Professional Documents
Culture Documents
October 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 46 Conclusion
Page 48 References
Page 2
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Every dollar spent by tourists generates nearly $0.28 for all three levels of government.
There are 8,447 lodging establishments, with more than 450,000 rooms available for visitors.
Canada’s 16 major convention centres offer more than 2 million square feet of function space. There are
over 7,000 events each year.
Page 4
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
1
A fair taxation regime
2
A level playing field with the United States
3
Policies that enhance global competitiveness
4
Access to a sufficiently large and skilled
labour force:
Page 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2002 Canada has dropped from 8th The scope and scale of the challenges facing
place to 15th among the world’s most visited Canada’s travel and tourism industry require
tourism destinations. major policy reforms. Piecemeal, ad hoc or
incremental reforms will do little to arrest
The National Travel and Tourism Coalition’s Canada’s decline in the global rankings for
vision is that Canada regain its top 10 ranking international visitation.
in the international travel and tourism stakes
by 2020. Here is a summary of our specific recommen-
dations in five broad categories:
In 2009, Canada received just over 15.7 million
overnight visitors who spent $14.2 billion, or Global Cost Competitiveness
$903 per visitor.
• Eliminate; airport rents, municipal taxes imposed
If the National Travel and Tourism Coalition’s on airports and payments in lieu of taxes
vision were realised, in 2009 Canada would • Dedicate the proceeds of the excise tax on aviation
have welcomed 5.7 million more visitors fuel to aviation infrastructure
spending $5.2 billion and generating 46,900 • Significantly reduce or eliminate the Air Travelers
more jobs for Canadians. Security Charge (ATSC) through greatly expanded
government funding for aviation security and
To realise our vision we need: passenger screening services
• Modify the Foreign Convention and Tour Incentive
1. A fair tax regime that does not hinder the program through:
economic development of the industry Improvements to the current tour operator scheme
Re-introduction of an individual rebate scheme
2. A level playing field with our largest
tourism competitor, the United States Travel and Tourism Infrastructure
3. Policies that enhance the global • Create a travel and tourism Infrastructure bank
capable of providing low cost financing to airports,
competitiveness of Canada’s travel and
airlines, and major travel and tourism infrastructure
tourism industry
development projects
• Improve the connectivity of airports with
4. Access to a sufficiently large and skilled
the surrounding communities and expand
labour force
interconnections between air travel and other
modes of transportation
Page 6
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
• Develop a coordinated travel and tourism growth • Allow airports to provide airport passenger
or facilitation strategy that identifies the key pre-screening if they wish to do so
priorities within each region • Benchmark CATSA throughput rates and
• Ensure that Canada’s travel and tourism productivity levels with similar security screening
infrastructure investment policy is consistent with providers around the world and implement regular
similar such policies in major competitor countries best practices review
Page 7
CANADA’S TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY
The industry provides transportation, accom- Travel and tourism GDP was $29 billion in 2009
modation, food and beverage and a vast array on a par with automobile manufacturing and
of goods and services to international visi- with forestry and agriculture combined.
tors and Canadians touring in Canada totaling
$71.5 billion in spending in 2009. In total there were over 180,000 Canadian
businesses involved in tourism employing
Leisure travel accounts for 85% of this spend- 650,000 people directly; 3.5% of the total
ing and business travel 15%. Canadian labour force.
Air Travel
$14 billion
$71.5 Billion*
Spending 2009
* Includes
pre-trip expenditures
Tours, Attractions
Events, Conventions
Accommodation, Food & Beverage $9 billion
$22 billion
Page 8
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
International travel includes all trips by U.S. Demand per Trip Comparisons
and overseas visitors by all modes. It is the
most lucrative part of the market, followed $134
by overnight travel and tourism by Canadians. Day trips by Canadians in Canada
Same day domestic travel and tourism has a
much lower return for the industry. $476
Overnight Domestic Trips
$576
International trips to Canada
The composition of Canada’s travel and tour- Between 2004 and 2008 domestic tourism
ism market demand has changed markedly trips increased by 23%, but all of this increase
since 2004. was in lower value day trips.
