Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Good afternoon, everyone. I call to order meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), we are continuing our pre-budget consultations for 2014.
I would like to welcome everyone in the first panel of witnesses we will be hearing from this afternoon.
Good afternoon. You will have five minutes to give your presentation.
We'll start with Mr. Mahar from the Canadian Council.
Michael Mahar Director, Canadian Council, Amalgamated Transit Union
Ladies, gentlemen, and Mr. Chair, good afternoon. I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this pre-budget consultation. Today I want to speak briefly on the need for the federal government to design a Canadian transit framework.
I represent the Amalgamated Transit Union Canadian Council, the largest transit union in North America, representing 200,000 workers in Canada and the United States. ATU Canada is the governing body in Canada regarding all external matters of Canadian interest, whether legislative, political, educational, cultural, social, or economic.
We've represented front-line support staff and front-line staff in transit from Vancouver to Newfoundland for over 100 years. We've experienced first-hand the public's response to both well-funded and underfunded transportation systems and have seen the challenges to the industry when the economy fluctuates while transit infrastructure is funded ad hoc or through a short-term vision in some areas.
ATU Canada proposes permanent dedicated funding for public transit to maintain, renew, and expand transit services across Canada. ATU Canada recommends to government that at least one source of this permanent funding be a percentage of the current fuel and gas tax funds. Additional revenues sources should be considered, such as a small portion of the goods and services tax and/or an employer payroll tax.
Canada is one of the few developed countries without a federal policy covering the long-term predictable transit investment that would permit our transit systems to achieve their full potential. A Canadian transit framework would provide economic and environmental benefits to all Canadians by ensuring that gridlock is reduced while allowing the public to reach their destinations in a safe and timely manner. Furthermore, tourism would be enhanced when our cities could boast world-class transit systems.
Effective world-class transit systems will increase Canada's ability to compete globally in a world economy, help to protect our environment, and improve our quality of life. Expanding public transportation can help create thousands of new, green, well-paid jobs and save billions of dollars in time, energy, and other efficiencies.
Equally important, a world-class public transit system creates an all-inclusive community, a community that provides and even protects the most vulnerable in our society. A Canadian transit framework would also help to level the playing field for a large segment of that group, those who cannot afford a private vehicle, thereby aiding a segment of society that tends to get marginalized under the current system.
Industry Canada notes the following inequity in vehicle use in Canada and recognizes those who tend to be most disadvantaged by that inequity. Under the title “Vehicle use in Canada: Some unintended consequences”, it notes:
Canadians are avid users of private transportation. If sustainable transportation initiatives are ever to be implemented, changes in vehicle use will be required. Private automobiles...account for a significant share of transportation operations and are associated with relatively high environmental costs. That all environmental costs are not reflected in the vehicle price favours an inefficient focus on private transportation that has sufficient distributional impacts...”.
Industry Canada goes on to note:
...in car-oriented industrial countries, those who either cannot afford a car or are unable to operate one often have no access to jobs, schools, health centres, and other important destinations. Children, the handicapped, the poor and the elderly are not only made less mobile by an auto-based system, but they also bear the brunt of its costs: the physically weak suffer the most from pollution, and the poor are those most often displaced by roads.
At the FCM conference in 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that better transit means fewer cars; fewer cars mean cleaner air, and of course cleaner air means people breathing easier.
It is unusual for any industry's biggest stress to be their success, but even some of the more progressive transit systems in Canada struggle financially due to a steady growth in ridership owing to urban sprawl, an aging population, and more and more younger Canadians moving away from cars and onto public transit.
It appears that these same Canadians are now ready to pay for better public transit also. A recent survey by CivicAction in Toronto shows that people are willing to pay more for public transit if the funds are dedicated to and assured to go towards public transportation. These same sentiments have been echoed across Canada. The main platform for the candidates in Toronto's current municipal election is public transportation. ATU Canada has seen these same sentiments unfold at the municipal level across the country for many years.
