So my question is, among the provinces, industry, and environmental groups, who is saying to you that socio-economic considerations should be part of SARA, and who is taking the position that they should not be?
As we look to science to determine what is critical habitat, you've shared with us that information is limited. You did make a comment about an hour ago about existing infrastructure. If a farmer's field or a hydroelectric project already in existence is determined to be critical habitat for a species, what are the consequences for that infrastructure or farmer's field?