I appreciate the question being put to an agency that has to negotiate it, but I think maybe the fair way to turn it around is to say that I think there has been a fair amount of work over the past decades in trying to articulate a conservation vision for the country. I think you've heard about a lot here.
Aside from protected areas and things like that, which you are obviously going to pronounce on in your report, there are two things that you may want to come to grips with, one being the connection between protected areas and climate change. I think that too often the debate has been about how climate change will affect protected areas, as opposed to what it is that protected areas can do. There's a fair amount of work that's been done globally and internationally in terms of their contributions to conserving biodiversity, protecting ecosystem services, etc. There are two reports that I think we could provide the committee and that I think would amplify that.
The other thing, I think, is a conservation vision that reflects the robust testimony that you have heard from indigenous people. If I may say to the committee respectfully, don't just focus on what indigenous people—and I don't mean to speak for them—can contribute in terms of protected areas. You have heard, more than any other committee before, how they view the land, how they make decisions, and how the elders and others from generations past have looked at the land and how they treat the land and use the land. This committee can really bring that into a conservation vision unlike any other committee has ever done before.
I think those are two thoughts for you.