Maybe I'll describe it first, and then I will certainly appreciate the government witnesses' advice.
The first one would change it so that the minister “must” take the measure. This was based on testimony from Anna Johnston, from West Coast Environmental Law. Her interpretation was that the legislation was discretionary in nature and called into question whether the decision-makers would actually take the measures necessary. Her recommendation in a number of places was that where it says that the minister “may”, the wording instead be changed to “shall” or “must”.
We pulled out the sections that had a clear environmental impact. That was our criterion for which ones to recommend.
This would give more accountability and more confidence to coastal communities that actions outlined in the legislation would in fact be taken, and if not, that there would have to be some rationale provided.