Evidence of meeting #23 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waters.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Mr. Chair, I don't know if that's it for the questions, or if we're getting down to closing remarks, but as far as my closing comments to the committee are concerned, first of all, I really want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, for hearing us here today and for undertaking this whole process. I can't stress to you how important it is to rural Canada to have the definition of a navigable waterway changed. That is number one. The definition has to move away from a water system that doesn't flow for more than three months—it has to. It's imperative if we want to build this country the way we want it to be built. There's an approval process that we have to go through in that regard, then. When we're applying to the federal government under the Building Canada Fund, or whatever programs are out there, and we're delayed and miss the application process, we lose the money.
So I can't stress to you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, how important it is for all of rural Canada to have this definition changed.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I absolutely support what Dave has said. It's not exclusively rural Canada either. I've had some conversations with our urban counterparts in terms of the associations that also are part of FCM, and they really don't have a lot of examples to come back to. They haven't had a lot of issues. If you're in Calgary or Vancouver.... You have the Lions Gate Bridge out in your area. I have family who live on the north shore. It's a beautiful area, but I'm sure there are concerns about it, because that's a fairly heavily trafficked area. It's probably one of the most heavily trafficked navigation areas underneath that bridge, and I'm sure there are some strong considerations there.
When we get out into the smaller outlying areas, we really speak to a capacity issue for communities. There are time delays. The money is simply not there when you're going back to local taxpayers to contribute their portion. So what we're trying to do today is appeal for....
We laud the work that's been done. We've read the Transport Canada recommendations, and we support the majority of them. We think they need to go a little bit further. We certainly concur with what our provincial governments are saying. There's been a strong concern expressed through our membership, and that's why the resolution to have us go forward and open discussions with the government passed unanimously at the FCM board table.
I would appreciate some consideration for perhaps setting up a working group that would, on an intermittent or as-needed basis, enable us, as a group of municipalities, to sit down with the navigable waters department, Transport Canada, which is responsible for that area, to see how we can help in facilitating this. My particular view of this, and I know Dave feels the same way, is that when we come to these things, it's not always about money. It's about money a little bit if we get delayed. Certainly that's a problem. But it's about changing the legislation and using a little more common sense to allow us to more effectively utilize the dollars, which, at the end of the day, we all have stewardship over for our ratepayers.
I too am most grateful for the discussion. We didn't think this was going to happen. We were told a year ago, no, there wouldn't be any opening of the legislation. So we're absolutely delighted, and we appreciate the efforts made by you folks in listening to us and others who will come forward, because there's a lot of technical detail. Again, I'm not an engineer, but I think I understand the practicality of making legislation more effective for our ratepayers.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today. Hopefully we've answered your questions. You've given us some direction. We'll go back and do a little bit more homework and get that back to you.
Merci.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you very much. We appreciate your taking the time. I think the comment has been made a few times that it's not an issue that reaches out and grabs every Canadian, but if you've ever served municipally, provincially, or federally, it's an issue you are made aware of very quickly in terms of how it impacts the communities you represent.
Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
For the information of the committee, on Thursday we're going to consider our draft on rail safety. We all have our copies now.
On Tuesday of next week we will come back to navigable waters. We have several provinces that are going to present, probably as one.
Then on Thursday, May 8, we have our main estimates. The minister will be here, and we are making arrangements to have that televised, so I want you all to look your best on May 8.
Are there any other comments? If not, I'll adjourn the meeting.