I'd like to go back to the IPAs, which I think you suggested, for Canada, is a new approach to addressing protecting areas. You mentioned three ways in which this approach would be structured. Can you fill in some of the gaps as to why IPAs are the preferred approach to protecting significant areas of Canada? The Aichi targets of course set 17% by 2020 as our goal, but we have heard witnesses already who have said, “Listen, we should actually be aiming at 50% over a longer time frame”.
Even the 17%, I think, for government is a challenge, but to move beyond that is going to require significant additional protection. No matter what our future holds, it's going to require significant collaboration between our first nations and all levels of government.
The IPAs are driven by our indigenous communities. Correct?