Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for being here today. I, like many of my colleagues, attended your presentation on the technical aspects of the overall project. Thank you. It was very interesting and highly informative.
I am sure you are aware that when it comes to the law, there are two crucial tests. My example is the law but the concept applies just as well to science. There must be legitimacy and an appearance of legitimacy. I take no issue with the legitimacy of the science-based process you have developed nor with the explanations you have provided. However, Quebeckers clearly do not perceive the science of the current project we are discussing as legitimate. The science does not appear to stand the test for all sorts of reasons. There are thousands of people who are frightened and seriously worried about this project. We are told that studies have been conducted and that the entire process is based on scientific fact. However, I would just like to point out that there are hundreds of example of problems arising from products deemed safe by scientists. Thalydomide was given the green light by scientists as was asbestos and UFFI. People do not see scientist approval as an absolute guarantee.
Although it is not part of your mandate, how do you think you can rally people to the project in its current state?