Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
I've been a bit disappointed in what I've heard today, because some of us were on the committee last year and spent a fair amount of time on this issue.
Mr. West, I believe you know better than some of the things you're saying, because we've only heard part of the issues here. We really haven't heard anything about your financial interest in this whole matter, which is substantial. We have heard very little about the actual problem with the reactor.
Last year Mr. Waddington went through the actual functioning of the reactor. If you take a look at the testimony from June 10, 2008, there's an excellent explanation of how this whole thing works and how it doesn't work. It's very clear there are substantial problems that cannot be fixed. I hope we'll get back to that.
I just want to read into the testimony what a couple of our colleagues said during our conversation last year, because we'd spent a little bit more time on this.
Ms. DeBellefeuille from the Bloc said:
Mr. West, this has more or less been a horror story from the outset. Half a billion dollars were invested in the MAPLE venture—we could actually talk about the MAPLE failure. And yet you continue to tell us that it would have been in the interest of the government, of taxpayers, and of your company to continue to invest in the MAPLE reactor. From what I understand, you do not agree with the government's decision to put an end to the MAPLE project. It is rather surprising that you should maintain this position. It seems obvious to me that this was not a good thing.
She said later:
Mr. West, we are talking about a multi-million-dollar investment. Mr. Waddington told us that millions more would have to be invested by your company and by taxpayers in order to make the reactor work. At some point in time, you have to give up. It was a bad deal from the outset.
Mr. Alghabra, who was the Liberal critic at the time and was probably the member of the committee who was most familiar with nuclear reactors, said:
Now, facing the difficulties at the MAPLE reactor--and I don't think we can deny that there are technical problems with the MAPLE reactor--I'm at a loss.
I think the government members at that time would have agreed with those statements as well.
Mr. West, I want to challenge your statement that you said at the beginning here, “The reason for the current supply shortage is Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s decision to cancel the MAPLE project”. Are you actually suggesting that if this project hadn't been cancelled last year it would now be up and running, in spite of the fact there were problems that had no apparent solution at that time? Is that what you're saying?