Finance Committee on Sept. 19th, 2006

[David Bradley]

I don't have any inside information on why it was cancelled. All I would say is that this program was working. We are aware of the fact that the new government is developing a new “clean air act”—or that's the name it's been tagged with—and we think this program is one that deserves reinstatement.

As part of the issue, one might ask why the industry doesn't invest in these things anyway. In most cases we would agree with that. But what we found with the auxiliary power units is that there's a heck of a cost associated with maintaining them. When you get that sort of message out to the industry, people are loathe to make an investment. So it requires, we believe, an incentive at this point to give people some comfort that they're not going to be absorbing a huge cost as a result of doing this.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Given their lack of enthusiasm for the environment, what about your appendix C, which talks about trying to get a tax credit for investing in high-performance engines and new tires and aerodynamic improvements, which apparently would cost something on the order of about $25,000 a truck? Do you really think you have a snowball's chance on that one?

[David Bradley]

I remain eternally optimistic.

[An hon. member]

How long does eternity last?

[David Bradley]

Well, an eternity, perhaps.

Indeed, if the environment is a key and important issue to this country, both in terms of GHG and in terms of air quality, then I think what we're proposing makes a heck of a lot of sense. The kinds of incentives we're talking about here are not enormous. Many of them are going to require provincial cooperation. While our transportation industry is one it's easy to point to as a bogeyman in environmental terms, we don't get credit for what we do as a sector, and we've been excluded historically from the kinds of incentives that have been made available to other sectors—manufacturing, agriculture, etc.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Just as a final point, one of the reasons your trucks are doing a lot of idling has to do with border problems. I'm given to understand there's a tax recently imposed by the U.S. government with respect to border crossings. Can you elaborate on that, please?

[David Bradley]

I think what you're referring to is just the latest in a long and ever-expanding list of so-called security measures. The most recent one is--not even a proposed rule--an interim rule that was published a couple of weeks ago by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, whereby starting on November 24 they will begin to conduct inspections looking for possible sources of pests and disease in product that some shippers, it would appear, are importing from elsewhere in the world and putting a “produce of Canada” label on.

We believe that if there are issues surrounding that, they can be dealt with within the Departments of Agriculture, and we don't see why members of the trucking industry, including truckers who are hauling auto parts and everything else, need to pay this new Department of Agriculture fee.

But as I say, this is part of a long list of irritants at the border. The U.S. security folks long ago moved away from risk assessment to checking everything and everyone all of the time, and because trucks are an easy target and we're at the front line, we end up paying it often.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

What role, if any, has the government played in trying to assist the trucking industry, and indeed the shipping industry generally, with respect to this latest imposition of so-called terrorism issues?

[David Bradley]

Bio-terrorism is the term they're using. Agriculture Minister Strahl met last week with his counterpart, and the indication we received was that the preliminary meeting was positive and that they are at least prepared to look at alternatives. So again, as I said to you earlier, I remain eternally hopeful, but just as it seems it's safe to go back in the water, they come up with other measures.

At the border we're not seeing the kinds of slowdowns necessarily that we have seen in years gone by, but I can tell you the reason for that is that traffic is down across the border in terms of both car traffic and tourists, but also because our manufacturing sector has been hit extraordinarily hard by the dollar appreciation. Traffic levels are masking some of the problems at the border at the present level.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We now go to Mr. St-Cyr.

You have four minutes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

We thank you for your presence among us today.

I should like to speak a little with Mr. .Bradley about the trucking industry.

Frankly, I am rather pleased to see a submission by the trucking industry which deals as much with the environment. You are right when you say that the reputation of that industry has not always been very good in that respect. Therefore, it's interesting to note that in this case, it is the industry which asks the government to put greater emphasis on the environment. As a matter of fact, nowadays, it is rather the other way around.

I wanted to deal in particular with the matter of auxiliary power units on board of trucks. If I understand correctly, this is a program which worked very well but was cancelled when the new government came to power. How does the success of this program compare with that of other programs? We heard a lot about the EnerGuide program and its amazing success with regard to greenhouse gas reduction, especially with regard to the cost on a per tonne basis, which was rather low. However, I had never heard that this other program existed. I must have missed that.

Can you tell us what was the yield of this program relative to others, whether they are existing or terminated programs?

[David Bradley]

No, I don't. There are no other similar programs in the transportation sector, and that's what I'm involved in. How that compares to allowing people to get rid of microwaves quicker and that sort of thing, I can't say.

