Yes, I find that AECL example fascinating myself. Not only is it a situation where you're looking to tear down habitat, but AECL is federally mandated through the nuclear legacy liabilities program to tear down those stacks. At the same time, another department, Environment Canada, would probably advocate to retain them. This is a situation where we can't avoid or mitigate effects, so we need another solution, and that is offsets. A habitat banking program would allow us to have the flexibility to develop those offsets and to also enter into arrangements where we have direct or indirect offsets. So, they're not just habitat for habitat but also habitat for research or other options.
On May 9th, 2013. See this statement in context.