Sir, you have me at a bit of a disadvantage because I don't have that report in front of me, but I get the point that you can read some of the statistics in different ways. You get an appreciation that what's on paper is quite different from what the situation in the forest actually is.
Let's say you pose that question to a community that hasn't had a fire in its area for 50 years. There are big, beautiful, mature lodgepole pines, and they're green. It just looks perfect. That community doesn't have to worry. Guess what: You have the big energetic increases, through temperature, into our forests. You have the insect forcings that are already there in B.C., and they're moving. To say that it's happened in the past, so we shouldn't do anything now.... I think that might work in terms of a theoretical argument. If you had talked to the people in Fort McMurray after the town burned down and asked them whether they would have changed things in the forest around them before the fire, if they could, I think the people of Alberta, the people in Fort Mac and the indigenous groups there, would all have said, “We could have done things a little differently.”
It's one thing to look at high theory, to have a theoretical disagreement and to look at statistics, but it's another to know that at the end of the day there are real communities and businesses out there that are potentially at risk. I take the point, though, that there is a theoretical, academic debate. It's an interesting debate, but I don't think we have any more time for that—and we don't have any more time for that in my answer right now, sir.