Thank you. It's a great question.
The change in legislation to “serious harm” is my point. It's putting the onus on the public to prove serious harm. What does that mean? They don't have access to the information and they don't have the money to actually be there and fight a lot of these causes. They also do not have the money to do the research necessary on the balance of probabilities to prove these things, but the proponent does. It's the proponent who needs to have the onus to show that they're not going to conduct serious harm, and if they do, they need to show how they're going to limit it and what they're going to do to replace it. That was the way the old act was structured.
The current legislation allows them to go ahead and destroy fish and fish habitat unless serious harm can be proven, but I'm not sure who does that. It's not clear from the law now. It's a very troubling situation that I think is unworkable. That is why I list it as the number one thing that needs to be changed as a result of the changes from 2012.