Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the indulgence here.
The recent announcements on the west coast—by my calculations, and I may be slightly off—actually account for 35% of the 5% target for 2017. Because of the area involved, that one announcement accounts for 35% of the 5% target. Even by 2010 at 10%, that will still be 17% of the entire goal tied up in one identified area.
How does that speak to biodiversity that may be as or more important than other areas that need to be protected? How much more of that area is going to be locked up on the west coast, disproportionate to the rest of the country?