Finance Committee on Sept. 19th, 2006

[David Bradley, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to address you again.

For those of you who aren't too familiar with our industry, we move 90% of all consumer products and foodstuffs in Canada and about two-thirds of Canada's trade by value with the United States.

The essence of our presentation to you today is to increase the sustainability of our industry from an environmental point of view and also our competitiveness. Some of you may know that in recent months CTA has issued a 14-point, made-in-Canada clean air act plan. I'm pleased to announce that only two of those 14 measures require some sort of tax or expenditure measure by the federal Government of Canada; however, in total our plan would lead to a reduction in air-equivalency terms of 91,000 current trucks from the roads in terms of N₂O, and in terms of the other major contributor to smog, a reduction of 100,000 current trucks with regard to particulate matter. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, our 14 proposals would combine to contribute to a reduction—again in air quality value—of 46,000 existing trucks. This is quite substantial.

We are on the cusp of a radically different, new technological situation in the trucking industry as it pertains to smog. By law, starting on October 15 of this year all diesel fuel—for trucks only—sold in Canada will see a lower sulphur content, down from 500 parts per million to 15 parts per million. That fuel will be used in the new smog-free trucks of the 2007 model year—again by law—that will come into the marketplace this October as well. This will see, between now and 2010, the virtual elimination of smog emissions from trucks. This is by law both from Environment Canada and from the U.S. EPA. Ours is the only freight industry whose fuels and engine emissions are so regulated.

However, these new engines come with a significant new cost. Just to purchase them, the ticket price is averaging around $8,500 Canadian more. There are increased maintenance costs, and there is the uncertainty of some of the new technologies. All of this contributes to pressures on carriers to pre-buy before the new engines come into the marketplace.

What we would like to see, if the goal here is the environment, is acceleration of the penetration of those vehicles into the marketplace as soon as possible. We're calling for a more aggressive, separate capital cost allowance bracket for this equipment—not for all trucks that are out in the marketplace, but simply for the new equipment—so that we can get them out into the marketplace more quickly.

In terms of fuel efficiency, another major contributor to idling that really goes along with the environment we have here in Canada is the end-idling of truck engines. Over the last few years we have benefited greatly from a program from Natural Resources Canada that provided rebates of up to 19% for investment in auxiliary power units to run heating and cooling systems so that truckers don't have to keep their engines running all night or all day, depending on whether it's in a heatwave or in the middle of winter.

This program has worked exceedingly well and has encouraged investment in over 13,000 of these units. The government's investment was $6.2 million; industry's investment to date is $31.3 million. Unfortunately, that program was cancelled in March of 2006. We would like to see it reinstated.

On both these counts, if you don't like CCA rates or rebates, there are other ways one could approach this, through ITCs, etc., but certainly with respect to the capital cost allowance, we're already at a competitive disadvantage compared with U.S. carriers. There is a natural gap we would like to see closed.

We also obviously have an interest in infrastructure and were very pleased when the current government announced a highway and border infrastructure fund with moneys dedicated to it. However, we're still only investing about 10% of the fuel taxes that are generated in Canada. We'd like to see either more of that invested in the highways and borders or we should get rid of the excise tax on diesel fuel. Excise taxes are an archaic form of taxation. It should be woven in with the goods and services tax.

Finally, an old chestnut of ours. In 1994 the federal government followed the United States by reducing the meal tax deductibility for all employees, including truck drivers, from 80% to 50%. In the United States they saw the error of their ways and have, over the course of the last several years, moved back towards the 80% level, which they would reach in 2007. We would like to see that restored for workers who spend a significant amount of time away from home, whose hours of service are dictated by regulation and don't always have the luxury of determining where to stop and what to eat. This is really just a subsistence issue.

That is my presentation. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

We'll continue with Mr. Williams from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.

Mr. Williams.

[Randy Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tourism Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, I want to thank the committee for giving tourism a voice in the pre-budget consultations. We hope your report will acknowledge the important role this industry can play in ensuring Canada's prosperity.

