[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 19, 1996
.1601 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. We have the health, physical education, recreation, and dance group in to talk about highways.
Ms Suzanne Cousineau (Executive Director, Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance): Yes.
The Chairman: Good. This will add a dimension to this debate which I'm sure has not been presented to this point.
Welcome. You have half an hour. I understand you're going to show us some slides. At the conclusion of your presentation we'll get into some questions.
Ms Cousineau: Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to present to your committee this afternoon. No doubt you've had some very divergent views on transportation. I'm not sure our presentation is dealing with issues you've heard before, nor is it dealing with highways and infrastructure of highways, but I thought we needed the opportunity to raise some concerns with your committee because they definitely deal with transportion. Our issue is children walking to and from school - why are more children not walking to school, walking or cycling or using any other form of self-propelled transportation?
Our organization, which has a long, convoluted name, ``Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance'', is a national organization. It has not-for-profit status. It's a charity. It has been in business since 1933. We are like the professional organization that is concerned about the issues dealing with health and physical education in the schools at the elementary, secondary, and university level, teacher education level, but on the other side, we are concerned about the health and well-being of the children we teach. What we try to do is to target schools, teachers, parents, and of course the children in those institutions.
.1605
I will very briefly outline some of the issues we're dealing with, and they will point towards the transportation issue. It's one of the issues we happen to have tripped upon, literally.
Children are sedentary today. Only 6% are active enough to have any health benefit. That's out of 5.3 million children in schools today. Out of that, 40% of kids are more obese than they were 10 years ago. An alarming statistic about that is that between the ages of 9 and 10 it's 50% more obese. Their fitness level is poor. Kids at the age of 6 can't even touch their toes, let alone carry their own weight. And of course these all lead to cardiovascular diseases that we see as they become adults.
They're at risk, they're idle and they are dropping out of school. It's not the picture for all our children, but it is the majority of our kids now.
Many reasons are given: they don't get the physical education in school, they're not active during the day or in the community, there are budget cuts in the school system and they don't participate in after-school activities. Fingers are pointed everywhere.
One of the areas pointed at is TV and video. They watch an average of 25 to 28 hours of television a week. They're sitting at a desk in school for about 5 to 6 hours a day, and add to that another 70 to 100 minutes for busing a child to school. As you can see, from the time they wake up, they're fed, put on a bus, put behind a desk at school, come back by bus, sit at home and watch TV. They're latch-key children, because both parents are working or they're single parents, and for a whole bunch of safety reasons, they're not out playing, as kids should be doing.
The finger pointed to us is that they're very sedentary. One of the concepts we're trying to get at is an active living community in school, and for us there is a whole process involved in getting a look at how we can get these kids active in the community and in schools. It needs to be a partnership of not only schools but the community as well as all the agencies that touch and reach children, from police to city planners to community service agencies and so on.
When we started to study this transportation issue, we found there were four basic issues. We identified them in our brief to you.
One, the environment in which our kids live is not conducive to the child, whether it's in school, at home or on our streets.
Two, due to institutional pressures, our kids are not going to the closest school, and therefore the school is not the hub of the community; it's not a neighbourhood institution any more. Therefore they have to be bused. Parents now see busing as a right and not a privilege, although it is not part of the Education Act.
Parents have real as well as perceived safety issues, whether it be traffic accidents - and we know the number one killer of children today is traffic accidents - or abduction on the streets. Parents think our streets are not safe.
Then there's the whole mindset. There are several issues around the mindset as to whether physical activity is being valued. For kids, bikes are play tools; they're toys. They're not modes of transportation. Kids expect to be bused and taxied to wherever they want to go. Because they expect it, parents do it. If any of you are parents in this room, as I am, we've spent many an hour taxiing our kids to and from their activities. They are not walking. They're fearful of traffic, because they have to cross these huge arteries in the community, and of abduction.
If we were to make some special efforts to get our kids to be move active and to choose active transportation as an issue, here are the benefits we would see.
School boards would not be having the huge budgets they are facing now. In Ontario alone in 1991 they spent over $600 million just on busing, and that was only 75% of the elementary school children and 26% of the high school children. We have some stats that are really astounding on the money that has been put into having a parallel bus system when there already is a transit system in the community.
.1610
Consider the competition for services. Parents will choose a school board if busing is being offered. If the school board down the street or in the same region doesn't have busing or has a longer walking distance for their children, they will choose to take their children out of this school district and put them into that school district.
They'll do this because busing solves two problems. First, there's the safety issue. The bus babysits the children from the time they leave their home to the time they get to school, so it's a good extra hour of protection of the children in the parents' working day. Also, they know they're safe. There's a huge amount of money spent on those issues.
Consider communities. Say our children were to walk to school, and a school was in the neighbourhood. Then we would have neighbourhood schools and the communities wouldn't necessarily have all the buses they do. The streets would be safer. There would be less traffic, and hopefully more bike paths, making a much more friendly community in which to live.
Of course the environment is self-explanatory. Less busing means less exhaust and noise, cleaner air and that kind of thing. Of course our students would be active and healthy. We see it as a win-win situation for everybody - parents, students and school boards - as far as budgets and the environment go.
It is interesting now that school boards have started to use the rationale of active, healthy children as one of their reasons for reducing busing in the community. It never was an issue before until money became a factor.
