Skip to content
 

INTERCITY BUS SERVICE IN CANADA

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications

THIRD REPORT


5.  OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 

The following section identifies options based on the analysis of the issues in section four of this report.  The Committee considered these options in arriving at its recommendations, which appear in the following section.  These options are related to the key questions posed by the Minister when he invited the Committee to undertake this work.  In summary, the Minister had asked for a prescription to solve the problems that face the bus industry, mainly the problem of the declining role of the bus industry in the movement of passengers in Canada. 

In reality, the federal government has only a few ways in which it can bring about change in this field.  These include:  i) changes to the provisions of the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 concerning the economic regulation of buses; ii) changes to subsidy policies for other modes of transport; iii) changes to safety policies; and iv) the use of money, either as tax incentives and disincentives or through more direct subsidies, to correct various shortcomings. 

 

5.1       Regulatory Options 

In considering what recommendations to make, the Committee had to consider seriously the “do nothing option,” which for some with an interest in intercity buses could be quite popular.  After all, little has changed legislatively for bus regulation in almost fifty years, and the decline in bus passenger traffic seems to have stopped.  In addition, each province is currently free to act as it wishes in this matter, and it can be argued that the sort of bus service at issue here is more regional in nature than national.   

Some provinces have deregulated, while others have not.  Safety standards are being brought up to date through changes to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, and the implementation of the National Safety Code.  Problems of poor service, or of no service at all, in rural areas are perhaps a social problem for which transport subsidies are not the answer, because they tend to become self-perpetuating.  The question therefore rises as to why any changes should be made. 

The other end of the spectrum from the do-nothing option is to take action and change the regulatory regime that has led to the present situation, and that, as previously noted, has not prevented a significant decline in ridership.   

Obviously, much of this drop is due to increased car ownership, more air travel and so on.  Rail travel has also fallen over this period.  To explain the continued drop in bus travel through the 1980s and 1990s is more difficult.  It may simply be that buses have lost their appeal, and are perceived as dowdy, noisy and bumpy.  This situation may have arisen because there is limited competition and operators have no incentives to be innovative, since regulation ensures them a steady rate of return and a comfortable existence.   

Accepting that deregulation, although not perfect, has generally worked well wherever it has been tried in the transportation field, another option would be for the federal government to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 so as to remove relevant sections, thereby leaving the provinces without the delegated authority to regulate.  Markets would be open to competition, and only safety and insurance considerations would limit the entrepreneur from fighting to improve service, winning back passengers and making money at the same time. 

There are middle options with regard to deregulation.  Extra-provincial trucking was at one time been treated the way buses currently are, but changes implemented in 1987 began a process that eventually led to the complete deregulation mentioned earlier.  This was a gradual process, involving a transitional period during which a reverse-onus test applied.  Under that reverse-onus test, applicants for licences to a provincial board would get approval without a hearing, unless some person made the case that granting the licence would likely be detrimental to the public interest.  This reverse onus process was intended to last five years, after which the criteria for a licence would be safety and insurance “fitness,” and nothing else.  While there were some delays in the final steps, today deregulation in trucking is now complete. 

This was not a painless process, and much concern was voiced that deregulation would be disruptive, that carriers were losing the value of their licences (which at one time could be traded), that safety would be compromised and so on.  In the end deregulation did occur, pushed along by strong shipper or user groups.  In the busing field, user groups comparable to those that advocated change in the trucking area do not exist. 

The options for charter services are to regulate them in step with scheduled services or to treat them separately.  A case can be made that, where scheduled services are regulated, charters should be too.  On the other hand it has been reported that, in earlier discussions, some provinces were prepared to move to deregulate charters while leaving scheduled routes regulated. 

 

5.2       Remote Service Options 

The options for regulatory action must take into account the remote service issue.  Deregulation may lead to a discontinuation of service on routes that are now cross-subsidized.  On the other hand, these routes would now be open for any company wishing to enter the business.  Such new entrants could try to offer service with different equipment, and could well meet with the kind of success that van operators appear to have enjoyed in Nova Scotia. 

There are areas of the country that have no rural service, even in provinces that are already deregulated, such as Prince Edward Island.  This argues for the establishment of some fund or program that would assist in the establishment of community-based bus services, perhaps catering for operations of up to a 100-kilometre radius. 

