Today the triggers are broad and down to very small project size, where there are many screenings. If you were to talk to most agencies that have to execute those screenings, they would echo the comments you made earlier, that indeed they've put a lot of resources into some of them for perhaps marginal value, that they have processes already in place for their own act that deal with this. The Fisheries Act in particular is well-equipped to do that.
We're suggesting if the triggers had a higher threshold, and they could either be size of project or potential size of impact, as is often the case in provincial legislation, that would bring the focus of a full environmental assessment review on projects that would benefit from it and projects that are of a smaller nature--activities like best management practices or permitting or other mechanisms. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has developed a risk management framework and a “pathway of effects” that they use very effectively now to try to deal with projects and match up the level of effort of review and activity with the potential for impacts. I think we're advocating the same type of philosophy.