In my view, this is where the question about self-assessment really is at the heart of this, to some extent, because the idea behind the screenings, in particular, is that we should encourage federal decision-makers to think about the environmental implications of the decisions they're about to make.
I think the problem with screenings isn't what's in the legislation, but the way they've been implemented. So you end up with screenings for small projects. It's not wrong to do a screening for a small project, but then, especially when they're non-government proponents, often they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars getting consultants to prepare thousands of pages of screening reports or environmental impact statements. I think that's the problem.
When you look at the legal requirements for screening in the act, all they really say is to think about the environmental implications of the decision you're about to make. If we get back to the core of that and the kinds of issues that are listed in the act, I think you can design a screening process that does that for small projects without being burdensome, without causing delay.
I agree that we are wasting a lot of resources on some screenings that are being done for small projects, but the answer in many cases is not to eliminate them from the assessment; it's to have an appropriate assessment designed for those projects.