[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.1002 
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to meeting 45. This morning we are meeting pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) on a study of transportation, trade, and tourism. We are nearing the first phase of this particular examination. We've been concentrating heavily on roads and anticipate making a report to the House in the very near future on that particular part of the study, although the study is designed to look at all aspects of some of the changes in the industry, given all the changes that have taken place in the transportation infrastructure.
This morning we have someone we've been waiting for: from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, Debra Ward.
Ms Ward, take about ten minutes for your remarks. Then I'm sure there will be a question or ten.
Ms Debra Ward (President, Tourism Industry Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm very delighted to be here to address you on the subject of transportation, trade, and tourism.
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada is the national advocate for Canada's tourism business community. I believe this is the first time in recent memory the standing committee has chosen to look at the synergy among transportation, trade, and the tourism industry. We are delighted to have this opportunity to address you on this subject. The recognition by this committee of the importance of tourism travel to and within Canada represents a significant step forward in government policy deliberation and creation. We see this is as a very positive sign for future growth and development.
It is evident that policy developed to encourage the growth of tourism is not only desirable but necessary. The size of tourism is staggering. For those of the members who may not know the size of tourism in Canada, 100 million person-trips, trips of one night or longer, are taken in Canada every year. Of those, about 15 million are made by international travellers and 85 million or so are made by Canadians. The movement of passengers in Canada is enormous.
Of course a cost is associated with moving those people around. In all, tourism generates about $42 billion annually in Canada. Of that amount, $17.4 billion was spent on transportation alone in 1995. The lion's share of that was split evenly - just about dead on in the middle - between air and passenger car. So when you are reviewing actions taken toward roads, you can see the size and importance of roads within the ability to access tours and products in Canada.
.1005
I think it's worth saying that transportation and tourism are two halves of one equation. Without the infrastructure of the transportation network, there would be no tourism. Without tourism, we estimate that 43% of all travel expenditures in Canada would totally disappear. We haven't done the calculations, but the loss of revenue to government would be enormous in terms of lost tax revenue from a variety of areas. I think it is fair to say that the stronger and more robust the tourist industry, the more we can contribute to the economy at large and to government tax revenues in particular.
Because there's a certain amount of stage-setting I'd like to do when we talk about this issue, I would like to address our concept of what the tourism industry actually is. The definition we use may surprise you. The World Tourism Organization, which is an international body, has defined it as ``the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes''.
Tourism is enormous is obviously far more than just Bermuda-shorted, camera-clicking people on buses - the kinds of things people tend to associate with tourists and tourism. It goes way beyond that. It's everything from a business trip to Calgary, visiting family members in Lunenburg, and even seeking a new spirituality among the ancient forests of the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Modern tourism is a relatively new invention, and it saw its creation in the 1950s after the post-war boom. We didn't beat our swords into ploughshares - we turned our tanks into sedans and our bombers into jetliners. The open road and exotic experiences in distant lands became metaphors for post-war generations. Most important, for the first time these metaphors were real, and thanks to post-war prosperity, within the financial reach of unprecedented numbers of the population.
Tourism is not a mature industry but a maturing industry, and its needs are currently being defined. The way we see tourism today is very much an expression of the 1950s when fuel was cheap and we were predicting double-digit world growth for the foreseeable future, which is something we did enjoy until the 1970s and 1980s.
The reality has now changed for tourism, like other business sectors. Our customers are more demanding. People are asking for and getting a wider range of experiences. They're asking for more exotic travel, and at the same time they're asking for more value. The rainforests of South America, the icy mysteries of the Antarctic - no part of the world has been untouched by these new explorers, the explorers of the 1990s, the new tourists.
Societal changes will continue to drive and reinvent tourism as we head into the new century. Futurists and economists have all woken up and discovered tourism. People such as John Naisbitt and Diane Francis, among other leading thinkers, have identified tourism as one of the key economic generators as we head into the 21st century.
It's very difficult to talk about anything to do with the shift from manufacturing to information and from production to service economies without talking about tourism as well - one of the best and most robust service sectors we can offer.
Canada is not the only country discovering this. Nations around the globe have discovered the importance of tourism to their economic well-being. Public policy is focused on the business of tourism, ensuring its place in government planning.
