As a fisheries biologist myself, I will never argue with that. Of course we have to look at the habitat. The question is the legislative mechanisms that are in place.
When I look at the status of fisheries across the country, most of them are in fairly decent shape, but again, where they are not in decent shape, where we are losing habitat, such as in some watersheds in B.C., all of that happened under the old Fisheries Act. I would submit that the old Fisheries Act was overly broad, overly prescriptive, and mandated by the courts in such a way that the effect on actual fisheries was minimal.
For example, our new Fisheries Act allows partnerships with local groups. We formed a $25-million program and created the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. As of last July we funded 100 fisheries habitat projects across the country in cooperation with angling groups. Perhaps some of you are aware of the program. There are over 100 more habitat projects about to be announced. With the extra $15 million in our recreational conservation partnerships program, we are easily looking at another 200 habitat projects across the country. Those kinds of partnerships are allowed because we have a new Fisheries Act.
Dr. Ridal, don't you think that's a worthwhile change in the Fisheries Act?