It's on page 10, at line 12. Right now, the provision simply speaks to taking “into account alternative means of carrying out” the “designated project”, and my amendment would add in “alternative means of serving an identified need or carrying out” the “designated project”.
The reason I say this is that my experience before tribunals is.... Let me use as an example the review of the Site C dam. Many people felt that it was giving short shrift to evidence that was given showing that the needed electricity of the future could be equally served by geothermal and solar through a private proponent and an indigenous proponent. That was not given serious weight. Of course, those kinds of hearings in the future presumably would be joint federal-provincial ones, and I think it's very important that there be consideration of alternative ways of meeting the need, in terms of why they're saying they need to have the project approved.