Finance committee  Nothing.

Finance committee  No, sir.

Finance committee  No, sir, I don't have any comments. I am following the process that's put before me.

Finance committee  No, not in any way.

Finance committee  Yes, they will. I know there is misinformation out there that, because they are named and there is talk about removal of named works, the interpretation is that therefore these obvious obstacles to navigation would not continue to be reviewed under our legislation. But that is no

Finance committee  I can't speak directly to the environmental assessment pieces, because I'm not the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency—those who trigger what goes on the Annotated Law List—but that will be reviewed. I can tell you that in our strategic environmental assessment, which was do

Finance committee  I can't give you numbers off the top of my head. In general, though, we receive 2,500 applications a year and we continue to have 2,500 remaining from the year before, so we never catch up.

Finance committee  No.

Finance committee  That's a fair statement.

Finance committee  No, they don't. Water that is navigated today will continue to fall under the purview of this act, as will all water in Canada.

Finance committee  That's correct.

Finance committee  Thank you very much. I'm the national manager for the navigable waters protection program for Canada. Joining me today is Madam Brigit Proulx, who is our legal counsel with a specialty in the Navigable Waters Protection Act and who has been working on the amendments quite exten

Transport committee  I would like to say they can do that in one place only, but as a bureaucrat I could never assure that. It is up to the proponent. Much as when building a house, the onus is on the proponent to find out all the permits and other requirements needed to complete the job and have it

Transport committee  Whenever any project goes in or around water the proponent must comply with a number of legal requirements. In this particular case, because it is determined to be a minor waterway, the Navigable Waters Protection Act would not apply. It would not forgo the proponent's lawful req

Transport committee  If I may, Mr. Jean, if you're nestling that under the current system, it's the same process. Under the proposed amendments--if it's no longer a named work and would necessarily have to trigger a 5.(1)--if it's determined that the replacement bridge poses absolutely no incremental