Tourism is a $62.7 billion sector that accounts for 2% of Canada's GDP. More than 200,000 mostly small and medium-sized enterprises operate in communities large and small in every province and territory in Canada. They keep 1.6 million Canadians working, contribute to community and economic development, and generate over $15 billion in tax revenues, including a federal share of $7.7 billion. Thus, tourism makes an important contribution to Canada's local and national economies, its standard of living as a nation, and the quality of life of all Canadians. It also makes a less tangible but equally important contribution to fostering mutual recognition and understanding among citizens of different countries, and in fact helping Canadians when they travel Canada to understand Canadians better. This is a tremendous asset in an era of rising global tensions. But that contribution is being challenged on a number of fronts: by growing competition from other countries that recognize the value of tourism and are investing strongly in marketing their countries; by the stronger Canadian dollar, which has made Canada a relatively more expensive destination for American visitors; by rising fuel prices, which have increased transportation costs and heightened security and are reducing traveller confidence and convenience; and by a domestic public policy environment that is threatening the Canadian tourism industry's growth potential.

According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization, Canada's global ranking has fallen from eighth in 2000 to twelfth in terms of receipts and from seventh in the world to eleventh in terms of international tourism arrivals. U.S. visitation to Canada fell by close to 30% from 2000 to 2005, from 44 million visits to 31.7 million visits. At the same time, Canada's travel deficit more than doubled, from $2.4 billion to $5.5 billion.

So what can be done? Three things. There are some key actions that the federal government can take to ensure that Canada continues to be a source of prosperity for Canadians.

First and foremost, it should increase its investment in destination marketing. Canada has some of the best tourism products, services, and experiences in the world, but it is not getting the message out to enough potential travellers about what we have here. The Canadian Tourist Commission needs an extra $100 million so that Canada can compete and win. That amount would be leveraged with matching private sector investments, and it would pay off, according to an independent study, in up to $4.2 billion in increased tourism revenue growth, yielding about 45,000 new jobs and $620 million a year in federal tax revenues. With a $100 million investment there would be a $600 million return to the federal government.

In the area of human resources, the federal government should invest more in tourism-related education programs through the Canadian Tourism Human Resource Council, and it should consult with the tourism industry on improvements to foreign worker programs. These actions are needed to help the industry deal with the shortfall of workers in the next decade.

Finally, in the critical area of air travel, Ottawa should immediately reduce airport rents and completely eliminate the air travellers security charge. Canada's air transportation system and the many businesses that rely on it have been bearing the burden of government-mandated cost add-ons that threaten the competitiveness of our airline industry in Canada.

Our written brief discusses each of these areas in more detail. I urge the members to take a look at those in preparation of their final report. Again, I thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

We have Ian Morrison here, with Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. I invite you to make a presentation, Mr. Morrison.

[Ian Morrison, Spokesperson, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a watchdog group, financed by 100,000 Canadians. Our mission is to defend and to enhance the quality and the quantity of Canadian programming in the English-language audio-visual system.

I wish to thank you for meeting with us today. We always appreciate the privilege of appearing before you to present our viewpoint in an effort to influence your proceedings.

As citizens of a small country dependent upon international trade for wealth creation, Canadians have a large stake in promoting abroad our identity and our brand. In large measure, Canada's branding is the product of our audio-visual system, the export of our images and stories to other countries. Confidence in our cultures, a belief in the integrity of our identity, and a projection of those values beyond our borders are key to our national development.

Successful models of national branding among our principal competitors abound. Other than the United States, where Hollywood plays this role, the best international branding models come from countries with strong national public broadcasters, such as Finland, Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage researched investment in public broadcasting by OECD countries in its recent report, Our Cultural Sovereignty, and identified that Canada ranks 20th among 25 countries. These data are reproduced in our written submission; they come from page 178 of the Lincoln report. Canada spends 0.08% of our GDP on public broadcasting, well below the OECD average of 0.14%, and far below the range of 0.28% to 0.19% in the leading countries I just mentioned.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting recommends that the committee recognize the importance of strong public broadcasting to Canada's identity and branding in the world. As a long-term goal, funding for Canadian public broadcasting should be increased to at least the OECD average. In return, Parliament should establish practical benchmarks for Canadian public broadcasting.

