I think it goes back to the changes I described.
Right now in the Fisheries Act, it is very clear that if there is any harmful alteration or destruction or disturbance, immediately you're in contravention of the Fisheries Act. Just to go through basic maintenance on a drain you're going to be disrupting and making changes to that habitat during the period it's under construction.
Even though you go through the approval processes at the local conservation level or the local municipal level, what we were finding is that quite often there would be a fisheries officer who basically read this legislation to the letter of the law and went through a process of demanding extra reviews and permits before you could proceed.
Quite often, there would be a drain that was scheduled for maintenance and they'd go through the process, and then all of a sudden they'd find that it was getting bumped sometimes a year or two years ahead. I'll use another example from the province of Ontario, where they decided to go through what they call a class environmental assessment for drains and they tried to categorize which drains would be subject to what types of approvals. They set that up, but still, at the end of that, some drainage supervisors were finding that Department of Fisheries officials were coming in and making them go through an additional process again.
It boils down to the fact that the wording of the act was so strict on the habitat issue without having an understanding that in order to keep these drains as habitat for fish, they have to be renewed on a regular basis. An outright ban on any disturbance actually works against creating fish habitat.
That type of issue really was a concern.