I think the work on banking and on compensation, whether it's offsets or credits, is still an evolving area of development. In the last two or three years in particular, DFO has really worked on that.
What we do know is that projects require the ability to proceed. They can't completely avoid all areas of habitat, but we in our industry try very hard to avoid critical habitat, whether it's for species at risk or under the Fisheries Act. In those instances where there is habitat that is in play, the evolution of the work that's starting to happen—and, I think, is provided for in the legislation, and could be even better as we move forward—is the notion of identifying the critical nature of the habitat itself. If we're putting an alternate habitat in place, such as banking or whatever, there need to be—and we agree with this—significant and notable criteria to make sure that it actually is doing what it says it's going to do.
We believe that if we're able to do that, we should be able to move forward. This is an area that the department has been very careful about, and we respect that. I think we're simply looking to encourage rules that allow even more things to be accounted for as offsets because doing so encourages industries like ours that want things to do well and to sustain and to progress. It allows us a greater breadth of things that we could offer to do.