Yes, I'd be happy to. I've mentioned a few: the World Wildlife Fund, Nature Canada, Ontario Nature, Great Lakes United, Environmental Defence Canada, and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The list goes on.
We understand, as we said, that the study area should be big. There are rational reasons why the study area and the actual park might be smaller, but we don't think you should take it out of the study area. Yes, there has been some consultation, but that study area was defined before anything was taken out to the public, and we think you need to go through a fair, rational, and scientific process before you eliminate.
Let me give you an example: the Toronto Zoo lands. You have a facility there that's dedicated to biological diversity and enjoyment of nature. The valley lands next to it are some of the most sensitive in the whole Rouge. They have an environmentally sensitive area, an area of natural and scientific interest, to the north. To the south, they actually have a Carolinian Canada siteāthe most endangered habitat in Canada. Their lands are also endangered, but because Toronto is thinking of selling the zoo, they're not in the study area. That doesn't make sense. They should be in the study area, and there will be debate back and forth about it. Can we include them? What should happen?
The public would totally abhor the fact that next to the Toronto Zoo we're taking out the heart of the Rouge Valley lands that are in the park now. So there are lands that are in the park now that aren't in the draft park study area. It makes no sense to us.