If I'm understanding you correctly, Marvin, basically your charge is that this was all perfectly legal from the point of view that DFO gave an authorization, which was obviously below standard. DFO actually allowed this, but under the habitat protection agreements, if you're going to cause destruction to habitat, you have to have a mitigative plan to create an equal amount of habitat, versus what you destroyed.
Regarding this process, you are making two charges: one is that irreparable damage was done in the conduct of the project, and two is that habitat was not fully restored post-project. Would that be correct?