We would like your committee to consider this. I understand you heard a group this morning called Active Living - Go for Green. We are in support of two or their recommendations particularly because they relate to the school system.
We would like to think that you could reserve a provision that said 5% of the funding activities would be related to transportation when you're dealing with construction or retrofitting communities. That 5% has already been spent. That was told to you this morning. It's not new money we're asking of you. We're asking for the protection of that money. Therefore, walking, cycling and other active modes of transportation could be protected.
Strategies should be put into place for community institutions. This is where we want to focus on schools. Of course, there's the workplace and there's the home, but from our perspective as educators, we want you to focus it on schools and prove the efficiency of movement of children and goods back and forth. That means our kids don't necessarily have to be bused when they could be walking. And if there's walking, that means they need safer routes.
Some more detail that we would like to consider concerns some of your policies or your directions to the communities when they seek funding from your program. We should make sure that schools become the hub of the neighbourhood. The school pick-up points should be centralized. So one of the issues is that you should centralize it for those children who have to walk to a central spot because their walking distance is too far. There would be a bus system to bring the children over and then to bring them to the school.
Try to eliminate as much as possible this parallel transit system. The dollars that are being spent on school busing could be redirected into the school system. We already see that happening. In order for that to happen, we've got to eliminate this competitive approach from one school board to the next. It would be interesting to see in the Ottawa-Carleton region if we could really consolidate our school boards into one or two boards, because each board has their own busing system.
Safety policies can be criteria for funding. There must be some considerations provided by these communities to you or the federal government that are really concerned with safety issues. There should be traffic calming, sidewalks and appropriate lighting. It's not just for the adult community; it's for the child community as well. They need to feel safe when they walk through the community.
I guess it's a return to the new urbanism, which is when your major amenities are accessible by foot in the community within five, ten or fifteen minutes of the house in which you live.
School routes should be safe in all seasons, not just the spring and fall. Snow is to be shovelled. In the dark seasons, there should be lighting. There should be facilities at the school for children to lock their bikes. This is not being provided by schools, and I have personal experience with that. We have to lock our bikes up against the fences at the school that are being used to protect the playing fields. There's nothing at the school to safeguard bicycles.
.1615
Incorporate active transportation policies and educate the public that we have different ways of transporting ourselves around the community. We don't always have to take a motorized vehicle.
Consider planners, school planners as well as community planners. They're in two institutions working in the same community. Schools have planners in their budgets but they don't necessarily communicate with the community planners. How can these routes to and from school benefit the community? We would like to see a lot more collaboration happening there.
So our presentation is that we don't see the elimination of busing. We see a reconsideration of that happening, as well as a consolidation of some of the systems and having a concern about the safety of our kids.
Thank you.
The Chairman: I intended to begin with a question about toll roads, but I suspect I'll miss the mark.
Ms Cousineau: I was prepared for that question, actually.
The Chairman: Oh, good.
Ms Cousineau: I was told that it was probably going to be asked: how could you get kids to pay for toll roads to school? They're paying for it already.
The Chairman: Anyway, let's have a quick round here. Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): Madam, I listened to your presentation with great interest. I am a former teacher, a former school trustee and a former mayor.
You say that you would want, just like I do, that amenities always be within 10 to 15 minutes of anybody's home, which would be roughly one kilometer. Therefore, if we take a one kilometer radius, we would cover six square kilometers. We would then need one centre providing those amenities for every six square kilometers. We agree on that.
It could be done for schools when the population is linguistically homogeneous, but maybe not in my region where there is an English-speaking minority whose schools are always farther away since the density of the English-speaking population is lower. It seems to me that it would be difficult for that linguistic minority to always have access to services within less than one kilometer. Do you understand the point I am making?
Ms Cousineau: Yes. The problem is that...
[English]
I'll speak in English; it's easier for me.
The problem is that there are different solutions to the problem of linguistic schools, in your case, or vocational schools, in other cases. Special cases have to be made for children to go to these schools. There are ways of solving that problem, but if the community doesn't have the resources to provide dual programs within the same school or within a community, then obviously some other arrangements will have to be made.
We're not saying to eliminate all the linguistic, vocational or special-population schools, but there are ways to get our children who live in the community to walk to the school in their neighbourhood. Not all schools are providing those specialized services, and those are the children who need to be walking.
.1620
If you have a community of 400,000 or 500,000, you probably have eight to ten different kinds of elementary schools servicing those communities. There has to be a community school within that region for the children to work in. Redo the boundaries...or decide where we build schools. That's the biggest problem.
So I don't have a solution for you. There are definitely children who need to be bused to special schools, but the majority don't have to be.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You're from Ontario. I'm from British Columbia. Maybe they do things very differently here. First you mentioned how some people choose whether they were going to go to school in this district or in a different district. That's not an option in British Columbia. If you live in a district, you go to school in that district.
Secondly, there is zero - absolutely zero - federal relationship to schools at the secondary level or below, which is where busing is involved, because there is no post-secondary busing that I know of. So I'm not quite sure what it is you're asking this committee per se to do.
