperation in Quebec to develop the tourist industry because we already have all the natural resources required for it.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to create the impression that the Hon. Member for Halton is completely wrong in applying to the Canadian Government and that tourism is purely a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The previous speaker, who is from British Columbia, is well aware that his province has some responsibility. However, it is shared by the Canadian Government. For the last three or four months, I have been trying to urge, First my constituents and then the Municipal Boards, the Chambers of Commerce and various community groups to press the Government to restore the Montreal-Mont-Laurier rail service. This 150-mile corridor is just as important to us in the Laurentian region as is the Windsor-Quebec corridor and for very much the same reasons, as it is the busiest transport corridor in northeastern North America, I do not mean in Canada only, but in the whole northeastern part of North America. You only have to travel on the roads north of Montreal to Mont-Tremblant or Saint-Jovite over the week-
Supply
end to realize how many thousands of cars travel this road. The thousands of letters I have received and the resolutions by municipalities and Chambers of Commerce, have convinced me more than ever of the importance of a modern, rapid, reliable and comfortable rail service because, people who have been deprived of this service for four years, are now discovering how essential it has been since 1902 to the development of the region and how important it will be in the future. Young people who do not have a car or week-enders who want to travel cheaply must rely on the train to go to the Laurentian skiing resorts. In any case rail travel is faster and safer than cars since bad weather and snowstorms do not affect rail service as much as it does the highways.
There are other areas where the Canadian Government could make a contribution. I am thinking for instance about domestic air travel. Tourists in an increasing number are coming from South-East Asia and Japan and also from the Philippines and Malaysia, but most of them only visit Western Canada, specifically Alberta. Most of them never travel est-ward. 1 suggest that if we made it possible to travel more cheaply to Central Canada or even Eastern Canada where you live, Mr. Speaker, by lowering airfares, people from Western Europe could travel to areas in Western Canada, while people from the Middle East and the Orient could visit areas in Central Canada. This is a matter which comes under federal jurisdiction Mr. Speaker, something we could not therefore blame on provincial governments. The Government of Canada should deal with this serious issue and try to find ways to encourage tourist exchanges between the regions.
There is another problem which is becoming increasing more urgent. .. Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the time allotted to me is about to expire, but I hope my colleagues will allow me to touch upon it, namely, the problem of acid rains, which undermines our tourist industry by lowering the quality of our water and waterways, as well as destroying our forests. This is very serious, Mr. Speaker. One can see that Western Europe countries are much more aware of the miseries and problems this could bring to Canada. I hope our neighbours south of the border will spend a little less money to wage wars in Central America and a little more to fight and eliminate acid rains originating from the central and Northeastern parts of their country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Maurice Dupras: Could I go on for a few minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member seeks unanimous consent to continue his remarks. Is there unanimous consent?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that what the Hon. Member is saying is of utmost importance. However, we have a great number of Members who want to contribute to the

March 22, 1984
Supply
debate as well and therefore, regretfully, I cannot give unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent so we will proceed with questions or comments. If there are none, we will proceed to debate.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on what is our second Opposition Day debate on tourism. Less than a year ago this Party, trying to raise the tourism profile in Canada and trying to impress upon Canadians and the Government the importance of tourism, used an Opposition Day to do just that. Since that first day back in April of 1983, the Conservative Party and caucus received many favourable responses to our efforts from the provinces and from many tourists and businesses. In most of those responses people shared the sentiments we expressed. They agreed the Government has neglected tourism over the past few years. They urged that tourism be treated more as a business than as a source of revenue for the federal Government. Most people expressed feelings that the Government does not understand the industry and has paid only lip service to the tourist operators.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, one businessman related tourism to the story of Cinderella. We, the Conservative Party, could be the prince after the next election who finds Cinderella and puts the industry in the perspective it truly deserves. We intend to make the country aware of the importance of this industry to job creation in Canada.
We received many letters congratulating us on our efforts in proposing and debating the Opposition Day motion on tourism, and they suggested ways in which we could improve the industry. I feel that our Opposition Day was a success in that it raised the industry's profile in the eyes of many people. Unfortunately, it did not do so in the eyes of the Government. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to discuss the importance of the tourism industry to Canada's economy.
As I said, I am very happy to be speaking to the motion which the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) has put forward, condemning the Government for its inattention to the industry and for allowing Canada's tourism deficit to grow to $2.1 billion, thereby creating a loss of well over 100,000 jobs. The industry employs over 1.14 million people, and one of every ten workers in Canada is employed by the industry, directly or indirectly. The industry is an important employer of people because it provides jobs for both skilled and semi-skilled workers. Tourism is not just an industry found downtown in the middle of large urban areas. The tourist industry employs people in the far-flung corners of the country, out in the rural areas where there are no other types of employment. That is another reason why the industry is so vital to the rural areas of the country.
The tourist industry is very labour-intensive. Due to the fact that this industry is such a major employer of people, I would like to review the industry's travel statistics for 1983. In 1983,
the travel deficit for tourism increased by 57 per cent from 1982. It went from $1.3 billion in 1982 to $2.1 billion in 1983. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this translates into well over
100.000	jobs lost to the people of Canada. At a time when unemployment has reached extremely high proportions, these
100.000	jobs would certainly have been welcome to the unemployed people sitting at home unable to find jobs.
The total number of visitors travelling to Canada from the United States was 30,892,433. This was up only .6 per cent from 1982. In terms of automobile travel, the statistics were the same as for 1982. Plane travel from the United States was down while bus travel was up 8.7 per cent, as were other modes of transportation. The number of visitors from the United States was not up significantly from 1982, even though their dollar is worth much more than the Canadian dollar. There is a real asset in their dollar compared to ours. They have a bonus in coming to Canada and spending their dollars here. However, they are not doing that.
The number of people travelling to Canada from other countries as well was down a whopping percentage from 1982. This drastic decrease in travel from other countries certainly shows the neglect that Canada's advertising is receiving abroad. Foreigners have the perception that Canada is an expensive country to visit. The high costs involved in visiting Canada are driving people to vacation in other areas. This is the fault of over-pricing which has occurred due to the high taxes and prices induced by the federal Government as well as other governments.
The number of Canadians travelling to other countries is a very different story. The percentage of Canadians visiting the United States is up 17.5 per cent from 1982. This increase means that Canadians are not staying in Canada for their vacations, even though they are paying extra money to visit the United States where the exchange rate is 25 per cent to 28 per cent. They have to pay an extra 28 cents on every dollar to visit the United States. One reason for this is that Canadians cannot afford to travel within their own country. Another reason is that many are not aware of the potential for travelling to destinations in Canada. This is the fault of the federal Government. It has increased taxes, raised prices to a level where people cannot travel in Canada, and cut back on the advertising costs over the years. The number of Canadians visiting the U.S. by automobile is up by 20.7 per cent from 1982. Bus travel is up 3.4 per cent. Other forms of transportation are up 13.7 per cent. The reason for this is the low cost of gasoline, accommodation, food and alcohol in the United States as compared with that in Canada. All these factors are taken into consideration by people planning vacations.
The first thing you must do on a vacation is to fill up the car with gas. If it is cheaper in the United States, why not travel there? The next thing is to choose accommodation. Mr. Speaker, if you have travelled in the United States and parts of Canada you will know that accommodation in the United States is somewhat cheaper than in Canada. The next essential item is the cost of meals in restaurants. In Canada the cost of eating in most restaurants is higher than in the United States.
March 22, 1984

