Thanks, Chair.
Thanks to Mr. Bachrach. I think there's a way of doing this whereby we can reach the objective of having the discussion on tidal power projects but do it in a more formal way. Therefore, I have an amendment, and maybe I could ask the clerk if she could circulate it in both official languages. That would be that we have three meetings to look into this and invite some people to discuss where the roadblocks are and how we can move forward on behalf of these types of projects. It is disappointing for sure that we haven't landed where we need to land, and maybe this committee can help us to get to that place.
My amendment would read: “That the committee”—and strike out “express our disappointment with the government which has led to”—“undertake a three-meeting study on tidal power projects”—strike out “pulling out of”—“in Atlantic Canada pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)”—strike out “acknowledges that one of”—“that the committee examine the primary factors”—strike out “contributing to the departure of”—“in decisions relating to these capital investments”, and strike out “has been recent changes that have created an intricate”. We could say: “primary factors, including the regulatory landscape”. Then it's “that the committee invite relevant federal officials, tidal power industry representatives, fisheries representatives, indigenous representatives and provincial government representatives; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
That way, we would do more than just throw blame around. We actually would get to the root of the discussion of how we can improve the regulatory landscape. How can we make sure that the industry lands in the right place to get projects like these built?