Ms Cousineau: When a community applies for whatever assistance it can get in order to build the infrastructures that are going through their community, it should at least develop policies so the community sees it as important that it's not just building roads for the sake of roads to get to a new school that has been built over here or to service another part of the community that has a major artery running through it. They should rethink the process of what roads go where and in that process be sure they provide at least a laneway or pathways to provide transportation other than the car and public transit. There should be cycle lanes there, sidewalks, so those who choose to walk can walk. We're building communities now with no sidewalks on them, so how you expect children to walk safely in those communities?
Mr. Gouk: I certainly agree with the ideas you're expressing. It's a little more difficult for me because I come from a rural area, where these things just don't work. But again, we've just gone through $6 billion worth of infrastructure, and that was handled at the provincial level. It was federal, provincial, and municipal money, but it was handled at the provincial level, and frankly, I don't know of any circumstance under which grants were given or where there was input...or it possibly could be given by the federal government. I support the concept of what you're saying, but I just don't see any way for the federal government to participate in it.
Ms Cousineau: I don't know how you grant dollars. I'm not a transportation expert. All I know is that federal dollars are given for communities if they apply for an infrastructure program through the provinces and then down into the community. There could be policies or directions or criteria for how that funding is used and how you apply for it. That's where we feel that direction could be given.
We're concerned about the safety of the children. We're also concerned that there's access for these children to be active, as well as for adults in the family. If there are no bicycle lanes, if there are no pathways, if the infrastructure within that community is not conducive to an active mode of transportation, then Canadians won't be active.
Mr. Gouk: I agree with you. I just think you're at the wrong level of government for the results you want to get.
Ms Cousineau: Perhaps you can apply some direction to the provincial governments in their directions on how those dollars are used.
The Chairman: Some of us are only too willing to direct provincial governments.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): I want to thank Suzanne for her presentation, Mr. Chairman. Being the father of two young daughters who go to school by bus - and it's probably close enough to walk - I understand where she's coming from in her presentation.
I'm not quite sure it's well placed to come before this committee with your concerns, given the mandate of what we're trying to achieve. But I also wanted to correct the record and maybe give some guidance.
I know Mr. Gouk was talking about how the provinces were the ones who made the decision on the infrastructure situation. In fact, the infrastructure program the federal government has just completed was municipality led. It was the municipalities that made the decisions across this country to institute the programs the federal, provincial, and municipal governments would chip in to.
.1625
So I guess if I were to counsel you at all as to where you would make this kind of a pitch, it would be at your municipal level. Your organization, if it's nation-wide, would make its pitches to councillors and mayors across the country so that if there is a second infrastructure program the municipalities will be keenly aware of those issues that are of utmost concern to you, to the parents of children who go to school, etc. Again, if the municipalities take the lead, as they did last time, on deciding where the money will be spent in their municipalities, they'll be very cognizant of the work of your association and make priority decisions that include you on their priority list.
Ms Cousineau: Thank you for that advice. In fact, that's exactly what we're doing. We just felt that there needed to be some input and at least awareness raising, if nothing else, about this need and the importance this has for us.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Fontana, do you have one brief question?
Mr. Fontana (London East): That was my question.
Just to follow up on it, I haven't been involved in municipal politics for over twelve years. Your principles are most laudable. Every municipality, at least in Ontario - because I understand a little more how Ontario municipalities work - has an official plan, and within those official plans are transportation policies that in fact speak to the safe movement of people and encourage cycling and walking. So I think you can have the most impact through the municipal official plans and through those planning documents.
When we transfer money, hopefully it's done in accordance with some sound planning guidelines. So if you haven't taken advantage of talking to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities - municipalities from across the country - or to the provincial associations, I ask you to do that, because I think your principles are laudable and I think you can probably get a lot of support from the municipalities.
Ms Cousineau: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Cousineau.
Ms Cousineau: Thank you.
The Chairman: From the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, we have Mr. Peter Estey.
Mr. Estey, thank you for appearing today. You understand the procedure. We have about a half an hour. We'll take about ten minutes for your remarks, and then we'll get into questions.
Mr. Peter Estey (Vice-President, Regional Programming and Development, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for providing the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency with the opportunity to be here today.
I have provided you with a background paper on the relationships among and the importance of trade, tourism and transportation in the Atlantic economy. Therefore, my remarks at this point will be brief.
I would like to begin with two comments. The first is to note the wisdom in making the linkages between these three topics: trade, transportation and tourism. They are inextricably intertwined, and greater understanding of the relationships among them can only add to better decision-making with each of them. The second is to provide you with an abbreviated explanation of ACOA's role in this regard.
The ACOA Act provides the agency with a broad mandate for economic development in Atlantic Canada. Specifically, the agency's legislative mandate is to support and promote opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, with particular emphasis on small and medium-size enterprises, through policy, program and project development and implementation, and through advocacy of interests of Atlantic Canada in those same areas on a national level.
As indicated in the agency's recently tabled performance report to Parliament for the period ending March 31, 1996, ACOA has been successful, I think, in that regard. The results, which I will refer to in the next few minutes and are in the background piece I have given you, largely emanate from that report to Parliament, and reflect data collected and analysed by independent organizations such as Statistics Canada and Coopers and Lybrand, using Conference Board of Canada models.
This independent analysis concludes, for example, that every $1 of ACOA expenditure and its public and private partners on commercial projects provides approximately $5 of benefits to the Atlantic economy in terms of gross domestic product. Returns to government in terms of EI reductions, personal taxes and sales taxes equal $3 for every $1 of government expenditure.
