If that's the way one wants to interpret the provision, I think we would be on the same page. We would agree that there probably is, from a biological perspective perhaps, no fish species out there that isn't involved in the ecological web of life that keeps the commercial fishery and all other fisheries alive. The challenge I have with this definition is that it attempts to narrow the focus, or it presents the appearance of having at least narrowed the focus, whether it intended to or not, sowing confusion into something that I don't think needs to be confused.
At least what was prohibited was clearer under the old definition. What we're aiming for in legislation is to be as clear as possible about the parliamentary or legislative intent, so that the people who are reading the act—particularly if you move towards what DFO has done recently with its self-assessment—totally understand what is supposed to be against the law and what is lawful. One of the real challenges we've struggled with since these changes, as I tried to explain in my presentation, is that there's a big question about what it actually means.