Mr. Chair, that's a very practical example. Even in the government's own consultation piece on selling credits, it does say that it will allow for anthropogenic, so human-caused, tree planting to be considered, but it doesn't make a requirement if it burns down within a hundred years. There is a relation.
Again, as Canadians, we pride ourselves on our natural environment, yet we don't report on it in the same way that other countries do. What you measure matters. I would simply say that your practical point there, Mr. Chair, is really important.
The minister has said that he wants to have 25% of Canada's land mass under some form of conservation federally by 2025. That does not encompass all of the grasslands. It does not encompass all of the non-managed forests. If we're looking only at the human side, we are forgetting that the earth is a natural ecosystem that exists [Technical difficulty—Editor] anthropogenic. It exists and should be reported on.
This is a good governance mechanism here. This is simply a summary, respecting that often these lands are under provincial jurisdiction. I do think that if these things are measured and reported on to Canadians, there will be a greater appreciation for that.
As you said, Mr. Chair, if people see that there is an increase in the amount of emissions and there isn't the regular sequestration, that may trigger further scientific inquiries. Again, the central thesis of science—and I know Mr. Saini will respect this—is to start with a fruitful question. Having this summary would send a signal to the scientific community. Why are we seeing the trend line going in the wrong direction? Are government policies aligned in the right ways? This is a non-partisan attempt to take existing information and put it into that so that it can trigger more of those fruitful questions, whether you be a scientist or just an average Canadian.
I hope that answers Madam Pauzé's question.