.1630
Such results have largely been achieved within the six strategic priorities of the agency that have been identified, along with its partners, to fulfil its mandate. These are entrepreneurship development, access to capital and information, innovation and technology, business management practices, tourism, and trade.
Given the last two strategic priorities I have mentioned, you can appreciate the interest with which ACOA views the work of this committee. And Atlantic Canada need not take a back seat to anybody in either of these two areas. The goods produced for trade by Atlantic Canadian firms and the tourism product offered by Atlantic Canada are up to standard in virtually every marketplace. The key is to be able to offer those goods in the marketplace with a price and a timeliness that permits them to be competitive. And the key to achieving that state is efficient transportation infrastructure and systems.
To ensure that these keys match, it is vital that their interrelationships be recognized and that all stakeholders work together to take best advantage of those interrelationships. That is what Atlantic Canadians are trying to do in both trade and tourism. That is one way in which ACOA fulfils its mandate, working with stakeholders to achieve sales growth and survival rates for ACOA-assisted firms that are almost twice that of all firms.
Tourism is big business and in Atlantic Canada it is big business. It is the fastest-growing industry worldwide, and it is arguably the most important sector in Atlantic Canada. It has annual revenues of some $2.4 billion and employs over 84,000 Atlantic Canadians in 10,000 firms. In terms of relative importance, it ranks first, second, fourth and fifth as a contributor to provincial GDP in Atlantic Canada. It is relatively more important to Atlantic Canada than the aerospace and automobile sectors combined are to Ontario.
And tourism, by definition, involves transportation. In the absence of the ability to move people where they want to go, when they want to go, by the mode they want to go, and at a reasonable price, it is virtually impossible for this environment-friendly industry to maximize its potential.
ACOA has done a fair amount to foster and support growth in this industry. Perhaps more important than any specific piece of physical infrastructure that agency has helped to create, and recognizing my earlier point with respect to the importance of interrelationships, the agency was the catalyst for the creation of the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership. This is a joint body of the federal government, the four provincial governments, and the four tourism industry associations, which integrates the common goals of the participants in several areas such as marketing and product development into a more efficient set of actions for industry development.
The ACTP has had many successes, such as the growing return on market investment and the fourfold increase in accommodations graded on quality in the last four years. Its partnership-of-stakeholders approach was recognized as particularly effective, and thus was used as a model in the creation of the Canadian Tourism Commission.
Among its activities, the ACTP recently organized and sponsored a tourism conference, the goal of which was to produce a road map for growing tourism into the 21st century. One of the main recommendations emanating from this conference, which included about 100 of the most influential people in this industry in Atlantic Canada, was not only the continuation of the partnership approach, but also the need to expand the breadth of functions, activities and decisions that affect this industry, transportation among them.
The conference also recommended that air access as a key to competitiveness and growth in the global tourism marketplace be given particular attention by all those with an ability to influence its development in Atlantic Canada.
This integrated approach is becoming increasingly important, particularly in an industry characterized by very many, very small firms.
Unlike some industries, no one stakeholder is able to substantially influence the market, yet each is dependent on the fundamentals of the market being right. Within the context of today's discussion, no one firm can influence the price or availability of various modes of transportation to and from Atlantic Canada, but each has a bottom line that is influenced if the cost of pilotage fees for cruise ships or landing fees for aircrafts, for example, tend to reduce tourist demand for Atlantic Canada's tourism product. Again, I laud the wisdom that recognizes this fact.
The issues with respect to trade in Atlantic Canada are similar to those of tourism. Trade is required for the Atlantic economy to prosper and grow. And increased trade is dependent on getting a product to an increasingly international marketplace in a timeframe and at a price that permits it to be competitive.
.1635
Some of the challenges and opportunities inherent in the core characteristics of Atlantic Canada are listed in the background paper. Again, however, the keys to overcoming the challenges and using the opportunities include an efficient transportation infrastructure system as well as a cooperative approach to dealing with sectoral issues.
ACOA and several of its partners have gone a long way toward fostering such a cooperative approach for the creation of the Canada and Atlantic provinces cooperation agreement on international business development. This agreement brings together three federal government departments and the four Atlantic provincial governments to work with industry to increase the number of exporters, increase the level of trade through an increased number of products being traded and expanded markets into which they are being traded, and influence the concern for trade impacts on all decisions by both the private and public sectors.
The regional trade networks and regional trade plans called for within the Trade Team Canada approach are modelled after the cooperative approach that began in Atlantic Canada. Notwithstanding this team approach, such factors as the east-west orientation of trade in transportation development have kept Atlantic Canada from achieving its potential as a trading region in recent decades. Despite its location as the country's and in fact the continent's closest point to Europe, and its proximity to a heavily populated eastern seaboard of the United States, Atlantic Canadians exports comprise only 21% of regional GDP, versus 35% or thereabouts for the rest of Canada.
Atlantic Canadian exports have increased by about 40% over the last five years. We are achieving some good results in this area as well. Export sales by ACOA clients increased by 30% from 1993-94 alone, or about 3.5 times the regional average. ACOA is helping to run another course in export preparation that will get at least another 100 firms into the export market this year.
