Sure. The definition of “serious harm” is permanent alteration or destruction of habitat. It's one of the challenges that's being put out there. It's different from a HADD, which is harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of habitat, and it is indeed a different level. We have ensured that permanent alteration or destruction of habitat is linked to the definition of habitat, which is very broad, as I said earlier, and it covers all the life processes of the fish. We're ensuring that it's addressed.
The other thing is that we are focusing our application of this definition, and this is now in our policy statement on our website, on the productivity of the fishery. The permanent alteration is addressing.... If the impact on the fishery is permanent in terms of the productivity, that's the key.
The other thing, in terms of enhanced compliance, enhanced protection, is that there's a number of other pieces. I'd point to the penalties, which are much stronger than they were previously. The Fisheries Act was known for weaker penalties. We've now got much stronger penalties. We're able to identify ecologically significant areas and set them aside in regulations. We haven't done it yet but I believe we will. That is the plan, to give them enhanced protection. We've got new regulations coming forward and new powers in the act that are enabling new regulations on aquatic invasive species. We're trying to broaden the set of threats that we're protecting against, and there's a number of other pieces as well that we are hoping will have a positive impact.