Evidence of meeting #8 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Would our witnesses be so kind as to use their little devices in order to bring the two solitudes closer together?
Mr. Marit, you used the expression “matter of commitment”. I really like that expression. Ms. Kolebaba also talked about quality of life, governance and the government's role at all levels. I understand that.
We have been talking about funding in particular. I would like to start with that. You are saying that the gas tax cannot be used because it is already being used for infrastructure. Do you think we should raise this tax to be able to provide other services or should we have a dedicated fund for infrastructure with a national public transit strategy? At any rate, we cannot have a national transit strategy if we don’t have an infrastructure strategy. At some point, we have to choose between rail and road. We are talking specifically about using those funds to maintain roads.
One of the problems we often encounter in Quebec is that the infrastructure has deteriorated over many years. As bus drivers say, we are moving backwards. What do you think about that? Where is the funding going to come from? The question is for the two witnesses and Ms. Kolebaba.
I am in favour of a dedicated fund for infrastructure with a transportation policy. You want to use a 50-50 approach. The Building Canada Fund can use the one-third, one-third, one-third formula. While respecting jurisdictions, are we able to have a real strategy involving a relationship between the Canadian government and the municipalities? Should we strictly be dealing with the provincial government? I know that the situation is very tricky in Alberta and in Quebec. Should we say that we will sign an agreement with a province and that we will make sure there is a dedicated fund for municipalities?
October 24th, 2011 / 3:55 p.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
I'll start, Mr. Chair, and take a crack at that.
When we're looking at funding, there's one thing we've been requesting for a long time--and I think it's something we must have--and that's a long-term infrastructure strategy. We need to have that with the federal government, the provinces, and municipalities. In that envelope, I think everything is there.
It has to be part of it. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about transit. It doesn't matter whether in rural Saskatchewan we're talking about roads and bridges, which are in dire need of repair, too, just as they are across Canada, or, as we talked about, whether we're talking about water and waste water through the Building Canada fund. In my province, there would be communities that would be in great difficulty today if the Building Canada fund hadn't come along and assisted them with water and waste water, because of the regulations and because of the changes they had to make. That was an excellent program
Now we have to move forward to 2014 as we start to have this discussion. I think it's important that we, as municipal leaders, are part of that discussion on the funding and how it's to be allocated. You raised a very interesting point about provincial jurisdiction and municipal jurisdiction. That is causing concern for many municipalities. Some provinces have excellent working relationships with the municipal organizations within their boundaries, and some have more strenuous ones. I think we simply have to work through that to make it right.
At the end of the day, we're here to serve the same people. That's the key and fundamental point. These people live in all jurisdictions and all parts of this country, and they're all entitled to and deserve adequate services.
Vice-President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
Mr. Chair, transit in rural Alberta does not respect boundaries. I'll use Lloydminster as one example. The citizens of Lloydminster interreact.
I would suggest that a lot of our rural citizens travel through 10 or 15 municipalities to get to where they need to go, whether it's for health or whatever, so I would suggest that we--the federal, provincial, and municipal governments--are all here to support the one taxpayer. The assistance that's needed in those areas is a formula that I think in rural areas should be addressed in terms of their geographic size, their lack of population, and their necessity. With our seniors, when we questioned them and did a survey, they had the five As: availability, affordability, acceptability, accessibility, and adaptability. So somehow we need to come up with something that's not a cookie-cutter solution.
You asked about the gas tax and whether we should add on there. I would defer to you as a more knowledgeable person on that one, but I think the formula, however it is created, definitely has to respect the rural distance factor. I know it's a tough one, but--
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I believe that. The issue here is on the governance--I'm a Quebecker, so I'm like an Albertan, I'm a rebel with a cause--
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
--so what I'm saying is that we have to find a way to make sure that this country is not one size fits all.... It's a matter of quality of life. Rural people have their needs and their quality of life has to be respected. You don't ask.... There, the kids are leaving home because of the accessibility and all of that. I understand that. Now let's work on the doable part of it. That's the basic issue regarding what we're doing here, so we need recommendations.
With regard to the gas tax, both of you said that it's already used and it's the same pocket that's paying. You always have the problem with per capita, and we all know that, so you need a new deal with what should be the government's role, because at the federal level it's not their business to take care of municipalities. But at the same time, this country will flourish if we have a new reality through the municipalities, so we have to find a way.
What do you recommend and, specifically on the money issue, where will it come from? Are we talking about a private-public partnership? Are we talking about changing the way we spend money? Where should it come from? Do you like those questions...?
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
That's why you folks are in Ottawa: to make those decisions on where the money comes from.
If I may, though, I do want to comment on one point you made about P3s. We've found that in rural Canada, and in rural Saskatchewan, P3s to some degree.... I think the federal government has to look at P3 design to make it work better for rural use. P3s are great where there's a need, and if you look at where the P3s are, usually they're in the larger cities across Canada.