ACOA activity alone is not enough. Atlantic Canadians must work both individually and together to continue the region's re-emergence as a region of traders. The globalization of trade and the increased use of just-in-time shipping place additional demands on a transportation system, such as speed, competitive pricing, and intermodal integration.
Although the agency's total employment impact is impressive and job growth within ACOA-assisted firms exceeded the national average by approximately 13%, this needs to be put in the context of trade as an economic generator: with every additional $1 million of trade generating 11 new jobs in Atlantic Canada, the region cannot afford to have progress in exports hampered by an inadequate or non-competitive transportation service.
Having reinforced the utility of looking at transportation in an integrated way, along with the economy of the regions the transportation policy and transportation systems are designed to serve, the agency advocates and offers to participate in any plans that could include specific approaches to changes within regional transportation policy and systems.
As the NTA states, transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development, and commercial viability of transportation links is balanced with regional economic development objectives so the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized.
Canada is a country of regional economies. As each regional economy is strengthened, so too is the country. ACOA works daily with and within the Atlantic economy. The agency's appearance before you today and the documentation I will leave behind should provide you with some insight into the nature of the Atlantic economy and reinforce the profound impact changing transportation infrastructure and systems can have on two key growth opportunities for Atlantic Canada - trade and tourism.
I thank you for the opportunity and once again reinforce the need for this innovative approach to examining transportation issues. I'm confident that your findings will not only recognize the breadth and complexity of the review but the breadth and unique challenges facing the economies of each of the regions in this country.
I look forward to answering your questions. I will be pleased to answer the ones I can now. Undoubtedly there will be some that are beyond my scope today or will arise as a result of other presentations or perhaps when you've had a chance to review some of the background material I've left. The agency would be more than pleased to provide a written response to those.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That was bang on ten minutes - the voice of experience.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You dealt quite a bit with the north-south trade routes. It has been my observation that at one time Atlantic Canada had very strong north-south trade routes. They've been disassembled over past times to try to cause east-west trade routes to be developed. It's one of the things we've been looking at, from my perspective at least: the re-development of those north-south trade routes in a concept we refer to as ``Atlantica''.
.1640
I would make one other comment. In your areas of specific concern, the very first one you mentioned is Halifax airport. Certainly that being such a hub, it would be a necessary part of all the other airports, because it feeds them and also your tourism industry. It's identified as a national airport, but it's not yet signed on.
There is a great problem with national airports. Many of those which have signed on are now financially insolvent because of the formula of payment to the government. I don't know if there will be anything in the works to amend that or not. If not, Vancouver airport for one is surviving with this funding formula, because it has such huge cash revenues. Halifax is not in that position. If they sign on, they'll be financially insolvent, as are Calgary and Edmonton.
I don't know what the answer is for you, other than that somehow the government has to change the formula it's charging for these things and it's something you should keep your attention on very clearly.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: A very thorough report.
Mr. Gouk: You can correct me.
The Chairman: You can correct what Mr. Gouk was saying about our airports.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'll consider the source of the comment and just move on.
Mr. Gouk: I'll consider the response and rest my case.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Estey, has ACOA had any involvement in Highway 104, the roads program in Nova Scotia? Is that something that -
Mr. Estey: No, sir.
The Chairman: Do you have any information on the financing of that?
Mr. Estey: No, sir.
The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now we have with us, from the Transportation Association of Canada, Louise Pelletier and Mr. John Pearson. Welcome.
Ms Louise Pelletier (Executive Director, Transportation Association of Canada): Thank you.
[Translation]
I thank you for your invitation. Our presentation will be delivered mostly in English.
[English]
You should have received all documentation in both French and English. Included in that documentation is the text I will review.
.1645
[Translation]
The documentation we have distributed includes the presentation I will be making in a few moments as well as copies of the document The National Highway Policy for Canada in both official languages.
[English]
I would like to introduce John Pearson, who has been involved with the Transportation Association of Canada for a long time. He has been working for TAC even longer than I have. I joined only a year and a half ago. John was involved as the project manager and the technical expert in the development of the national highway policy study commissioned by the council of ministers responsible for transportation and highway safety from 1989 to 1992.
I will now go over the short presentation and leave as much time as possible for questions. I'll be able to answer in either French or English, as you please.
I'm sure the committee is aware that the relationship between transportation, economic development, trade and tourism has been the subject of many past studies in Canada and around the world. Such work has consistently revealed strong links between economic competitiveness and the efficiency of a country's transportation system. An efficient transportation system is essential to Canada because of our geography, economic base and demographics.
For the past 80 years the Transportation Association of Canada, or TAC, has been a strong advocate for an efficient, safe and environmentally sound transportation system for Canada. While the roots of the organization are in the development of sound engineering practices and common national standards for our highway system, TAC's current mission and programs are multi-modal in nature, and support the standing committee's view that an efficient, seamless transportation system must exploit the strengths of all modes of transportation.
In 1993 the TAC board of directors produced A New Vision for Canadian Transportation, designed to enhance Canadian competitiveness in the face of rapidly changing North American and global trade and travel patterns. Copies of that have been supplied to you.
Over the past three years, TAC has pursued many initiatives to help achieve that new vision. Subjects include: equitable taxation of Canadian carriers; harmonized policies among governments; improved methods for investment decision-making; seamless intermodal freight movements; new environmental practices for industry; and benchmarking to increase productivity in both the public and private sector.
