Thank you very much for the question.
I'd like to make a couple of points just to provide some context. We're a largely science-based organization. Something like 60% or 65% of our resources are based on that. In terms of our strategic outcomes, science deals with a lot of that. So in terms of what was actually captured under the climate change particular strategic outcome, that's not to say that it wouldn't be informed from the other strategic outcomes. I'll ask my colleague, Craig Ferguson, to provide a few more insights in a moment, but I can say, again, it's not to say that just solely the money on climate change, as we have there, is dealt with investment-wise in a very discrete sense.
A lot of this--for instance, “Canada's natural capital is restored, conserved, and enhanced”, “Weather and environmental predictions and services reduce risks and contribute to the well-being of Canadians”, and “Canadians and their environment are protected from the effects of pollution and waste”--deals with very basic science that helps inform in terms of the adaptation and the knowledge we need to bear in order to be able to model and deal with our commitments and also our objectives related to climate change.
In terms of ECERIA--thank you very much for asking that question--under the previous government, as you know, the priority was to establish this particular agency for the purchase of emission credits. Under the new government, as I think our minister mentioned in reiterating the government's policy, this would no longer be the case in 2006-07. The main estimates go back to the fall, so we do have $49 million in there, but as we mentioned in our report on plans and priorities, there will be no money spent in regard to this as a result of the new priorities established by the government.
I'll ask Craig Ferguson to give you a bit more precision on what is contained within that fourth strategic outcome that would align with the 2.5% of the budgetary estimates.