Bill C-69 Navigable waters

My understanding of the one area that I think is being referenced the land was owned and then flooded much later to "create" a lake and this may not change that situation… I also didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night either, so take that for what it's worth.

If I didnt know any better, I would say the new definition was written with that spot in mind. Including the reference to the man made canal lol.
'A body of water including a canal or any body of water created or altered as result of any work'.
This speaks directly to the extension of any body of water, regardless of property.

I've been trying to play the devils advocate in my head but can't see anywhere in the legislation where they can dispute having to share the water now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It'll be interesting to see how the members of "private" waterfowl hunting clubs that are on rivers and lakes react when their "ownership" is challenged.

---

It does not change access to clubs for example at Long Point. I called the crown to get an answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

It does not change access to clubs for example at Long Point. I called the crown to get an answer.

---

I was also told that this legislation will not affect flooded private property which many clubs are on. The club's owners must pay municipal taxes on it like it was dry land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

It does not change access to clubs for example at Long Point. I called the crown to get an answer.

---

When you say crown, you mean?