The concept as it's best applied, in my view, is that you look at the scales of habitat from a natural to an unnatural...and I'll take the Fraser delta on the west coast as an example. We have a large area in the Fraser delta that is agricultural land; it's mixed with green space, remnant wetland habitats, shrublands and foreshore habitat. In the intensive agricultural land, it is used as habitat. It's used by migratory birds, it's used as staging grounds for raptors in the winter time, so you could say that's habitat. But in the context of putting up a large greenhouse over a hundred acres, which displaces that habitat, the option for no net loss is to enhance habitat in other areas. So you take that agricultural land and you revert it to a more natural state. We know that the natural grass habitat in the Fraser delta, which accommodates over-wintering owls and raptors from across western Canada, requires that intense grass habitat to produce the mice to feed the raptors. A potato field doesn't do that; it doesn't provide the same habitat. So you're looking at trading off qualities of habitat, and the no net loss principle is about maintaining a net opportunity for quality habitat.
I think that's the way to look at that, because not all habitat is created equal.