INDU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 1, 2000

• 0902

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I'm going to call the meeting to order. It's on Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

We're very pleased to welcome here this morning a number of witnesses. From Brewster Transportation and Tours, we have Mr. David Morrison, president and chief executive officer. From the Professional Institute of the Public Services of Canada, we have Mr. Steve Hindle, the president, and Andy Zajchowski, negotiator. We're very pleased to welcome both of you.

What I would propose is that we have both opening statements and then move to questions together, and unless you've come to a different arrangement, I would propose that Mr. Morrison begin.

Mr. David Morrison (President and Chief Executive Officer, Brewster Transportation and Tours): Thank you.

I apologize, I brought an opening statement, but it's not in both official languages. I come from Cape Breton and probably don't speak either official language very well.

I was educated in Nova Scotia and went to the University of Halifax. I started my career driving buses to get through university.

One of the things I'd like to take a couple of minutes of the committee's time to let you know is that tourism is basically seen as small business, and we are probably a small business—we fall in that category because we're under 500 members. I did do this opening statement, and it tells a little bit of what do on page one. Our fact sheet shows what we pay in salaries and what we pay in tax. I guess as long as we're paying provincial taxes, it implies that we're profitable.

So to dispel a myth that a lot of businesses in the tourism industry are not profitable, we are profitable and we do quite well.

Our company sales are approximately $95 million. And if you look at this pie chart on company sales volume, you'll see we're really an export industry, in that less than 13% of our sales come from within Canada. I think that's an important fact when we talk about tourism and how we go about promoting the products we sell.

If you took the absolute number of people we process—I shouldn't say process—our customers, the percentage of Canadians would be much higher. The reality is that foreigners spend a lot more per capita when they come to visit us.

If you go on to the next page, it's one of our newer buses, one of ten we're taking from Motor Coach Industries this year. They cost just under $500,000 without tires.

• 0905

When you go in to buy a car, you see what you get. When you buy a bus, they start out with the shell. Now if you want an engine, if you want windows, if you want seats... The only thing they don't charge for is water in the batteries. These are manufactured in Winnipeg.

The next page is a Prevost, which is manufactured in Sainte-Claire, Quebec. Two years ago we bought 26 new units, and 16 came from Quebec.

One of the other businesses we run is that we take people out on a glacier at the Columbia Icefield. We pay concession fees to do that with Parks Canada.

Our SnoCoach is built by Foremost in Calgary, Alberta. It's a relatively small manufacturer, mostly specialized in the oil patch. One of the things we've tried to do is celebrate our heritage by painting these SnoCoaches in themes that are Canadian—the RCMP, Parks Canada, etc.

The last page shows one of our recent acquisitions. It's in Banff, a gondola lift that was owned by Swiss interests and we just repurchased.

The reason we're giving a little bit of background is that, particularly when we talk about where our sales come from outside of Canada, we don't do anything by ourselves. We would like to be—I don't know whether we want to be—over $100 million in sales. But everything we do, we do with partners, whether they be airlines, hotel chains, or provinces. We also sell our products, our package tours, across Canada from Newfoundland to the territories. We do business in virtually every territory.

So when we go abroad to sell our products, we want strong support from a strong federal tourism association. We like to see provincial support. And we like to see private sector support.

One of the things I think the Canadian Tourism Commission has been exceptional at doing and getting done is bringing people together. An example I used to use—it's gone now—is through our committee structure seeing Air Canada and Canadian sitting down. And although they fought over market share, eventually they came around to saying they'd better create a bigger pie, a bigger market, and share.

I have an Italian friend from Montreal who taught me early in my career that the sun does not shine for me only. If we created a bigger pie and we shared it, we'd all do well. I compete against Laidlaw. It used to be a lot stronger than it is today. But we never looked at it as competition. Let's make the pie bigger, and we'll all share it. We all have our strengths. I think that's the reason the Canadian Tourism Commission has been successful.

I think we should get to the stage where we're levering the private sector even more. In the real world, if we can take small companies working with what we call destination management organizations, which could be the Chamber of Commerce or tourism bureaus, working with the convention bureaus, working through provinces, and working through a strong federal organization with the private sector, tourism could be even greater.

Having spent my career here and having done quite well at it, we still have excess capacity. We park over 50% of our motorcoaches in the wintertime. So there's a lot of capacity in Canada. We have a great product. When we go outside of Canada to sell our product, we talk Canada; we talk central Canada; we talk Quebec and Ontario; we talk Atlantic Canada. We don't talk P.E.I. or Newfoundland. Even though we're located in Alberta, we don't talk about Alberta; we talk about western Canada when we sell our product.

That's one of the issues when we talk about moving this organization further along. It was a great idea. It was a great concept. We've taken moneys to lever them. I think we have to take it to the next level. No organization has all the right expertise, but we need to develop more of that in-house with the Canadian Tourism Commission. We have good people who have worked hard, but it's time now to make the transition to the next level where we can go out and cherry-pick the expertise we need for a period of time.

• 0910

I'm proud to be associated with it. I've worked hard personally. I've devoted a lot of time, and our company has devoted a lot of resources to bringing this along. Even our critics think we've done a pretty good job of raising the profile. Maybe we haven't raised the profile high enough, and maybe we don't want to raise it too high, because sometimes when you get successful you attract more attention than you should. That's my only comment.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Hindle, please.

Mr. Steve Hindle (President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada is the largest union representing professionals working in the Public Service of Canada.

About 48,000 federal employees are or have been effected by major changes introduced in the federal public service by the federal government under the banner of “alternative service delivery”. The Canadian Tourism Commission, which affects 30 members of the professional institute, is another in this series of initiatives.

In 1995, as a result of the study of the tourism industry, a decision was made to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission as a special operating agency. New provincial and business partners in the tourism industry would work together to address the enhancement of benefits from tourism across the country. The government makes much of the success of the commission since 1995 in promoting and enhancing tourism. Since this is such a success story now, why is there a need to change the crown corporation status? The government seems to indicate this is the result of a need for administrative flexibility, as outlined by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, to function more effectively as a partner.

As well, there is the reason that in some way the commission needs the independence of an organization that can operate at arm's length from the government. At the same time, the institute notes that this crown corporation will be directly controlled by government. Oversight and direct accountability rest with government, as they do with any crown corporation. This is a fundamental contradiction. No business case has been made for the creation of this crown corporation. Why tamper with success?

As proposed, the Canadian Tourism Commission will provide nothing new, except for the extra implementation cost. Bill C-5 is a measure that is so vague that employees' rights are not stipulated. The institute is therefore opposed to its creation. The current successful structure is perfectly suited for the tourism industry. However, should Parliament decide to proceed with the commission, then the institute, as the union representing the professionals at the Canadian Tourism Commission, must ensure that our members are not stripped of important rights and benefits that are well established for federal public service employees. The institute has specific amendments to propose in order to protect the rights of its members.

I'd like to address the next in two parts, Madam Chair. One will be on the concept of alternative service delivery itself, and then I'd like to address some proposed amendments, if Parliament decides to go ahead.

The institute has taken the position that alternative service delivery should not be rejected out of hand, but nor should it be seen as a panacea. Our position on ASD calls for a thorough comparison of all the costs and other implications when evaluating decisions to deliver programs using alternative service delivery methods. The institute believes that if fair and comprehensive comparisons are made, any current problems with program delivery can in most cases be resolved just by making internal adjustments, rather than embarking on radical reforms in service delivery.

The institute is concerned that the government may consider ASD methods as the solution to perceived problems with the current delivery of government services. Where alternative service delivery appears to be part of the solution, the institute calls for careful consideration of the costs and ramifications for Canadian taxpayers. An ASD solution may be justified in some cases, but we believe it must be demonstrated and supported by a business case prior to legislation. ASD should not be embraced purely on the grounds of ideology. By the same token, it shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of ideology.

In the case of the Canadian Tourism Commission, the need for an ASD has not been demonstrated and supported by a business case prior to legislation.

• 0915

The minister, through his parliamentary secretary, has stated that the objectives of this crown corporation are to make it “able to operate in a more businesslike way, and that it has the administrative flexibility to function more effectively as a partner”. These objectives are so vague and absolutely unnecessary in terms of achieving some of the objectives of enhancing tourism the government wishes to do. It is the institute's position that an internal adjustment of the special operating agency's powers is the way to continue and add to the success story that began in 1995.

The institute appreciates that the government recognizes the valuable contributions of the members of the institute to the enhancement and development of tourism in Canada. Therefore, there is no need at this point to engage in any creation of a crown corporation, since the agency can continue to undertake the dialogue, research, and marketing that are necessary in the tourism industry.

The institute agrees there is a need in the federal public service for more flexibility in human resources administration, particularly with respect to staffing actions. Staffing actions and questions involving the determination of merit take far too long because of the current application of the Public Service Employment Act, and the time required to take cases before the Public Service Commission. The institute does not agree, however, that the solution lies in creating ASD agencies that will not be covered under the PSEA, as is the case with the Canadian Tourism Commission.

The Public Service Commission is currently addressing the need for staffing reform in the federal public service. Its staffing reform initiative has already delegated substantial staffing authority to departments, which significantly extends management rights and discretions in the areas of staffing. Furthermore, the Public Service Commission believes that staffing reform is being achieved within the current legislative framework.

It is interesting to note that the Auditor General of Canada, based on his 1998 review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, cautions that other ASD initiatives should recognize early on that establishing a new human resource management framework as a separate employer is a complex task. A new framework requires time and resources to design and implement. The institute is certainly aware of the complexity, as the commission is devoting considerable resources to establishing this administrative machinery.

The institute has recently learned that the commission is experiencing problems in retaining staff, due to the uncertainty caused by the transition to the crown corporation. Since September 1999, eight of our thirty members have left the commission. They are looking into the future and telling us they don't have a clear idea of the kind of career they can have here any more, since they will no longer be part of the larger public service, and instead will be hived into a small corner of the public service forever. These departures show that more of the work is now being done by newly hired term employees, who do not have the considerable expertise and experience that is the hallmark of the success story from 1995 until now.

The institute feels that the extension of crown corporation status to the Canadian Tourism Commission is a completely unnecessary move, based on the fact that no particular advantage vis-à-vis the tourism industry will be gained. The government admits that control and accountability will continue to be exercised closely, therefore there is no advantage to having legal or administrative flexibilities. The institute asks that this commission be kept as a special operating agency, so the success story can continue.

Recognizing that Parliament may not agree with us, as it has not agreed with us in the past, we would like to discuss some possible amendments to the legislation, if it's seen to go through.

