Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 30 - Evidence (May 29 sitting)
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 29, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 5:30 p.m. to examine issues facing the intercity busing industry.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this evening we have witnesses from the Canadian Urban Transit Association, a national body representing the urban public transit sector across Canada.
Although our mandate is intercity busing, urban systems are an important part of the public transportation sector and occasionally overlap with intercity markets. We look forward to learning more about the concerns of urban systems.
For the benefit of our witnesses, I will say a few words about why we have been asked to study intercity busing. The essence of the problem is that intercity bus ridership has been steadily declining for several decades. This decline is troubling because the bus mode is an important part of the passenger transportation system. The bus mode is expensive; however, it can go virtually everywhere and it is environmental friendly.
There are several possible explanations for the decline. It could be that people are better off than before and are travelling by automobile; it could be that more people are living in big cities; it could be that there is too much government regulation; or it could be that government regulation varies too much from province to province.
This is what we hope to find in the weeks and months to come. We will now hear from our witnesses, Mr. Michael Roschlau and Mr. Leck, from the Canadian Urban Transit Association.
Mr. Michael Roschlau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for inviting us to appear before you this afternoon.
Our association, CUTA, is a non-profit body that has been around for almost 100 years. CUTA represents the interests of the public transit community across this country, including about 100 municipal and regional public transit systems, several hundred businesses that supply the public transit industry, as well as other associations and organizations that are affiliated with public transit.
With regard to the mandate of this particular study and the issue of intercity busing, clearly, urban transit is a peripheral issue, as we are largely focused on urban and regional transportation. There is the potential, however, for overlap, as well as the potential for impact, depending on where the federal government decides to go with this issue, especially in the event that there could be legislation that might result in potential deregulation of extraprovincial bus carriers.
By way of background, urban transit is increasingly being called upon to serve a variety of interests, such as to increase choice in mode for urban mobility, to provide access to persons with disabilities to travel freely around urban areas, to improve the efficiency with which we move around our cities, to help with improving environmental issues by attracting more and more people out of singleoccupancy vehicles and onto public transportation, and to find a more economically efficient way of providing that mobility by moving more people on less road space as our cities grow.
Clearly, the attractiveness of public transit to its current customers and its potential customers, especially those who may currently be using private forms of personal transportation, depends on speed, comfort, ease of travel, minimal transferring, ease of fare payment options, simplicity of access and use. That, in turn, depends on being able to provide as seamless a network as possible of services that allow people to travel from their origin to their destination, be that from home to work, from home to school, to recreation or health care, or whatever that may be.
In order for it to be seamless, it needs to be coordinated in an integrated network-type fashion, whether that is a series of bus routes that are connected through seamless transfers or whether it is buses and rail that work together, as is the case in Toronto with the subway or in cities that have commuter rail and bus networks that allow for direct connections that are timed through their schedules to connect and that also allow for easy connections from a fare point of view.
Having said that, the primary concern that the transit association has in regard to potential deregulation is the unintended consequences that could occur if such legislation were put into place and what could potentially happen with extraprovincial bus undertakings that could, in a deregulated federal environment, be in a position to provide independent competing service in urban areas that would negate the network effects of an urban transit system.
I will stop here, in terms of background comments, and defer to my colleague, Brian Leck, to address some of the legal implications.
Mr. Brian Leck, Honorary Counsel, Canadian Urban Transit Association: Although CUTA's concern is a very narrow one, it is potentially a significant one for urban transit. It relates primarily to a possible drafting change that may be initiated with a view to deregulation of intercity and interprovincial transit in Canada.
The fundamental starting point is that extraprovincial bus undertakings are a subject of federal jurisdiction. Case law establishes that under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that is something the federal government has power to address and to deal with. Under the current Motor Vehicle Transport Act, power has been delegated specifically to the provinces. That power is contained in sections 4, 5 and 6.
What that says, essentially, is that although this is a federal matter, provinces can legislate with respect to extraprovincial bus undertakings in a particular province. Intraprovincial bus routes, whether they are intercity within a province or in urban areas, by virtue of that delegation of power down to the province, allow a province to control things such as municipal urban transit. In fact, that is what has happened in most provinces. In Ontario, and I touch on this in our written presentation, there are two primary means by which this is achieved. One is a direct provincial piece of legislation that empowers an agency, a commission, to have in effect a monopoly, to have exclusive responsibility and authority for transit within a specific urban area. The City of Toronto Act, No. 2, is one example of that: The Toronto Transit Commission is given the power and the exclusive authority to operate urban transit within the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto.
