There were a few. We submitted a brief to Minister Kent last month with the Canadian Hydropower Association that had a number of actual examples of where we're working on conservation agreements with communities and other stakeholders. Especially in the hydroelectric context, there are many users of a river system. There are cases of white sturgeon on the Columbia River where under the act, basically, you cannot harm one sturgeon, whereas in reality it's the type of thing in terms of offsets or other ways of either offsetting or replacing habitat, or other actions to help promote the reintroduction or the health of sturgeon in general.
You're spending a lot of money working with a lot of people, but if you're not getting that recognized within a species at risk context and having that compliance, at some point you ask is it worth doing all that if you still have some risk of being charged under the act or sued by someone because there was some incidental harm to a sturgeon.
We're looking at improving the lot of white sturgeon on the Columbia River as opposed to specific harm to a single sturgeon that was incidentally hurt at the place.
There are other examples. Lake sturgeon with Manitoba Hydro on the Nelson River you're probably familiar with. There are the inner Bay of Fundy salmon in Nova Scotia and the work Nova Scotia Power is doing. On the bird side, there is the piping plover in Saskatchewan. All those utilities involved have been working with numerous stakeholders and have really good working plans, but they're wondering why they are doing all these efforts if they still have the risk of violating the Species At Risk Act as it currently stands.