First, the current draft of Bill C-5 contains a paragraph within clause 30 that allows the government and/or the commission to terminate its participation in the public service superannuation plan and set up its own plan. It is the institute's position that this would be a definite loss to our members, if the bill went through as written. A small agency such as the commission would have to carry all the overhead of establishing a separate pension plan for its employees, by not being able to participate in the current plan under the PSSA. The long-term probability will be a decrease in the benefits provided for employees who retire.

• 0920

We would recommend that present subclause 30(2), the divestiture clause, should be deleted and replaced as follows:

For the purpose of the Public Service Superannuation Act, Schedule 1 of the PSSA shall be amended to include alphabetically “Canadian Tourism Commission”.

That would put it clearly under the auspices of the Public Service Superannuation Act.

The silence of Bill C-5 on this matter is cause for great concern for employees and has contributed to the recent departure of experienced and able employees. Many other separate employers and crown corporations continue to participate in the Public Service Superannuation Act, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the National Energy Board, for example. The institute asks that our members continue to participate in the pension plan under the PSSA.

Why is it necessary to create an extra level of expense by replicating public service superannuation benefits in another form? The institute's amendment will avoid the loss of the current benefits of the public service superannuation for the employees of the Canadian Tourism Commission.

The second and final recommendation is on national joint council agreements. We would recommend that you add the following section to Bill C-5:

Notwithstanding section 11(9) of the Financial Administration Act, all National Joint Council Directives shall continue to apply to Commission employees until such time as new collective agreements are negotiated and brought into effect.

Due to the silence of Bill C-5 on this critical matter, provisions of the Financial Administration Act mean that NJC provisions will cease to apply to commission employees at the moment the agency becomes operational. Termination of NJC agreements was meant to apply to situations where federal public service workers were transferred to the private sector, rather than to quasi-governmental crown corporation status.

NJC agreements cover many administrative matters, including, although not limited to, health and safety, travel, transfer and removal, and job security. These are all matters that will have to be addressed in any case by the commission. Failure to carry over the existing NJC agreements until such time as new agreements are put into place will result in considerable bureaucratic chaos.

The National Joint Council is a consulting and deliberative body that brings together the Treasury Board in its role as employer and the various federal public service bargaining agents. The NJC arrives at its numerous binding agreements affecting workforce rights and benefits, and unless Bill C-5 is amended, commission employees will not covered by the protections now enshrined in existing bargaining agent collective agreements with the Treasury Board.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If there are questions, I'd be more than happy to provide answers.

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

Mr. Penson, did you have any questions?

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Yes, I have. Thank you.

Thank you and welcome to our guests this morning.

Mr. Morrison, I'm sorry, but I missed the first few minutes of your presentation. You're a private sector company, I gather.

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir.

Mr. Charlie Penson: When the parliamentary secretary was talking about the need for the Canadian Tourism Association to be changed to a crown corporation through Bill C-5, he said that it's needed to respond more adequately to the needs of the private-sector partners. The commission now needs the independence of an organization that can operate at arm's length from government. Do you agree with that?

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir, I do. Part of the reason is that as we evolve, we need different types of expertise. We started out with a high percentage of federal funding, and now I think it's almost 70% private sector funding. Quite frankly, my belief is that we don't have enough in terms of human resources in the organization as it is right now to deal with it. You need more people with different expertise than we used to have, or than was required before. Not that we weren't doing an adequate job, but we're doing a better job in attracting tourism.

You need expertise in marketing, you need international expertise. Sometimes you don't need them forever, and there's a reason to have some contracted positions.

• 0925

By the way, in spite of what my colleague here said this morning, I feel a little bit bushwhacked, because I went to three separate meetings with three different unions from the Public Service Alliance and I thought we had agreed on where we were going with this organization. In fact, I had dinner with Lloyd Fucile, one of their officers. I'm actually surprised by the position they've taken this morning in terms of this organization and what we're doing under the Federal Labour Code in moving it forward.

I believe we have to attract from provincial organizations, from the private sector, with the expertise we have available—

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Morrison, if you need the flexibility of getting away from government, why don't you just treat it as a private sector organization and do it yourselves? Why do you need government involvement?

There's taxpayers' money involved here. You may or may not know that it's difficult for parliamentarians to hold crown corporations accountable, to get information from crown corporations. There's a substantial amount of taxpayers' money going into this. I believe we need the transparency. At least leave it the way it is now without moving it to that other step.

I don't think there has been any strong case made for why you need to go through a crown corporation. If there is one, I'd like you to make it for us.

Mr. David Morrison: Sure. I guess maybe I had the advantage of being on a committee that looked internally.

First of all, in terms of getting the proper reporting, the proper return on your investment, the proper control over how you do contracting, if I operated my business that way, I wouldn't know what I was getting in return. You need accountability by geographic area, by region, by whatever.

The department does a good job of doing what it's doing. I'm impressed by industry and trade science, the more I've learned about it. But you know what? That's not their business.

The way you make a business successful, the way you make anything successful, is by breaking it down to its lowest component and getting the accountability. We have a board of directors driven by the profits, driven by the private sector, that has a corporate governance committee. We have an audit committee. We have a human resource committee. They are dedicated to getting down to that information. You should have better information, in my opinion.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So the private sector could do it better than government, in other words. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. David Morrison: If you want the private sector to invest, you'd better give the private sector some control. That's my opinion. I think the objective of the organization will be to get... When I started out it was probably 60% or 70% government funding and 30% private sector funding. It has almost reversed itself. If you want the private sector to invest—and it's now maybe 65% private sector money—you'd better give them some control. That's what I'm saying.

Mr. Charlie Penson: There are different models in achieving this goal.

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But it seems to me that I still haven't heard a case as to why the crown corporation is necessary. I can see that the industry could want to have their own association. They can probably do it better than government. I gather from some people that they need some government assistance. You're saying it's only about 35% at the moment. Where's the case for the crown corporation? Is it the flexibility you're talking about in regard to the unions? Is that the point?

Mr. Hindle, maybe you could jump in here if I have enough time. Is that the point you're making, that this is essentially a union-busting proposal?

Mr. Steve Hindle: I would not characterize it in those terms.

If I could address the concern for Mr. Morrison at the outset, Lloyd Fucile is an employee of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. That is a different union. It's a different bargaining agent from the Professional Institute of the Public Service, despite newspaper stories to the contrary. The professional institute has taken this position in a number of cases. We see the attempt to create ASDs as a less-than-honest way of removing from employees the rights they currently have under the Public Service Employment Act.

• 0930

With all due respect to the proposal for crown corporation status, it would put it under the Canada Labour Code, which we would support if it's going to have to leave government. If you put it into the private sector, presumably it would still be governed by the Labour Code. That's a far more robust piece of legislation. It does give employees an opportunity to have more say over their terms and conditions of employment. But we feel there is no real reason to move it halfway out of government, which is what we see being done with a crown corporation. Either government is responsible for it and is an integral part of it or, as you say, it should be in the private sector, period.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Okay. I take your point.

Getting back to Mr. Morrison, can you tell us what are the problems you're experiencing with the current organization that would be resolved by turning this over to a crown corporation?

Mr. David Morrison: First of all, as Mr. Hindle pointed out, bringing in the proper expertise in marketing and sales is a very complicated process under the rules we operate under.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Can you expand on that?

Mr. David Morrison: I don't pretend to be an expert in your area, but you can do things on term loans and interchange, or whatever it is. We need both public and private sector involvement and provincial sector involvement. Trying to get through those arrangements is very complicated, expensive, and time-consuming. So there's a people issue.

The other thing is that there are different rules when you contract with the government, and I don't pretend to know them. But sometimes in the private sector there is one supplier. I'll give you an example in buses. If I want to buy in Canada, I have two choices: I can buy out of the U.S. or Europe. You don't always have three different places you can go to bid for your products. Sometimes there's only one expert that you can hire.

When we were trying to get some HR assistance for the Canadian Tourist Commission, by the time you go through the process, the problem has probably gone away, whereas we'd go out and find that expertise or get it referred to us and have the accountability within the system.

I believe that when you put something up and you can see it, it's transparent, and you have responsible people directing it who care about it, that's the best you can get.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I suggest to you that wouldn't necessarily be the case with a crown corporation. I don't see much transparency in some of the crown corporations we have now.

Mr. Morrison, I believe you've made a very strong case for the privatization of this association. That's about all.

Anyway, that's my last question.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Murray, please.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to look at the personnel issues Mr. Hindle raised. First of all, with regard to the fact that eight of the thirty members of your institute have left since September 1999, would it not be fair to say that tourism is specialized enough so that you might have people who want to make a career in that area, rather than wanting to have a career path through the whole public service, which seems to be a complaint of some of those who left. They felt they were jeopardizing their future. In crown corporations generally, people tend to stay because of the level of expertise aspect. So would there not be some people who would be quite happy to look at promoting tourism as a career choice and to spend many years there? The eight out of the thirty may be people who aren't really all that interested in tourism, but there may be others who would like to move into this agency.

Mr. Steve Hindle: You're certainly right, there would be people who would devote a whole career to tourism. They would be capable of doing that within the larger public service with the way the agency is currently structured. Leaving the agency as is, as we have suggested, would allow the eight who have gone to continue to have the flexibility available to them that comes from being part of the workforce of a much larger organization know as the federal public service. Leaving it the way it is actually addresses both possibilities, the long-term career in tourism as well as the people who over time have decided, I would like to try something else. If you're already in the public service, there are more opportunities of staying within the public service and changing careers at the same time.

• 0935

Mr. Ian Murray: What is the process now for someone who may have previously worked for the public service but now works for a crown corporation and who wants to move back into the public service? What do they have to go through?

Mr. Steve Hindle: They would have to wait until there was an open competition run by the Public Service Commission, which generally means they would have to wait until all other public service employees had had an opportunity through a closed competition to indicate their interest in moving to the new position.

Mr. Ian Murray: One area I'd be quite interested in hearing about is your concern about the pension entitlement. I don't think any of us would argue that it would be fair to proceed with this if someone is going to have a lesser pension than they would have had otherwise. Do you know what the experience was with other crown corporations that have been set up?

Mr. Steve Hindle: The tendency has been to leave them under the Public Service Superannuation Act, although the recent changes introduced by Bill C-78 forced the Canada Post Corporation out of that act, and they will now have to set up their own pension plan. That's the first time, to my knowledge, that a crown corporation of that size has been forced out of superannuation and then put on their own to develop their own pension plan. The tendency has been to keep what the employees already have been part of.

Mr. Ian Murray: Was there any suggestion that the Canada Post plan couldn't be an improvement on the public service plan?

