Of course I will support the amendment. When I reread the wording, I see that it is consistent, even considering what was added. We are using the word "including", which isn't restrictive, with respect to the interpretation of legal rules. So we can even add many more. We are simply indicating that we are defending the financial system, but how can public servants limit themselves to defending just the financial sector?
All we are adding is to protect the best interests of the Canadian economy. This is also consistent with the overall economy of the legal system, with respect to the financial regulations of the Canadian government. What we added is in full and complete compliance with the overall economy with respect to the general drafting of legal texts for financial institutions. You said a little earlier that your text was consistent. I acknowledge that, but our amendment in no way changes that, if I'm not mistaken.