Now we're getting somewhere, because the human value-based criteria I think are very important. I don't think we can evade our responsibility to manage this place. We basically steward nature. We actively intervene on behalf of species that we want. I think it can be done within the bounds of ecosystem sustainability.
Mr. Ewins, I was really interested in your experience. You said that you work on the landscape that's being used, for example. One word that I didn't hear you say was property rights. I represent a rural constituency. Most of the land is privately owned farmland, and it's owned by people with a fierce attachment to their property. Many families, including mine, came from eastern Europe, and you only have to threaten an eastern European's property to see pure rage in action.
Many of the provisions and many of our acts do threaten property rights. The Species at Risk Act, in its habitat provisions, for example, is a disincentive to conserve species on the private landscape because if you have an endangered species on your own privately owned land, all of a sudden the heavy hand of government is potentially brought to bear on your use of the land that you own.