Mr. Chair, I was waiting until all of the motions were moved to make my intervention. I understood that was your direction earlier.
I want to point out, at least in this venue, that some of the comments by my colleagues opposite to the effect that protection of the public is now going to be paramount would be dispelled if they were to read the act as amended. They would see that the protection of the public is referred to only in proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), which has an equality with paragraphs 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 3(1)(d), and the principles contained therein. Neither 3(1)(a) nor 3(1)(b) nor 3(1)(c) nor 3(1)(d) is paramount over any of the others, nor is protection of the public.
I would also ask them to consider that the removal of the modifier “long-term” from the existing act simply allows the phrase “protection of the public” to apply to both short-term and long-term considerations. It does not delete the notion of long-term considerations; it simply widens the definition to include both.
Apart from that, Mr. Chair, I support the government amendment to replace “encourager” with “favoriser”, but only because I believe that it will still be equivalent to the English “promoting”, which I would paraphrase as fostering or encouraging, and which will be nothing more or less than that.
Thank you very much.