I want to thank Mrs. Flood. Her explanation of the objectives of the Canadian Environmental Assessment is as good as what I could have given.
In general, the question is not really whether the authorizations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act should or should not trigger an environmental assessment. In my opinion—and Mrs. Flood alluded to this—it is to go back to the basis of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That basis is to ensure that, before any decisions are made, regulatory or otherwise, the various departments together consider the environmental implications, so that those decisions are not only valid for the purposes of the objects of the legislation in question, but also properly informed with regard to the broader environmental implications. At that point, we'll try to minimize those impacts. As in the case of other types of authorizations, requiring environmental assessments in the context of authorizations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act is definitely entirely consistent with the objectives of that legislation.
As to whether it is appropriate in the context of this proposal to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act to exclude certain minor projects from the authorization process under that act, I will point out that that is not in itself an environmental issue. As you said, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is related to navigation; its purpose is not to protect the environment. After listening to my colleagues and examining the previous hearings, I will say that, if the motivation behind the proposed amendments is related to valid navigation objectives, the matter poses no environmental problem. If the underlying motivation were instead to eliminate environmental requirements, that would be a different matter, but there is nothing to suggest that's the case.