The federal tax heist on meals definitely adds to the cost and takes the enjoyment out of dining out. The cost of entertainment in Canada is much higher due to the federal Government's increase in the cost of alcoholic beverages.
Through the federal tax on gasoline and increases in the cost of alcoholic beverages, food and food production, the Government has increased the overhead for tourist businesses to a level where the operator must charge so much to cover his costs that he is pricing himself out of business. All governments must realize that the tourist industry is not a bottomless well filled with money for governments to do with what they will. Governments must realize that because of their ever increasing demand for taxes and their practice of continually increasing taxes on tourism, they have been dipping too deep into the well and now find that the well has been bailed dry.
Governments have siphoned off billions of dollars of revenue from the industry. In 1982, Mr. Speaker, the revenue from tourism in Canada was $16.5 billion. Governments siphoned $8 billion in taxes off the industry. Almost 50 per cent of the revenue from tourism went directly into the coffers of governments. The industry quite simply cannot stand the excessive drain caused by the over-taxation of the industry. For much too long governments have been looking at the tourist industry as a source of revenue. Every time more money is required by governments for their programs and policies they tax tourism for the dollars they are looking for.
The industry must be allowed to retain more of the revenue it generates. The industry requires money to revitalize itself, to upgrade its facilities, and to provide an ever improving product. In today's society customers are expecting higher standards and better service than ever before. It is about time that governments took steps to rectify the damage they have caused to the industry. I believe it is a lack of government understanding and co-ordination between Departments which has led the tourist industry to the state in which it is today. Government decisions are often made without regard to their implications in the travel industry. Unfortunately we have many examples of this.
I would like to deal with the role of governments in helping the industry and to discuss the obvious lack of co-ordination between government Departments, which has had a negative effect on the industry over the last few years. To do this, Mr. Speaker, I must impress upon you the importance of the industry to Canada and look at the problems which have developed due to the lack of co-ordination between government Departments. I am now speaking specifically about federal government Departments.
This morning we all heard a prime example of a government decision to cut back VIA Rail passenger service between Vancouver and Jasper. From talking with tour operators in British Columbia I know that we lost millions upon millions of dollars of Japanese business because of that one simple decision by the Department of Transport to cut back VIA Rail Service without any thought whatsoever to how it was going to affect tourism. We lost $40 million in the Japanese traffic alone. We lost $10 million in the small community of Jasper,
Supply
Alberta. We simply cannot continue to have one government Department making decisions which affect the industry of tourism so adversely.
I will give you another example, Mr. Speaker. For years preceding 1982, Prince Edward Island was advertising and promoting itself as the world centre for the giant bluefin tuna. We were getting to the point where people were recognizing us as the world centre for giant bluefin tuna. We were catching bluefin tuna as big as 1,500 pounds. We had a quota of 673 bluefin tuna in the Gulf, I believe. Flowever, there was no specific quota set for the sports fishery. Whenever the 673 tuna had been caught the season was closed. The very day that someone got off an airplane in Charlottetown from South Africa, the quota was reached and the season was closed.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what that did to the hundreds and thousands of people whom we were trying to influence to come to P.E.I. to catch tuna? Can you imagine what that person told his friends when he went back home after spending thousands of dollars to come to P.E.I. to catch the big bluefin tuna and arriving on the day that the season was closed? The Department of Fisheries unilaterally cut off the season. There goes another sector of the industry of tourism on P.E.I.
I will give you another prime example of how a Department of the federal Government can adversely affect a sector of the industry. In 1975 CN Marine decided to raise the price for recreation vehicles. It raised the price to 44 cents a foot. That price, compared to the charge of 14 cents a foot for a commercial vehicle, is definite discrimination against the tourist industry. As a result, 25 per cent of the camping grounds in P.E.I. that were in business in 1975 are closed. No sensible person would pay three times the charge for a recreational vehicle as compared to that paid for a regular commercial vehicle. They would not do it simply as a matter of principle.
All of the camping grounds that are still operating in Prince Edward Island have reduced their staff and most have reduced the hours that the remaining staff works. Hundreds of jobs have gone down the drain because of an isolated decision made in one Department of Government without any consideration at all for the implications it would have on the tourist industry.
We must do something about the conditions in the federal Government and its Departments. There should be co-ordination between the Departments so that they know beforehand whether a decision by one Department will adversely affect the tourism industry.
Our Party believes that a co-ordinated effort of this kind is necessary if the tourist industry is to be brought back to where it should be. We advocate that there be someone in each federal government Department to scrutinize what is happening so that he can warn people who are making a decision that it may affect tourism and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs and therefore should be reconsidered. We believe very strongly in this approach and propose that the Government consider

March 22, 1984
Supply
this action. Hopefully we will form the Government after the next election and we will look at that matter very seriously.
Canada has become grossly over-priced as a tourist destination. As of last September first, the federal Government increased the federal excise tax on tobacco by 15.8 per cent and on alcoholic beverages by 13.3 per cent. These increases triggered a number of increases throughout the distribution system, such as provincial taxes and mark-ups, leading to a net increase in the case of alcoholic beverages of about 8 per cent at the retail level.
I am not advocating that the Government should not be taxing alcohol and tobacco or that people should be consuming more alcohol or tobacco, but we must realize that when a tourist is away on a vacation he or she wants to sit down, relax and have a glass of beer or a glass of wine. We must bear in mind that the ever increasing taxes on these items are affecting tourism adversely.
Those increases in the price of alcoholic beverages have also affected Canada's struggling hotel and restaurant business and made them even less competitive than they were. We know that they are not competitive with the same type of business in the United States. Before last September's increase in the excise tax on alcohol, the cost of liquor to restaurants in New York State was equal to only three-quarters of the cost to Ontario restaurants. This is another example of the ramifications that such thoughtless government decisions have on the tourist industry. It certainly proves that there is definitely a lack of attention given to the effect that a decision made in one government Department has on another sector of the industry in Canada.
Through these discussions in the House today we hope to raise the profile of tourism and help Canadians understand it, appreciate its value and demand that the Government pay more attention to tourism to help create the atmosphere in Canada that will allow Canadian businesses to become competitive with their closest neighbour to the south.
We have a gold mine on our southern border. There are 250 million Americans who would love to come to Canada and spend some time here in a relaxed atmosphere. They would like to come to some of our beaches in eastern Canada, do some salmon fishing and so on. I know why they are not coming here as I am sure you do also, Mr. Speaker. I believe you come from a part of New Brunswick where tourism is important. We both know that the underlying problem with tourism in Canada is the over-taxation of the industry. The industry is paying far too much of its revenue to the Government and there is not enough left to keep the industry up to date and competitive with the rest of North America.
I have much more to say but my time is almost up. Again, I want to make the point that the tourist industry in Canada is one of our most important industries. It is labour-intensive and employs millions of people. We must do everything we can on our part to make sure that it receives the attention it deserves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Member from the beautiful Province of Prince Edward Island on his remarks. I would invite all Canadians, as he did indirectly, to visit that province, especially in the spring, summer and fall.
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) for his motion. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot agree with the direct thrust of the motion, but it serves an important function in allowing us to bring to the forefront the importance of tourism to such places as the Niagara Falls, the Atlantic Provinces and the City of Toronto, which many Canadians do not realize is a great tourist city. I think the Hon. Member for Halton would agree that many of our American friends are more aware of the advantages of visiting Toronto as tourists than are some of us in Canada, unfortunately.
Of course, it is easy to blame the federal Government for the tourist deficit. As well, it is easy to blame the provincial Government indirectly for reasons that have been expressed by previous speakers. I am not here this afternoon to say that there is no blame to be placed on either the federal Government or the provincial Government of Ontario. I know that problems have arisen in the tourist industry as a result of government taxes on alcoholic beverages at the provincial and federal levels. I agree with many of the previous speakers that we cannot go on increasing the taxes, no matter which government does so, without realizing that it will have a detrimental effect on the tourist industry.
Of course, there is another problem when you come to the deficit in the tourist industry in Canada. We live in a free society, which we are pleased to do. This means that to a great extent we do what we want to do. Many of us are snowbirds, as they call us in North and South Carolina. Many of us like to go, and in fact to go to areas south of the border where the winters, to say the least, are less harsh. Perhaps there is not much that can be done about this situation in a country as affluent as Canada. I do not know whether we should try to do anything about that aspect and its detrimental effect on the tourist industry.
There are similar areas where we can do something. I do not want to go into them in detail. For example, many Canadians go outside of Canada to ski. This is not the same as the snowbirds. Perhaps I can say that because I have reached the age where it is a little difficult for me to go downhill skiing. We have in Canada, in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, some fine ski areas.


