That would indeed be the case in certain situations. If I correctly understood the concerns raised in your hearings last week, you were talking in particular about the possibility that works other than minor works located on secondary waterways would be subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In such cases, no environmental assessment linked to that trigger would be required. As for knowing whether that's a problem and, in that event, what the scope of that problem would be, my colleagues at the Department of Transport will probably be in better position than I to answer the question.
It is important to keep in mind that this kind of legislative initiative must be the subject of a so-called strategic environmental assessment, not under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but under the cabinet directive on the environmental assessment of policy, plan and program proposals. That makes it possible to determine whether a gap might be caused in the environmental program field and, if so, to clarify ways of minimizing the extent of that negative impact.
Based on what my colleague Mr. Osbaldeston said, a strategic assessment of the initiative as it existed at that time was conducted a few years ago, and Transport Canada intends to update that assessment in light of the initiative as it stands now or as it will be following this committee's hearings and report.