Thank you for the question, Mr. Sopuck.
I believe that once our legal memoranda have been circulated, you'll have a more nuanced understanding of the position we're taking.
I haven't suggested that habitat protection is going to be eliminated in any respect. What I've suggested is that it's going to be greatly weakened, and that it's going to be narrowed, and that there is potential for exemptions for particular waterways and for particular activities in works and undertakings.
What we're seeing here is a shift away from a broad regime of habitat protection that protects against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. That definition is proposed to be changed such that the protection to habitat would be limited to serious harm and only for fish that are considered part of or related to aboriginal, recreational, or commercial fisheries. Already what we're dealing with here is a reduction in the fish that are protected by subsection 35(1), and after that we're dealing with a situation where, instead of it being a harmful alteration, that whole protection around alteration is going to be changed, because now it's only going to be for where there is serious harm. So that is entirely different.
I can cite some examples for you.