Here's my concern. This is no criticism of your position, but I had a chance to review some of the testimony we've already heard. For example, Kevin McNamee, who is the VP for one of the directorates for Parks Canada, said the following:
In short, we do not just establish new parks and NMCAs and then throw away the key. As Parliament has directed through the Canada National Parks Act since 1930, and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act since 2002, our mandate is both to protect and ensure that visitors use, benefit, and enjoy these special places....
And then the Prime Minister's mandate letter to our environment minister highlights four things that she's expected to do. One is to develop Canada’s national parks system. The word “develop” isn't actually implying expanding, because it's dealt with separately in that mandate letter. Another is to develop Parks Canada programs and services so that more Canadians can experience our national parks. A third one is to make admission for all visitors to national parks free in 2017. Another one in the mandate letter is to protect our national parks by limiting development within them.
What I'm painting is a picture of a natural tension between a desire to have increasing numbers of Canadians enjoy our national parks, yet on the other hand to protect those national parks. I would love to hear from you on how that tension will be resolved. It's pretty clear this government does want to increase visitor use in our national parks. To do that, you're going to have to allow some development to accommodate for that use. How would you reconcile those two?