We can get you the specific criteria.
It does speak to linking the funds to the offence, basically, and the penalty. It's a bit broader than what the AFN raised in their testimony. I would point out, though, that in clause 174, with respect to the funds received by the Receiver General with respect to penalties under the Fisheries Act, the fisheries protection provisions, the legislation proposes specifically that it be used for “purposes related to the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat or the restoration of fish habitat”.
The idea is that the funds would get applied to that, and then, linking that to what Environment Canada already has, which is a preference for the local watershed, those two things should give some comfort that the funding will go where one would hope it would go.
The other thing is that it's sometimes the case that the judge or the justice can direct certain things with respect to the penalty provisions that would have to be complied with as well.