You talk about habitat banking and thus about doing a kind of land exchange. The problem is that people often work at a regional level. For example, can further wetland losses in Laval right now be compensated for? I do not even know whether there are still any available wetlands. So they will be considering forests and lands. That is good; they are protecting forests. We are not opposed to protecting forests, but we are talking about water and habitat management thresholds. Wetlands and forests have different functions. Consequently, what may constitute a compensation must be defined. That is important.
How does that work at the present time? There is the mitigation sequence, which is explained in the federal policy on wetland conservation and is quite a widespread wetlands management method. That sequence is summed up in the words "avoid, minimize and compensate." As you have noticed, very rarely does anyone avoid or minimize. They go directly to compensation. I think we should promote the verbs "avoid and minimize". I think that is especially important.