It is worth noting that a recent CBC online poll showed that 88% of the 359 respondents said yes when asked if Canada should adopt a national transit strategy. Of course, the Canadian Urban Transit Association is here today, so I won't go into any detail, but our friends from CUTA have lobbied for a Canadian transit framework for many years now and have released a paper on the same issue. I know they'll be speaking on that today. We certainly share a lot of the same philosophies with respect to that. We certainly share a lot of the same philosophies with respect to that.
I thank you for your time.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you very much, Mr. Mahar.
Ms. Reynolds, you have up to five minutes, please.
Jennifer Reynolds Director, Community Services, Town of Milton, Past President, Canadian Parks and Recreation Association
Mr. Chair, committee members, on behalf of the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, or CPRA, I'd like to thank you very much for inviting our association to appear at your pre-budget hearings. I'm Jennifer Reynolds, a past president of CPRA and the director of community services for the Town of Milton, Ontario.
CPRA is the national voice on the social, health, economic, and environmental benefits of parks and recreation. We most directly serve the interests of municipal parks and recreation while also supporting the broader sector in its delivery of these benefits nationally. We were pleased when we saw that two of the themes for your pre-budget process included ensuring prosperous and secure communities, including support for infrastructure, and supporting families and helping vulnerable Canadians by focusing on health, education, and training. Our recommendations support these themes.
We believe high-quality, accessible recreation opportunities are essential to the healthy well-being of individuals and the vibrancy of a dynamic society. All people and communities deserve equitable access to recreational experiences, yet the physical deterioration of the country's sport and recreation infrastructure is dramatically inhibiting many Canadians from achieving the health and social benefits derived from recreational pursuits. As such, we're here before you to recommend that the 2015 budget include an annual commitment of $925 million for three years to partner with provinces, territories, and municipalities to invest in an infrastructure program dedicated specifically to recreation and sport.
I'll take a moment to explain our recommendation. In the first half of the last decade, provinces and territorial governments and affiliated not-for-profit recreation and parks associations undertook studies that inventoried and assessed the physical condition of sport and recreation in Canada. The results of these studies were used to estimate that over $15 billion in deferred capital investment was required to repair or replace those facilities. This estimate did not account for funding for new facilities to meet growth-related requirements or to meet the country's changing demographic or cultural profile.
In 2006 provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity, and recreation used this information as the basis for calling for a designated national infrastructure program that would help to increase opportunities for Canadians. Since 2006 a number of programs—the Canada economic action plan, the infrastructure stimulus fund, and the recreation infrastructure in Canada program, or RInC—provided some needed funding support. These programs have helped certain communities with pressing recreational imperatives, but they really only represent a small proportion of the national need.
The $14-billion 2014 new Building Canada fund was announced, yet sport and recreation does not comply. The federal budget also included a federal gas tax fund increase, which is allocated to provinces and territories. While sport and recreation projects can apply, they must compete against 16 other categories. Evidence suggests that many municipalities will allocate funds to sewer and roads rather than pools, arenas, or trails, yet our sector across Canada is in desperate need of investment. Consider the scenario that more than 50% of municipally owned sport and recreation facilities across the country are at the end of their useful life, and most require renovation or upgrade. Facilities built before 1990 require retrofit to protect public safety and meet new standards for accessibility and energy efficiency. New facilities are needed to meet future population growth.
The 2006 estimate of $15 billion is now valued at $17 billion. Recognizing the many important demands on tax-supported funds, we're calling upon the federal government to work collaboratively within a shared mandate to address these needs. We're seeking an investment that focuses strictly on addressing critical repairs, maintenance, and adaptations necessary to ensure that these valued facilities remain as safe and reliable public assets.
Based on traditional tri-party funding programs involving federal, provincial, and municipal governments, the total ask of $925 million per annum for three years links directly to the pre-budget theme of ensuring prosperous and secure communities. Parks and recreation touch all Canadians. Recreation infrastructure is one of the most important core investments that can be made into the prosperity, health, and security of urban and rural communities. Although economic benefit is not the primary driver, recreation and sport infrastructure creates jobs. We provide welcoming communities for diverse cultures and aboriginal people.
