Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was a waste of time, unfortunately. I'd like to get to my questions.
Mr. Rees and Mr. Meisenheimer, one of the controversial aspects of this very controversial bill is the concept of direct involvement. Individuals, those Canadians who aren't defined as directly impacted by a particular project, could be excluded from hearings, either on a geographical basis—though we asked the minister a week and a half ago and he wasn't able to define whether it was one kilometre or three kilometres—or on a subject basis, which is more disturbing. The minister said that issues the government doesn't feel are appropriate are issues on which they can exclude potential witnesses from coming forward to a hearing.
I want to know, in both of your cases, if your organizations are concerned about this arbitrary definition now of who's excluded, who can't come through the door to testify on these important hearings that have a direct or indirect impact on their livelihood as a fisher or perhaps on their community, whether they're cottagers, vacationers, or rural Ontarians.