It could be argued that such services are not a federal responsibility.  However, decreasing mobility as the population ages could well be identified as a matter of national concern. 

Options could include reliance on a deregulated market to allow for the establishment of new but different services in remote and rural areas; or the establishment of some form of community-based bus program with grants, preferably capital rather than operating, to assist in setting up small businesses to operate these services.

 

5.3       Safety Options 

Since the safety record of buses and their operators is good, incorporation of intra-provincial carriers into the provisions of the 2001 amendments to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 can only make things better.  Options should focus on the standards for small buses, particularly those that are identical in construction to a private vehicle.  For these, the options include insistence that such vehicles, when licensed as buses, be built to different standards, perhaps involving structural strength and air bags; or placing greater emphasis on regular maintenance checks and driver qualifications. 

 

5.4       Financial Options 

The possibility of new programs inevitably raises questions about the source of funds and the amounts involved.  It is difficult to estimate what a community assistance program of the sort mentioned above might cost.  One option would be to fund operating subsidies.  The federal government currently does this for Via Rail and ferries, though governments often prefer to subsidize through one-time capital contributions rather than through ongoing operating grants.   

The calculation of a subsidy could be based on current revenues that go to cross-subsidization.  Service-line revenue for scheduled service was $236 million in 1999, with a further $88 million from parcel express.[1]  Remote services are estimated to amount to about 15% of total ridership.  As mentioned earlier, one operator told the Committee that about 10% of revenue goes to subsidize remote services.  However, many rural areas have no service now, and it is difficult to estimate what the national demand might be. 

What might be the source of money for any new program?  Increased taxes on gasoline are a favourite suggestion and remain worthy of consideration.  Another source is the existing subsidy program of Transport Canada itself.   

 

5.5       Environmentally Related Options 

Environmental options should focus on the key area of getting people out of their cars and making the bus more attractive in one way or another.  If there were a shift from private automobiles to public forms of transport, per-capita fuel use and the emission of greenhouse gases would be reduced, since buses are very efficient.   

Some of the options covered under other headings above are relevant here, but more direct incentives to use buses are also possible.  One option would be direct subsidies for bus travellers on all routes up to the distance at which air travel becomes a viable option.  This could be a limited time incentive to coincide with some regulatory changes and a major national bus promotion drive.  Another approach would be a reduction in the fuel taxes paid by bus operators.  Perhaps the option with the most chance of success, but with the least appeal politically, is a major increase in the cost of using automobiles through selective tax measures.


6.  RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1       Economic Regulation 

This study is primarily concerned with deregulation, and the delegation to the provinces by the federal government, through the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, of the power to regulate the economic aspects of extra-provincial bus services.  Withdrawal of this delegated power would not only terminate any provincial control over the granting of extra-provincial licences, but would seriously undermine powers to regulate within a province (see section 2.1). 

The Committee heard the arguments about the potential benefits of deregulation and also heard the concerns of those who said that the termination of cross-subsidized routes could seriously impair the mobility of disadvantaged members of society who live in rural areas.  The Committee is thus not prepared to recommend outright deregulation at this time.  Instead, it believes that some parallel might be found in steps taken in 1987 to deregulate the trucking industry, when a reverse-onus system was put in place for a limited time to create gradual deregulation, allowing time for adjustment. 

RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee recommends that the economic regulatory regime for extra-provincial bus transportation be amended to require at most a reverse-onus test for entry into service, similar to the regime introduced for trucking in 1987, and that, after five years, a formal review be conducted to determine whether further deregulatory steps might be appropriate.
 

Such a reverse-onus scheme, suitably qualified with safety and liability requirements, should include a means to discourage frivolous challenges to applicants for licences.

 

 

6.2       Safeguards for Rural and Small Community Services 

Many witnesses were concerned about the possibility of services being withdrawn if deregulation were to take place, resulting from the likely termination of cross-subsidization.  While the introduction of a reverse-onus entry test would contain public interest safeguards, it would nevertheless be a step away from the regulatory status quo.  The Committee is also concerned about such losses in service in parts of the country where deregulation has already occurred. 