Mr. Lewycky:: Even in Manitoba.


Arthur Allister MacBain: I should have mentioned Manitoba. There are beautiful downhill ski areas in Canada. I must admit that many of us forget that when we see a beautiful coloured photograph of the Alps. We tend to say to our wives and our families that next winter we should possibly go to the Alps to
March 22, 1984

ski. It would be very helpful and just as enjoyable if we went to the world-famous ski areas within our own borders. This would help our tourist industry. I have not given the same caveat to those who, after 10 or 11 months of hard work, find it necessary to have some extra sun, sand and warm water.
Federal and provincial governments and our tourist organizations can and must do a better job of educating Canadians to vacation in Canada, not necessarily in the provinces in which they live. Some of our provinces are so large that one end may be completely different from the opposite end. That difference may be sufficient for most people to enjoy on a vacation.
What is wrong with someone from the Atlantic provinces deciding to visit the beautiful western provinces, or vice versa? Someone from Ontario may want to visit La Belle Province to see beautiful Quebec City, the Plains of Abraham, the St. Lawrence River and to enjoy the food for which Quebec is famous.
This is the kind of educating we have to do. We who have the honour and privilege of travelling from province to province and talking to the people can pass the word that there are many beautiful spots in Canada, most of which many of us have not yet seen. I have conceded that federal and provincial taxes on wines and other spirits have been a detriment to the tourist industry. As the Member of Parliament for Niagara Falls, one of the most famous tourist cities, I have nothing to say further on that other than that it does play a part. Hopefully our Governments will consider reducing taxes or not adding to them each year. You get the same net amount of tax if more tourists come to Canada and more Canadians vacation here.
Tourism is important to all Canadians. Someone who operates a motel in Niagara Falls understands the importance of the tourist industry. Someone whose job it is to get people to come to the theatre in Charlottetown, P.E.I. knows that you require more than a local audience. Therefore, you try to encourage tourists to visit, particularly Canadians. Canadians love to visit the Atlantic provinces.
Tourism is important to Canadians in general. It means one million jobs for the heads of households, wives, sons and daughters. Very often jobs in tourism help students get through college and university. Earnings in the tourist industry amount to $16.5 billion per year, or 5 per cent of our Gross National Product. More than 100,000 businesses, large and small, are involved in Canadian tourism. That is an important segment in a small country of 25 million, more or less.
Tourism has a great potential for growth. Before planning extravagant visits to Europe or portions of the United States far from home, Canadians should decide to see Canada first, something I strongly advise.	<
The side effects of tourism are extremely limited. It is a renewable resource. There is no, or very little, environmental damage caused by tourism. Unfortunately, tourism is an international industry. The Rockies of Alberta and British Columbia must compete with the mountain ranges of the
Supply
world. The coastlines of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. must compete with other coastlines in the world for the tourist dollars.
Niagara Falls must compete with the beautiful Victoria Falls in Africa. The tender fruitlands of Niagara-on-the-Lake in my riding must compete with the tender fruitlands of Penticton, Georgia and California, just to mention the North American continent. We can see that tourist attractions of the world are under great pressure to be competitive. We must continue to be competitive if we are to increase our share of this world-wide industry. As I suggested in my opening remarks, the motion of the Hon. Member for Halton gives us an opportunity to explain to our fellow Canadians the importance of the tourist industry.
In the Niagara Falls area we have the beautiful falls and
32,000	acres of parklands maintained by the Niagara Parks Commission. Niagara-on-the-Lake is the home of the first capital of Upper Canada. It is there for Canadians to enjoy. Americans by the thousands are discovering the City of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Approximately 12 million visitors or a number equal to about half the population of Canada visit my riding each year. Many of those tourists are Canadians and many are world-wide travellers. When visiting Niagara-on-the-Lake, not only can they enjoy the beauty of this quaint town, but they have the Shaw Theatre which offers productions of world-wide quality.
As I said, this motion gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the importance of tourism even though we are not directly involved in it. What is the use of the federal Government, various provincial governments and tourist associations, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting tourism if Canadians in general are not supporting the industry? I am speaking in support of the hospitality aspect. Whether serving a beverage in a hotel or motel, whether driving a bus, whether clerking in a giftshop or running one of the many amusements which tourists love to visit, such as guiding at Marineland in Niagara Falls, hospitality is very important.
I invite all Canadians to realize the importance of hospitality and friendliness to tourists. We must realize how important they are to Canada. When I was preparing to speak in this debate, I read a small pamphlet published by the Government of Canada. It raised the importance of hospitality, as it should, in the tourist industry directly and on the part of Canadians generally. One suggestion in the pamphlet was for us to reach out a friendly hand to tourists. This is what I have been trying to say this afternoon. This is what the Hon. Member for Halton permitted by his motion.
In closing I should like to say that tourism is good for all Canadians, and I invite all Canadians to see Canada first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite disturbing that in 1984, the so-called year of tourism, we have to debate a resolution condemning the Government for its

Supply
approach to one of the most vital sectors of our economy. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) for bringing forward his motion. However, after thinking about what we have been through in the last 16 years, it is not surprising that the motion is one of condemnation.
We have heard many statistics today, and I am sure we will hear many more. However, the most important and telling one is that the country's largest industry, tourism, has not turned a profit since 1967, the year we celebrated Expo '67 of which we were all so proud. Then began the decline under the present Government. In the last seven years tourism's balance of payments has shown a deficit of nearly $10 billion. In the past decade our share of world tourist trade has withered from 4.9 per cent to 2.7 per cent, almost a 100 per cent decline. We will lose more than $ 11 billion over the next five years, according to the Government's own estimates. By 1987, the yearly financial drain will have risen to more than $3.5 billion. We are a nation of 25 million people sitting next door to a country with ten times our population, and we have a travel deficit! It is ludicrous. It just does not make sense. It is a pure marketing problem which the Government seems not to have acknowledged, let alone made an effort to address.
Since 1968, our annual deficit has steadily increased, except in 1979 when under a Conservative Government the travel deficit fell from $1.7 billion to slightly over $1 billion. That is an indication that real progress can be made if there is a determination and a willingness on the part of government to do so. We had the commitment, but the present Government does not. The record speaks for itself.
On a global basis, total receipts in 1982 from both domestic and international travel were roughly $1 trillion-that is a figure one with 12 zeroes behind it. The World Tourist Organization estimates that some three billion tourist arrivals were recorded world-wide last year, but fewer and fewer of those arrivals were in Canada. Since 1981, the number of Canadians travelling outside Canada has increased while the number of visitors to Canada has decreased. The daily outflow of Canadians increased from 32,655 in 1982 to 37,610 in 1983, an increase of 4,955 per day, but the daily inflow increased from 34,871 to 35,216, for a daily increase of only 345. The result is a net outflow of a staggering 4,610 per day. Not only are we having trouble attracting tourists to Canada, we are having difficulty encouraging Canadians to travel in their own country. Most Canadians have not seen the various regions of Canada.
It is time to ask why this has happened. It is very simple to stand here and criticize, but we want to suggest ways of addressing the problem. Hopefully this resolution will give the problem the exposure it needs and will prompt the Government to recognize the important role tourism plays in our economy. To put it simply, the policies of the Government have priced the tourism market in Canada out of the reach of an increasing number of travellers, most notably Canadians themselves. Purely and simply, we are non-competitive. The high cost of gas, liquor, accommodation and food top the list.
March 22, 1984
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada, in a submission to the task force on alcohol and tobacco on February 2, 1984, listed the price of alcoholic beverages as a "key and very upfront critical price perception factor" influencing tourism travel. I could not agree more. This is not a moral issue about which we are talking. It is a fact of life, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass). TIAC went on to point out that this came about because of astronomical increases in tax levels by both provincial and federal Governments, but added that these increases were led by "the unbelievable system of calculating and applying federal excise duties".
A tax on tax is indeed unbelievable. It is called an add-on tax or an ad valorem. I raised this matter in the House with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on a couple of occasions. Liquor, beer and wine have always cost more in Canada than in the United States as a result of the Canadian practice of monopolizing the distribution and sale of these beverages through government outlets-state control-and because Governments see liquor sales as an inexhaustible source of tax revenue, as something we taxpayers will tolerate because of the moral issues at stake. That is not true. Canadians are beginning to balk, particularly shareholders. Tax increases and mark-ups by one level of government prompts more by another level of government, but the federal Government leads the price increase spiral.
When the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Smith) spoke a few moments ago, he tried to blame it all on the provinces. That simply does not wash. Ad valorem taxation starts with the federal Government and then provincial taxes are added.
Last September, the firm of Peat, Marwick pointed out these implications in a study which stated:
Over the next four years, the "ripple" effect of the 1983 index change will increase the price of that $11.45 bottle of liquor another $1.95 to $13.40. The 13.3 per cent increase in excise duties thus ends up raising the retail price in Ontario by approximately 17 per cent... It is an illustration of how any increase in tax may take three or four years to work out of the system.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the increases continue even if the price is not raised at the manufacturer's level. This is because the ad valorem increases to the excise taxes are based on rises in the consumer price index. The increases come into effect automatically, regardless of current conditions.
Since the excise duty leads the retail price, the index begins to feed on itself and actually causes inflation. The effect has been a decline in consumption, which has resulted in the lay-offs of 2,500 distillery workers, not to mention many tobacco workers, at a direct cost to the Government of an estimated $40 million in UIC payments and lost income taxes. Lost sales mean reduced revenues from which to draw tax dollars. By trying to increase its take in this way, the Government is actually putting itself into a losing position. I point out to the Minister of Finance that these revenues will start to decline by next year. What we in effect are doing is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The same situation exists in the tobacco industry. More important is the impact this has had
March 22, 1984

