Good morning to all of you.
Like Ms. Paulus, I am a wildlife biologist ,with a particular expertise in woodland caribou. If that is helpful to any of you, let me know. I am also a businessperson. I have three small businesses and I strongly agree with your basic premise that cooperation is a lot better than non-cooperation, that carrots are better than sticks, wherever possible.
As a biologist, it seems to me that for most species at risk we need two strategies. We need a long-term strategy, which is mostly habitat protection, and a short-term strategy, which ensures the survival of gene pools and populations. I hate to see us being drawn into choosing one or the other; we really need both. Similarly, we need a long-term plan to make our industries more sustainable, but we also need to hang on to a few endangered species as well. So striking a balance is a good thing.
I noted what I think is an inconsistency. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers seems to be saying two things: on the one hand, you want flexibility; on the other, you want very long-term agreements so that you can do long-term planning. Those two positions are at odds. First you say that three- to five-year planning terms are too short; then you turn around and say that things change—technology changes, information changes—and we need to be flexible.
Does this seem as inconsistent to you as it does to me?