Countries ranging from Costa Rica to Australia have put into place long-term tourism strategies and government policies that affect every aspect of government decision-making, including financial, taxation, human resources and transportation. Tourism has become an integral part of their overall planning. In the two cases I have specified, it has worked extremely well for the countries.
There are some really excellent reasons why governments believe tourism is worth supporting. Tourism, for the most part, is small-business-based, almost cottage-industry-based when it's done correctly. It can be rural, it can be urban. It can help make the transition between a production economy and a service economy and include those people who do not fall into the high-tech sector or the meritocracy. Tourism can encompass everybody. It celebrates the best in a community. It's something the community can share and it engenders a great sense of pride and communal spirit, so it's more than making a buck to make a living.
.1010
Tourism adds a certain dimension, depth and richness to the business of making a living. This was recognized by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in his address to the Tourism Industry Association of Canada in 1994. He said:
- Our goal...should be to...re-establish Canada as a force in the global tourism industry. Together
governments and industry will design, finance and deliver the world's most effective program
selling the world's best tourism product.
At the same time, tourism to and within Canada is on the rise, with economic activity increasing from $39 billion in 1994 to $42 billion in 1995 and directly employing 488,500 people. That's a lot of people employed by one industry, and those are full-time jobs.
The World Tourism Organization estimates that in 1994 global tourism receipts totalled$321 billion U.S., not including transportation. That's for hotels, meals, souvenirs and recreation. The last figure I saw - I don't know if it's defensible, but I hope it is - said that is twice all defence spending in the world. In other words, for every dollar spent on armament, two dollars are spent on travel and tourism, which I think says something very nice about our industry.
Global tourism has averaged a 12% growth year over year and accounts for nearly 10% of the value of world exports. In Canada, international receipts alone, including transportation, were estimated to be $10.7 billion in 1995. Our largest trading partners in tourism are the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and France.
When you're looking at tourism, transportation and trade, the only industries larger than tourism in terms of our international trade are automobiles and auto parts - that's the Auto Pact, as you know - and business services. Tourism brings in more revenue than pulp and paper, wheat, forestry, fishery, natural gas - you name it, tourism brings in more money. Even more importantly, it brings directly to communities. It puts cash in the till that is countable at the end of the day. It's not going through a big corporation first; it's immediate and it's there. So it is one of our key international trading sectors.
It would come as no surprise that the Tourism Industry Association of Canada supports a strong domestic transportation system. We want one that is affordable, accessible and safe in order to encourage and increase efficient tourist trips to and within Canada. Tourism growth is in keeping with overall government policy, in our opinion, as expressed through the creation of the Canadian Tourism Commission, and will inevitably lead to new job creation and business opportunities in every region of Canada.
We have a number of policy recommendations we'd like to present to you, which we would like to see incorporated into federal government planning as they relate to tourism travel. In some areas they are actionable by the Department of Transport and others. We ask this committee to actively support and assist in implementation of these recommendations for action by those responsible.
The federal government should create policy in the appropriate environment to ensure an affordable, accessible and safe transportation network in Canada. To accomplish this, the Government of Canada should take a leadership role in coordinating and setting standards for inter-city transportation infrastructure, including east-west and north-south routes by air, road, water and rail, and bring to the table all partners who finance and have regulatory or legislative power over these elements of inter-city transportation, including provinces in the private sector.
I would like to add something that should have been included here and wasn't. It's not only inter-city transportation, of course, but also transportation to star tourism locations, including ski resorts, parks and the rest of it.
.1015
The Government of Canada should create an infrastructure program that incorporates tourism development goals of access, affordability and safety, to be implemented by federal and/or provincial governments, with a partnership with the private sector when appropriate.
The federal government should review all taxation on transportation within the context of increased use of direct user fees and competition within U.S. routes and pricing. In other words, the rules of the game have changed considerably in terms of how we fund transportation. We know this is one of the issues you as a committee must be wrestling with.
We are saying that when you are looking at direct user fees, if they be national parks fees when you go through on the Trans-Canada, toll roads of some description, whatever it happens to be, there should be some sort of balance between taxation and use.
The Government of Canada should examine and eliminate all regulatory or legislative barriers to intermodality. As you know, intermodality is for passengers quite different from freight intermodality. It represents seamless access by passengers from one mode to another with a single ticket. It is something that is quite common in Europe and far less common in Canada, and we see this as an opportunity to move people more efficiently and therefore in greater numbers across Canada.