Second, we recommend that your committee re-adopt a recommendation from your December 2004 report that the federal government provide stable, long-term funding to a number of important cultural institutions. Specifically, your committee recommended then that the government should increase funding to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Radio-Canada.

The recent CBC lockout demonstrated what a Toronto broadcasting corporation would sound and look like. As you know, it has also demonstrated how strongly Canadians rely upon our national public broadcaster.

In this respect, you might be interested in data from an Ipsos Reid opinion poll that Friends of Canadian Broadcasting commissioned during the week before the writs of the 2004 general election. In that poll, Ipsos Reid posed the following question: “Assume for a moment that your federal member of Parliament asked for your advice on an upcoming vote in the House of Commons on what to do about CBC funding. Which of the following three options would you advise him or her to vote for: decrease the funding to the CBC from current levels, maintain funding for the CBC at current levels, or increase funding to the CBC from current levels?” Ipsos Reid found that 9% of Canadians would recommend decreasing CBC's funding, 51% would maintain it at current levels, and 38% would increase CBC funding from current levels.

We also draw to your attention a series of recent recommendations from the Senate Transport and Communications Committee, which touched on reforms to CBC's mandate. Among its recommendations, the Senate called on the CBC to reduce its dependency on advertising revenues and professional sports.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting recommends to the finance committee that it endorse a two-part reform in CBC financing. In return for reducing or eliminating its reliance on advertising revenues, the CBC's public funding should be increased. This funding could come from either general revenues or from charges to the television distribution system akin to the subscription fees charged for services like TSN or Sportsnet. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting notes that such a reform would likely enjoy the support of many of Canada's private broadcasters, it could be introduced gradually over several years, and it would fulfill the Prime Minister's commitment to, and I'm quoting, “...reduce CBC's dependence on advertising revenue and its competition with the private sector for these valuable dollars, especially in non-sports programming”.

In conjunction with these reforms to the financing of public broadcasting, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting endorses a proposal that Heritage Minister Bev Oda made, “That the government should undertake to establish an independent task force to review the mandate, role and services of the CBC-SRC”. That task force should be charged with recommending reforms to the CBC's management and governance, which would remove political patronage from the CBC's board and presidential selection process in keeping with the best international standards for public broadcasting.

CBC is our largest cultural institution. It plays a major role in our democratic life and we must ensure that it remains healthy and that it has the capacity to carry out the important mandate given to it by Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Sir.

Our next presenter is from the Canadian School Boards Association, Mr. Lance Bean, president.

[Lance Bean, President, Canadian School Boards Association]

Thank you.

The Canadian School Boards Association represents school boards across the country. Our members are the provincial school board associations that provide direct support to boards that in turn govern the range and quality of educational services in Canada's public schools. We are, at the level of democracy, responsible for the development of Canada's most precious resource. Elected trustees represent Canadian communities, Canadian taxpayers, including the 70% of the population who do not have children in school. As a result, they must be committed to high-quality education for every child and a well-educated Canadian citizen.

Our submission contains six areas worthy of federal action or need for cooperation with other levels of government: the goods and services tax, immigrant and refugee children, first nations education, national emergency support for such situations as soaring energy prices, federal support for provincial efforts in early childhood learning enhancement, and copyright legislation.

I will be brief and focus on the GST, immigrant and refugee children, first nations education, federal support for early childhood learning enhancement, and copyright.

On the GST, transfer payments indirectly support education throughout our country. Through equalization, the federal government also ensures that the provinces have the fiscal capacity to ensure a quality level of education. It works, as Canadian students rank among the best in the world; however, school boards are struggling to maintain that quality. They're routinely forced to rob Peter to pay Paul, juggling special needs students against repairs as their budgets become leaner and less discretionary.

When the GST was imposed it came as a burden that exacerbated these struggles. We ask you to stop this clawback of transfers that you provide and eliminate the GST on school board purchases.

