Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for the invitation to join you from Treaty 7 territory here in Alberta.
The Canada West Foundation has worked for 50 years to ensure a strong west in a strong Canada. For the last decade, we have devoted particular attention to in-depth study of Canada's trade infrastructure, the system and assets that move goods, people, money and ideas to and from markets.
The committee has heard much about the importance of trade—the chamber's 66% figure was just mentioned—and we understand the importance of trade, but less well known in Canada is the perception globally of our trade infrastructure. This has come up repeatedly in testimony before the committee. It's been raised as a tangential issue, but it is, in fact, essential to understanding the significance of the strike and in understanding and evaluating any potential responses.
Very quickly, I'll give you some of the indicators of the plummeting perception of the quality of Canada's trade infrastructure that initiated our work and that drove and gave us some impetus in what we do.
The World Economic Forum's global competitiveness survey had Canada in the top 10 globally for trade infrastructure a decade ago. The last time the World Economic Forum ran the numbers, we were 32nd, right above Azerbaijan.
The World Bank's logistics performance index, which looks at a country's top five trading partners, found that our trading partners' perception of our trade infrastructure has declined precipitously in recent times.
Domestically, WESTAC's compass survey of Canadian stakeholders has consistently found that worries about the quality of the management of our trade infrastructure rank as a top concern. We hear this abroad. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Japan has backed our study and our work, citing the perceptions and worries in Japan about the quality of our trade infrastructure.
Why is this important when thinking about the impact and significance of the strike? Other countries, other trade systems and other economies have strikes. They have blockades. They have environmental issues that impact trade. The difference in Canada is not the perception but the knowledge of our trading partners that we do not have what every other major trading and exporting nation has, what the other G7 countries have and what most of the OECD countries have—namely, a permanent system and institutions to conduct ongoing analysis and collection of data and turn that analysis and information into information that can be used to inform decisions by all stakeholders.
You heard Transport Canada mention that in response to the strike, they rushed to set up something like this, something that our competitors have had. The issue for us in Canada is that when we do have a blockade or we do have a strike at the port, we start from a position with our customers and with our competitors where we are already in a hole. There are already doubts about our ability to manage the system. Therefore, things like strikes have a greater impact in Canada.
In response, based on research that we've done looking at international best practice, we've designed a system to enable Canada to adopt what our competitors have—a national trade infrastructure with a planning system that is permanent and in partnership with the private sector. This call has been backed by the private sector, the chamber, the Business Council of Canada and others. It was also backed by the premiers this summer at the Council of the Federation in Winnipeg. All 13 of the nation's premiers issued a call for Canada to move towards national trade infrastructure planning.
In terms of responses to the strike, you can whack the current mole that's popped up in trying to deal with the strike and legislation, but if you don't deal with the underlying systemic issues, any moves you make will be starting from a position of weakness and will not have credibility abroad.
With that, I'll conclude my remarks. I am also happy to take questions about the first question the committee had about the World Bank index study.
Thank you.