Mr. Steve Hindle: It certainly could. It's quite possible you can make the argument that the Canadian Tourism Commission will be able to do that as well. But it is a small group of employees, no more than 100, I believe. The administrative costs of setting up the plan and keeping track of everything just adds to the burden of being a new employer, and it's only over a significant period of time when they actually get a return on the investment in the pension plan that we would expect to see improvements.

Mr. Ian Murray: It seems to me, then, that with that small number of employees, the new crown corporation would probably want to stay with the public service plan.

Mr. Steve Hindle: I would suspect so. There are ample statistics to show that large pension plans do better in terms of earnings than do small pension plans.

Mr. Ian Murray: I had a question for Mr. Morrison, but I see he's occupied right now.

Mr. David Morrison: Sorry.

Mr. Ian Murray: Going back to what Mr. Penson raised about the need for a crown corporation, does it come down to the fact that you, as somebody in the private sector, would feel that the federal government has a role to play in promoting tourism? There has been quite a lot of criticism of the previous government getting out of tourism promotion. Going back to 1993 when we came in and formed a government, there seemed to be a real need to have more federal involvement, which led to where we are today. Is that it in a nutshell? Do you think there needs to be federal money for promotion?

Mr. David Morrison: I've spent my life in this industry. I was driving buses when I was 19 years old. The Canadian government tourism office was recognized internationally as a good organization that was effective. Like most things, I think they went through a cycle, and internationally we were beat up.

I was in Japan one time, and the person representing the Government of Australia said, we watched what Canada did and just duplicated it. When I started going to Japan, which is one of the countries I learned about early in my career, we went as Canada, along with the provinces and the private sector, from city to city, and we waved the flag. When you go into a country that doesn't really know you, they don't think about Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan, or Nova Scotia. They think it's Canada. We did it cooperatively.

Then because of our success, all of sudden we said, we'll quit spending as much money. B.C. opened their own office in Japan, followed by Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario. Eventually, everything they were spending was eaten up by wages, as opposed to going out and waving the flag.

I don't know if I've really answered your question. We need the presence of Canada outside of this country, maybe not in the border states of the United States, but once you go to Australia, New Zealand, Asia, or Europe, you want that Canadian flag.

• 0940

With the Team Canada thing, when they go abroad to sell tractors and wheat we don't participate, but I tell you we follow along. Our sales people are right behind them, because all of a sudden we have a bunch of Canadians over there or the Prime Minister and they get some media attention. We want to follow right behind them because now the profile of Canada is raised. You're not going to have pictures of our company or some of the private sector companies there at the table signing these big agreements, but I tell you we're going to be right behind them picking up on the exposure that we get when we do those types of things.

So, yes, we need a strong Canadian presence. We want to see our flag waved. When we go internationally it's a great loss to the Canadian airlines, because we go with the flag carrier's airlines. CP did a great job. We find it more difficult to work with foreign carriers. So, yes, we need a strong Canadian presence to tag onto.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Brien, please.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Let me start off by answering Mr. Morrison's question.

You say that the private sector presently accounts for 35% of the funding. You assert that the private sector would willingly invest more if it had a greater degree of control.

I personally find it hard to accept giving greater control over an agency funded to a large extent by taxpayers' money, an agency which would not then be held to certain standards of accountability. With respect to the awarding of contracts, in particular, the same standards don't necessarily apply depending on whether it is a department or a departmental agency.

You foresee more private investment. If that does not happen, we shall have simply given the taxpayers money to the private sector. Does this not worry you?

Mr. David Morrison: No.

[English]

One of the things I think the federal government does better is by being a bit more removed they can take the bigger picture of sober second thought, which is the way I would explain it, to get the provinces and the private sector to come together. There's an element of discipline the federal government brings to us that I don't think we can do on our own.

I spent my entire life in the private sector, and I like to defend it, but not all things do we do as well. Maybe the reason we have a federal government or a provincial government is as a coordinating body. There are some who would advocate, “Why don't we take this federal money and divide it up 10 or 12 or 15 different ways among the provinces and territories and let them do it?” It's because they can't, no more than I can go out and say that Brewster does $95 million or so in business. If I don't have partners, if I don't have hotels, if I can't work with VIA Rail, if I can't work with the provinces, I have nothing. I need to do it under a coordinating body, and I think the feds do it well in some respects. I want the ability to acquire the expertise, the contracting, which is difficult to do under this system.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: That is not the point I am trying to make. You said that the private sector would be more interested in a crown corporation to the extent it had greater control over it. You also say that the private sector contributes only 35% of this corporation's funding. I feel the private sector is asking for a lot of control considering the funds it has invested.

[English]

Mr. David Morrison: I want to make sure I understood the question. I think the private sector is putting up about 60% or 65%. Did you say the private sector is only putting up 35%?

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes.

• 0945

Mr. David Morrison: No. When the federal government decided to reinvest in tourism as a real industry, they are putting up roughly 60% of the funding, and now that funding has reversed with the private sector targeting, going the other direction.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: This trend was reversed when it was not yet a crown corporation. Why is the public sector suddenly interested in investing without those changes being brought in?

[English]

Mr. David Morrison: Could you repeat that?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: You say that the private sector invested up to 65%. It went from 35% to approximately 65% these last few years. This happened at a time when the Canadian Tourism Commission was not yet a crown corporation. Still, there was this increase.

In that case, why are you telling us today that it is absolutely necessary to resort to this new formula because the private sector feels it is not getting enough out of the present system?

[English]

Mr. David Morrison: Part of my response would be based on how effectively we're spending that money, whether there are better ways of doing it. If you look at what some of the provinces are doing, and you can take British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia for examples, they are moving to more of the same model as the CTC. And I think you're going to see the other provinces do that, because they want to get higher leverage.

If we look at any industry... We're probably considered the nuts and bolts type of industry, and we don't change, but look at technology: things are changing. Our competitors, whether Australia, New Zealand, Japan, or whoever, are getting better. And I'll tell you, we'd better change with them. When Canada was getting something like 135,000 Japanese, Australia got virtually nothing, but they overtook us, because they got better at it; they got more effective. That's what we're trying to get to now.

Why don't we evolve? Why don't we get smart about the way we do our business and leverage? And every dollar you spend today, if you could leverage it one, two, three, four, five times, you're going to get better at it. Staying the way we were, if you keep doing what you've always done, you're going to get what you've always got. And tourism is forecast to become the number one industry in the world, so we'd better become more effective in the way we're doing it.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I must say that I am not entirely convinced. What I have heard in the course of these discussions has not convinced me that this change is really necessary. I think that a lot of investments were made in the tourism industry these last few years simply because that industry has become much more attractive because of the weakness of our dollar.

I now have a question for Mr. Hindle. We were given the example of a partnership which would be presently difficult to achieve. For example, it would be difficult, on a web site operated jointly by the private sector and the Canadian Tourism Commission, to sell products, to advertise, etc. Going out and getting revenue becomes very complicated when the commission, a special operating agency within the department, is involved.

Do you consider that this would justify turning it into a crown corporation or do you think that there might be another way of overcoming the problem?

• 0950

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: I don't think it is impossible under the current structure. I think government has shown itself to be imaginative and creative when it comes to public-private partnerships. Industry Canada itself, the department within which the operating agency currently resides, is leading the way in government, with government online, with connecting citizens to their government, and providing Internet access through the schools program.

I think government has shown that it can be a facilitator for private industry and that partnerships such as the one you suggest, with an Internet site, are extremely possible, even under the current structure. They have shown that it is not a requirement that an agency be separate from government as a crown corporation before you do such things. I think that Canadians themselves are recognizing that there is a need for this type of cooperation. If anything, it reinforces the relevance of government in their life and the role that government plays, if that's the situation it chooses to be in.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: If I have any further questions, I will ask them later on.

[English]

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Lastewka, please.

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

Mr. Morrison, Mr. Brien asked questions on the budget and so forth, and either we've been misled or the questions that I asked of the CTC earlier this week were given incorrectly. When I asked a question on the $90 million, which includes the private sector, provinces, and territories, I was told that it was a 60-40 split, which then would mean that the private sector invests $54 million and the federal and provincial governments invest $105 million. So either I was misled earlier this week, or I need to get clarification where the money's coming from.

Mr. David Morrison: I think what you have to remember when the provinces come in is how much of their money is private sector. I'll give you a local example. I live in Banff, and there's a big ski promotion. It involved I think 15 private sector members who went to leverage something like $35,000. The province kicked in $10,000, and then went to CTC to get another $20,000 or $30,000. It looks like it's all provincial money.

For example, probably the province of Quebec is a better example, where actually the City of Montreal is a big-time partners with CTC. They do it through their sales tax on their membership for hotels. It may come in as provincial money, but I think what we've been able to do, and I was on the finance committee, is we start drilling down. Where is the money really coming from? Sure, the provinces may come in with—I might be corrected here—$10 million or $12 million of the $130 million or $135 million that we spent as their share, but when we start levering it up, looking at where the real money comes from—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: All the money comes from people who pay taxes.

Mr. David Morrison: That's right.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So I don't see your point at all. I asked a question: How much is federal money from federal revenues; how much—

Mr. David Morrison: Well—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Let me finish.

Mr. David Morrison: We know how much is federal money. It's $65 million of the $150 million budget.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: And how much is provincial money?

Mr. David Morrison: I don't pretend to be an expert.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: All I was saying is I need to get that answered.

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir. I think it's $12 million or $11 million.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Somebody has to tell me how much the provinces of this country and the territories put into this program. I thought that was a very simple question. It has become entangled now over the last two or three days.

Mr. Hindle, previous people have talked about human resources and the ability on changes in human resources. You have put in your report that you're addressing the need for staffing reform in the public service and so forth. The problem, Mr. Hindle, and I've only been here seven years, is I've seen that ongoing for the last seven years. I'm not sure whether that's just a paragraph we put into presentations, or when is this happening, or is there a plan for having this greater flexibility that we have groups like the CTC coming here saying they would like. Do you know what I mean?

• 0955

Mr. Steve Hindle: Thank you for the question.

A lot of what you've heard this morning reinforces our contention that the real problems in the public service aren't being addressed. Rather than fix the problems with staffing specifically, what happens is that the government proposes, usually through a recommendation from senior people in the bureaucracy, to take a piece of the public service and move it out from under the employment act.

The Public Service Commission has been trying to reform staffing in the public service. We are not particularly impressed with the progress they've made to date, nor with what they are actually trying to achieve, because quite frankly they are continuing to perpetuate the situation where the employees and the representatives of the employees do not have much to say about how staffing is done in the public service.