Finally, we ask the Government of Canada that it encourage the development of federal and provincial policies that support the competitiveness of carriers operating in domestic and international markets.
That concludes my formal remarks, Mr. Chairman. As you've seen, we have taken a very broad policy approach. We have not made recommendations specifically for any one mode or any one sector, but we certainly can address any of those issues in the specific, if you want. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Ward.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): I want to thank you for your presentation. It fuels my arguments.
I understand that in the United States, the highway system was originally built to serve the National Defence system's needs. I believe that the new Transport Canada highway network planning should be set taking into account the needs of tourism, transportation and trade. Tourism is an area which is going to gain in importance in the future and I think that this fact supports well enough your demonstration.
On the other hand, I would like to discuss your first recommendation. We seem to fall into an old canadian trap when we say that the federal government should take care of the coordination of transport infrastructures, of the definition of standards and so on, including the areas which come under provincial jurisdiction and the private sector's initiatives.
It would be an illusion to believe that we can operate outside the present constitutional framework. In the Canadian system, some areas come under provincial jurisdiction. It is important that those things are put in place taking into account our constitutional framework and only after a consensus has been reached.
Do you have arguments to support your statement on that matter, or could you qualify your position? How should we interpret your first recommendation?
[English]
Ms Ward: Yes, I do, thank you very much. I think the point you raise is an excellent one and one we are currently wrestling with as well, because I don't believe the answer is simple.
By our recommendation, we do not mean to imply that the federal government should or can take sole responsibility. Obviously, the jurisdictions have a great deal of control over how their infrastructure is developed and maintained.
On the other hand, we need something in place even if the federal government provides the table at which everyone can sit to form this consensus, if consensus is possible, as to what our roads, our signs, our entire transportation network should look like. It is not the problem of a visitor from outside the country that the provinces have jurisdiction in some areas, and the federal government, in other areas. That should be absolutely invisible to the traveller. The traveller should be able to get from point A to point B simply and effectively.
.1020
What we are saying here is that the federal government has a responsibility to Canadians and to the provinces to assist them in finding a collaborative means to work together to find those national standards. In the absence of a consensus, I do believe the federal government has a role to set standards.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Thank you very much for that information. I have one more question to ask in order to broaden my knowledge.
I would like to know what are your forecasts about the future growth of international tourism to Canada. For example, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is about to be officially designated as an international maritime park and it will be governed by both provincial and federal laws. It might become a gem among world-class tourist attractions. In Canada, there are undoubtedly other sites like that.
I would like to know if you have projections for the next five, ten or fifteen years about the future growth of international tourism to Canada and about its eventual impact on the different modes of transportation. Could you give us details about that, right now or later?
[English]
Ms Ward: Yes, I would be very hesitant to make any kind of prognostication right off the top of my head.
We've been looking at double-digit growth from countries like Japan, Germany and France over the last few years. However, that translates to relatively small numbers when you look at the total amount of travelling public, which is something like 200 million people a day, or whatever the number happens to be.
We can say in terms of our products, though, it is our belief that the demand for Canadian tourism products will grow tremendously over the next decade. There's a reason for that, and it has to do with how people from outside Canada perceive Canada, as opposed to how we ourselves perceive our country. We call ourselves big, empty and cold, and we laugh every time we see some Mounties move some mountains.
That may be our own perception, but when you ask somebody from outside, somebody from Japan, where they live like this because there's no room, or Germany, where you can't fly a private plane because of the commercial and military air space requirements, they come to Canada and see a country filled with friendly people, incredible beauty, wildlife at your front door, and sorts of things they can only imagine.
That's the demand, and along with that comes the concept. We call ourselves boring. They say you're friendly and you're safe - and safety has become a selling point. So what we expect is that demand for not only the physical nature but the spiritual nature of Canada will grow in demand. Areas you refer to, like the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the other world heritage sites that are coming on line, will become more and more critical to tourism.
Again, when you're looking at transportation and infrastructure planning, it becomes essential that the transportation routes into those areas are designed in such a way they could move people fairly quickly so you're not facing problems of congestion and pollution where not necessary. But I will get back to you with some more definite numbers, through the chair.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Speaking of wildlife at our doors, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): You stole my line, Mr. Chairman. I was going to refer to all the wildlife across the House from me when I -
The Chairman: I could see you building up to it, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: We'll take that as a balance at this point, at least. I'll let the obvious speak for itself.
