Thank you, Mr. Hardie, for the question.
I'm not a legislator. It's easy for us to sit here and say that all of this stuff should be included, but it's not always necessarily the easiest thing to put into effect.
I go back to the balancing issue again. I agree that without a doubt there needs to be an ability for comment before projects occur, before obstructions occur.
The Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act in Ontario deals only with barriers that obstruct the flow of water, so dams per se. If somebody sticks a dam in the middle of a river—and it happens that private landowners build a dam in the middle of a river—that act kicks in and forces them to remove that particular dam.
In this case there is no ability for anybody beforehand to make comment, and there are certain things that have just been raised that are exempt from the act that need to be looked at very carefully in terms of whether they should be included, because they will have an impact on navigation and they will have an impact on navigability of any waterway.
There was a very small list of waterways that were protected, and while you may not want to open the act to cover every waterway in Canada, certainly, as the young lady who was just speaking in reference to Mountain Equipment Co-op's report from a few years ago mentioned, 40 in particular that are no longer protected are extremely important waterways, and there might be consideration. The balance comes into play when we are considering changing or amending the act to include those 40 specific ones as maybe a middle ground, if you will.
I do think that a consultation process, as we're seeing here today, is above all else the most important component of going forward with whatever changes are made.