Basically, the BCIT group has had some dialogue with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with Ed Woo, specifically, who is chairing the review committee, and they have told us they'd like to come out and see our report, basically talk about what we found and how they can do things better next time.
I've taken the position that I'm totally prepared to talk about our report and give them all the information--we've given people practically all the information already--but we want it to be a two-way dialogue; we want to be able to ask them questions. They have steadfastly refused to have a two-way dialogue. A lot of the stuff we're talking about today, the comments by Jim Wild or Dale Paterson, are in the media. We're very cognizant of the fact that the media can often twist things around. So we want to get the real goods on it, and DFO has steadfastly refused to have a two-way conversation.
We've set out a series of questions that we would ask and we would like to get answers for--really simple questions like how they could come to the conclusion that a rock berm would have enough porosity so that enough water could get through, what their inventory and assessment was, or why they picked this particular mode of transport.
We've been told through my boss, Mark Angelo, and Greg Savard that DFO is now prepared to have a two-way dialogue. This might happen on July 12 or 13. We're going into the meeting taking a positive approach that DFO will answer our questions to the best of their ability. One of the reasons we wanted to talk to the DFO technical staff was basically to try to error-proof our report. We don't want to say a bunch of stuff in our report that is just wrong. If our interpretation is wrong, tell us now.
There was, I think, a lot of embarrassment in DFO when our executive summary was released. I think the heart of the matter in the report is potentially even more embarrassing. But if there's something wrong in the report, tell us. We'll modify the report; we'll pull back our criticism--or we may even increase our criticism of it. But make it technically strong so that you guys don't do this again.