The second means by which that is achieved is under general legislation in the Ontario Municipal Act, which allows cities, by bylaws, to establish, in effect, exclusive authority for various departments under their umbrella of control to run transit. That works very nicely because, for the reasons outlined in Mr. Roschlau's submission, it is important that there not be six, seven or eight competing enterprises within one city trying to cherrypick routes and offer conflicting and competing services.
The problem arises because some interest groups wish to deregulate and to focus on safety as the prime, if not the sole, regulatory regime. As a concept, that is not something with which the Canadian Urban Transit Association disagrees, except for one proviso. The proviso is that the provincial powers to regulate urban transit be maintained. That is absolutely crucial. If that is not maintained, then the province potentially, and I would submit probably, loses the ability to regulate in any way intraprovincial operations. An enterprise could establish itself as operating some routes interprovincially but at the same time operate certain routes within a city as part of its enterprise. The provincial legislation would be deemed to be inoperative with respect to that extraprovincial bus undertaking.
The logic behind that is that the federal government would be seen to be implementing a regime where the only regulatory control is with respect to safety or is very limited. That would conflict with what would be seen or perceived to be an attempt by the province to regulate that very federal area.
In view of that conflict, the principle of paramountcy would dictate that the federal legislation would rule the day. In that event, you could have a situation where you would have competing extraprovincial bus undertakings in effect operating and competing against urban transit organizations in the various cities of Canada at the federal level.
That is a situation that we do not want to have to address at some point in the future. It is a legal argument that someone may present to a court if, for some reason, this delegation of power by the federal government to the provinces is not properly protected or addressed in any future legislation.
The Chairman: There are a number of federal initiatives in progress to examine urban transportation. Transport Canada has just released three studies on urban transit. What are the key issues in urban transportation today? Is it primarily funding, or are there other significant issues?
Mr. Roschlau: Clearly, there are many significant issues. Currently, funding is probably the central one, given that municipalities across this country are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their financial support for public transit services, at a time when ridership is increasing. As well, at this time, there are significant demands on public transit to cater to certain mandates, such as helping to alleviate traffic congestion, helping to reduce pollution and helping to increase general urban mobility in our cities. Clearly, funding is a critical issue, as is modernization of the infrastructure, improving the quality of service and being able to speed up the ability of the transit systems to make themselves fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
The Chairman: Several carriers, academics and government representatives have suggested that public transit systems tend to expand and squeeze out private intercity carriers who could offer riders a wider range of nonsubsidized service. How would you respond to that view?
Mr. Roschlau: Generally speaking, there are few areas where that occurs. It might be in the suburban areas of the largest cities where there are corridors that may have been or may be served by private carriers. As the transit service areas expand, decisions may be made provincially, municipally or regionally to incorporate those services into a unified regional transportation network. GO Transit in the Toronto area is one example.
There is, however, nothing to prevent a collaborative arrangement from being established whereby the regional or local authority could work together with the private carrier in providing that service or, indeed, under some kind of contractual arrangement where the private carrier may be operating a service on behalf of a municipal or regional authority. There are several examples now of where that is the case.
The Chairman: Some stakeholders are calling for the deregulation of intercity busing as a means to reverse the decline in intercity bus use. Do you have a position on that policy?
Mr. Roschlau: We are very much in favour of measures that would increase the use of intercity bus services. It is clear that they are cost effective and an environmentally friendly way of travelling.
In terms of how one might revitalize the intercity bus industry, the concern that we have around deregulation is mostly specific to its potential impact on urban areas. We do not have a specific position on how it would impact intercity carriers.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Leck, for my benefit and, perhaps, for the benefit of other members of the committee, could you again outline the federal, provincial and municipal authorities regarding intercity busing and urban bus transportation? I know about the federal government delegating; however, I did not quite follow your argument for how deregulation might affect the provincial powers that have been delegated. Could you go over that again, please?
