Absolutely. In fact, I'd go further, and this may sound a bit heretical, but it will only sound heretical initially. I'd ask the committee members, and panel members as well, to consider framing a number of these questions in the context of habitat supply as opposed to habitat protection, and I'm going to tell you why. A fundamental ecological characteristic of habitat is, regardless of whether human beings are present on the landscape or not, that habitat will change. So I'm suggesting that collectively we think about, then, what do we want in terms of the benefits that habitat can supply to people? In doing so, that will force us not only to think about the present but the future. We want these benefits. We want these values to continue in perpetuity, in the case of, for example, fishing and hunting opportunities. But in order to do that, we have to think into the future and we have to think about some fundamental ecological imperatives—
Evidence of meeting #74 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was alberta.
A recording is available from Parliament.