Actually, the government is not in favour of this amendment for several reasons, Mr. Chair.
The first is that it would dramatically drive up the cost of tracking. Indeed, it's an arbitrary number that doesn't really have relevance to any particular criteria. It's unknown why that number was picked. Why is it not 20,000? Why is it not 30,000? Why is it not 5,000? Indeed, I think it brings about other issues, such as whether this includes peak seasons, or peak season populations in such places as the mountains where there is skiing, or whether it includes the local population.
I would suggest that this is for seasonal operators. This arbitrary number doesn't really accomplish anything. Rather than making it stronger, I would suggest that in fact it weakens it, and indeed drives up costs, without really accomplishing anything, for seasonal operators.