Thank you.
The amendment prevents the board from issuing a licence or permit if the advice it receives from Parks Canada indicates the proposed work would have a significant negative impact on the management of the surface of the island, unless this negative harm could be prevented by mitigation actions or remedial measures. In essence, it gives Parks Canada the final say on matters of science and ecological health or integrity of the island.
All my colleagues know my concerns. I am concerned that as it stands now, Parks Canada is merely required to consult and advise the board on matters affecting the park, but the board is not obliged to take that advice. This amendment would change that relationship in that it would oblige the board to take Parks Canada's advice. We are leaving the scientific decisions up to the scientists.
If the act were to have a significant negative impact on the surface of the island, which we can all agree would be very bad, the amendment would invite the applicant to take steps to mitigate the negative consequences. In this way I think it's a reasonable ask. We recognize the unique circumstances of Sable Island and we are trying to work with them as best we can.