Thank you. I will answer again in English. We'll try next time.
There are a couple ways to do this. The first thing would be to remove the requirement to assess the “technical, economic and practical feasibility of the conditions.” Something else would be to introduce a reverse onus provision that would make it the job of the proponent to prove that a condition wasn't technically, economically or practically feasible. As it stands right now, the discretion means that the minister could pre-empt the strength of their own conditions in issuing them, because they would worry that it would be too onerous on a proponent, but introducing a reverse onus provision would mean that the proponent would have to say, “No, I can't do this, and here are the practical reasons.”
Introducing a measure of a burden of proof would be helpful. For example, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has this requirement in section 22 of the Impact Assessment Act. What happens in practice is that the decision statements team at the agency has a dialogue with the proponent, and the proponent has to do that proving. That's a policy that's in place, but there's no guarantee that this policy would be put in place at the Canada Energy Regulator for the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, etc. I think a reverse onus provision would be very helpful.