Source data: Statistics Canada international travel survey and travel survey of residents of Canada
Page 9
CANADA’S TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY
Source data: Statistics Canada international travel survey and the travel survey of residents of Canada
Page 10
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Additionally, the drop in U.S. tourism has Canada’s Tourism Spending Deficit
coincided with a declining value of the U.S.
dollar which has in turn motivated more
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Canadians to travel to the US.
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-$1.7
This has created a significant “tourism deficit”
-$3.3
in Canada’s international trade and also -$4.0
-$5.2
provided an additional competitive advan- -$6.8
tage for U.S. airport gateways in attracting
Billions $ Cdn. -$10.0
international traffic.
-$12.6
1.4
Canadian trips to U.S.
2003 = 1.0
Decreasing U.S. travel to Canada coupled with
1.2
increasing travel by Canadians to or through
1.0 the U.S. resulted in a $12.6 billion travel and
U.S. / Cdn... dollar exchange rate tourism trade deficit in 2008.
0.8
0.4
03
04
05
06
07
08
20
20
20
20
20
20
Sources: Statistics Canada international travel survey and Bank of Canada currency exchange data, Statistics Canada, Receipts
and Payments on International Travel Account, Table 387-0005, computed annual total, CANSIM (database)
Page 11
COMPETING GLOBALLY
8th
2002
BUT Canada’s Ranking
has steadily declined
Page 12
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
20
20
20
20
20
05
07
04
06
08
09
The Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) Although there have been periodic capital
leads Canada’s marketing efforts in: Australia, infusions to the CTC to capitalize on the 2010
Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Olympics and address specific issues such as
Mexico, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the SARS and more recently economic stimulus
United States as well as in Canada. Essentially funding to address a world-wide recession,
it is responsible for marketing the “Canadian CTC core funding has declined year by year for
brand” abroad. most of the last decade.
$ millions
A-Base (core) funding level dropping...
This pattern erodes the CTC’s core capacity Canada’s Marketing Budget Compared...
to market the Canadian brand and to take
significant promotional initiatives to develop In FY 2008/2009, core funding for the CTC
new and emerging markets. This inability to was $85 million. An additional $20 million
promote Canada in new markets comes at a was the result of a 2 year, $40 million increase
critical juncture as the growing middle classes in funding allocated to the CTC as part of
in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Korea Canada’s economic action plan. Contributions
expand global tourism business. from CTC partners brought the total budget for
Source: CTC Internal Data
Page 14
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Las Vegas
U.S.
U.K.
Spain
India
France
Canada
Australia
Page 15
COMPETING GLOBALLY
Page 16
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Page 17
COMPETING WITH THE U.S.
Canada competes with the U.S. for overseas Moreover, with the widespread use of the
tourism and for trans-border travel and tour- internet and travel web sites, it is much
ism. But Canadian government policies add easier to compare prices between competing
upwards of $160 to the cost of an overseas destinations which amplifies this effect.
trip to Canada compared to the U.S.
Overseas Trans-Border
This price differential is important because Studies conducted by the Greater Vancouver
leisure travel (vacations, holidays, sporting and Gateway Council showed that U.S. gateways
cultural events and visiting family and friends) enjoy a 15% cost advantage over Canadian
accounts for 85% of demand. Moreover, gateways from a combination of lower munici-
leisure air travel is price elastic*, meaning that pal taxes, no tax on private capital and
if the price goes up, revenues drop because authority to levy taxes on property owners.
fewer people will buy at the higher price.
These are structural disadvantages that were
“masked” by a low valued Canadian dollar
Mid-range to long-haul international leisure
until around 2003.
travel is especially sensitive to this effect
because leisure travelers are “price shoppers.”
Sources: Data from the annual reports of Canada’s airports and air lines and Canada’s Public accounts
Page 18
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Recent announcements by President Obama Rent paid to the Government of Canada goes
indicate that these advantages will soon be to general revenues and is not directly rein-
enhanced through government investments vested in the aviation industry, although the
in the “Next Generation Air Traffic Control Airports Capital Assistance Program provided
System” and airport infrastructure, as well a total of $26 million in 2009 to assist eligible
as a Federal Infrastructure Bank to lever smaller airports in funding safety-related
investment from private as well as state and capital projects. Clearly, airport rent drains
municipal sources. revenues from the industry and provides a
significant advantage to U.S. competitors.
