Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Tully. Let me tell you right off the bat, I find your responses quite refreshing. You've given us a different perspective on the picture. I like the fact that you're able to answer every question without having to refer to notes. I try not to refer to any myself--however, I must.
Ms. Tully, we've been looking at navigable waters protection program applications. Quite some time ago we had representatives from, obviously, the various jurisdictions to give us an indication of the total number of applications in process and the ones that get accepted. I'd like to read off a couple of things for you, if you don't mind.
For example, in 2006, out of the 2,741 applications received and 2,038 carried over, only 46 were rejected. The following year, out of a combined total of 4,432, only 153 were rejected. The reason I give you those two figures--the others are all similar for the previous eight years--is that members of the committee wanted to know what was so pressing that we had to look at some of these considerations. The issue was that the delays were not substance oriented, they were process oriented. So the same thing kept coming up over and over again. Some of the recommendations you see as amendments are ones that, were they to have received approval by Parliament, would facilitate a process that still results in this kind of--i.e., the figures I gave you--acceptance rate.
The second thing I'd like to bring to your attention for reflection is that we've had before us members from the Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, representatives from the various provinces. You heard one of my colleagues talk about the deputation made by the Province of Alberta in conjunction with other provinces. They came before the committee after having consulted environmental interests, environmental groups, etc., and they came forward with a representation you have critiqued.
Are we missing a disconnect that we should be looking at? Our impression was that we would be looking at facilitating issues of local infrastructure needs rather than issues that were going to be of a larger dimension that are not treated by the act, not envisaged by the act, and don't exclude the intervention of DFO or the environment departments and the provinces and the federal government. What are we missing?