 

RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee recommends that a modest subsidy program be established, perhaps in the order of $30 million per annum,[2] during the transitional period. This subsidy, which would be examined as part of the five-year formal review, would be used to help establish local community bus services in rural areas using appropriate small vehicles where a need could be demonstrated and a community, a provincial government or a local business were willing to co-invest.

 

 

6.3       Passengers with Disabilities 

The Committee heard from people with disabilities about their problems travelling on intercity buses.  Though many buses are equipped to take wheelchair traffic, many are not, so the normal bus timetable is not an option for a large number of travellers who use wheelchairs.  They have to pick from an abbreviated schedule.  In addition, many city terminals have only limited facilities for disabled people and many rural stops may have no facilities at all.  The Committee considers this to be an unacceptable situation.

 

RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee recommends a serious reappraisal of the problems of disabled people travelling by bus, to be carried out jointly by the federal and provincial governments with the objective of ensuring that the provisions of the policy statement in the Canada Transportation Act are carried out.

 

 

6.4       Safety 

Alternatives to large coaches, such as small vans, are already in use as buses in some parts of Canada, and it is hoped that steps in the future towards easing economic regulatory control, as well as possibly some economic stimulus, will bring more such vehicles into use.  These smaller vehicles are, however, inherently less safe than the large intercity bus, although they are widely used for family transportation in everyday life.  It is thus necessary that government safety regulators give them special attention when they are used in public service.

 

RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee recommends that the federal and provincial governments review the National Safety Code in order to ensure that small buses and vans of the sort that could be used in public service are included, so that their maintenance requirements, driver training standards and other safety essentials can be well publicized and enforceable.

 

 

6.5       Broader Issues Relating to Buses 

Buses are an environmentally friendly way to transport people.  Yet fewer people use intercity buses than private automobiles.  The automobile is more flexible and convenient, and users often perceive its costs to be low.  Although deregulation may help reduce fares, and municipalities could do more through measures such as allowing intercity buses to use urban bus lanes, the total impact on automobile usage is likely to be relatively small.   

In a broader context, it would be beneficial to examine the relative costs and benefits of all forms of transport.  For example, while trucks can be fast and convenient for moving certain goods, they can also be extremely damaging to the road surface and more polluting than other means of transport such as rail.  This issue of modal equity was not the focus of the Committee’s work, but is identified as a point of possible interest. 

RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee recommends that the federal and provincial governments consider collaboration to examine how Canada can more fully benefit from the environmental advantages of buses, particularly in light of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.  The Committee also recommends further study of broader issues relating to the relative benefits and costs of different types of transport.

 

 

6.6       Consensus on Bus Regulatory Matters 

The Minister indicated to the Committee that the federal government intends to seek consensus on the rules for buses before making any changes.  It is evident to the Committee that this consensus, while highly desirable, will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.  The players simply have positions that are too entrenched.  The recommendations made in this report will probably come as near to a consensus as possible.  They would at least allow for some movement in a situation that has been largely stagnant for many years. 

RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee recommends that the federal government re-evaluate the need for consensus among all the jurisdictions and players before initiating action on intercity bus policy. 

 


APPENDIX A: 

LETTER FROM THE HONOURABLE DAVID COLLENETTE, P.C., M.P., TO THE HONOURABLE SENATOR LISE BACON

 


APPENDIX B:

SECTION FIVE, CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY 

5.         It is hereby declared that a safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of viable and effective transportation services accessible to persons with disabilities and that makes the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to serve the transportation needs of shippers and travellers, including persons with disabilities, and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada and its regions and that those objectives are most likely to be achieved when all carriers are able to compete, both within and among the various modes of transportation, under conditions ensuring that, having due regard to national policy, to the advantages of harmonized federal and provincial regulatory approaches and to legal and constitutional requirements, 

(a)        the national transportation system meets the highest practicable safety standards, 

(b)        competition and market forces are, whenever possible, the prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services, 

(c)        economic regulation of carriers and modes of transportation occurs only in respect of those services and regions where regulation is necessary to serve the transportation needs of shippers and travellers and that such regulation will not unfairly limit the ability of any carrier or mode of transportation to compete freely with any other carrier or mode of transportation, 

(d)        transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development and that commercial viability of transportation links is balanced with regional economic development objectives so that the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized, 

