To make a small correction to Ms. May, we did have some examination of this section. I don't believe we had a satisfying analysis just in terms of what the scenarios could be and what the impacts could be. We did try to design what those scenarios might look like, specifically in a port in my riding in Prince Rupert. There are other members around the table who are aware of ports and trying to understand the scenario, trying to understand what the government was trying enable.
Certainly around LNGs specifically, this seems to be some establishment to enable that industry to exist at a greater scale in British Columbia, which in and of itself is a policy question for government, for the people in British Columbia, and for the communities that are impacted. The concerns that we had, and why we'll be voting for this particular amendment, are to allow for greater transparency and greater accountability of the decisions that get made. Most communities don't have a great deal of access to their port authorities. Many of the port authorities try to do good work. But there isn't exactly a natural and open forum for those discussions.
When getting into the transport of energy and ports now being able to, under these provisions, acquire land and then be able to, under that acquirement, have a different process for LNG and other energy terminuses to be approved, this is concerning to us. We would hope to have, if a healthy debate about energy policy in Canada were suddenly an initiative that government members would be interested in, more transparency as to this process.
Perhaps through you, Chair, to our witnesses, I could ask for some comment.
I'm not sure if you've reviewed this particular amendment and what its effect might be. Does it allow for that sense of greater accountability of public input into the process that a port might go through in the acquiring of some federal port lands?