That's a great question.
It could be implemented well, if humans were perfect, and governments were perfect. We shouldn't expect our governments to be perfect. We should have safeguards for that.
It's in the choosing of what projects are in the national interest. The governments are choosing that in the first place, but there is a role, certainly, for the government to build infrastructure and to provide support for nation-building infrastructure. We wouldn't have railways and highways, and those kinds of things that we have, like the St. Lawrence Seaway, if we didn't have government intervening. We wouldn't have the oil sands if government hadn't provided some support in that respect.
Again, we need to put in some safeguards regarding some level of proponent interest or some level of private sector interest in some of these projects that aren't fully or majority funded by the federal government. Some are probably already at an advanced stage. They are already in a process, and they've already been submitted to a regulatory body for review, so they are not starting from scratch, kind of out of a politician's dream. Those are the ones.
In the legislation, and using the Henry VIII clauses, there are laws it does tend to omit. It isn't to ride roughshod over environmental protection or rights, but it is really to just surpass some of the bottlenecking that sometimes is caused by our regulatory process.
Again, a hummingbird is an example of a species of least concern. It doesn't stop construction somewhere for four months because of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, at a cost of about $100 million to the Canadian taxpayer. Allowing to have a relief valve for some of those very difficult permitting issues but, again, not usurping the kinds of rights that Canadians expect....