The point about prevention, I think, is an important one. It was the case in the Fisheries Act that when there was an undertaking, when there was a development that was going to have an impact, you could get an equivalent offset and moneys could be allocated. The developer or whoever was putting in the pipeline or doing the development and damaging the habitat could pay for another project somewhere else. I know that in Nova Scotia, for example, where I'm from, they're having some difficulty getting the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to properly recognize the need to redirect money to areas that would be preventive, as you've suggested.
I'm wondering what your experience has been in British Columbia, Dr. Riddell.