As you know, last December 11, the House of Commons was taken hostage. We had to adopt emergency legislation. We felt very much responsible for what was happening, but we did not have in hand all of the data we needed. We supported the bill, but as you know, security was also one of our concerns, and it had to be taken into account. We were caught between two ethical issues: meeting patients' needs and considering safety issues.
In an interview, a journalist spoke to foreign representatives, namely from Belgium, and to someone in charge in the Netherlands. They could have increased their output and taken over the production of isotopes, but action would have been required prior to December 10. You knew that the Chalk River facility was not complying with operational requirements. Why did you not take any action prior to December 10? You knew there was a problem. There were warning signs.
I think that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission did its job. It brought Atomic Energy of Canada Limited into step. During the plenary, I was under the impression that AECL controlled the commission, not the opposite. AECL did not feel compelled to upgrade the reactor within the required time. It was during a monitoring operation that they realized the reactor had not been upgraded in accordance with operational standards.
I see some bad faith in what you are telling us about the dates. You can tell us that you called a French, African or Dutch representative, but apart from the dates, the fact remains that there was a problem. You were aware of it: it had been ongoing for two years. AECL was in survival mode, and you let the situation continue instead of developing a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
By firing the president, you removed all authority from the CNSC. You had us pass the bill using a somewhat questionable process.