Thank you for focusing our attentions.
If you believe that it is obstructionist in potential, are there regimes where you've seen this to be the case--in other words, where we know these kinds of provisions will bring on that behaviour? I know you're saying in the alternative Quebec restricts that.
I can understand the business case--you don't want anything to be slowed down, deferred, and so on. But if we're going to reconcile our environmental obligations to the next generation, the best way of understanding that is we're ripping off a generation if we despoil the water, the air, and the land in a way that they get it in damaged form. That's sustainable development. Most of your members would probably subscribe to that. So the question is what does this add to or detract from our consideration of those kinds of things? Invariably, we need to slow down long enough to understand that, and it is posed here that this is an infill. This will fill in where we don't have protection.
Do you have any places that would lead us to believe that these kinds of provisions will lead to obstructionist behaviour? And I'll add a second question so that you can just answer. If you want us to continuously improve our existing thing, where are the gaps that should be addressed that your association believes exist in environmental protection? And what laws and so on would you like us to look at as the alternative in terms of closing some of the gaps?