I think your question related to the fact that in a number of protected areas the surface rights are protected but not subsurface rights, and that obviously is an issue. That was the issue in Suffield, the fact that the subsurface rights were proposed for development.
Let me step back a bit. We have to recognize that there's a range of protection. Obviously in the national parks and in the provincial ecological reserves you get a much higher level of protection, which is intended to protect the full ecological integrity of those areas. When you're talking about a managed landscape, the objectives are different. There are agricultural interests; there may be industrial interests. It's a different level of protection. I think, as Bill has mentioned, you have to have some areas for which the full ecological integrity of that place is protected so we can continue to have representative ecosystems protected across the country, whether they're Arctic ecosystems, boreal, grasslands, St. Lawrence lowland forests, or whatever.