I appreciate what Mr. Eglinski is saying. I hope the members opposite appreciate that with this notice of motion, which included several studies, I was trying to encapsulate what I felt were the views of the government members that had been expressed, as well as those of the members opposite. This was my effort at encapsulating the areas of commonality.
In terms of prioritizing, my own sense—and this in part will also address the climate issue—is that we're going to be looking at something to do with environmental assessment at some point if the mandate letter is followed through on, and we're not going to have a choice. Likewise, we may well be faced with legislation around climate change. Who knows? I have no idea, but that could well happen.
Those are two huge issues. They're not mentioned in here, because I expect that we're going to be forced to do that, and that's going to take precedence over our own work.
Now is the time for us to seize upon work where legislation requires it. The CEPA review ought to have been done ages ago. A review was done in 2006-07. None of the recommendations were followed through on. I am informally proposing or mooting the idea that the CEPA work be given priority. I am indifferent as to whether number one or three would go second or third. I think right now we have a substantial piece that is in the public interest and that needs to be done, and we have an opportunity right now before we are sent legislation that we must review on a clause-by-clause basis.