Thank you. I will read that. It says:
“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Chair, what is missing in there—and this is the point I've been trying to make—is defending the principle of balance, which is what we've heard about from every witness. That is what's missing in Bill C-469. Just because something is called “the environmental bill of rights” doesn't mean it is an environmental bill of rights. It could very well be a Trojan horse that would be used by special interest groups to attack a balance. That is our concern. That's what we heard from the witnesses: that there needs to be a balance.
Chair, am I hearing interruptions again or...?