Fisheries committee  That's the whole idea. It's not just keeping everything steady, but to make it better. It's increasing wetlands so they support the ecology, support conservation, support the growth of positive environmental development. We didn't hear anyone, other than the officials at DFO, s

Fisheries committee  It was my first signal that these amendments would likely be turned down in the House. I had a conversation or some correspondence with the Canadian Wildlife Federation, and I was told by its executive director that from their discussions, DFO's or the minister's or the governmen

Fisheries committee  I don't know why, because again, across the board it's a good idea, according to experts, other witnesses, proponents, conservation groups, first nations.

Fisheries committee  Absolutely. There are two things about that. One is that there is an environmental assessment process that allows people who are impacted in an area to come in and voice their concerns and affect a decision on the approval or denial of the proponent's project. That's one thing.

Fisheries committee  I'm sure they could have, Mr. Arnold. We looked at as much as we could within the confines of our Senate committee. We spoke with experts, people with experience in this area, and we gave it our own consideration with whatever experience we brought to the table, and I'll say I ha

Fisheries committee  No. We would leave that to DFO and the relevant federal agencies. As parliamentarians, we would establish the law, and they would build the system to fit those parameters. We didn't build in any restrictions. In a lot of our discussions, there were discussions of flexibility for

Fisheries committee  It would rest with the minister, yes, and the relevant agencies, and maybe the department of environment or....

Fisheries committee  It would go to consultation, so I imagine the final authority would always rest with the minister, who would have unfettered discretion anyway. If the regulations are established after consultation with first nations, environmental groups, communities and others, then one would e

Fisheries committee  There are two aspects to that. One is the mitigation on the site, such as when a mining company requires a lake or a pond. There would be mitigation at that point, such as removal of the fish or protection from overflow or from any deleterious effects in that area from the activi

Fisheries committee  My short answer is no, but the parameters will be built into the regulations. One thing you have to remember is that there's an immediate mitigation on the site. That's a requirement regardless. The habitat banking aspect just helps other areas. If I may, we can put a price o

Fisheries committee  If they don't support it, no one is forcing it on them. If you're going to support the development of an offset or of assistance in another area as part of an offset system, as part of a third party habitat banking system, you're not going to force wetlands conservation on a grou

Fisheries committee  The legislation is providing the opportunity for the offset. The details would be in the regulations, and of course parliamentarians don't get into the details of regulations; we just do the legislation.

Fisheries committee  They didn't show up at committee to discuss it, but they may have been consulted by others.

Fisheries committee  I would be surprised if Senator Christmas hadn't discussed it with the Membertou First Nation, for instance.

Fisheries committee  Sure. I'll give a direct example. I was part of a project in my private business prior to coming to the Senate. There was a mining company that wanted to utilize a pond or a lake, so they had to do a mitigation of the lake. They removed the fish and put them in another.... I th