Airport Improvement Fees (AIFs) are included
in this list of U.S. structural advantages be- Additionally, Canadian airports are required
cause the Canadian dependency on AIFs is to pay rent based on the revenues they gener-
reflective of the very different approaches to ate (participation rent). As airports receive no
airport ownership and financing between the funding for infrastructure from governments,
two countries. In Canada, airports are obliged a number of airport authorities have instituted
to raise capital for improvements from airlines Airport Improvement Fees (AIFs) as a mecha-
and passengers on a “user pay” basis. In the nism to finance expansions or improvements.
U.S., airport / port authorities have taxing and Under the current rental scheme, these fees
borrowing powers like municipalities and can are treated as revenues, and so implementa-
issue tax exempt bonds to finance infrastruc- tion of an AIF for capital improvements results
ture investments. in an increase in rent which magnifies the U.S.
competitive advantage.
Page 19
COMPETING WITH THE U.S.
While many countries implemented new post Air Traffic Management Services
9/11 security measures, Canada is the only
one seeking to recover almost all of the associ-
ated costs through a passenger fee. NAV Canada charges air carriers for the use
of its air traffic control services. Commercial
The events of 9/11 show that aviation security carriers pass these costs on to passengers in
is a public good, with the benefits accruing to the ticket prices. In 2009, NAV Canada posted
travelers and the public at large. The United gross revenues of $1.25 billion.
States government recognizes this public good
through funding of 63% of security costs; only Unlike many other countries, almost 100%
30% is passed on to air travelers. The differ- of air navigation services infrastructure in
ence in charges between the U.S. and Canada Canada is paid for and supported by the avia-
is illustrated by this example: passengers pay a tion industry and its passengers through these
$5 security charge on a return flight from charges. A portion of the revenues that NAV
Boston to Paris but a $28 charge on a return Canada recovers from the airlines is used to
flight from Montreal to Paris. cover the costs of the air navigation control
infrastructure when it was privatized, with the
Furthermore, the U.S. government has been capital and interest costs totalling $120 million
investing directly in new technologies for per year. For example; the NAV Canada fee
screening passengers under the American for a flight between Ottawa and Vancouver in
Recovery and Reinvestment Act., authorized in 2010 was just over $3,000, or $14.77
2009. This act provided $3 billion to the per passenger*.
Department of Homeland Security, of which
$576 million has been awarded to local air- In the United States, the Federal Aviation
ports and transportation authorities for avia- Authority is responsible for providing air
tion security infrastructure and technologies. traffic control services. The FAA is funded
This is in addition to a fiscal year 2010 en- by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)
acted budget that includes an additional $129 for about three-quarters of its total budget,
million for checkpoint screening operations with the remaining one-quarter provided by
and $1 billion for checked baggage explosive the federal government. In turn, the AATF is
detection systems. funded by aviation based fees and taxes which
are dedicated directly to the industry, includ-
* NAV Canada fee calculator bases on a flight between Ottawa and Vancouver using a Boeing 767-200, with 207 seats;
accessed September 24, 2010.
Page 20
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Page 21
COMPETING WITH THE U.S.
Page 22
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
GOVERNMENT ROLES
The “bottom line” for Canada’s travel and Even if it is accepted that this collection of
tourism industry is that the U.S. views trans- Government of Canada portfolio spending was
portation as essential for trade and economic primarily to support tourism, an analysis of
development, while Canada views transporta- the Tourism Satellite Account data shows that
tion as a source of tax revenues. the Government of Canada collected an esti-
mated $4.4 billion from the travel and tourism
United States industry in 2007 through a combination of
TRANSPORTATION IS SEEN AS ESSENTIAL
TO TRADE COMPETITIVENESS, consumption taxes, rents and fees, corporate
THEREFORE IT IS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST TO IMPROVE IT
income tax and fuel taxes on all modes. This
compares to the 2007 Statistics Canada figure
of $9.3 billion which includes contributions to
TRANSPORTATION IS A SOURCE
OF TAX REVENUES social insurance attributable to tourism and
Canada direct revenues from tourism not included in
the $4.4 billion figure.
spending for tourism. $102 million was also Federal 8,088 8,774 8,983 9,350
spent on the Canadian Tourism Commission
Provincial 7,847 8,416 8,761 9,145
for a grand total of $1.6 billion.
