Madam Chair, this is an amendment based on proposals from West Coast Environment Law and others whose testimony was that we have some lack of clarity around when the exemptions can be granted. Inserting the words in proposed subsection 35(1) to make it an authorization as opposed to a permit would clarify it. My amendment adds “unless they are authorized to do so under subsection (2)” at the end of proposed subsection 35(1) as it now reads, following the words “destruction of fish habitat”.
That might seem redundant to some since proposed subsection 35(2) does provide powers of exemption, but tying it together as an authorization is an attempt to keep the exemption provisions from being overly broad and also ensure that we're not talking about some permitting process yet to be defined or explained. Later, there is the use of the concept of a designated project with a permit. The use of the word “authorization” is clearer, which is why I'm suggesting we amend proposed subsection 35(1) to tie it into “unless they are authorized to do so under subsection (2)”.