Mr. Speaker, in one word, no. I think I made it clear that I was not prepared to trust the minister or the department on a number of issues.
Specifically on the compensation, I have to take some issue with my friend from Surrey Central. I do not see that issue or the issues of criminal penalties and socioeconomic considerations as being the most important issues we dealt with. They were considerations, but they were secondary ones.
There is no question that we should have had a broader scope of how the compensation would work. The criminal penalties are fairly restrictive as well and we should have had a broader scope on those.
With regard to the socioeconomic considerations, I believe that the work the committee did in structuring the bill as to when socioeconomic considerations were to be taken into account was the appropriate way to do it. In that respect I had, and I believe the majority of the committee had, serious disagreements with the Alliance Party. It wanted to introduce socioeconomic considerations at times in the bill and at stages when species were being protected at various levels, which were much too early and I would say inappropriate.