Municipal 989 1,051 1,102 1,158
Page 23
GOVERNMENT ROLES
$169
$155
$147
$138
$123
03
04
05
06
07
20
20
20
20
20
Page 24
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
International Trips
Millions
39
36 33 30 27
Demand
$ Billions Industry Portion of Demand
$13.6
$12.8
$11.5 $11.1 $10.7
2005
2006
2007
2008
Sources: Statistics Canada National Tourism Indicators (2004-2008) and International Travel
Page 25
REALIZING THE VISION
The National Travel and Tourism Coalition’s The 10th place country received 21.5 million
vision is that Canada regain its top 10 ranking overnight visitors in 2009, that is 5.7 million or
in the international travel and tourism stakes 36% more overnight visitors than Canada.
by 2020.
If the NTTC’s vision were realized in 2009,
In 2009, Canada received just over 15.7 million Canada would have seen an additional
overnight visitors who spent $14.2 billion, or 5.7 million international visitors and benefited
$903 per visitor. from $5.2 billion in additional travel and tour-
ism spending, generating 46,900 more jobs.
46,900 more
Canadian jobs $797 million
more revenues
for provincial
governments
$2.1 billion
increase to $720 million
Canada’s GDP more revenues
for the Federal
Government
Page 26
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
1
A fair taxation regime
2
A level playing field with the United States
3
Policies that enhance global competitiveness
4
Access to a sufficiently large and skilled
labour force:
Page 27
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The NTTC has developed a set of recommen- Many of these policy recommendations are
dations, based on the policy pillars described aimed at aviation based travel and tourism.
previously, in five categories: This is because air travelers spend more. The
average U.S. overnight visitor who came to
1. Global Cost Competitiveness
Canada via air spent $861 per person per trip,
2. Travel and Tourism Infrastructure or $184 per person night, whereas the typical
3. Forward Looking Tourism Strategy automobile traveler from the U.S. spent $385
per trip, or $98 per night.
4. Smart Security and Border Controls
• Ensuring that there are a sufficient Cost competitiveness is vital to attracting visi-
number of appropriately trained people tors in order to ensure that the cost of travel
to work in the industry to Canada is comparable to, or less than, other
competing destinations. However, price is
Implementation of these policy recommenda- only important if potential visitors are aware
tions will also help reduce the “leakage” of Ca- of Canada and include it in their cost compari-
nadian residents travelling from U.S. airports. sons. This means that effective and sustained
international marketing of Canada is needed.
Page 28
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Page 29
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Canada faces a structural cost disadvantage The current federal policies towards air travel
vis-à-vis the U.S. and the increasing “take” by in Canada are not sustainable. As shown ear-
governments is pricing Canada out of interna- lier under the heading “Competing with the
tional travel and tourism markets. U.S.” Canada is loaded with a cost burden of
around $160 more per international trip and
Policy Recommendations $100 more per trans-border trip as compared
to the U.S. As these fees have climbed, the
Eliminate airport rents and payments in competitive position of the Canadian air-based
GC1
lieu of taxes travel and tourism industry has eroded to the
extent that more than two million Canadian
GC2 Dedicate excise tax of aviation fuel to
aviation infrastructure travelers are willing to endure the time and
hassle of traveling to U.S. border airports for
GC3 Modify the Foreign Convention and Tour their flights rather than utilizing their local
Incentive program
Canadian airport. External analysis also points
GC4 Make improvements to the current tour to Canada’s relatively poor performance with
operator scheme regards to taxation of the industry. The World
Economic Forum’s annual Travel and Tour-
GC5 Re-introduce an individual rebate scheme
ism Competitiveness Report shows that while
Significantly reduce or eliminate the ATSC Canada is very strong in many areas, rank-
GC6 through expanded state funding of ing fifth overall and having the world’s best
aviation security and screening services airport infrastructure (funded, it should be
noted, without government assistance); Ca-
nadian cost competitiveness ranks very poorly
(106th). The report’s detailed sub-indicators
regarding the cost environment gave Canada
the following ranks:
Page 30
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
GC1 - Airport Rents and Taxes In contrast, U.S. airports have access to tax
exempt bond issues, state aviation fuel taxes
that are re-invested in the industry, as well as
In Canada, many airports are required to pay some general infrastructure funding from all
the federal government ground rents as part three levels of government. The U.S. airports
of their long-term leases. These rents are con- that are operated as departments of municipal
siderable, amounting to $257 million in 2009. or state governments are prohibited by federal
U.S. airports do not pay any rent other than law from diverting airport revenues to other
token amounts at a few facilities. Moreover, municipal or state uses in order to ensure that
the rent that is paid in Canada goes to general airport revenues are retained by the airport.
