[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 17, 1995
.1531 
[English]
The Chairman: I think Mr. Mitchell, who is one of the vice-chairs of this committee, is going to be taking over from me at about 4:25 p.m., so I want to start.
I want to welcome Judd Buchanan and Doug Fyfe from the Canadian Tourism Commission. In a moment we'll be hearing from them and turning the proceedings over to you for questions.
Before we start, I would like to say a word about some visitors we have today in the audience. Our visitors are from various provincial legislatures in South Africa. The Parliamentary Centre has been giving them a crash course on what we do or try to do here and the subject of today's discussion, which I was involved with earlier today, was how committees functions. So I would plead with the committee, please function well. You're in the presence of very distinguished people who are watching everything you do.
An hon. member: Was that for Dennis's benefit?
The Chairman: That was particularly for Dennis's benefit, but I'm watching you, too.
Let me explain to our visitors that the subject this afternoon is the Canadian Tourism Commission, which is a new creation, and its chairman and chief executive are here to describe its progress. They have met with the committee on a previous occasion and they're now here to update that report. I think I'm just going to ask Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Fyfe to make their opening remarks and we will take it from there.
Welcome.
Hon. Judd Buchanan (Chairman, Canadian Tourism Commission): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be back in this forum again after several months' break.
[Translation]
First of all I'd like to thank you for offering me this opportunity to appear again before the Standing Committee on Industry. A great many things have happened since my first visit last March. I'll attempt to highlight for you the key elements of our program.
I'm happy to announce to you that the Canadian Tourism Commission is fully operational.
[English]
Following my last appearance, I wrote to Paul Zed, your chairman at the time, to update the committee on CTC activities as of the end of June 1995 and to address the issue of performance. I also provided you with a copy of the CTC's charter and our 1995-96 operational plans. I believe this material has been distributed to you.
I have had the opportunity to review the report that you tabled in the House of Commons, in which you made two recommendations. The first one was that officials from the CTC return before the Standing Committee on Industry in October 1995 to discuss CTC's progress and business plan and that officials from the CTC appear before the industry committee on an annual basis, preferably soon after the annual report is tabled in Parliament.
.1535
[Translation]
We shall make an annual appearance, or as the need arises, to provide you with full information on the activities of the CTC.
[English]
I don't wish to go into too many historical details, Mr. Chairman, but since you were not here the last time I visited, and there are some new members, ten months ago Prime Minister Chrétien listened to the Canadian tourism industry's two-part request that the federal government share its decision-making on tourism with the private sector and that its budget be substantially increased.
The CTC was formally established on February 1 of this year and given the mandate to plan, direct, manage and implement programs to generate and promote tourism in Canada. It has a private sector led board and a marketing budget, which was increased from $15 million to $50 million annually as of April 1 this year.
Since then, a lot has been going on. With four meetings already under its belt, the CTC has its house in order and is working as a spearhead for an industry-government Team Canada approach to domestic and international tourism marketing and product development.
[Translation]
At its June meeting the board approved the charter of the CTC which includes its by-laws as well as a charter governing conflicts of interest along with a transition plan for 1995-96. This material has already been distributed to you.
The creation of a remarkable team of eight committees responsible for programming, six for marketing, one for product and another for research is another significant achievement of our first year of existence. These committees have been extremely successful in coming up with a very interesting program for 1995-96.
[English]
Since the CTC has not yet completed its first year of operations, I cannot provide you with the details of all expenditures. Most have yet to be incurred. Indeed, most of our publicity campaigns in the American, European and Asian markets are still on the drawing table and will not be delivered until later this year and early next year.
However, I thought you would be interested in hearing about some of the activities that we have been engaged in to date and the partners who have made them possible.
In April we launched our first domestic campaign inviting Canadians to rediscover their country. The campaign was run during the summer and targeted at those Canadians who might have chosen to travel to the U.S. to enjoy a tourism experience readily available in Canada.
We distributed over 160,000 copies of our vacation guide and responded to almost 100,000 telephone calls to our 1-800 number featured in our TV and newspaper advertising.
Ad tracking studies indicate that the level of awareness of Canadian travel products among Canadians increased by 17%, which was 7% over the target, and we intend to do more to keep Canadians at home.
We have recently launched a major study of Canadian travellers to find out more about their interest in travel. The results of this study will help the industry better market the right products to the right audience.
Travel to the U.S. was down 5.2% from last year, and for the same period travel overseas was up 5.6% despite the slight depreciation of the Canadian dollar. Mind you, that 5.6% was on a much lower base.
Although the exchange rate is a factor in the decrease of travel to the U.S., we believe our initiatives have also had an impact.
The U.S. leisure program shared half the cost of a $6 million top-up program designed to extend partner campaigns or to create new venues, which would not have been possible without our partners: Delta Hotels, Atlantic Canada, Tourism Québec, the City of Montreal, Tourism Ontario, Niagara Falls, the City of Toronto, the City of Ottawa, the City of Regina, the City of Winnipeg, West Edmonton Mall, the Edmonton Economic Development Association and the Whistler Resort Association.
.1540
The U.S. leisure program has also secured contributions from the Whistler Resort Association, the City of Vancouver, Banff-Lake Louise, Mont Tremblant, the City of Montreal, Mont Ste. Anne, Quebec City, Air Canada, CP Hotels and Resorts, Hertz Rent A Car, AT&T, Skican, Super Natural Adventure, Daman-Nelson, Canadian Holidays, and Any Mountain Tours for the production of 16-page winter insert focusing on skiing in Canada.
I am sorry to take so long to list all the names, but was one of the questions I was asked to respond to was who are the partners we have been working with?
Here's another example coming out of the U.S. business travel program. Last year, the entire investment in print advertising by industry and governments totalled three-quarters of a million dollars and resulted in 125 pages. This year, starting in November, under the CTC's partnership umbrella, 450 pages of print advertising will be produced at a cost of $3 million, shared evenly by the CTC and its partners: the Province of Quebec, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, the Whistler Resort Association, CP Hotels and Resorts, and Air Canada.
The aboriginal marketing program, our newest program, has two exciting projects taking place. First is the Internet site entitled The Aboriginal Tourism Information Network, which will enable the traditional tourism industry to access the aboriginal project.
Second is a five-city, three-week tour joint venture with Inter-Continental Hotels of Germany, which will raise the awareness of the Canadian aboriginal product. We found that the highest level of interest in this project seems to be in the German-speaking countries.
As I said earlier, since we have yet to complete our first year of operation, it is too early for the CTC to produce its annual report. In the meantime though, we have taken advantage of the annual meeting of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, which is going on now in Montreal. We made our presentation this morning; we made a first year partial report to the industry.
We had the opportunity at this meeting to talk to more than 400 industry representatives who are gathered in Montreal for the occasion, and I am happy to report that the CTC report was a key item on their agenda. Just like this committee, the industry is very much interested in hearing the CTC's results to date and its plans for the future.
