Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is interesting, because there is now some significance criteria actually incorporated into the bill as a result of an amendment that the Minister accepted during clause-by-clause review. Clause 9 has now been amended, providing some criteria for the Minister to consider when determining whether something is likely to cause significant harm to the environment. They include, as now provided for in the bill, magnitude of the effect; geographical area of the affect; duration of the effect; degree of reversibility of the effect; nature of the effect; likelihood that the affect will occur; sensitivity of the receiving environment; and any other factors that the Minister considers relevant.

This was not something that the committee itself had cooked up. These were developed by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board to help guide them in making significance determinations, and they have been in use now for a while. We felt it was helpful to have some kind of criteria to help make that kind of decision. The Minister has now accepted those criteria in making a determination about whether there is going to be significant effects, harm to the environment, and whether an investigation should be carried out into it.

I guess what I am hearing, though, is that the Ministers and the heads of departments, in deciding whether something significantly affects the environment, there are no criteria. It is all going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure that that is a great place for us to be.

I am not sure if my friends at the witness table have anything else that they would like to add. I am hoping that we can probably move beyond just a case-by-case decision. Thanks, Mr. Chair.