Thank you.
We really appreciate the support of so many of the people who are community leaders in the eastern GTA.
The existing plans were science-based, they were done over a 26-year period, and they had broad public consultations. All levels of government were involved, as well as stakeholders, farmers, and environmentalists, and they represent a compromise position. If the existing plans go forward, then you would end up with a park with about 50% to 60% natural and about 40% to 50% agricultural. The amount of agricultural could increase if the agriculture moves from cash crops to orchards, pastures, and things like that, which could be compatible with calling it a natural heritage system. I think there's lots of room for win-win solutions over time.
I think with the public demand for this park, it will grow over time and it will be important that at least half of the park is available to the public in nature. That may take 40 years. It won't happen overnight. At the pace that it's gone over the last 26 years, the pace has been so slow that the public demand for use of the park is outstripping the areas available. It will be a challenge, but if we can at least get going on supporting first and following through with commitments to support that type of amendment that we've put forward, then that's a foundation with which we can work and with which stakeholders can co-operate to find the right balance between nature, public use, and farming.