Thank you for the question.
I think we need to go back and define what cumulative effects are. If we look at all of the effects on the ecosystem, we need to be very careful that we don't start to slot those or put them into silos. We may have cumulative effects for agriculture. We may have another set of cumulative effects for the oil and gas industry, and we may have another set of cumulative effects for a subdivision around a city. The challenge for government will be balancing those cumulative effects. In many cases, we see government, through societal goals, saying that they want to have a subdivision all the way around the city, and they start to look at the cumulative effects of that issue only.
We're saying we need to balance all of those. So we would look at the environmental, social, and financial, but all of those have a cumulative effect. An example may be—and Mr. Grant brought it up—where we have a grasslands park that didn't have a grazer in the park. That would be looking at a social, cumulative effect where it's as if we want to narrowly focus on that. Instead we should have balanced that social goal with the environmental and the financial, and built in all those cumulative effects together--quite a different concept.
Another example would be the development of oil and gas in northeastern Alberta, where government has focused very narrowly on cumulative effect with regard to the oil and gas sector, at the absence sometimes of environmental goals within the area. Again, we need to balance all of that.