(e)        each carrier or mode of transportation, as far as is practicable, bears a fair proportion of the real costs of the resources, facilities and services provided to that carrier or mode of transportation at public expense, 

(f)        each carrier or mode of transportation, as far as is practicable, receives fair and reasonable compensation for the resources, facilities and services that it is required to provide as an imposed public duty, 

(g)        each carrier or mode of transportation, as far as is practicable, carries traffic to or from any point in Canada under fares, rates and conditions that do not constitute 

(i)         an unfair disadvantage in respect of any such traffic beyond the disadvantage inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the scale of operation connected with the traffic or the type of traffic or service involved,

(ii)        an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities,

(iii)       an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada, or

(iv)       an unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries, to export trade in or from any region of Canada or to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports, and 

(h)        each mode of transportation is economically viable, 

and this Act is enacted in accordance with and for the attainment of those objectives to the extent that they fall within the purview of subject-matters under the legislative authority of Parliament relating to transportation.

NOTE:  This statement is almost identical to that in the National Transportation Act, 1987.  The differences are that the Canada Transportation Act gives some additional recognition to the needs of persons with disabilities, and adds economic viability, which was not included in the National Transportation Act, 1987.

The original National Transportation Act, of 1967, also emphasized the importance of market forces.


APPENDIX C: 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, 1989-1992 

Directions:   The Final Report of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, 1992, 4 Volumes. 

Intercity Passenger Bus Regulation in Canada, 1992, produced by Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg. 

Regulatory Reform in the Intercity Bus Industry: An International Comparison, 1992, produced by the Hickling Corporation.

 

Canadian Intercity Bus Task Force, 1994-1996 

Canadian Intercity Bus Task Force, Report to the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, October 1996.  

Deregulation of the Intercity Bus Industry in the United States and the United Kingdom, 1995. 

Background Report on the Substantial Relaxation of the Bus Economic Regulatory Framework, 1994, produced by Proteus Enterprises. 

Analysis of Intercity Bus Statistics, 1995, produced by Transport Canada. 

Performance of the Intercity Bus Industry in Canada, Economic and Financial Analysis, 1995, commissioned by the Task Force 

 

Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, 2001 

Vision and Balance:  Report of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, 2001. 

 

Transport Canada 

The Canadian Intercity Bus Industry:  Orientation Document, March 2001. 

 

Alberta 

Towards Viable Scheduled Intercity Bus Services in Alberta: A Policy Statement by the Department of Transportation, January 1995. 

Regulating Intercity Bus Service in Canada, September 1995.

 

Quebec 

Le transport par autocar interurbain au Québec, 1996. 

La déréglementation du transport par autocar extraprovincial, 1999. 

 

United States of America 

The Intercity Bus Industry, A Preliminary Study, 1978, prepared by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 

The Intercity Bus Industry, January 1984, prepared by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 

Rural Transportation: An Annotated Bibliography, 1999, produced for the United States Department of Agriculture. 

Serving Rural America, 1999, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 

Deregulation and Privatization of Coach and Bus Services in Britain, 1995, a study commissioned by the Government of Ontario. 

  

Canadian Bus Association 

KPMG, Impact of the Deregulation of Scheduled Inter-City Bus Service, December 1998, commissioned by the Canadian Bus Association.


APPENDIX D:

INDUSTRY STRUCTURES 

Representative Canadian Scheduled Carriers/Markets Served, 2000

Carrier/Carrier Group

Markets Served

Laidlaw Carriers

 

     Greyhound

·     Ontario–West; local service in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario; international service

     Grey Goose

·     Manitoba and North-Western Ontario

     Voyageur Colonial

·     Ottawa–Montreal; Eastern Ontario

     Penetang-Midland Coach Lines

·     Toronto-Barrie-Collingwood

     Laidlaw Motor Coach

·     Vancouver Island

Red Arrow (Pacific Western)

·     Calgary-Edmonton-Forth McMurray

Saskatchewan Transportation

·     Saskatchewan

Ontario Northland

·     Toronto-North Bay-Sudbury-Timmins

Trentway-Wagar (Coach USA)

·     Niagara-Toronto-Montreal

Orléans Express

·     Montreal-Quebec City-Gaspé

Les Autobus Maheux

·     Montreal-Abitibi/Témiscamingue

Sherbus

·     Montreal-Estrie

SMT/Acadian

·     Maritime Provinces

DRL

·     Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador

NOTE:  The table is representative, and does not provide a complete list of services in each part of the country.

