Thank you.
I want to thank Mr. Mattson for pointing out how inadequate the old Fisheries Act was when he used an example from 35 years ago.
A number of the presenters talked about the lack of any habitat protection. On the contrary, under the new Fisheries Act, serious harm to fish is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”, with fish habitat defined as spawning grounds and areas, etc., so this idea that the new Fisheries Act has no habitat protection is completely without foundation.
I should also point out that the Blake law firm, in an analysis of the new Fisheries Act, made the point that:
...the federal government's constitutional authority to regulate impacts to fish and fish habitat flow from its powers under the Constitution Act, 1867 over “coastal and inland fisheries”. Canadian courts have confirmed, more than once, that these powers are limited to fisheries, as a resource, and do not mean the federal government has the power to regulate over all fish or fish habitat in Canada. In this respect, the new prohibitions are, to some extent, a codification of that which already exists at law.
I was very interested in the testimony of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters' Federation. Of all the presenters, they took the people-first approach, which I think is the right approach. Our new Fisheries Act focuses on fish productivity. My assumption, Mr. Allain, is that your members and your communities are intensely interested in fish productivity.