[Translation]
The CTC is continuing to make progress. At the August 23rd meeting in Halifax, members of the board of directors reviewed the programs proposed for the coming year and gave their approval in principle subject to a number of minor changes. Final approval will be given at the board's meeting on November 3rd in Montreal.
[English]
Next year's programs are industry developed. They are truly the CTC's creation and will be designed and totally implemented by the Canadian Tourism Commission. They project a total expenditure of about $100 million. As you are aware, $50 million of that will come from the Canadian Tourism Commission. The rest, we anticipate, will come from all of our private and public sector partners at the provincial and municipal levels.
Our present challenge is to convince the industry to join the CTC in making its program a real partnership adventure, and we're optimistic that we will achieve this target this year.
The committee chairs are confident the funds will be found and the industry will support the programs developed by their colleagues. They are out in the field now meeting with possible partners to get them to match the $50 million federal contribution.
Canadian tourism is an industry taking its future into its own hands, with the private sector and government united on common goals. We have taken some positive steps toward re-establishing Canada as a force in the tourism marketplace and we intend to take more.
.1545
For instance, we need to involve the small and medium-sized operators, as well as the large ones, and bring them to meld their programs into the CTC's. This is one of our real challenges. It will not be easy, given the diffuse nature of the industry, but we are convinced it can be done.
Working through industry and regional associations or in product and market groups with common interests, we are convinced we will find a way to increase our collective efforts.
This has been a good start and I think, as many of you realize, this has been a good year for the industry. Canada's tourism markets are showing higher than expected returns thus far.
[Translation]
However the positive results achieved so far will in no way slow down our efforts. We intend to make next year an even better one.
[English]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Buchanan.
Just for the benefit of our visitors from South Africa, the normal procedure now would be to turn to the official opposition party. If I were the Prime Minister I might say, poof, I don't know where they went; they don't seem to be here any more. We have the official opposition party in waiting, the Reform Party.
I think we'll proceed to you, gentlemen - I'm sure you're anxious to fill the void here - and give you 10 minutes. Then we'll have 10 minutes from the government side. We'll alternate. That's our plan.
Mr. Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin): Thank you, Mr. Buchanan. It has been a pleasure to hear you give an overview of the first months of the CTC.
I have some questions that might point a bit more directly to what you're doing.
How is the partnership with the provinces sorted out and how does it work? Are there distinctive roles that you each play or is this a contributing partnership? Could you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Buchanan: The latter would be a better description, Mr. Mayfield.
Seven of the provincial deputy ministers sit on the board of the Canadian Tourism Commission. Our board is made up of 26 members, with 8 of the members from government and the other 18 from the private sector. The provincial people are sitting right at the table helping to formulate the programs that we then go out and speak to industry and the various provincial governments about, seeking a buy-in. It's therefore more of a collaborative effort. They're right there working alongside their private sector colleagues in the development of these programs.
As I mentioned earlier, the ratio on the committees as well as on the board is roughly two to one, so you have twice as many private sector representatives as government representatives. They are participating directly in the formulation of the programs as it is done.
Mr. Mayfield: I presume that the provincial interests sitting there are thinking about the tourism operators in their own provinces. In your report you mentioned that Whistler is the partner from British Columbia, and I think that's the only one I heard you mention. Is that correct?
Mr. Buchanan: I don't think so. I think Vancouver participated in several of the programs as well as Victoria. I can't recall offhand whether the province participated as well.
Mr. Doug Fyfe (President, Canadian Tourism Commission): In future in the Asia-Pacific.
Mr. Buchanan: It is involved.
Mr. Mayfield: You mentioned that the large operators are most easily approached and involved as partners at this time, with an eye to the small and medium-sized operators. I suspect that many small and medium-sized operators are wondering how they would become involved.
Mr. Buchanan: That is precisely the question that was put to me this morning, so you are on good ground, Mr. Mayfield. That's exactly right and it has come up again and again.
.1550
It's an industry made up of 60,000 enterprises in Canada with approximately 600,000 employees, so the average firm has 10 employees. It's a real challenge for us, as I mentioned during my remarks, to make certain our system provides roots whereby the smaller operators can get involved and participate.
There are probably two that are most likely to participate, including the Okanagan Similkameen Tourism Association. They will be doing it through regional associations, where they can come to the table with sufficient resources to participate in the program. There are also product associations, such as the Canada West Ski Areas Association. Sun Peaks - Mr. Schmidt is familiar with that - Silver Star, Apex and Big White would all be participating in that type of program.
We aren't capable of dealing with 60,000 different organizations on an individual basis, so the logical method is either through regional groupings or product associations. We're really just starting to get into that area, but it's an important one. Whistler Resort Association is one sort of regional grouping.
Mr. Mayfield: I suspect the partner top-up you mentioned is a fairly important part of the program.
Mr. Buchanan: It certainly has been important this year. As you know, we were very late off the mark this year because our Order in Council was not passed until the beginning of February 1995. The majority of the programs we're dealing with this year have been worked up by Tourism Canada, the previous incarnation. It had done most of the discussions with industry and the formulation of programs. Then we arrived, picked them up, and carried on.
That's why I commented that those for 1996-97 are totally the creation of the Canadian Tourism Commission. In other words, these various marketing committees I referred to are the entities that have worked to develop these marketing programs with the industry as the dominant partner.
Next year the programs will be somewhat different. We have formulated them and the participants will have worked in their actual development, rather than being approached, told what we were planning to do, and asked whether they wanted to come to the table to put in some additional resources.
Mr. Mayfield: I have one more question before I give my colleague an opportunity to speak with you.
The Chairman: You might want to take the next three minutes to finish the ten minutes and then you'll have lots of....
Mr. Mayfield: That'll be just fine, sure.
I believe the federal contribution is $50 million for this year. Is that what you said?
Mr. Buchanan: That's correct.
Mr. Mayfield: The provincial bodies are including an equal amount. Is that correct?
Mr. Buchanan: No. Under the broad rubric of partners, we include provincial governments that participate in the programs, the private sector partners, and the various associations.
Mr. Mayfield: So you're looking for $50 million total?
Mr. Buchanan: Yes, we're looking for that from non-federal sources.
Mr. Mayfield: Would any of that money be used in subsidizing advertising programs of the private partners?
Mr. Buchanan: We hope not. This is a question I think Mr. Schmidt was concerned about at my last meeting with you. We anticipate that these are incremental resources. We're certainly not getting all the resources of these people. They're still doing their own separate programs. These are additional ones that we hope represent additional funding, simply because they have the opportunity of matching with us as the Canadian Tourism Commission.
.1555
It's very definitely our belief and our expectation that this represents incremental funding by both the provincial governments and our industry partners.
Mr. Mayfield: I guess my concern is that hopefully, from my point of view, the money that comes in would be used to expand the tourist industry in the country - in all of its regions, I might add. I was glad to hear you mention the emphasis on the aboriginal program. That may not be one of the giants in the country and certainly there's room for growth there. Hopefully also in other areas of the tourist sector there would be opportunities for the kind of stimulation and growth you're looking for. Could you be more specific on how money might be spent to encourage, say, the aboriginal program and the small and medium-sized sectors?
