It's been called "corporate blackmail," "extortion," "bullying," "a ploy," and "heavy-handed." Greyhound is taking the heat for their demands of $15 million in government subsidies or else
That "or else" should be of deep concern to locals since it could mean the elimination of Greyhound passenger service in the Sea to Sky Corridor and beyond.
Morning commuters are already feeling the brunt of the Dallas-based bus company's ultimatum - the 6:20 a.m. route to Vancouver will be discontinued as of Nov. 9, leaving two dozen passengers stranded. And last week, The Chief reported routes between Pemberton and Coquitlam have also been cut.
But that's nothing compared to what Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Northern Ontario are facing: a full stop of Greyhound passenger service.
On the surface, it's easy to accuse the company of taking advantage of its quasi-essential service by causing a panic throughout rural communities so heavily dependent on the form of travel. After all, if a private "multinational" (as federal transport minister John Baird called Greyhound during his scathing public rebuke of subsidy demands) can't turn a profit, its business should go to the next provider in line, right?
Well, let's reflect.
The federal government, which regulates transportation, handed off the responsibility for the bus service to each province, which, in turn, imposed their own numerous regulations. It's been over 50 years since the provinces mandated that Greyhound's profitable side, which includes package delivery, subsidies its non-profitable side, i.e. inter-city passenger transport. In some cases provinces even regulate the company's routes, schedule, rates and equipment.
And that, says Greyhound, is precisely what has been creating their financial losses.
So since the venture is made unprofitable because of government interference, should the government interfere before the service meets its demise -if only for the sake of those hundreds of thousands who rely on its service? And is a request of that nature truly a case of bullying, as Baird said?
The issue of subsidies has been very deftly side-stepped by politicians.
Baird is (unsurprisingly) passing the buck - but not before spewing completely unproductive invective that speaks so beautifully to the rural Greyhound-rider's (read: voters') heart.
After oh-so diplomatically portraying Greyhound as the black-hatted villain to the press, Baird goes on to say the feds have their "hands full" with Via Rail and aviation(he's got a point, they're doing a lousy job at making those forms of mass transport accessible). However the Senate seems to believe it is a federal responsibility. Seven years ago, a Senate committee issued a report recommending the federal government enact economic deregulation of the bus company. And since deregulation would almost certainly lead to the abandonment of rural routes, the Senate also recommended a rural bus subsidy program of $30 million per year. It's time the federal government get out of the sandbox and fix the system for the sake of thousands of inter-city bus riders.
