Maybe I will pose that the second challenge here is that the person has a duty to take measures. To what extent is the duty, and to what definition is the measure? It would be largely personally driven in terms of how you would define that as an individual as to what measures the expectation. It’s really around the difficulty and the open-endedness of trying to define what the expectation is on that person.

The duty could range from reporting, to taking physical action or attempting to mitigate in a variety of different ways. You can imagine a number of examples that would be far-reaching.

The onus would be on us as officials to make this an enforceable measure and judge whether a person has taken responsibility for that duty and whether we would be able to enforce whether they had.

Mine is likely the same response that Andrew just provided with regard to the other issue in that I think that would be narrowing through policy at that point in time.

Regarding the previous senator’s question with regard to the regulatory regime associated with park visitors, there is an expectation that park visitors will follow the regulatory regime of national parks. They are compelled to not destroy the environment when they’re visiting, and the Canada National Parks Act gives the superintendent the powers to impose compliance and enforcement authority around those duties. There is a duty to self. I think this is expanding to a duty to others. Every person takes the duty for a generalized responsibility that’s beyond their own self-responsibility. I think that’s really the question. It is far-reaching.

Yes. My understanding of Senator Arnot’s proposal is that this is the person who contravenes. I think what you’re proposing is the duty to address other persons who could be contravening as well. I think that’s the expansion of that definition.

If I could add an environmental consideration, the way in which the superintendent would issue licenses is with that goal in mind. That is also in some of the agreements that we do have in relation to tilts. That consideration is already documented in those agreements, that conservation would be one of the shared goals.

In effect, the “existing” part is to grandfather cabins that already exist. Not having the word “existing” for tilts means that new tilts can be constructed to support traditional activities. That’s the intent. By adding “existing,” it’s implying there are already tilts on the landscape and that we’re only maintaining the grandfathering and not allowing the addition of new tilts to support traditional harvesting.