Environment committee  Yes, 28 of the CEPA regulations require the regulatees to submit reports on the nature of their activities, the nature of the substances they're using. These reports are intended to help the enforcement people understand whether compliance is happening or not. When those reports

Environment committee  The entity reported that the spill had been cleaned up. Nobody verified that in fact it was.

Environment committee  There was a warning letter sent in February 2007.

Environment committee  I'm not sure what you might conclude.

Environment committee  Because the department did not follow up to verify that the spill had been cleaned up.

Environment committee  Yes, there are legally binding schedules in the EPCOs, and by and large it appears that the evaluators respect those timelines.

Environment committee  The EPCOs specify an action to be taken by the regulatee, and when the regulatee submits the action plan, that's recorded by the department.

Environment committee  Yes, the EPCO generally specifies a timeline for coming up with a plan.

Environment committee  Yes, we're referring to our overall sample that we took, which shows that 50% of the time they don't follow up. So there is a proportion of the EPCOs that are not followed up, but the overwhelming majority of what the department does is via warning letters.

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  Generally an EPCO is issued after several warning letters fail to result in a compliance, so you could say they're minor, but they're not insignificant.

Environment committee  On the 50% where they did follow-up and issued an EPCO, perhaps you're right.

Environment committee  Yes. I have several examples in my package, if you'll bear with me for a second.

Environment committee  Yes. I'm not sure if—

Environment committee  Yes, we have one example where there was a spill of PCBs in the Maritimes. The company itself reported the incident in February 2007. In May 2007, three months later, the department decided an investigation was warranted. In November of that year, nine months later, the decision