Thank you, Mr. Bennett.
My guess is that nobody on the panel would disagree that there are some things that could be done to reduce timelines, just through bad process that can be cleaned up, and there are other things where it's appropriate and necessary for time to be taken to get them right.
The complexity of doing that with so many different factors to consider is why, it seems to me, consultation with industry and environmental groups by the department would be very valuable before bringing it to the committee.
Just an editorial comment. Having dealt, as a minister, with the Britannia mines disaster—one of the largest contaminated site problems, killing shellfish and seafood in Burrard Inlet for literally generations—I believe a four-year consideration of that project would have probably saved a lot of money, compared with hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup later.
In order to be more effective for industry without compromising environmental protection, there is some discussion in terms of timelines. There has been input from witnesses about having a two-stage assessment process; one stage is a go/no go in a shorter timeframe. In B.C. the EA calls it an off-ramp, so if it's clear this isn't going to be a go, you get it out of the system so you can focus your resources on projects that have potential to be approved.
Can I hear a comment, from both Mr. Bennett and from one of the industry proponents, on that idea of a two-stage system?