I believe we are about to see some progress. Mr. John Fryer's advisory committee on employee-employer relationships has just produced their first report. I believe it was published last week. It describes the problems; in other words, what went wrong. By the end of this year, the next phase of their report should be out. It will be recommendations on what needs to change.

If the government is serious about actually dealing with fundamental problems in the public service, they will take, with serious thought, the recommendations that come from that advisory committee. It's unfortunate it has taken this long, and there really have been attempts in the past, but by and large they have ignored the comments or the propositions or the positions of the employees themselves, and they have continued to keep the employees away from the buy-in that's required to be a real part of changes in the staffing process in the public service.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Is the union serious about it?

Mr. Steve Hindle: We are absolutely serious about it, sir. We have been on the record for a number of years advocating either the abolition of the Public Service Commission or a much reduced role for the Public Service Commission. It is our contention that the employer, Treasury Board, should be responsible for staffing, and it should be responsible in a manner that takes into consideration its relationship with employees through their bargaining agents. The relationship developed between the federal government, as embodied in the Treasury Board as employer, and its employees has matured well beyond the point it was in 1918, when the Civil Service Commission was first introduced to reduce or eliminate patronage and to introduce the merit principle.

We feel that the relationship is far more robust, far more mature, and that the employer and the representatives of the employees are now in a position to actually bargain staffing processes within the public service.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Let me ask you this. You and three other unions are involved with this, is that right, four unions altogether?

Mr. David Morrison: Two.

Mr. Steve Hindle: With the Canadian Tourism Commission?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Right.

Mr. Steve Hindle: There are essentially two large unions involved, the Public Service Alliance and the professional institute, but there are four unions that have members implicated.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: And you've been involved with this legislation since last fall?

Mr. Steve Hindle: We have.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It was my understanding that discussions with the union and everything were going fine, that there were no serious objections to what was happening. Is that correct or incorrect?

Mr. Steve Hindle: We were trying to participate in a constructive way, but we are here today to indicate to you that we do not see the reason for the creation of the Canadian Tourism Commission as a crown corporation—notwithstanding the good relationship and the ability to work together on some of the other issues.

Mr. David Morrison: Sir, that was my understanding, and I went to the three meetings where the unions were represented.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: So you met from October until...

Mr. David Morrison: Over a two-year period, I believe.

Mr. Steve Hindle: This has been going on for a while.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Right.

Mr. Steve Hindle: We have yet to see a rationale that we can understand—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: But there was no serious objection from your union?

Mr. Steve Hindle: No serious objection, because we expect that the government is going to do what the government is going to do, and we were trying to mitigate the damage to our members. But we are here today to say publicly that we have yet to see a business case that makes sense as to why this separate operating agency, which has been a success since 1995, should be created as a crown corporation. We see it as unnecessary and—

Mr. Walt Lastewka: There was no discussion on HR processes and reforming of the movement of people and so on and so forth?

Mr. Steve Hindle: There was some discussion. There's a lot of work still to be done in putting together a human resources regime within a very small organization known as the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Mr. Pickard.

• 1000

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

Mr. Hindle, I guess what I'm hearing from you and, I would guess, your colleague, Mr. Zajchowski, would echo similar things. You're concerned about a small dismantling of the public service, number one. You're concerned about employee protection and you're concerned about employee benefits. Those are the three areas that—I'm reading between the lines—you feel the agency is going to put at jeopardy, to a degree.

Mr. Steve Hindle: That's a fairly accurate assessment.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Other agencies have been set up by the government. That has been an ongoing process for the last several years, as you know.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: At no time has the public service really been supportive.

Now I have a couple of questions that I'm not sure about. I'm pretty naive about what is happening here.

One, do your employees have opportunity to choose between moving to the agency or reapplying in other fields in the public service?

Mr. Steve Hindle: They do have that option.

Just to correct a statement, they're not my employees. They're members of my union.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Yes, members of your union—I certainly accept that.

I just wanted to make certain of that first issue, and number two, if similar guarantees could be developed—and this is going to be through a process of negotiations, obviously—for security and benefits, then I guess the major last question would be whether a small, minor, disassembling of the organization is at hand? Is that reasonably accurate?

Mr. Steve Hindle: Perhaps—and this one is small. The other ones have not been small. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Parks Agency, and the Revenue Agency, the three most recent large ones, affected more than 48,000 public service employees.

The experience with the Food Inspection Agency was a guaranteed job offer for two years. Employees took that at face value. Unfortunately, the Food Inspection Agency went through a voluntary program in order to try to downsize during those two years. They didn't force anybody out, but they made it quite clear that one of their goals was to reduce their workforce, and they did it without the protections of the workforce adjustment directive and other... We are in the process of trying to negotiate the other agreements that would have covered them if they had remained in the public service.

It's perhaps instructive to note that while we were negotiating them, the old ones continued to apply because the Food Inspection Agency itself did not want to scrap them, yet the law required that they not apply when the agency came into being. There seems to be some disconnect between what the legislation says and what is operationally required in order to continue a fairly smooth relationship. They have not all been good.

In the end, the Canadian Tourism Commission may prove to be a workable model as a crown corporation. We have not seen the rationale that would convince us that is so.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I certainly appreciate it. I appreciate your positions. I think everybody around this table does appreciate the need for assurances and job security and benefits, and I think that certainly has to be a nagging point with every member you represent. I completely understand that.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Absolutely.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: To Mr. Morrison—

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: —it seems to me that the question here is this: who's the boss? In many respects, what I see is that you have a government set of workers that is fundamentally controlled by a ministry—

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: —and what you're asking for as a private sector partner with the government... I guess I'm not saying “privatization”.

Mr. David Morrison: No.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That is not the direction I see this moving in. I see a partnership developing. The partnership, then, says that some responsibilities for management are going to be in the private sector and some responsibilities for management are going to be at arm's length from government but under a ministry that will have some input.

• 1005

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: So in this kind of model I think we are striking out on grounds that would give the private sector more say and would at the same time strengthen the relationship the government has with regard to its ability to further extend tourism for Canada.

You're very right when you suggest that the Prime Minister, when he goes abroad on trade missions and other things, can generate an awful lot more attention and an awful lot more support.

Mr. David Morrison: Yes, sir.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: But at the same time I think you have to realize, when we're looking at this picture, that we have a set of employees that is very concerned and wants assurances that the fundamental basic protections they require need to be enshrined in that agency so that they have that feeling of comfort. I guess maybe that hasn't been addressed. Could you help me with your views on that issue?

Mr. David Morrison: My views, as a member of the board of the Canadian Tourism Commission and as one who went to the transition committee in three separate meetings... As I say, I feel a little bit bushwhacked today because I thought we had a clear understanding about where we're going with our employees.

From those members of the private sector on this board, with the support of the board, our view is that our employees decide to stay. We think the vast majority of them will be treated equal to or better than they are today because of the flexibility that we've granted.

When we go through this transition, there will be people who will decide that they want to do something different, that tourism is one phase in a long career with government. Most of the people that I've known and worked with in the Canadian Tourism Commission have worked for them all their lives. It's the kind of department they get into at some stage of their lives and never leave because they like it; they like the people contact. It's different. We're in the people business.

There are some people who've left. You're right. There were eight members. I only know of one or two that have left and they've left for the right reason: they have a different agenda in their career counselling.

But as I say, from the private sector viewpoint, if you're trying to attract and retain employees, you'd better make sure that they're going to be treated equal to or better than they were under whatever organization they were with before.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: The reason I raise the question, Mr. Morrison, is that I think it's just logical in my mind that they would have concerns—

Mr. David Morrison: Yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: —that they would feel the way they do no matter what has happened in the past. I don't think there's any bushwhacking here, quite frankly. I think there is a voicing of a concern that needs to be dealt with fundamentally very carefully in the next short term of process. I think that's important.

Mr. David Morrison: May I just respond? We had these meetings; I thought the issues were being addressed. I thought they were addressed through human resources. Outside consultants were retained to help with the transition, and they met with the unions. That's my knowledge of it.

I may have used stronger words than I should have, but I thought these concerns were all addressed through the HR committee, the outside consultants, the internal consultants, and the meetings. In fact, I was very impressed, quite frankly, when I came away from these meetings—from what I would consider private sector meetings—that we actually had our union sitting at the table making positive suggestions, good suggestions, about where we were to go, and I thought we had incorporated those.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Brien has more questions, but just before that, I want some clarification here, Mr. Hindle. There are over 100 employees at the Canadian Tourism Commission at present. You represent about 30 of those employees.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Yes.

The Chair: So 70 are represented by another union.

Mr. Steve Hindle: That's right.

The Chair: Okay—just so we're clear on what we're discussing.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I don't see what difference that would make but—

Mr. Morrison, what is your relationship to the Canadian Tourism Commission? I thought that you were here as a private individual, but you are telling us now that you have attended some of its meetings. What relationship do you have with the commission?

• 1010

[English]

Mr. David Morrison: I'm on their board of directors. I represent Alberta and the territories.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: In the final analysis, I take your point of view to be the same as that of the Canadian Tourism Commission.

[English]

Mr. David Morrison: Is it the same point of view as that of the commission? I would say so. Private sector, provincial... Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: All right. I would like to come back to the questions Mr. Pickard asked Mr. Hindle. I differ in my interpretation of a point I would like to have you clarify.

If we simply managed to make your members feel more secure about working conditions, would that do away with your basic objection? You stated that you had thought about all this and that you did not see any genuine advantage in terms of efficiency. Mr. Pickard then asked you whether the bill would be acceptable to you if we removed a certain number of irritants. Do you have a basic objection to the establishment of a crown corporation or are you solely concerned with your members' working conditions?

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: It's a combination. We're definitely concerned. Our first concern is for our members, the potential loss of access to the superannuation plan, the difficulty in setting up a new pension plan, having to work out new terms and conditions of employment for them. We're quite capable of doing that and we're prepared to it, but we still don't see the rationale.

We tend to take a view beyond just the members we represent. We have been quite willing in the past to raise issues that we think need to be discussed and need to be brought forward concerning the very structure of government itself. It goes beyond just what is in it for the employees and what is in it for our members. There are some fundamental questions about how government organizes itself.

We do recognize the supremacy of Parliament and the right—as a matter of fact, the responsibility—of elected members to make decisions. We still try to ensure that when making those decisions, they have a point of view that they might not have heard and that they take into consideration the expertise we bring to the table, having been an employee organization for more than 80 years. We were founded in 1920.

