I'm happy to respond; I'm just checking.
One of the key things on both sides of the fence to restoring confidence and trust in the system.... The changes in CEAA 2012 I think were grown out of the Liberals' smart regulation proposals. Making the process longer doesn't make it better. Changing the consultation requirement, the federal government taking on the role of consulting with first nations directly, I think that's the role of the federal government.
The technical and process evaluation that the NEB undergoes is rigorous, and I think that within those time frames they can get it done. It is fair to say these pipeline projects have been going well beyond the initial time frames for analysis. You're right in that there are tens of thousands of pages of documentation on consultation, on communication, on the technical aspects.
I think that a lot of the changes in 2012 were appropriate. I think that we need to have clarity of process. Right now, I think the overarching thing is that we don't. We don't know how the greenhouse gas issue is going to be rolled into decision-making. We don't know how the consultation process is going to work through this interim process. We need clarity on that side too. We need some certainty overall in the process going forward.
I think that tweaks on the NEB in terms of the infrastructure that it has to do things is important. I think that should be funded, but we should look at it from the perspective that the regulator has been doing its job, especially on the existing pipeline systems, very well and is well regarded internationally. I don't think we need to roll everything back, but I do think we need to do some things, and governance is one of them. Including indigenous people on the NEB is an important thing to do also.
I hope that is helpful.