revenues, and other than a small amount of
funding for regional airport safety projects In addition to the federal rent charges, Cana-
(under the auspices of the Airport Capital As- dian airports also make payments to municipal
sistance Program), it is not specifically rein- governments. Canada’s major airports are
vested in the aviation industry. It thus rep- located on federal lands and are thus exempt
resents an outflow, or drain, of revenue from from paying property taxes. To contribute to
the industry. In fact, Canada is unusual in the the municipal costs in servicing airports, many
world in charging airport rents; it is a practice of Canada’s airports make Payments in Lieu
adopted elsewhere only by Ecuador and Peru. of Taxes, or PILTs. Smaller airports that do not
pay airport rents are required to pay municipal
The manner in which airport rents are levied taxes directly. U.S. airports are not required to
is also unfair. As an example, one of the prin- pay municipal taxes.
cipal funding mechanisms for airport capital
improvements is the Airport Improvement Over successive budgets, the federal govern-
Fee (AIF) levied on travelers. Under the cur- ment has made considerable efforts to point
rent rental scheme, these fees are treated as out that the overall corporate tax rate will be
revenues by the federal government; conse- the lowest in the G7 by 2012 (see for example
quently implementing an AIF for improving the Budget 2010). It is in this spirit of making
facilities at the airport results in an increase Canada a leader in global competitiveness that
in the rent that airports are required to pay to the federal government should immediately
the government. Thus the AIF that is levied eliminate airport rents, and should work with
must be sufficiently high to cover both the the provinces to eliminate payments to mu-
cost of funding the capital improvement and nicipalities in the form of PILTs or taxes.
the additional airport rent charge.
Page 31
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
GC2 - Aviation Fuel Excise Tax Due largely to the manner in which the FCTIP
is implemented, the program is not working as
Airlines also pay a federal excise tax on avia- the incentive scheme it is intended to be, with
tion fuel purchased and uplifted at Canadian many overseas tour operators choosing not to
airports. In 2009, these taxes totalled nearly apply for the rebate and simply pricing in the
$40 million. Canadian aviation fuel tax rev- GST/HST to their end consumers. The primary
enues are directed towards the government’s reasons given by foreign tour operators for
general consolidated revenue accounts. These this are the administrative complexity of the
monies are not reinvested back into the avia- program, the time consuming nature of the
tion industry. In contrast, U.S. fuel taxes are rebate process, and the perceived risk and un-
paid to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund; certainty of actually getting the rebate. More-
they are not transferred to other sectors. Even over, the introduction of the FCTIP coincided
within Canada, a portion of the gasoline taxes with the elimination of the individual rebate
collected by federal and provincial govern- scheme which issued refunds of the GST paid
ments are directed towards infrastructure by non-Canadians who spent C$200 or more
development and road repairs. At a minimum, on eligible goods for personal use and short-
changes should be made to ensure that excise term accommodation.
taxes collected are kept within the industry by
re-investing in infrastructure projects. GC4 - Improve Current Tour Operator Scheme
GC3 -Expand the Foreign Convention and Tour Improvements to the FCTIP should be made by
Incentive Program taking the onus of applying for the rebate from
the foreign tour operator and placing it on re-
Fixing Canada’s GST/HST rebate system for ceptive Canadian tour operators and domestic
foreign travelers is another important compo- accommodation establishments. The Cana-
nent for increasing Canada’s cost competitive- dian establishments should be permitted to
ness in the global tourism market. The Foreign credit eligible foreign operators with the GST/
Convention and Tour Incentive Program (FC- HST and then use the existing input tax credit
TIP) was created in 2007 to provide GST/HST system to claim these funds back. This would
rebates to foreign tour operators and meeting have the effect of allowing Canadian establish-
organizers who bring group business to Cana- ments to quote prices to the foreign operators
da. The new program was designed to be a re- and meeting & convention organizers net of
placement for the GST Visitor Rebate program, taxes. A pre-approved list of qualified foreign
which provided GST rebates valued at around tour operators could be vetted by the Canada
$80 million in its last year of operation.
