Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the testimony from the witnesses who are here today.
I have a question for you in regard to the comparison that Mr. Woodley made as a former Parks Canada employee, much like I am. I think there's an agreement from Ms. Nowlan as well that we should take a look at the maintenance of the ecological integrity aspect of the MPAs. While in theory I have no problem with that either—I actually stand behind that—I also understand that we can't save or protect large enough tracts of land or large enough tracts of the benthic ocean to allow 100% completely ecological activity to remain in whatever state of balance that actually is.
It's naive to think that homeostasis is a reality, because that's not the reality of the living world. Homeostasis is something that Mother Nature always strives to find but never does. My question, then, getting back to the national parks or the terrestrial comparison between MPAs and national parks or protected areas on land, deals with the aspect of economic activity.
Ms. Nowlan, I think you highlighted the fact that the Great Barrier Reef in Australia provides significant economic activity as a result of being protected. I'm not aware of any formal structures like that in and around Canada's coasts. I stand to be enlightened if that's the case, but I want to talk a bit about economic activity. When we talk about having a national park with ecological activity, we still provide massive tourism opportunities inside our national parks.
Should seal watching or whale-watching or any other type of activity upon the creation of a marine protected area result in a significant wildlife bloom that was thought to be worthy for the tourist industry to pursue, would it be reasonable to ask how your organizations would feel about that?