on the tourism industry and the Canadian economy as a whole. When $17 billion and 1.1 million jobs are at stake, one would expect a little more concern than has been shown by the Government.
A 26-ounce bottle of Canadian whisky, which now costs $13.50 in Ontario, retails for an equivalent of $8.23 in the United States. A hotel operator in Ontario purchases the same bottle for $12.83 after a 5 per cent discount. However, a hotel operator in New York State is able to negotiate a much larger bulk discount depending on the size of his order. That discount is often as high as 20 per cent. The purchaser in New York State pays $6.08 U.S. or 33 cents per shot compared with the 64 cents per shot paid by the Ontario operator. The Ontario operator is at a 100 per cent disadvantage before any profit is made. How can the tourist industry operator compete? How can the convention facility operator compete? It is like coming out of the starting gate after the other horses have completed the first lap.
In the United States, about 40 per cent of all alcoholic beverages are retailed through licensed establishments. Let us think about that for a moment. These licensed establishments are small business concerns in many cases. In Canada, that figure is about 15 per cent, one-third of the American figure. Americans believe in small business, in the free enterprise system and in tourism.
The Canadian Restaurant and Food Association points out that food and beverage sales in accommodation establishments continued to drop in 1983 in tandem with falling occupancy levels. This has made it difficult to invest in upgrading or expansion of facilities to attract more tourists. Such expansion activity would create immediate construction jobs followed by an increase in tourists, thereby generating tourism-related employment.
On August 17, TIAC stated that beer, wine and liquor are already so over-taxed and the impact on tourism so serious that common sense would dictate there be no federal excise tax increase at all this year. Common sense did not prevail, Mr. Speaker, and the increases went ahead as scheduled. I am sorry to say that common sense is in short supply on the far side of the House. The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) agreed that liquor was over-taxed, but then proceeded to tell us about all the ways of getting tourists to Canada without addressing the problem.
We are over-priced. When I confronted the Minister of Finance with the hard facts, he applauded the present state of the distilling industry and stated that Canadians had decided to moderate their drinking habits. He said that in any case, the provinces were to blame for all the trouble. He did not investigate ad valorem taxation. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) said the same thing earlier today.
We have brought this resolution forward for debate today on behalf of thousands of shareholders, the 2,500 distillery workers who have lost their jobs and the 1.1 million Canadians who are employed in the tourism industry and whose jobs are at stake if the decline is allowed to continue. We on this side of
Supply
the House recognize the importance of tourism and we know what the problems are and how they have come about.
Rather than addressing the problems, the Government reacts in its characteristic way by throwing money at the problem. This time it is throwing money in the form of advertising. Another $7.5 million has been added to this year's tourism advertising budget, bringing it to a total of $31.9 million. However, no amount of advertising will work until the basic underlying problems are addressed.
Let me give you an example of this, Mr. Speaker. If McDonald's spends $1 million advertising its "Big Mac" for $1 and Burger King spends $1 million promoting the "Whopper" for 50 cents, which hamburger do you think that your children and mine will buy? Our children know when they can get two for the price of one. We are trying to advertise something that is over-priced. No amount of advertising will convince people to spend twice as much money as they need to spend on a comparable product.
Ottawa and the provinces spend $80 million a year promoting tourism in Canada, and then siphon off $8 billion in taxes. This is a typical Liberal philosophy. Why should an American travel in Canada when air fares are so steep, when gas is seen as liquid gold and when a drink and a meal are a major item of expenditure? No amount of advertising will convince an American that he should spend from $3.50 to $4.50 for a martini in Toronto when he can get the same thing for $1.75 in Chicago. Those are actual figures, Mr. Speaker. We may get him to do it once but he will not come back again.
We have a major problem in terms of bilateral tourist flow between Canada and the United States. On average, 74,000 more Canadians are in the United States every night of the year than there are Americans in Canada. As a result, the deficit on the travel account grows by $1.7 million per day. In light of these figures, the recent increase in the advertising budget of Tourism Canada is the proverbial "too little, too late".
Major action is required before the beleaguered industry sinks any further. The first thing required is a simple recognition by the Government that about 11 per cent of the Canadian labour force works in various areas of the tourist industry and that the potential for new jobs would be excellent if the federal and provincial Governments would work together to develop a national tourism strategy. That is what we on this side of the House advocate. This has not been possible under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has let it be known very publicly that co-operative federalism is dead. To my knowledge, no one on the other side of the House ever rose to deny what the Prime Minister said.
The value of co-operative federalism could be demonstrated in no better way than ip the tourism industry. We should get rid of that ad valorem taxation. When I say co-operation, I mean consultation with the industry and the provinces before implementing programs or regulations that affect tourism so adversely. For example, the Via Rail cutbacks, the decision to restrict tuna fishing on the East Coast and the implementation of the ad valorem taxation system on liquor and tobacco have

