It is absolutely important to understand those results. In that particular audit we were quite complimentary of Environment Canada.
I don't think it's an either/or. I think the plans and the clarity of targets are equally important. So I don't think it's an either/or.
Maybe I could respond to both of those questions by giving the example that I was going to say earlier. I don't believe the lack of a definition is making it difficult to achieve targets or leaving us in a situation where targets are just picked out of thin air.
The national parks have a fire cycle. They're trying to re-establish the natural cycle of fire and regeneration. Of course, we've worked quite actively as a society to suppress fire for a long time. That has left ecosystems in a situation where they are no longer functioning as they once did.
There were questions about Parks Canada and their targets, whether they are realistic, grounded in something. The panel in 2000 recommended that the historical fire cycle be re-established. They suggested 50%. Parks Canada reduced that target and aimed for 20%. We found that only a quarter of the parks are actually achieving that reduced target.
I cite that example because, if you talk to the fire experts in national parks, they fully agree, as I do, with the member's point. It's hard to know what we're aiming for in relation to natural cycles and biodiversity. They'll talk about the fact that even though they have tree rings of historical fire cycles, they don't know if first nations have affected those earlier fires or whether that was the natural way. So they don't know what they're trying to restore it to.
My point is that in that case, as in many other cases, we are far away from re-establishing the level of natural functioning of ecosystems. At some point, this will become important. But I don't think we're there yet.