Mr. Buchanan: We believe everyone benefits from what is, in a broad brush, called ``awareness''. Frankly, it has been a considerable disappointment to us as we have done our research about the level of knowledge or awareness of Canada. I think I mentioned to this committee the last time I was here that I'd been chatting with the American ambassador, Mr. Blanchard, who said he didn't say it with any great pride, but unfortunately he felt when we went about 100 miles south of the U.S.-Canadian border the level of knowledge about Canada was minimal. This was shown in some of the program we showed this morning on the Canadian Tourism Commission.
Part of our function is simply to get attention for Canada, the whole nation, as an objective. Once you can get their attention that Canada's the place they'd like to have in their thoughts as far as a potential holiday is concerned, that's when they start to zero in on what region, what activity, and so on.
The Chairman: I think we're going to have to zero in on a subsequent question. Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills (Broadview - Greenwood): Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Fyfe, first I want to congratulate you on what you have achieved to date. A group of us were talking a couple of weeks ago and we noted the fact that the tourism deficit since the commission started has gone from $9 billion to $2 billion.
Am I fairly accurate on that, Mr. Fyfe? Is it close to a $2-billion deficit now?
Mr. Buchanan: Not quite.
The Chairman: You are a wonder worker, I must say.
Mr. Buchanan: I was going to say that it's like politics, Mr. Mills: we're delighted to take credit whenever we can.
I think the top figure was $8.2 billion. We hope this year it'll be somewhere around $4 billion mark. Since its peak it's down by about $5 billion.
Mr. Mills: So you've cut the deficit almost in half?
Mr. Buchanan: Well, the deficit has been cut in half, yes. Whether we can claim credit I'm not sure.
Mr. Mills: Let me tell you where I'm coming from. As you know, I have been an advocate that this instrument of government be fully funded, and I want to go on record again today, with the direction that this deficit is heading, that I think all of us as members of Parliament - and I hope we can count on the Reform Party in this - should be lobbying the government aggressively over the next ninety days, as we prepare the budget, to quadruple the budget of this tourism commission.
Mr. Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Not likely.
Mr. Mills: It's a very interesting thing. You don't realize, colleagues, that Nike Inc. spends $200 million just in the United States to sell its product. Here we're selling a product...not only our country but in terms of the lives, the jobs, and the small businesses that are involved here.... Seeing the performance heading in the right direction in such a short time, I really think we have to continue to give this operation support.
My specific question is related to all those partners you listed; a long, long list of partners. Would it be possible for you to produce for the members of this committee what that means in terms of dollars in partnership and what was involved? For example, what does the Whistler ski association mean in terms of dollars?
.1600
Mr. Buchanan: It's the Whistler Resort Association, sir.
Mr. Mills: How much did we put in? How much did they put in? Could you attach some numbers to that for us?
Mr. Buchanan: Maybe Mr. Fyfe can help us with the details, but my understanding is that this year in our first year of operation we have not attained - and we did not expect to attain - the prime minister's objective of matching funds in the first year. I believe it's somewhere in the order of $30 million.
Mr. Mills: Mr. Buchanan, as members of Parliament from the various ridings across Canada, it's important for us to know when there's a particular activity going on that involves the commission and the partner and that we have a sense of what's happening there.
Sometimes our tourism associations come to us and they tell us something happened in Whistler where they seemed to get involved with the commission, and they ask why Andy Mitchell in Muskoka can't do it, or why Dennis Mills can't do it.
In my community I have the large Greek restaurants and they're always pressing me. I want to see what's happening in terms of those various partnerships so we can encourage the tourism operators in our own regions and our communities and tell them what they have to do in order to get on the bus.
Mr. Buchanan: I think the bus this year was in order of $30 million. That means we had our own $50 million plus $30 million from the partners.
Mr. Mills: Great. Could you split that out for us?
Mr. Buchanan: I'll give you the big one.
Mr. Fyfe, I don't know whether you can help us with the details.
Mr. Fyfe: We can provide it. I can't provide it at the moment, Mr. Mills, but some of the programs haven't even been completed yet. We can certainly provide you quite quickly with what has been done, what the matching funds were and what the projection is.
Mr. Mills: Yes, just put numbers beside all of those names you listed.
The Chairman: To clarify, do I understand that you would then submit this in a written form, which we would then distribute to -
Mr. Fyfe: It would be for their view -
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Mills: I have a second question. You mentioned - and I just couldn't understand this,Mr. Buchanan - 450 pages of print advertising for about $3 million. What does that mean?
Mr. Fyfe: Those are supplements that sell corporate and incentive meetings in the U.S. particularly. They go into the three major magazines...meetings and conventions or incentives -
Mr. Mills: So it was three magazines.
Mr. Fyfe: Yes. They are supplements that carry a Canadian banner and individual material from the various partners is included.
Mr. Mills: So it was three magazines with a total of 450 pages and the cost for those three magazines was approximately $3 million and change or whatever.
Mr. Fyfe: Roughly. That's correct.
Mr. Mills: Could we get copies?
Mr. Fyfe: Yes. You can have copies of all the material as it's completed.
Mr. Mills: Great. Have those particular magazines been done?
Mr. Fyfe: They are in the process. None of them are in markets yet.
Mr. Mills: We talked at the last meeting about this partnering impact in terms of linking it to the deficit and numbers of jobs. I know it's early in the game, but have you had any gut feeling or reaction as to the type of impact you've had in terms of getting results? I don't expect it to be really detailed, but are you getting a sense?
Mr. Buchanan: We are. We can actually give you the percentages and so on, but our anticipation this year, Mr. Mills, is that the increased tourism revenues in Canada will be in the order of $1.5 billion.
That leads me to bootleg a response to an earlier comment on the push - I think I referred to this in the earlier meeting - that I've been making to our colleague Paul Martin, and to John Manley, who carries the actual responsibility for tourism.
Our expectations are not as high as yours are. If we got 1% of the increment, that would give us another $15 million this year. And hopefully with matching funds that would give us a total of $30 million. I mentioned that last time.
I think I also indicated that a ballpark figure is that every billion dollars of incremental revenue puts $230 million into the federal coffers. It puts approximately $160 million into the various provincial governments' coffers and it puts $60 million into the various municipalities. Roughly 45¢ out of every $1 winds up in the hands of the three levels of governments.
.1605
My pitch has been that I certainly wish I could have some kind of investment where I put in $10 million at the federal level and got back $230 million. That really is apropos your earlier comment.
Mr. Mills: Thank you. I've finished. Good stuff.
The Chairman: We have about three minutes left on this round, which we can always come back to. Would you -
Mr. Mills: Go ahead, take three of my minutes. You don't lose it.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Mills: You're going to be the chairman, so you can allocate yourself unlimited time.
