A couple questions from municipal leaders from across the country hit me as especially pertinent to the problems facing rural Saskatchewan communities today.
The questions were posed to me as a member of a panel discussing leadership at the National Municipal Infrastructure Summit in Regina - a gathering of mayors, councillors and administrators from the across the country.
The first was really more of an observation from the mayor of a Nunavut community who thought my speech didn't focus enough on the specific problems of smaller, isolated communities. Such communities have infrastructure challenges that are, proportionally speaking, bigger than those of a larger centre with a bigger tax base and a bigger capacity to attract the attention of senior levels of government shopping for votes.
Fair enough. After writing this column in weekly newspapers for about 13 years and a daily Saskatchewan newspaper column for more than two decades now, I should be more than aware that the specific frustrations of small rural communities do get brushed aside.
The second question was from a local politician from a mid-size Ontario community who wondered what municipalities could do to work more effectively with the senior levels of government.
My answer to him was to both work with and demand from provincial and federal governments longer-term strategies - especially, as it relates to infrastructure needs that require big time capital expenditures for communities.
A few days later, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) held its annual meeting and one of the major announcements was a plan to implement long-term funding program to meet infrastructure needs like bridges, roads and sewer repair.
According to Municipal Affairs Minister Darryl Hickie, the Saskatchewan Party government will hire consultants to develop a "best practices" report on how other provinces and countries are defining infrastructure needs and funding these costly items in the long run.
For many rural Saskatchewan communities, such long-term planning is long overdue.
In the world of politics, about the only thing less sexy than talking about the streets, sewers and bridges is talking about a long-term strategy to meet their needs.
In fact, it's even less attractive than the talk of increased revenue sharing (an overdue promise in which Premier Brad Wall vowed to make good on in his address to SUMA delegates) for more immediate spending needs.
But there is a reason why it's a top-of-mind issue with not only SUMA delegates here but also virtually every municipal politician in the country. And there's a reason why it's particularly pertinent to our smaller rural communities.
As communities continue to fight for their very survival, their need to rebuild and redefine themselves in the 21st century is more important than ever. For many communities, it's all about attracting new people and new industries that have come from elsewhere. However, it's harder to attract new people if your infrastructure doesn't meet a certain standard.
Smaller rural communities that haven't seen such infrastructure renewal since the 1960s, '50s, '40s and even '30s face a big challenge that people in the cities sometimes don't get.
For example, people in Saskatoon can grumble about a particular bridge in disrepair. And people in Regina might bellyache about the streets and sewers being rundown in specific older parts of town. But the simple reality is these cities that have experienced more growth have entire suburban neighbourhoods with new infrastructure. Having such amenities makes it easier to overlook a few specific problems.
However, if a smaller city or town has a rundown infrastructure, it has a disproportional impact on the whole community. Giving these communities a long-term plan to fix their most basic needs is really giving them a vote of confidence in their own future.
It's time rural communities received such a long-term infrastructure plan.
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 15 years.
