I find it interesting. We're here tonight to talk about the legislation; when we come down to the details of what's wrong with the legislation, we don't hear any. We hear opinions of what this might do. You've said a couple of times that you think the bill is okay. You're worried about the consequences of whether there are enough people to oversee it or not, but it sounds as if the content is okay.
A gentleman last night also pointed out that the definition of serious harm has been a point of contention with a lot of people. It's been pointed that it's defined in the legislation and includes the death of any fish or any permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat. He points out that fish habitat is also defined as spawning grounds, food supply, nursery, rearing areas, all the way to migration areas on which fish rely directly and indirectly.
Again I want to ask the members if there is anything specifically in the legislation where you don't agree that's the case. Because I think we're pretty clear that we're protecting fish habitat; we're protecting the commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. Yet there seems to be some consensus out there that this is not happening.
I want to make that point. These things are protected in there. Dr. Schindler, you pointed out that the bill is pretty good, apparently; you just don't like how you think it might be applied in the future.