Ms Ward, that was a very good presentation, very compelling. You've made an interesting case.
With regard to the things you've laid out by way of your recommendations, I would say, first of all, in terms of the aviation sector, there has been deregulation of the air, which, contrary to what a couple of union people and even the premier of my own province has said, I support. I think it has been a positive step. It has led to open skies, which is another positive thing.
I'm jumping the gun slightly, but I believe in this committee we're about to come out with some recommendations that deal with some manner of dedication of fuel tax towards repairing the national highway infrastructure system, which I think is a very positive move.
I really believe the intermodality of transportation is a private sector initiative, because with the exception of VIA Rail, virtually all transportation is private. We have companies like Greyhound, for example, that are now starting this combining of seamless bus service and air. I think it's private sector initiative. Certainly we should look at ways to support it if something comes to us, but it has to be a private sector initiative.
.1025
You mentioned inter-city transportation. I think as individuals we can use our offices to facilitate certain types of things taking place. I'm doing that in my riding, as I'm sure many other members are in theirs, in trying to develop rail travel and perhaps even make that seamless with the bus service within the riding. But beyond that, and keeping in mind what you said about negotiating or setting, if necessary, national standards in signage and so on, what specific actions do you see this committee getting involved in, outside of those areas?
Ms Ward: That's a good question. I think you've identified a couple I had in my back pocket. One is dedication of fuel taxes reinvested back into infrastructure, supported by those who use it.
Mr. Gouk: We are looking at that.
Ms Ward: I'm delighted to hear this is being given serious consideration. It's something we have asked for for a very long time. That would be a major step for us.
The other is one I want to address with you very quickly. You touched on it when you talked about deregulation and open skies.
For the record - no big surprise here - the idea of re-regulation gives us hives. I think it's a ridiculous suggestion by Buzz Hargrove, and it's regressive at very least. We think the Government of Canada is taking a sound approach in dealing with the Canadian Airlines issue. We are hoping the elimination of the aviation fuel tax, or a reduction of the aviation fuel tax, will be another and a very positive step in that direction. That's something that can be brought forward by this committee as a recommendation.
Overall, I think it's essential that this committee take it upon itself to recommend to the government that legislation dealing with transportation have a tourism filter to it, to ensure no legislation is drafted which impacts on the ability of tourism to grow itself within a business environment.
The next example is the one you have raised of Greyhound and the whole Greyhound-WestJet thing, domestic ownership versus international ownership. Greyhound Air has proved to be a huge boon for tourism in Canada. I've flown Greyhound Air, and I like it, but when I'm on that airline, it's not people in business suits with their power books, it's people who are visiting relatives, it's people who do not normally get on airplanes. They have opened a whole new market through very clever marketing, through pricing, and through the seamless transition - intermodality between their buses.
This is a needed service. It is a well-received service. The Government of Canada should not have been able to block it because of issues of ownership and sleight of hand. If this committee can do anything, it should recommend that we look at legislation and eliminate those things which get in the way of developing a sound infrastructure program.
If there are issues dealing with where tollroads may or may not go, those kinds of issues should be looked at as well. We need good, sound highways. If tolls or temporary tolls are a way of paying for them, we should be able to be flexible enough within the marketplace to put those things in.
So we ask you mostly for broad things, and generally for the right business environment for the transportation industry to develop on its own.
The Chairman: I might add a question or two. I'm interested in your response to Mr. Gouk's comments on dedicated fuel taxes.
You raise a series of issues in your remarks which will be subject to later study by this committee on this issue of trade and tourism, particularly the question of intermodality. That is something we've heard quite a bit about in different parts of the country.
One of the examples used is the effect of open skies bringing tourists into the Vancouver region to embark on the cruise ships. Some of that is a little difficult, or we're not clear yet on what the barriers are to that. A lot of that seems to be business-to-business interaction. I suppose the barrier at one point was the lack of an open skies program. Once that is removed, then the ability of an airline business to partner with a cruise ship business, with ticket-inclusive pricing - all-mode ticketing and all that - is fairly straightforward. I would be interested in hearing, perhaps in the second round of this, more specifically the regulatory barriers government imposes which make that kind of transparency difficult.
