Yes, and we've increased funding to CEAA, so I would suggest that we're actually increasing the capacity to take a look at the bigger projects that have been talked about here, the projects that Mr. Amos was speaking about.
I would like to talk a bit about social licence. It came up a little earlier. It also came up last night
Mr. Quinney and Mr. Bonnet, you're on the ground. If we come out with a proposal to have one project, one review, and set timelines, average people can understand that, right? We'd come out with a clear EA process.
Clearly, last night's testimony indicated that there would be an EA process that would be clearer. The outcomes would not be changed. The process may be changed, but the outcomes would be similar. It would be with a focused definition of fish, fisheries, and fish habitat, and a very serious and focused definition of serious harm. As well, we understand that we need consistent application and we need appropriate regulation.
Do you think that's going to increase social acceptance across this country of what we're doing? Or do you think that will decrease it?