Yes, and I welcome the question, because it gives me a chance to say that we're opening up the important reform of the National Energy Board and of environmental assessments in Canada generally speaking, to what we hope is a robust and important Canadian chat about them. We will be announcing the process that will lead to permanent reform in the next while. It will be within this mandate that those announcements are made and perhaps some decisions taken.
But I would ask the committee for its opinion—not at the moment, but to start thinking about it—about what the relationship should be between the regulator and the government. Should the regulator have the last word on major projects, or should the cabinet have the last word, and under what circumstances? What should the composition of the National Energy Board be to accommodate the diversity of the nation itself?
Members may know that we are committed to adding several more temporary members to the National Energy Board as the energy east pipeline review makes its way through the regulatory process. We know it's important that through the appointment of new temporary members to the board, indigenous background issues be important. We know that bilingualism is important.
It will be the government saying to Canadians, let's hear what you think the environmental assessment process should look like for the next generation of Canadians. This is not a precooked set of ideas. This is a sincere and open consultation and engagement with Canadians, and the principles are fundamental and they are important.
The interim process is clear, through the principles we have announced; the timelines are predictable, which is what proponents are looking for; and the future look of the process is something we will engage Canadians in through, I hope, important conversations and discussions.