While you're thinking for a second, it struck me that, because you use the example of Toronto and I too am from Toronto, there's been a proliferation of marinas all along the waterfront, as well as additional fill-in in the Toronto harbour area--all of Front Street and south is all fill-in--all of this would have an enormous impact on the navigable waterway systems and on the quality of the water and the environment. But the amendments to this act don't really envisage doing anything about that. I think it would probably be pretentious to do that anyway, but that's a personal aside.
How do we match up the macro-movement of whatever other activities--whether it's boating pleasure or whether it's industry business and societal needs--with something like this, the navigable waters? I don't mean to simplify it, but essentially it's projected as something that says we need to have a farmer in field A be able to put in a bridge or to make some other adjustments that may be needed at his place, or a small community needs to do some things, that really have nothing to do with the waterfront in Toronto where it seems as if the wild west--no offence to anybody--is the order of the day.