Your submission does say it's a question of cost. You say that the proposed operations on the Beaufort could require commitments in excess of $1.5 billion before the regulatory processes are complete. You cite money because you're concerned about money, which is understandable because that's your mandate. Your job is to maximize profit for shareholders. That is clear.
Let's get into British Petroleum for a second. Last year you were fined $66 million under regulations that you already knew about. In 2005 you were fined $50 million in the accident in Texas that killed 15 workers and injured another 170. You're now facing an additional $85 million in fines. The Health and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom has cited British Petroleum for failing to ensure the safety of their employees and others not in their employ by not providing and maintaining a system of work for the control of that operation that was, so far, reasonable and practically safe.
British Petroleum, on its website, claims to be a company that is rebranded. It's beyond petroleum. I suppose that's not necessarily so much true. In the United States the President has proposed a $10 billion fund to assist in the cleanup. He has also delayed any more issuing of leases for offshore drilling until we know what happened in the gulf.
Do you think that would be prudent for Canada as well, Mrs. Drinkwater?