There are broad implications in a number of directions. There are broad implications to restricting the definition of habitat for fisheries that are largely a result of the fact that fish and fisheries are not things that we observe directly, which is why I think the people you speak to don't care. Out of sight is out of mind.
There is an enormous amount of uncertainty about pretty much everything we claim to know about fish and fish stocks, and the fisheries that are based on them. So when you make statements as are made in the legislation and the supporting documentation that I've seen with reference to section 35 of the Fisheries Act, that we can presume to know what will be a significant harm or what will cause destruction and we can regulate on that presumption, I think it is a denial of the reality of fisheries management.
The underlying truth about everything to do with fisheries management is that it's uncertain. You have to have some humility about what you're doing and you have to be precautionary at times. You have to manage from a risk management perspective. That requires good science. That requires that you view habitat broadly, so that the food base, the spawning, the flow of water from wetlands, all of these things are protected out of a full realization of just how much risk there is in the exercise.
On the other hand, by protecting fish habitat, you very broadly protect a whole lot of other values that are social values. Clean water, as Mr. Rees said, is good for property values. I'll leave it to him to talk about that, though.