Source:  Transport Canada’s March 2001 orientation document, p. 6, based on Official Canadian Bus Guide, November/December 1999, and information provided by provincial officials.


 

Major Industry Restructuring After 1988

Date

Province(s)

Event

Late 1980s

Quebec

·     Canada Steamship Lines (CSL) sells Voyageur Inc. to a number of smaller operators, the largest being Orléans Express.

Late 1980s

Ontario

·     Toronto Transit Commission sells Gray Coach to Stagecoach PLC (Perth, Scotland), which later sells it to Canadian Greyhound.

Late 1980s

Ontario

·     Transit authority in Hamilton sells Canada Coach to Trentway-Wagar Coach Lines (Peterborough).

1994

Ontario

·     CSL sells some of Voyageur-Colonial’s routes to Canadian Greyhound.

1995

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick

·     SMT, the Irving-owned dominant carrier in New Brunswick, buys Acadian Lines, the dominant carrier in Nova Scotia.

1995-96

Alberta

·     Canadian Greyhound divests Brewster Transportation (its charter/tour arm) and becomes a Canadian-owned company.  Brewster remains owned by the Dial Corp. of Arizona.

1996

Ontario, Quebec

·     CSL sells some of Voyageur-Colonial’s routes to Trentway-Wagar.

1996

Newfoundland and Labrador

·     CN sells its Roadcruiser bus service, the dominant carrier in the province, to locally-owned DRL.

1996

Ontario

·     Trentway-Wagar bought by Coach USA, the largest American charter/tour operator.

1996

Quebec

·     Autocar Connaisseur (Montreal) bought by Coach USA.

1997

Alberta, Ontario

·     Laidlaw (Burlington, Ontario) buys Canadian Greyhound.

1998

Nova Scotia

·     DRL acquires the routes of the defunct MacKenzie Bus Lines (2nd largest scheduled carrier in the province).

1998

Ontario, Quebec

·     CSL sells its remaining routes to Canadian Greyhound

1998

Ontario

·     Coach USA buys Erie Coach (London).

1998

Ontario

·     Laidlaw purchases American Greyhound.

1998

Ontario

·     Laidlaw acquires 49% of Penetang-Midland Coach.

1999

Ontario, Quebec

·     Stagecoach PLC buys Coach USA and, with it, the Coach USA Canadian operations.

2000

Ontario

·     Laidlaw acquires Chatham Coach.

2000

Ontario

·     Laidlaw acquires the remaining 51% of Penetang-Midland.

2000

Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories

·     FirstGroup PLC (London, UK), acquires the Hertz Group of Companies (Regina).

Source:  Transport Canada’s March 2001 orientation document, p. 22.


APPENDIX E: 

USER CHARGES AND A ROAD AGENCY 

This Committee has not examined these matters and takes no position on them.  Readers may, however, be interested in the following discussion of road costs. 

When a transportation system is in the development stage, a good argument can be made for the government to allocate resources to develop the system at low cost to the users, in order to stimulate demand and generate overall economic activity. 

When the system is mature, it can be better for the society as a whole if the users of the transportation system cover their costs, allowing funds to be allocated to other fields, such as health and education.  This permits overall efficiency in the use of transportation infrastructure and can also give appropriate signals to the providers of the infrastructure so that they furnish what users want at a price they are prepared to pay. 

It has long been noted that heavy trucks cause damage to roads and highways far in excess of what they pay to use them, and that private automobiles impose congestions costs on other users.  More recently, there has also been greater awareness of the environmental costs of vehicle emissions.  It has been argued[3] that if road users paid the costs they impose on the system, including social costs, it would lead to a more efficient use of the highway system, by itself and in relation to other modes of transportation. 

New Zealand accepted this logic, and went further by creating a Road Agency that is both responsible for providing the highways and charging for their use.  The Agency’s responsibility for building and maintaining the roads makes it very sensitive to both the costs of providing highways and factors that contribute to their deterioration.  At the same time, this responsibility makes the Agency less sensitive to political pressure to keep the cost of using the highways artificially low. 

