Transport Committee on Oct. 24th, 2011

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But do you not see the role...? You're using a certain amount of provincial funding now and you are allowed to allocate some of it. But do you not see that if you want to have a full strategy going forward, really, the province has to play a key role just in a transit strategy alone?

[Carolyn Kolebaba]

Absolutely, and we've asked for the whole system to be looked at in regard to how we're moving people. So yes, for sure.... In urban settings, it's simpler: there's a close-knit boundary. But in rural areas, it's largely driven by weather or by the gravelled road or the mud road--it's not all pavement.

Even in Alberta we have a divergence about how we would make the strategy. It's a conversation that I believe Alberta and the Canadian government need to have, but it's also one that municipalities need to be at the table for, so that we can help you understand the needs and so the money goes to the best place and is used honestly and effectively.

Does that help you?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes.

[Carolyn Kolebaba]

Thank you.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I also want to talk about the divergence of needs that you've raised a little bit here too. Mr. Marit spoke of almost more of a need for infrastructure versus operational, and you seem to be presenting more of a need for operational than for infrastructure support.

I bring that question forward for both of you. How do you deal with those two different and unique challenges when even two provinces with some of the same issues of being rural provinces with a large rural population...? As you said, 95% of your base is outside of the major centres. How do you deal with those particular issues that exist in such a conflicting way in two different provinces that are side by side? Also, how do we tie this all together into one plan?

[Carolyn Kolebaba]

Well, inside our boundaries in Alberta, the infrastructure we're utilizing to transport people today will be the same infrastructure on which we would put another van to transport people. This doesn't mean that these are paved roads and it doesn't mean they aren't. My concern today is the transit. We need to do better with it.

We will continue to grow the infrastructure in Alberta. We will continue to make the roads better for our citizens or whatever, but right now it's the transit that we need to help move more people, because as they age.... It's the same route from where we pick them up to Grande Prairie. It's the same movement. The infrastructure is there. It's just a matter of having more transit for them.

I would encourage you, when you do speak to our provinces, to speak about transit for those people and about putting in more dollars. If the federal government contributed, we would for sure have better access for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

David?

[David Marit]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the comment on transportation, yes, roads and bridges are very important to us, but we're here today talking on transit, and thank you for that.

As for what it is in Saskatchewan, as I said in my statement, in rural Saskatchewan I don't know of a publicly funded para-transit bus, other than the fact that we have STC moving seniors. For the most part in rural Saskatchewan, it's volunteers or it's family members, and that's a great thing. We pride ourselves on volunteers and people working within the communities.

My colleague has stated that there are no boundaries when it comes to transportation needs. We have to move the people who need the services, where they need them, and as I said in my opening statement, when you see health care facilities consolidating and schools consolidating and issues like that, it has a huge impact on rural Saskatchewan as a whole. It's a way of life. We're an agriculture-based province. When people need special transportation methods, the need has to be looked at.

It doesn't mean that we can't look at it in our municipal system, because it can work that way, similar to what STC does. But as I stated earlier, it's a crown corporation that loses money every year. There are probably things they could do better, but I think there are things we can do through the federal government, through the provinces, and through the municipalities to coordinate an effort that could work and would be beneficial.

Nothing says that a transit bus can't transport both seniors and special needs people to facilities. Maybe that, in some of the design and some of the cooperation with all levels of government, is what we should look at.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I want to just touch on this. You have some unique challenges, obviously, because of the size and scale, which is sometimes a little bit bigger but sometimes very small. What role would both of you see private operators being able to play in your rural transportation issues? Obviously in some of the very small ones, that would be a common-sense approach at times.

[David Marit]

It would.I think that's where we have to look at the whole P3 perspective, to some degree, to see where it can work.

The private sector will go where there is an opportunity for them to make money. We know that. Unfortunately, when you start talking about rural and remote Canada, you start looking at issues of cost of delivering service. That's why we're seeing some of the move away from it. This doesn't mean that there aren't still people there who need services, unfortunately, as we've started looking at what the private sector does. I think that then becomes a role not only of the federal government and of the provincial government, but of us as municipal leaders.

Municipalities in rural Saskatchewan today are doing things they never did 10 years ago as far as sharing costs and doing things are concerned. With all types of growth, we're seeing that, but I think there's an opportunity here for us, as three levels of government, to work together to deliver a service that we feel is very important, not only in rural Saskatchewan or rural Alberta, but all over rural Canada. It really is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

It sounds a bit like the school debate when we were trying to figure out how we were going to move children from one school to another.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Marit]

Isn't it, though?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Chow.