We have some knowledge of how government works and what Canadians should be concerned about through their representatives when they're making decisions about government structures. While we're looking at situations where the government is trying to make things more efficient, they're doing it by taking away rights of employees. I think Canadians need to be concerned about that.

There is a fundamental question here. What is the role of government in the area of tourism? If government has a role, it is our contention that it is being properly exercised and well managed through the separate operating agency that currently exists within Industry Canada. If government has no role, then it really should be privatized and it should be left to industry and the tourism associations across the country and those private sector organizations that work in tourism to put together their organization to meet their needs. We don't see halfway in, halfway out as the real solution to the issues that are being presented.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I know that you cannot speak for the other unions, but how do you explain the fact that they do not share this point of view or at least that they have not come to express it publicly? How come they are not here, for example? I know that you cannot speak for them, but you are surely aware of their position.

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: Why are the other unions not here? We do not necessarily share the same view. Just as you could find two private sector organizations that would have difference of opinion, it's quite possible to find unions that have differences of opinion.

• 1015

We have a tendency to be fairly public on behalf of our members and to say what we think needs to be said. We have been carrying that role for a number of years, and we will continue to carry that role. There are other times when employees would just as soon the union said nothing; they would just like to keep their head low and not have it chopped off. We take a different approach. We tend to be a little bit more vocal. In my opinion, which perhaps is not that humble an opinion, we also tend to take a constructive view of the world.

The discussions Mr. Morrison was involved in are ones we participated in, in anticipation of the government actually doing this. For that reason, they were very constructive and we recognize that there was a great deal of cooperation at the table. That table was not the place to have a discussion of the fundamental issue of whether or not this should be a crown corporation. The table we're at right now, where the legislation is being discussed by the members who will have to make a recommendation on it and who will have to make a vote in the House of Commons, is the table at which to discuss the fundamental issue of whether or not it should be crown corporation.

The members chosen to be on the board of directors of CTC are there to actually make it work; they're not there to make the decision that it should be a crown corporation. That's why we're here today.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Morrison, let us trade hats for a moment. Let me put yours on, and adopt your point of view. You are from the private sector and I have a good deal of admiration for the work that you do, developing a business and hiring people. We, here, represent the taxpayers. This is why I am so concerned about what I see as the beginning of a trend because this is not the first time a government group is turned into an agency.

If, at some point, there is a concern about the way the commission is handling its money, the minister will simply say he is not responsible since the commission is an independent agency. At the same time, however, he does maintain a certain control since he is the one who appoints the members of the commission. His accountability before Parliament is reduced, however, since he is not the one who makes the final decisions.

Members of Parliament, that is to say those whose task it is to make the laws, do lose a measure of control. They lose a measure of accountability. There is a trend there that causes me concern.

If you were to take my point of view, or if you were in my position, would you not be concerned? If not, please offer me some reassurance in that regard.

[English]

Mr. David Morrison: I can agree with you that the minister, as you fairly pointed out, does appoint the board. We have created a nominating committee, as most public corporations have done. One would hope that he would select from what the nominating committee in the private sector does. Ministers have the right to do what they do.

The second factor is that when you lever more private sector money and have an independent board and audit committee, I think you have more responsibility. When exercising control over my money—and it's more my money—I would hope you have a degree of responsibility that would even go further.

When you appoint a director to the board of VIA Rail or the Bank of Canada, they're directors. But with most of the directors who are on this Canadian Tourism Commission—in fact, all the directors, I would think—their companies or their associates or their provinces are investing their money. I think you have a greater degree of accountability than you would in any other type of crown corporation. That's what I would take my comfort from, your own fiduciary responsibility to do the right thing.

• 1020

There was a question raised earlier about superannuation. That was discussed at these meetings, and the commission had requested a three- to five-year period, in fairness, to give the employees the type of guarantee you were asking about, sir.

Did I answer your question? I don't know whether I... Am I dancing on you?

The Chair: The last question please, Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Hindle, did you want to add something? I saw you going up to the microphone, was there something you wished to say about this?

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: I want an opportunity to clarify an answer I already gave on the employees themselves.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I will get back to that on a supplementary.

Mr. Morrison, you said that you would have a committee to submit recommendations to the minister. The minister would consider these recommendations, but we all know what that means. Would that be enough for you, or would you like to have the power to do more than simply offer recommendations? Would you like, for example, to have greater control over the private sector members of your executive board?

[English]

Mr. David Morrison: My understanding is that the minister will get a list of three names with a recommendation. I'm satisfied. You know, when you hire any type of employee, you always develop a short list. When you get to your short list, if you've interviewed 10, 12, or 15 employees, when you get down to three, hopefully all three are qualified. And I think I'm happy with that. I would be, too.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hindle, did you want to clarify something?

Mr. Steve Hindle: Yes.

When I responded to your question earlier about us representing 30 employees, the 100 or so employees includes local hires around the world. They are not all part of the current public service. There are approximately 60 members of the public service employed at CTC, both those who are unionized and those who are non-unionized in the management category. So we represent 30 out of those 60, and the local hires are outside the public service per se.

The Chair: At present they're outside the public service?

Mr. Steve Hindle: They are outside the public service. They are locally engaged personnel outside of the country.

The Chair: They're not determinates?

Mr. Steve Hindle: No. Well, they may be determinate, but they don't fall under the rules of the public service. They're not public service employees. They would be people engaged at a consulate, for example, supporting Canadian tourism.

The Chair: Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add, Mr. Morrison, before we adjourn?

Mr. David Morrison: No, I think you beat me up pretty good this morning.

The Chair: I know you've received some information. Are there any dollar figures you want to clarify at this point, or were there any amounts? I know Mr. Lastewka had asked some earlier questions, Mr. Morrison, and I didn't know if you had anything you wanted to add to that.

Mr. David Morrison: In fairness, I don't think we've answered the question very well, and I think the commission should answer the question about how much is pure provincial dollars. One of the things we had done in terms of our strategic planning process, trying to get it to, as you said, “goals, objectives, strategies, acts, and accountability”, is to try to drill it down.

One of the problems we do have with the commission is in kind. For example, if an airline gives away 30 passes to bring travel writers to Canada, how do you put a value to it, and that type of thing, or a hotel chain? But we should drill down and find what is purely provincial. The difficulty is the provincials have rolled up through the private sector through their destination management organizations, through regional tourism associations, and then they come to the table. So we don't really know sometimes. But we should do a pure accounting. We should get back and give what we think is pure.

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to thank both groups for being here today, and I do want to apologize if you felt we had placed two opposing views at the table at the same time on different... We don't normally do that, but it's been a very interesting meeting nonetheless.

That being said, we're going to suspend now while we change witnesses.

Mr. David Morrison: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk, and thank you for giving us the good weather. It snowed in Banff the other day.

• 1024

• 1034

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

We are very pleased to welcome our next group of witnesses this morning: from the Office des Congrès et du Tourisme du Grand Montréal, the Honourable Charles Lapointe, president and executive director; and from VIA Rail Canada Inc. we have Christena Keon Sirsly, the vice-president of marketing.

What I propose is that we hear both opening statements and then move to questions. We may be interrupted by a vote. We will just proceed, and if the bells ring we'll make a decision at that time.

• 1035

I propose that we begin with the Hon. Charles Lapointe, unless we have a different agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles Lapointe (President and Executive Director, Office des congrès et du tourisme du Grand Montréal): Thank you, madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am very pleased to appear before you this morning and to say how important the Canadian Tourism Commission is to private industry and to tour operators all over Canada.

Please allow me to begin by briefly introducing the organization I represent, the Office des congrès et du tourisme du Grand Montréal, or in it shorter form, Tourisme Montréal. This private organization brings together over 700 Montreal corporations involved directly or indirectly with the tourist industry.

Our mandate is to promote Montreal on foreign markets and also to suggest to Montreal stakeholders a tourism development plan, which we did last year. This plan covers the island of Montreal over the next 10 years. Our territory is the island of Montreal, the Montreal urban community. Ms. Jennings is well acquainted with Montreal's particular situation.

I began to work at Tourism Canada in 1993. At that time, we had a national advisory committee including colleagues from the Québec ministry, with myself representing the private sector, as well as other people from the various regions of Canada. It was the committee's task to find the best way of developing Tourism Canada. We had made an in-depth study of the British approach, including that of the British Tourist Authority. We had also examined what was being done in Italy and in France with the Réseau des Maisons d'En France. The Canadian Tourism Commission is a synthesis of the various international experiences we analyzed but with perhaps more of a French twist. Le Réseau des Maisons d'En France is a network that works parallel to the various government agencies involved in tourism and this sort of synthesis between private initiatives and public service has been one of the important bases in establishing the Canadian Tourism Commission.

For a few years I had the privilege of being on the Canadian Tourism Commission's first board of directors and of being a member of its executive. You probably know better than I that its board of directors brings together a majority of people from the private sector as well as people representing the provinces. From the very beginning, members of the board of directors wanted the Canadian Tourism Commission to become a crown corporation. Why? Essentially for practical reasons. We wanted to facilitate management since the board of directors has the task of administering a government- funded budget which, at the time, amounted to 60 million dollars and which has grown to its current 75 million. It is the board of directors' task, together with the Canadian Tourism Commission team, to seek partnerships in the provinces and within the private sector.

But at the same time, the management of the organization, including personnel management and salaries, is subject to Treasury Board guidelines. On the one hand, the board of directors is accountable, and on the other hand, as far as the commission's administrative practices are concerned, it is not. This bill establishes a crown corporation so as to simplify the Canadian Tourism Commission's administrative procedures, to make it easier, faster and more simple to reach agreement with the private sector and the provinces.

• 1040

Not only was I a member of the board of directors since the very beginning, but, as the representative of Tourisme Montréal, I was also involved in an ongoing partnership with the Canadian Tourism Commission, organizing promotional campaigns in the United States and in Europe, for the various seasons. I have nothing but praise for the quality of the work being done by the Canadian Tourism Commission and for the openness of its attitude towards every conceivable type of partnership. The commission is extremely inventive and it has even been able to obtain commitments from the smaller tour operators by setting up, for example, product clubs. I am thinking in particular of the theme museum products club, which includes the Bee museum of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré. The commission has managed to secure the participation of a host of players, from the smallest operator to the largest ones, such as Air Canada or other large corporations such as Fairmount.

The Office des congrès et du tourisme du Grand Montréal has, as its counterparts in Québec, Toronto and Vancouver, negotiated with the commission yearly agreements to cooperate in the most important markets. As you know, the New York market is very important to Montreal, whereas the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets are much more important to Vancouver. The Canadian Tourism Commission has shown great flexibility by coming up with a general Canadian framework while still allowing us to act regionally.

