I think earlier on I talked about the fact that you can protect something or you can rehabilitate something if it's screwed up. I think one of the good things about the NCP is that it does have a fair amount of money engaged in protection through land securement and other things. The reason that's important is it's a lot cheaper and generally more effective to protect something than it is to fix it up afterwards. Yet we spend so much money on rehabilitation when in some cases we haven't really done the math to figure out whether we should be focusing on protection in a bigger way.
I think the government needs to be very leveraged if it's in the rehabilitation business. That goes back to what Jim was saying about doing a lot of stewardship projects. However, they're highly leveraged with local groups. We're getting free labour in many cases, volunteer labour. Also, industries and others are providing cut-rate infrastructure and that sort of thing. It would be very costly for the government to actually replace the kinds of things we're managing to do as partners in stewardship. There's a protection component of the NCP that I think is a very wise investment, and there's some in rehabilitation.
How I try to demonstrate why protection is more important than rehabilitation is by saying that if you drink black coffee, it's a lot easier to protect it from cream than it is to rehabilitate a double-double later.