Well, a number of witnesses said that they couldn’t access this money. I appreciate what you're saying about the terms being flexible enough that people probably could access it.
Maybe one of the reasons you haven't heard that there's a gap is that it's not intuitive to talk to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society when you're doing consultation, for example.
I like how we're uncovering what's going on here. When you say that there is flexibility in the terms, I would point out for example that we had witnesses who said, “What if we wanted to access that infrastructure money for a tree canopy because trees are a part of the green infrastructure. Or what if we wanted to access it for a habitat restoration project because in urban centres we want to make sure people can access nature within cities”. Would you say that the terms are flexible enough for projects like those?