Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back a little bit to the whole question of the Environmental Damages Fund and the definition of serious harm. Again, I appreciate your assurance that we're going to get there in terms of clarity. This was certainly raised by our witnesses a couple of weeks ago, and by others. How many fish have to be destroyed to constitute serious harm or death to fish? What about the whole question of cumulative effects? How are those taken into account? Again, what are the clear legal and scientific underpinnings?
There's the definition of serious harm to get a conviction in court. But then there are all those people, all those bodies. Some of them are being consolidated in some offices, but not in P.E.I. There's been a huge reduction, and that's going to influence the ability to get convictions and the ability to enforce this act. That leads to my concern. I refer you to evidence we heard here a couple of weeks ago. In 2000, in the Pacific region, there were 1,800 habitat-related investigations, which led to 49 convictions. By 2010, the number of investigations was down to only 300, and the convictions under habitat provisions were down to one.
The science is essential. It's important. Clarity is essential in the rules and regulations. We have to have the bodies, the people on the ground, to enforce what it is we come up with in terms of regulations and in terms of backing up the science. Would you not agree?