Now that we've established his credentials, he said:
For this very reason, I oppose the application of an ecological integrity standard to the Rouge National Urban Park. In my opinion there's an important distinction between a national park and a national urban park that risks being lost if the change is made, and it is a distinction [that is essential] to keep the national park management to the highest possible conservation standard while enabling promoting the establishment of more nationally-protected and near-urban parks in the future.
Here are another couple of phrases:
It is dangerous on the one hand because it risks lowering the political bar for ecological integrity in the other national parks where that standard has been and will continue to be vital for heading off ill-advised development proposals and occasional assaults on the whole idea of national parks.
Finally, he said:
By setting ecological integrity as the standard for the Rouge—and remember, ecological integrity is not an empty phrase; it has a very specific meaning—Canada risks creating a legacy of ongoing conflict and crisis as interest groups point out that farming is incompatible with maintaining a full suite of naturally-occurring species and processes and that allowing intensive use by urban visitors creates too many unnatural stresses on the ecosystem. The ecological integrity standard will be used as a wedge and a hammer for ongoing social conflict of pretty much every use and activity in the Rouge.
Thank you, Madam Chair, from Kevin Van Tighem.