Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2011

[Doug Switzer]

Well, again, it's sort of a different issue than the provision of public transit services. But I guess if you wanted to roll that into it, you might say that we should expand the concept of public transit to some of these intercity bus operations and find a way for government to play a role in encouraging private operators to continue those services by giving them that 20-cent subsidy.

Just as you say, the fare box doesn't cover the cost of running the service. When the fare box doesn't cover it for a public entity, they can get a subsidy. For a private company, when the fare box doesn't cover it, if they're the ones providing the service, they will have to withdraw the service.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay. Let's put aside “private” and “public”. Let's assume that the word “public” is out of the bill, okay? Let's call it a national transit strategy--

[Doug Switzer]

That's right.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

--or transportation strategy, whatever you want to call it. Ultimately, there has to be a plan so that residents in Mount Pearl in Newfoundland, or in Yukon or Wawa or Sault Ste. Marie, will be able to continue to get some kind of service if they don't drive, especially seniors or young people going to school. These people need to have a way to move about.

Don't you agree that the federal government should try to bring together all the players to come up with some kind of plan? We need to figure out a way to sustain this transportation mode so that the service is available. Eventually, one way or another, someone has to pay something and that has to be on the table to be discussed. My concern right now is that there's no forum for that to be discussed other than when things break down and services get cut and everybody runs for cover.

[Doug Switzer]

I couldn't agree with you more. That is the bottom line of our presentation. We're not usually on anybody's radar screen, in government or out of government, until there's a crisis. We would welcome that kind of constructive dialogue about how we maintain those services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there.

I live in Manitoba and we had some services reduced. To answer Ms. Chow's comment, it was a provincial decision. They had the contract with the supplier of the service, which at that time was Greyhound, and they had to make the decision as a provincial government about whether they would continue to top up the fare box to provide services, particularly to northern communities.

I think that whether it's public or private, if you have to pay to get somebody to that service, the private company can provide it; it's just a matter of how much the subsidy is going to be. Or the public service can, depending on how much they're willing to shell out. Would that be a correct statement?

[Doug Switzer]

Yes, I think that's fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, because I know Greyhound continues to provide that service. I'm sure their margins are a lot smaller, but they're still providing that service which we desperately need.

That was my question. How do we come up with a policy that...? We talk about providing transit in Toronto or Montreal, but I don't have that luxury. How do I benefit from a national transit strategy that doesn't provide any services to me?

[Doug Switzer]

Right. As I said, that's something that should probably be included in it, how we deal with that.

In fairness, it widens the scope considerably when you talk about the whole health of the motor coach industry. There are a lot of other issues around economic regulation, and our industry faces a lot of challenges.

I know that the government did a study on the health of the intercity bus industry a couple of years ago. There were some recommendations in there as well about how to improve the overall intercity bus industry. So for us there are certainly a lot of other challenges beyond the whole issue of transit operations specifically and how we maintain intercity services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson, I'll charge my time against you. You have about 30 seconds.... No, you have three minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You're such a good man, Mr. Chair.

With friends like him.... Anyway, he's off my Christmas card list now.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for your presentation today.

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm trying to explore the boundary of where the private ends and the public begins here in your presentation.

Just so I'm clear, are you encouraging the federal government, in terms of a national transit strategy, to continue providing funding for capital improvements to transit systems, or are you now arguing that the federal government should also be involved in the operational costs and should therefore consider the operational costs of transit systems?

[Doug Switzer]

The distinction is sort of moot. It depends on how you do the contract. You can contract out the capital cost as well. There are different models for contracting for the services. In some of them, the municipality owns the rolling stock and the company just provides the management and drivers. In other cases, you can contract out the capital risk as well, and the private company buys the buses and brings them to the table. It's not just a capital and operating issue; it can be both.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

[Doug Switzer]

We're suggesting the idea be included that contracting out is an efficient tool and that municipalities should look at that. There are different ways in which they can use that tool.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I see. Okay.

Returning to the question of safety requirements, you're suggesting that some public systems.... You mentioned that no underbody inspections are performed by GO Transit. Are there other examples where there is an increased safety burdens on private operators or carriers that isn't borne by public transit authority systems?

[Réal Boissonneault]

I know there are some in Quebec. We have what we call the PEVL--I don't know the exact translation--which is a program of evaluation of the performance of a company, of a carrier.

If a driver loses points by driving too fast, or if we have a mechanical problem or something, we lose points. We have, I don't know, 15 points or so, and if we lose too many points we go before the commission. We have to make some serious adjustments or we lose our permit and cannot operate any more.

But those public transit authorities don't have that at all.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

In terms of the role of the private sector, is there a model you're recommending as being better than another? For example, is it 100% private provision? Or are we talking about fifty-fifty? What is the best example out there? What is the model you think is best for Canada?

[Trevor Webb]

There is a variety of models: everything from the municipality owning the equipment to the private contractor providing all equipment and services. It works out as what's best for the local government in that particular location.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are there differences between the capital and operational costs of private versus public? If so, what are they?

[Trevor Webb]

If we go back to using the example of British Columbia---

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I don't mean just operational, but on the capital side as well.

[Trevor Webb]

There is very minimal capital required of an operator in British Columbia because the crown corporation, BC Transit, supplies the actual buses. There's your largest cost of capital.

In Alberta, for example, we have systems in which we own the buses and provide all services, and we have other systems in which the municipality actually owns the rolling stock.

[Doug Switzer]

It's hard to say that there's one perfect model. If you look around, TTC is one kind of transit system, and it's a very different beast from Transit Windsor or one in a small community that only has a half a dozen buses operating. It's hard to say that one model fits all, because transit systems come in all shapes, sizes, and colours. It's whatever works for the local community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to interrupt there.

I thank our guests for being here today. You've added a different perspective to our study, so we appreciate your time today.

Committee members, we're going to take a quick break. Our other guest is here. We'll get him moved into the chair and continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back to part two of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Joining us today from Encana Corporation is Dr. Sam Shaw, vice-president, natural gas policy development.

Welcome.

In front of you is a powerpoint presentation. I'll ask Dr. Shaw to begin and then we'll follow with questions.