Transport committee  Thanks for the question. I echo your concerns, and we've done the same thing. I think that's our focus in this discussion today: who is going to bear the cost and what is going to happen? I think we've always said that. Our organization has taken the position, should we just be looking at raising the liability insurance to offset any risk or should we look at the process and how we could maybe implement some safety regulations that would help in the movement of?

Transport committee  I think there has to be that discussion about who is going to cover the liability insurance. Right now in the province of Saskatchewan—and I can only speak to that—the short lines have to carry the same liability as the class I railways. That's a recommendation that the class I railways say to them.

Transport committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before the committee. I'm the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and we've appeared before the committee in the past and appreciate the ongoing relationship we have with the members. Today, I'd like to provide you with a summary of the current and future challenges facing rural Saskatchewan regarding rail safety.

Finance committee  What we did as an organization was sign on with the University of Saskatchewan to do a bridge design on what we call local roads, which really don't come under the criteria for major impact but still can sustain primary weight and can reduce costs wherever we need to build bridges rather than make them put pipe in.

Finance committee  That's what we're trying to do on some of what we call “municipal corridors”. I think they're right across this country from county to county; they are major grid roads or municipal systems. We're looking at things like that or bridges. But there's also a bigger player here, and that's the industry itself.

Finance committee  It's very serious for rural service right across the country. I have colleagues in Ontario who say the same thing. If you get an hour or so outside of Ottawa, you don't have high-speed and have poor Internet service. What this really means is that if we can get some allocation to rural areas, both for education and health, and require that the bandwidth be used....

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again we thank you and the committee for asking us to appear in front of the finance committee. I'll begin my remarks today with a summary of the current and future challenges facing rural Saskatchewan, the issues that are of the greatest importance to SARM, issues that deal with infrastructure, the quality of life in rural communities, and agriculture.

Transport committee  Thank you for the question. To answer the second part first, on the amendments, I would hope that's where it gets us to, to our idea of what the act did have in it. An example I gave is that any time we had a municipality doing a bridge project in the Province of Saskatchewan, we had to have approval from the Navigable Waters Protection Act on any work we did on any bridge.

Transport committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is David Marit. I'm president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and first of all I would like to thank the committee for inviting us here to present our views on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. SARM represents all 296 rural municipalities in Saskatchewan and allows us to act with a common voice for all of rural Saskatchewan.

Finance committee  I like what I've seen from the government regarding the importance of rural Canada to the growth of the Canadian economy. I think that's important. When you look at the geography and the larger urban centres, they have needs. We know they do. But it seems that right now in rural Canada we have a voice.

Finance committee  Mr. Chair, I'm just somewhat confused by the question. If you're talking about the regulatory regime that we're living under with something like navigable waters, what happens with it is that it delays the process, and that's the concern we have with it. We've had projects in this province that were funded through the federal, provincial, and municipal governments that were actually delayed to the point where they didn't get done.

Finance committee  Yes, the changes that were made were very important to getting projects done, but the next step now is really to open that act up, redo it, and come out with a clear definition of what a navigable waterway is.

Finance committee  I'm only going to speak for Saskatchewan, because I think we've done our homework. We have actually prioritized our municipal system as far as what is a municipal road, what has a provincial interest in it, and what also has a federal interest in it. Unfortunately, as I talked about, when we talk about our bridge infrastructure we're living under federal rules, and that's what really is driving the cost for rural municipalities, whether it's navigable waters, whether it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, whatever the case may be.

Finance committee  Through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the question. There are some strong, tangible examples in this province,where bridges built in the fifties and sixties, and prior to that, are becoming outdated. Our transportation system and our needs are changing. For example, we just had a case come to our office a few weeks ago of a bridge that has been more or less condemned on a lower class of road.

Finance committee  I do, through you, Mr. Chair. One recommendation, which we couldn't put in and which was a problem that we saw this year specifically in Saskatchewan with disasters, with the flooding—we think this would be an opportunity to probably save the federal government tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars—is to review the federal disaster assistance program.