This is more or less what I wanted to say. If you wish to ask questions concerning the practices and day-to-day relations we have with the commission, I would be glad to elaborate.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Keon Sirsly, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly (Vice-President, Marketing, VIA Rail Canada Inc.): Merci. Madam Chair, members of the committee, I would like, on behalf of VIA Rail Canada, to explain why we are in favor of Bill C-5. I will outline our reasons after giving you a bit of background on our company.

VIA Rail Canada was established by the federal government in 1977. VIA is Canada's national passenger rail carrier, serving all regions of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Great Lakes to Hudson's Bay. Our mandate is to provide Canadian travelers with high quality, affordable service that is safe, attractive and dependable, while giving the government of Canada, the Canadian taxpayers and its own customers value for money. Our objective is to be the best passenger transportation company in Canada.

VIA has close to 2,700 employees and contributes 1.8 billion dollars to Canada's gross domestic product. Some 23,000 Canadian jobs depend on us.

In establishing the Canadian Tourism Commission in 1995, the federal government recognized how important the Canadian tourist industry is to the economy. VIA Rail is not insensible to this recognition since it is an very active industry player. The Canadian Tourism Commission was established to promote Canadian tourism and develop an industry with one of the highest growth rates in the world. Our company undertook to create a unique public-private partnership based on an innovative approach to tourism, an industry-driven and market-oriented approach. From the very beginning, the company recognized that the industry itself had the most know-how.

[English]

Why do we support Bill C-5? I have worked extensively with the CTC since its creation and, as Mr. Lapointe, worked with Tourism Canada before the CTC was created. I have been a chair of the Canada committee for three years, and I'm currently chair of the U.S. committee. I can tell you that in both of those experiences the development of tourism programs has been industry-led and research-based.

• 1045

The CTC, as Monsieur Lapointe has said, has been very creative in finding partners to expand and extend the dollars the federal government has put into the sector.

It was very clear to me, in dealing with the CTC as a special operating agency, that it indeed had insufficient flexibility to attract the skill sets they required in the long term. The process of collecting partner revenue and dispersing funds was complicated by the larger systems of Industry Canada. And the time required to implement relatively simple programs, such as the product club, was lengthened as a result of the need to follow complex processes.

As a crown corporation—and I can speak from my own experience—I believe the CTC will be able to implement streamlined systems, procedures, and processes that will be much more aligned with its industry partners, while obviously still respecting the direction of the Government of Canada.

[Translation]

I would like to conclude, ladies and gentlemen, by saying that VIA Rail considers that this new corporation is an important step in the development of the tourist industry.

[English]

We are convinced that the creation of the CTC as a crown corporation will bring tourism partnerships in Canada to their maximum and will allow us to maximize the potential of our industry. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now turn to questions. Mr. Penson, please.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I have none.

The Chair: You have no questions right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Ms. Keon Sirsly, would you explain to us, in a practical way, what you are presently not capable of doing in partnership with the commission that you would be able to do once it became a crown corporation.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: It is not necessarily a question of what we can or cannot do. It is, rather, a question of how long it presently takes to market a project.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Could you give me an example?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: I think that the most striking example are the product clubs that were set up. We had to follow to the letter government procedure, including procedures in matters of evaluation and comparison but this bringing together of a number of small businesses would have been easier if the commission had already been a crown corporation. VIA Rail already has procedures for awarding contracts and allocating moneys, which are a lot more streamlined than the procedures we presently have to follow.

Mr. Pierre Brien: We are often told that the apparatus of government is heavy and awkward and that there is more flexibility outside government. We could perhaps try to simplify procedures or loosen the constraints on government entities. This could perhaps inspire other departmental and government entities to do the same.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: I agree entirely. It remains to be seen whether this could be done in a reasonable time frame. But, in recommending that the commission be turned into a crown corporation, the board of directors and the industry also based themselves on other considerations. The commission could then have a degree of independence which it could not, practically, have if it were part of a department. Crown corporations follow government policy but also have a certain leeway. From the industry's point of view, this is important.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, but this leeway seems to be with respect to Parliament and not so much with respect to the minister, since he would still be appointing members of the board of directors.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: That is true.

• 1050

Mr. Pierre Brien: The commission would then be accountable to the minister but no longer accountable to Parliament.

The government continues to fund VIA Rail. How much of your total budget comes from government subsidies?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: One hundred seventeen million dollars.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Out of a total budget of how much?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Out of a 400 million dollar budget.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you.

Mr. Lapointe, you said that Tourisme Montréal is a private organization. How is it funded? Do you consider the $2 a night as private funding?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Could you tell us more about your sources of funding? How much do you get in government subsidies?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: Members contribute approximately 4 million dollars a year. The hotel tax brings in 8 million dollars a year; the government of Quebec gives us a 1.1 million dollar subsidy; the agreements we have with various federal departments bring in more or less a million dollars a year and we also get a million dollars from the City of Montreal.

Mr. Pierre Brien: So you get 4 million dollars from the private sector. I cannot really consider the 8 million dollars as private funds since you are, in effect, administering a tax. I would say, then, that you get 3 million dollars from the various levels of government, 8 million dollars from a tax that you administer and 4 million dollars from the private sector.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: Whether an enterprise is public or private depends on its constitution. The Office des congrès et du tourisme du Grand Montréal is registered under the Canada Corporations Act. Our organization was incorporated in 1919 and still operates under its original constitution.

Mr. Pierre Brien: All right, but I still say that the 8 million dollars comes from a tax.

The Chair: Please.

Mr. Pierre Brien: All right, I shall go on to other questions. How long have you been a member of the commission? Would you give me a concrete example, which I have been trying to obtain since the beginning of the meeting, of what would remain impossible to do if we maintain the commission in its present structure, albeit by changing certain administrative practices in order to facilitate partnerships with the private sector.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: I don't think I can give you a concrete example and tell you that such and such a negotiation would take longer. I can state, however, that there is a contradiction.

Take, for example, the position of president of the Canadian Tourism Commission, a position that is presently vacant. The president of the Canadian Tourism Commission was a federal public servant subordinate to the deputy minister of Industry but, in fact, accountable to the board of directors. There is, then, a certain ambiguity in the matter of accountability. I believe that establishing a crown corporation would remove that ambiguity.

Mr. Pierre Brien: All right. I shall have further questions later on.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Jennnings, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Lapointe and Ms. Keon Sirsly.

I would like to go back to the issue of the independence and the arm's length relationship that would come from the establishment of a crown corporation. These were mentioned by my colleagues. I believe that you just gave us a telling example. It is absurd to have the position of president occupied by a person who is a direct subordinate of the deputy minister when the commission's constitution clearly states that he is accountable to the board of directors.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: That does complicate things.

• 1055

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes. Speaking of political interference, since the Privy Council appoints the president and members of the board of directors on the minister's recommendation, it does not seem to make much of a difference.

The same thing could be said of most areas of provincial jurisdiction, with the possible exception of the judiciary in Ontario. As far as I am concerned, judges in Quebec, either in administrative courts or in civil law courts, are named by the executive council on the minister's recommendation. No one says that the appointment of judges to the Quebec court or of judges to the Federal court is subject to political interference, even though they are appointed on the recommendation of a federal or provincial minister. Am I wrong?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: No, you are not wrong. I have always had trouble understanding the political interference argument. As a citizen, I feel quite fortunate to be living in a democratic country with such political institutions. You are politicians yourselves and I don't think one can deny you have a certain influence.

For my own part, I was appointed to the board of directors of the Canadian Tourism Commission on the recommendation of the government of Quebec. I was Quebec's private sector representative on the commission. My appointment was approved by the Canadian Governor-in-Council but I see no political interference in that. The same thing can be said of my Quebec colleagues, Ms. Lucille Daoust, who is Quebec's assistant deputy minister of tourism and also a member of the commission's board of directors.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I am no expert in legal matters, but unless I am wrong, when an agency is created by act of Parliament, and that act provides for appointment, whenever a person is in fact appointed, whether it be the president of the Canadian Tourism Commission or the chair of a provincial police commission, that person's powers are statutory. Once that person is appointed, the minister can in no way compel a commission to do something that the enabling legislation does not allow it to do. On the other hand, if the act says that the commission or agency must do something ordered by the minister, the enabling legislation will state as much. The powers, mandate and the jurisdiction of a given agency are established by law and the people appointed to that agency wield all the powers provided under the act.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: You are right.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: In that case, how can anyone speak of political interference when an appointment is made upon the minister's recommendation. Unless I am wrong, the powers of this appointee, or of the agency to which he or she is appointed, is determined by the act.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: No, you are right.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Ms. Keon Sirsly, you claim that because VIA Rail is a crown corporation you have more leeway and flexibility in adopting internal procedures and negotiating agreements with suppliers and partners. You spoke of the product clubs. If VIA Rail had established this sort of thing under more flexible procedures, how long do you think it would have taken compared to the time it did take under the commission's present system?

• 1100

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Since we are a crown corporation, our procedures must conform to a certain number of laws whether it be the Financial Administration Act or government regulations. If I remember correctly, it took three or four months to establish the first product clubs. I believe that if procedures had been more simple then, it would have taken perhaps only six weeks. It all depends on the bid selection process and all that. I think we could have cut the time down by half.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You both have a lot of experience in the tourism industry. Do you think that the time required to market a product can have an impact, positive or negative, on the development of the industry as such? That is my question.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: I think so. There are performance indicators we follow on a monthly basis. In November, for example, and for the first fifteen days of December, there was not much business in Montreal. We did not have enough visitors. That is why, together with representatives from Tourisme Montréal, we had to very quickly come to a decision. We could decide to launch a campaign in Plattsburgh, Burlington, Kingston and Ottawa, a sort of shopping campaign designed to bring people to Montreal. These are decisions that sometimes have to be taken within two weeks. As soon as you notice a drop, you launch an advertising campaign to try to stop the drop. You have to act very very quickly.

If, say on the 15 of October, I call the commission and tell them that I have to launch a campaign in US border areas because for six weeks we have not been getting enough visitors, and ask the commission to work in partnership with me, the commission is not presently in a position to respond to such a specific need. The time frame is too short. With the type of organization provided for in Bill C-5, we would have enough flexibility to do that.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Ms. Keon Sirsly, do you have anything to add to that?

The Chair: This will be your last question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I simply wanted to know if Ms. Keon Sirsly had something to add. I have no further questions.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: No, Charles's answer pretty much said it all.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Jennings.

