You've asked a lot of questions, and I'll do my best to answer them. If you don't mind, I'll ask my colleague Scott Streiner to give me a hand as well. He was taking copious notes here.
First, the obligation to do an environmental assessment is triggered by a number of factors. We can't decide not to do one because we don't like it.
For example, if the federal government is the proponent, if it's something the federal government builds, you automatically have to have a federal environmental assessment. If we transfer a piece of crown land to a proponent or to another government, whatever that proponent does with the piece of land triggers the necessity to have a federal environmental assessment. If we fund a project in total or in part, there's the obligation to have a federal environmental assessment.
Finally, in any circumstance where a federal department issues an authorization or a permit.... I gave the example of the use of explosives. What we find more often is that if you want to build something that will have an impact on the water or on fish habitat, automatically Fisheries and Oceans gets in there.
At any rate, the federal government issues lot of permits, and in all of those circumstances there is an environmental assessment. Typically there are 6,000 every year, and that number is growing.
So it's not a question of deciding that we're going to have one or not going to have one. It's in our legislation. We have to perform them.
There are different levels, as I explained. Screening is for the small projects. You also asked who decides if there's a comprehensive study. There's a list attached to our legislation that says a hydroelectric project of such-and-such a magnitude requires automatically a comprehensive study, which is a very detailed environmental assessment. Then the Minister of the Environment has the authority to bump that up to the creation of an independent panel of experts to review a project. That's the way it works.
Now, what about the cumulative effect? As I said in my presentation, it's not always simple. Our legislation is structured to evaluate project by project, not necessarily to look at the whole of northern Alberta. But our act also says that we need to take into consideration cumulative effect. For example, the effect on the Athabasca River has been very much considered by every one of the panels that has been appointed in the recent past.
So yes, that is being monitored, assessed by scientists, and considered by the panel.