Fisheries committee  Yes, and what I can tell you now is that we didn't have specific consultations on the definition of “aboriginal”. We did hear from a number of stakeholders their views about what was in Bill C-38.

Fisheries committee  That is a specific objective of the amendment. Section 4 of the amended Fisheries Act is an agreement-making authority. There is a proposed section that says the minister may make an agreement with provinces and territories for furthering the purposes of this act. But it also says that the minister may establish “projects and programs” for fisheries protection, and that he or she may enter into agreements with third parties.

Fisheries committee  I don't recall exactly what legal advice; I know that as we proceeded with the amendments, there were all parts of the department and the government involved, including the Department of Justice, who certainly weighed into it. I think generally, because the answer is that I don't recall, but—

Fisheries committee  Sure. Yes.

Fisheries committee  Yes.

Fisheries committee  No, the amendment to section 40 actually says that the funds must be used for the purposes of.... I should look at the exact wording, but it makes it clear that they can't go into something not related to fisheries protection and fish habitat. That's the purpose...that those moneys must be spent on.

Fisheries committee  My understanding on that one is the definition went back to the twenties. There were a number of changes, as I said, with respect to the fish passage sections. One of them was it actually referred to the types of obstructions that we'd be dealing with: logs were mentioned, and a number of other pieces were mentioned.

Fisheries committee  —as is something very prescriptive, as is something in between.

Fisheries committee  The authority that's in the act for the minister to undertake these types of standards doesn't require him to take one approach or the other, so what you've just outlined is a possibility—

Fisheries committee  Certainly, productivity is the focus. In fact, section 6.1 of Bill C-38, of the amended Fisheries Act, says that the purpose of the fisheries protection provisions is to support the “sustainability and ongoing productivity” of Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries.

Fisheries committee  That is an excellent question, and it's one that is frankly vexing, okay? We've given ourselves the authority to have these standards established. One of those we've been working on wasn't a regulatory standard, but we could turn it into that, and it was on water flow: basically, how much water flow do fish habitat and fisheries production require?

Fisheries committee  You can. We do have that 1986 policy. Much of what was in that policy has actually been put in the legislation. It was that policy that said we were going to focus on commercial recreation and aboriginal fisheries. It was that policy that introduced the notion of productivity. But it ended up saying no net loss of habitat.

Fisheries committee  Yes. In fact it's not just prey species that a fish depends on necessarily. There are key ecological species in certain ecosystems. There are a number of others in terms of which fish support a fishery. Certainly prey species is the main one.

Fisheries committee  That's one of the things we're working out: how far you have to go. Basically the idea is we are protecting the ongoing productivity of fisheries. To be able to do that you protect not just the fish in that fishery but what it depends on, whether that be habitat, or prey, or an ecological system, or aquatic invasive species, etc.

Fisheries committee  You know, in terms of consultations on this act, in terms of the specific amendments, we did not have specific consultations on the act. We did hear from stakeholders who said we'd like legal clarity in such-and-such an area. We can certainly provide that. We talked to a number of stakeholders about the implementation of the act.