Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. I think your question is germane in the sense that the codes of practice.... There are other jurisdictions—municipal organizations—that have successfully used this approach.
For the smaller municipal works projects and agricultural drainage operations, and where somebody wants to extend a particular dock by a few feet in an existing structure, we all have in our minds and our imaginations examples of what we would think of as small low-risk projects that necessarily need to be looked at in terms of ensuring that fish and fish habitat are protected. Canadians want to do the right thing when they're undertaking these kinds of works, as we've heard with respect to the minister from Manitoba.
We think that codes of practice, developed collaboratively with Canadians, with groups that have experience and interest in these particular structures, would say to Canadians that if they follow publicly available codes of practice...and we're looking at a way to ensure that we would be available to offer advice and support to people who say, “I want to undertake this particular local work project and I want to make sure I understand how a particular code of practice applies.” We need to be transparent and available to provide that advice and support, but if Canadians follow these codes of practice, then they're entirely compliant with the legislation, and the regulatory burden of requiring the authorizations, which necessarily take more time, would be alleviated.
We think that's the right balance between respecting the environment, fish, and fish habitat and also acknowledging that extending a dock or fixing a drainage facility in an agricultural operation in your province of Prince Edward Island or in western Canada is not necessarily the same thing as expanding a $200-million port operation on a particular river that has some of the most sensitive habitat and spawning grounds in the country. They're necessarily different discussions.