As we near Canada's sesquicentennial, a meaningful investment into the health of our citizens would result in recapturing a community spirit second to none. The inclusion of a dedicated community fund will deliver a meaningful and tangible impact on the lives of families in rural and urban communities across the country.
Thank you.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you very much, Ms. Reynolds.
Mr. Roschlau, you have up to five minutes, please.
Michael Roschlau President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Honourable members of the committee, we are extremely grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Canadian Urban Transit Association, or CUTA, is the collective voice of Canada's public transit and integrated mobility sector.
I'd like to begin by highlighting that over the last decade, all orders of government have recognized the importance of public transit by increasing their investment in this strategic sector. Since 2006 the federal government alone has invested nearly $8 billion in transit infrastructure across the country, particularly through the Building Canada plan. It's no secret, however, that no single government can sustain the cost of building major transit projects single-handedly.
The federal government can certainly appreciate this dilemma, having, itself, recently looked at innovative tools to help pay for infrastructure projects, such as public-private partnership as an alternative funding mechanism.
The industry is open to alternative funding sources such as P3s, but the current procurement model restricts the federal government to a maximum of 25% share of the cost in a P3. This often leaves municipalities and provinces with a more substantial share of the initial capital investment up front. As the federal government prepares its next budget, it should consider raising its maximum share of P3 projects from 25% to 33%, especially in cases where no private partners are providing initial capital investments.
On another note, building public transit is one of the best solutions for our communities to grow and prosper. Transit plays an important role in reducing traffic congestion, which costs Canada over $10 billion in lost productivity every year. It's estimated that Canadians spend on average 32 working days a year commuting back and forth to and from work.
To respond effectively to these challenges transit projects require a predictable and stable investment. As it stands, the transit industry still faces a $3-billion annual funding gap to meet the needs of infrastructure expansion and renewal. CUTA recommends that the federal government work with its provincial and municipal counterparts to increase the ratio of infrastructure funding going to transit projects.
By investing in transit infrastructure, we can maximize job creation in communities across the country. The Canadian transit industry employs 75,000 people and creates thousands more in spinoff jobs. In addition, many of the manufacturers, consultants, and suppliers at the core of the industry have developed their expertise here in Canada and export a substantial share of their production. Despite difficult economic times, they've continued to sustain a long legacy of public transit innovation, which has helped them increase their share of the North American transit market.
In order to maintain our competitive advantage, the federal government can partner directly with the Canadian Urban Transit Research & Innovation Consortium, a new not-for-profit organization dedicated to bringing industry and academia together to increase technological development in Canadian transit.
Before concluding, I'd like to be clear on one more point: buy America. Now more than ever, the threat of protectionist measures being debated in the United States regarding buy America procurement rules is real. That could raise U.S. transit content from 60% to 100%, putting hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadian jobs at risk if transit manufacturers are forced to shift their production to the U.S. We will continue to work with the Government of Canada to come up with solutions to help protect the high-value jobs in the Canadian transit industry and address these concerns with our U.S. counterparts.
In conclusion, public transit investments grow our economy, create jobs, fund made-in-Canada technological innovations and provide sustainable transit solutions to communities of all sizes.
We commend the Government of Canada for its support and wish to extend our full cooperation in the ongoing improvement of our policy framework. Together, we can create an optimal environment to maximize Canada's return on public transit investment in the 21st century.
Do I have a few seconds left?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
Okay, I'll take 10 of those just to thank you all for your support of Bill S-221 on crimes against transit employees.
Thank you so much.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you, Mr. Roschlau.
Mr. Mattina, you have up to five minutes, please.
Domenic Mattina Chairman, Merit Canada
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
My name is Domenic Mattina and I am the current president and owner of Mattina Mechanical Limited, a second-generation open-shop mechanical contracting firm in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors based out of Hamilton, Ontario.