However, I think it's clear that transportation is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. While all the modes bear some responsibility for that, and certainly I think the freight sector pales in comparison, for example, to the contribution of cars, we believe that all components of our industry, all the various sectors, need to do everything they can, not only to enhance their fuel efficiency and thereby reduce greenhouse gases, but something that's been lost in all of this is smog. I cringe. This isn't a shot at public broadcasting, but every time I watch the CBC and they talk about GHG and you see smog in Toronto, people just don't get it. They're two different things.

Our industry, perhaps more than any other, has made terrific strides in terms of improving air quality. It's somewhat tongue in cheek, but not really, that the air coming out of the new trucks that are entering the marketplace this fall will be cleaner than the air you're breathing in most cities. What we have lacked I think is a comprehensive environmental policy that in fact recognizes the difference between air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and we're hopeful now that we can bring the two together.

In that regard, if you look at our clean air act plan--and as I indicated, from a smog point of view we're talking about eliminating the equivalent of about 100,000 current trucks from the roadways in Canada and from a GHG perspective about 46,000 trucks. I would challenge that against any other program out there at the present time in terms of its impact.

The other thing is that what we're talking about isn't rocket science. We're talking about technology that is there already. We're simply talking about getting it into the marketplace quicker so you can have an immediate impact.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

As far as the greenhouse gas reduction and atmospheric pollution are concerned, you are telling us that ultimately, it is wrong to suggest that it is impossible to reach our objectives and that nothing can be done in that respect. It is possible: all that is needed, for us as a society, is to have the necessary will and determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I think we have time for a very brief comment.

[David Bradley]

I think we can do better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, sir.

Before we conclude, I will remind committee members that we will be reconvening at 3:30, immediately following the vote this afternoon. Apparently there's a vote. I encourage members to arrive as promptly as possible following that vote so we can keep the maximum time available for our witnesses this afternoon.

To conclude, Madame Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you for your presentations. We don't have a chance to have discussions in-depth with all of you, but we know that your material will be very helpful.

I did want to concentrate on the tourism factor, and the hotel industry is part of this, of course, because we want as Canadians to be internationally competitive, globally competitive, as well as making sure that institutions within our own country are helping. There's huge competition for travelling dollars, particularly as the population ages; we'll have more people doing more travelling in all of the developed world.

My question really is for us to concentrate on what needs to happen for our industry to be internationally competitive. It would be helpful if both of you could just discuss that a little bit.

[Anthony Pollard]

The first point you have to be conscious of is that we are lacking a sufficient number of workers. Out in Alberta you know this very well. We've got hotels out there that are only half open because we don't have the people to work in them.

We need to be able to convince the human resources department that there is a problem. They continue to be exceedingly bureaucratic, running around saying to us, "Well, prove to us that you can't find workers". We have. There are no workers.

A solution is to bring in other workers from other countries under Canada's temporary foreign worker program. I have people from El Salvador, the Philippines, Barbados, and the Dominican Republic. They are trained. They speak English. They're ready, willing, and able to come up here right now. The hotels will pay to fly these people up here, and yet the government continues to be so bureaucratic and to hold up all of these blockages to allow us to do it.

That is the number one priority that we need to address right now. And it would be particularly beneficial for you out in Alberta, particularly in the resorts, and in British Columbia, right across the board. That's what we need to do to be competitive.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That's helpful.

[Randy Williams]

Three things. First, I agree with Tony that HR is our number one issue, one of our top three. It's a challenge right across the country. It used to be just a summertime problem, in our peak season, but it's a problem throughout the year now. We have to do a better job of getting foreign workers to work in our country and allowing immigration to bring in workers for our industry.

Open Skies is not a costly venture. It doesn't impact the budget of the federal government. We need to be more open to liberalizing our airways and allowing for greater access from China and from other countries so that people can visit us. We are difficult to get to, and when they're here, Canada's airlines are expensive compared to those of the rest of the world. We don't have enough competition, and the government is in too many airlines' pockets. We need to take them out of the airports and the ATSC.

Finally, we have a competitive industry right now that's globally ready, market ready, but if you don't advertise, if you don't tell the world.... Australia, a country two-thirds the size of Canada, is now investing $150 million. We invested $85 million three years ago, and now $75 million. You cut our budget by $10 million in three years. When the rest of the world anted up, according to the UNWTO, with an 11% increase in promotion and marketing, we cut ours by 12% in three years.

So we're going in the wrong direction. You can't compete without advertising. If the world doesn't know about your product, they won't come. That's the challenge.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you to all our panellists for appearing today and for the quality of your presentations and responses. We very much appreciate it.

We are adjourned.