I would begin by noting that we are still in the process of consulting and developing a set of national goals, targets, and indicators for biodiversity. The 17% that's referenced relates to a decision taken in 2010. There are targets called the Aichi targets, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, that are aspirational. We are now in the process of translating those Aichi targets into domestic targets. We have a consultation process.
With respect to why Canada is at, say, 10%, and not closer to a higher percent, I think our country is being blessed by the fact that much of our territory is actually not accessible. It is, in some ways, de facto protected already. I believe that much land in Canada, even more than the 10%, enjoys protection, but perhaps not in the formal sense.
The second comment is that both provincially as well as federally we continue to make progress on identifying and designating additional protected areas. We have a number of national parks in development. We're working on our national wildlife areas. We've seen provincial jurisdictions such as British Columbia in the north and central coast designate much of that landscape as protected areas. So there is tremendous progress.
My final comment would be the point I made during my remarks about the importance of private land conservation. The 10% that we have now doesn't actually capture private land conservation, which would add perhaps as much as another 2% to the national total of land that's protected.