We defined, if I could, just recreational fisheries as fish that are harvested under the authority of a licence for personal use or sport. So that takes us into the world of anything that is regulated by provincial governments, for example. But as I say, this and the aboriginal fishery definition are meant to give us guidance on how to apply paragraph 35(2)(b). It would take longer to get into this, but any fishery that meets these three definitions, or any fishery or habitat that's involved, that supports these three fisheries, would be subject to the paragraph 35(2)(b) authorization.
Will there be fisheries in Canada that do not support either a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery? It's possible—not likely, but possible. In the event that we see those, run into those, then we'll deal with them on a case-by-case basis. But you know, you've raised a really interesting point, because I think.... It's so long that I've been in and around DFO, I think I've actually had this discussion with you before, a long time ago. The issue was whether or not a lake that had three trout in it would be considered a fishery and therefore require an authorization. I think it might have been a gas project or whatever.
But at the time, if my memory serves me correctly, it wasn't connected to a fishery because it wasn't connected to anything. It was like a pond. We went back and forth on that one forever. The difference between the old legislation and the new legislation is that we would deal with that case by case. But it would have to be line of sight between that pond and whether or not it supported a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery. I don't doubt that it's faced with the same fact base. We deliberate for a long time, but the outcome very well may be different.