I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McDonald, for bringing up the point that we don't have to be aboriginal to have traditional knowledge. I have many aboriginal communities in my constituency and I also have many farmers, ranchers, anglers, hunters, and trappers who are as knowledgeable as anybody about the natural world, so I appreciate, Mr. Morel, that their knowledge is going to be given equal consideration.
In my first iteration, I had a specific case in mind, but I'm going to talk about other things. I just hope you heard about the case I referred to on the Assiniboine and will look into it.
On a more positive note, I must say, I really like the idea of codes of practice. I think that's a smart move, but I would urge you to make them as clear as possible. For instance, culvert design is something I've been involved with so that fish can go through culverts. They can be designed a certain way, so just make sure that project proponents know exactly what they need to do in terms of water velocities and so on. I really like the codes of practice.
I also like the introduction of habitat banking. It has the potential to replace this no net loss idea. No net loss almost implied you had to recreate something that maybe was altered. It's almost impossible to recreate nature exactly. In terms of habitat banking, will you offer a flexibility to proponents and allow for off-site mitigation? Let's say some habitat was damaged in point A and point B happens to be 40 or 50 kilometres away but there's a place there where you could really do significant fish enhancement work to take care of what happened, to compensate for what happened at point B. Will you be flexible in the implementation of habitat banking and off-site mitigation?