No, of course not.
Anything that's really said: water management and tile drainage; when we had a farm we drained our place, and it's a costly exercise and you'd better know that you own it and you want to get it back over a number of years. I don't see any objection to that. Pest management; sometimes there is a contradiction between renaturalization pest management and what farmers need. Again, I don't know if that's a huge reason not to address it.
I guess where I'm going here is to address the concerns of both of you, so both of you get the protection you think you need
. I was just reading clause 6, and if I'm a farmer I'm thinking that maybe that's not as sufficient protection as I would think I would like. It says, “The Minister must, in the management of the Park, take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems”—that may or may not be farms—“cultural landscapes”—I don't know; is a cultural landscape that standard auto wrecker down the street from you? I don't think that would qualify—“maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems”. Other than clause 4, which talks about “vibrant farming community”, I don't see that the minister has to take into consideration the issue of operating farms.
The question becomes how to draft a clause that addresses both of your concerns. Are there any thoughts from either one of you?