There is certainly a major difference between what was suggested with that unanimous motion in terms of a review of unconventional oil sources and the current National Energy Board's review, which is much less comprehensive. If you're asking me to answer the question of what would be the ideal review for Canada, which I think is where you're heading with that question, I don't think the NEB review is ideal. I think it has scope issues. It's not dealing with the east coast, it's not dealing with the gulf, and it's not dealing with issues of leasing, which are within the purview of Indian and Northern Affairs.
It's not for me to say whether it would be appropriate to have a broad increase in scope that would include all sources of unconventional energy, because then you're getting into a lot of different energy forms, including shale and tar sands, or oil sands. That kind of review would be very broad in scope.
I think that what ought to be considered--and I take a cue here from Professor Ratushny of the University of Ottawa, who's an expert in commissions of inquiry--is a commission of inquiry that deals with offshore oil exploration and licensing across the country, whether in the Atlantic, the gulf, the Arctic, or the west coast.