I agree with you. I think the people of Jasper fully understand, now, what the difference is between a preservation and a conservation model, and what happens when you sterilize, from human use and human activity, vast tracts of land without active conservation and management. For example, Jasper National Park did not do any wolf predation control and has since lost the caribou herds that spent most or some of their life cycle inside Jasper National Park. Yet, everybody outside Jasper National Park was blamed for that population declining.
I think the overall goal here, for the government—through the United Nations framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity—is 30% by 2030, but it's also 50% by 2050. When I went to university, the model was 12.5% preservation and 75% active management—12.5% is used by cities and so on. I don't imagine that anybody in any urban environment is going to be asked to tear down their house to make way for nature. Who, then, is going to be asked to cede their land or territory? The question has been asked here about whether this would affect private land. Because it's a process bill—and one could argue that the Species at Risk Act is a process act—it can very much impact a landowner.
Can you tell us how the government could possibly get to 50% of the biozones in Canada without having an impact on privately owned land?