That's a very generous—I'm sure too generous—comment, but thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I think it's a multipronged approach. With respect to habitat, just as with biodiversity itself, it's important to keep a diversity of tools to achieve the outcomes. I think government-protected areas at one end of the spectrum will always be important, but so is the other end of the spectrum with stewardship agreements, conservation agreements, and working cooperatively with landowners and land managers to achieve shared outcomes.
We were very actively engaged in those kinds of conversations with industry, with every industry sector in the context of the species at risk legislation and the section 11 conservation agreements. I think we would be better served if we can have agreement on shared outcomes, because then we don't have to worry so much about a big stick of regulation and so on.
It's very difficult, and I think provinces have learned this in their experience, to regulate private land management. When that is done, it needs to be done very carefully, very deliberately, with good engagement of those private land owners. We—the royal we, federally and provincially—probably can't regulate habitat protection to the extent to sufficiently conserve the biodiversity of species. We need those protected areas. There might be occasions when a regulatory approach to habitat protection is warranted on those private lands, provincial crown lands, or federal crown lands, but equally so is the softer agreement, if you will. I don't think we should confuse a softer contribution agreement under the habitat stewardship program, for example, as any less efficient in terms of achieving a conservation outcome.