No, there shouldn't be any doubt in the mind of anyone who is objective that this wasn't a good thing. We probably lost the basis of protecting 80% of habitat in Canada.
We've all heard of death by a thousand cuts, and that's what destroys habitat in most places. In my last years in DFO, I did a lot of work on assessment of the no net loss policy, and when it comes to the bigger projects, you have a greater industrial will in the company to look good. They hire better consultants, and they do a better job of assuring a no net loss of habitat. Government rides them more because they are big corporations, but when you take the 101 little landowners in that same watershed, one who's cutting down some trees, one who's destroying the riparian zone, and someone who runs across a stream with his ATV, and you add all of those up, they are going to do a lot more damage to the stream than one larger industrial development.
Basically, we deleted out all of that protection from the Fisheries Act. That is your harmful alteration disruption and destruction of fish habitat. None of that would be considered serious harm, as defined in 2012-13.