There are a couple of things, I guess.
Regarding the specific reference you made to HADDs, I would emphasize that the act will still require authorizations. Authorizations is another way to put it. They will no longer be called HADDs. We will for sure come up with another acronym, because we're very good at that. It will be something that will constitute a serious harm authorization of some kind, because that's the term in the new prohibition. At some point authorizations will come forward to say that we've determined that project X, Y, Z may proceed with the following conditions and so on. That would be the nature of the authorization.
Insofar as whether or not authorizations of the nature people are familiar with in the HADD context will continue, the answer is yes. The terminology will vary a little bit. The manner in which they're put forward will vary a little bit. Importantly, a significant difference with respect specifically again to the authorizations is that the conditions attached to those authorizations will now be much more enforceable. Whereas before a fisheries officer would have been required to identify a violation, and if the violation or a charge proceeded through the court process, would have been required to demonstrate that the activity in question caused harm to habitat, we will no longer be required to do that. Essentially we will now be required to demonstrate that the condition on the authorization was violated, and that will be the end of the discussion. They're enforceable conditions which will substantially, in our view at least, improve our ability to enforce the terms of the act and specifically the authorizations.
Now to go back to your broader question about whether we have fully interpreted the impact of every section of the act and so on, of course the process has only recently been completed in terms of the legislative history. I think that no bureaucrat would sit before a committee of this nature and say, “Don't worry. We've figured out every single element of it”. I don't think we have that level of hubris. I think we're certainly at a point where we've worked through to the best of our understanding the implications of the change. We are proceeding to organize ourselves in such a way to deliver upon the new program. We have an awful lot of work to do in terms of policy design, and it ranges from the picayune, very detailed questions about how you define certain things—we have to put new forms in place for applications and that kind of stuff—through to broader questions about how we'll action some of the new provisions with respect to partnerships, with respect to offsets, and a whole variety of things.
I wouldn't want you to draw the conclusion that we have no idea where we're going. I think we have our act together reasonably well in terms of our next few steps, but I think the community collectively is still going to have a lot of work to do.