I think in responding to the question there are two dimensions.
One of them is, I guess, with respect to the role of Environment Canada. Given that the purpose of the act is to make environmental decision-making more transparent for parliamentarians, I would submit that it makes sense for Environment Canada to take the lead in that. We are the department, quite frankly, that cares about that. Our minister is accountable for that and champions that very strongly in government. So we're the ones who have the interest in driving it. I'm the one who drags my colleagues together. I'm the one who has formed a partnership with Treasury Board to get this into the estimates process so there's money connected to it.
But I think your more fundamental question is how this translates into progress. The strategy by which this translates into progress is quite simply transparency. It was difficult to tell where things.... Under the former system, you could read through 32 reports and you would be left wondering what's being done, what's being spent, what's being achieved. It was very difficult to tell. It was virtually impossible in many areas.
By pulling this together and by driving a system that's connected to all of the budget decision-making by the estimates process in Parliament, the information is pulled together and parliamentarians can judge, Canadians can judge easily. They can judge what the government is doing, what it's achieving, and whether or not it's falling short, coming closer, or moving farther away from the goals it's established. It can also see clearly where it has good goals, it has not-so-strong goals, or it is missing goals. Already there have been three or four comments around the table with respect to a target that is missing, a target that needs to be added.