Flooding is expected to become more frequent in Ontario thanks to climate change. Now, the province's conservation authorities are a main line of defence. Will consolidating them make them more or less effective? Joining us from Ottawa, Janet Stavinga is the former vice chair of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and spokesperson for the newly established Watershed Conservation Coalition. Robin Jones is the mayor of Westport, where she's joining us from, and president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Board. And here in Toronto, Angela Coleman is the general manager of Conservation Ontario, and Andrew McCammon is executive director of the Ontario Headwaters Institute. Great to have all four of you on the line today for an important conversation. I want to start things off with general reactions. Bill 97 Plan to Protect Ontario Act received royal assent on Friday. Amongst the list of 20 acts that are affected, the Conservation Authorities Act is one that will see a major overhaul. Let's start with Janet. How do you feel about the province's changes and new plan?

Certainly extremely disappointed is to be polite. Certainly very concerned about the way in which this has been undertaken by provincial government and in particular, even the 11th hour manoeuvre by the government House leader, Stephen Clark, to bypass the public hearings that were anticipated. And then, as you noted, too, that it was the conservation changes for the act were bundled in with the freedom of information and and protection and privacy changes as well, amongst many other acts. And it was simply it's not simply undemocratic. It is anti-democratic. And there is this government is avoiding public transparency and scrutiny, by the way, in which they undertook this decision.

Mayor Jones, your thoughts on the new plan? So we've been fortunate to be involved with the ministry and part of the consultation in in early days, I guess we would say now, they. They did take much of our advice in the plan that was rolled out and passed on Friday. So now our head is really getting around. How do we help the the transition while we continue to identify some of the areas that are concerns of ours?

Angela. Well, conservation authorities across Ontario, it's a time of the year where we really have a lot on our plates. You know, a large part of our mandate has to do with flood forecasting and warning. So we are currently working, you know, to ensure that protecting life and property is an important priority for all the conservation authorities. We're supporting our municipal partners and the development community and landowners with our timely and reliable services. And we're really trying to work extensively with our membership. And yesterday we had our AGM here in Toronto, and today we're having meetings with all of our member conservation authorities, really discussing how we can work together with municipalities to ensure that any potential potential changes result in the ongoing commitment at the watershed level that the conservation authorities are known for. And it really is an important time. As I mentioned, with all of the pressures that there are having to do with rapidly growing population, climate change and additional additional pressures as such. And as I mentioned, it really is at this time of year, important from the work we do in terms of flood forecasting and warning, to make sure that we're delivering businesses as usual, at a time where we're trying to digest these challenges with our partners.

Andrew. Thank you so much. We're going to be a little outside the box. First of all, we found schedule three itself and the way it was pushed through the house to be really inappropriate. It's another in a series of cutbacks to really the most important watershed management form in Ontario. The elements of schedule three itself are absolutely a pool of ambiguity in a sea of other environmental cutbacks to endangered species, wetlands, strong mayor and strong chair powers. It does very little to enforce key aspects of the provincial policy statement, and it does nothing for our watersheds that are not covered by conservation authorities. So we are we are very concerned about all aspects of this.

All right. So we're going to delve into some of the the other concerns and consultation processes as well. But before we start that, I do want to mention that we did ask both the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, and Ontario's chief conservation executive, Hassan Bassett, to join us on the program today. Fortunately, both declined our invitation, but the ministry did send us a statement. I do want to read part of that. It reads. Ontario currently has 36 conservation authorities, each with different permitting processes, timelines and resources. That creates confusion, duplication and inconsistent service across the province. Our plan for a new framework of nine regional conservation authorities will reduce duplication, direct more resources to frontline work and modernize permitting processes. Conservation authorities will remain municipally governed, local offices will stay open and the newly formed local watershed councils will ensure that the voices of municipal leaders, indigenous communities and local experts remain part of the watershed planning. It continues to go on. We are adding an additional 3 million of new funding each year for the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency to deliver on a smooth transition while protecting jobs and services. Janet, you were the vice chair of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. What was your experience? Was it similar to what the province laid out right here in its statement?