Appropriate road user charges could make the railways more attractive for freight, and perhaps slow the recent transfer of grain haulage from rail to highway.  In addition, appropriate road user charges could make single-occupancy car use, especially for commuting, less attractive than other means. 

Road user charges can be implemented in a number of ways – by traditional tollbooths, by electronic tolls (using an electronic pass or photographing licence plates and mailing bills) or by a proxy such as a charge for gasoline use.  Road user charges are disliked by the general public and by commercial users of public highways.  Although recommended by the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation in 1992, road user charges have been rarely used.  In 2001 the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel made similar recommendations.  Opponents of road user charges argue that the fuel taxes that motor carriers pay today are not a consumption tax but rather a user charge, and so they should not have to pay even more for the use of highways.


APPENDIX F: 

WITNESSES 

First Session, Thirty-Seventh Parliament 

NOTE:  The Minister of Transport, the Honourable David Collenette, P.C., M.P, appeared before the Committee on June 6, 2001 on a separate Order of Reference that led to the Senate authorizing the Committee to undertake this study.  At that time, the Minister was accompanied by Guylaine Roy and Émile Di Sanza, who both re-appeared on February 11, 2002, as indicated below.

 

Monday, February 11, 2002 

From Transport Canada:
Émile Di Sanza, Director, Motor Carrier Policy;
Guylaine Roy, Director General, Surface Transportation Policy;
Brian Orrbine, Senior Policy Advisor, Road Safety Programs.

From Statistics Canada:
Douglas A. Norris, Director General, Census and Demographic Statistics Branch;
Gord Baldwin, Director, Transportation Division.

 

Tuesday, February 12, 2002

From Transport 2000:
Harry Gow, President. 

From Pacific Western Transportation:
Michael J. Colborne, Chief Operating Officer;
Mark Hannah, General Manager. 

 

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

From Intercar:
Hugo Gilbert, Director General;
Romain Girard, Executive Vice-President, Quebec Bus Owners Association.

From Kéroul:
André Leclerc, Director General;
Johanne St-Martin, Transport-Development Assistant. 

From Transport 2000 Quebec:
Normand Parisien, Director, Co-ordinator;
Richard Beaulieu, Researcher, Transportation Economics. 

From Solidarité rurale du Québec:
Jean-Pierre Fournier, member of the executive;
Anne-Marie Rainville, Director of Public Affairs.

From the Conseil régional de développement de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue:
André Brunet, Member of the Executive Council;
Martine Rioux, Development Officer. 

From the Quebec Bus Owners Association:
Romain Girard, Executive Vice-President. 

From Motor Coach Canada Inc.:
Roger Gervais, President. 

From the Canadian Bus Association:
Sylvain Langis, President. 

From the Ontario Motor Coach Association:
Brian Crow, President. 

 

Thursday, February 21, 2002 

From the Nova Scotia Department of Transport:
Don Stonehouse, Manager, Transportation Policy;
Bernie Swan, Transportation Policy Analyst.

 

From Transport 2000 Atlantic:
John Pearce, Executive Director. 

From the SMT/Acadian Lines:
Bob Odell, General Manager;
Mike Melanson, Director of Operations. 

From the Atlantic Tours Gray Line:
Denis Campbell, Vice-President.

From Trius Tours Ltd.:
George Brookins, Owner. 

From DRL:
John Harding, Assistant General Manager. 

From the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia:
Brian Hicks, IT Co-ordinator. 

From the Ecology Action Centre:
Stephanie Sodero, TRAX Co-ordinator, Active and Safe Routes to School Co-ordinator;
Alexandra Fischer, TRAX Co-ordinator, Active and Safe Routes to School Co-ordinator.

From the Senior Federation of Prince Edward Island:
Olive Bryanton, Co-ordinator. 

From the Senior College of Prince Edward Island:
Ron Irving, President.

From the Seniors Active Living Centre:
Connie Auld, President. 

From the Canadian Pensioners Concerned — Nova Scotia:
Joan Lay, President. 

 

Monday, March 25, 2002

From Gray Line Victoria:
Michael G. Cafferky, General Manager. 

