Minister, here's what's infuriating. The investigations you're mentioning specifically scoped their work to avoid certain human impact pathways. This is what we heard from the toxicologist. We had a 1997 report that showed there was radiation on the site, and yet none of the subsequent reports measured radiation. They did that because they limited the scope of the investigation to limit the liability and the responsibility of your department to clean up the site.
If you do an environmental assessment report, I would hope you'd read every previous report concerning the state of the site you're studying.
Are you saying that the environmental consultants didn't actually look at the 1997 report that showed radiation?