Okay, but the comment I want to leave on the record is that I find it strange that an environmental assessment would even have as a term of reference a responsibility to look at the need, the purpose, and the alternatives to a project. I think it can be safely assumed that the proponent would have evaluated all of that. The review, in my view, should stick strictly to the environmental aspects of the project.
My next question relates to projects that are, quote, “likely to have significant adverse environmental effects”. Do you consider environmental change to always be adverse?