I just have to say something, I would like to speak to the motion. Under the current act, the Minister has the authority to establish such a park, and the proposed change in the bill is primarily a wording change. The term "Historical Park" becomes "Heritage Park" to bring it in line with language use in the affected areas strategy. The expectation is that future heritage parks would be of similar size and nature to a mission park. Under the proposed amendment, consultation with the affected community will be required before a heritage park can be established. Based on the demonstration of local support, given the local nature of an historic park, we still think that the Minister should retain the authority to establish a heritage park. So the other way around is that we're going to have to go through the Legislative Assembly every time we want to establish a heritage park. Thank you.