CEAA already, as you know, has that as a discretionary possibility for the minister to include in, let's say, a panel review. Our view on that one would be that we can see the need for that kind of an “alternatives to” analysis, but where that analysis is already happening in provincial jurisdictions, the federal decision-making should take that as the input into that.
I tend to use my own province as an example, because I'm the most familiar with it, although I know it happens elsewhere too. We have had and we're going to have provincial-led panels that do what we call a need for alternatives to assessment that has paid intervenor funding, interrogatories, panels of experts, and that thoroughly addresses the need for an “alternatives to” from that provincial perspective.
If that's the case, then we would suggest that the federal panel, let's say, take that, or the federal decision-making take that, as the input rather than duplicating it by having a very thorough provincial process and then repeating that in the federal process.