I don't know if you actually need to put the numerical targets into the law. I think you need to put their conservation objectives into the law. I think you need to put timelines for completion of things into the law. I think we could do a better job of creating legislated procedures that would get us past this painful, laborious one-by-one site selection that can drag on for 10 or 20 years.
New Zealand, for example, is currently amending its marine protected areas law. They're proposing to use a collaborative approach as one approach, or if that's not going to work, to create a board of inquiry headed by one of their environmental court judges to actually make a ruling about what the scope of the protected area will be.
All the agencies you've heard from are doing a wonderful job of identifying all the places that we need to protect, the priority areas, the EBSAs, the marine bioregions. There's so much scientific knowledge, and in B.C., as I mentioned, we have these MaPPs, these protection management zones, that could be turned into protected areas almost overnight.
They have the huge evidence base already there. It's a long story of why the federal government wasn't involved in that process, which I don't have time for, but I am happy to provide follow-up information on how MaPPs' protection management zones could easily be converted into marine protected areas.