I'm actually going to step back for a moment to because I have multiple hats that I wear. I served also as a mayor of a township that was subject to amalgamation through the Harris government. So I have seen amalgamation. I've seen the impact and the loss of voices in a rural communities in terms of townships, hamlets and villages. So I've lived through amalgamation because I also served as an Ottawa city councillor. Following that, I was appointed by the Minister of the environment for chair for the Source Protection Committees, which came out of the Walkerton inquiry after the Walkerton crisis. So that experience informs the decisions and the comments that I make. What I think maybe I'm going to first highlight a couple of things. We've got the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency. It is consolidating power. So if you think if you again, this is the political rhetoric that has been stated since the rollout of this proposed consolidation back in the fall, that they. The government is here to help. Well, they're not helping. In essence, they're taking a wrecking ball to what's been very effective for 80 plus years. And the legacy. And I appreciate what the mayor has. Mayor Jones has said, and also Andrea Coleman from the Conservation Ontario. But I challenge that, and I challenged that first, with the investment of the $3 million, that $3 million is basically the funding the province took away from conservation authorities in 2019 for flood management. That's not new funding. That's money that should never have been taken away by the conservation authorities. The the the province isn't even understanding the transition costs that are associated with this consolidation. That is not justified, nor is there any need for as it relates to facilitating housing. In fact, the Task Force for Housing Affordability, there are 55 recommendations. Not one of those recommendations stated that conservation authorities were a problem. In fact, they weren't even mentioned at all in that particular report. So there is the unfunded transition costs, which I know firsthand will happen because of my own experiences and the report from the Fraser Institute that shows that amalgamation is very costly. You've got increases for wages, for harmonization and benefits. You've got it costs that will be having to tend to, and a huge loss of local knowledge and local representation that the watershed councils certainly will not fill that place of.

Well, let's let's get from one from the former mayor to a current mayor, Robin Jones, please help us understand how will this amalgamation affect your region. And I want to give you some space, of course, to respond to Janet as well. So responding as a mayor, I'm actually in that watershed in the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. And so my concerns as the mayor are some of the same things that we're looking at in in AMO. The levy will now be paid by upper tier people who are will be appointed to sit on the CA will be appointed by the upper tier, not the lower tiers. So both as a mayor of the community and as president of AMO, those are the kinds of things that we're looking for during the transition. There's a fair bit of role clarity that needs to be understood. Representation on watershed councils needs to be better understood. But, you know, I'm pretty pragmatic and I understand the passion. And believe me, I've heard this across the province. And so I did a couple of things to begin with. We sent a joint letter with the Conservation Ontario to the minister, laid out our concerns. We put our submission on the ERO, which is a a a database to put forward your concerns to the government. And we sent correspondence as well. But now that we're here, we're shifting our position to the transition. And AMO is very much involved in working with the ministry on what was talked about, you know, how that money will be allocated, what the setting, the technical tables to ensure that some of the aspirations of the mergers will in fact, come true. So it's a little bit now in the weeds, but AMO is well positioned at technical tables to continue raising our concerns. So I think I'll leave it there.

Jay. All right. As you mentioned, you mentioned ERO. Oh, you meant the Environmental Registry of Ontario just to put that on record. Andrew, I know you want to get in there. So your your response there. Oh thank you. I think the minister's statement is a perfect example of government PR and the ambiguity that is involved in this process. We absolutely support AMO and Conservation Ontario working on the transition. But the minister's statement refers to the fact that the policies have to be Harmonized. Now, about seven years ago, this government Harmonized the fees for permitting. At that time, we suggested very, very strongly that what needed to be done was that the policies need to be standardized. Now they're talking about that, but they haven't indicated at all a commitment to Harmonize at the highest standard rather than the lowest common denominator. The ambiguities and the lack of trust that this government has been, with its transparency and seriously understanding the 14000 submissions where people have expressed their concern, is an example of how this government is not being responsible or responsive.

