Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am proud to support this motion for a second time. I just wanted to clarify, at least, where I am coming from on this. Ministerial discretion is an important feature of all governments, and it is really required for the good function of government as well. That doesn't mean that it can't be guided by very clear criteria.

In this case, when this question was raised by the committee, the Minister's office came back with some very specific examples of where the concerns came out if discretion was completely taken away. As a result, we got a better understanding of where the government's concerns are, and that is what is enumerated in this amendment through subclauses (i) through (iv).

Further, number (v), it reads: "The nomination does not meet any prescribed eligibility criteria." The eligibility criteria will be set by regulations. The Minister still has broad powers. They just need to be spelled out, transparent, and available for nominating parties to see. That's what we're really talking about here. The Minister can prescribe any criteria, including things like mineral values. Mira could be one of its eligibility criteria. Any number of pre-assessments and values taken, those could all be part of eligibility criteria. The Minister still has a great deal of flexibility to exercise discretion under this, but it's just a reverse onus. Instead of the Minister just making a decision and writing it down, the criteria needs to be spelled out clearly.

We're also only talking about the nomination phase, and this is a closed process. The public doesn't know that these nominations are occurring. It is a nomination by Indigenous government or the public government, and that's it. For this period, the only time the public is going to become aware of it is when the candidate phase starts. That's really where you're going to work out whether or not this protected area should be finalized. This just ensures that we get to the public process as quickly as possible, and the reasons; and the Minister's discretion is guided along a path that really spells out what could kibosh a nomination. If that candidate phase, the public weighs in at that point and issues significant concerns around how this thing is working, well, it could be adjusted because that's what determines the establishment.

This doesn't impact the ability of the Minister to effectively use that discretion. It just guides it in the way that's very purpose-specific to both the act, the principle of the act, the principle of the bill, the principle of the nomination period, and I think it's a useful improvement. Thank you.