I think what I was speaking about is taking a landscape approach to the notion of habitat banking. In our province, for example, the hydroelectric facilities are managed on a watershed basis. You can envision a habitat banking proposal that looked at a broader scale across the watershed, as opposed to a site-specific scale, and made some investment decisions that provided an overall benefit or more benefit than the site-specific one.
Your question on environmental assessment was a good question as well. The environmental assessment process is a planning process. As I said in my deposition, it is through that process that the proponent goes through the hierarchical consideration of avoidance, mitigation and offset. It's the Fisheries Act in the case of the fisheries or the Endangered Species Act in the case of endangered species that actually puts the outcome of the planning process into an instrument or an authorization. That's why you look to the Fisheries Act through the authorization process, but the thought process begins much more in advance of that, during the environmental assessment process. It's just that this is not the instrument to actually implement the offset measure, whether it's the Fisheries Act or the Endangered Species Act or others.