Environment committee  It's information-gathering of concerns, because if the concerns are public-wide, they would be considered as a trigger to go through a full EIA.

Environment committee  It's by the act itself; it forces us to do the consultation. There are clear provisions we have to go through. We have to meet that provision, so it's a must in the EA process.

Environment committee  It's a full participation process. It's a 30-day review—

Environment committee  —to see the issues, the concerns of the public. As I said, one of the six triggers is if it raises—

Environment committee  Frankly, no. I don't know if you want to know the reasons, but it is no. CEAA still needs the 90 days to decide. The decision-making, even at the CEAA side, has two decision levels, one at CEAA and one by the responsible authority itself. By the new complexity that came when CEAA delegated more to CNSC and NEB, this became just...superficial, really, than having created something more efficient.

Environment committee  Could I add something there, if the time permits? The problem is besides that diversity of the federal agencies that are connected to CEAA as a coordinating body there, the concept of having to have a permit to go through a screening process is by itself destabilizing the whole EIA process.

Environment committee  Just to give you some statistics from CEAA that they mentioned in their presentation, roughly 95% of their screenings show that they are insignificant or minimal. So 95% of whatever you do there is really a permit issue.

Environment committee  Basically, aboriginal and Métis communities are consulted earlier in the process than even the public. From the moment we decide that this is a project that is going to be a full EA project, they are notified by registered mail first. For your information, we have what we call a wide government policy framework on duty to consult that has tier one to tier five, depending on the size of the project, and we ensure that they are informed from the beginning.

Environment committee  You know what? We thought of that--in 2012 we'll have to renew that agreement--but we were looking at the other exercises that were done with other provinces. The problem is that it's always going to be superficial or cosmetic, in a way, because due to the nature of the act, they cannot change things at their end, and neither can we.

Environment committee  There are different issues. There is the consultation process itself, the duty to consult. Screening at the provincial level is only 30 days. It takes 90 days, in the federal act, to provide a decision. We have a smaller decision-making circle. They have 40 federal agencies, and they're all bound to the act.

Environment committee  I think the problem is, again, a process issue. The outcomes are the same. Saskatchewan has been working on the EA processes for the last 10 years. We have exactly the same processes. As I said earlier with respect to the timing of the start, by the time it's triggered by CEAA, it has already been decided by us.

Environment committee  No, no, but the major steps in a technical EA are almost the same. By the time they trigger their EIA, or they decide if it's a screen or whatever, they have different timing. For example, we do two consultation processes or two public consultations. It takes them three years.

Environment committee  I want to add first to the previous question. One of the triggers within the Saskatchewan EA process is if the project triggers a public-wide concern, which is really an added value there, because some of the projects don't have that environmental impact but have wide public concern.

Environment committee  It's an open website.

Environment committee  Absolutely; yes, everything.