Mr. Leck: Currently, because of the delegation of power from the federal government to the provinces, there is no issue or concern for urban transit agencies or municipalities. Because of this delegation of power from the federal government to the provinces, the provinces can, without any concern about a constitutional issue arising, through respective municipal acts or through the City of Toronto Act, for example, say, "In this area of the city of Toronto, the TTC shall have exclusive authority to operate public transit vehicles, such as buses, subways, or whatever." If an extraprovincial bus undertaking attempted to move into that market and operate service from Toronto to Quebec but also started to operate competing routes up and down Yonge and Eglington, maintaining that it is all part of its federal endeavour, that it is a tangent part of its business, the provinces are now empowered to disagree. They have authority through this delegation of power from the federal government to say that a bus undertaking cannot do that.
The problem arises when, in furtherance of an objective that some interest groups have, there is a thought to deregulate interprovincial transit. Part of the federal thinking might go like this: "There are all these competing and conflicting regulatory regimes in different provinces. They are inconsistent and create unfairness. There is not an even playing field. They create a lot of confusion and economic hindrances for companies. Therefore, we should focus our regulatory regime on safety performance assessments, insurance, safe vehicles and perhaps a few other things. We should remove the province's authority to clutter up the regulatory regime with all these competing and conflicting provincial regulatory regimes." With that line of thinking, they would remove holusbolus the entire delegation of power to the provinces.
The problem then is that you have a province, such as Ontario, with a regulatory regime that limits the ability of other carriers, extraprovincial or intraprovincial, from operating in urban areas. The argument will look like this: We are an extraprovincial bus undertaking, and the federal government has expressed an intent that no other regulations apply, certainly not provincially, other than the safetyrelated regulations; therefore, Ontario, your attempt to regulate the extraprovincial bus undertaking is in conflict with the federal intent. Based on paramountcy, the provincial legislation would be rendered, in my view, inoperative and ineffective with respect to that extraprovincial bus undertaking.
Senator Spivak: This is an important point. In effect, what we have is a patchwork standard. We do not have national standards even though it is within the federal government's jurisdiction. I did not think it was just for safety. In any case, there are different regimes in different provinces.
What you are suggesting as a solution, if that is a desirable goal, is not deregulation. Perhaps the federal government should take back those intraprovincial powers. Then what?
Mr. Leck: I think I speak on behalf of Canadian Urban Transit Association when I say we have no objection to deregulation. We are neither pro nor con.
Senator Spivak: That is why I am puzzled.
Mr. Leck: The only concern we have is this issue of the delegation of power to the provinces.
Senator Spivak: But that is important.
Mr. Leck: The issue could be left as a general delegation of regulatory power but that, at the very least, there be an ability in the province to exercise control over an authority overseeing urban transit operations. There may be many other types of regulations that provinces exercise.
Senator Spivak: Is it possible to deregulate intraprovincial busing powers and to keep urban transit within the powers of the province government?
Mr. Leck: I am suggesting it as an option.
Senator Spivak: You are not suggesting that you are opposed to deregulation of the intraprovincial busing network.
Mr. Leck: No.
Senator Spivak: You are saying that you accept the current patchwork of standards and regulations I am particularly interested in trucks and that you think that ought not to be remedied; correct?
Mr. Leck: No. With all due respect, senator, there are two ways to protect the interests of urban transit. One is with the current legislation, which is effectively sections 4, 5 and 6, which have a broad delegation and create this patchwork. We are neither for nor against that. That would protect the interests of urban transit.
A second way to do that, and this is highlighted on page 2 of our written submission, about two thirds of the way down the page, is to suggest that the new legislation either adopt the provisions of the current Motor Vehicle Transport Act, sections 4, 5 and 6, which would be the status quo, in effect, and it would protect urban transit, or alternatively, as a minimum, that any new legislation explicitly provide that it does not limit the ability of a province or combination of provinces to regulate extraprovincial bus undertakings when they are operating within one municipality or within a contiguous urban area, whether such urban areas are within one province or more than one. That deals with situations like Ottawa.
Senator Spivak: The only thing that puzzles me is why you are so neutral with the issue of regulation or deregulation.
Perhaps that is too lengthy and I should yield to another senator.
Mr. Roschlau: Perhaps I can elaborate on the question Senator Spivak raised regarding the patchwork across the country. As it turns out, the type of regulation that currently exists, as it applies to urban public transit undertakings, usually through various municipal acts in each province, is in fact very similar. There is little variation.