During last year's pre-budget process, the CSBA raised the issue of improving federal support for immigrant and refugee families. We recently launched a national consultation process. Our draft paper, “Meeting the Language Learning and Settlement Needs of Immigrant Children and Youth in Canada's School System”, developed through extensive discussion with school boards, has also been sent to the federal minister. Our provincial associations are consulting with provincial governments, and we shall have a final paper shortly. But we have some early conclusions and recommendations.

Number one, there need to be interprovincial collaboration and federal-provincial-municipal partnerships with school boards. The early stages of the Canada-Ontario agreement are promising and show a high degree of collaboration.

Two, there are programs that work. The federal settlement workers in schools program is extremely successful. Its expansion could have an even greater impact on how well and how quickly families integrate. Intergovernmental partnerships with school boards would ensure that no one slipped through the cracks and would deliver the right services to the right people at the right time.

Last year we also expressed our concerns about the achievement gap in first nations education. The CSBA national office has begun working with the Assembly of First Nations, and our provincial associations are working with first nations authorities in their regions. The CSBA focus is on students in our jurisdiction--public schools.

There are examples of successes, such as the agreement in British Columbia and the partnership between the Saskatchewan School Boards Association and the Office of the Treaty Commissioner. These examples also show that the cookie-cutter approach won't work. No two provinces are alike, and first nations are not homogeneous. Let the grassroots lead.

We'd also like to ask the federal government to fully support first nations communities in developing their own capacity to deliver high-quality education.

Research solidly shows that investing in children in their early years represents a powerful investment. A child’s readiness to learn in grade 1 is the single strongest predictor of how a child will do in every grade, and indeed throughout life. Our paper cites a few of these studies.

Every province, depending on their internal structures, geography, and demographics, has different ways of supporting early learning enhancement. We ask the federal government to support individual provinces in how they approach the development of their young citizens.

Can I have about ten more seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes.

[Lance Bean]

Finally, CSBA supports modernizing the Copyright Act; however, we need clarity on the issue of digital rights and on students’ and teachers’ use of Internet materials in the classroom for educational purposes. The CSBA endorses the amendments put forward by the Council of Ministers of Education. The council proposes a win-win solution that offers copyright owners the ability to receive payment via the Internet if they do not wish their materials to be freely available.

That's my report. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Next, from the Hotel Association of Canada, Mr. Pollard, president.

Please proceed, sir.

[Anthony Pollard, President, Hotel Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate being invited back here once again to meet with this group.

My association represents all of the lodging industry right across Canada. We did about $13 billion in revenue last year. About $11.5 billion is generated as value-added for other sectors. We employ about 270,000 people; needless to say, they are in each and every riding, right across the country.

One of the things I always like to point out when I appear before committees is that we're an industry that the government typically likes. Last year across Canada we generated $5.1 billion in taxes, of which about $2.3 billion went to the federal government. We kind of like those numbers, and you people kind of like them. We still aren't at the levels we were in the year 2000, when we hit our peak.

The one area that I'd really like to emphasize strongly this afternoon is that in business, successful operators have two maxims. One of them is that we never have enough business, and the second one is that you should never leave any money on the table. Well, we believe very firmly that the federal government is leaving a whole bunch of money on the table when it comes to marketing and promoting Canada around the world.

We've heard, and it's in our written brief, that if the federal government invested an additional $100 million annually, they would have an ROI of up to $620 million coming back to them. I wish I knew where I could take money like that and get that type of ROI. It really dismays me when I see that the Government of Canada isn't making that investment.

The second item I want to talk about very briefly is the fact that we have a shortage of people working in our industry. I'm sure that a lot of other sectors are making the same case to you. This is particularly significant out west, in Alberta and B.C., but we're feeling it in a lot of other sectors, including the Muskokas, Tremblant, and places like this.

There is a program in place called the temporary foreign workers program, run out of human resources development. This needs to be expedited. We need to get people in here now. It is just not happening. That's critical to us.

I have a couple of other points, very briefly. One of them is that we're delighted that the Government of Canada continues to support the infrastructure program, but we do see them needing to take more of a leadership role in upgrading the national highway system. In fact, we would see the elimination of the $22 billion maintenance deficit as being key.

