I don't think you're dreaming. There are 700 existing hydro facilities in Canada. It would be valuable if there was consensus on what the priorities were for each of them. What populations are important to communities, whether they be indigenous, recreational or commercial fisheries? What species are important? What is the sustainability of the population? Is it at risk? Does it need support? Is mitigation required for that particular population? Are improvements required, or are there situations where things are okay?
That conversation doesn't happen anymore because the department says that the act says you cannot kill a fish. We can't even get to that discussion. Operators don't know what the priorities are for each of those facilities, nor do they have clarity on what the expectations are for a new facility. Maybe sometimes for a new facility it's an easier conversation, because you go through the environmental assessment process and collect a lot of data, a lot of information and a lot of feedback. Those priorities get discussed, but for the 700 facilities, some of which have been here for more than a century, industry doesn't have guidance on what the expectations are.
I agree that a comprehensive plan like Hydro-Québec has would be an important discussion point. Then we need to get it validated so we can get on with the work.