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.
April 29th, 2008 / 11:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for appearing today.
I want to get clarification. We have the document from FCM here. You're representing FCM today, right? With respect to the 10 points, though--we'll get them later, and I understand why it's not always possible to get them here--why hasn't FCM endorsed them? What's the difference between those 10 points and FCM? I am curious to get the right distinction as to the difference.
11:40 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
That's a fair question.
When it was indicated that we had to have the documents in for translation in both languages, we had a resolution that Mr. Marit brought forward, and we had approved it on that basis. We have had subsequent discussions with both transportation departments in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan supports us.
In fact, in Victoria today there's a meeting of the four western ministers with regard to navigable waters and some other issues. They are probably going to designate one person to come and do the presentation. We didn't get that conveyed to us until after we had this; otherwise we would have included it.
11:40 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Not at this time.
11:45 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Even with the document we sent, the FCM board as a whole has not endorsed the specifics in that. They endorsed the resolution they brought forward to have this opened up for discussion.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'm a former city councillor, and I used to participate, so I'm aware of that. That's why I want to make that distinction. It's important, because if you're presenting on behalf of FCM but you're presenting other things that haven't been endorsed by FCM, I want to make that distinction.
11:45 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
They've endorsed the resolution authorizing us to prepare the background material for it.
11:45 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
The 10 points are part of the background.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Some of it overlaps what they have here; there are three points. We're going to get it later. I just want to be able to--
11:45 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
As the chair of the rural forum, it's my responsibility to take that resolution and prepare the background material in conjunction with staff, which we've done. Had we had the 10 points from Alberta Transportation, those would have been included in the original presentation we sent to you, which would have been authorized as the discussion process that was part of the resolution.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Okay, I just want to make sure that we're clear on the FCM, and we'll look forward to those points. I know they do cross over quite a bit as well.
The department was here, and they had made the claim that a lot of the.... The Whitesand River is a good example, to a certain degree. I mean, the problem was that you didn't like the decision at Whitesand; it wasn't the process in terms of it taking a long time. You didn't like the decision, but you wanted to be able to challenge that decision a lot more quickly than what took place.
11:45 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
That's right.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
The department claims that they're going through the minor stuff. They're cleaning that up. They have brochures and a whole series of different things. Can you provide some examples, beyond two years, that are sitting out there? They claim that those are a lot rarer today than they were before.
I'd like to provide you the opportunity to.... For instance, Whitesand is the one where the decision was made and you had to get back in the process to say that it didn't make sense for this particular project. It took a long time. But what about files that are not getting addressed or even examined?
11:45 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
At this time I don't know of any, but I'm sure they are there. I'll give the example of what's happening in the northeast part of Saskatchewan right now.
We have a lot of bridges that have been taken out due to flooding. Those municipalities don't have the resources to replace them with bridges, and they are in the process of dealing with the navigable waters folks on putting steel culvert structures in. They haven't been approved yet. That's the timeline. What happens with a lot of this process is the funding requirement when you do get delayed. We have had a few cases where the projects weren't approved in time and they lost their funding. That is probably one of the key issues.
I can give you one that happened on a provincial highway, and I believe that was last year. I think I have the date here. No, it goes back even farther, I'm sorry; it was 2004. It was the same thing. The provincial highways ministry was dealing with navigable waters folks in a situation on a bridge. Navigable waters was adamant that it had to be high enough for canoe transport. The water does not run there for twelve months or six months or three months of the year, but they were insistent on it. They came to these terms. Highways would put up a phone on either side of the road so that if somebody was canoeing instead of portaging, they would phone the Ministry of Highways. Highways would come out and close the highway so they could portage across the highway to continue on their way.
That is the truth. That's a factual story. That process held up that project for months, and the road didn't get done that year. That's what is wrong.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Yes, and can I ask you this, Mr. Marit? It's good to have specifics like that, because we hear a lot...and maybe what you guys are capable of doing through your contacts that others would not is to get those specific timelines and a little summary on those projects. I think we do need to challenge in a fair way what's being presented here. I think we need that evidence, and it's nice to hear of a particular project and some details on it, because it becomes more about generalities of late files and so forth.
But I think it's a fair process, publicly documented processes. I would much appreciate, and I'm sure the rest of the committee would too, getting those--when you can.
11:45 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I'll get started. Highways first applied on May 22, 2003, and the final approval came through on October 27, 2004, and that was only with those conditions. The call box had to have a 24-hour direct line. It wasn't for eight or 10 hours, it was for 24 hours.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
To the chair, what I'd like to do is get those examples from Transport Canada and their side of the story. If we want to understand how to fix what's happening, let's collect some of this evidence and present it and hear a response. Then we might get some commentary in terms of what Transport Canada feels is necessary to make things run smoothly.
Thank you for your evidence today.
11:50 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Can I just add one more example from Alberta?
I don't have all the details. This was written to me by Molly Douglass, who's the reeve of the County of Newell around the Brooks area of Alberta. If you know the geography of Alberta, it's on Highway 1 between Medicine Hat and Calgary. This had to do with an old bridge structure over a canal. Often culverts are more effective than bridgeworks and they're less expensive to put in as well. Just as Dave mentioned, when NWPA got finished with them, they wanted a sufficiently large culvert so a canoeist could go in sitting upright. It didn't make sense in this case because it's not navigable water; nobody is allowed to be in that area. It's on the Fisher Bridge, which was discussed for replacement. By the time the NWPA got finished with it, the cost had increased by $500,000 and they still haven't built the bridge. And that was in 2003.
11:50 a.m.
President, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
We didn't have the phone request. So there's another example. That's the kind of challenge we get thrown at us.
We had another one in Cypress County in southwest Alberta, which again involved an intermittent stream, and it was a combination of DFO and navigable waters. DFO wanted two culverts--one for the fish to go through and one for the rest of the stuff to go through, and I never understood that one.
11:50 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
