I want to say that it's the first time I've heard the words of Mr. Kamp's amendment. But as I heard them, it struck me that if I thought of a 25-year-old university student at Whistler, or a 50-year-old single mom in West Vancouver, or other people I represent, they would readily agree with what I just heard, but they would probably take issue with several parts of what Gerry has proposed, mainly because they're not educated about it. They might disagree with “should continue for generations to come”, because we don't know what “generations to come” may bring us. They might agree it's humane, but think it could be more humane. They might say it's acceptable, but not fully acceptable.
In other words, there are many parts of Mr. Byrne's proposal, which we all agree with, that are more controversial than necessary. It seems to me that if we can reduce the controversial part and get something across that addresses the real problem—the real problem is that people want to stop Canadian products from crossing borders—and if we highlight that, we're more likely to generate a large degree of support for what we're doing in the House.
I think it's more than about getting a vote passed in the House, and Gerry, you're going to do that with this. I think it's about unifying Canadians as well. So I would support the proposed amendment.