Thanks.
I assume you're referring to proposed section 63. Yes.
I actually think that, other than changing the language from “consideration” to “based on”, proposed section 63 is fine. What is needed in addition to this, as with other discretionary decisions, is regulations to provide the detail. I don't think it would be appropriate to provide more of the detail in the statute. This is going to be a learning process. We're moving from a focus on biophysical to sustainability to broader consideration of effects. We're not going to get this perfect the first time around. I think it's critical to provide the further guidance in the regulations so that we can adjust with experience.
The other piece that's critical, though, for the final decision is that it's not just a matter of providing the direction. We need to track the relationship between the agency or panel report and the decision by the minister or cabinet. The way to do that is to make it clear that the assessment report itself is framed around the proposed section 63 factors and the conclusion about public interest. Then I think what we should add is what we had in CEAA in 1992, which was the requirement for the decision-maker to justify when they choose not to follow the recommendations, which they should be free to.
So it's clear recommendations, clear analysis in the report on proposed section 63, and public interest, and then a requirement to justify not following.