Just before Mr. Lastewka starts, I want to let people know there is not going to be a vote called now. It passed on division. So there will be no formal bells.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Lapointe, how long has your organization been working with or in partnership with the CTC?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: We have been partnering with the CTC since its inception.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Could you explain to me a couple of areas of benefits, as a result of your partnering with CTC? What benefits have been returned to you in your organization?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: Because of the existence of the CTC, I've been able to achieve some sales operations, promotions, and publicity campaigns I wouldn't have been able to afford before. That was because of the partnering with the CTC and various partners, such as Air Canada, VIA Rail, the hotel industry, and other partners. For the first time since the existence of the CTC, we have been able to intervene as a city under the umbrella of the Province of Quebec and the Canadian umbrella.

In promoting a specific program for Montreal, we have been able to intervene in the Italian market, as an example. I can give you another example of a partnership with the CTC, the Province of Quebec, Mont Tremblant, and Montreal. Because of this partnership, we have been able to intervene in Brazil and Argentina, to propose a seven-day program, with three nights in Montreal and four nights in Tremblant. So we were able to put together a package to promote it to customers in Brazil and Argentina, in that case. We were able to achieve that only because of the existence of such an apparatus as the CTC.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Okay.

• 1105

Ms. Keon Sirsly, how long have you worked with the CTC?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Since its inception as well.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Could you explain to me what benefits VIA Rail in the same area?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: As Mr. Lapointe has indicated, the funds that the CTC has dedicated in all of their markets, but primarily the U.S., Europe, and Asia-Pacific, have allowed us to go into markets in a substantial fashion, whereas we would normally not have sufficient funds to actually be present at all. Most of our advertising and promotion dollars are spent in Canada against Canadians, but the U.S. market, the European market, and the Asia-Pacific market, Japan in particular, are big sources of customers for our tourism services. We know we have to be present in those markets. We don't have the dollars, and we're not prepared to put the dollars against those markets at this point in time. The CTC allows us to go into these markets very effectively. We can work with them and get the visibility we would not otherwise have.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: This may be a little bit off topic, Madam Chair, so excuse me, if you will.

Working with the CTC the way you have and seeing the benefits of getting more tourism for Canada, would this now support getting better VIA Rail service from Quebec City to Niagara to Windsor and back?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: I certainly hope so. As I always say, there are two things we need in our company: more and faster. We need more trains, and we need faster trains, and that's what we're working toward.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: When is that going to happen?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Over the next couple of years, as soon as we get more equipment and better infrastructure.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I said this yesterday and I'll repeat it today: a lot of people want to go in a hurry from Niagara to Quebec City and back.

The Chair: And to Windsor.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Yes. We've talked about it. We're starting to disappoint our tourists who come to major areas but can't go to other areas.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Transportation is a fundamental element of the tourism industry, and when the infrastructure isn't there or is inadequate, it causes all kinds of problems for everybody. We recognize that, and we're working to add more trains.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Has there been enough feedback so that it's time to act?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Certainly this year there has been a lot of feedback from the operators we deal with that the bus service in and around Quebec City is problematic. If you want to come and see fall foliage in Quebec, you can't get a bus. Obviously, there is rail service available, and we're attracting more and more people to our rail service. Now we're starting to hear concerns about air service, because of the recent developments in the air industry. There is an issue around domestic air service right now.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I just didn't want you to get off the rail.

I apologize, Madam Chair, but I just had to get that in there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

I have Mr. Murray on my list and then Mr. Brien.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks, Madam Chairman. I don't have a lot of questions.

I notice that Mr. Morrison is still with us in the audience. He's probably about to launch some more buses to Quebec City to show people the fall foliage and take advantage of a business opportunity.

My question is for Madam Keon Sirsly. You mentioned that the commission has difficulty recruiting the skill sets it needs. We were told earlier this morning that about eight of thirty employees who are members of PIPS have left, but I assume that if people want to stay with the organization they can. They can just transfer. What does that mean in terms of the skill set problem? Also, what sorts of skills are lacking? Are you talking about short-term, targeted projects you may have in mind where you need somebody to move in and handle that and then get out, or are you talking about more of a change in the culture of the organization that would require, as you say, different skill sets?

• 1110

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Again, I deal with the CTC as a chair of one of the committees, so I deal with the CTC staff quite extensively. The people I deal with are extremely competent and very hard working, and they are the right people to be in those positions.

However, I think one of the issues the CTC has faced is exactly that: how do I recruit people with specific skills to deal with a project in the short term? Maybe the term is for two or three years. It is difficult to do within the public service. The position is posted. The people who would normally be picked for the position may come from a trade sector. They don't necessarily know the industry or the players in the business. What the CTC is looking for is to get somebody with industry knowledge who can get on with it very quickly so that there's not that learning curve that you would have with somebody from within the public service.

Mr. Ian Murray: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but would it not be true that there are probably public servants who are doing these jobs now who have a better overview of tourism in Canada than someone you might recruit from outside who is probably employed in, for example, transportation, the hotel business, or some other aspect of tourism and who wouldn't have the same broad overview?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: That's possible.

But what the CTC is looking for is to get closer to the industry. Somebody who has the industry experience, whether or not you like it, has credibility with other industry players, and credibility and your ability to convince another industry player that this is the right way to go is very important.

I think there are issues about short-term projects, but there is also the recognition that the CTC is probably going to require more staff as it grows. The creation of a crown corporation will allow it to move forward either by picking people from the public service, if they're the right people for the position, or by having the flexibility to go to the industry.

Mr. Ian Murray: I have one last question. The subject of pensions came up when the president of PIPs was before us and the concern that a transfer to a crown corporation may mean that public servants would have a less generous pension plan. So I'd like to ask you, as a representative from VIA Rail, if you're aware of what the pension plan is there. Is it a separate pension plan, or is it the public service pension plan?

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: VIA's is a separate pension plan. It's comparable with most private pension plans in the country. In fact, it is an excellent plan. It was created out of the devolution of the VIA employees from Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. Our fund was created when those employees were transferred to VIA at its formation in 1977.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Ms. Keon Sirsly, earlier on, you said, as an example, that in order to carry out certain projects more quickly, the bid selection process would have to be reviewed. Considering the amount of taxpayer money invested in the Canadian Tourism Commission, even if it does become a crown corporation, would it not be advisable to have a fairly stringent process so as to give everyone a chance of bidding on a contract? The public moneys invested in this crown corporation remain quite substantial.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: I agree entirely. I am not saying that, at VIA Rail, our procedures are not transparent and open. What you must have, on the other hand, are internal review and evaluation procedures that allow a corporation to act more quickly once the bids have been received. The product clubs for example, were small projects. We were speaking of small projects carried out by small and mid-sized businesses with a fairly small investment. We are not speaking of the substantial sums invested by a product club. The project might have required $10,000, but we still had to follow a very cumbersome procedure when selecting someone who would come in for about $5,000.

• 1115

Mr. Pierre Brien: But Treasury Board regulations already contain provisions for that, to say nothing of the contracts that can be awarded with no tendering at all. There already are ways of getting around complex procedures when the sums involved do not exceed $25,000.

And finally, I am not convinced that we could not simply loosen or streamline Treasury Board regulations to meet your requirement for a faster way of proceeding. I do not want to see you miss out on any business opportunities. I do believe things could be speeded up. It would be worthwhile to relax Treasury Board regulations because others would also profit from it.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: I cannot say. I do not know enough about what can be done to review existing rules.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Lapointe, let me come back to you.

I rather wondered earlier on when you spoke of the independence or lack of independence of the commission's chairman. I know that you have a great deal of political experience. Why would such a position be more independent if held by someone appointed by the minister rather than the deputy minister?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: I was not speaking of the chairman of the board but of the president of the organization who, until very recently, was Mr. Doug Fyfe. It is not a question of being more or less independent, it is an issue of accountability. In the present situation, the president of the Canadian Tourism Commission, which is a special operating agency, remains a member of the public service of Canada and his administrative superior is the deputy minister of Industry. But, at the same time, the president of the Canadian Tourism Commission, is accountable to a board of directors. It may very well happen that the board of directors wants to do things entirely consonant with the commission's mandate, but the whole process is made more complicated because of this duality. What Bill C-5 is intended to do is to clarify the lines of accountability.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I do not quite follow you. Let us talk about accountability. To the extent that sizable amounts of the taxpayers' money are involved, would it not be normal to hold this person accountable to a governmental structure which is itself accountable, rather than to a board of directors which is accountable to a much lesser degree? It is accountable to the minister, but much less to Parliament.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: As far as that is concerned, I believe that the crown corporation that the Canadian Tourism Commission is to become remains subject to the Financial administration Act. According to this Act, any crown corporation must report to Parliament through its minister.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, but you have enough experience—

Mr. Charles Lapointe: It is also subject to audit by the Auditor general of Canada.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, I recognize that and that is an interesting point. But you have enough political experience to know that when a crown corporation is involved, ministers tend to say that various issues are within the jurisdiction of the corporation and that they themselves are not responsible. This enables them to back off from the responsibility while maintaining a significant control over appointments. Even if a list of names is submitted to them, they are under no obligation to consider it.

• 1120

The minister or the Privy Council responsible for appointments therefore get the best of both worlds, a bit less accountability to Parliament, because the corporation has a certain independence, and a very significant control over the corporation because of the power over appointments.

Would you have me believe that when their term of appointment is drawing near, people do not take into account the opinion of the minister when their job is on the line.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: I do not have with me a list of the present members of the board of directors of the Canadian Tourism Commission, but I know that it includes at least seven provincial deputy ministers and I even think that this is required under regulations. The private sector is represented as well as all the regions of Canada. I represent Quebec and I was recommended for that appointment by the government of Quebec.

We are in the tourism industry. It is clear that we hope to get the president of Air Canada. In the beginning, we did have the president of Air Canada, as well as the president of Canadian International. We also have the president of Intrawest, whose name does not come to mind, as well as the representatives of Whistler and of Mont-Tremblant.

We therefore try to go and get the industry's major players. That is what the government does through the appointment process. I think that it is a pretty solid board, though relatively unwieldy.

I do not see the political interference that you seem to see. Earlier on, you spoke of Parliament's control over public funds. I do believe this to be extremely important, but I think that this task belongs to you as members of Parliament, whenever the minister responsible appear before you, which in this case would be the minister of Industry. It is your prerogative as a parliamentary committee to study the annual reports and accounts of the various corporations. In such matters, the minister is obliged to follow up on requests from the committee.

Mr. Pierre Brien: It could even give rise to an important political debate but, at most, it would only be for two hours out of every year. If the minister were more accountable, he would have to answer daily in the House of Commons during question period. Now, all he has to say is: “It is a crown corporation”. It is a highly political debate and I do not wish to draw you into it because it is not your job, but I do believe that accountability will be lessened.

