I would get back to the target and timeline, and I would look at a bit of a risk assessment. I don't think you can do one or the other; I think you need to do both. As well, I think we need to take into consideration how we are working now, particularly from the marine perspective. We have a way of identifying key areas that should be protected. We have a framework to do that. They include the areas that need to be restored and the areas that should be protected.
What I would do is have a five-year plan that really looks at the low-hanging fruit, so that we have some progress. Get the most at-risk areas or species that need to be dealt with and that are providing important ecosystem services we can achieve success with. I would do that from a species basis and also a spatial protection basis. You can set yourself up for failure otherwise. But if there is a risk assessment and we do those things that are most at risk, then the things that can be protected, and then move to the more difficult ones next, that would be the most realistic and practical way to go about it. Perhaps it’s not the most ideal, but I'm trying to be practical.