March 22, 1984
Supply
affected the tourist industry. Believe me, I know what I am talking about when I refer to tobacco because I have spent my whole life working in the tobacco industry and saw a product cut to ribbons.
Sam Hughes of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce summed up the present state of affairs by saying:
Governments are a silent partner of almost all businesses. But in the world of tourism, they are virtually a controlling shareholder. They tell you what services you can offer, and often, the time and locations in which you can offer them. They tell you, in general, the scale of the bottom end of the wages you must pay. They tell you often who should, and who should not, be employed and then ... when all is said and done ... they claim a share of your profits.
This is called state control, and it must change. The Government should not be siphoning profits into government coffers only to have those profits mismanaged by the Members on the other side of the House. We will never attract Americans into our country when they have to fill up at our gas pumps and pay taxes to help bail out Dome Petroleum and pay double the market price for a boondoggle called Petrofina. This idiocy surely is ours.
Instead of taxing Canadians out of the country, why not give them tax rebates for travelling within Canada? This would be a simple income tax change. The cost to the Government in forgone revenues would be more than compensated by the increased tourist travel. Instead of spending money advertising in the United States, let us look at the reasons why tourists choose the United States rather than Canada. It is not only the weather, and even the people in Florida will admit that. Florida's approach to tourism begins at the basic level. Its university system develops tourism as do its elementary and high schools. Florida's motto is "Be good to tourists, they are very good to you". Money spent on projects such as these would be much better spent. I am not saying that advertising is ineffective, but its maximum impact will come only when we have something to advertise. We have to get the visitor to Canada first, then to a specific area or region. That is sound advice, Mr. Speaker.
OO)
We should get together and offer package tours to visitors to this country at discount rates, not at rates inflated by unnecessary, excessive and inequitable taxation, making us non-competitive.
Why not consider discounts for tourists travelling and spending money in Canada instead of delaying them at our borders? Why not consider a Lotto tourist scheme in conjunction with the provinces by which lottery tickets would be given to those who purchase travel packages in Canada? Money spent on such a scheme would attract many U.S. visitors.
We should offer package tours. From Niagara Falls we could offer a package tour to the Maritimes, for example, or to fly up to see the midnight sun. Why are there no trips on the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes anymore?
Imagine what American tourists could do if they were told they could fish our Arctic char and see the land of the midnight sun. They should be told about the Agawa Canyon in
the fall, Churchill Falls and the Polar Bear Express. These things have hardly been tapped.
Ski resorts just below the border from Banff, Alberta, are now offering "Canada Week" specials to bring Canadians to their slopes for a week of spring skiing for less than $200 and are offering discounts on almost all purchases. Do we have a U.S. week for skiing in Canada? I have not heard about it. Do we have the right air fares that would entice them to come? No, we do not because we have a state controlled airline.
Almost three-quarters of the tourists travelling in Canada are Canadians, but there are fewer and fewer of them every year. Why come to Ottawa and stay at the Holiday Inn for $59 for a weekend when the same hotel in Lake Placid offers a room, dinner and breakfast for $29, or when the Hilton Hotel in Syracuse offers a room for two days for $29.90? These are hard, cold facts that should be explained to the Minister of Finance. Why fly to Vancouver for $349 on Wardair when for an extra $50 you could fly to Britain? These are facts, Mr. Speaker, and nothing is being done about the situation.
We are sitting next door to a potential gold mine in tourist dollars and we are not even tapping it. The problem has wide implications.
People are crossing the border to go south in ever increasing numbers. On the weekend of February 24 to 26, 3,834 vehicles crossed the border into Ogdensburg, New York. All 48 rooms of a local hotel there were filled with Canadians on package deals. While there they bought shampoo for 88 cents a bottle that would have cost them $3 in Canada. They bought bed sheets for one-third of the price they would have paid in Canada, bath towels for less than half the price and designer jeans for a quarter of the Canadian price. Advertising will not bring them back. They have to be offered something good.
At night when they were not shopping, they were enjoying a drink at a reasonable price in a fashionable, licensed establishment. The parking lots in Ogdensburg were filled with cars bearing licence plates proclaiming "Ontario-Yours to Discover". Mr. Speaker, tourists have discovered that they cannot afford a Canadian holiday.
In Ontario, tourism is the second largest industry, and we must do something about the loss of over 100,000 jobs in 1983 and a $2.1 billion outstanding tourist deficit. Tourism can no longer be singled out as a lucrative source of easy tax revenues.
I recognize that this may be the best the Government can come up with at this time. That is all the more reason why it should make room for a government with fresh ideas and a determination to solve the problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair regrets to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time is up. Questions, comments? Debate.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, tourism is our topic today and I shall spend only five minutes promoting what I think is a great idea for Canadian tourism. I speak of the prospects of building a dome and sports facility in Mississauga. I believe this kind of facility would bring tourists
March 22, 1984

into southwestern Ontario by the thousands. I am happy to say that in my city and across metro the concept of a domed stadium has received trilateral support from representatives of all political groups.
In Mississauga the domed statium proposal enjoys community support. It has the endorsement and financial backing of the city council and is sparkplugged by the local business community. You will have seen recent newspaper advertising to the effect that the Trillium domed facility offers the kind of sports facility that we need in the metro area without putting a heavy burden on the back of the taxpayer.
Anyone considering a domed stadium has to ask the questions-why, where and who pays? Let me take those questions in order and ask Hon. Members to consider our proposal and also, please, to compare it with the more widely advertised proposals for de Havilland and the Canadian National Exhibition. I believe that the Mississauga proposal comes out way ahead of those.
To deal with the first question of why we need a domed stadium, in the Toronto region apart from the sports services that would be offered, a domed stadium would represent thousands of jobs in its construction and operation. It would represent a major attraction far beyond the sports level. Conventions and trade shows would be drawn to the facility. It would be a major spark-plug for massive development in transportation, service industries and hotel industries. Perhaps it is for that reason that the Metropolitan Toronto Labour Council has said that the Toronto region needs this kind of facility. It recognizes that it is an investment in the future, not just for business or a few sportsmen, but for ordinary working Canadians.
The next question is where such a facility should be built. I say it should be put in a place that services the whole province, a place that is easy to get at. I ask you to compare what we are offering in Mississauga to the facilities in the more crowded centre of the city. We propose to build it at the corner of Highway 10 and Highway 401. To the east, Scarborough is only half an hour away, to the west Hamilton is only half an hour away, and in between there are Toronto, Etobicoke, Brampton, Burlington and Oakville. Millions of people live within that radius of half an hour. If the radius were extended to one hour you would begin to encompass people from Welland, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Barrie, Orillia, Kitchener, Guelph, Cambridge and Waterloo. All of these communities would see that domed stadium as part of their area, not as part of the narrow Toronto area.
A domed stadium in the Mississauga area would be a domed stadium for all Ontario and not just for Toronto. We have great highways and we have facilities to handle commuters coming by car. When the Woodbine race track was built, Mr. Speaker, it was thought to be way out in the country and inaccessible. Urban sprawl caught up to it and soon it was seen as a central facility. I predict the same thing will happen with the Mississauga domed stadium site.
Then there is the question of who pays for this. I do not believe taxpayers should pay for it. The taxpayers can help to
Supply
build it, but they should get the money back. The taxpayer should not be stuck with a permanent debt. In my opinion the Mississauga proposal is a four star project. The user of the stadium would help to pay for it along with private industry which would build and manage it. These people have assembled 2,000 acres of prime land on the corner of Highway 10 and Highway 401. They need about 150 acres for the stadium. The rest of the land would belong to the stadium, and as it increased in value, it would be sold. The presence of the stadium would attract hotels which would buy the land and the proceeds of that sale would bring a return to the Government and to private lenders who helped put it up in the first place.
It would be a long-term repayment plan rather than a long-term burden on the public Treasury. I must say that this would be an ideal partnership between governments and private enterprise. It would use the initiative, the imagination and the profit motive of private enterprise and the short-term financial support of the Government. If the Hon. Members agree with me, I would ask them to look into the proposal a little further. The real key to the success of this proposal is the Government of Ontario. We are asking Premier William Davis to consider the Mississauga site, along with the others which have been proposed. We are asking him to look into the self-financing aspect of it, to look into the private enterprise aspects, the regional service rather than just service to one city. If Hon. Members agree with these principles, we are asking them to contact Premier William Davis and ask him to put us into the running. Just let us have a chance to sell our ideas.
We do not believe that the Ontario Government has to pick us arbitrarily. We believe that if the Ontario Government compares the Mississauga proposal to the Downsview or CNE proposal, then our proposal will win flat out every time. We offer the taxpayer the opportunity to have this facility on a self-financing basis. We offer it to the people of the whole province, not just to the people of one city, and we offer it with all the excitement and imagination of a good private enterprise project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions, or comments? Debate.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it has indeed been interesting to hear the comments of the previous speaker. I appreciate his comments on what is a very interesting proposition and we wish him and his riding well. It was also interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear the comments of my colleagues on the various aspects of the tourist industry in Canada and as it relates to Hon. Members in the various regions and ridings from which they come.
I would like to address a comment which was made by the Minister this morning, which I believe illustrates the insensitivity of this Government and, indeed, the hypocrisy. The Minister said that the Government is seeking the Asian tourist market of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. That is fine. I appreciate

