I presume you're talking about the IFN stream flow needs in respect to this question. We were engaged in early 2005, I believe—I have some correspondence regarding this—when the decision was made at the Energy Resource Conservation Board level with respect to an application by Shell Canada and CNRL. The recommendation that came out of that was that the IFN number would be set by CEMA. Well, CEMA undertook the exercise and didn't come up with a number for the IFN that would be protective of the fisheries and the ecosystem in the Athabasca River basin.
DFO made a commitment that they would set the standard, if CEMA was not able to come up with a number within a set timeframe. The timeframe expired, and DFO came up with a proposition, which we supported initially—without any scientific basis, but it was more protective of the interests of the Athabasca River system. We agreed that this should be the number on an interim basis while the scientific work was conducted on the Athabasca River.
Alberta Environment got involved in the exercise, as well as the industry folks in Calgary. My understanding is that a meeting occurred between industry and Alberta Environment. They raised concerns with respect to the proposal by DFO. As a result of that meeting, the numbers were changed regarding what the targets were going to be.
As a result, we lost faith in DFO's setting the targets, the instream flow need number, which was protecting the Athabasca River. We also asked for more scientific work to be done with respect to the Athabasca River system so that we could protect the ecological integrity of the river. No work has been done with our community to establish this since that point in time.