Page 32
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Revenue Agency to ensure that rebates are funding for aviation security and by chang-
only provided to non-residents. ing the way in which security services are
delivered in Canada (see the section on Smart
GC5 - Reintroduce Individual Rebates Security and Border Controls).
Page 33
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 34
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
the U.S. As previously noted, the U.S. govern- phase of the project. The EIB itself is not
ment enters into direct investment arrange- funded by the government; rather it oper-
ments with local and state governments to ates on a broadly self-financing basis, raising
improve, develop and build transportation resources through bond-issues and other debt
infrastructure. This cooperative approach has instruments.
the added benefit of ensuring shared priorities
among three levels of government. Airport financing is one area in which such a
bank could be involved. Although many of
Additionally, U.S. airport / port authorities Canada’s larger airports already have access to
have taxing and borrowing powers similar capital markets and are able to issue corporate
to those of municipalities and can issue tax bonds; the support of an infrastructure bank
exempt bonds to finance infrastructure invest- would allow an additional degree of securitiza-
ments. tion, thereby reducing the borrowing costs.
Smaller airports that do not have the same ac-
cess to capital markets could benefit from the
TT1 - Travel and Tourism Infrastructure Bank
ability to finance improvements over longer
terms at affordable rates.
A solution to the challenge of financing both
public and private tourism infrastructure may As envisaged by the NTTC, a travel and tour-
be the establishment of a Canadian travel ism infrastructure bank would finance a broad
and tourism infrastructure bank. An excellent range of major projects like transportation sys-
example of how such a bank could operate tems and convention centres. Importantly the
is the European Investment Bank (EIB). The bank could also serve the capital projects of
EIB is the European Union’s long term lending small and medium sized tourism enterprises.
institution and provides loans for infrastruc-
ture projects in Europe. For larger projects, the The creation of such a bank would allow the
bank provides direct funding up to an estab- Canadian travel and tourism industry to com-
lished funding limit, thereby acting as a cata- pete more effectively with the U.S.
lyst in encouraging other banks, financial insti-
tutions and the private sector to participate in It is interesting to note that the Export Devel-
an investment. These loans are amortized over opment Canada (EDC) provides support to the
long periods of time, have flexible interest construction of foreign airports by Canadian
rate options, and can include grace periods for firms in the form of credit backstop guaran-
capital repayment during the construction tees. Such support is not available in Canada.
Page 35
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 36
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Ensure policy decisions consider impacts Canada needs to pursue a broadly diversi-
FLS3 to tourism and take all necessary steps to fied portfolio of source markets with focus
mitigate these impacts
on emerging markets. If these markets are
ignored, it follows that travelers from those
countries will not be coming to Canada in
significant numbers. As an example, in De-
cember 2009, Canada was granted Approved
Page 37
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Destination Status (ADS) by China, meaning increasing the total to $146 million*. The new
that Chinese residents are now able to travel travel promotion initiative in the United States
to Canada in the leisure group format. China is expected to reach $250 million (see chart
is the world’s fastest growing outbound travel below). Moreover, many developed countries
economy; however, the CTC has not signifi- dedicate a higher percentage of their govern-
cantly increased the financial allocation for ment budgets to tourism promotion than
marketing to China. The CTC needs to make Canada including: Austria, Switzerland, Portu-
an immediate and greatly increased invest- gal, Spain, Greece, and Hong Kong**.
ment in marketing to China, especially if it is to
engage in direct-to-consumer marketing and In the short term, the government should
brand awareness building. continue to make funding available to the CTC
in support of brand building and direct‐to‐con-
At the same time, Canada should also main- sumer advertising in emerging markets (China,
tain it marketing efforts in high yielding inter- India and Brazil). At the same time, existing
national markets. For example, visitors from high yield markets must not be ignored. Over
Australia and Japan had the highest average the longer term, a more robust and stable
spending per person per night in 2008, which funding regime for the CTC needs to be devel-
was nearly twice the average spending of Chi- oped, taking into account the growth of new
nese visitors. competitor destinations and the enhanced
support being provided to national tourism
The level of support for marketing Canada organizations by rival governments.
