Perhaps I'll use a case study that I love coming back to, just because I think it's a great example of a case in which habitat banking and offsetting calculations have been effective.
In the case of our Pickering and Darlington nuclear generating facilities, we needed to offset for the loss of fish coming through our facilities—in this case, in the Great Lakes, alewife.
Under the old provisions of the act it would have been like for like. The expectation would have been that you're removing alewife from the system through your water intakes; therefore, you're going to replace alewife.
However, with this modern and robust thinking around habitat banking and offsets, we could break it down to a productivity unit. Since we are removing x number of productivity units out of Lake Ontario every year, we could replace those productivity units with something the fishery or the ecosystem actually needed.
In the case of the Great Lakes, it's well accepted that the loss of coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes is a massive impediment to productivity. In the case of Pickering and Darlington, then, we focused our attention on coastal wetland re-creation in the Bay of Quinte. We rehabilitated what was essentially a number of hectares of unproductive wetland.
Through calculations, we were able to determine that the amount of productivity we are removing from Lake Ontario every year is being replaced by this productive coastal wetland, which is really taking care of a far vaster species diversity than would have been removed. Whereas we were removing alewife, then, we're now actually replacing species at risk; we're replacing some targets—