Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. This is not rocket science. Where there is a will, there is a way.
These are rather minor changes. Clause 6 could have had something in there about ecological health being the first priority among the other priorities. It could have included a definition of what constitutes ecological health. The member is right to point out that it has been done elsewhere.
We have to come to the conclusion that the government, for whatever reason, thinks being arbitrary has some sort of political advantage. The political advantage, frankly, escapes me. I am assuming it has to do with farm friendliness. We are all farm friendly; we cannot eat without them.
The real question here is this: why would the government pit this set of citizens against that set of citizens, when in fact both sets of citizens have way more in common than they do in differences?