Sure. I appreciate the point. I think that focusing resources is an important objective. The issue is how one solves a problem. Does one solve it legislatively, or does one solve it through guidelines and policies?
Ecojustice Canada would suggest that the objective of avoiding the harsh application of prohibitions and requirement for legal authorizations under subsection 35(2) could be avoided. Issues related to, hypothetically, drainage ditches, could be avoided. What we have here is a situation where, for instance, it may be legal to temporarily remove vegetation from a spawning stream, or disrupt the gravel, or add sediment through roadwork. Those kinds of activities could wipe out an entire year class of salmon, even though it doesn't permanently alter the habitat. We would suggest that the fallout of trying to solve the “drainage ditch” problem is that there are going to be important impacts on habitat that weren't intended.
With respect to the objectives that were set out, I think that focusing government expenditures on those habitat issues that are really important is a laudable goal. I couldn't agree more. The point is how you go about doing it.