.1030
The issue we're struggling with right now is the one of roads. In your response to Mr. Gouk, if I understood you right, you thought it would be an important step forward to have some sort of a dedicated fuel tax. Is that because you think it's important to see a consistent and predictable program to renew Canada's highways or is that because there's some value in dedicating a tax?
Ms Ward: It's the former, not the latter. I see no purpose in dedicating a tax unless it's for a worthwhile and fairly ongoing, permanent reason. As you are aware, the fuel taxes, which are very high, have just been going into consolidated revenue with no reinvestment back into infrastructure.
We now have a situation - I will address roads specifically in this case - in which our infrastructure is going to cost us ten times as much because we didn't take of it when the crack was small. We now have to fix the whole damn road. I don't think we can afford to have this happen again.
I think the way to do that is to have a dedicated pool of moneys. I think it's fair for it to be provided by the people who use the roads. They'll pay with their fuel taxes to make sure those roads are maintained. Furthermore, these groups should work with the tourism industry to anticipate from where new growth will come. Then we can build according to the new growth.
I want to give an example. We were talking earlier about the American highway system being built for the defence of the realm. To a large extent, that is exactly why they were built the way they were.
I thought you might like to know how Branson, Missouri, built its road. Branson has become like a Grand Ole Opry. It has an incredible array of what I would call small stars, like Tony Orlando. It was doing fabulous business and growing overnight. It did not have an access ramp coming in from the interstate. So Missouri passed an emergency roadbuilding act, which allowed road construction on that ramp for 24 hours a day until it was completed. That is the same legislation California used to rebuild its infrastructure after the earthquake in Los Angeles.
So you are seeing in the States now that they are using existing legislation to allow roadbuilding. I would dearly love to see a case in Canada where we had 24-hour construction of a road because we had such a tourism demand that it required a new access ramp.
So I think it would be very prudent, desirable, and defensible to apportion the fuel tax back to roads.
The Chairman: You mentioned, in passing, the issue of tolls. I wasn't certain whether your reference was to tolls as an element of the pricing of tourism or as a tool for producing this needed renewal.
Ms Ward: I think it is an effective tool that can be used for the renewal of our infrastructure. The issue around tolls is one of surprise for group travellers. As they come in, toll costs must be incorporated in the cost of the package. Once that's known, it's fairly well accommodated. As the roads are generally faster and more efficient, the cost of their use is matched by the speed and lack of delay.
So we have no issue with tolls writ large; we have some issue with how they're built together. There's the fact that there's no guarantee that once the road is paid for, it'll come off. There are some specific issues, but in general terms, we believe that toll roads that are well publicized with rates that are well-communicated would be a very helpful tool to use. Indeed, this has proven to be a helpful tool to use in some areas.
The Chairman: I'm just looking at your second point here in your recommendations. You talked about creating an infrastructure program that incorporates tourism development goals, access, affordability and safety that's to be implemented by federal and/or provincial governments, with the partnership of the private sector where appropriate. Would you just enlarge upon that a little bit?
Ms Ward: I think some of the joint ventures for toll roads for example are private sector joint -
The Chairman: That's what you were referring to?
Ms Ward: The bridge to P.E.I. would be an example.
The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much for a most eloquent and well-constructed proposal.
Ms Ward: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Ms Ward: I wish you much luck in your deliberations.
.1035
The Chairman: Our next witness is David W. Glastonburry from Transport 2000 Canada.Mr. Glastonburry, you've been with the committee before.
Mr. David W. Glastonburry (President, Transport 2000 Canada): Yes, I have.
The Chairman: So you know to take about ten minutes for your remarks, and then leave some time for questions.
Mr. Glastonburry: Mr. Chairman, do I have the honour to be the last witness?
The Chairman: No, but you're honoured on the list.
Mr. Glastonburry: Thank you.
The Chairman: You may in fact be the last public witness. We do have a number of ministers and others who will be talking on this topic.
Mr. Glastonburry: Good.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in your comprehensive study on transportation, trade and tourism.
Transport 2000 Canada is an advocacy group working for environmentally, socially and financially sustainable transportation.
Just as trade is not restricted to one commodity, neither is transportation nor tourism defined exclusively by the highway mode. In Canada, our experience has come from building transportation infrastructure to open up the country, create employment, encourage tourism and ultimately, to stimulate economic activity.