Well, let's talk about that transparency with consultations. Angela, last fall, the province held consultations and posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario for public feedback on their proposal. You attended some of those consultations and meetings. What concerns raised did the ministry take into consideration? So I think, you know, a number of us, including Mayor Jones, had the opportunity to attend a regional consultation sessions, and those regional consultation sessions were key to gather perspectives, and, I think, ensure that that local that local expertise is is retained. And I think, you know, effectively what a number of municipalities, including some of the municipalities that are joining us today expressed is we were concerned as a group about loss of local expertise, making sure that the watershed services that stay on the ground, the staff on the ground, those with experience with local environmental decision making, they were able to continue in their roles to make sure they provide those essential community services that municipalities and communities across Ontario have come to rely on. And I know that across the piece, the main, the main and really key function of conservation authorities that have made them successful on the ground for so, so long has been that local strong relationship process. And we really do want to make sure that those ongoing working relationships with municipalities, stakeholders in the community, the agricultural community, the business community, our Indigenous First Nations partnerships are maintained at the local level. And so at those consultation sessions, we did hear those concerns echoed. We made extensive comments as part of our submission that went into the Minister of the environment, Conservation and Parks on December 22nd at the end of the year, and those submissions, I think, very thoughtful and capture. They capture the experience, the expertise and the perspectives of so many across Ontario. And I do encourage anybody that wishes to see those to go to the individual websites, whether of Conservation Ontario or others, to look at those, to see the detailed list of concerns that we put together as a collective recognizing, of course, in a province as large as Ontario, those perspectives can vary from region to region, but overall, I think we did a lot to balance and make sure that that local science based watershed decision making concerns were captured, maintaining the strong municipal involvement and oversight was captured, and that preserving those local relationships, staying connected, making sure that the programs and services continue without disruption at the local level. We heard that loud and clear in the consultation sessions, and we did see pieces of the consultation adjusted, included boundaries that were changed from the north and other areas to make sure that those particular concerns were addressed. So while the full proposal is not something we can't speak on the government's behalf, and it's not a proposal we were asking for, we did our very, very best with a diverse group of a lot of members with a lot of concerns to put forward thoughtful recommendations for implementation. That looks sensible.

Now, before this conversation, we did speak to the mayor of West Nipissing about sort of the conditions that they are seeing right now. Andrew, help us understand it is flooding season. We it is only going to get worse in some communities right now as we see the winter thaw. How would this new plan affect flooding mitigation in communities in Ontario? Thank you so much. Clearly, there needs to be a greater role. We're by the sea, some of which was taken away in terms of the hazard mapping, and the province has now restored some funding that they took away. But a lot of this has to do with municipal planning. I referred earlier to the provincial planning statement, and in that planning statement in the section on water, this government actually took out of the current statement any requirement to consider climate change in the water section. So this government really is completely focused on land use, expansion, sprawl development, and more impervious services are going to result in more flooding. The other side of the coin is that there are water shortages, and I think this program has previously mentioned the moratorium on development permits in Waterloo because there's no water. So we went I think Janet started out with Walkerton, which is a crisis caused by poor water quality monitoring. Waterloo is a crisis caused by poor water quality monitoring. And this is going to we're going to continue to have flooding and inability to provide drinking water to our communities as this goes forward without integrating land use planning and watershed planning.

All right. Let's talk a little bit about solutions. Janet, I want to get you in here. Is there any room for consolidation or changes to Ontario's conservation system to support both housing and economic growth without compromising the Conservation Act's goal? Okay, if I if I could, I just want to step back for a moment again. When we talk about the consultation, the meaningful consultation, that has not happened as much as the minister continues to repeat again and again, this is political rhetoric, that there's been a consensus. There has not been, even in the regional consolidation meetings or the regional meetings that were spoken about by Angela. The question was not how should we modernize? The question was, how do we consolidate? That was the question that was being asked. So, and even actually the ERO that's been cited, I'm not sure whether anyone in the province did, but we actually, through our group, through our Watershed Conservation coalition, went through that ERO line by line, by line by line, 97.5% of those respondents who took time, Ontarians who took time to respond said no to consolidation, and they said urged caution. And yet, here we are today because this government has decided to recklessly move forward. And again, I appreciate the role of Conservation Ontario and AMO because they must be cordial with the government to keep the doors open. But this has been problematic, and they have literally undermined the legacy that was created in World War II during World War II, with battles going on in Europe. They're here in Ontario because of issues with regards to water quality, erosion, the degradation of our environment. They invested in conservation authorities to be in partnership with our municipalities and the province. This is not partnership. This is taking control. And if anything needs to be done, it needs for Ontario to stand up and push back. This government has rescinded other things that they've passed, and I can give you a list of them, including the greenbelt as well as most recently, the jet. So, again, Ontarians need to step up. Conservations are important. There's too much at risk. You will lose too much.

