Day 7Fish and fish habitat are extremely important to many communities not only in Canada but around the world. For that reason when contemplating any activity that might disturb or destroy a certain species or their habitat lengthy studies must be made to ensure the survival of those species. GenPgm I believe demonstrated at length how seriously the take the topic of fishery. Almost all their answers satisfied my curiosity about the topic. ( but I'm not a member of the panel:) It seemed to me that GenPgm consulted with both the Government agencies and First Nation's communities to ensure best practices for the survival of all fish life that may or may not be affected by the project. Today's critique by some presenters was followed up by some recommendations on how to remedy what the presenters implied GenPgm report (which is probably 600 plus pages and cost millions of dollars and was done by many experts that have extensive experience in their respective fields.). Those presenters expressed the willingness to work together with GenPgm on the concerns they have. This to me implies that they are not against the project, they just want to ensure that should the project proceed it does so while respecting the communities way of life. It is also encouraging to see that while the presenting government agencies had some recommendations to GenPgm they seem to be generally satisfied with GenPgm's submitted EIS GenPgm's closing remarks were very well considered. They thanked all the participants by name. Furthermore GenPgm demonstrated that every presenter needs to be heard by addressing all the concerns that presenters had during this part of the hearing. This confirms that GenPgm is willing to work with all parties and make appropriate changes if needed.