I appreciate the comment.
Let me go quickly, because I know time is limited. Part of the criteria, and perhaps infrastructure, or Transport, wants to sort of take on this piece. The federal environmental assessment piece was suspended, if you will, if I can use that term, in the sense that it wasn't required on these projects. Environmental assessments were relied upon if they were done municipally, or on a project level, or a provincial level, or whatever the case may be. That information was relied upon.
The auditor's report has suggested that in some cases.... They actually said that of their “sample of 52 approved projects”, they found that for the assessments under the new regulations, 35 “lacked sufficient information”. The department's response was to go back out and say that they talked to those 35 folks, that they didn't do site visits, but they talked to them and relied upon them saying they were compliant.
So I guess the question is, did we get any follow-up hard information that says they were compliant, so that we actually know? Because that's a significant number for a sample size: 35 of 52. That's very, very large and it's actually beyond what it should be. For the sample size, it should be less than 10%. Of the sample size, it should have been 5.2%, to be honest, where the information was lacking. To have 35 of 52, we're talking about a magnitude of over 70-odd per cent. That's a huge number.
Did that not raise an alarm bell and close one of your gates in that timeline process, where folks maybe should have gone out--at least of a sample of 35--and should have said that they ought to site visit at least 10% of them? That would have meant 3.5--let's call it 4. I wonder if you have any sense of that.