That's certainly a good question to explore a bit further. My colleague Terry Hubbard can join me in filling in the answer.
From a regulatory point of view, whether it's the CNSC or the offshore boards, there are a significant number of safety, technical, engineering, design, construction, and operational components that are material to the assessment of a project. This is why the integrated nature of the assessments allows these things to be part of the equation. At the same time, in doing one project, one review, there are in many instances legal requirements that must be met in order for the regulatory decision to happen. We need to ensure that we have the ability as a government to set the policy direction needed to ensure that those things get looked at.
For example, the offshore boards look at things like occupational health and safety. They look at technical standards for the engineering of drilling equipment, the certification of the equipment that's done globally, the ties to international commitments, the things related to the particular handling of the materials, and how the technical equipment is used and managed on site. There are a number of safety-related components, and there are significant safety regulations that the offshore boards are responsible for on the operational side of a project, should it ever get to that point. If it's a project that's looking at the exploratory side, similarly there are safety requirements there.
These are typically things that happen in the regulatory capacity. They are not things that the impact assessment agency is looking at, when it's looking at the project. Bringing these things together allows for a better decision on the particular project.
Terry can fill in a bit more.