We're looking at the current policies. There have been a lot of concerns expressed by Canadians from a habitat perspective right straight across the country—not only in the west but on the east coast I hear it all the time—and how we need to improve the processes we use to ensure people aren't harassed in their everyday lives.
Sometimes our habitat rules go a little too far. One of the examples I gave today in the House, for example, was of a field that was flooded. An annual jamboree takes place in that area and they wanted to drain it to ensure it was ready for the summer jamboree, which we almost lost, by the way. Fish had ended up in that field, carp. And because of section 35 they had to fish that area before they could drain it, which didn't make a lot of sense. Those types of things should not happen. We put at risk an old jamboree that had been going on for some years. Those types of applications don't make any sense.
Another example is farmers who have a ditch running through their property and want to clean the ditch out. But because a fish might pass through, we don't allow them to clean out their ditches without going through extraordinary efforts and costs and potentially, if they don't meet those requirements, fines. There are a lot of areas that don't make sense for Canadians. We have to try to make more sense of them.
At the same time, we do have to protect our habitat and we have to protect our fishery, but the rules we have.... There is little or no flexibility in the current rules to address those types of issues. So I think it's important that we take a look at them and see if there's something we can do.