Rural Dialogue
Taber, Alberta

Taber, Alberta - ENGLISH
June 23, 1998
5:30 - 8:30 pm

Questions

1. A) Rural residents are concerned about the future of their communities.
What are the key strengths of your community as you look to the future?

1. B) What are the biggest challenges that you, your family and your community face as you look to the future?

2. What is preventing you and your community from overcoming these challenges?

3. What organizations, levels of government or others should be involved in working to overcoming these challenges?

4. What role do you see specifically for the federal government in working with you to overcome these challenges?

5. How can federal programs and services better support your community's needs (e.g., are there changes needed in the design, delivery, awareness or accessibility)?

6. What is the best way for the Federal Government to continue to hear the views of rural people on an ongoing basis (e.g., meetings, surveys, polls, newsletters, advisory groups, the Internet, etc.)?

Findings

1. Rural residents are concerned about the future of their communities.
a) What are the key strengths of your community as you look to the future?

Community attributes that were mentioned included:

• Community spirit, willingness and ability to help each other and work together, volunteerism, determination, self-reliance, close-knit, innovative, creativity in dealing with challenges, friendly people, small town atmosphere. Social service strengths mentioned included:
• good education system, law enforcement, medical care, recreation services.
  Economic strengths were cited such as:

• agricultural and land base, water resources, value-added agriculture and food processing potential, tourism, transportation, oil and gas activity and revenues, great location, access to key markets.

• In terms of challenges, the groups focused on challenges from a community perspective.
• Community factors were outlined such as: youth leaving the community, aging communities, declining rural population especially in communities distant from cities, people expecting someone else to do it, maintaining characteristics of rural life, losing rural land to cities and being swallowed by large communities, and being able to change with the times.
• Economic factors were mentioned such as: lack of capital or limited access to capital, decisions made in urban Canada, transportation and highway infrastructure, dealing with downsizing of government services, lack of job opportunities for youth such as small business and technology jobs, retaining and attracting skilled labour, tax system, limited industrial base, encouraging economic development to utilize raw materials, Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, the high cost of grain transportation, the closure of rail lines and grain elevators, access to potable water, and the need for a national sugar policy.
• Social service factors were stated including: the availability of services such as schools, hospitals, post offices, recreational facilities; maintaining the health care and education system; and maintaining the social fabric/system in general.
• Environmental challenges were also cited such as water quality, air quality, and deforestation.

In terms of what's holding back your community, factors identified were:
general lack of confidence in the communities' future, and fear of trying something new

• lack of value-added activity
• education level
• inflexible financial institutions
• the Indian Act and Canadian Wheat Board Act (mentioned but no specifics)
• communities are not working together
• balancing growth and development with the loss of land
• a larger population mass is needed to support the retail sector
• infrastructure – transportation, water, power, gas
• the local ability to maintain infrastructure is putting fiscal and tax pressure on municipalities and town councils
• changing federal funding.

• involvement in federal decisions and discussions
• money to maintain infrastructure (specific projects included Upgrading the highway to Coutts, #3 and #36)
• educate the rural people on rural community needs
• regionalization or rationalization of government, school districts, public health
• develop agents for change, manage change as opposed to react to change.
• planning and managing for growth
• technology education
• life long learning.

• All levels of government - municipal, provincial and federal - should work together.
• In addition to government, other organizations who should be involved are: local economic development agencies, regulatory boards (e.g. CRTC, utilities), chambers of commerce, agricultural organizations, service clubs, province-wide organizations, churches.
• One group stated that communities should develop their own plans and initiatives and then partner with other communities, the province and federal government. They indicated local communities have to take more responsibility for local decision-making and that the federal and provincial governments should create a favourable climate for rural communities.
• Most groups expressed the need for governments to reduce bureaucracy and to reduce overlap and duplication among organizations.

• coordination with representatives from each organization (with a term limit)
• the federal and provincial governments should be facilitators
• clearinghouse of information (e.g. tourism, agriculture)
• changes in tax structure to encourage new farming
• farm youth program for families
• education and awareness about issues and programs
• proactive approach instead of reactive.

• One group called for a "single window mechanism" with coordination and consolidation of federal, agencies and departments focused on rural issues.
• The government could develop education initiatives for schools and the overall public, especially in education, health care and technology.
• The groups requested a level playing field for programs and policies between rural and urban.
• Continued support for economic development services such as Community Futures, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) and Farm Improvement Loans was called for. One person mentioned Industry Canada should do what it's supposed to do.
• One group mentioned the need to make it easier and beneficial for family care of seniors.
• Most groups cited the need for long-term infrastructure funding/programs for maintaining a good, solid infrastructure.
• Specific funding suggestions included: highway infrastructure, revisions to the Canada Student Loans Act, redirection of money from fuel excise taxes for rural infrastructure, and incentives for good management practices such as soil conservation.
• Emphasis was placed on the need to ensure we get value for tax dollars and ensure the rural voice is heard and understood.

• Suggestions included the following:
• quicker decision making – e.g., act quickly to deal with all transportation difficulties (roads, railways, grain handling)
• less money should be spent on study time
• need to eliminate duplication of federal and provincial programs and better coordinate services – seamless delivery of services needed for rural Canada
• promote the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers and different employment regulations (e.g. apprenticeship and trade certifications were mentioned in the plenary session)
• provide greater opportunities for youth
• assist schools to access the Internet through Industry Canada funding
• have federal government facilities available for the general public
• need more bottom-up decisions made at the provincial/local level not just Ottawa – lack of understanding of rural Western Canada in Ottawa
• existing funding programs should increase their accountability and relevance
• need incentives for people to come off of social assistance
• make rural communities aware of best practices that have succeeded in rural administrations.
• In the plenary session, some felt more decentralized design and allocation of funding was needed (note: there was not consensus on this issue). However, there was general consensus on the need for greater flexibility in program design and delivery to recognize the diversity of regions.

• The groups emphasized that small meetings like this with a cross-section of people were good vehicles for communication, but that the federal government must really listen to us!
• Some meeting ideas were: (1) to assemble a rural advisory group to feel the pulse of the rural areas, and (2) put a group of rural people together with an urban group so they can educate each other on needs, challenges and benefits.
• One group suggested that the local MP's office should play a more active role in public consultation.
• The Internet was outlined as a good vehicle, but many rural people do not have access to it yet.

All Rural Dialogue session reports on this Canadian Rural Partnership (CRP) web site are included for information purposes only. The views expressed in the Rural Dialogue session reports have not been edited and are those of one or many rural Canadians who attended the Rural Dialogue sessions.

The views expressed in the Rural Dialogue session reports do not necessarily represent the views of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or any other department or agency of the Government of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not make any warranties, expressed or implied, as to the content and/or use of the Rural Dialogue session reports.