The first I saw of it was when it was shown here, so this is a short-term assessment. I guess I would say a couple of things, though.
The first is that Canada's national parks are national treasures, and they're for all Canadians. We have learned, sometimes the hard way, over the last 130 years that consultations with all Canadians are a very important part of making sure that these treasures reflect the values that we want to see in them and reflect the realities that we expect to see in a national park system.
At the same time, we recognize that there are people in local areas who are more affected by some of those decisions than people may be on the other side of the country, so we work very hard to make sure that we both bring a national perspective to things and also pay close attention to what people locally are interested in and are hoping to see.
To build into legislation something that is very local in nature, when the process for consulting on those things did not extend to the 35 million Canadians whose heritage we are very much trying to make them understand is theirs.... Those processes don't give the type of involvement, the type of room for consideration, that one would expect to see in the national institution.
In terms of the planning process, outside of the legislation, we would fully expect that anybody who wanted to bring a perspective on what was the right thing to do in a national park or a national urban park would do so, and we would expect to see that issue play out.