You're absolutely correct; there is the potential for perverse results that were obviously not intended when the drafters put the legislation together. But as we're working our way through—as Virginia has already commented, this is still a fairly new piece of legislation—in many cases what we're finding as we try to do something is that it is the first time it has been tried within the construct of this legislation, and that brings a number of challenges with it. Part of that is legal interpretation of what the legislation actually means and the intent of Parliament when the legislation was promulgated.
The example you have raised is one that is very real for us. We understand it. What we are trying to do is work with folks, with organizations, and with companies that are potentially implicated and affected by the implementation of SARA while at the same time they are undertaking conservation measures.
The last thing I think any of us wants, either government or the companies involved, is a situation in which people stop undertaking conservation measures because of the potential unintended consequences. So we're working with such organizations as the Canadian Hydropower Association and others to see whether we can find ways of working within the legislation as it currently exists and avoid some of the unintended consequences, and also to try to find ways to ensure that there are no disincentives to stewardship and conservation activities on the part of concerned Canadians.