As concerns what Mr. Proulx said earlier, I think we agree. It's just a question of wording, but God knows how important wording is in legislation.
Our intent was to ensure that the Commission ensures preservation and—this is a word that did not appear in the text—restoration. This concerns the proposed section 10.4(2). The aim is to place special emphasis on ecological integrity. So this is an additional obligation. It's simply motherhood and apple pie. That's why we expect everyone to agree. However, the money needs to follow.