abroad needs to be increased in order to com-
pete effectively in the international market- FLS2 - SME Access to Travel and Tourism
place. As an example, in FY 2008/2009, total Infrastructure Bank
government funding for the CTC was $105
million, of which $20 million was the result of In addition to creating a cost competitive en-
a 2 year, $40 million increase in funding allo- vironment for accessing Canada and market-
cated to the CTC as part of Canada’s economic ing the country effectively abroad, it is vital to
action plan. Contributions from CTC partners have a world class tourism product to offer.
brought the total budget for 2009 to $114
million. By way of comparison, Tourism Austra- * Canadian Tourism Commission 2009 Annual Report &
lia, which has a tourism market of nearly the Tourism Australia Annual Report (2008/2009). Bank of Canada
2009 Can/Aus. exchange rates.
same size as Canada’s had total government ** World Tourism Organization Travel and Tourism
Competitiveness Index, “Capturing the Visitor Economy, a
revenues of $123 million with other revenues Framework for Success”, p. 72.
Page 38
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
A challenge for the industry is that the major- es are expected to have a negative impact on
ity of tourism operators in Canada are Small tourism, efforts must be made to mitigate the
and Medium sized Establishments (SMEs), and damage done. A prime example of a poorly
as a result many face difficulties in accessing instigated policy change was the imposition
funding through either retained earnings or of visas for Mexican visitors to Canada in the
commercial loans to make capital improve- summer of 2009. While the government did
ments to their properties. acknowledge that the visa requirement would
result in a significant decline in tourism from
Again looking to the European Investment Mexico, more could have been done to miti-
Bank as a model; the proposed Canadian gate the damage to the industry. Initiatives
travel and tourism infrastructure bank could such as preparing a marketing / communica-
be set up to finance both large public sector tions plan in advance of the change, increasing
investments as well as supporting SMEs. For consular resources on the ground, and ensur-
the smaller customers, the EIB provides loan ing that the visa application was available in
facilities to banks and financial institutions, Spanish could have helped to reduce the im-
thereby helping provide finance to custom- pact of the visa requirement on what was one
ers with eligible spending plans or projects of Canada’s fastest growing tourism markets.
of a smaller scale. The final lending decision
remains with the bank or financial institu-
tion; however the involvement of the EIB
provides additional securitization of the loan.
The program in Canada could be similar, with
the infrastructure bank providing a degree of
security to lenders by insuring the loan. Costs
associated with the program could be recov-
ered through charging a small insurance pre-
mium, somewhat akin to the current Canadian
Mortgage and Housing Corporation program
for low equity mortgages.
Page 39
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 40
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
traveler identification. Other system reforms would allow them to more efficiently deploy
could also improve on the efficiency of screen- resources where and when they are needed
ing, such as investing in technology that allows the most. Airports would not be required to
CBSA agents to process passengers without provide the services themselves and airports
having their luggage, meaning that they would could choose to have CATSA provide pre-
not have to be re-screened for connecting screening if they wished. Airport provided
flights. pre-screening services would be regulated to
meet federal guidelines and would be subject
SSC3, 4 and 5 - Aviation Security to audit and inspection. Implementing the
change would allow airports to take a more
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority holistic approach to security across their entire
(CATSA) is a crown agency established in 2002 operations. The model of having airports pro-
mandated with providing security screening of vide airline passenger pre-screening has been
the air transportation system. Safe and se- successfully implemented in other airports
cure travel is a critical component of national around the world.
security and a top priority for the aviation
based travel and tourism industry as well as Cost competitiveness is of vital importance to
the country as a whole. Concerns about CATSA the Canadian air based travel and tourism in-
revolve around two main issues: dustry. In this regard, the Air Travelers Security
Charge (ATSC) diminishes Canada’s interna-
• Allowing airports to provide pre-screening tional price competitiveness and puts the avia-
security services if they wish to do so tion industry at a disadvantage vis‐à‐vis other
modes of transportation. The ATSC has been
• Funding of security screening services. paid by travelers on domestic, trans-border
and international flights leaving Canada since
Some airport authorities are interested in 2001. With rising costs and the introduction of
being responsible for providing their own new technologies, a 52% increase in the ASTC
pre-screening services rather than using the was introduced on April 1, 2010.