I am also the current chairman of the Merit Canada board of directors. Merit Canada is the national voice for Canada's eight provincial open-shop construction associations. For us the term “open shop” simply describes a workplace where membership or non-membership in a union is not a condition of employment.
Merit Canada has two priorities for its 2015 budget, neither of which costs a dime. Both issues—open tendering and union job targeting funds—are market-distorting measures that impose severe competitive challenges for the non-unionized construction sector.
I want to address a key point. Merit Canada does not view unionized contractors as adversaries but rather as competitors. However, for that competition to be fair, there has to be a level playing field, and that simply does not exist with these two issues.
Let me start with open tendering, a system in which construction contracts are awarded on the basis of corporate merit. Unfortunately in too many jurisdictions, not all Canadians are allowed to bid on federally funded projects. Instead, access is restricted to specific unionized contractors affiliated with the building trades. As a result, approximately seven out of 10 Canadian construction workers in the open shop sector are excluded from employment on such projects. To make things even less competitive, specific unions, over other unions, also have privileged access to these contracts, thereby further shrinking the competitive pool. It is easy to predict what will happen when 70% or more of the competition is shut out: quality will go down and costs will go up. These costs are very real.
The City of Montreal found that closed tendering inflated project costs anywhere from 30% to 85%. For Hamilton, it was 40%. A Cardus study suggests that Ontarians are paying 20% to 30% more for construction projects subject to closed tendering.
Obviously there is a fiscal argument to be made regarding open tendering, but there is also the issue of fairness. Our members and their employees are barred from bidding on contracts paid for with their tax dollars because they do not belong to the right union. In fact, on the latter point, Cardus suggests that restrictions on competitive bidding serve as a petri dish for corruption in public procurement. It is, in short, an inherently flawed system with no basis in public policy.
Therefore, our primary recommendation for the 2015 budget is to implement open tendering for all projects that use federal funds.
Let me address our second priority, job targeting funds or JTFs. You may also have heard them referred to as market enhancement recovery funds or MERFs. In simple terms, these are superfunds managed by union bosses that are built through mandatory contributions from members of a union or their employer, which are then used to undermine the competitive bidding process. The funds are administered by a union local, and payments are made in response to employer applications to subsidize wages to be paid by that employer to workers for a contract or a job for which the employer may be competing against a non-unionized one. In effect these massive funds are used to cross-subsidize workers on jobs for which unionized employers have to compete against non-unionized ones.
Merit Canada believes their use raises a number of important public policy questions. First of all, is the practice a violation of the Competition Act? Second, should unionized employers and workers be given a leg up when bidding as a result of subsidized wages? Third, should job targeting funds be exempt both for the contributor and for the recipient? Fourth, should unionized workers and employers be forced to subsidize the salaries of other workers via mandatory contributions to these funds? Finally, are job targeting funds having an impact on public infrastructure costs?
Given these important public policy questions, we recommend that the government ask the commissioner of competition to review job targeting funds for compliance with the Competition Act, and ask Canada Revenue Agency whether contributions meet the requirements for a deduction under the Income Tax Act.
As mentioned at the outset, neither of these recommendations costs the government anything. However, both are critical to ensuring a fair and competitive construction marketplace, with the added bonus of open tendering potentially saving billions in infrastructure costs and creating more employment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
NDP
Sunil Johal Policy Director, University of Toronto, Mowat Centre
Good afternoon. My name is Sunil Johal, and I'm the policy director at the Mowat Centre with the University of Toronto. I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in these pre-budget consultations.
My remarks will focus on the role of infrastructure investments in enabling prosperous and secure communities. I will briefly touch on four issues: the need for investment in infrastructure, the importance of linking investments to broader policy considerations, challenges with existing federal investment plans, and how Ontario is disadvantaged by existing approaches.
First, Canada has a clear and recognized need for infrastructure investments that support future prosperity. Public infrastructure investments—over 5% of GDP through the 1960s—declined in subsequent decades, with some recovery over the past decade. This trend can be seen in figure 1 of my brief.
This period of lower levels of public investment was exacerbated by low levels of private capital investment in Canada compared with OECD peers. This investment shortfall has left a significant share of public infrastructure in need of renewal, from our increasingly congested cities to first nations communities with substandard housing and inadequate water systems.
Canadian governments have recognized the need for infrastructure investments and responded with long-term investment plans.
This brings me to my second point. As these plans move forward, it is essential for our economic prosperity that they be adequate, aligned, and integrated with other policy objectives. The increasing prominence of the service sector in our economy, an aging population, and urbanization among other trends demands different approaches to what we consider critical economic infrastructure. Additionally, federal infrastructure investment decisions ought to take into account the way emerging technologies might cause an existing infrastructure to fall out of step with the needs of communities and the economy.
Given the long life of assets, it is essential that the choices we make today on public infrastructure set us on a sustainable course. This means ensuring that investments maximize efficiency of our resource usage and minimize impacts on air, water, and land resources. Adaptation to climate change must also be integrated into design and planning.
The third issue I'd like to address is the fact that it will be difficult to meet these objectives in the context of existing federal infrastructure investment plans. While the long-term commitments in the new Building Canada plan are welcome, federal infrastructure investments are by far the smallest contribution to public infrastructure in Canada. According to the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis, the federal government is responsible for about 12% of public infrastructure investments in Ontario, with provincial and local governments covering the remaining 88%.
Canada stands apart from OECD peer federations by a large margin in the role that subnational governments play today in public investment, as can be seen in figure 2 of my brief.
Building adequate infrastructure to meet our needs depends on greater investment from the federal government. However, not only must the level of federal infrastructure investment be addressed but also the way those investments are managed. Federal dollars are delivered through a long list of programs that have often diverged from their original commitments on focus and funding level. It is exceedingly difficult to map which projects have been selected under which program and why. One example is the green infrastructure fund, which has nearly $150 million unexplained publicly.
ln addition to transparency challenges, the use of boutique programs brings challenges from a policy and operational standpoint. Designing programs to leverage additional funding from other governments makes the returns on federal investments appear larger, but skews local investment decisions to federal criteria. The need to fit federal project selection windows for limited funds often prioritizes the shovel-ready over the important. Furthermore, transaction costs are higher and flexibility is limited by the multitude of infrastructure programs.
Finally, I'd like to address how the current federal approach disadvantages Ontario. The largest of these concerns stems from the provincial-territorial infrastructure component of the Building Canada fund in the new Building Canada plan. Ontario is set to receive about 28% of this $9.6-billion fund over the next 10 years, compared to its 38.5% share of the population. This is because the federal government has carved out about one-third of this fund to distribution to provinces on an equal basis: $250 million per jurisdiction, regardless of size or need.
In conclusion, to take advantage of a generational opportunity to invest in our infrastructure, Canada will need to move towards a more strategic and coordinated approach that takes account of a broader range of policy considerations and the priorities and capacity of other governments and sectors.
Thank you.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you very much, Mr. Johal, as well as all of our witnesses today.
Committee members, I'm going to suggest that the first round be seven minutes each, if that's acceptable.
We'll start with Monsieur Caron.
You have seven minutes.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their informative presentations. I am going to focus more on the issue of public transit.
I will begin with Mr. Mahar until Mr. Roschlau is ready.
Mr. Mahar, you mentioned that Canada was the only G8 country without a national public transit strategy. I assume you wish there were one in place.
Could you tell me how many OECD countries have a public transit strategy? Could you list the ideal components of such a strategy, in 3 to 5 points? What does a national transit strategy need to have so that the federal government can make effective investments in public transit?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
First of all, just to put the question in context—
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Pardon me, Mr. Roschlau, but my question was for Mr. Mahar. I will get to you next.
October 20th, 2014 / 3:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Council, Amalgamated Transit Union
I apologize that I don't have the exact numbers, but certainly when you look at the European countries that do have it, they have a fulsome type of transportation system that interchanges among all modes of transportation, whether it is bike, car, bus, high-speed rail, heavy rail, or light rail. Those countries that do have it have a very high percentage of ridership, which I believe we currently lack in Canada.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Roschlau, what are your thoughts on that?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
Let's put the question in context.
