I'd say in general, absolutely. Flood control is a great one. Think of the Canadian boreal forest agreement, in terms of changing the rules of engagement on 76 million hectares across the country. I think they took about 29 million out of production, and the rest they're producing differently. As you manage that differently you have a big impact on flood control in the country, right? In the Manitoba context, that may or may not be that relevant, but in general across the country it is.
In the riparian zones, bringing back some of the narrow strips of conservation around the riparian zones, in terms of the grasslands and the trees, can have a significant effect on water and flood control.
It's interesting. If you look at the broad boreal, I was reading a study recently where they calculated that it produces—in terms of the forest products we all know so well—a tremendous amount of economic value for Canada. It's something in the $50-billion-a-year range, I think. But in terms of estimating the benefits of flood control, the pest control by habitat for birds, the tourism, they worked it out to something like $90 billion a year in terms of economic benefits, in terms of avoided floods, avoided damage, etc. So finding those in a local context where it's particularly important, such as in Manitoba, and finding ways to advance those objectives through conservation is definitely a win-win.