As an individual:
Bill Waters, Professor, University of British Columbia. 

From Motor Coach Canada:
Brian Crow, President;
Sheldon Eggen, Director. 

From the Union of British Columbia Municipalities:
Hans Cunningham, President;
Marie Crawford, Assistant Executive Director. 

From the British Columbia Old Age Pensioners Organization:
Wil Holland, Past President. 

From the British Columbia Trucking Association:
Paul Landry, President and Chief Executive Officer;
Jim Storie, President of the Vancouver Trolley Company

 

Tuesday, March 26, 2002  

From the Alberta Department of Transport:
Peter Dawes, Senior Policy Advisor, Passenger Transportation;
Wayne Lilley, Manager, National Safety Code and Operating Authority. 

From the Greyhound Canada Transportation Corporation:
Roger Pike, Senior Vice President, Operations Canada;
Brad Shephard, Director, Pricing and Scheduling. 

From the Internal Trade Secretariat:
Andre Dimitrijevic, Executive Director. 

From the Transport Institute:
Professor Barry E. Prentice, Director. 

 

Thursday, March 28, 2002  

From the University of Toronto, Civil Engineering:
Richard Soberman, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering. 

From Coach Canada:
James J. Devlin, President;
Deborah Nayler, Director of Human Resources. 

From Ontario Northland:
Susan Schrempf, Senior Director Marine Services and Service Improvement;
Joan Buckolz, Manager of Administration and Information Services — Passenger. 

From the Advisory Council on Accessible Transportation:
Stephen Little, Chair, Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation. 

From the Ontario Motor Coach Association:
Brian Crow, President;
Dave Carroll, Director, Safety and Maintenance;
Ray Burley, Chairman of the Board and Operator of Can-ar Coach Service. 

From the Canadian Association of Retired Persons:
Bill Gleberzon, Associate Executive Director;
Judy Cutler, Director of Communications.

 

Wednesday, April 17, 2002 

From the Rural Secretariat, Rural and Co-Operatives Secretariats:
Donna Mitchell, Executive Director;
Christian Fortin, Senior Analyst. 

From Autobus Maheux:
Pierre Maheux, Vice President. 

 

Wednesday, May 1, 2002 

From the Canadian Transport Lawyers Association:
David Blair, Lawyer, Gagné Letarte;
Dean Saul, Lawyer, Gowling Lafleur Henderson.

 

Tuesday, May 7, 2002 

From the Competition Bureau:
André Downs, Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Competition Policy Branch;
Gwill Allen, Senior Economist and Strategic Policy Advisor, Competition Policy Branch;
Joseph Monteiro, Economist, Competition Policy Branch. 

 

Tuesday, May 28, 2002 

From the Airport Ground Transportation Association:
Ross Ferguson, President. 

 

Wednesday, May 29, 2002 

From the Canadian Urban Transit Association:
Michael Roschlau, President and Chief Executive Officer;
Brian Leck, Honorary Counsel.

 

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 

From the National Advisory Council on Aging:
Patricia Raymaker, Chairperson;
Louise Plouffe, Manager, Knowledge Development Section, Division of Aging and Seniors, Health Canada. 

 

Wednesday, June 12, 2002

From the Saskatchewan Department of Highways and Transportation:
Carl Neggers, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Planning Division. 

From the Saskatchewan Transportation Company:
Jim Hadfield, President and Chief Executive Officer. 

 

Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Parliament 

Tuesday, November 26, 2002 

From Groupe Orléans Express:
Sylvain Langis, President and Chief Executive Officer.


[1]               See pp. 17-18 of Transport Canada’s March 2001 orientation document.  “Service-line” is the term used by Statistics Canada to categorize various types of bus activities, such as scheduled service and charter.

[2]               The rationale for this figure is that it equals 10% (the suggested level of revenue used for cross-subsidization) of the approximate annual bus passenger revenue of $300 million.

[3]               See, for example, the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, Directions:  The Final Report of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, 1992, Volume 1, pp. 129-131, and Volume 2, pp. 76-139; and the Canada Transportation Act Review, Vision and Balance:  Report of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, 2001, Chapter 10, pp. 175-191. 

 


Back to top