Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Malcolm.
I'm from British Columbia, as I've said, and we've had a similar process in terms of federal projects, along with provincial project analysis regimes, I guess, in that they're duplicative. They go along doing the same thing and sometimes conflict with each other even though they're basically going through the same set of rules. We see this in agriculture, too, where we have some of the same inspectors saying the same lines and doing the same thing. To me, it's completely redundant and for unnecessary reasons, I guess.
This is where I see this going, where we as a federal government..... I'll read from this one page. It says, “The opportunity now exists for provincial review processes to be substituted for federal processes where they meet federal requirements, which will help reduce duplication.” I recognize that the Province of British Columbia does a great job at inspecting what they do, and they recognize that we do a great job inspecting where we need to, but let's not do both all at the same time. This is where I see this going. That's why this study was enacted: to see if some of these things can be fixed.
Do you see anything in the way of rolling out a program like this? Again, to go to what I said when I finished, we need to have provinces agreeing to this, but I can't see them being upset, necessarily. Their regulations are still going to be respected. It's the same with the federal regulations. Just speak to that, if you can.