Angela. I'll get you to respond there. Yeah. I think, you know, we're very, very grateful for the amount of support that we've seen across Ontario. It's tremendous to see how community members, municipalities, volunteers, how much, how much support they give conservation authorities, because they really do understand at the local level what is at stake whenever we change that system that's been working well. I think, you know, the other piece of this is always that we are, you know, at a time in history, I do think where to to lead at any level takes a lot of courage. It takes a lot of authenticity and it takes a lot of different time stepping back. And I think, you know, as someone that's leading and working on this day in and day out, I do think that there's a there are opportunities in this piece of legislation that we do have to see as well. So both on the side of maintaining what it is that brings value, we must always look to the future. We look to the past for all of the important legacies and ways forward as we look to the future. I think we also look at this particular piece of legislation and what's proposed, and there are pieces we can agree with. We can support the piece of the proposal that makes sure that at a time of global uncertainty, that we're part of providing fast and predictive approvals. But at the same time, we can look back and say, it's not a dichotomy where we have to choose one or the other. There is a way of doing both. There is a way of being part of the solution.

All right, Robin Jones, I'm giving you the last word here. Where do we go from here? Looking in terms of solutions, working with the government on, on some of some of what Angela, Janet and Andrew had to say there, but where do we go from here? So I think some really good points have been made. We're well positioned on the transition committees. Some of them are under the umbrella of our confidential memorandum of understanding with the government. And so the people should be pleased with that, that there is no holding back information, but a lot of sharing. We still have to figure out how the levee, what the levee regulation is going to look like. We need some clarity on the new framework, how people are appointed and the public continuing to keep your mayors, your members of council informed. They will keep us informed because one of the questions was, will this work? Well, we're all going to kind of walk together hand in hand with the government on this, but we can hold the government accountable if things are falling to the wayside where commitments were made. So AMO is certainly prepared to listen to those concerns and take them to the government once we're made aware of them. Thanks, Jay. We are going to have to leave it there. I want to thank you all for your insights and your passion on this topic. Thank you so much.

Certainly extremely disappointed is to be polite. Certainly very concerned about the way in which this has been undertaken by provincial government and in particular, even the 11th hour manoeuvre by the government House leader, Stephen Clark, to bypass the public hearings that were anticipated. And then, as you noted, too, that it was the conservation changes for the act were bundled in with the freedom of information and and protection and privacy changes as well, amongst many other acts. And it was simply it's not simply undemocratic. It is anti-democratic. And there is this government is avoiding public transparency and scrutiny, by the way, in which they undertook this decision.

Thank you so much. We're going to be a little outside the box. First of all, we found schedule three itself and the way it was pushed through the house to be really inappropriate. It's another in a series of cutbacks to really the most important watershed management form in Ontario. The elements of schedule three itself are absolutely a pool of ambiguity in a sea of other environmental cutbacks to endangered species, wetlands, strong mayor and strong chair powers. It does very little to enforce key aspects of the provincial policy statement, and it does nothing for our watersheds that are not covered by conservation authorities. So we are we are very concerned about all aspects of this.

Ontario currently has 36 conservation authorities, each with different permitting processes, timelines and resources. That creates confusion, duplication and inconsistent service across the province. Our plan for a new framework of nine regional conservation authorities will reduce duplication, direct more resources to frontline work and modernize permitting processes. Conservation authorities will remain municipally governed, local offices will stay open and the newly formed local watershed councils will ensure that the voices of municipal leaders, indigenous communities and local experts remain part of the watershed planning. It continues to go on. We are adding an additional 3 million of new funding each year for the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency to deliver on a smooth transition while protecting jobs and services.

Well, conservation authorities across Ontario, it's a time of the year where we really have a lot on our plates. You know, a large part of our mandate has to do with flood forecasting and warning. So we are currently working, you know, to ensure that protecting life and property is an important priority for all the conservation authorities. We're supporting our municipal partners and the development community and landowners with our timely and reliable services. And we're really trying to work extensively with our membership. And yesterday we had our AGM here in Toronto, and today we're having meetings with all of our member conservation authorities, really discussing how we can work together with municipalities to ensure that any potential potential changes result in the ongoing commitment at the watershed level that the conservation authorities are known for. And it really is an important time. As I mentioned, with all of the pressures that there are having to do with rapidly growing population, climate change and additional additional pressures as such. And as I mentioned, it really is at this time of year, important from the work we do in terms of flood forecasting and warning, to make sure that we're delivering businesses as usual, at a time where we're trying to digest these challenges with our partners.