It really depends on how you define a strategy. Different countries have different approaches to how they support public transit, be it through funding policies or other mechanisms. So that makes it really tough to say which countries have a strategy and which ones don't.
However, a core element of a strategy could be better alignment between infrastructure investments in new subway lines or light rail systems, for instance, and land use planning. That is the most important principle. Ensuring that investments are as effective as possible is key, so it's important to target the investment in the area that will deliver the best return and ridership. The right investment formula is also necessary to ensure adequate and ongoing funding in the context of a multi-level government partnership.
Finally, a research and development program to help develop state-of-the-art technology would be important, in addition to ridership incentives. That could take the form of an excise tax exemption for employers who want to give their employees a choice between a parking spot and a monthly transit pass, for example.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I don't have very much time left, but I have other questions I'd like to ask you. So I am going to pick up on the topic of research and development.
One of your recommendations was to partner with private contributors and universities to build a research network. You also highlighted certain facts regarding current levels of R and D investment. In your brief, you said that Canada ranked 20th out of 37 countries in R and D spending.
Today, what are the barriers preventing us from establishing a network like the one you describe or an R and D infrastructure that would enable us to do what needs to be done?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
The first challenge is to build a community that brings together the private sector, transit networks, universities and government. That is the idea behind the new not-for-profit consortium that was just approved by Industry Canada. In the coming months, we will establish a board of directors that represents the interests of the various stakeholders to determine the degree to which a true consensus exists as to the next steps.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I have about two-and-a-half minutes left. I'd like to discuss the Buy American Act. I have two or three short questions for you on the subject.
First of all, there is clearly a problem. Have you raised the issue with the government? And if so, what was its response?
Second of all, you talked about negotiating an exemption. Usually, when you negotiate to get something, you have to give something up in return. Do you think the Americans would accept that? What could we offer them in exchange for an exemption?
And lastly, you mentioned in your brief that Canadian-based builders and manufacturers held 70% of the manufacturing market, and that is despite the Buy American Act. How are Canadian companies managing to do so well in the face of the restrictions, or barriers, imposed by our trading partner?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
I'll start with the last question.
In Canada, we have a very rich history in terms of public transit innovation and manufacturing. The vast majority of bus manufacturers, as well as rail manufacturers, have long been based in Canada. The industry has grown accustomed to complying with the U.S. standards as far as 60% American content and final assembly in the U.S. are concerned. So a manufacturing approach has been established to adhere to those rules.
That being said, it's a very fine line. Any change, even raising the level of American content from 60% to 70%, could wreak havoc in the industry and prompt companies to move their manufacturing operations to the U.S.
As for our position and that of the current government, we strongly support free trade and keeping the current standards and rules in place. We are against raising the proportion of American content. The federal government and Canada's ambassador in Washington have made that clear. We are all very much on the same page. The problem is it's definitely a big threat from a U.S. policy standpoint right now.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you, Mr. Roschlau.
Thank you, Mr. Caron.
It is now over to Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Keddy, go ahead for up to seven minutes, please.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Welcome, witnesses.
From the Canadian Urban Transit Association, Mr. Roschlau, I'm looking for two things. First, we should negotiate a special permanent exemption agreement for buy American procurement rules pertaining to public transit rolling stock. Second, we should partner with transit manufacturers, universities, and other private contributors to invest in research and development.
On the second point, in budget 2014 we established the Canada first research excellence fund with $1.5 billion in investments over 10 years. We committed to a long-term strategic vision for research and innovation in Canada, and, in fact, it's been well received, especially by the universities in Canada. David Barnard, the president of the University of Manitoba, has said this is a pivotal moment for research excellence and innovation in Canada.
That being said, is this enough? Is this going to be the spark that generates research and innovation in the transportation sector?
We can always do more. That's a loaded question, but how do you see that being applied in practical terms?