I'll start off by talking about consultation, then I'll move on to your second question.
With respect to consultation, first nations and Canadians have a special relationship. We tend to view it as two societies coexisting in a land mass. That is consistent with the historic treaties and the modern treaties that are being developed, the modern self-government agreements.
The way we see consultation is that first nations themselves are rights holders. The land itself, the land mass, is based on our ancestors, and our ancestors have been buried there for thousands of years. When it comes to consultation, we would like the department to basically share information with us, give us a common period where we can actually look at the document, make recommendations, and propose changes. We would like for there be some joint process where first nation interests can be accommodated, especially with respect to habitat protection and environmental protection.
From there, hopefully changes will be made, and then, if not, we can look at possible other avenues of accommodation. But just keep in mind, too, that first nations themselves are scattered throughout Canada when it comes to the habitat. Most Canadians live close to the border. I think many first nation communities are agreeable to working with the department, the government, and other Canadians in habitat protection. They're ideally situated throughout the whole ecosystem across Canada, whereas other Canadians are not. I think that provides an excellent opportunity to look at the overall health of Canada as a biosphere.
With respect to your second question on first nation species, we are concerned. There have been some past practices where habitat has been destroyed and there have been remediation projects. What we found in those projects is that, rather than restocking all the fish that were lost in a particular habitat, the habitat of certain commercially viable or sports viable fisheries had been restored in other areas. If you look at walleye, salmon, and pickerel, all those highly commercial types of fish, the fish that those fish rely on, in terms of food and other protection of the habitat itself, have not really been restocked in new areas. Some of those fish, such as the eulachon, are utilized by first nation fishers as opposed to non-first nation fishermen. It's in those areas that we feel that there has to be some focus to ensure that first nation interests in use of all fish and fish habitat is protected, and protected not only for the current generations, but also for future generations, to ensure that the aboriginal treaty rights can be practiced by future generations.
So when it comes to listing certain species as well, fish stocks should be restored. We agree with that. Conservation of the fish is important. But secondly, we don't want conservation and other practices, such as the sports fisheries, to override first nation interests. Sports fishermen are given a lot of time to go out to do the sports fishing. It's economically viable for the provinces. They come in from the States, they rent hotels, they eat at restaurants, and that type of thing. So there's always been an interest to ensure that those interests are protected above first nation interests, and we want to ensure that first nation interests are accommodated throughout this whole process as well.
Hopefully I've answered that.