The regulatory delay, as I mentioned, was due to the joint review panel that was established to review the environmental and socio-economic aspects of the pipeline. That panel ran into a number of issues. It's difficult, because under the land claims settlements, the jurisdiction for environmental review was passed from CEAA on to a number of regional land and water boards and environmental review boards. There would have been a total of about 12 or 14 different agencies, all with equal regulatory authority over the project. So they created a cooperation plan.
The NEB was involved in that, back in 2002, I believe. The idea was good. It was to amalgamate and have NEB and joint review panel hearings proceed over different aspects of the project. Where it ran astray, and I have some personal recommendations here, was that, first, the joint review panel was established as an independent review agency, accountable to no one. It needed to be administratively accountable to someone. The panel members were paid by the day, with no cap. There was no incentive for them to move along quickly.
Second, the panel members needed to be properly qualified, and in this case I think they fell short of the mark.
Third, they needed to be backed up by qualified staff. And again, in this case they fell short of the mark.