Minister, you have not carried out any consultations thus far, because 625 scientists are complaining that you're undermining the protection of fish and fish habitat. You said in your opening remarks that protections have not been impacted in any way. Yet you've defined serious harm—it's the only thing that qualifies as serious harm—as the killing of fish or the permanent alteration of habitat.
That's a new definition. There are, of course, tremendous effects that can happen to others and to nature because of a temporary change. In fact, the first nations have already come out and complained that using the word “permanent” leaves the whole field open to something temporary, but maybe for a long period of time, that causes serious changes to their habitat, whether the temporary period is during a construction phase for a pipeline or whether it is for a lease of some kind. It is very disturbing that your serious harm doesn't include mutations of fish or blinding of fish or anything else that could happen. It has to be killing of fish or permanent alteration of habitat.
Why have you gone so far in changing that?