I didn't realize that this was going to be a panel on the glories of nuclear power rather than on radioactive waste governance. I thought we were going to be focusing on radioactive waste governance.
Regardless of what benefits or not that nuclear power has, the wastes are going to be here forever and they have to be dealt with. That's really what the question should be.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that it's wrong to bury radioactive reactors right where they are, on site. They should be dismantled and the waste should be taken off site. They should be packaged and so on. That's a feature of radioactive waste governance.
Here in Canada, the consortium is planning to do exactly the opposite. They are even going to rip up our contract to dismantle these reactors, which was already approved by the CNSC. Instead, they are going to bury them right beside major rivers—the Ottawa River and the Winnipeg River. These reactors remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after the reactor is shut down.
There is more than one kind of waste. I think we have been focusing on certain aspects of waste and not all of them.
It's important to realize also that the Seaborn panel was the result of a 10-year environmental assessment program, yet their unanimous recommendation was turned down by the Liberal government of the day, which was the Chrétien government.
Now we have to look at all other kinds of waste as well. We need to have an agency that is really not an arm of the industry. The problem here is that, just as you have seen today, the people in the industry are far more excited and interested in talking about what their technology can offer to Canadians while it's operating, rather than the legacy that it's leaving behind.
We're seeing the same thing in our country. Parliament can really help to highlight the public interest.