That's a tough question, but let me give you a quick answer. An impact assessment with an integrated review with a life-cycle regulator ensures a consistency for both the public and those participating in the process, whether it's a mining project, an offshore project, or a nuclear project. It provides clarity in the roles of the different participants.
Regulatory decisions still need to be made. They are legally required under the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The nuclear regulator is independent of the government and has to make a decision about the safety of the project. That decision is best made when it's informed by an integrated assessment rather than by a separate decision that might follow and might require that there be duplicative processes or processes that go on beyond and might ask for repeat testimony or repeat information requirements, when all of it could occur through the integrated assessment and then allow the regulator to make the decision it needs to make.
In nuclear, for example, there are international protocols that would require us to behave that way. In the offshore, there are relationships with two other governments that have to be managed because of the joint management we have with Nova Scotia and with Newfoundland and Labrador. In the case of the energy regulator, recommendations are made at the same time to the GIC to make the determination.
I think it's fair to say that if they were separate you would not be able to make all of the required decisions on a project.