Yes. First of all, I think clarity is an important word, as has been iterated by others here today. I think some of the back-and-forth that we're witnessing here today is as much about lack of clarity—or probably more about lack of clarity—in the act and in the interpretation of the act than it is about differences of opinion on protection of fish and fish habitat, which is some of the frustration that you see on both sides of the equation.
I'll go back to our observation. I don't foresee this Parliament, or probably any future Parliament, taking away the discretion of the minister in much of these matters. However, ministerial discretion needs to operate within principles that we all believe are worthy: sustainable development, ecosystem approach to.... I speak about fisheries, so it's difficult for me to relate to shopping malls and farms in many respects.
For example, if there is not clarity and there's not a reference to an ecosystem-based approach and protection of sensitive areas and critical habitat, how can we ever have regulations that sufficiently safeguard fish habitat in the marine environment from fishing, from fishing activity? I'm a fisherman. I was a captain of a shrimp trawler. I know that there are certain places that shrimp trawlers should not be allowed to go, but if you have to be able to demonstrate serious harm to fish before you can be stopped from going there, I will never be stopped from going there.