I think the whole purpose of making the change was to make it less cumbersome, put it in a place where you had the technical capability within the NEB, to make sure that the process was not creating redundancies in evaluations, and so on. As I said, before, the transportation board would provide their opinion post the NEB's opinion. Now, it's incorporated into the process, and the same considerations are in the NEB process as were in the previous process.
In the past, as Mr. Atkinson mentioned, it was the triggers that really created the issue. By defining in a schedule the types of water bodies that are included in the assessments I think greatly indicates where the issues should be focused.
In some cases, where you had small ephemeral waterways, ephemeral ponds, and so on, it was an automatic trigger that created a tremendous amount of regulatory burden to deal with those things. It really wasn't dealing with navigation per se, and it was not really dealing with how the pipelines affect those areas.