I have followed the testimony closely. I did listen to the latter half of the Waterkeeper testimony. Unfortunately, because of the vote call, we were back in the office and didn't realize that you were reconvening, but I had occasion to listen to the Internet coverage.
On the minor changes, I don't quite agree with the Waterkeeper view of the NWP processes, procedures, and constraints. I have to say that within the program, we've had very limited, if any, contact at all with the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, or that particular association. I verified this with our sources prior to the hearing. I was the first to have any contact with that particular group.
As we have laid out before you in earlier testimony, these changes in process—although they are minor, as you have well put it—require, from a process standpoint, an amendment to the legislation in order to make them happen. And I think you have heard, as I've listened to other witnesses, that these minor changes requiring this legislative amendment will provide great, great benefit in time and cost elements to Canadians at large, in that they will allow us to look at the things that really matter to them more closely, by freeing up resources to industry and by enabling us to move forward more quickly with economic processes and projects that they have in place, and, perhaps most importantly, as you've mentioned, allow us, with our infrastructure colleagues, to assist in the rebuilding of Canadian infrastructure in the most expeditious manner possible, while at the same time ensuring that our environmental due diligence—which was the key or essence of the Waterkeeper concern—on the part of government is indeed practised and in place.