For sure. To turn to that point, I think that, since the Supreme Court opinion was provided on the Impact Assessment Act, we have started to see some meaningful change in how the agency is approaching its work. Do they need to do more? Yes. However, what we are seeing now is more of a concerted effort. We see it with the latest lithium project in Quebec, where they have worked out an agreement with the Cree and with Quebec. They are truly focusing on their own areas of federal jurisdiction and leaving the rest alone, which is the first clear example we've seen, and it's the most recent one to come out of the agency, in terms of tailored impact guidelines. We saw that as a very positive step.
They've recently published a draft collaboration agreement with New Brunswick. It's a small mining jurisdiction, but nevertheless, that's also a positive step, having more co-operation. We're hearing that they're getting close with Saskatchewan. That would be, potentially, a game-changer.
The key issue for us has always been this. When the agency asks proponents to do multi-year studies of critters or something, when you know the answer in advance and when you know what the regulatory instrument is going to be to mitigate any potential impact on those critters, do you really need to study that for three years, when you know what the answer is? Of course, that means three years of study, so how do you possibly get a project through in three years, when three years alone are going to be spent studying this one species?
It's rethinking what they ask for and rethinking how they approach impact assessment. That has been really important, and we are starting to see some real change.