Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought I would have three minutes.
My question is to the minister. It was stated by a previous witness that changes to section 35 of the Fisheries Act contained unscientific language that allowed for overly broad interpretation. Indeed, in your own comments, Minister, you referenced confusion on what is protected now as a result of that.
Could you elaborate on that a bit more? Was there a consultation when the process took place? Is this ambiguous language that is in there leading to confusion on what is protected and what is not?