The air system in Canada needs to be overhauled. We need to remove the security charge. We need to adopt Open Skies. We need to increase foreign ownership. We also need to cancel the planned rent increases in Canada.

The final one I want to touch on very briefly is something that impacts all of you as parliamentarians--the government rate, and the process by which the government rate is established across Canada. The Department of Public Works has come in with a new policy and process. It doesn't work. It doesn't take into account the business cycle of hotels. It does not take into account the business cycle of people travelling on government business. The two aren't working together. They've imposed new rules on us. All that's going to happen is we're going to end up with a lack of good rooms for you and the rate is going to go up. We're trying to work with them, but it's falling on deaf ears.

Mr. Chairman, I've tried to be brief. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pollard, for your concise presentation.

We'll conclude with the presentation from the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada.

Madam Dickson, five minutes, please.

[Jennifer Dickson, Executive Director, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada]

Ullakut. Good morning. I bring greetings from our president, Martha Greig, and our board of directors, Inuit women from across Canada's high north, as well as youth and urban Inuit women who could not be here on such short notice—we were called last night at six o'clock—and who have tasked me, their executive director, with carrying their important message on their behalf.

The primary purpose of this presentation is to respectfully request that Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada be recognized in the Government of Canada's 2007 budget. Pauktuutit is a vital national organization with a unique mandate that provides the Inuit women of Canada with a united voice to improve the social, economic, and political conditions for Inuit women, their children, and their communities. In addition, Pauktuutit provides leadership to encourage Inuit women to take their rightful place in Canada's society. And I think it's not one bit of an exaggeration to say that with the exception of their children, they're arguably the most marginalized people in Canada.

With this submission, Pauktuutit makes four recommendations that advance the interests of Inuit women and benefit all Inuit women in Canada. It is sincerely hoped and requested that these recommendations are afforded due and serious consideration.

Inuit women are the keepers of the light, which means they're the custodians of the qulliq, which is the traditional Inuit oil lamp that we've all seen in the movies, formerly the only source of light, warmth, and cooking for Inuit. Without the qulliq, Inuit would never have survived the harsh conditions of Canada's Arctic. The qulliq symbolizes survival as well as physical and emotional well-being. Inuit women are keepers of the light and now play a similar crucial and integral role in governing their communities and their society.

You might ask what Canada's Inuit women have to do with your important theme for the current budget deliberations, Canada's place in a competitive world. In less than four minutes, let me try to answer that question.

Inuit have by far the highest rates of poverty, the highest rates of unemployment, the lowest levels of formal education, the highest cost of living, the lowest levels of housing quality and availability, and the highest, by far, suicide rates among all Canadians. Since Inuit women truly are the keepers of the light, many of these appalling circumstances are disproportionately borne by them.

Pauktuutit's mandate is to foster greater awareness of the needs of Inuit women and to support them by providing leadership, voice, and program excellence for the benefit of themselves, their families, and communities in the areas of equity, health, social well-being, cultural traditions, and economic development. In point of fact, Pauktuutit is the primary and almost always only national organization that develops and implements programs to put into action the Government of Canada's policy agenda in Canada's north. Let me just state that again: Pauktuutit is the primary and almost always only national organization that develops and implements programs to put into action the Government of Canada's policy agenda in Canada's north.

Yet despite the breadth of Pauktuutit's work, the organization is usually severely marginalized in influence and limited in resources compared to resources made available to the other five national aboriginal organizations. Though Pauktuutit is broadly recognized as one of six Canadian national aboriginal organizations, this status has yet to be acknowledged formally by the Government of Canada. This failure translates into critical discrimination against Inuit women in terms of Pauktuutit's mandate to independently represent them at policy tables, and it also results in our inequitable access to funding to engage in our important work in northern communities, support that is provided to the other NAOs.

Why does it matter in the broad competitive world we find ourselves in? Well, Canada is seen around the world as a leader in human rights, equity, and fairness. It reflects well on us internationally when our record at home is strong, fair, and consistent. It is in this context that Pauktuutit respectfully makes the following four recommendations.