March 22, 1984
Supply
the fact that he is doing that. The hypocrisy is this, however, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) removed the VIA train from Edmonton through Jasper to Vancouver. Other Hon. Members have alluded to this in the debate here today, but I want to mention it because my wife and I had the privilege of riding on that train. We flew to Edmonton, stayed there all night, got the train the next morning at seven o'clock, had breakfast on the train and took that beautiful trip up to Jasper. The train stopped there for perhaps an hour. We were able to get out and look at the mountains and do a bit of shopping. We then proceeded on to Vancouver. I acknowledge that the rolling stock was old, and is old, and should be replaced. Perhaps that is part of the reason that the trains are running at a deficit. However, the hypocrisy is that the Minister did that unilaterally without any consultation with the tourist industry. He did it without going to Jasper, sitting down with those people and talking about his plans for the removal of that train. That is why I say that the Liberal Government is insensitive and demonstrates a large degree of hypocrisy.
I would like to discuss the subject with emphasis on some of the environmental problems facing our tourist industry today as it relates to my riding of Erie, and also as it relates to the riding of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), who spoke so eloquently here this afternoon. Incidentally, it was in his riding in 1980 that the future Prime Minister of Canada made the statement that he was going to clean up the Niagara Falls problem, the Niagara River situation. He was going to do that, and we would elect a Liberal Member. Sure enough, the Liberal Member was elected, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he will be phased out in the next election.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Canada's reputation as a tourist attraction rests with its beautiful scenery, its sparkling lakes and clean air, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to protect these resources. We have, on the one hand, a gigantic urban sprawl which threatens to destroy much of the picturesque farmland and orchards which attract people to the Niagara Peninsula where I make my home. On the other hand, we have the great industries of the industrial northeastern United States and, indeed, the Golden Triangle, which are contaminating the air which we Canadians have boasted about for many years. It is to the advantage of all Canadians, I feel, to guard our precious heritage.
As I speak, the selection process is being carried out to find a location for an industrial waste disposal facility to serve the industries of southern Ontario. That is a difficult problem, I must confess, which the provincial Government has. No one wants such a facility at his back door. I do not want it in my riding. The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls does not want it in his riding. Yet our ridings are proposed as locations for this facility. Some community will have to bear the ecological consequences of locating this facility in its area. Some day we will have to pay a terrible price for our actions today. In fact, we are paying some of that price right now. The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) will tell us in a few
minutes, I am sure, about the acid rain problem. The problem has to be solved at its source, which is the industries which make the waste. Is the technology not available to deal with industrial waste and recycle it into useful products, Mr. Speaker? I am not an expert on the subject, but surely we cannot go on in this manner. We certainly do not wish to develop the reputation in the eyes of potential tourists as a country which is polluting itself to death. It goes without saying that environmental questions are very much linked to the tourist industry. Tourism is the largest single employer in our country. It provides jobs for over one million people, and those jobs are on the line if our clean air and water are lost.
The sports fisherman is deeply concerned about acid rain and the polluting of our streams. When the fish die, a whole chapter of Canadian history dies with them. There are many avid sports fishermen in our country and, indeed, in my riding, who have spoken to me about this many times. Fishermen elsewhere have expressed concern about this lake or that lake and what a shame it is. Whatever we do about this very serious question, we cannot lay the whole blame on the United States. We as well are guilty parties. We have our part to play in eliminating or controlling this very serious problem.
Sports fishing is a subject which deserves, in my opinion, much more attention on the national level. In fact, there are individuals and groups in this country who are lobbying very strongly for more positive ways of enhancing this very important sport. I say, more power to them. I appreciate the work they are doing and I will co-operate with them in every way I can. I am a fisherman myself. I have three sons, all of whom are grown and married. I have enjoyed, and still enjoy, fishing with them. It is a sport which takes us out of doors and into nature. It is a fine sport for a father to enjoy with his sons and daughters. I feel there are certainly many more ways to go about enhancing our sports fishing in this country, thereby directly and indirectly improving our potential for attracting those very elusive tourist dollars which are slipping away into the United States because of the high costs of vacationing in our country. Food prices are much higher, as are hotel rooms. We heard about this from the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) as he spoke so eloquently just a few minutes ago. Gasoline is substantially higher, in some places twice as high, in Canada than it is in the U.S. Our fishing will have to be pretty good to offset that.
We must make a concerted effort to understand the fact that the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie sport fishery is a resource representing excellent recreational opportunities. We must make sure that appropriate expansion of both onshore and offshore components is undertaken. As to the onshore, provision must be made to accommodate boats, trailers and recreational vehicles in areas close to lakes and rivers with good sports fishing potential. This industry is labour-intensive. There is a high multiplier effect in the sports fishing sector. There are marinas, the fuel being sold, bait suppliers, the sale and rental of boats and motors, the sale of tackle, some of which is made in my riding by William Gold in my town of
March 22, 1984

Fort Erie. They make the famous William's wobbler which is used for catching trout in our northern lakes and streams. Think of the accommodation, the rooms, food and beverages, sightseeing buses, taxis, shops, all of which mean jobs, jobs, jobs to the young people and many of the older people as well.
I guess I am amazed, as many Members are, at the middle-aged people who come into my office and who are without jobs. They do not know where to turn and these facilities would provide jobs for many of those people. It is a tremendous industry.
Harbours and breakwaters must be built to protect marinas, and appropriate markings placed for navigation, all of which comes under the purview of the federal Government. Think of the potential for job creation if a serious effort were made to improve the fishery in this province, especially in the Great Lakes; and indeed in the whole of Canada. These onshore facilities are all for nought, however, if a varied and healthy fishery is not present to attract anglers to the improved and expanded facilities I have described. This should include hatchery facilities, equipment and manpower to undertake comprehensive stocking and restocking of our lakes. All this takes money and committed people at all levels of Government. However, the political will to do so is paramount. But that is lacking.
Members will be aware that just last week I posed a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), requesting that he identify any new programs which would enhance sports fishing on the Great Lakes. I have as yet to receive an answer. Apparently tourism is not important to the Minister. However, I trust he is giving the idea serious thought. I hope he is, given that we are dealing with a resource of tremendous potential if it is wisely used.
I touched briefly on the environmental aspects of tourism and now I would like to probe the issue from the point of view of the sports fisherman. Have you ever seen the beautiful fish they are pulling from the Great Lakes these days? You probably have not, and I want to tell you they are fun to catch. Many of them are good to eat, but it may be dangerous to eat some of the large ones taken from Lake Ontario because of pollution in the lower Niagara River. This is genuinely sad. It is said that when the white man first came to Canada, he could place a bent needle in a stream and catch a fish almost immediately. Now we find that in some cases we cannot even eat them. The tourism industry and the Minister responsible for tourism must work closely with the environmental Ministry at both federal and provincial levels to ensure that the situation is correctred for my children, my grandchildren and yours. Otherwise, we will be leaving them a sad legacy indeed.
The Niagara River is a case in point. How many honey-mooners watching the romantic vista of Niagara Falls have any idea what witches' brew is mixed up in the water beneath the Falls in that great gorge? The trouble is, chemicals from various Love Canal style dumps along the river flow into our precious Great Lakes and end up in the innards of some unsuspecting marine life way downstream. Dioxin, PCBs and a host of other delicacies are finding their way on to people's
Supply
plates. This indeed must stop. I call upon the Minister responsible for tourism to exhort the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) whom I find to be a caring individual, one who takes his job seriously, to continue his efforts, indeed step them up, to clean up this mess. He should be aware that he has the support of all politicians. There is not a Member in this House who would not agree that we have to clean up that mess.
How can improved sport fishing enhance the tourist industry? It can provide the incentive for American tourists to set their compasses to due north and put an end to the current trend we have been seeing of fewer and fewer non-residents travelling to our country. In 1980, over 40 million non-residents visited Canada. This dropped to 34 million in 1983. In 1983, 1,201 hotels, motels, restaurants and caterers went under. Is it the recession? The Government blames just about everything on that, and undoubtedly some of it is due to the recession. Is it the dollar? We cannot blame it on that because Americans should be coming up here in droves because of the exchange rate. No, I believe our Government is being just plain inhospitable. Our taxes on many items are preposterous.
Therefore I call upon the Government to consider seriously means to improve the situation for visiting fishermen. Briefly, such measures should include, first, the monitoring and preserving of the quality of our air and water; and Second, tax cuts to ensure prices are reasonable. There should be joint federal-provincial meetings to ensure there are solutions to these problems. The third point is improved conservation and enhancement of our fisheries resource. Again, the Government should work hand in hand with the province on restocking to make sure that our lakes have a good supply of fish.
I believe that by pursuing these goals actively we can improve the quality of life not only for visitors, but for those of us who are fortunate to live in this beautiful country with so much potential. We want to sustain that potential and improve it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the flow of debate we have a tradition that Members are allocated 20 minutes with a ten minute question period. There is also some effort to balance the speakers to represent equally the Parties' representation in the House of Commons. It now being 5.30, it seems clear to me that as you turn to the Government benches and recognize a government Member, we are going to end this debate with the NDP having spoken once and with Liberals and Conservatives having spoken five or six times each. Using basic mathematics, that seems to me to be rather unfair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has to recognize Members as they stand up. I have to agree that the Hon. Member's Party has not put up a speaker for a little while. It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in such a

