It's an important issue, because take what happened in the Kalamazoo River this past year as an example. You spilled 3.2 million litres of oil into that river. It was 14 hours after the first signs of problems that the pipe was finally turned off—14 hours. Residents were forced to sign liability waivers in order to access the $650 compensation on air filters, and you're being sued for that right now.
The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Jim Oberstar, who I'm sure you know, has dispatched investigators in to see how residents in Michigan were treated unfairly by the company. You've seen the testimony in front of Congress of people of very low means, modest means, signing these waivers to gain access to some of these air filters in order to regain access to their homes, because their air and water were polluted.
It seems to me that with 750 pipeline failures in Alberta alone every year, your inability to guarantee there won't be a spill, and the likelihood of a spill over a 50-year timeline.... You had inspected this pipe in Michigan five days before it started leaking and issued a report to the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States that the pipe was safe. You had just investigated it because the Americans asked you to after the disaster of the BP spill in the gulf.
It seems to me that the project you're proposing has inherent and significant risks for the people of British Columbia and the coastal waters, with relatively little benefit.
The point is this. In your proposal to the joint review panel, you don't have responsibility for the tanker traffic. Is that correct?