Senator Spivak: I am talking about the interprovincial.
Mr. Roschlau: I understand.
Senator Phalen: I have a question on your background information, gentlemen. You say that urban public transit provides mobility for persons with disabilities, either through specialized parallel service or through technological enhancements that allow for access to buses and railbased service.
Could you elaborate on that? I believe I know what you are talking about, and that is probably wheelchair accessibility. Could you elaborate just how accessible it is? What would be a specialized parallel service?
Mr. Roschlau: Typically, there are two types of urban public transportation services that are accessible to persons with disabilities. The first is what we call specialized public transportation. It is dedicated to a particular market and it operates on a doortodoor basis. It goes by different names in different communities. The service in Ottawa is called Para Transpo; in Toronto, it is Wheel Trans; and in Vancouver it is HandyDART. Typically, it is a small bus that has either a low floor with a ramp or a lift that will facilitate the access of someone in a wheelchair. It operates on a prebooking basis.
Senator Phalen: Is that the specialized service?
Mr. Roschlau: Yes. Increasingly, in the last number of years, what we call the conventional or main public transit service, that is the large buses, rail systems in some cities, have become more accessible as well. The main difference was the introduction seven or eight years ago of the concept of a lowfloor bus, which is a standard 35 to 40foot long bus having a floor almost at the level of the sidewalk. There are no steps inside the bus. A ramp folds out, enabling an individual in a wheelchair to get on the bus. That is a gradual process now as new buses are being acquired by the transit systems. They all have low floors.
Senator Phalen: How many people would those buses accommodate?
Mr. Roschlau: Typically, two on an average bus. It may be more on an articulated one.
Senator Phalen: Can vans play a role in public transportation?
Mr. Roschlau: There are areas where vans can definitely play a role, especially where there is lowdensity development and where there is not enough demand to justify large buses. I think of Calgary and Vancouver, both of which have what they call a community shuttle concept.
Senator Phalen: Is that between communities?
Mr. Roschlau: It is within lower density residential areas. Typically, the shuttle operates as feeders either to a light rail line or to a trunk bus line, to accomplish economies of scale and also as part of the network. Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver are three I can think of that have community shuttles that operate smaller vehicles that then feed into the main bus routes. Again, as part of the network, the timetables are integrated so that there is a direct connection and it facilitates that seamless trip.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Roschlau, you have a concern about deregulation in the urban area, and you do not want to comment regarding intercity. You say you are in favour of measures to increase ridership. What measures should be taken?
Mr. Roschlau: The intercity bus industry is, generally speaking, outside of our area of representation and outside of the Canadian Urban Transit Association's mandate. As such, there are other associations that exist that represent the intercity bus industry, and I am sure you have heard from them earlier in your deliberations. My statement is simply that we support increased use of intercity bus services, but our association has not taken a position specifically on that area because it is outside of our mandate.
Senator Callbeck: Do you not have any ideas as to what measures should be reviewed?
Mr. Roschlau: It is not something that we have specifically reviewed within our mandate because it is not part of our sphere of operation.
Senator Callbeck: Have you done any studies on the deregulation of the busing industry? You have obviously looked at it in terms of the urban areas.
Mr. Roschlau: We have looked at it in terms of the potential impact that earlier proposals could have had legally in the urban context, but not beyond that.
Senator Callbeck: You have done some studies on it, have you? Have you looked at it in-depth?
Mr. Roschlau: We have done a review of the potential impact of earlier proposals on the urban and regional scale.
Senator Callbeck: It says on your Web site that one of your goals is to raise public understanding of the larger issues affecting urban transportation to create and maintain a positive industry image. How do you do that?
Mr. Roschlau: Through a variety of initiatives, some of which involve producing materials that help explain the role of public transportation in urban areas and the benefits of increased use of public transportation. Right now, the industry is engaged in a nationwide public awareness campaign, which actually is an international public awareness campaign that we have undertaken in partnership with our U.S. sister association to generate a better understanding of the benefits, an understanding of public transportation versus personal transportation, and what can be accomplished by increasing the use of travelling together in buses, trains or subways as opposed to travelling individually in private cars. The goal is to generate a better understanding of the benefits, in terms of greenhouse gases and air quality, of quality of life in the community, the amount of space required for roads and parking, the investment that is required municipally and otherwise for roads and highways, and how increased use of public transportation can lead to a better quality of life in those various dimensions.