March 22, 1984
Supply
situation because the Chair tries to recognize Members as they stand.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a long but encouraging day. It has been encouraging in that so many Members of all Parties have participated in this debate on tourism. Having listened to the remarks of Members today one thing stands out clearly to me. The Government and the Opposition firmly agree on at least one item, that is, the importance of tourism in Canada to Canadians.
Many people outside this House are not aware that Canada, with its exciting cities, beautiful wilderness, heritage and cultural diversity, is host to so many Canadian, American and overseas visitors each year. It is host to many people from various parts of the world, and we would certainly welcome many more if that were encouraged. Few are aware that this industry accounts for 5 per cent of our GNP, the amount of $18 billion in our economy, and that it has contributed some $32 billion in personal income to Canadians from coast to coast in 1982. The 100,000 businesses which make up the tourist industry are primarily Canadian-owned, many of them small family enterprises. These Canadian businesses employ 1,140,000 Canadians. This includes youth, native people, women and immigrants, many of whom would be without jobs today if it were not for tourism.
Throughout the recession of 1980-82 the tourist industry continued to grow, unlike many other sectors of our economy. According to Statistics Canada figures, as an employer of Canadians, tourism has registered consistent growth in levels of employment over the past several years, outperforming forestry, manufacturing, construction and trade. Wherever you go in Canada, Mr. Speaker, tourism is important and the Government has recognized its importance in regional economic development. It ranks first, second and third as an industry in every province of Canada. Canadians invest in this industry and benefit from it, not only from its employment and profits but, perhaps more important, in having the opportunity to meet each other, experience the diversity of their country and share it with the world.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) spoke eloquently this morning about the industry and the record of the Government in supporting its development over the past decade. As well, he outlined the Government's commitment to the further growth of tourism in Canada. Everything is not rosy. There are problems, but also there are solutions to those problems. The Minister mentioned the efforts of some government Departments in support of the tourist industry. I would like to add to that list for the edification of Hon. Members of the House.
First I would like to commend the role played by the Federal Business Development Bank which has branches across our vast country. Its largest client is the tourist industry. Twenty-nine per cent of its loans are made to tourist businesses in all areas of Canada. Surely this demonstrates a commitment to tourism. Not only does FBDB act as a major
lender to the industry, it also counsels entrepreneurs and acts as an equity partner in some major tourism developments.
I would also like to mention Employment and Immigration Canada. I noted earlier that more than one million Canadians are employed in the tourist industry. CEIC plays a major role in ensuring that training programs are available for those looking for jobs in tourism. Recognizing the need for qualified chefs, CEIC has included them in the priority training list under the National Training Act. Recently the Government announced a $3.5 million grant for the expansion of the George Brown College facilities in Toronto to ensure increased training of chefs for the hospitality industry. After all, the tourist, like an army, travels on her or his stomach. I might add that the better the food, the easier they travel, and the quicker they return.
Among our most important domestic tourists are the youth. They should be able to see their country from coast to coast and experience the greatness and diversity of the land. The elderly should be able to use their well-earned free time to see their country and visit friends and relatives. To this end the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) recently announced major reductions of VIA Rail fares for youth and senior citizens in order to stimulate domestic tourism and support the aspirations of these Canadians to visit Canada.
This morning the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) raised the question of the VIA Rail service from Edmonton to Vancouver. Perhaps the Hon. Member was not aware of the recent actions taken by the Minister of Transport to establish a task force on rail passenger service in northwestern Alberta and British Columbia. Included in the task force are representatives of both provincial Governments, the cities of Edmonton and Vancouver, Transport Canada, VIA Rail, Tourism Canada, the Jasper Chamber of Commerce, and other interested parties. The task force will look at the viability of the passenger rail service between Edmonton, Jasper and Vancouver and report to the Minister of Transport and other Governments involved in the review of its findings. The Government is aware of the problem and is taking action, Mr. Speaker.
The comment was made this morning that one important component of the tourist industry is the attitude toward the visitors. Tourism Canada has worked with provincial Governments, communities and the private sector for several years on an attitude and awareness program designed to impress upon Canadians the importance of tourism, the importance of the visitor, and the importance of a friendly face and a friendly smile. If the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet) wants to carry this message to the tourism industry and the constituents in his riding. I am sure that appropriate information can be made available to him.
This is a people-intensive industry. Not only does it make work for many of our people, but we are all involved. Each one of us has the responsibility of making visitors welcome. This applies to the customs officers at the gateway to our country, to the hotel-motel operators, to the courtesy of the waitresses,
March 22, 1984

