Thank you.
To begin with, I would say that I tend to agree with the testimony of Helen Cutts, when she said that these changes were by and large intended to bring parity to the English and the French versions.
When I look at it, certainly, the difference between “would” and “could” has an effect opposite to what Professor Doelle said. “Would” is more certain and directive, if you compare it with “could”; I think it enables action and the exercise of discretion, whereas there is less certainty that something is going to happen. When I look at a change from “would” to “could”, I see it as having the effect, if there is any effect at all other than bringing parity to the English and French versions, of in fact making the act broader.
With respect to a project list approach, if I put the development of environmental assessment into a context, asking where we have been, what we have done, and where we are now in terms of a deliverer and a decision-maker, having regard to environmental effects, the project list makes a lot of sense to me. It introduces a whole lot of certainty. Rather than having us look at what is an “activity” or a “physical work” and whether it is on the inclusion list or on the exclusion list, this approach is much more efficient, direct, and certain. To that extent, I'm a proponent of the project list.
I also note that the list can be expanded, can be amended, and can be added to, I'm sure, if circumstances arise that make it apparent that it should be.