We've suggested a number of kinds of amendments.
One kind could be considered a design feature of the act, and that's the first amendment put forward. There would be significant confusion if the bill were enacted without providing that an implementation body would be responsible for planning in relation to conservation areas and parks. Right now the bill is silent as to what body is responsible for implementing plans in that sphere. The body that tends to have responsibility is cabinet, and the definitions of “department” and “agency” in the bill, which are the closest candidates to include the bodies I'm referring to, exclude them by defining these entities essentially as the public service.
Another source of confusion that's been highlighted has to do with the provision for what happens when a project changes in the course of assessment, which is a very practical, typical concern in an environmental assessment process. It happens more often than not when a project goes to review that at some point the description is going to change for reasons of financing, changes in plans, or changes in conditions on the ground having been encountered. NTI's submission is that the bill is overly confusing on that point. It's overly cumbersome. It could be simplified.
Funding is obviously, as Ms. Hanson mentioned, a key area.
Another one is that there are a number of language points in the bill that depart from the agreement in such a way that an NTI submission can only lead to less certainty rather than more certainty. To cite a simple example, in several places where the agreement says that a body has a judgment or a decision to make, the bill says that there's an opinion to be expressed. In ordinary parlance, those are different things. They lead to questions rather than to clarity. Those are some examples.
In general, the 12 amendments that Ms. Hanson has alluded to are intended to provide more clarity, more effectiveness.