Okay.
Can I have a quick show of hands from the others? Mr. Farrant and Ms. Lui, are you okay with the opportunity today?
I appreciate Mr. Aubin's motion that we get you back, because it does give us an opportunity to hear more from you. We all know now that we are entitled to the Conservative view on things, which we've received, and now, with that out of the way, maybe we can coax a little more out of the people we actually need to hear from, who weren't heard from when this all happened.
I would ask that, in advance of coming back, you think about the following things. If you can bring material back with you, that would be perfect.
Again, what would be the essential element of a process to protect rights, the rights of people who use the waters, plus the rights of people who need to build things? What would be good in that mix?
There have been a few references to “modernizing” the act, but what does that look like? That suggests that, as it was, the old act was deficient in certain ways. Rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater, to quote my friend across the way, what do we do to elevate this whole thing to something that's really going to work?
What does “restore protection” look like? Mr. Farrant, I appreciated your point that a ditch that might have water in it for six days a year isn't necessarily something that needs to receive the same attention as a major waterway.
Finally, one thing that hasn't come up is that the Navigation Protection Act gave a lot of discretion to the minister to make decisions, particularly on adding waterways, rivers, or lakes to the list of protected rivers. Is there a different mechanism that you might propose in the interests of, again, having a streamlined, fair, and transparent process to ensure that the right thing is being done in the right way?
That's really my ask of you. Again, I look forward to the opportunity to have you back, and hopefully we'll have the time to actually hear from you on those issues.
Thank you very much.