I don't think it should make any difference. First of all, for mining projects we fully expect to have mines on the list that will follow in regulations, so we expect the same number of projects to be assessed in the future as have been up to now. In fact, we've even speculated that we might end up having more projects, as some brownfield sites, which are mines that are being developed on already disturbed mining areas, may fall under the new definitions. So we actually may see more projects assessed, but they will be assessed in a more timely manner.
There is the possibility, whether they're substituted to the province or whether there's an equivalency arrangement that develops or not, that we will, through these amendments, be able to see greater harmonization between the two levels of government.
If you look at where substitution will exist or equivalency will exist, it will be in jurisdictions where the provinces have been able to demonstrate that their systems of environmental assessment are comparable and equivalent to that of the federal government. In practice, at the working group level currently, when the Province of British Columbia, for example, undertakes an environmental assessment, the federal government officials are at the working group level participating, and then it's almost like they cross the hall and go into the federal office, and the same people from the province go over to the federal office and they participate in the working group assessment of the federal review.
So there is clearly duplication, and I would fully expect to see the same level of review carried out regardless of whether it's undertaken by the province on behalf of the federal government or whether it continues to be undertaken by the federal government.