We believe the status quo is inadequate. We've presented a way forward, and that's what we're debating here. I think we disagree on whether that's adequate or not, in your opinion.
You seem unhappy about the fact that there might be some kinds of works, perhaps very minor, some kinds of waters, like perhaps seasonal things that freeze to the bottom during the winter, which the minister could prescribe by regulation—not by ministerial order, as you said, but by regulation—and that these fall outside of the purview of the protection. Most people we've talked to, and I think Mr. Bonnett would be one of them, would say that's a common-sense thing to do, and that we don't have the resources to look at every piece of water—for example, a slough on a farmer's field that only has suckers in it—and expect Fisheries officers to show up on that property, with guns drawn in some cases, we've been told—we hear horror stories—and enforce section 35 of the act.
In our view, this is a common-sense approach to being able to focus the resources in the areas where they need to be.
I think I'm out of time.