The Chair: Mr. Brien, one final question please.

Mr. Pierre Brien: These are my questions. Madam Chair, we still have time. Our meeting is scheduled to last until 12 o'clock.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: —

Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Lapointe, would tell us something about Attractions Canada. Do you have anything to do with Attractions Canada?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: My only dealings with Attractions Canada occurred last year, when the Attractions Canada awards were handed out in Montreal. I helped Attractions Canada find a venue for its awards presentation. I think that it took place at the Bonsecours market, in Old Montreal. Those were my only dealings with Attractions Canada.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Does your organization work in partnership with—

Mr. Charles Lapointe: Attractions Canada?

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: No.

Mr. Pierre Brien: What do you understand the role of Attractions Canada to be?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: Judging from the billboards I have seen throughout the country, I think that the idea is to try to convince Canadians to go to museums and parks more. To go to a whole series of Canadian spots. It is a way of convincing people to patronize these cultural or natural attractions and to purchase the various products.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Do you not think that, considering the need for synergy between the players, there are already quite a few people whose action needs to be coordinated, provincial governments, municipalities and so on? In other words, within the federal government, there seems to be three possible avenues of initiative, the commission, Attractions Canada, which operates on a parallel track of its own, it seems and... the commission seems to have no partnership link or agreement with this organization. On what do its priorities rest? What is their basis? Do you not find it a little bit odd that this organization has no link with any of the other agencies?

And, finally, the third player, which we have not yet named, Economic development Canada, enters into the financing of certain projects and various infrastructures, that is to say yet another level.

But speaking only of Attractions Canada, do you not find it rather ineffective to have this organization all on its own and with funding that is not part of the commission's budget?

• 1125

Mr. Charles Lapointe: I am not really in a position to judge because I do not really know what they do and I am only here to talk about the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Mr. Pierre Brien: That is just it. I am concerned that an industry player such as yourself, who has worked in the field for many years, who occupies a relatively important position, who is one of the key industry players in Montreal, in Quebec and in Canada, would not know much about the Attractions Canada initiative.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: As I said, I saw promotional campaigns and—

Mr. Pierre Brien: Just as I and other citizens have seen them, but nothing more?

Mr. Charles Lapointe: As I read it, the idea is to encourage people from all regions of Canada to go to the various museums, to attend the theatres, to visit the parks and a whole series of other attractions. I imagine that is why this initiative was called Attractions Canada. It is good to make Canadians aware of what they have at home, including making montrealers more aware of the Musée des beaux-arts. Neither the Canadian Tourism Commission nor my own organization promote Montreal to montrealers. I do like, however, people from Vancouver, Windsor, Toronto or Ottawa to come visit our city.

I must admit that I am getting a little bit ahead of myself here because if someone from Toronto tells me he heard about the Bonsecours market or Montreal's Old Harbor district from an Attractions Canada advertising campaign, television spots or posters, I could not help but say that I am all for it.

Mr. Pierre Brien: But is that not part of the commission's mandate?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: We are here to discuss Bill C-5. I have allowed you tremendous latitude—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: That issue is closely linked with today's topic of discussion.

[English]

The Chair: Attractions Canada is not part of the mandate of the CTC, nor is it part of Bill C-5. It does not come under Industry Canada; it comes under the Department of Public Works.

If you have other questions about the bill itself that you'd like to ask the witnesses, I will allow them. But I will not allow any further questions to go in this direction, because we're speculating. The witness has said they are not familiar.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Not at all.

[English]

The Chair: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Brien, but I'm giving you plenty of time here to ask questions on Bill C-5.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Chair, would you allow me to explain why I believe that that question is linked or am I to believe we are working under a dictatorship and that I should question your judgment?

[English]

The Chair: This is not a dictatorship. I have given you plenty of time. You've been asking questions for 15 minutes on this issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: My colleagues do not seem to have any questions. Otherwise, I would yield to them.

[English]

The Chair: We are here to ask questions on Bill C-5, not to ask questions about things that are not part of the bill. I've given tremendous latitude already. It's not part of our mandate. It is not part of Industry Canada; it comes under the Department of Public Works. You're more than welcome to take your questions to the committee that is responsible for the Department of Public Works.

I'm asking if you have any other questions on Bill C-5.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Chair, I would like to have the opportunity to express my point of view. Since we are considering a bill aimed at establishing the Canadian Tourism Commission, it seems to me perfectly legitimate to wonder whether a provision concerning another government activity should not be added to the bill. The fact that the bill does not mention that activity, does not mean that we should not be examining the pertinence of further provisions.

The federal government invests in tourism by funding the Canadian Tourism Commission, Attractions Canada and regional development agencies. The federal government acts in a number of different ways. This bill intends to improve on the activities the government supports in the tourism industry. It seems altogether appropriate to try to find out whether another aspect of the government's action should not be included. If you maintain your decision, Madam Chair, I shall appeal to the Speaker of the House and denounce your very narrow interpretation of the issues that can be raised in the course of the committee's deliberations.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brien, I have not given you a limited interpretation. I have given you tremendous latitude for the questioning—Tuesday, yesterday, and today.

Yesterday, very clearly the witnesses said that Attractions Canada was different and distinct from the Tourism Commission. Madam Greening said that very clearly—

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I did not say that that was part of it.

[English]

The Chair: And very clearly the gentlemen representing the other group said they were not part of it. We've just heard from Mr. Lapointe that he does not deal with Attractions Canada with regard to the tourism commission.

We are going into an area that is not part of the bill. We do not have the expertise to deal with Attractions Canada when it's not part of the bill. I'm asking you if you have any other questions on Bill C-5.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: To my mind those questions have a bearing on Bill C-5, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: They've already answered your questions on Attractions Canada. Do you have any other questions on Bill C-5?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes. My question is the following. Listen to the question and you can judge afterwards. Do you not think that there should be a certain consistency in the action of any particular level of government, in this case the federal government, which funds the Canadian Tourism Commission? We have heard conflicting figures, but funding amounts to somewhere between 60 and 75 million dollars a year. Another aspect of it goes to local advertising, as you say, to encourage people to travel within Canada. You want people from Vancouver to see what is being done in Montreal and vice versa. That is already part of the commission's mandate. We are told that 7% percent of the budget already goes to advertising within Canada.

That is to say that this domestic advertising is already part of the commission mandate. Would it not be appropriate, under your own logic, that the funds managed by the government be put together for greater efficiency. Since they are still administered by the government, the constraints remain the same; slowness, ponderousness, difficulty in negotiating good partnership agreements. In that case, it would be more consistent to have all this under one roof, under the responsibility of a single agency but with more flexible and simple rules. That is my question.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: Sir, I do not feel competent to answer your question concerning the management of federal agencies.

[English]

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

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I just want to go a little bit further. I was very patient with you, Mr. Brien. I interrupted yesterday or the day before.

My understanding is that we have a special operating agency today—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: There is patronage.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brien, please don't interrupt.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: We have a special operating agency today. The bill before us is to change it into the Canadian Tourism Commission, a special agency, a crown corporation. We've gone through the mandate. I've asked questions along the line that you have talked about.

In each case, it's a federal-provincial-private partnership—and we won't discuss budget—to bring tourism from outside of Canada into Canada and to provide information on what those tourists see of Canada, what they like of Canada, what they dislike of Canada, what they'd like to do more of in Canada. That information is part of the commission and is then relayed to provinces and other people across Canada. If they want to do additional things, they're doing it in line with the wants of tourists from around the world.

It's very clear what the mandate of the crown corporation would be. We've gone over that, over and over. I know you've tried to put in other areas. I could bring in another bunch of organizations from the Niagara area. I know exactly what they would say: bring the tourists here; we'll handle the tourists. If they have the information of what additional attractions people might want to see, then the local people would do that. We don't want to start interfering with that.

I think there's a very clear division in bringing tourism to Canada, which this crown corporation would be responsible for in partnership with provinces, territories, and the private sector. Hopefully it would be more and more led by the private sector because they're the ones that have to pay in the end if we don't do a good job or if the crown corporation doesn't do a good job. They get all the profits when they do a good job, except that the governments, provincial and federal, would get taxes.

To me that's very clear, Madam Chair. I would agree that you've given Mr. Brien a lot of latitude, more than I would have. I think we need to stick to the agenda on Bill C-5, and that is taking it from the special operating agency and turning it into a crown corporation.

• 1135

I apologize to the interpreters for banging the table.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

Now, Monsieur Brien, do you have any more specific questions on Bill C-5?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I do indeed.

[English]

The Chair: I'll allow you five more minutes. We are not going to be going to clause-by-clause, which we had also scheduled for today. We'll be deferring that until Tuesday. I'll allow you five more minutes and then we will be adjourning.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: The meeting should continue until 12 o'clock, Madam Chair, but since you seem to be conducting our discussions as you see fit, I will take only five minutes for my questions.

[English]

The Chair: We were scheduled to also do clause-by-clause, which we're not doing now.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to come back to the commission's mandate, since Mr. Lastewka has just said that its mandate is to go find tourists outside Canada and bring them to Canada. Is that the way you understand the commission's mandate? My question is for both witnesses.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Brien: In that case, we should clearly outline this mandate in the bill itself. The mandate presently in the bill is a much wider one. It includes encouraging tourists to remain here and fostering interprovincial tourism. The mandate will have to be more clearly defined. Mr. Lastewka seems to be saying that the commission's mandate is to go find tourists outside the country.

Mr. Charles Lapointe: We do want to get as many tourists as possible from outside the country. As you yourself have said, 7% of the budget is intended for the domestic market. By domestic market, I mean encouraging Canadians to travel within Canada.

Ms. Christena Keon Sirsly: And keeping them in Canada.

Mr. Pierre Brien: All right, and that is being done in partnership with the provincial governments, with municipal governments and the private sector, but not with Attractions Canada. I have no further questions.

[English]

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

I want to thank both Madam Sirsly and Monsieur Lapointe for being here this morning. It's been an interesting discussion, as usual. We do appreciate your taking the time to join us and give your presentations here this morning.

I want to remind members of two things. We're going to defer clause-by-clause until Tuesday. We have the banks coming on Tuesday morning at 9. When we're finished with the banks, we'll move to clause-by-clause. You'll be getting a revised agenda. Secondly, you should be receiving in your offices tomorrow a draft report that we will be considering Tuesday afternoon with regard to our interim report on the Competition Act. So look for that, please, in your offices tomorrow.

This meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.