Environment committee  To build on one of our recommendations, we're not sure that our agreement with CEAA holds when dealing with the CNSC or the NEB.

Environment committee  Personally, I'm all in favour of anything that removes unnecessary process steps. While it's nice to have a lot of sign-offs, they don't actually add anything to the environmental protection, which is the outcome that's being looked after.

Environment committee  As an example, a mining operation in Saskatchewan was looking to replace an acid-generating plant with one that produced one-tenth of the emissions, a state-of-the-art plant. It got dragged into a CEA trigger because on an already disturbed site, it was going to disturb more than

Environment committee  I think anything that would build the capacity of first nations and Métis to be able to effectively review environmental assessments is a good thing. We see some of the first nations in Saskatchewan developing that expertise themselves, but we continually get the comment that the

Environment committee  We do have the ability to have public comment during the scoping phase. It is important.

Environment committee  No.

Environment committee  The answer is yes. It's consistent with our results-based regulatory framework, in which you apply the resources where they're required. When we did the analysis on results-based regulation generally, we found that staggering resources were going to very minor permitting activiti

Environment committee  Correct.

Environment committee  Correct.

Environment committee  As far as I know, we're the only province that's avoided generating a list of project triggers. We feel that our screening process, which employs six major points that would put a project into a full environmental assessment, allows for a very thorough and effective screening. We

Environment committee  It includes federal as well.

Environment committee  So SARA is an example.

Environment committee  The discussion of what is risk-based gets into a difficult area. Everybody in this room will look at risk in a different manner. So the discussion of risk, to me, would be the right way to do a list. But how you divvy that up, I don't know. We find that having a set of criteria m

Environment committee  That answer, I would say, would be yes, because that would impact differently on project outcomes; and rather than having a strictly environmental view of it, yes.

Environment committee  We already do.