One, in order to fulfill its commitment to gender equity, it is recommended that the Government of Canada provide Pauktuutit financial support and recognition commensurate with that provided to the other five NAOs. Pauktuutit seeks adequate multi-year funding to allow the organization to contribute to the critical issues facing Inuit women, their families, and communities with the same stature, resources, and influence afforded the others.

The second recommendation is that the Government of Canada funding considerations reflect the disparity between the social conditions faced by Inuit families and those of other Canadians. Further, these considerations factor in the unique high costs of transportation, health, social services, housing, food, and fuel in the Arctic.

Three, that the Government of Canada put tools and instruments in place that encourage, support, and develop inter- and multi-departmental program partnerships and funding frameworks for programming dollars. There is now growing recognition that not only cost effectiveness, but broader, overall success on the ground may be achieved through multi-dimensional, holistic strategies that cut across the mandates of many traditional departments and agencies. Such an initiative must recognize the unique challenges and costs associated with arctic programming and include tools to ensure gender equality.

Four, it is recommended that the Government of Canada commit to appropriately support the contribution that Pauktuutit makes to international issues and agencies. A practical long-term commitment of human and financial resources will ensure effective and meaningful participation in international events and practical contribution to the critical issues that indigenous women are facing around the world.

These are our four recommendations. As mentioned above, Pauktuutit is the national organization that represents all Inuit women. We have strong democratic roots across all Inuit communities and within southern urban areas. Through Pauktuutit, Inuit women have a clear and unimpeded voice at the national level. The mandate is to foster awareness of the needs of the Inuit women and to encourage their participation in all matters, as well as in national and international concerns in the areas of health, social, cultural, environmental, and economic public affairs. Working in partnership with Canada's public and private sectors, Pauktuutit delivers realistic and concrete projects and initiatives that bring measurable change within the remote Inuit communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We can continue now with questions.

We'll begin with Mr. McCallum. You have six minutes, sir.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'd like you to congratulate you all for having compelling and succinct presentations. Given my lack of time, I'd like to focus on one issue, which is tourism. My question will be for Mr. Williams and Mr. Pollard. When you don't have much money, sometimes it's good to focus on things that don't cost money, and I'd like to mention two. One is the issue of the Canada-U.S. passport requirement, or possible passport requirement at the border, and the second is the issue of China.

We, on our side of the House, thought the government capitulated a little too quickly on the passport issue. I wouldn't necessarily ask you to comment on that. But what is the current state of play? What are the implications for your industry? Do you think there is a viable solution that will not be too damaging in this area, and what is the timeframe?

On China, I remember Mr. Emerson announcing in the House in 2005, when he was a Liberal, that we were about to sign an agreement with China, known as the approved destination status agreement, which would facilitate Chinese tourists coming to Canada. I don't know the numbers, but for a country of 1.3 billion, I think the potential might have been very high in terms of numbers of tourists. Now the current government misses no opportunity to poke China in the eye, whether it's by not meeting the ambassador or by having zero ministerial visits to China versus 13 under the Martin government. I could go on.

The Chinese have now refused to speak to the Government of Canada on this subject, so there is no prospect for this agreement. I would think that would be a major concern to the tourism industry.

So here is my second question. How important is this agreement with China, and what are the implications for your industry if no progress for the indefinite future is made on signing that agreement?

[Randy Williams]

If I can take a first run at it—

[Anthony Pollard]

Why don't you do passports and I'll do China?

[Randy Williams]

I have something to say on both, but I'll save you time, Tony.

The WHTI is a big hit on our industry, as you have heard. We're anticipating to lose, in North America—travel between Canada and the United States—$2.5 billion before the law even takes effect. It's already had an effect on bookings, conventions, and meetings across Canada, because nobody is going to book a convention in Las Vegas when they don't know what the law of the land will be. It's not only passports; it's other secure documents. They've still not been defined. So there's a lot of confusion out there right now. Some 33% of Americans believe they need a passport to enter Canada. Well, that's wrong on a number of fronts: it's not to enter Canada, it's to go home, and it hasn't started yet. So you understand, there's a whole bunch of issues there.

