Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I ask a question, I want to clarify something that arose when Mr. Volpe was questioning the witnesses. I don't believe we are working at cross purposes, but he did suggest that ministry staff had indicated a preference for a complete revamping of the bill as opposed to perhaps picking the low-hanging fruit.
At that meeting, Mr. Chair, I did specifically address that. Please note Marc Grégoire is the assistant deputy minister for safety and security, and I don't believe his responsibilities touch directly on the infrastructure program Mr. Grady and Ms. Scharf administer. In a question I posed to him--and I'd like to quote that question--I asked, “Would you agree with me that moving forward with these amendments will significantly speed up the process of getting the needed legislation in place to address some of the infrastructure needs in our country?” And Mr. Grégoire simply said, “Yes.” I think it's unfair to place his testimony against what we're hearing today.
I am a little concerned about Mr. Julian's comments. Of course, whenever he deals with issues like this, the solution is always adding more jobs as opposed to becoming more efficient and streamlined. As I understand it, the purpose of moving forward with some amendments is to ensure that our infrastructure moneys are rolled out in a timely manner and that this infrastructure gets built within the seven years this program requires.
I'd like to move toward a discussion about the environmental assessment process, because I think that's where most of the concerns will be raised: are we somehow gutting the environmental assessment process? If we move forward with the amendments the government is proposing, is there any suggestion that the environmental assessment process will be watered down or weakened?
Perhaps I could address that to Mr. Smith, first of all.