That's fine, but in rural Canada we have to find a way to make P3s.... I think there's an opportunity we're missing. I think it's an opportunity for the federal government, the private sector, and municipal leaders to look at it on the rural side to make it work. I think there's something we should be doing there; it's something we should look at. Right now, the P3 formula, the way it's set, doesn't work for rural application because of the standards and measures that are there.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through you, I'd like to welcome our witnesses today. I appreciate their comments.
I served as a municipal councillor in British Columbia, and I know it's certainly a difficult process. I appreciate your work on behalf of the municipalities in your areas.
With respect to the Building Canada plan, infrastructure programming was designed on the basis of broad-based programs where federal funding could go to a number of investment categories, such as local roads, waste water and water infrastructure, cultural and sports infrastructure, as well as transit infrastructure.
Do you favour such broad-based omnibus programs where municipalities do have the flexibility in terms of investment categories, or do you favour a single or dedicated fund where federal investments can be made in only one specific infrastructure asset--for example, investments in transit infrastructure only?
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we have to stay with broad-based. I think it's important that we do. Then, within the broad-based program, we have to start to detail it a bit more, whether you get into transit or whether you get into rural infrastructure or other infrastructure.
We've had a very good look at what the Building Canada fund did and the good things that came out of it. As I said earlier, some great things have come out of it. I think we have to look at needs that have to be addressed. If you look at the province of Saskatchewan in terms of the Building Canada fund, for the rural Saskatchewan component--rural is what I represent, which is roads and bridges in rural municipalities--we got 4% of the fund allocation. The reason was that....
I'm not saying anything negative about the plan. I have communities that.... My own community is a good example. If we hadn't had a water project, the community would be in dire straits.
We can work on our roads and bridges at a level that we have to, but I think we have an opportune time here, as we move forward into 2014, to look at the program design, to look within the parameters of the fund, and say, “Okay, what can we do to make this a little bit better?”
We're not asking for the world. We're just asking for something.
Vice-President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
I think whatever formula that comes up, or that you would decide we have--if you even decide that--I have one suggestion. We applied for Building Canada, and let me tell you, the paperwork you go through as a small municipality to get that fund is almost as much as what you get. Somehow it has to be made simple. It has to be easy for smaller municipalities to apply for it.
Transit is as simple as a seniors bus to move them. In my area, we're not asking for roads and bridges, as my counterpart speaks to, although we have issues there as well. But when it comes to the transit itself and the links that we have, we just want to move the people from their homes in rural Alberta to their doctors, to their food sources. The rest of it will come through different areas.
That transit is an absolute necessity as we move forward. We're getting more immigrants. We're getting people who are not able to drive. We need the transit system in place, and we are willing to help out with that.
Does that help you?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
When you say you're willing to help out with that, does that mean you're willing to take on extra taxation to be able to subsidize? We've heard so far through this study that many municipalities often subsidize anywhere between 20%, in a larger community like Toronto, to 40%, or sometimes 50% or 60% of the service.
Is that what you mean by helping out?
Vice-President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
I will tell you right now, speaking for my municipality in Northern Sunrise County, that we do subsidize a seniors van to ensure that we can pick them up at home in a rural area, in a farming community, and take them to Grande Prairie to their doctors, or to Peace River, and ensure that they get back home along with their food supplies. We check them.
So we're already committing. We just need that additional help to make this a better transit system.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
If I have another moment, Mr. Chair, I would just share a comment.
Speaking as a former councillor, my concern is that we do come to the table with the municipalities and the provinces to do these kinds of things, but those selfsame municipalities end up having to subsidize some of these transit systems. Then they don't have money for basic infrastructure and they need the infrastructure program yet again.
So I'm always concerned that sometimes we also create extra needs by not focusing specifically on that financial picture.
Thank you.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
Yes, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the question.
There is something that has to be said here about what is going on with rural transit, which you don't know if you don't live rurally. For the most part, people with special needs or such issues are delivered to wherever they have to go, whether school or whatever, usually by a parent or a guardian. They have no access to transit buses or any opportunity to move outside their community to get things done that they need done. It's not available to us at all, and I think that's something we should be looking at.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Also, thank you to our presenters today for their time.
I want to start with a question to Ms. Kolebaba concerning the funding issue you talked about. In your presentation you favoured a fifty-fifty approach, federal and municipal. I have a question for you about how the province fits into the scheme. Does the province not have a major role to play in this?
Vice-President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
Yes, absolutely. In Alberta we have the Family and Community Support Services. They sponsor 80%. As municipalities, we put in 20%. Through that program, we run all kinds of programs for youth, the disabled, seniors, and so on. We put some of that money into transportation and then the municipality subsidizes it through the dollars we have within the pool for municipal government.
It's not enough. We know we need additional funds. We're doing what we can to fund it now, and our province has allowed us to use that fund to do it, but it's just not enough. Also, as I said, we do not respect boundaries: those citizens want to commute across that boundary.
