The Oceans Act allows the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish some areas, the Canada National Parks Act allows the Minister of the Environment to establish national marine conservation areas, and the Canada Wildlife Act allows the Minister of the Environment as well to establish marine national wildlife areas. All three of those tools have been and are being used to varying degrees in a mix. The federal departments involved worked quite closely to identify chunks of the landscape, or I should say seascape, rather, that are of highest priority. So there's a lot of coordination among the federal community.
As part of the budget deliberations that you're engaged in here today, I'd also note that the government has renewed funding for the health of the oceans initiative, and so this funding base for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and for others with respect to marine protected areas has continued.
Insofar as the 10% target is concerned, I think that all participants in that process would recognize that's an aspirational target, and what one counts and one doesn't is certainly a matter of policy debate and discussion. Certainly the department is continuing to orient its efforts toward the achievement of that. The investments through HOTO and other things I think will move us along in that regard.
With respect to your question, finally, on the development of a national strategy, certainly we have concluded over time that probably it makes the most sense to work on all three oceans as opposed to a strategy that treats all oceans as the same, because they're not. The jurisdictional and management arrangements differ from ocean to ocean to ocean. Certainly the federal government is trying to take as consistent an approach as it can in its programming. But because the nature of the conservation initiatives in all three oceans differs, our focus—while maintaining national consistency—is much more ocean by ocean than on a single “one size fits all” in all three ocean contexts.