Thank you very much, Chair.
I'll start with a little bit of a statement, then I have one question to Mr. Jager.
I would think that it would have to be profoundly frustrating for Mr. Jager and other people who are suppliers of nuclear energy that the regulator is seen in this light in this report.
I think that in the general public, if there are two points of frustration or lack of trust, one of which my colleague from the NDP has already pointed out, they would be around the management of waste and the safety of the plants themselves.
When the commission does not have a standard that's excellent, it fuels that lack of trust. Unfortunately, your report will be used by people who are anti-nuclear. It will be used, I'm certain, in a way that is out of proportion to how it was intended. It will make it tougher on power producers who operate nuclear plants, as OPG does.
I find that very frustrating. I hope that their compliance is immediate and that they are able to show that and demonstrate it to the public so that any unneeded scrutiny is mitigated.
You mentioned a number of things, Mr. Jager, in your testimony. I wish I had 30 minutes, because some of them I would really like to ask you about in regard to the billions of dollars that some of these plants will generate in GDP.
The day before yesterday in The Kingston Whig-Standard there was a big story. A woman had to choose between rent and paying her electricity bill. I need to ask you this question, because every constituent that I represent would say, “Hey, you know what? One of the biggest concerns I have right now is my electricity bill,” and you just testified that it was low cost. I'll just give you an opportunity to explain that.
How do you represent a low-cost electricity provider when one of the biggest frustrations for Ontarians today is their electricity bill?