High-quality and well-maintained highway infrastructure is a major element of the new vision. Like most countries in the developed world, Canada's economy and social fabric have become heavily dependent on the highway system to meet the transportation needs of trade and commerce, tourism and personal mobility. Over 80% of all travel in Canada occurs on the highway system, and over 75% of the nation's freight costs are for highway transport services.
While more than $10 billion is spent annually by the provincial, territorial and municipal governments for highway construction, rehabilitation and maintenance, this has proven to be inadequate to keep up with the needs of a rapidly aging system. In an environment where needs have continually exceeded resources, the condition of Canada's highways has been steadily deteriorating since the late 1970s.
Unlike most other countries, Canada has failed to recognize the essential role highways play in meeting the national needs for transportation. Responsibility for the nation's 800,000 kilometres of highways is dispersed among ten provinces and two territories with widely varied needs, priorities, economies and population bases. National leadership and support for the highway system ended with the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway in the late 1960s, leaving no national plan or strategy for ensuring the most important interprovincial and international highway linkages are built and maintained to common, appropriate standards.
.1650
Ten years ago the Transportation Association of Canada convened a major national symposium on the state of the nation's highway system. Emerging from this symposium was a strong resolution that the federal, provincial and territorial governments must work together to pursue the concept of a national highway system. The resolution called for identifying the most important highway transportation linkages from within the existing network for domestic and international trade and transportation, and establishing a sustainable, cooperative funding mechanism that would ensure that these linkages would be built and maintained to appropriate standards.
The national highway policy study was launched by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in 1988 and was completed in 1992, with unprecedented consensus on the key elements of a national highway policy for Canada. These are as follows: an identified national highway system comprising 25,000 kilometres of the existing 800,000-kilometre network; an agreement on minimum standards for the design, operation and maintenance of the system; and an agreement by all provinces and territories on a funding mechanism and cost-sharing formula as the foundation of a cooperative federal-provincial program.
Members of the committee have been provided with a copy of the report of the final phase of the national highway study. You should have received it; we sent fifteen copies. As I mentioned earlier, this is only phase four. This report does summarize the conclusions and recommendations of all of the previous phases. The phase four report also includes a map showing the proposed national highway system and also presents all of the recommendations on funding, cost sharing and implementation of the national highway system.
As we all know, in spite of the exhaustive analysis, studies, and consensus-building that were undertaken, in 1996 Canada remains one of the few countries in the western world without a national highway policy, and it does not have the means or will to properly maintain those components of the highway infrastructure that are essential to all Canadians. The national highway system identified and agreed to by all senior level governments in 1988 remains little more than a conceptual description of the most strategically important linkages within the network of highways in this country.
The economic, trade, tourism and safety consequences of a national highway policy and upgrading are well known, and were documented in the companion studies that were part of the work carried out between 1988 and 1992, also supplemented by the more recent studies completed by the Transport Canada.
A national highway system upgrading program would have had the following benefits. Employment in construction and related sectors would have increased between 146,000 person-years and a little more than 200,000 person-years during a ten-year program. The economy would have grown as a result of a major upgrading and maintenance program affecting all regions of Canada. There would be improved market accessibility and trade competitiveness for Canadian industry in both east-west and north-south corridors, and increased tourist travel could be expected within Canada.
Once completed, a higher-standard, safer, more efficient national highway system would provide ongoing benefits to all Canadians. In 1990 it was predicted that these benefits would include a reduction in vehicle operating costs by $360 million annually; a reduction in travel time by 46 million person-hours annually; a reduction in annual traffic fatalities by 160 annually, about 4%; and a reduction in personal injury accidents by 2,300 annually.
The highway user community in Canada supports the concept of a national highway system and supports committing some of the funding currently collected from fuel taxes and licence fees to upgrading and maintaining the infrastructure. As it is estimated that governments collectively receive in excess of $11 billion annually from fuel taxes and highway user fees, such as licences and permits, it is widely held that sufficient funding is being collected to address current needs.
.1655
In 1989 it was estimated that an investment of approximately $14 billion in capital works would be required to correct the deficiencies of the national highway system. Over a ten-year period an additional annual investment ranging between $700 million and $800 million would be required, essentially doubling the current level of provincial and territorial capital investment. This additional funding requirement represents only about 15% of the fuel tax revenue currently collected by the federal government, or less than 2¢ per litre of fuel consumed by highway users.
The importance of the national highway system as an integral component of a safe, environmentally sound, seamless, multi-modal transportation system cannot be overstated. While the system constitutes only 3% of the length of the highway network, it accounts for over 25% of all highway travel.
In spite of its importance, and unlike the U.S. interstate system, over 75% of the system is two-lane road. In 1989 it was determined that 38% of this 25,000-kilometre system was in immediate need of renewal and upgrading and 790 of the 3,500 bridges in the system required strengthening or major rehabilitation. A recently completed study by Transport Canada has confirmed the rapidly declining state of our highway infrastructure and has also noted a continuing decline in the resources being directed towards maintenance and safe operation of the aging system.
I commend this standing committee for turning its attention to the state of our transportation infrastructure and for examining the relationships among transportation, trade, and tourism. However, from the perspective of our national highway transportation system, if the 1960s and 1970s are remembered as a period of rapid construction and expansion of the system, the 1980s and the 1990s can only be considered an era of continual study of the decline of the infrastructure.