Mr. Mitchell (Parry Sound - Muskoka): I have a few financial questions.
I've had an opportunity to receive from your office a copy of your draft program proposals that have been prepared. I had a couple of questions about them. They have to do with measurement. In each of the cases here, the 1995-96 program outline did not include any kind of measurement criteria. In the 1996-97 program, measurement criteria show up, but, with the exception of the U.S. leisure travel market, they aren't in hard numbers I'll have an opportunity actually to measure it against.
For instance, in the U.S. leisure market you've set as an objective revenues increasing by 7%, trips by 5%. That's something against which I can measure your success, because you've set specific objectives.
Why have you not set any of those objectives for the next fiscal year, and why, for the fiscal year beyond that, have you set them in only that one market?
Mr. Fyfe: I'm not sure what material you're working from, but every market has specific objectives beginning next year. If you don't have them, then we'll certainly make sure that you will get them all.
Mr. Mitchell: Under the U.S. leisure travel market for 1995-96, no specific measurements are provided.
Mr. Fyfe: They all exist. I'll make sure that you will get them.
Mr. Mitchell: The second question is, looking at the U.S. travel market - again, that's your biggest budget for 1996-97, which is two years from now - it's $33.5 million. It comes back to the amount you're looking at from the private sector. In that case, you are suggesting that in two years from now you will get from the private sector only 42% of your total budget in that area: $14 million from the private sector, and the government will be in for $19.5 million.
I can understand why you were having difficulty in getting the full matching in your initial year, but we're now talking about 1996-97 and you're planning in the U.S. leisure market, which is your biggest market, not to achieve that 1:1 ratio.
I'm wondering why that's taking place.
Mr. Buchanan: I was just going to comment that actually our first full year is 1996-97. Our first year, as you know, was 1995-96 -
Mr. Mitchell: March 31, 1996, yes, your second year of operation. You are still going to be around only 40%.
Mr. Buchanan: On that one, yes.
Mr. Fyfe: The ratio of 1:1 is for the $50 million, not specifically for any given market. In Asia, for example, the ratio for the private sector to the public sector is higher, and overall we would expect to hit the target of matching dollars.
The U.S. market is by far the most difficult to convince people to participate in in a collective program, partly because they've a lot of experience themselves working in that marketplace. Many have their own solid marketing programs already in place. We feel that it will take longer to bring the matching ratio up closer to 1:1, which we would like to have in every market. Therefore it's going to happen maybe in the second or third year rather than in the first or second.
Mr. Buchanan: That's still our objective. It's just taking us a bit longer because of the dollar amounts involved and the fact that these people are already heavily engaged in that market. It really comes back, I guess, to Mr. Mayfield's question -
Mr. Mills: Doesn't the exchange have something to do with that too?
Mr. Buchanan: No, because we're all in Canadian dollars.
Mr. Mitchell: You're committing 40% of your budget to that market. So if you're not trying to get matching funds in your 40% component, you're going to have a tough time in getting matching funds for the program overall. If you go to the Canadian tourism, you're looking for only a little bit over $1.03 to come from the private sector. You're going to spend two out of three public dollars on your Canadian aspect. It's worse than even that.
To me, that should be the easiest area you have in which to get matching funds. It's a lot easier to keep people at home than it is to bring people here.
Mr. Buchanan: Well, that's the theory. I'm not sure....
Mr. Fyfe: The difficulty in the domestic program has been to ensure that we are not, obviously, competing with some other existing program and convincing people to...so that we de-market and Ontario says, ``Stay here'', and we say, ``Leave Ontario''. It has to be targeted very tightly at people who are leaving this country. That's not of interest to every part of the Canadian tourism industry, and therefore we're having difficulty in matching financing.
The board's view is that if in a certain period of time the financing does not come to a level indicating full private sector support, then the program will be abandoned and another one will be substituted.
.1610
Mr. Mitchell: I bring this up because I think the key to this program working is the ability to attract private sector investment. I'm very concerned when I see plans that don't call for that. Normally if you plan for something, often you don't quite make it, for one reason or another. So not even to plan to achieve that I can say gives me a bit of concern.
I have one last question. A document or a piece of literature has been produced - I don't know if you're familiar with it - called the Canadian Tourism Commission: Communiqué. It says ``September 1995'' on it. I'm interested in how often you're planning to publish that.
Mr. Buchanan: It comes out every six to eight weeks.
Mr. Mitchell: I looked into it and it's a nice document and all. Who is the target of this?
Mr. Fyfe: Currently about 6,000 Canadian industries are on the mailing list.
Mr. Buchanan: One of the major complaints we get from a lot of the people in the industry is ``we don't hear from you; we don't know what's going on''. This is one of our efforts to deal with that problem. Another is we're trying to work very closely with TIAC, with the hotel association, etc. They've all undertaken to try to act as media of communications for the Canadian Tourism Commission. That is simply part of that initiative.
Mr. Mitchell: If you're going to send it out every six weeks, it's going to cost $300,000 next year to do that.
Mr. Fyfe: About $180,000.
Mr. Mitchell: The figures I'm getting from your office are it's $25,000 an issue.
Mr. Fyfe: They're probably giving you start-up costs as well.
Mr. Schmidt: There are a couple of questions I have, and probably one of the first is the second-to-last comment Mr. Fyfe made. It has to do with the conflict between the national, if you will, CTC mandate and the provincial tourism mandates, and the degree of conflict that exists between those. Could you elaborate on this a little more fully?
Mr. Buchanan: That was really part of the issue I was addressing in response to Mr. Mayfield. We hope to minimize that type of conflict by the presence of the various provincial deputies on the board of the commission, and then by people from the various provincial tourism departments sitting on the various marketing committees. The hope was there'd be a greater degree of collaboration.
Mr. Fyfe: I could perhaps describe the U.S. program as an example of how we attempt to resolve that, because it's a completely legitimate observation and one that's a bit problematic.
The idea is to find a common message that all can agree to, whether you happen to be a province or a region or a city. If that message can be agreed to, that compelling reason that will call for someone to visit this country, whether it happens to be price or a variety of things to do, then from that we go to the execution. So we're not competing anywhere yet.
When we get into the execution, if the methods of conveying that message to the audience can be integrated, we still don't compete; we are reinforcing the message. Then, at the end of the day, individuals will sell their particular product, again under the umbrella.
For example, if a department store positioned itself as saying ``we have the best variety in town'', each of the departments within that department store - hardware, sundries, or something - any time they go to market, would start with the concept of ``variety, that's why you come to our store''. Then they would feature, inside hardware, ``we have the greatest variety of hardware''.
When we have a common good we're working towards, and if we move it into the strategic level, we have some ability to avoid hitting conflict. Then the CTC abandons that particular part of the marketplace for the hard product sale underneath. We don't subsidize the seat sales for Air Canada or something. That's their job to do.
