Thank you.
Thank you for your answers. Your exchanges have been very informative.
To get back to the question of consultation, I'd like to point out that I'm not sure that political MPs going off to their ridings to meet with municipal officials constitutes DFO consultations. I think that was the whole question at hand: whether the ministry had been consulting with you, rather than MPs.
As far as I know, apart from the Supreme Court decision especially as it pertains to first nations in Haida v. British Columbia and other decisions, the definition of consultation is fairly clear. Even in other situations, a consultation as far as I understand it is supposed to be an actual exchange of ideas with experts, not just having DFO make a conference call and give us the lowdown on what they think is the future of the Fisheries Act. I don't think we're meeting the definition of consultation in any way here.
Nevertheless, I'm glad you're here today to speak to Bill C-45, which we keep hearing is a fine-tuning of Bill C-38. Ultimately, what we're trying to do is have not just a predictable regulatory structure, but one that also accommodates.
I'd like your input on where you think we're going. Are we going toward a more predictable structure? Are we going toward one that accommodates the needs especially of first nations? Or are we going in the other direction?
Where is the combination of Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 leading, in your opinion?