Yes.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the Navigation Protection Act and its effect on municipalities in Saskatchewan.
My name is Ray Orb and I'm president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, or SARM. We represent all 296 rural municipalities in the province.
I'm also here today to speak on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM, in particular the rural forum of which I'm currently the chairperson.
SARM's concerns with the Navigation Protection Act are in regard to the added costs to municipal infrastructure projects. SARM's environmental concerns are already looked after by the environment departments, both federally and provincially.
Water quality and other important environmental considerations fall under the responsibility of both the federal and provincial environment departments. SARM is confident that they have the proper legislation and regulations in place to ensure that there is a strong balance between the environment and infrastructure projects.
Before amendments were made to the Navigation Protection Act, RMs, rural municipalities, faced increased costs, project delays, and generally more red tape when planning, designing, and constructing infrastructure projects. This was a result of the requirements to accommodate non-existent public water travel.
These requirements made sense in 1882 when the act was created. However, our modes of transportation have evolved drastically and the need for ensuring passage of canoes has decreased significantly.
This used to mean that projects involving culverts were required to be large enough to allow passage of canoes or other similar vessels. Municipalities were told by Transport Canada to redesign and alter their projects, which resulted in delays and increased costs. Unfortunately, these alterations were required even though there was no public travel on these waterways.
Take the example from the RM of Insinger, in the east central part of Saskatchewan. In 2005 they faced a series of delays in attempting to replace a bridge on the Whitesand River. A representative from Transport Canada deemed that the waterway was navigable, despite the many beaver dams, rocks, brush, and no one living in the area could recall a canoe attempting to travel this waterway.
The original project cost was $125,000, and that proposal from Transport Canada would have cost $400,000, an increase of $275,000 from the original design. The RM and Transport Canada discussed this issue back and forth until SARM became involved in late 2005. Discussions continued until eventually the original project design was allowed to continue as planned. This delayed the project for well over a year.
A second example comes from the RM of Meadow Lake, in the northwest area of the province. In 2010 the RM applied for approval to construct a new road and bridge to cross Alcott Creek. The application was submitted in April 2010, and approval wasn't received until November 2011. In Saskatchewan our construction season ends in November, resulting in the RM of Meadow Lake having to wait two full construction seasons to start the project.
Upon receiving approval, the RM was required to raise the bridge above the existing road-top elevation to accommodate canoe traffic. This resulted in a hump in the road that is now experienced by several vehicles per day and will only accommodate a recreational canoe once every five years.
The amendments that came into force in 2014 addressed these concerns and allowed for municipalities to carry out their infrastructure projects without these unnecessary delays.
SARM and its membership are appreciative of these changes and are concerned that a review of these changes may result in a reversal. This would bring back the same old challenges that I have highlighted to you this morning.
We suggest that any amendments made as a result of this review take into consideration the positive effect that the amendments from 2014 have had on municipalities. SARM recommends that the federal government remain committed to these amendments which reduced the financial burden on municipalities.
On the FCM rural forum, I would also like to add the following points to consider.
The FCM rural forum is mandated by FCM to deal with real specific issues, and it's composed of member municipalities all across rural Canada.
The FCM welcomed changes to the Navigation Protection Act brought about in 2012, which eliminated unnecessary requirements to accommodate non-existent public water travel. The amendments allowed the existing legislation to be brought up to date and into line with the country's current transportation routes.
By reducing project delays and higher building costs to municipalities, while at the same time providing protection to these important waterways, the changes to the Navigation Protection Act directly related to municipal concerns aimed at improving the capacity of local governments to build infrastructure and to deliver essential services. To make environmental planning easier, the federal government also recognized the limited capacity of rural municipalities and ensured that these communities have access to rural-specific resources, including tools, expertise, and financial capacity.
At this moment when the federal government has committed to community building as nation building, rural municipalities must be full partners in plotting the path forward. It will take continued dialogue to build Canada's future, with durable growth and more livable communities. Through FCM, rural Canada will continue to have a full seat at the table.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.