Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie would like to ask some questions, but I want to take a moment or two to thank you for coming. It has been good. And I want to ensure that you don't leave with any misunderstandings about the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, some of which you've heard referred to today.
At the heart of the new strategic direction there's still a prohibition. The prohibition reads that:
No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.
So the notion that we have to somehow figure out commercial viability is certainly not in the act...or to fish that support such a fishery. So the notion of ecosystem and how that supports one another is certainly there in the act.
At the beginning of the new Fisheries Act, in the definitions section, there will be a definition of what serious harm is. There it says:
serious harm to fish is the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.
So the notion that somehow habitat has gone missing from the act and we're going to no longer be interested in it is just not accurate.
I think that as you see this debate get fleshed out and some of the facts become more apparent, you'll be pleased. In fact, I would say that if I were a commercial fisherman or part of a commercial fishing association, like you are, Mr. Meisenheimer, I would be pleased with what I see here, in addition to the new regulation-making powers about invasive species and the ability to enter into legally binding agreements with associations like yourselves perhaps and other factors. I think you'll find it interesting.
I wanted to clarify that before passing it over to Mr. Hayes.