Well, there are a couple of things. On your first point with the public, I have to tell you we do not a priori screen who can come in front of us, who cannot. Everybody's welcome to a public hearing, and we have many of them through licensing processes, though environmental assessments.
We have proponents for nuclear, we have opponents of nuclear. We have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, as well as OPG and Bruce Power. They all come in front of us; they all have a say. And the commission integrates all of the material that comes in front of us in the deliberation and rendering of a decision.
With the application, with the applicant, it's always what the safety case is and how we can make sure that the operation will be safe. That's always something we don't compromise on, and it's up to them to prove the case. We have a lot of technical experts who can challenge the assumption, challenge the design, and we'll ask for mitigation to deal with any particular impact on the environment, and more importantly, follow through to make sure that what was promised is delivered.
Just as a point to correct Mr. McGuinty when he asked the question about the north, I'd like to remind everybody that in the north most of the environmental assessments are being conducted with boards from the north. So in Nunavut it's the Nunavut Impact Review Board that conducts the assessment. We provide just technical support to them in terms of the nuclear technology. But the assessments are conducted by those independent boards, which most of the time are composed of aboriginal communities.
So we are absolutely agnostic about who appears in front of us. What we want is the safety case, and that's the only way we render a decision.