Senator Callbeck: How do you get that out to the public?
Mr. Roschlau: There are brochures on the subject. As well, in the last number of months, there have been messages on television, as well through our members locally or nationally. Our operating members are public transit agencies in cities and regions across the country; they are the local points of contact through their municipalities or regional governments as well in furthering that message.
Senator Callbeck: To come back to intercity buses then, do you not have any views or opinions on the level of intercity busing in Canada?
Mr. Roschlau: Our primary concern is with the urban and regional transportation, which is our mandate.
Senator LaPierre: I want to understand something. Do you represent the urban transit people?
Mr. Roschlau: Yes.
Senator LaPierre: In other words, you are totally regulated by the provinces, arising out of the Constitution Act, 1867, wherein municipal powers was given to provinces; correct?
Mr. Leck: I believe it is fair to say that all of the local transit companies — OC Transpo, the TTC, the London Transit Commission — are established under provincial legislation. They are considered to be generally a local matter within the province.
Senator LaPierre: Does it have anything to do with the federal government?
Mr. Leck: No.
Senator LaPierre: Therefore, it is totally provincial. Do you operate intercity, or do you only operate, for example, in the new City of Toronto and not in Mississauga?
Mr. Leck: Mr. Roschlau can better comment on other regions, but within Toronto the mandate for the TTC is strictly the City of Toronto. However, we also have the power to enter into agreements with other municipalities or municipal regions for crossborder service. There are situations where TTC vehicles leave the City of Toronto, for example, and go into Mississauga for some distance, or go into other areas, but it is not extensive. It is simply to provide an interconnection between various urban regions.
Senator LaPierre: Does the Mississauga system bring people to a certain point, following which they are picked up and brought into Toronto by the TTC?
Mr. Leck: That is right.
Mr. Roschlau: The interest is in providing the most convenient and attractive service possible to the customer. Customers tend not to be overly concerned about whether they are crossing a municipal boundary to get from home to work. In situations like Toronto or Montreal, where there are several municipal systems, every effort is made to coordinate those situations.
For example, in the Laval system, the bus comes across the bridge and pulls right into the terminus at HenriBourassa. The Réseau de transport de Longueuil comes across the Champlain Bridge into the downtown terminus in Montreal. In Mississauga, the transit system comes across into Toronto and drops off at the end of the subway line. Those connections, be they municipal or be they in conjunction with a regional system, like GO Transit in the GTA or the system in Montreal, may have local systems that connect with, say, the commuter train operated by GO as well as integrated fares.
Senator LaPierre: I approve of that. On the other hand, what they do cannot be called intercity transportation. It is merely a connecting point.
[Translation]
In terms of getting people off and back on again providing transportation, in other words.
Mr. Roschlau: It's important to really understand how intercity and intermunicipal transportation works. The fact is, the environment in which we operate is one of urbanized regions comprising several municipalities.
[English]
We have many urban areas now in Canada that are comprised of different municipalities, such as the Greater Toronto Area, which has municipal governments and regional governments within an economic area. The City of Ottawa and the City of Gatineau have much crossriver travel and commuting; as such, the City of Ottawa's public transit system is coordinated with the STO by crossing over and allowing for direct transfers. In Montreal, there are numerous municipalities, fewer than there used to be but still numerous municipalities, that need to be coordinated, where there is a lot of inter-municipal travel that is still intra-urban. Inter-municipal is between municipalities but within the same urban area.
Senator LaPierre: I understand that. When this committee talks about intercity busing, what we are talking about is travelling from Ottawa to Kingston, for example. We are not talking about travelling from Ottawa to Gatineau. Therefore, why would you worry whether we deregulate or not, since it is none of your business?
Is that a fair question, Madam Chairman?
The Chairman: It is a bit unfair, but I think the witnesses can answer.
Mr. Roschlau: It is an absolutely fair question and one that gets to the root of issue. There is a potential that if the intercity bus industry were deregulated and the deregulation were implemented to apply to any company that is designated as being extraprovincial in nature, such a company might decide by virtue of that deregulation to run up and down Albert Street in Ottawa because that federal deregulation by legislation would take precedence over any provincial or municipal statutes that exist.
Senator LaPierre: How real is that? Is it very real?
Mr. Roschlau: It is entirely possible.