I would respectfully submit that the time for study has passed and action is urgently needed by all senior levels of government in establishing cooperative, sustainable programs which will ensure the national needs for highway transportation are met. However, based on the events of the past six years, the next initiative must come from the federal government, armed with the resolve to work cooperatively with the provinces and territories to pursue the vision of an efficient national highway transportation system under a common national program.
I thank you very much for your attention.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Pelletier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier.
Mr. Mercier: I listened to you with interest and I must say that it would even have been a pleasure to listen to you if you had made part of your presentation in French. For a minute, I would have had the illusion to be in a truly bilingual country where a french-speaking person would address a government body in French. I did not have that illusion and I regret it, Madam.
Ms Pelletier: I am sorry, dear sir, but our documents have been produced in both official languages. I chose to stick with the English text only to speed up the process. I for one am not an expert in the areas of engineering or highway construction and, more importantly, I do not have the background that would be of benefit for me today to explain the studies that were conducted several years ago, but I will be pleased to answer any question in French.
Mr. Mercier: I don't have any question.
The Chairman: Is that all?
[English]
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I certainly found it an interesting presentation. It follows what many people who have come before this committee have stated. The fundamental thing you're looking for, of course, is the funding for this. Of course these things can't occur if there's no funding. The fuel tax scenario is one that has been a very common thread from all the people who have come before this committee, and it's one I personally happen to support.
.1700
It is my contention that when this committee hears a lot of input and hears basically the same thing from each person, that is what they should follow, because what we're doing with this is not a debate on legislation but a report on what we have found. So I trust that will be reflected in the report that comes out on this towards a recommendation for dedicated revenue funding from the fuel tax source. I will certainly be proposing that, and I trust that all members of this committee will support it as well.
The Chairman: Is there a question there, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: No. It seems to be apropos this afternoon.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Keyes, do you have a question, sir?
Mr. Keyes: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank the witness for her presentation. I'm proud to be in a country where a presentation can be made in either official language and the witness can feel comfortable to do it in either one, where translation is provided to the other official language, and they can usually do it without chastisement. So congratulations on your report. Thank you very much.
You move across the country with TAC, I assume.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: [Inaudible - Editor]
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Now, Paul, I didn't interrupt you. I was very patient and waited my turn.
You move across the country gleaning representation for your report for TAC. You obviously hear from different levels of government, and so on.
Do you think the federal government could embark on - I'm thinking out loud here - a national infrastructure program or a national dedicated highways program along the lines of an infrastructure program and gain support, or at least the same level of support we received on the infrastructure program, from provincial governments and even possibly municipal governments as well, or have you heard anything to the contrary?
Ms Pelletier: I have not heard anything particular that would say that support would be there or not. From TAC acting also as secretary for the council of deputy ministers and the council of ministers, evidently this subject has been discussed more than once, and the support is there. TAC also has within its membership close to 200 municipalities across Canada, not only the largest ones but some of the smallest ones. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is an active stakeholder that is really contributing to our work.
I would like, though, to offer one comment, and it's probably reflective of the document you've received with the blue cover, which is the national highway policy, and relating that to the infrastructure program, or phase two of such an infrastructure program.
What the national highway policy for Canada was trying to do was more on a policy matter, trying to set up a permanent fund where we could look at the maintenance and rehabilitation of our national highway system from one end of the country to the other. It's not only a matter of pitching $50 million in a span of three years or something like that. That would be like, to use John's expression, painting rotten wood. We need something that is more long-term, that is really embarked in the policy. It's not patching work that's necessary. I do believe Transport Canada studies have really put even more emphasis on the declining of our system, and it's really to find a long-term solution.
Mr. Keyes: I'll think larger than $50 million.
Ms Pelletier: I'm just using a number like that. I'm not good at numbers.
Mr. Keyes: But let's talk about a national highways program that might cost $4 billion, to not put a colourful tie on a corpse but rather go on to an opportunity of ensuring that we have a solid four-lane national highway structure from one end of the country to the other.
So stretch $4 billion over say 10 years, work in cooperation with the provinces of this country to begin this project, and let it go its full length. On that kind of a scenario, are you finding a level of cooperation from the provinces, saying they're interested in that?
.1705
Ms Pelletier: Absolutely. One must say this is essentially the recommendation of phase four of the national highway policy that was endorsed by all provinces. It would actually have to be tested. Maybe conditions and economies have changed, but I think the concept is still there. But the TAC board - which includes all of the deputy ministers of transportation across the country - still supports this program.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you, Ms Pelletier.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes. Mr. Cullen.
[Translation]
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you very much, Ms Pelletier, for your presentation and the fairly detailed brief you have given us. I will read it thoroughly very soon.
You referred to the vision of your association and to the concept of benchmarking. I can't remember the french word for it. I have had some experience with that concept. Can you be more specific on how you will incorporate that concept into the vision of your association?
Ms Pelletier: I will try. The word benchmarking could be translated by "indicateur de performance" or "indicateur de productivité". We have already started to work on that concept. It involves a global vision of transportation where benchmarking is very useful to determine whether certain transportation modes or infrastructures perform as well as others as far as their contribution to the economic system per se is concerned.
The performance can be assessed according to various criteria, not only in terms of economic performance but also in terms of environmental performance.
