It's perfectly understandable. It's right in the legislation that it allows for growth. I understand that, but it's being presented as something more than it actually will end up being if the province doesn't change its mind.
The key to changing the province's mind, as you know, is around this definition of ecological integrity versus the definition of ecological health. In the Parks Act there's a clear definition of ecological integrity, and it's clearly understood. In fact, I believe—and Mr. Latourelle could correct me—there's actually litigation as to what this means. You have not, however, put forward a definition of ecological health either in this bill or in an amendment to the Parks Act. Absent a definition of ecological health and what that might mean, is there any reason that you could not define “ecological health” if in fact that's what you're hanging your hat on?