While some may argue that these goals continue to be relevant, there are others who question whether in some situations overbuilding has occurred. This is overbuilding that not only fails to maximize the resources invested, but serves to neutralize and minimize the value of previous infrastructure investments.
Some examples of this might be the introduction of a new road that bypasses a community that has a significant investment in hotels and restaurants, the curtailment of local rail service in order to tighten schedules on a line that has shippers of bulk goods, or the introduction of larger vessels to ferry services where the increased ship size cannot service smaller harbours.
Transportation in Canada is not unlike the environment. It requires a careful mix of solutions that are environmentally, socially and financially viable. No one mode is appropriate for all scenarios.
The current battle-cry for government at all levels is ``user pay''. What is sadly lacking is the universal and uniform application of this policy with regard to transportation infrastructure.
The federal government's program of divestment in transportation operations results in users of airports, navigation systems, ferries, ports and railways taking responsibility for the financial and operational viability of these resources.
Public transit users experience similar treatment under provincial and municipal jurisdictions. One glaring omission to the user-pay theory continues to exist: highways. If user pay applies to other modes of transportation, why does it not apply equally to highways?
The external costs of increased highway usage are manifested in the effects on human health of vehicle exhaust emissions and the cost of road accidents borne by provincial health plans, police forces and other public agencies. Other costs include acid rain, climate change, urban sprawl, noise, parking and congestion.
.1040
Notwithstanding provincial toll road initiatives such as the Coquihalla Highway in British Columbia, Highway 407 in Ontario, and Highway 104 in Nova Scotia, the user-pay philosophy has not been met. The challenge of recovering the cost of capital borrowing has not been conquered. Questions about the cost of maintenance, the retention of service and safety standards for deferred maintenance of infrastructure, the effects of longer and heavier trucks, and moderate growth in traffic have not been properly addressed.
While the political aims of job creation, economic development and voter support are understandable, the federal contribution to highway infrastructure allows the provinces to be less accountable and to build additional roads rather than repairing what already exists.
The recent $6 billion infrastructure program designed to repair and upgrade existing infrastructure saw significant examples of new construction. While short-term jobs were created, some projects supported the decline of public transportation. In essence, some initiatives encouraged more urban sprawl, more need for parking and more congestion while deferring much needed road maintenance.
If user pay is to be the government's policy, in terms of transportation infrastructure the level playing field should prevail. Either the federal government ceases all investment in highways or an approach borrowed from our neighbours to the south should be implemented.
Under a program known as ISETEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the United States government uses highway funds to invest in transportation infrastructure such as intermodal terminals, commuter rail lines and transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The British government's recent green paper, entitled Transport: The Way Forward, includes in its recommendations the need for increased attention to the environmental impacts of transport, in particular, ``seeking to reduce dependence on the private car''. The report recommends that the government emphasize policies that make more efficient use of existing infrastructure, reduce dependence on the car - especially in towns - switch emphasis in spending from roads to public transport, and reduce the impacts of road freight.
In Canada, local governments such as the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton attempt through planning and zoning to encourage the use of public transport - except at this particular time - versus increased car usage. Why does the federal government deliberately undermine these efforts through its initiatives?
Tourism plays an ever-increasing role in the economic development of Canada, while the United States remains our most significant source of tourists. Increased growth in the industry originates offshore. These offshore destinations are more familiar with a good, reliable, integrated public transportation system. In coming to Canada, these visitors look for transportation resources similar to those at home. The Canadian emphasis on the automobile has left this type of integrated facility unavailable in most of our tourism destinations.
The federal government should be encouraged to target a significant portion of the anticipated infrastructure program number two towards the renewal of transportation resources other than roads. Federal-provincial funds spent in this manner could renew inner-city facilities while creating skilled employment, encourage downtown development and expand the potential for increased tourism.
Road programs appear to enable people, both residents and visitors, to get away from somewhere more quickly. A program to encourage integrated transportation allows people, particularly tourists, to get somewhere more quickly. Isn't that what we really want?
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: There are a couple of interesting areas, one we've heard quite a bit about from different witnesses. Unfortunately for the global perspective, many of the witnesses come from national organizations and live right here in Ottawa, a large urban area.
You talked specifically about Britain. Britain's population density is infinitely higher than Canada's. I understand and I accept some of what you're saying. But by the same token, we have to recognize a tremendous amount of this country is rural. The types of solutions to Canada's transportation problems a lot of people talk about aren't something we can put on as a global decision. The private vehicle is an absolute necessity in the majority of land area of this country, because of its size.