Mr. Schmidt: I appreciate that. Perhaps I didn't ask the question quite the right way. One of the partners - and I wish I had seen your presentation in writing, because I wasn't able to take notes fast enough - has to do with the Whistler Resort Association, CP Hotels, and there's another partner in that. There were some other partners in that as well.
Mr. Buchanan: That was a ski program, I think.
Mr. Schmidt: One resort there has as its function being a ski resort. Is there another ski place in that?
Mr. Fyfe: Yes. Actually, I think there were fourteen partners in that particular ski program. It was offered to all who wished to participate. Some chose not to, for whatever reason.
.1615
Mr. Schmidt: But the point, though, is that there is a very small group of private partners in this thing and the major part is coming from elsewhere. This is a Canadian operation and partnership.
If this is the issue, as Andy was raising quite effectively just a moment ago, I'm wondering how we're really trying to promote tourism in Canada outside just one particular province. In this case we're primarily looking at British Columbia, and probably a little bit of Alberta. How are we going to actually bring about this kind of regional, and at the same time national and provincial, orientation? This has to somehow come together or it has to run independently - one or the other. You want a partnership on the one hand, yet on the other hand there is clearly, if not explicitly then certainly implicitly, a competitive element in here.
Mr. Fyfe: If I may, that particular program has Quebec's eastern townships and Mont Ste. Anne, as well as Marble Mountain in Newfoundland. It also has a small representation from Blue Mountain in Ontario, which has more of a leisure ski market. All of those participate in the design of the program so that we can go to market in the U.S. and abroad - it was in Japan as well - to say to people that they should come to Canada rather than going to Europe to ski, or should come to Canada rather than going to Vermont. But once we have put that compelling argument forward, we hope each of the individual people underneath will continue to compete, as they should, so that the competition in the marketplace for Canadian ski products makes the Canadian ski product better. So I don't see it as a subsidization as much as it is a joint effort to address awareness, followed by product issues, in the same common package.
Mr. Schmidt: I wonder if one of the reasons why you're not getting the partnership has a lot to do with reasons why I should be a partner. If the program is working and if there's such a substantial sum of money coming from the CTC, why would I want to be a partner at 50% or on a dollar-for-dollar basis? Why should I? I might as well....
Mr. Buchanan: But, in fact, Mr. Schmidt, I feel we've made good headway. In the first -
Mr. Schmidt: Oh, you have, but -
Mr. Buchanan: - year we got $30 million partnered out of the $50 million, and this year we're optimistic we'll get the $50 million or very close to the $50 million. That was the challenge issued to the partners when we announced ours, so I'm hopeful they will not duck on us but will in fact come to the table.
Mr. Schmidt: I certainly hope so, too. I should have said earlier that I was quite pleased with what you've done so far. But you can rest assured the tough stuff's going to come next year, as you probably know.
The other thing is what has actually happened in terms of direct.... You did some ad tracking, which indicates some pay off for you, and I think that's good. What are your other plans in terms of measuring those kinds of results?
Mr. Buchanan: That was one of our major concerns. This was referred to by either Mr. Mills or Mr. Mitchell - I've forgotten who - in his questioning. There has to be some way by which we are able to monitor the effectiveness of our program. I'm not sure that I mentioned this, but we have established an audit committee.
We have to function under the terms of the Financial Administration Act, and as you know, there are fairly tight regulations in that area. The audit committee has taken on performance evaluation as its major function. They've already started and have had meetings with the folks in the CTC who are responsible for this type of measurement. They are trying to fine-tune the instruments and are trying to develop ways by which we can very effectively and precisely measure. With the help of Statistics Canada and so on, they're getting more and more refined in their ability to measure the effectiveness of these various programs. We're very conscious of that and intend to do our utmost to make certain the people of Canada get good value for their money.
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): Thank you, Mr. chairman.
I'd like to turn the focus on the operators themselves, if I could. I assume you do a fair amount of research on tourism generally, or that there's some done at least.
.1620
Mr. Buchanan: Yes, there is a committee responsible for that. One of our eight committees is the research committee. It's chaired by a man named Stephen Smith, from the University of Waterloo. His committee's function is to provide the sort of research and raw material that will help the various marketing committees develop and devise their programs in order that they have some solid data with which to work when they're formulating these programs.
Mr. Murray: That's great.
I was just wondering if you would be able to identify through that research any deficiencies in the hospitality offered by Canada to perspective tourists and pass them on to certain operators. What are the failings? You often hear complaints from Canadians, for example, who travel in Canada versus those travelling in the U.S., in terms of how welcome they feel in Canada compared with the U.S. The fact is they quite often feel more welcome in the U.S.
Mr. Fyfe: It's an interesting phenomenon, Mr. Murray. If you look at the research in the U.S., for example, you will find a similar situation. Americans feel they are better treated when they're in Canada than at home. It actually is a common perception that I think is in part self-fulfilling. Perhaps you expect to be treated that way when you go.
Your more fundamental question, however, was whether or not there are gaps in the industry that are identified by research. There certainly are in the product. Many of the problems come from the fact that there are no performance standards for this industry by which operators can measure themselves against international competition, or at least there are not very many of them. There are certainly a number of problems in terms of the ability to develop a compelling business case to accessing financing because it is not commonly understood either by the banking or venture capitalists, and the industry itself is not particularly good at developing it.
As Mr. Buchanan said, there are a number of gaps that have been identified and both the research committee, which looks at products as well as market research, and our product committee, which is essentially looking at the operation of the industry in Canada, are trying to identify those so that they can then be filled.
Mr. Murray: Have they been able to identify any gems that haven't been polished in terms of potential tourism opportunities? Or is that something they would do as well? You obviously need private entrepreneurs who would step in and run with it, but is it possible they've done some of that research?
Mr. Buchanan: I suppose one comment - and I'm not sure it's really quite on target - is....
An hon. member: He's probably thinking about the Diefenbunker.
Mr. Buchanan: You may want to make some use of that as an historical attraction.
I don't know whether you'd call this an opportunity, but we know, for instance, that we have inadequate facilities in Banff during July and August. The problem is that you can't build a facility simply to cater to a market that exists for two months a year, perhaps slopping over into three.
Our challenge there is to try to work with, for instance, several of the Japanese tour companies and to try to spread the visitors out into May, June, September, and October. That's the first thing we're endeavouring to work with them on. The second is to spread them out geographically by telling them they could perhaps go to places other than Banff. Vancouver-Banff has sort of been the traditional route for many of the Japanese visitors.
I believe there are opportunities there, but first of all I think we have to move to spread out visitations in order to justify the capital investment that has to be made.
Mr. Murray: Speaking of the spreading out, I notice you have some multinational corporations involved as partners. I wanted to ask you if you've looked at piggybacking on U.S. travel plans that some offshore tourists might have. I know they would tend to come from, say, Asia or Europe to the U.S. and then return home. Recognizing the fact that you're a Canadian government agency, is there any way you can still work closely with the U.S. travel industry?
