Mr. Speaker, I will not be taking any honeymoon advice from him. My fiancé would not have any of it.
To get back to the bill with respect to the parks, while it is perhaps a housekeeping bill and a technical bill, there were some problems we had to fix along the way. I am also curious about the member's opinion that ecological integrity is spoken to a number of times in terms of protecting parks and their ecological integrity. With respect to historic sites, the government talks about committing $40 million. The former minister of the environment stated publicly that the minimum requirement would $218 million.
Within the bill, the government promises to protect ecological integrity and these national monuments. In making announcements today and feeling very self-congratulatory, the commitment of $40 million does not put us anywhere near the position in which we need to be. The answer then becomes, it will sell them for coffee shops, that it will sell them to the private sector. That is how the government will deal with its responsibility to protect these national monuments rather than funding them properly, and not to the tune of $40 million, but to the tune of $218 million, which has been declared by previous ministers as the minimum.
How much trust can we have in the government moving this housekeeping bill forward and in its statements on ecological integrity and protection of national sites?