I agree with Mr. Lounds' comment that there isn't an integrated approach at the federal level and there should be.
The national parks systems plan specifically has served us well, but it's designed on a 1970s model. It is about representation only, and it predates the whole area of conservation science. We do need to build on that. It's important to have that representativity element of representing and having a park in each natural region of the country, but we need to build beyond that, because we now know that our parks need to be connected together if they're going to conserve nature. They need to be nested within broader landscapes and seascapes.
I think the next iteration needs to look at integrating, and in the face of climate change that becomes all the more important. Many of our parks are too small, and they need to be bigger. We need to build that ecosystem science into the next round, and then figure out how the various tools fit together in an integrated way. What is the role of national parks? What is the role of national wildlife areas? How do they fit together to have a complementary landscape approach to conservation, and then how do they fit with provincial, territorial, and indigenous tools? That's why we need these spatial plans, so we can figure out how they all fit together.