I'm happy to start. Thanks for the question.
I made the comment that there's more than a semantic difference, and I believe there is. I guess I'll start with the view that conservation is a multi-faceted activity with many different stakeholders and many different governments involved in the process. Obviously provincial governments have responsibility for land-use planning. The federal government has a role in conservation. The aboriginal community has a role in conservation. Certainly industry and many other stakeholders do.
Our view is that with so much complexity and diversity, it does not lend itself well to a plan. What we really should be striving for is a common set of principles or objectives on alignment across those diverse interests to create momentum and consistency and alignment in the approach we take to conservation, both within the regular policy and regulatory context and in the actions we take.
For that reason, we believe that characterizing this initiative as a framework rather than what we would view as a more prescriptive plan—which I think is actually very difficult to achieve and implement across those diverse interests—might be a better way to think about it. What we're really trying to do, I think, is to create a vision as to what we want conservation to achieve in Canada, and then let it be implemented and let the planning piece of it, if you will, be undertaken by the diversity of players who are involved.
I don't know whether that helps to clarify the difference, but I think of it more as a framework or a broad strategy, and then we should let the implementation roll out through all of the various players who will be involved.