services provided by CATSA. The change is
somewhat akin to communities in Canada The events of 9/11 illustrate the fact that avia-
making the choice between providing their tion security is a public good, with the ben-
own policing services or contracting the Royal efits accruing to both the traveling public and
Canadian Mounted Police to provide the ser- the general public. In recognition of this, the
vice. Airport control over screening services United States government covers 63% of its
Page 41
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 42
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Labour shortages are a key issue affecting all While the economic downturn reduced la-
facets of the tourism industry, from front line bour market pressures in 2009 and 2010,
workers in hotels and restaurants, to skilled Canada’s tourism sector is expecting to see
workers in travel trades, to senior managers labour shortages return in 2012. These short-
throughout the industry. The necessary pro- ages will increase in severity over the next 15
grams and actions must be implemented to years. Labour shortages are projected to be
ensure that the skilled labour supply is suffi- wide-spread, affecting both smaller and larger
cient to meet the needs of the industry going communities alike. The largest increase in
forward. potential labour demand will occur in the food
and beverage services industry, which could
support nearly 1.16 million jobs by 2025.
Policy Recommendations
Part of the solution in addressing the short-
ages is to increase labour market participa-
LS1 Increase the available supply of labour:
tion rates for under-represented groups in
• Encourage the participation of under-
represented groups in the labour market
the Canadian economy. Many jobs within the
such as youth, aboriginal people and new tourism industry are entry level jobs, and as a
Canadians
result, the sector employs a disproportionately
• Streamline and improve the Temporary high proportion of new Canadians and youth.
Foreign Worker (TFW) program including
Labour Market Opinions (LMOs).
In this regard, the CTHRC believes 30,000 jobs
to be a conservative estimate of the impact
• Specifically, use industry submitted wages as
the reference rate under the TFW.
that accelerating new immigrants’ rate of
entry into the workforce would have on the
Ensure that regional wage rates are tourism sector by 2025.
LS2 used (along with meaningful regional
definitions)
Tourism employers would like to attract more
Continue funding the work of the temporary foreign workers to fill existing
LS3
Canadian Tourism Human Resource vacancies, but are limited by the program’s
Council (CTHRC) structure and application process. Specifically,
the current program is not well suited to the
LS4 Availability / expansion of skills training
industry for the hospitality industry tourism industry, which has many part‐time
Page 43
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 44
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Page 45
CONCLUSION
Page 46
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Eliminate; airport rents, municipal taxes imposed Provide small and medium sized tourism establish-
on airports and payments in lieu of taxes ments access to financing through the develop-
ment of a travel and tourism infrastructure bank
Dedicate the proceeds of the excise taxes on that can provide financial intermediation
aviation fuel to aviation infrastructure
Increase financial and human resources to CBSA in
Modify the Foreign Convention and Tour Incentive order to minimize the impact of their operations
program through: on visitors’ travel experiences:
• Improvements to the current tour operator scheme • Aggressively implement smart border technologies
and trusted traveler programs
• Re-introduction of an individual traveler rebate scheme
Implement governance changes at CATSA that
Significantly reduce or eliminate the ATSC through would improve transparency and communication
expanded government funding of aviation security with key stakeholders such as airports and airlines:
and screening services
• Allow airports to provide airport passenger pre-
Create a Tourism Infrastructure Bank capable of screening if they wish to do so
providing low cost financing to airports, airlines,
and major tourism infrastructure development • Benchmark CATSA throughput rates and
productivity levels with similar security screening
projects
services around the world and implement regular
best practices review
Improve the connectivity of airports with the
surrounding communities and expand intercon- Increase the available supply of labour in Canada,
nections between airports and other modes of including:
transportation
• Encourage the participation of under-represented
Develop a coordinated tourism development groups in the labour market such as youth and new
strategy that identifies the key priorities within Canadians
each region
• Streamline and improve the Temporary Foreign
Worker (TFW) program including Labour Market
Increase funding for the Canadian Tourism Com- Opinions ( LMOs)
mission:
Continue funding the work of the Canadian
• Ensure an internationally competitive level of
Tourism Human Resource Council (CTHRC)
support
• Ensure stability and adequacy of funding over a Ensure availability of adequate skills training for
longer period of time the hospitality industry
Page 47
REFERENCES
Page 48
National Travel and Tourism Coalition Whitepaper October 2010
Page 49
REFERENCES
Page 50
Contacts
Page 51
LOOKING TO 2020
Whitepaper
October 2010
Authored by: