I'd like to mention an important point you made in the third paragraph of your presentation. You said that fish habitat is a national asset. Then you went on to mention that it not only provides food and shelter for aquatic wildlife, but also water for human consumption. So if the fish habitat are healthy, we can have some confidence in our drinking water.
I'd like to go back to the issue of fish habitat and link it specifically to oil sands development. I'll read something from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board joint review panel report on a project proposed by Shell Canada. It says here:
DFO noted its concerns regarding the cumulative environmental effects on fish and fish habitat as a result of the successive elimination of watercourses and cumulative water withdrawals. The lack of baseline data
--and this goes to what you were saying--
on aquatic resources, coupled with the lack of functioning examples of replacement habitat similar to that proposed by Shell, increased its concerns.
Am I correct that even though we have joint management programs, it's very hard for the federal government to make a firm point on anything if it doesn't have the data to back up its arguments? In other words, information is power, and if you're in a joint process and the other side has all the information and you really have nothing to back up your concerns, then you're unable to effectively implement your constitutional responsibilities.
Do you see it that way a bit?