Sure, we'd be very happy to do that. Maybe I could just rattle off what we think of as some key groups or categories—I think that was an earlier question that came up—and then we'd be happy to dig up a list of people we've come across in them.
One is obviously the large conservation organizations, the national ones. Also, because of the shared ecosystem in North America, to some extent some of the American ones have partnerships in Canada, and they also have interesting practices.
As well, I would say, there are the national wildlife organizations, the anglers and the hunting organizations, the Trout Unlimited types of organizations, because they have a very keen interest in preserving the natural ecosystem.
Industry groups are engaged in this increasingly, we find. I mentioned a couple earlier, but there's a fairly wide range of industry groups that are organizing themselves and are doing some interesting practices on the land.
There are the local conservation organizations that are doing some highly innovative things, whether it's the Beaver Hills tradeable conservation credits out east of Edmonton, or the tradeable water quality in the South Nation watershed just east of here. Bringing these local organizations into the mix would be very helpful.
Of course, there are the aboriginal organizations. There's a range of aboriginal organizations that need to be part of this. They have a particularly important perspective and some interesting ideas.
The other category is what I would call academics and specialists. These are people who have studied innovative mechanisms and innovative arrangements. There are people who have looked at what has been happening in other countries and at some experiments on the ground and getting that in.
Very quickly, I would say that these would be the categories to think of. We'd be pleased to dig up some of the contacts we have and share them with the committee.