One of the main things I'd like to dispel is the concept that longer equals more rigorous or more thorough. The comprehensive review can address the things that I've heard. I've heard that the first nations communities are worried about translation and being able to ask questions and give input; that can all happen under a comprehensive review. They are concerned about time, because they think the process would be rushed; however, there's no really firm time limit on a comprehensive review. There's a timeline that starts and stops. It goes on for as long as it takes to be completed.
I differ on the full review of impacts challenge as well because the output of both processes is the same: an environmental assessment. What's important is how you work within the process, and I think the comprehensive review gives the advantage that we can customize and work together to put together committees and whatnot to ensure the involvement, whereas a panel review goes to an independent panel and is a much less controlled process from that perspective.