Thank you.
I would start off by saying that there are aspects of this that could be supported in the intent of the amendment, but ultimately I'll have to oppose it. There are some very clear reasons for that.
I'll start with the implementation, which has to be done as part of the regulatory review process and future proposed regulations under part 3 of the act that will impose specific requirements on project proponents related to safety and environmental protection. There's that piece. The regulator wouldn't be required to provide a recommendation on the subject matter at this stage of the process, given that there would not yet be a proposed project. That's my understanding. This section of the act pertains to the issuance of submerged land licences prior to formal project proposals being submitted to the regulator for review and authorization and prior to information being available respecting that specific impacts be based on future project design in chosen technologies.
It's a good intent, but it's the wrong place in the process. For that reason, I won't be supporting it.