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

On that note, the word I keep hearing is coordination and having a comprehensive plan.

I have a private member's bill before the House of Commons that is being debated at second reading on Wednesday. It didn't come from me. It actually came from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The vision is that the federal government can take a leadership role and bring together, let's say, Saskatchewan with SARM, and Alberta together with your organization, plus some of the big-city mayors, and then, province by province, municipality by municipality, ask what the plan would be. For example, what would the plan would be for rural Saskatchewan? What would it be for the bigger cities, whether that's Saskatoon or Regina? How would the transit system work to ensure there are connections between smaller towns and the cities that the local municipalities can afford, and not just through their property tax?

Once you have a plan, you can work out who pays for what and whether it is delivered by the municipalities, the provinces, Greyhound, the private sector, or someone who owns a van or taxi service--whatever--but you must at least have a comprehensive plan to decide who pays for what and how. In the long term, say 10 or 20 years, who is going to fix the bus or upgrade it? Things fall apart, so when you get a chunk of money to buy new buses and they fall apart, who is going to fix them? Will the municipalities have to fix them from their property tax?

Having that plan and discussion would I think lead towards some kind of stable, predictable funding, so that the service level would be stabilized. Right now, it seems that it's boom and bust. Sometimes the money comes and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the government, the provincial or territorial governments, and if the program is designed to be cost shared, sometimes the municipalities just don't have the money to do so.

Is that the role you want the federal government to play in the first instance? Of course, it needs to be backed up with some kind of funding to ensure that it's not just 4% of the Building Canada funds that rural Saskatchewan would receive.

[David Marit]

I think we're at opportune time to have this discussion. We know that the Building Canada fund comes to its end in 2014, so now we should be sitting down and talking with groups about what we want to see in that strategy and then in that program. Then, if we start looking at long-term infrastructure funding, then what all falls into that envelope? I think that's the discussion we need to have: what are we going to look at in the long-term infrastructure plan? Transit is going to be a part of it. Everything is going to be a part of it, and how do we look at it?

Because there are other players here that we're going to have to bring into the room at some time, especially from the rural perspective. I can't speak on the urban side, because I'm not an expert on their issues. I'm not really an expert on the rural side, but I'm here to speak about it. I think there are other groups we have to bring in, especially when you start talking about transit in rural Saskatchewan. Education has to be brought to the table. Health has to be brought to the table. Social services really have to be brought to the table.

Then we need to ask how we can work in partnership and harmony to make this work, because I just see things opening up here. If the federal government came through with something in this strategy, I see huge opportunities for rural Saskatchewan, and probably for rural Canada, when we start looking at a transit strategy with some implications that way. I have things going through my head that we could really be talking about, but here we're focused on transit.

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

And from Alberta...?

[Carolyn Kolebaba]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In our situation, we already have a system in place. It works, and we are moving it along: we just need additional dollars to make sure it continues.

I don't think a huge bureaucracy built around the transit system is the answer. I believe that municipalities are fully aware of spending that money in the best way they can. As for allocating dollars towards transit, excellent, and then ensure the municipality is doing that through of all your paperwork that comes along with it on the accountability side.

I'm pretty sure it can be simplified. It just needs to be addressed. How you do it through the national strategy, when you look at it, is something that the associations would gladly speak to you about, more than our time here today permits.

It is a need. Don't forget the rural areas, because they need to move the disabled, seniors, and youth. We need to do this in order to ensure that we are all healthy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you very much for being here today.

I haven't heard, so far, a convincing case as to why it should be the federal government and not the provincial one that would partner with your municipalities in funding this initiative.

[David Marit]

Because I think there's a role for the federal government in this, and I think there's a responsibility for the federal government in this, in servicing transit and its needs. I've lived in rural Saskatchewan all my life. I'm quite capable of driving where I have to go for what I need to do.

This hits really close to home, and Mr. Chair, I hope I can get through this. We were very fortunate that when our son was born 26 years ago he was very healthy. Three weeks later, a sister-in-law and brother-in-law had a handicapped child born in the city of Saskatoon. He's still in a wheelchair, and it has been 26 years.

If that had been our son, I would have had to make a decision as to whether I was leaving the farm or whether my son was leaving our house, and that's an awful thing to say. Or I would have had to equip a bus and I would have had to take him to a special school.

He is in the city of Saskatoon and is being picked up every day by a bus that takes him to a special school, where he is educated and is working in the community today.

Those are the things that have to be looked at.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The bus is provided by an agency...?

[David Marit]

Yes, it is.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Which agency is that?

[David Marit]

I think that in the city of Saskatoon it's called Paratransit.