I think it's pretty unanimous, at least on the side of colleagues that I've talked to, that the more legislative criteria on these points you have in the act, the better. Again, it just provides, as Professor Elgie said, certainty and predictability to the regime.
I know several submissions to the expert panel and then to the government itself listed several criteria that could be useful, for instance, where a region is of particular importance from an ecological perspective. That might be an area where you would want to prioritize regional assessment. Another example might be where there is an area that has been demonstrated already to be under significant development pressure or soon will be. That might be another place where you might want to apply. Of course, the obvious examples, like the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario, have been discussed.
On the strategic side as well, we've talked about.... Under CEAA 2012 we refer to regional studies, and we've had the cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessment, neither of which has ever been used. With regard to regional studies, it's never, and with regard to strategic assessments, every CSD report on this topic shows clearly that the government is not complying. When it's not this government, it's previous governments; it's all governments. Again, the more meat in the act itself, the better, on that front for sure.