Mr. Fyfe: Mr. Murray, that is a method of doing business. We don't, in a sense, mind living next door to the world's most popular destination - except perhaps for France - from year to year, because we feel if they get attracted there, it's easier to get them from the U.S. to Canada than from Malaysia to Canada. Much of our visitations from Asia do come through the U.S. Programs are therefore designed to take advantage of that and to also work with some of the American operators to bundle what they loosely call two-nation vacations. We do not do common branding of the U.S. and Canada side by side, but we do try to access the customers who are being attracted to the U.S. programs.
Mr. Murray: Okay. Thanks very much.
.1625
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): I don't know if you have been congratulated, Mr. Fyfe, on your new position. If not, then congratulations.
Mr. Fyfe: Thank you, sir. That's kind of you.
Mr. Bélanger: There is one thing on which you might have sold yourself short. My understanding is that the $50 million was originally $15 million and that there was a $35-million increment this year.
Mr. Fyfe: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: So, in effect, you've almost matched the increment dollar for dollar.
Mr. Buchanan: Yes.
Someone else might say, ``You had the other $15-million match. You've matched only $15 million.'' I agree with your approach.
Mr. Ianno (Trinity - Spadina): Could you explain that, please?
Mr. Bélanger: We used to spend $15 million on the CTC and, as a government, we've added $35 million this year. That new $35 million has generated $30 million in matching funds from the private sector.
Mr. Ianno: Are you an accountant?
Mr. Bélanger: No, I'm not. I'm a realist.
So you've done even better than we've been led to believe.
Mr. Schmidt: Not all of us agree with you.
Mr. Bélanger: On the question of measurements, which our current chair has brought up -
An hon. member: Creative thinking.
Mr. Bélanger: It's not creative at all; it's reality.
You will provide identifiable, measurable targets for all your programs. What if they're not met?
Mr. Buchanan: Answer that one, Douglas. It's yours.
Mr. Fyfe: They are targets, and I presume that some will be exceeded and some will not be met. The issue is, if you didn't get it right the first time, what did you do wrong?
There is a consequence to either succeeding or failing. It is not simply a measurement that one observes, that you met it or not. That is the point.
Also, underneath the large numbers in revenue and volumes, every single major component of the program has its own measurement criteria: awareness, or pre-imposed for advertising, or sales if it happens to be a trade promotion. That's how you constantly adjust your program: by maximizing the good parts and minimizing the bad ones.
Mr. Bélanger: There might not be any accountability? It's adjust, adjust.
Mr. Fyfe: Well, you will continue to adjust, but if there's a serious miss and it's a consequence of bad planning or bad advice, then the consequence of that will be to change the people who are making those decisions. I think the board is quite familiar with that; it has certainly pointed it out to me, anyway.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.
Would you know how much money is spent in Canada, in total - all government, all orders, federal, provincial, private, and mixed - in marketing tourism in Canada from abroad? How much is it on a per capita basis, and how does that compare to figures for other nations? Do we have such figures?
Mr. Fyfe: We don't have them as precisely as you have asked for, particularly from the private sector. We don't have those numbers, I suppose partly because some of them are commercially confidential.
If you will give us the grace of another few weeks, as we work with Nielsen through this process, the chair will be able to supply to the committee a much more precise number than we currently have available.
Roughly speaking, the cities spend in the neighbourhood of $25 million to $30 million in tourism promotion, all over; the provinces' and the federal government's total for all promotion is roughly $100 million; and the private sector we've estimated in the past at roughly $45 million, but that was very rough justice.
Mr. Bélanger: I don't know how you'd measure this or get a sense of it, but what is the most common image that foreigners have of Canada when they think of visiting us?
Mr. Fyfe: Safe, secure, friendly, clean, big spaces -
Mr. Buchanan: And good scenery.
Mr. Fyfe: - and the scenics.
Mr. Buchanan: Those are the natural tourism product as the image they have of Canada.
Mr. Ianno: So there's lots of room to grow.
.1630
Mr. Fyfe: Yes. It's difficult to position some of the newer products, such as city life and entertainment, within that broad context, but that's the opportunity, in part.
Mr. Ianno: Thank you.
Ms Bethel (Edmonton East): I'd be interested to know the rationale, Mr. Buchanan, for why you determined you don't wish to establish the CTC in Canada regional offices, given that our partners are in the regions and there are regional offices now. What's the rationale for that?
Mr. Buchanan: It was a mix of things. The first one was that the function of most of those offices was the administration of the various federal-provincial tourism agreements, all of which are drawing to a close. They're all just winding down. I think a couple of those offices are still in place, perhaps three of them. They're being maintained just to wind down those programs. So that was really the major reason those offices were established in the first place.
This issue was discussed at the board meeting. I said that we're working with each of the provinces and we have board members in each region. They just felt that it was not a good use of their resources to keep these offices.
Ms Bethel: So you're going to maintain those relationships with the provinces from Ottawa.
Mr. Buchanan: That's correct. As I mentioned earlier, the various provincial government people and the various Industry people are sitting on all our committees that meet across Canada. Our next meeting is in Montreal. The last one was in Halifax. The preceding one was in Vancouver.
So we do, at both the board level and the committee level -
Ms Bethel: Travel.
Mr. Buchanan: - try to have our meetings all over the country so that everyone feels they're part of the process.
Ms Bethel: I see here also that you're going to move. What's the cost of that move?
Mr. Buchanan: No. In fact, for the moment, the contrary decision was taken. This issue has been raised. A very strong pitch was made to us at the Vancouver meeting last May to have us give serious thought to relocating the head office of the commission in Vancouver. That sort of pushed the issue up onto the agenda. But when it was revisited at the August meeting, the feeling was certainly, for the moment, that it would be wiser to stay in Ottawa. It may well be wiser to stay in Ottawa permanently.
Ms Bethel: Yes. I guess I was referring to your decision to work independently of Industry Canada and your relocating within the national capital region. What would the cost be of relocation within the national capital region and why would we do that prior to the three-year review of the effectiveness?
Mr. Buchanan: We're not relocating. That may have been discussed. I think at one point it was discussed when Industry Canada, I think, wanted to push us out of the building because they wanted space. But as they've been downsizing, I think they're quite happy now to have us in the space.
Ms Bethel: Okay, so there will no separation then. It's just in the regions.
Mr. Buchanan: At this point.
Ms Bethel: In terms of the number of staff, you'll have 102. Is that going to remain?
Mr. Buchanan: No, we're now down to 58. Part of that 102 was, of course, the people in the regions that you asked about in your initial question. I think there were roughly 85 or 87 in Ottawa.
Ms Bethel: My last question refers to the commission staff who are working independently of Industry Canada, with the exception of its relationship to the delivery of corporate services. I understand that to mean that you will be purchasing corporate services from Industry Canada, or will Industry Canada be providing them? Is there a cost associated with -
Mr. Fyfe: A memorandum of understanding was developed between the department and the Canadian Tourism Commission. The agreement is that they will continue to provide the services as they currently do. A value will be put on those services. Then, if necessary, the CTC will negotiate the patriation of the dollars to the CTC so that it could buy the service elsewhere. If the service is still offered most efficiently by the department, you would purchase it from the department.