.1045
One thing I found interesting is you mentioned user-pay and how highways had to start operating on a user-pay system. One of the things we're looking at right now is fuel tax. The federal government spends about $300 million a year on the national highway system. It takes in almost$5 billion. We've talked to different groups, and I've certainly talked to some, the automobile associations among them, who have said we don't have a problem with user-pay, but before you can have that, you first have to determine what we already pay. And the indications are that in fact they are paying. It's just that it's applied differently from some of those other areas. So we may have a problem in that area.
The final thing I would like to mention is where you talk about how the federal government, through its initiatives, deliberately undermines the efforts of municipal governments such as Ottawa-Carleton. Could you elaborate on that - how a federal initiative is interfering with a municipal initiative?
Mr. Glastonburry: Some examples of that might very well be where federal money is put into a highway that will turn around and bypass some of the communities. The tourism aspect you're reviewing would be hurt by that sort of thing, where the new highway would bypass these communities and they would not be able to take advantage of the tourist who would operate on the older highway.
An example a bit closer to home might be the downloading aspect. The federal government assists with highways in the province of Ontario. The Province of Ontario has started a process whereby it spins off some of its highways to the municipalities. You can see this as you go along the St. Lawrence Seaway and see that Highway 2 has been spun off. That will continue -
Mr. Gouk: If I could interrupt you.... By way of example, you specifically mentioned Ottawa-Carleton. Because I'm here and I don't know a lot about other areas of Ontario.... I'm from British Columbia, but I do travel around here. In order to understand what it is you're suggesting, I would like to know specifically what the federal government has done to undermine the efforts and initiatives of Ottawa-Carleton.
Mr. Glastonburry: One has been hanging.... You will have found a lot of news in the newspaper about added bridges across the river and so on. That's one example of where an option was put forward about commuter rail. The opportunity for either expanding bridges or adding new ones does not necessarily block the proposal for commuter rail, but it waters it down, so it doesn't get the same sort of hearing it would if it did not appear the federal government was going to turn around and support added bridges.
Mr. Gouk: Is is true the primary initiative of your organization is towards rail transportation?
Mr. Glastonburry: No. It is true we spend a lot of time on rail, you're quite right. However, we try to be universal and look at all modes of transportation.
The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Mr. Glastonburry, thank you for your presentation.
In your brief you talk about the external costs of increased highway usage. There are some who would contend that if we're going to charge users, let's say for highway use, in addition to the direct cost of highway usage and development we should also bring in the externality costs. You refer to them here: the environmental costs, safety costs, policing costs. To my knowledge, that hasn't been applied in any jurisdictions. I'm wondering, you don't actually come out and say it, but are you essentially saying that we should price in external costs if we're going to go to a user-pay model? I'm wondering if you have any examples of jurisdictions that have effectively done that.
.1050
Mr. Glastonburry: No. Let me start with the first part of your question. Yes, I would suggest that it's something that should be looked at and perhaps this committee could very well investigate that.
In answer to the second part, I know that some work has been done, but I don't have an example of a jurisdiction that has in fact applied that.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you. If you're looking at let's say user-pay and tolls, just putting in a toll that would recover more direct costs of maintenance and construction is tough enough. When you add the external costs, that would be difficult, I think, as well. But doesn't it also raise the question that if we're looking at externalities for things like highway use, we should be looking at it in public policy issues throughout?
Mr. Glastonburry: I agree with you, yes. That's the only fair to do it.
Mr. Gouk raised the question of us spending a lot of time on the rail side, but as I point out in my paper, there are instances where rail is not the best alternative. The road very much could be. One of our concerns has been the deterioration of the inner-city bus service in this country. There are a lot of communities that rely on it, not only for passengers but for bus parcel express. So there are some areas where that's the best option.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Glastonburry.
Mr. Glastonburry: It's a pleasure, gentlemen.
The Chairman: If I could have the indulgence of members, I would ask members to stay behind.
Mr. Gouk: Are you going to stay?
The Chairman: I will indeed stay behind this time, Mr. Gouk.
We will move to an in camera meeting. So I would ask those people who are in the room and are not covered within that umbrella to vacate the premises.
Thank you very much.
[Proceedings continue in camera]