Excellent. I am not looking for a response, because I know that you won't be able to answer in this time, but I would like a written response to what I am about to ask.
Given what Mr. Amos was discussing earlier about this new report that has come out from the CBC on the SOAs in Alberta, the secondary organic aerosols, and given the bad rap that the tar ponds have had in Alberta and the level of toxicity going into local rivers, waterways, and indigenous communities, it is great to hear about this petroleum innovation alliance and all the studies and data collection that are being done, but at the end of the day, what are we doing about it?
The SOA emissions are either the highest or second-highest in Canada. They are in the top 10 in North America. We need to start doing something about these things.
I would also throw out.... Earlier, Ed was talking about the difference between risk and threat. This is the whole reason that threat analysis can be a so much stronger assessment tool, because you are now looking up front at the threats that these ponds or emissions will cause, rather than waiting until after the fact to find out and then trying to play catch-up to do something about it. By then the environmental damage is done. We need to try to do something to preclude that damage beforehand and do something about it before it happens.
If you could provide what the petroleum industry is now planning to do about about the tailings ponds or the tar ponds or whatever the term is. I apologize; the term escapes me.
I would also throw that over to the mining industry to respond as well on the tailings ponds side. How can we mitigate? I know the mining industry has done a much better job in this area now that they are creating solids—