Yes, it needs to go beyond monitoring. We need to make sure that, with all these small projects that cause harm, the harm is addressed by some mechanism, and we're pretty open-minded as to how that will prevent that loss.
The other challenge is that, for larger projects, any situation where there is an offset, to date, DFO has been allowing 1:1 ratios or even smaller than 1:1 ratios. All of the science we have reviewed on habitat offsetting requires additionality. It may be 2:1. It may be 5:1. It's situationally dependent, but there's no science. There's been no research produced to date that suggests that a 1:1 ratio will make up for the loss of a natural habitat. That's simply because we're only learning now how to restore habitats, and we will never restore them with the same capacity as what was there before, certainly not in the scientific perspective on average. We need to ensure that those ratios are fixed with a minimum of greater than 1:1 to make sure we achieve no net loss and, ideally, net gain.