I think that is the starting point.
The second part of it is that when you look at Banff, as an example, you have close to 6,000 square kilometres of land adjoining Jasper National Park and another 10,000 square kilometres. You can have highways, but when you look at a place that's 16,000 square kilometres, we have been successful in maintaining the ecological integrity of that place based on the definition that's currently in the National Parks Act. It's not achievable here.
The other part of it is that people are asking why we need a definition. I think clause 6 is self-evident. It says the following:
The Minister must, in the management of the Park, take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems.
It is pretty self-evident, and it's not uncommon; for example, in 2002 the National Marine Conservation Areas Act, which we're responsible for, came into force, and it has no definition either.
From our perspective, that plus all of the other clauses in the bill, including, for example, the clause related to the management plan that guides what will be included in the management plan in terms of protection, I think will achieve the conservation outcomes that we want to achieve, because we are also governed by the Parks Canada Agency Act, and there are other aspects, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and also the Species at Risk Act. Therefore, it's not a piece of legislation in isolation from all of the other pieces.