Yes.
Some of this language gets reinterpreted by the lawyers in terms of what the provinces are mandated to do in a results-oriented equivalency. A province saying that it will reduce so many tonnes of carbon and then choosing to buy a bunch of credits in the short term may achieve the result policy-wise, but it may not actually be to the benefit of the country because the structural changes haven't been made. It's usually the structural changes that go first, rather than something where you just buy credits. That's probably a good example of the pitfalls that exist with an equivalency.
We do have some history with this, though, in CEPA and some other places, so it's not as if we have to recast the wheel. We've done this before. Mr. Mills, who has joined us, will know that better than most.