Thank you.
Technically, I am only allowed to speak at the discretion of the chair because this isn't my amendment, but I appreciate the chance to say that the language Mr. Stetski's put forward is the traditional language that goes with national parks, in terms of the commitment. The language of “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” is quite different from enjoyment for future generations. As Wayne just said, it's much stronger and it's consistent.
In the first version of the bill—and why I'm so pleased there's a second version of the bill—this was going to be a second-rate national park where ecological integrity wasn't respected. I think that's why the purpose, under section 4 of Bill C-40 is not as strong as what was just put forward in this proposed NDP amendment.