'From boondoggle to super boondoggle': RMA President weighs in on Green Line situation

President of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta Paul McLauchlin discusses the ramifications of the province pulling funding from the Green Line LRT project.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Michael Higgins: The mayor of Calgary has responded to a letter from Alberta’s Transportation Minister indicating the province is pulling its portion of funding for the Green Line LRT – calling the city’s recently revised plan unacceptable.

The government will also contract a third party to further review the project and provide alternate proposals. So, what kind of path could this pave for major infrastructure projects moving forward?

Joining us now is Paul McLauchlin, president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta and Reeve of Ponoka County. Reeve McLauchlin, what do you make of the position Calgary city council is now in where control of the Green Line project is concerned?

Paul McLauchlin: Well, you know, this sets an interesting precedent. I'll quote one of one of the mayors that I represent - that he’s sometimes fascinated by the province actually not having enough of their own problems, so they're trying to pick up other people's problems.

You know, these type of conversations - collaboration and partnership is how you actually find these infrastructure solutions. This has become posturing and gesturing and it's on the backs of all taxpayers.

There's ways to fix these things. This is drama that we don't need. I think going back to the foundations of collaboration and partnership is how you solve all of these problems.

MH: So, to what degree then is it the role of the provincial government to intervene?

PM: Well, this becomes a bigger conversation. Is there a role as a partner, as oversight? Ultimately this is very confusing, coming up from Bill 20 in many ways -- which was more draconian measures really reasserting the role of the provincial government and us being, for lack of a better term, children or products of the province.

These gestures are really following that theme that we were hoping was actually defined for particular cases, in particular instances. I hope this isn't the theme of this government. I don't believe it is, but I'm concerned that this gesture will carry over into other perceived mistakes that municipalities are making.

I mean, we need to respect expertise. I think that there's great people that work for both the cities and all municipalities across Alberta, knowing that they're making great decisions on behalf of all taxpayers, being fiscally prudent. I hope this is something that can be fixed with a few conversations and less of this political gesturing.

MH: Before we broaden the conversation to all municipalities, what do you see resting on the shoulders of the Smith government now in what it does with the Green Line?

PM: Well, I mean, be careful what problems you're assuming that you think you can solve. If you do a deep dive on a very complex project in an evolving city, every project delay costs a lot more. If you're assuming responsibility for that project, you've probably gone from boondoggle to super-boondoggle - which might be the terms used.

Again, I think there's opportunities to solve these problems. I definitely would hate to pick up somebody else's project midway or part way. I think this is something that maybe there is a reset that can be taken. But I think there was a path forward that was put forward by the City of Calgary, and I think the province should execute that.

I think this becomes a confidence conversation on big, large-scale investments in this province. I've heard some conversations through Chamber of Resources or Chamber of Commerces asking, "Is Alberta open for business if they can cancel like that." That's pretty frightening to some of the folks that are actually executing some of these contracts.

MH: The Calgary Construction Association weighing in as well with its perspective on the province clawing back this funding, saying in part that the decision “sets a concerning precedent for all future infrastructure projects across Alberta”.

So what do you feel then that this could mean for municipalities, urban and rural, navigating their own infrastructure projects?

PM: Is this an indication of fiscal prudence, or is this politics? I sure hope that it's actually miscommunication. I represent 69 rural municipalities, that fiscal prudence of the folks I represent is almost unquestionable to be quite honest, I'll be blunt about that.

I hope that that's not what this is about, because fiscal prudence is something that you can fall back on. That scrutiny can actually be reflected upon yourself. My hope is that this isn't a top down approach. I hope this is a miscommunication. I hope there's a reset, and I sure hope that the province isn't trying to assume the problems of infrastructure development for all municipalities.

Because what they'll understand really quickly is that building a highway is a lot different than building local infrastructure. The reason why municipalities exist is that this is really hard. I exist as a rural municipal leader because my day-to-day infrastructure decisions are really, really hard.

That's why I deal with them. I'll tell you right now, my MLA doesn't want them, a minister doesn't want them, and I'm pretty sure cabinet doesn't want to deal with the day-to-day issues I deal with as a municipal leader.

MH: Let's bring up a Don Braid Calgary Herald column this week that says, according to unnamed sources, the Smith government is considering creation of a provincial body to develop and build mega projects, both within and outside of big cities.

How do you see that sitting with your member municipalities?

PM: Again, having this belief that you're maybe not as good at something as you think you are. How you do these things- you need to have multiple partnerships. By no means have I ever met anybody that is so capable that they on their own can achieve large-scale projects such as this, that's route with failure and disaster.

The way you do that is you share risk, you share decision making and you share knowledge. I think that this is the exact opposite of what's happened in multiple projects across North America - these large scale projects - where typically the mistakes were made as you had one decision body that actually took over these larger projects.

Look at Muskrat Falls, look at some of those other larger mega projects. I'd be very careful going down this path, because the history has shown that type of level of scrutiny and responsibility has been a dismal failure.

You need to spread risk and spread knowledge and actually incorporate it that way. That's how you can build these larger-scale projects.

MH: How political could this get on infrastructure projects where the federal government is also one of the major funding partners?

PM: I feel the worst part about this is that the municipalities and municipal leadership get caught in the middle between these large gestures (of) “I'm better at this than you are. I can make better decisions than you are.”

I'm on my 18th year as elected official, and I'll tell you right now, I do not know better than everybody else. I'm not smarter than the province. I'm not smarter than my ratepayers. I learned from them. I learned through dialog and understanding.

That is how you are politically successful, and that's how you build communities. I think that we need to make that shift. Again, I'll make the statement: I'm probably the most experienced politician outside the minister McIver that exists in this government right now.

Never discount the role of municipal politicians or the knowledge they have and what their intent is. We just want to build communities and make sure people have good lives. That's all we ever wanted to do, and that's all we ever want to do.