In terms of the substance of what we're discussing here this morning, we're kind of wide-ranging and have gone beyond just the proposed incinerator and into some past history, so maybe we'll just start there. A number of times you've used a phrase something like “DFO licensed them”. We need to be very clear exactly what that means.
For example, in terms of the fertilizer plant, my understanding is that it began operating in 1967, and frankly I think we'll find that all of the necessary provisions of the law at the time were met. In fact, I think you talked about doing some sort of assessment on whether there was going to be a HADD. That part, section 35 of the act, was enacted in 1976, so I don't think we can expect the department to have applied the law and regulations that were in place at that time.
With respect to the incinerator, I guess what I want you to do is correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that DFO reviewed in August of 2002 the original plan of the Bennett people, so it's not that it passed them by. Based on that review, they required some changes to the design. Those changes were made to the discharge pipe, if I recall, and based on that they concluded there was no likely HADD.
Once having concluded that, the department doesn't have a trigger to engage CEAA, the Canadian Environment Assessment Act. That is the way the law works at this point. Maybe it's wrong and maybe it needs to be changed. You make a compelling point, perhaps.