Coming back to the original question, you indicated that we're sitting fairly low in the standings. There are other rankings that support that idea. We have a threat to some of our water flow. We have a threat to our air quality, especially in certain parts of the country, and so on, and there's a sense that we're losing rather than gaining. Some people would set that up as the cost of the economy moving forward.
I guess our view would be that in fact there isn't a trade-off necessarily. There's a reconciling that has to happen, and if implemented this bill and other environmental protection measures could cost us some jobs in the short term. Our idea would be that in the long term we're going to have more jobs that we need to force ourselves to consider and that we need to get into some of the behaviours that make us more efficient.
We have a huge carbon footprint. It's like walking around in size 17 sneakers. We have a big water footprint--some people say two to three times the size of what is sustainable for our watersheds and our aquifers and so on.
At the end of the day, that means making decisions. Whether it's in the oil sands or here, we may have to slow the pace of development. We may have to do some things, but always, I think, with an eye to having a proper reconciliation.
I'm just coming back to your organization and your members. Do you think that people are ready for that idea? Ready for the fact that we need to take the environment, our children's heritage, into account in making those decisions? And it's not just how big an economic case you have, and therefore we go ahead and run ramshackle over the environment.