The vision of the Transportation Association of Canada is based on the concept of a sustainable transportation system that is commonly referred to as the sustainable transportation concept. The whole issue of economic development and sustainable development is also part of the indicators used in those analyses.
It is obviously an optimistic vision that we want to reach by 2000 or 2003. Is it feasible? We provide the decision-makers with some benchmarks, some components and some criteria from that vision in order to establish whether those various indicators are followed and whether we will be able to implement that vision.
Along the same lines, the Transportation Association of Canada has developed a vision of urban transportation - I did not send it to you but it would certainly have been to Ms Cousineau's liking when she made her presentation earlier - which essentially promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation, urban planning and urban transportation. The alternative modes might be walking, cycling or other systems.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you very much.
Do you intend to look into performance indicators relating to pathways as they might be used in other countries or other jurisdictions? How do they fund pathways? Are you interested in that topic?
Ms Pelletier: Absolutely. It was indeed the subject of a synthesis of practices published by our research and development council, one of the committees of the Transportation Association of Canada.
.1710
It is the document with the red cover that I did not send to you because we are selling it. We live now in the era of user pay and cost recovery is part of our internal policies. For strictly financial reasons, that document is unfortunately available in English only, but he summary has been translated.
We attempt to look at the various theories and practices relating to the funding of highways and public pathways. We therefore examined all the different mechanisms or types of funding used in most industrialised countries.
We are referring to a different ideology when we talk about user pay rather than the conventional approach according to which highways are public property. Such an approach would be totally against the user pay principle. I brought a copy of that document and the chairman can keep it; even though we have a copyright on our publications, I can disregard it because it seems to me to be less expensive to allow you to photocopy it rather than attempting to charge you $ 35 for every copy. The document reviews the various funding methods used in various countries.
Among other things, it looks at how the United States have been financing the interstate highway system, how France and Germany have been doing it and how several countries with a federal structure are currently funding such infrastructures jointly with their provinces or their states.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you very much, Madam. I am now glancing through this document and I find it easy to understand. It is very good and I realize what its cost is to your association. I got it through the Library of Parliament, but I must return it within one or two weeks. Thank you.
Ms Pelletier: I leave one copy for the chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, we'll get it before it goes away.
Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: This document is of interest to me also, even though it is written in English.
Ms Pelletier: I am very pleased with that.
The Chairman: Here is a copy for you.
Ms Pelletier: The summary is available in French.
[English]
The Chairman: And it's only $10 from me.
A voice: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate....
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Jordan, you had indicated that -
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): I like the document. It's been well researched and the recommendations are very specific. There's just one little thing. You suggest in recommendation number three that the federal-provincial split be 65-35. I don't know just how palatable that would be, because as it stands now, the highways generally come under provincial jurisdiction, although I know a lot of federal money has gone into them over the years. How did you arrive at that 65-35 split? Was it modelled after something else? I would have thought maybe a 50-50 split was better.
Ms Pelletier: If you allow me, I will let John Pearson answer this question, since he was involved directly. From his explanation you will find out that when we consider everything it does come to about 50-50.
Mr. John Pearson (Consultant, Transportation Association of Canada): The objective was to try to achieve a 50-50 balance in aggregate based on models that we'd seen in other countries.
From what you've read, it may not be entirely clear how the mechanism was intended to work. The federal contribution being sought was something in the order of $800 million per year, or equivalent to 2¢ per litre of fuel tax, and the proposal was specifically for 2¢ a litre of fuel consumed for road-use purposes, not a specific amount, the idea being that in a sustainable program the amount of federal contribution would vary with the road use.
.1715
The first concept draws on the U.S. experience with the interstate system in that 80% of the federal contribution would be available to provinces in proportion to the amount of fuel consumed in those provinces. That would be shared on a 65-35 basis. The federal contribution to each province would have to be matched by a 35% share from each province for what's called the base allocation.
I can tell it's already getting complicated to try to understand this, but the notion was to try to meld together some principles that would get an equitable program that provided each province or each partner in a federal-provincial relationship with equal opportunity to participate in the program, with the ultimate goal of having a 50-50 share of the cost on a national highway system. This would occur while recognizing that the provinces still have responsibility to maintain the other 825,000 kilometres of highway, or thereabouts.
Mr. Jordan: I'll have to mull that over a bit.
Mr. Pearson: I'm sorry I can't give you a simple explanation.
Mr. Jordan: That's all right.
Mr. Pearson: The details contained in phase four of the report are quite explicit about which costs would be shared by the program and which costs would be provincial responsibility. Such things as land acquisition, ongoing maintenance and so on were not proposed to be eligible for cost-sharing. These would be borne entirely by the provinces. Capital costs on a national highway system would fall into one of two categories, either a 65-35 split or a 90-10 split.
Mr. Jordan: I think I see what you're driving at here.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Jordan.
This is the conclusion of this particular session. Thank you very much. We appreciate the time that TAC puts into these issues.
[Translation]
Ms Pelletier: Thank you for this opportunity.
[English]
The Chairman: That's it until 3:30 p.m. tomorrow, when we are reconvening here to deal with Bill C-43, the Railway Safety Act amendments. We will be hearing one witness, and then we'll go into clause-by-clause.
The meeting is adjourned.