There's a lot of efficiency and effectiveness that can be built with the DFO working with first nations indigenous communities and rights holders across the country.
As opex budgets are constrained and reduced in the government's plan to increase capex spending and reduce opex spending, there's an opportunity to reduce the regulatory costs for DFO.
If it's an indigenous-led project—and that's not to say that if it's a indigenous proponent that consent should not be sought—it is a more likely outcome, if it's a nation on their traditional territory stewarding the fish habitat, that rights holders will be aligned with that as opposed to a project proponent that needs to go through a robust consultation process.
I think that it speaks to efficiency. Within the fish habitat offsetting system, which has a lot of potential to expand, there's a lot of private capital that would come in to do the work that government grants are doing and that philanthropic money is doing. With a robust system with a clear demand side in the proponents of large and small projects, that creates the market for creating the supply.
By both aggregating small projects and doing work for large projects, third party habitat banking is a real opportunity to capture some of those efficiencies.