Given that this is going to be a very complicated park to administer at the best of times, given that the management of the park is given virtually no guidelines whatsoever in this act—they have no idea of what “ecological health” or “ecological integrity” might be—and given the defeat of all of the other amendments, the concept of a net gain of ecological integrity and watershed health is in my judgment minimal, because there will inevitably be demands on this park. There will be pressure from Markham, from Pickering, and from Scarborough to the south to chop off this, add this, flow this, pipelines, roads, whatever. If you can't actually demonstrate that there has been a net gain in ecological health, you might as well just pave over the darned thing and be done with it right away.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])