Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, deputy, and officials, for meeting with us today.
As you know, I'm from British Columbia and so I've been following with interest the Cohen commission of inquiry, and I know the department has had a significant role and participation in that. I think I've heard it has provided 500,000 documents and emails. I don't know who's reading those, but that's a lot.
I know that officials, including you, deputy, have appeared before them more than once. Most recently your senior management team was there in September. The commissioner raised a number of issues with you, I know. One of them was the one that Mr. Sopuck raised as well. So let me maybe follow up with that and the whole issue of habitat and habitat policy. The minister referred to it in his comments as well.
My understanding is that the actual policy of DFO is for an overall net gain of productive capacity of fish habitat—which seems to be moving closer to what Mr. Sopuck had in mind—and that the policy anticipates achieving that by conserving existing habitat, restoring lost fish habitat, and developing new habitat, perhaps. That's the way I read the policy. It does also specify, though, that the way to reach that conservation goal—the conservation of existing habitat—is the no net loss guiding principle, which you were asked about, I think, by the commissioner.
So could you explain to us how of all that works? Some of us are often surprised by how the habitat policy is administered. It would seem sometimes that every bit of fish habitat is considered equal and, whether it be a hydro dam or a culvert under a farmer's lane, the same approach seems to be taken to it. So I'm wondering if that direction will continue in the future, or what you have in mind in this area when the minister talked about the need to modernize this 25-year-old policy.