to the person pumping gas at the local garage, and to each of us as we make visitors feel welcome and want to return with their friends time after time. This is a great, big, beautiful country that each of us needs to promote at every opportunity.
The Opposition has shown unusual wisdom in selecting tourism as a topic for debate in the House today. This is the "year of tourism" in Canada. This was declared by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and supported by the federal, provincial and territorial Governments as well as the private sector. The year of 1984 is filled with events from coast to coast designed not only to attract visitors from the United States and abroad, but also to encourage Canadians to visit the length and breadth of this great country. The 450th anniversary of the arrival of one of Canada's first tourists, Jacques Cartier, provides the venue for celebrations throughout Quebec. If I remember my history correctly, Jacques Cartier must have enjoyed his visit because he returned in 1535 and again in 1541. I am sure the spectacle of the tall ships sailing through Atlantic Canada and up the St. Lawrence River will be appreciated.
The 200 years of New Brunswick's Loyalist heritage will be celebrated. The 150th anniversary of Toronto will be celebrated with an international festival. Also celebrated will be the 50th anniversary of Yellowknife, the 75th anniversary of the first powered flight in Canada at Baddeck, the Fredericton bicentennial, the 350th anniversary of Trois-Rivieres with numerous celebrations, the 150th anniversary of Prescott, the centennial of Calgary, and the international air show in Abbotsford. These are but a couple of the many events taking place in 1984.
Of particular note, and highlighting the anniversary festivities taking place in some centres of Canada, will be the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. As some Members have already noted, 1984 also marks the first visit of a Pope to Canada. If Opposition Members doubt the Government's commitment to tourism, 1984 also signals 50 years of federal involvement in tourism promotion and development.
Canada is a big country, Mr. Speaker. I will try to explain just how big it is. I recently had the privilege of travelling to one of our far western points to represent the Government at the opening of a new customs port at Beaver Creek. We who live in central Canada think that Edmonton is in the west, but I was 1,500 miles north and west of Edmonton in the Yukon. I really enjoyed seeing for myself a part of Canada which I had only seen through the eyes of Jack London, the famous writer who wrote so eloquently of our north.
If there ever was a time for the Leaders of this country on both sides of the House to join together to tell Canadians and the world with one voice to see Canada, explore and enjoy it, it is 1984. What better way is there to convey the message than by example? Let each of us in the House commit ourselves today to spend our holidays in Canada. Nineteen eighty-four is here.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that at least I have five minutes to speak in this debate. As the Member of Parliament for one of the great tourist paradises in the entire country, Parry Sound-Muskoka, let me emphasize how important I think, and in fact know, the tourist industry is.
I want to thank our critic for tourism for introducing his motion today. As the Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, I have grave concerns about the present condition of the tourist industry, despite the fact that it is the second most important industry for bringing dollars into the Dominion of Canada. It is also a labour-intensive industry that employs over 1,135,000 people. I would also point out that many of those people do not have too many skills and therefore depend on this very important industry.
My colleague for Erie (Mr. Fretz) touched on the sport fishing industry and how important it is to the tourist industry. He is quite right. In Ontario alone, it is estimated that $600 million is generated by sport fishermen and women who are certainly interested in seeing that there is good fishing and will go to where that good fishing exists.
This brings up another grave concern that I have. My riding is one of the most seriously affected by the acid rain problem. It is a serious problem which I know is important to both sides of the House. I commend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) for his grave concern and for bringing it to the attention of the Cabinet. However, it is important that we do much more than talk about this issue.
The Minister has stated that the Government is proposing to reduce acid rain by 50 per cent by the year 1984. While I commend that, we certainly must begin sooner in order to start reducing acid rain. My riding is in the unfortunate position of having 70 per cent of all the acid rain that falls in Parry Sound-Muskoka coming from the United States. Regardless of what the federal or provincial Governments do to reduce acid rain, it will certainly not make any great impact until the U.S. Government follows suit. I hope continual pressure will be put on that administration. I also anticipated that the acid rain problem would be a higher priority in the forthcoming U.S. elections, but perhaps it will heat up before November so that the present Government there will take meaningful action on it.
There is no question that it will cost a lot of money to address this problem. Ontario is greatly blessed with over 250,000 lakes, but over 4,000 of those lakes are now seriously damaged by acid rain. Some 140 or more are dead. The fish population and the vegetation in those lakes have gone. While we have beautiful crystal-clear lakes, it takes more than that to attract tourists.
We are fortunate in Ontario and in my riding particularly that we are within a one day's drive for over 100 million Americans. It is a market with tremendous potential. The Minister of Small Businesses and tourism (Mr. Smith) stated

March 22, 1984
Supply
today that the Government is spending a considerable amount of money to attract tourists. While I commend the Government for doing that, let me point out that because it spends a lot of money for advertising it must be able to deliver the goods.
We want to be able to have a viable, strong tourist industry. We want to have beautiful lakes and we want to have fish in those lakes. These are all important considerations at the present time. While good fishing still exists in certain lakes, it has diminished considerably in many of them.
I see that you are indicating that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. But I just want to point out that we must do something to protect our environment because it will also help the tourist industry.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(10), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Supplementary Estimates (C) and Interim Supply, and of all stages of the bills based thereon.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1C, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote Ic, in the amount of $4,782,000 under the Department of Finance-Financial and Economic Policies-Program Expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1C, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Motion No. 2
That Vote 1c, in the amount of $1,670,300 under the Department of Justice- Administration of Justice, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having been rung:


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we have several potential votes with which to deal tonight. I have discussed it with my colleagues, the Government House Leader and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. It will be noted that the division on Motion No. 1 slipped by just prior to 5.45 p.m. We have agreed that when the Chair puts the question on the second motion, that is Vote lc, in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), that recorded division will apply to item No. 1 and items Nos. 3, 4 and 5, with the recording of the vote appearing in Hansard as though it had been taken. All the remaining items we have agreed will go on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we held consultations and that is why I did not object to the point of order while a vote is going on, knowing that there was unanimous consent.
March 22, 1984

We did agree that the vote on item No. 2 should also apply to items Nos. 3, 4, and 5. We would also be ready to allow that vote to dispose of item No. 1. We easily won that vote because the Liberals were in the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we agree as well.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1C, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Motion No. 1
That Vote lc, in the amount of $4,782,000 under the Department of Finance-Financial and Economic Policies-Program Expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray).


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1C, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Motion No. 2
That Vote lc, in the amount of $1,670,300 under the Department of Justice- Administration of Justice, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Supply
(Division No. 24)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lajoie
Lalonde
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-135.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gustafson
Halliday
Hees
Howie
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Ms.)
Kilgour
Knowles
Kristiansen
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) Manly Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood) McGrath McKenzie
McKinnon
McMillan
Miller
Mitchell (Ms.)
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy Nielsen Nowlan Nystrom Oberle Paproski Patterson Riis
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Siddon
Stevens
Stewart
Thacker
Thomson
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wise
Wright
Young-76.
1 declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10C, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Motion No. 3
That Vote 10c, in the amount of $3,740,588 under the Department of Public Works-Accommodation, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be councurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 2C, MINISTRY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Motion No. 4
That Vote 2c, in the amount of $310,000,000, under the Ministry of State for Social Development-Canadair Limited, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be councurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 3C, MINISTRY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Motion No. 5
That Vote 3c, in the amount of $240,000,000, under the Ministry of State for Social Development-de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be concurred in.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(C)
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Gray thereupon moved that Bill C-27, and Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1984, be read the first time and be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Gray thereupon moved that Bill C-27, an Act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1984, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to on division, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, laid upon the Table, Monday, March 5, 1984, except those items disposed of earlier this day and that portion of item 1c under the Department of National Revenue-Customs and Excise-Program expenditures ruled out by Mr. Speaker, be concurred in.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Clause agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 7 carry?
March 22, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the Schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall 1 rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That a sum not exceeding $10,358,774,745.49 being the aggregate of:
(a)	three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the Items set forth in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, laid before the House of Commons on Tuesday, February 21, 1984, $9,287,918,349.75;
(b)	an additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Communications Item 35, Public Works Items 65 and 75, Transport Item 25 and Treasury Board Item 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates $12,272,733.33;
(c)	an additional six-twelfths of the total amount of Treasury Board Item 5 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates $157,500,000;
(d)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Item 15, Transport Items 20, 35, L60 and LI 15 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates $226,445,000;
(p) an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Communications Item 5, Environment Items 15 and 30, Public Works Items 20, 30, 70 and 80, Regional Industrial Expansion Item 35, Secretary of State Item 30 and Transport Item 90 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates $118,331,748.83;
Supply
if) an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Agriculture Item 15, Communications Item 45, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Items 1 and 5, Employment and Immigration Item 15, Energy, Mines and Resources Item 1, Environment Items 1 and 20, External Affairs Items 5 and 40, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Items 30, 35 and 40, Labour Item 5, National Health and Welfare Items 10 and 45, Public Works Item 10, Secretary of State Item 10, Solicitor General Item 1, Supply and Services Item 1, Transport Items 65 and 100, Veterans Affairs Items 25 and 30 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates $555,806,877.58;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-28, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985 be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Gray thereupon moved that Bill C-28, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985, be now read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Schedule A carry?
2364_______________________________________
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule A agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule B agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Schedule C carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule C agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Schedule D carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule D agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Schedule E carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Schedule E agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Preamble agreed to.

March 22, 1984


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the title carry.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.27 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2.
At 6.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME II