In terms of duplication, one example I can bring forward is a licensed tailings facility that ended up undergoing.... It was licensed by the provincial government, and it ended up going through at least a two-year delay on the federal process. It was deemed as a fish habitat because there was a fish in it, even though it was a licensed tailings pond.
That cost a significant amount of money and delay for the company without any environmental benefits in terms of outcomes. It was a ridiculous application of the existing fish habitat policy. That would be one example of, I think, some poor cooperation.
I think where we're seeing some positive collaboration in agreements right now is in terms of some of the work in northern Saskatchewan. There are lists of projects that would absolutely make a difference in fish habitat that might not be in an immediate area where there's activity. Allowing fish habitat banking to happen so that there are sufficient funds at a point in time that can actually work to improve a designated project that is identified on a provincial or federal priority list, I guess would be an example of something that I think would be beneficial, or is continuing to be beneficial, on a cooperative basis.