Ms Bethel: Can you outline for us just quickly what those corporate services are?
Mr. Fyfe: There's heat, light, cheque issuing, storage, and vacuuming the halls. It's the care and feeding of an organization.
Ms Bethel: Accounting and legal?
Mr. Fyfe: Legal is actually billed now, so it is still there. Accounting is something that we do ourselves, but we also have to fit into the corporate system. But we do not pay for that; this is something the department does.
Ms Bethel: So my understanding, then, is that no move is anticipated.
.1635
Mr. Fyfe: No.
Mr. Mayfield: As you put together this organization from a whole variety of sectors, with partners coming together, I suppose not everyone can be included. I'm wondering what safeguards there are for overlap with various other government departments in the type of work you're doing.
Mr. Buchanan: In other words, you're not talking about the private sector at this point. You're basically zeroing in on -
Mr. Mayfield: I'll move on to that. I'd just like to limit it to the government right now if I could.
Mr. Buchanan: When we put the commission together, the idea was to divide the nation into six regions. From each of those regions, you would have a private sector representative, hopefully from smaller-sized business, and a provincial government representative at the deputy minister level, who would presumably be the individual responsible in that government for tourism. That was the intent.
There was some unhappiness in Atlantic Canada because it meant the two of their provinces had no representation at all so we altered it slightly and gave them an extra two, which meant that each province would then have either an industry representative or a deputy minister representative.
So the first thing we did was to deal with it in a geographical sense and make certain that the representation was across the country, both at the provincial government level and at the small-business level.
That gave us a total of 14 representatives. In addition, the president and the chair were members of the board. We also added 9 more members at the federal level. The idea was that they would represent more of the larger players in the industry. So we would have a balance between small players. That's where you get the president of Air Canada, the president of CP Hotels, Garth Drabinsky from Livent, Joe Houssian from Interwest in Vancouver, and so on.
The idea was to have a diversity from the point of view of large and small business and also a diversity from the point of view of representatives right across the country. I don't know if that really gets to your question, Mr. Mayfield.
Mr. Fyfe: I might, if I could, just be specific as to the federal departments. For example, Heritage Canada's senior tourism official sits on the product committee. Statistics Canada is a member of the research committee. The Department of Foreign Affairs delivers the program abroad under part of the negotiation to put it together. The federal departments have been incorporated in the program development to try to avoid the very overlap you described.
Mr. Mayfield: So there's been a specific attempt to corral all these mutual interests from the federal departments.
Mr. Fyfe: Yes.
Mr. Mayfield: Take this thing about the private side. Look at it from a practical point of view, which is what I'm prone to do, I guess.
I was thinking of my own constituency of Cariboo - Chilcotin in central British Columbia. I'm thinking of an operator who, compared to Whistler, is not a large operator. But here's a family operation that has what, in the area, is a fairly large lodge. They bring in people from Germany and Switzerland, as well as the United States. They take them horseback riding and on photography expeditions, as well as snowmobiling and skiing in the winter. It's quite a big deal. How would a family like that take advantage of the program you're offering?
Mr. Buchanan: Maybe I can approach it initially, then Doug could add to it. Here's the first thing. I'm really reverting to a comment I made a few moments ago. We have to catch that German or the Swiss individual's attention with the thought of going to Canada. We see that as part of our initial job. We must stimulate and sort of foment an interest in the potential tourist to come to Canada in the first place.
Then we move on to the second phase. If they are going to Canada, they wonder what they'll do once they get there, and where they are going to go.
Maybe you could address that part, Douglas.
.1640
Mr. Fyfe: It may well be that the person is involved in the program already, because there's considerable opportunity.
The European business plan Mr. Buchanan was talking about has been developed jointly with the industry, but it's a strategic document: this market, this much money, these kinds of targets, winter product, and so on. That person would clearly find themselves in that program.
Then there's an operational plan, which suggests maybe you don't want to be part of a national advertising program in Germany, because of the expense, but certainly there's a trade fair program, and you may want to be in that: for $1,200 you have a booth, and here's who you call to get involved. Or perhaps you would like to have a ``fam'' trip, so people can come and look at your place. Well, there's a series of programs around that.
As long as we can get the information on that operational plan into the hands of that operator you've described - because it is produced - they will be able to have a whole range of activities from which to select; or if they choose not to participate, it will be a very conscious decision, not an error or omission, which is what we're dealing with now, because we're having trouble reaching out to all these people.
But they clearly would be able to find themselves in this program.
Mr. Mayfield: Is there an initiative to inform and advise people, such as in the example I raised, about your existence and how they can come on board with you? How is that initiative accomplished?
Mr. Fyfe: The Canadian Ski Council had its annual meeting a couple of weeks ago. That person may be a member of that, by way of example. We spoke at that, distributed business plans, told people what was available, and asked them to take the step of getting in touch with whatever committee was appropriate to them to get the rest of the material.
As you know, the council had 400 of its 3,000 members there. They will now carry that message in their own newsletter to try to spread it a little further.
We have to use other media or other intermediaries, I think, to try to reach out to those people.
Mr. Buchanan: As we did this morning with our presentation to TIAC, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. Your friends might well be members - I don't know - or they might even be attending that meeting in Montreal. That's the way.... I mentioned the hotel association and COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia.
Mr. Mayfield: I guess what I'm looking for is whether there is a direct initiative by the CTC to approach people such as these.
Mr. Fyfe: There is a communications program, of which I've described a couple of little pieces, trying to find partners out there who can help us, rather than specifically trying to reach each individual separately. But it is a concerted communications program.
Mr. Mayfield: I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ianno: First of all, congratulations on the good work you are putting forward. As we all know, tourism does bring us a lot of great returns, if I could put it that way.
What I'm curious about is with us putting up $50 million...and the numbers you recited earlier about the provinces contributing in their own plans $50 million...and $25 million to $30 million by the municipalities, and $45 million by the private sector...is there...? Out of the $30 million that was participated in in the joint CTC this year, how much was by the provinces, municipalities, and private sector?
Mr. Fyfe: I'm sorry, I don't have those to give you. But I can get them to you very quickly.
Mr. Ianno: Do you have rough numbers?
Mr. Fyfe: The difficulty in part is that some of the programs are still being negotiated. An example would be Japan, because that program doesn't actually start until January or February. The U.S. program this year was a top-up program. We matched the private sector. It was about $3 million each. In Europe it was roughly $4 million from the private sector and about $2 million from the public sector in that market area.
Mr. Ianno: I'm a bit disappointed we don't have the specific numbers, not for any negative.... From a marketing perspective, what...? I don't know if you're doing this or not, but if somehow the federal government is giving $50 million towards this program, and we say okay, look, the provinces...where is the money being spent; will you at least match what is being spent in your region...then from there go out to the private sector and say, look, what the government is supplying, including the municipalities and the provinces, because they're in effect almost one entity...has the private sector somehow match what the governments are doing?