Senator LaPierre: We must bear that in mind.
Senator Phalen: Why is it that you do not have an opinion on deregulation or regulation?
Senator LaPierre: If I understood correctly, the witness is saying that we should not recommend deregulation because it will mess them up.
The Chairman: Senator LaPierre, I think we should let the witness answer.
Mr. Roschlau: Unless there is a specific exemption that guards against that potential unintended consequence.
Senator Spivak: In other words, you do not care at all, because it is not part of your mandate, how many competitors there are between cities, as long as there are no competitors within the city?
Mr. Roschlau: As long as the urban areas are able to maintain an integrated, wellstructured, coordinated network of services that is under one umbrella, yes.
Senator Spivak: I understand. I am trying to get at the philosophical root of what you are saying. You are saying you do not want competition within the city, although you do not care if it is outside. Do you mean that you could see competition in urban transit as long as it is integrated? Is that what you are saying? This is not bearing directly on the intercity question; it is just my desire to understand.
Mr. Roschlau: I understand, senator, what you are trying to sort out, and it is a very valid question. In order to clarify it properly, there are some principles that I need to go back to, if I may.
It has to do with the nature of travel in our urban areas. We live in a society in Canada that is very much like that in the United States and other western European nations where there is very high car ownership and where the predominant mode of travel within urban areas is by automobile. If we expect public transportation to fulfil a larger role in providing urban mobility, for all the many reasons that I mentioned earlier, then it needs to be provided to the general public in an attractive, wellintegrated and easy to access and understand way. As long as the rate of car ownership in our cities is as high as it is, public transit will not be able to cover its operating costs or be profitable for a private-sector carrier in a competitive environment or otherwise.
Senator Spivak: I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Roschlau: It may indeed be lucrative for a private carrier to operate a route up and down the main street of a big city, but it will not to be lucrative for that carrier to run an entire network that includes accessibility to all the elements of the urbanized area.
Senator Spivak: It is the standard public utility versus private ownership argument. I understand now. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Leck, you made the point that, in any legislative change, provincial powers to regulate urban transit should be maintained. Since all these services are subsidized by the provinces and municipalities, why is this power to regulate still needed? If they are subsidized, they must surely do as they are told.
Mr. Leck: The fact that there is subsidy in terms of other bus companies does not necessarily mean they are at a competitive advantage, because there are routes that are profitable and that are heavily used. There is a network of other routes that are not very profitable, but the kind of network that CUTA believes is in the public interest is an integrated, comprehensive service that best serves all the inhabitants of an area.
We come back to the problem of a legislative change. If the delegation of power to the provinces to control or regulate in some way extraprovincial bus carriers is removed, then an extraprovincial bus carrier could move in and, in effect, cherry-pick or operate on the profitable routes, take customers away, thereby wreaking havoc with the whole network of public transit service in a city. It would drive up the cost to the fare payers and the taxpayers to run this subsidized system.
They could say, "We are a federal entity, and you city council, or you the province of Ontario, have no authority to tell us that we cannot operate routes within this particular city environment."
The Chairman: What seems to be the minimum population of a municipality that can support a public transportation system? Do you know?
Mr. Roschlau: It tends to be around 20,000 to 25,000 people.
The Chairman: If a small community has no public transportation system, does the law allow for a private operator to offer a service? Do you think the existing situation is appropriate, or should it be changed?
Mr. Roschlau: Typically, communities that are not large enough to support public transportation systems, as simple and as rudimentary as they may be, would not have a demand that would support any type of local private system either. I cannot think of an example at this point where that would be the case.
May I elaborate on an element of your earlier question, Madam Chair? It relates to your point about competition. There are other ways to allow for the competitive element within the framework of current urban transit environments.
There are a number of examples across Canada where municipalities or regional governments that have set up a transit system have implemented a system of competitive tendering for the operations of the system. There is a central control of setting up the routes, timetables and the level of service that is provided based on the budget that has been allocated for it, then on a regular basis the operations of those services are tendered out to private-sector operators based on the best proposal. In some of those cases, the municipality owns and provides the vehicles; in others, the private contractor provides the vehicles. There is an example of that right here in Ottawa; Para Transpo has always been run by a private operator on behalf of the City of Ottawa.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We are now better informed than we were before our meeting.
The committee adjourned.