Yes. It's the point that both Jim and I made in relation to the Hecate process and to Scott Islands. You have an advisory committee, which is made up of all stakeholders, including environmental groups. They studied the science.
I think six years...you spent doing it this year? That's clearly too long, but we'll set that aside.
They make consensus recommendations that go to the Canada Gazette, part I, and then there are thousands of responses from someone hitting a website, a website prepared by those same environmental groups that were part of the process, and the response appears to be, well, we have 10,000 responses that say we have to do more.
So you're not looking at the science, but worse, you're taking a process that can work, engagement of all stakeholders on consensus recommendations based on science, then encouraging people to do an end run around it.