I'll start with the issue of monitoring cumulative impact. The departments have a clear responsibility to do this monitoring. It was done partially, for a period of time. We were told that it was eliminated because of funding issues. The departments, though, have agreed that they should be doing this and have indicated that they will. But again, how they are going to fund all of this is an issue the committee might want to look at.
That is particularly important as the co-management boards, which exist in areas where there are settled agreements, approve development projects so that they will have a sense of the effect these projects may have on the environment. It's really to provide good information from board decision-making.
Where there aren't settled land claims, the issue is really consultation with and involvement of first nations in making these decisions. We note in the report that their involvement comes in very late in the process, currently. There have been a few cases--I think we mentioned two or three in the report--where development projects have gone quite a long way, and then there have been legal challenges, which ended up causing further delays or actually limiting the project--not allowing the project to proceed--because of that lack of involvement.
One of the main issues, when they have settled the land claims, is the existence of co-management boards, which would appear to make the process more efficient. Then development projects are more aware up front of what the likely outcome will be.