Logistics Study
Bailing the Ocean with a Teacup
Here is a declaration defining what we require, namely, a “safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of viable and effective transportation services that makes the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to serve the needs of shippers and travellers…and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada.”
This isn’t my declaration. It is taken from Section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act, 1996 (CTA) and is grandly entitled: National Transportation Policy. And as grand declarations go, it is suitably general in nature to guide the “spirit” of any other laws or regulations parliament in its wisdom should impose.
Briefly, it says transportation regulation, when required to foster safety and competition, should be devised so that it serves the users, that competition and market forces are the preferred agents for service delivery, that regulation will not unfairly limit competition between carriers, etc.
Would that it were always so. Transport Minister David Colenette has recently embarked on a “Vision Project.” The impetus of this most recent initiative appears to be two-fold: Canada’s infrastructure is on life-support, and the Liberal government is focusing on its Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to which transportation is the largest single contributor.
Regardless of the motivations presently striking the Minister, a concerted effort to take inventory and initiate a prioritization of infrastructure is long overdue. We’ve been very busy wringing our hands over the cutbacks in health and education, but have forgotten that these systems are the results of prosperity. Like third generation millionaires, we enjoy the luxuries but can’t be bothered to mind the shop.
One has only to look at what has been happening south of the border to realize just how dismissive Canada has been when it comes to basic economic hardware. The Americans are in the midst of a multi-billion dollar infrastructure improvement scheme, while in Canada the last budget earmarked $600-million for highways. We’re bailing the ocean with a teacup.
So I welcome this drive to produce a plan for the future. The federal government needs to not only articulate a vision for the kind of transportation system Canada will require in the future, it needs to figure out how to get there. But before government officials get too wrapped up in modal diversion, multi-phased infrastructure projects and regulatory “inducements” to “encourage” certain transportation behaviours, there is a whole list of remedial maintenance and refurbishment on the regulatory foundations to which attention is required.
The statutory review of the CTA will be completed by the time you read this and, we are told, will form the foundation for further work on this 10-year strategic plan. The intelligence gathered at last June’s Millennium Conference held in Toronto has also been cited as a key component to this initiative. This spring, the Minister undertook a series of roundtables to gain further insights from carriers and a few manufacturers.
The concern lies in that the users and service providers of the transportation system will be primary agents for change. If the government wants to truly build a transportation system for the 21st Century, then it has its own housekeeping to mind.
The government speaks expansively of intermodality. Yet its transportation-related policies are modally-based. Taxation policy, investment policy, legislative Acts all offer ample opportunity to compromise the goals of Canada’s transportation policy. In the arcane world of taxation policy, the different levels of contribution between the modes lend to an unproductive “us vs. them” dynamic that shows little sign of relenting.
This tendency also sets up inherent contradictions that are difficult to fathom. On one hand shippers must climb over legislative hurdles designed to deter them from forcing the issue of rail service levels. The perennial defence is that trucking is a viable alternative. In the next breath, they’ll be told that there are “too many trucks on the road” and queried why they have abandoned the railways. It’s been easy in the past, because highways were the provinces’ headache. But with the emissions conundrum, this bird has come home roost.
The government will upon occasion heave a great sigh at Canada’s lagging productivity and competitiveness. Perhaps the greatest the Liberals could do is to take to heart the National Transportation Policy and start doing away with the inefficiencies created by continuing regulations based on a 40+ year model that reflects little of the advances since. Into this pot we can throw the current Pilotage regime, exemptions to competition law for container lines and myriad others. To add insult to injury, the cost recovery initiatives of the past 10 years have now imposed on users direct invoicing for some of these dinosaurs.
Perhaps the most effective way to prevent inevitable deflation of the National Transportation Policy is to ensure that no subsequent legislation may compromise it. This will prevent the contradictions that appear in the Acts of other departments.
So the final message is: Canada has a good transportation policy. It is outlined in the current Act. What is required is the vision to remove the shackles that bind it to old methodologies before we determine where the first shovel will be plied.