Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing before us. I appreciate the information you're providing.
On this last issue my colleague has raised, the wording of the act is certainly out there for public review. I think you can look at the details of that and begin to form your opinions on the actual wording. By the way, it doesn't use the words “adverse impact”. The prohibition uses the words “serious harm” to fisheries or to fish that support those fisheries. At the beginning of the act, you'll notice that “serious harm” is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. That's the direction we're going.
The minister and others have said that the act basically describes a new strategic direction and the foundation for it. The policy framework needs to be built upon that. He specifically said that those discussions will be taking place with the provinces, conservation groups, and other stakeholders. But he specifically mentioned provinces, so you can be sure that you will be involved as we build that framework on top of that foundation.
I hope that's a little bit helpful.
One of my colleagues, who couldn't be with us here today, was a conservation officer in the Yukon. He talked about enforcing WAPPRIITA when he was doing his job. That's the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. It forbids a number of things, including the import, export, and interprovincial transportation of certain species. One of them is species whose introduction into Canadian ecosystems could endanger Canadian species.
Is the Province of Ontario involved in the enforcement of this act? This is federal legislation. Do they have an MOU, as many provinces do? I didn't see Ontario on that list. I just wondered if you've used that tool or an MOU to enforce that tool as part of dealing with invasive species, for example.