We know it can't be done overnight. We understand the gradual process.
.1645
That then brings me to the next point. Where is the money being spent? It's nice that you have a representative from the three provinces in the Atlantic region and all the rest of the places, but how is the money devised...on the encouragement of where they should go when you decide you're going to Europe, Asia, or the U.S.?
I guess tying it all together in some way will in effect encourage the small operators Mr. Mayfield was referring to and others to be catalysts to try to pull some of these things together. They're saying we are getting x million dollars that will work towards encouraging people to visit the Toronto region, for example. So all the restaurateurs, whether they be in Mr. Mills' Danforth area or in my Chinatown - there are so many different places - could actually participate in some form as long as they feel that they're going to get a return from it.
I guess you have marketing people there and you are thinking about these things, but I'm trying to see where the money is being spent and how it is being corralled so that more private sector funds are coming forward from the smaller entities that perhaps can't afford to do it all on their own but could benefit tremendously from working jointly. I know I'm trying to put too much in the pot because of the limited time, but....
Mr. Buchanan: No, I will take a little of this and then....
I guess, Mr. Ianno, in response I come back to earlier comments. Many of those organizations are going to do it through associations. Your Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitor Association certainly participates in some of our program. Obviously their idea is to bring people into your market.
Again it's the product committees. It's the regional committees; in this case the major one would be your Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitor Association. Those are the entities that your people would support and pay to support the Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitor Association.
Mr. Ianno: So what does the Province of Ontario contribute to the tourism board out of that $30 million? I know you don't have specific numbers; I've asked before. But do you have a rough idea? Are we talking about 40% by population? What are we talking about, including the municipalities with them?
Mr. Fyfe: Frankly, I don't know the answer to that or even what the Ontario budget is, let alone what they would contribute, because they have been in some chaos. The difficulty with Ontario is that they have been in a state of flux - I guess that would be the way to put it.
Perhaps the point is more that given the provinces and municipalities and much of the private sector in this country, except for the largest players, do most of their promotion inside Canada because that's their principal marketplace, it is very difficult for the Canadian Tourism Commission to convince them there is a greater return on their investment if they spend it abroad.
The board has said, when November comes along for our next round of business plans, we've done a business case of saying where you will get your money, whether it's in Europe, Germany, or business travel in the U.S. We agree with that, but when you bring the program back for final approval, clearly define who the partners are and how much money they're putting into this program. That's really the first year where we're going to see a CTC program with those kinds of figures. We're very close, but....
Mr. Ianno: Okay, if you don't have the figures the....
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mitchell): Mr. Ianno, just be very brief because I know thatMr. Buchanan has to run away at 5 p.m., and we have two other people who now have asked for interventions.
Mr. Ianno: Okay.
In my riding, you have Carribana, the Convention Centre, the entertainment district, the Santa Claus parade. You've got so many different things. You were saying most of the marketing abroad has been about coming to ride the horses and see the scenery. Yet Carribana brings in a certain number of people and so do all the rest of the things.
Mr. Fyfe: MCTVA, though, is a major player in the....
Mr. Ianno: What do they spend? What is their budget?
Mr. Fyfe: It's just gone down by $2 million. I think it's about $4 million they have left.
Mr. Ianno: Okay.
Mr. Fyfe: They spend half of it with us.
Mr. Ianno: So $2 million then. What I'm trying to figure out is roughly how much of that $50 million is used in Ontario? Are we talking 10%, or 20%?
Mr. Fyfe: Spent in Ontario?
.1650
Mr. Ianno: You say that most of the people who come to Canada come from within 100 miles, and that's generally from the U.S. Taking into account many of the activities that are available throughout the nation, what is taking place along that border strip that will let people know what's there, so we will get a quick return on our dollar, compared with going to Asia? If they come that's great...
Mr. Fyfe: The target market is not within 100 miles of Canada for the CTC. The U.S. leisure program is not geographically bound that way. In fact it is divided by consumer segments - seniors, for example - that include Florida, Texas, and California. So the program is not developed along the lines you described.
Part of the reason for that is there is a considerable amount of marketing activity in that 100-mile band now by individual companies, cities, and to some degree the provinces on a competitive basis. So the CTC was of the view that the longer-haul customers who return considerably more revenue per unit than the short-haul customers would be a prime target.
Mr. Ianno: I don't necessarily agree but that's fine.
Mr. Bélanger: I want to quickly revisit the numbers. It is $100 million federal-provincial. What base is that? Is it a base where CTC was at 15% or 50%?
Mr. Fyfe: Those are about 1994 figures for simply marketing expenditure on tourism. They are not related in any way to CTC's budget.
Mr. Bélanger: So the envelope, which is what I was trying to define, is $100 million federal-provincial, $30 million municipal, and $45 million private sector - to the best of your ability. So it's $175 million.
Mr. Fyfe: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: After the CTC has had its impact that envelope should grow. Is that correct?
Mr. Fyfe: We hope so.
Mr. Bélanger: That is the objective. It is not to reallocate within that envelope but to make it grow.
Mr. Fyfe: That's right.
Mr. Bélanger: How will you measure that?
Mr. Fyfe: There is a very standard measurement of expenditures. Nielsen reports them by categories such as hotels and foreign travel bureaus. Over time we will be able to measure the increase of expenditure in those various categories by governments, private sector, and so on. It is measurable.
Mr. Bélanger: So there will be an attempt to make sure the industry is not just taking dollars it would have spent somewhere else to match and therefore cut its expenses by 50%.
Mr. Fyfe: That's correct.
Mr. Buchanan: That concern has been raised before.
Mr. Schmidt: I just want to thank these gentlemen for coming and say we anticipate the annual report.
Many of us have been a little frustrated with numbers. We couldn't expect them and I don't think it was fair to assume we would get them, but I think in the next year we will want those numbers. I would really encourage you to think of many of the questions we have asked here tonight and answer them either in the annual report itself or somewhere in the appendix.
It's a major industry in Canada and we need to recognize it as such, but by the same token we also need to know whether the money is well spent and where it was spent.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mitchell): Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt.
On behalf of the chair I would also like to extend my thanks to both Mr. Fyfe and Mr. Buchanan for providing testimony today. I made a couple of notes here on a couple of commitments that were made by Mr. Fyfe. There are some macro numbers he is going to provide to Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Fyfe: Yes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mitchell): You are going to provide the specific quantitative measurable objectives for your various market segments for both 1996 and 1997, as well as the annual cost to produce the Communiqué for one year.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, on a matter of procedure or committee business, is it to be our understanding that this committee will be meeting three days a week on a regular basis? If so, we need to know that in order to plan.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mitchell): No, the clerk assures me it is an exception for this week. In fact, we're scheduled only one day for next week.
Mr. Bélanger: There was also an exception for the last sitting week.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mitchell): I will bring that up with the chair.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mitchell): We stand adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.