Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your welcome to the committee. I am a visitor to the committee.
I am very interested in the testimony from Waterkeeper. I come from Moncton, New Brunswick, where the Petitcodiac River is. I am very interested in your comments. Not to make it sound too local, I want to say that the act in question, or the amendments, might have a cascading negative effect on many streams and bodies of water across Canada. That's why I'm asking a question of you with respect to the amendment dealing with the word “minor” waterways.
I don't need to tell the witness, Mr. Chairman, the history of the Petitcodiac River, but by way of explanation, perhaps I'll do so briefly.
The water in the river that remains is barely navigable. It might be considered, below the causeway structure, a minor water system, because it's barely navigable. The point is that it's been choked off by the causeway and has become barely navigable over time because of the actions of governments, and more importantly, because of the inaction of governments. This is really a non-partisan issue, because it has cut both sides, Liberal and Conservative, over the years.
My question is whether you feel as strongly as I do that by stealth, the second point in your commentary, such an amendment regarding the word “minor” might undermine the very purpose of the act. Might it act as a way for the current federal government and successive federal governments to escape their responsibility to participate in restoration initiatives, as is under way in Moncton for the Petitcodiac River?