I'll just pick up my final point and slow down. I do only have a couple of minutes left.
The third point is that I'm deeply concerned that Canadians are being told, not asked, if their waters are significant.
I am a believer in participatory democracy. While I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee today, I do not claim to be, and should not be considered, a representative voice for conservation organizations or for others whose navigation rights and waters may be negatively impacted by the changes in the proposed bill.
Groups like the Waterloo-Wellington Canoe Club, who I met with just last week, would have a strong interest in these changes, but they may not even be aware of them. I think the same can be said for the business owners and recreationalists on the St. John River, which I mentioned earlier.
In closing, I would like to just make it clear that I do believe that changes to how the Navigable Waters Protection Act is administered are worthy grounds for discussion. Can the implementation of the act be made more effective, more efficient? Very likely. I have suggested the same before committees studying Bill C-38 on reforms to the Fisheries Act. But I do not believe that the reforms proposed in Bill C-45, and the approach to making them, will result in the best legal and policy framework for maintaining the navigation rights of Canadians while also protecting the waters on which those rights depend.
Thank you so much.