Thank you so much. Clearly, there needs to be a greater role. We're by the sea, some of which was taken away in terms of the hazard mapping, and the province has now restored some funding that they took away. But a lot of this has to do with municipal planning. I referred earlier to the provincial planning statement, and in that planning statement in the section on water, this government actually took out of the current statement any requirement to consider climate change in the water section. So this government really is completely focused on land use, expansion, sprawl development, and more impervious services are going to result in more flooding. The other side of the coin is that there are water shortages, and I think this program has previously mentioned the moratorium on development permits in Waterloo because there's no water. So we went I think Janet started out with Walkerton, which is a crisis caused by poor water quality monitoring. Waterloo is a crisis caused by poor water quality monitoring. And this is going to we're going to continue to have flooding and inability to provide drinking water to our communities as this goes forward without integrating land use planning and watershed planning.

So we've been fortunate to be involved with the ministry and part of the consultation in in early days, I guess we would say now, they. They did take much of our advice in the plan that was rolled out and passed on Friday. So now our head is really getting around. How do we help the the transition while we continue to identify some of the areas that are concerns of ours?

So responding as a mayor, I'm actually in that watershed in the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. And so my concerns as the mayor are some of the same things that we're looking at in in AMO. The levy will now be paid by upper tier people who are will be appointed to sit on the CA will be appointed by the upper tier, not the lower tiers. So both as a mayor of the community and as president of AMO, those are the kinds of things that we're looking for during the transition. There's a fair bit of role clarity that needs to be understood. Representation on watershed councils needs to be better understood. But, you know, I'm pretty pragmatic and I understand the passion. And believe me, I've heard this across the province. And so I did a couple of things to begin with. We sent a joint letter with the Conservation Ontario to the minister, laid out our concerns. We put our submission on the ERO, which is a a a database to put forward your concerns to the government. And we sent correspondence as well. But now that we're here, we're shifting our position to the transition. And AMO is very much involved in working with the ministry on what was talked about, you know, how that money will be allocated, what the setting, the technical tables to ensure that some of the aspirations of the mergers will in fact, come true. So it's a little bit now in the weeds, but AMO is well positioned at technical tables to continue raising our concerns. So I think I'll leave it there.

I'm actually going to step back for a moment to because I have multiple hats that I wear. I served also as a mayor of a township that was subject to amalgamation through the Harris government. So I have seen amalgamation. I've seen the impact and the loss of voices in a rural communities in terms of townships, hamlets and villages. So I've lived through amalgamation because I also served as an Ottawa city councillor. Following that, I was appointed by the Minister of the environment for chair for the Source Protection Committees, which came out of the Walkerton inquiry after the Walkerton crisis. So that experience informs the decisions and the comments that I make. What I think maybe I'm going to first highlight a couple of things. We've got the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency. It is consolidating power. So if you think if you again, this is the political rhetoric that has been stated since the rollout of this proposed consolidation back in the fall, that they. The government is here to help. Well, they're not helping. In essence, they're taking a wrecking ball to what's been very effective for 80 plus years. And the legacy. And I appreciate what the mayor has. Mayor Jones has said, and also Andrea Coleman from the Conservation Ontario. But I challenge that, and I challenged that first, with the investment of the $3 million, that $3 million is basically the funding the province took away from conservation authorities in 2019 for flood management. That's not new funding. That's money that should never have been taken away by the conservation authorities. The the the province isn't even understanding the transition costs that are associated with this consolidation. That is not justified, nor is there any need for as it relates to facilitating housing. In fact, the Task Force for Housing Affordability, there are 55 recommendations. Not one of those recommendations stated that conservation authorities were a problem. In fact, they weren't even mentioned at all in that particular report. So there is the unfunded transition costs, which I know firsthand will happen because of my own experiences and the report from the Fraser Institute that shows that amalgamation is very costly. You've got increases for wages, for harmonization and benefits. You've got it costs that will be having to tend to, and a huge loss of local knowledge and local representation that the watershed councils certainly will not fill that place of.

