That's a very general answer. What I'm looking for are specifics; I think the time for generalities is over. We've had the experiment, and it's been an utter failure. For the millions spent, I think we must have some kind of result.
I'm glad you're talking to rural communities. I don't think we need to talk about industries, but about rural communities and municipalities and the very real effect on community livelihoods that DFO's habitat program has had for very little return, in terms of actual fish conservation. I've asked the staff, and they simply cannot tell me the result of all of that work.
One of the problems of course is the no-net-habitat-loss policy that you're working under. I will be recommending and pushing for—and we'll probably have further discussions about this—a change of that policy to no net loss of fish production. That would open up an opportunity for proponents to do all kinds of creative fish enhancement work that may or may not deal with the actual piece of habitat in question.
With a no net loss of habitat policy, you would agree that it's very difficult to recreate nature, isn't it? In fact it's almost impossible. But if the policy were changed to no net loss of fish production, I think that would give proponents much more flexibility. You would agree with me that the purpose of fish habitat is to produce fish, so let's go right to fish production and work on fish that people want.
In prairie Canada, we have a number of big reservoirs. The existing policy would say that fish habitat is destroyed when you flood a valley, but as you well know, there is an explosion of fish production when a prairie reservoir is created. The habitat may change, but you can get up to a ten to twentyfold increase in the production of fish. If you focus on fish production, we would all be much better off, for the money you spend.
The other point I want to make is that it's not appropriate for fisheries officers to show up at meetings, especially in farming communities, when they are armed. I know you have policies, and so on, and I don't care about those policies; it is completely inappropriate to go into a meeting of farmers and landowners and municipal officials armed. And we're the party of guns, as you can appreciate. Most of us own more than one gun—I own 14. I want you to reconsider that, because it immediately sets up a dynamic that is not good for either your officials or the people in question.
My last comment relates to sturgeon. I think you really have to look at that species. In western Canada, a SARA listing of that species, which is abundant and not an endangered species, has the potential to put at risk $20 billion in hydro developments.
Thank you very much.