I would.
Mr. Amos, I agree that there are a lot of tools.
To build on Aran's point as well, a lot of the terrestrial conservation objectives are a shared responsibility between different governments. What I would like to see is a more coordinated approach to what is being approved. Forestry, for the most part, is approved by the provincial government. There could be a more coordinated approach in species management in what the province is doing and what the federal government is mandating or asking for through federal recovery strategies.
Ben touched on it as well. One of the key missing policy suites of tools is under SARA. Within the current act, there are tools such as conservation agreements and permitting tools. We could have more guidance from Environment Canada on the development of those and how those might be implemented. We're definitely willing to work on them. There are some willing proponents who want to invest resources in the best way possible.
There are also opportunities to look at what other jurisdictions are doing. For instance, Australia is looking at a kind of threat management approach. Where there is a piece of geography with multiple species at risk listed, they work in a coordinated fashion to find recovery efforts that would benefit multiple species. It's a move towards a multi-species, area-based approach and it utilizes some of the flexible tools, such as conservation agreements and stewardship initiatives, that I know the forest industry would be happy to work towards.