So I think, you know, a number of us, including Mayor Jones, had the opportunity to attend a regional consultation sessions, and those regional consultation sessions were key to gather perspectives, and, I think, ensure that that local that local expertise is is retained. And I think, you know, effectively what a number of municipalities, including some of the municipalities that are joining us today expressed is we were concerned as a group about loss of local expertise, making sure that the watershed services that stay on the ground, the staff on the ground, those with experience with local environmental decision making, they were able to continue in their roles to make sure they provide those essential community services that municipalities and communities across Ontario have come to rely on. And I know that across the piece, the main, the main and really key function of conservation authorities that have made them successful on the ground for so, so long has been that local strong relationship process. And we really do want to make sure that those ongoing working relationships with municipalities, stakeholders in the community, the agricultural community, the business community, our Indigenous First Nations partnerships are maintained at the local level. And so at those consultation sessions, we did hear those concerns echoed. We made extensive comments as part of our submission that went into the Minister of the environment, Conservation and Parks on December 22nd at the end of the year, and those submissions, I think, very thoughtful and capture. They capture the experience, the expertise and the perspectives of so many across Ontario. And I do encourage anybody that wishes to see those to go to the individual websites, whether of Conservation Ontario or others, to look at those, to see the detailed list of concerns that we put together as a collective recognizing, of course, in a province as large as Ontario, those perspectives can vary from region to region, but overall, I think we did a lot to balance and make sure that that local science based watershed decision making concerns were captured, maintaining the strong municipal involvement and oversight was captured, and that preserving those local relationships, staying connected, making sure that the programs and services continue without disruption at the local level. We heard that loud and clear in the consultation sessions, and we did see pieces of the consultation adjusted, included boundaries that were changed from the north and other areas to make sure that those particular concerns were addressed. So while the full proposal is not something we can't speak on the government's behalf, and it's not a proposal we were asking for, we did our very, very best with a diverse group of a lot of members with a lot of concerns to put forward thoughtful recommendations for implementation. That looks sensible.

Okay, if I if I could, I just want to step back for a moment again. When we talk about the consultation, the meaningful consultation, that has not happened as much as the minister continues to repeat again and again, this is political rhetoric, that there's been a consensus. There has not been, even in the regional consolidation meetings or the regional meetings that were spoken about by Angela. The question was not how should we modernize? The question was, how do we consolidate? That was the question that was being asked. So, and even actually the ERO that's been cited, I'm not sure whether anyone in the province did, but we actually, through our group, through our Watershed Conservation coalition, went through that ERO line by line, by line by line, 97.5% of those respondents who took time, Ontarians who took time to respond said no to consolidation, and they said urged caution. And yet, here we are today because this government has decided to recklessly move forward. And again, I appreciate the role of Conservation Ontario and AMO because they must be cordial with the government to keep the doors open. But this has been problematic, and they have literally undermined the legacy that was created in World War II during World War II, with battles going on in Europe. They're here in Ontario because of issues with regards to water quality, erosion, the degradation of our environment. They invested in conservation authorities to be in partnership with our municipalities and the province. This is not partnership. This is taking control. And if anything needs to be done, it needs for Ontario to stand up and push back. This government has rescinded other things that they've passed, and I can give you a list of them, including the greenbelt as well as most recently, the jet. So, again, Ontarians need to step up. Conservations are important. There's too much at risk. You will lose too much.

Yeah. I think, you know, we're very, very grateful for the amount of support that we've seen across Ontario. It's tremendous to see how community members, municipalities, volunteers, how much, how much support they give conservation authorities, because they really do understand at the local level what is at stake whenever we change that system that's been working well. I think, you know, the other piece of this is always that we are, you know, at a time in history, I do think where to to lead at any level takes a lot of courage. It takes a lot of authenticity and it takes a lot of different time stepping back. And I think, you know, as someone that's leading and working on this day in and day out, I do think that there's a there are opportunities in this piece of legislation that we do have to see as well. So both on the side of maintaining what it is that brings value, we must always look to the future. We look to the past for all of the important legacies and ways forward as we look to the future. I think we also look at this particular piece of legislation and what's proposed, and there are pieces we can agree with. We can support the piece of the proposal that makes sure that at a time of global uncertainty, that we're part of providing fast and predictive approvals. But at the same time, we can look back and say, it's not a dichotomy where we have to choose one or the other. There is a way of doing both. There is a way of being part of the solution.

So I think some really good points have been made. We're well positioned on the transition committees. Some of them are under the umbrella of our confidential memorandum of understanding with the government. And so the people should be pleased with that, that there is no holding back information, but a lot of sharing. We still have to figure out how the levee, what the levee regulation is going to look like. We need some clarity on the new framework, how people are appointed and the public continuing to keep your mayors, your members of council informed. They will keep us informed because one of the questions was, will this work? Well, we're all going to kind of walk together hand in hand with the government on this, but we can hold the government accountable if things are falling to the wayside where commitments were made. So AMO is certainly prepared to listen to those concerns and take them to the government once we're made aware of them. Thanks, Jay.