There is a solution. The solution is we have to communicate to Americans that Canada has something to offer. We need to promote, because other countries are stepping up their marketing effort in the United States, and we're falling behind, as I said in my remarks. It is going to hurt us badly; it's going to hurt us in the long term. We need to off-set that with increased promotion. It will take effect.... The update for you, Mr. McCallum, is that the passports will become law, and other secure documents. They're on a track, and they will put this into effect. We can't tell the Americans not to do this, unfortunately; it's going to become law. It's going to become a new reality at our border.

When you were speaking, I was anticipating questions. I had written down two things: WHTI, which is the western hemisphere travel initiative in passports, and China and ADS status. Those are two issues that are global in nature, impacting our trade with those foreign countries.

When we had a beef dispute, the federal government stepped up and tried for many years to resolve the BSE problem with beef. We had a softwood lumber dispute. We stepped up and we negotiated softwood lumber. Tourism is bigger than those two industries combined, and we've done nothing on China ADS. In 1997, Australia became the first country in the world to get China ADS. Now, if we got China ADS today, we'd be 80th in the world to get China ADS status. It represents 100,000 Chinese to us now; it grew by 17% last year, to 117,000. But it could mean half a million, which is 500,000, if we had China ADS.

So there are those two issues. We need increased investment, and more attention on the China ADS, such as softwood lumber and BSE got.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Pollard, there's not much time, but it's all yours.

[Anthony Pollard]

I'll be very brief.

You have to be cautious with China ADS. There are only so many A340s and 767s in the world to be able to fly people across from China to Canada. It won't be the panacea a lot of people think it would be.

The other thing is we've prepared a document, a book, on Canadian hospitality for Chinese guests, which can be used obviously in hotels, but in a lot of different sectors. I encourage people to go to our website to look at it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

To continue, we'll go to Monsieur Paquette, s'il vous plaît, pour six minutes.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you to all of you for your presentations. They were very informative.

You have raised several points which are obvious to us. For example, we have been asking for a long time that the security tax be abolished, as well as a number of other things.

I wish to ask a question to the representative of the Canadian School Boards Association. First, I quite agree with you that it is illogical to ask a public educational institution to pay GST when these are taxpayers' provincial taxes which are transferred to the federal government which does not give back enough of them to the provinces. I think that you are absolutely right in that respect. We should stop charging them the goods and services tax, as we have done for municipalities.

With regard to the second point, dealing with immigrant and refugee children, you say:

CSBA brings this forward as a continuing priority and renews its call for stronger federal recognition of the role of communities and particularly school boards in the settlement and integration of immigrant and refugee children and their families.

I do agree on the principle, however I should like to know what this means in concrete terms. As you know, Quebec and the federal government have their own jurisdiction which we want to see respected when it comes to immigration. That said, the federal government of course has a responsibility in particular when it comes to refugees. I would like you to be a little more specific.

What do you want to say when you ask the federal government to recognize the role of school boards in the integration of newcomers, whether they be refugees or immigrants?

[Lance Bean]

Thank you very much.

Our concern is that there's an increased number of students coming into the system. It has caused a new dynamic of pressures in delivering the programs in our schools. Again, it's one of those areas where education is a provincial jurisdiction and immigration is a federal jurisdiction. One of the priorities of bringing people into our country is that we get them up and running and functional within our society and our communities.

Right now there are huge pressures in certain areas with language and some of the social areas that are in the education system. It's just an area that is growing and is causing concern. It also has an effect on the kids in the classroom. The supports aren't there for the new kids and it has an adverse affect on the kids who are already in the classroom. What we want to do is make sure that the supports are there for immigrant children coming into the schools that are not only advantageous for them but are also advantageous to maintain a high quality of education throughout the education system.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Would this mean that there should be specific transfers to provinces for the integration of new kids in the classroom? I am quite interested in this matter because my daughter is a school trustee.

[Lance Bean]

That makes it more important, doesn't it?

I think what we're after is for more support in the areas of immigrant children and the supports for them. We realize that the provincial governments are responsible for the direct educational costs. The immigration is an added cost to the education so we are asking for support there.