We added named works that fall under the mandate and control of the act. These include bridges, booms, dams, causeways, wharves, docks, and piers. In fact, no type of work has ever been removed from the act, only added. That's why we were suggesting that there needs to be some clarity in this matter.
In respect of minor works, we're talking about bridgeworks over canals, intermittent streams. That's where we've received most of the challenges—intermittent streams in the spring where you get runoff and you need to put a new culvert in. Maybe you had a 40-inch culvert, but all of a sudden they want one that's large enough for a canoeist to go through sitting upright. Does that really make sense when you have an intermittent stream and you haven't ever had a canoeist on that stream?
These are the kinds of things we're talking about—bridgeworks over small intermittent streams, over canals, that type of thing.
In the municipal district of Taber where I sit on council in southern Alberta, we had the McLean Bridge replacement about six or seven years ago. In fact, navigable waters was one of the easiest groups to deal with. That was a major bridge structure. There were some major environmental studies done, and we met all of the requirements. It went relatively smoothly and navigable waters, of all the groups that we dealt with, was the least intrusive.
We had bigger problems with Alberta Environment. We had to feed the deer. We have two types of deer: whitetails and mulies. We also had to deal with leopard frogs, because they cross the road. So we needed a tunnel to accommodate the leopard frogs. That was interesting—not that you want to see frogs squished on the road. Alberta Transportation, Saskatchewan Department of Highways, Manitoba, and B.C.—they'll talk about this, I'm sure, in their discussions about minor works of this type.
I don't know if that answers your question.
