Oh, all right.
In the case before us, the metals contaminated by radioactivity from Bruce Power would be transiting through Quebec on their way to Sweden. This explains our involvement in the Bruce Power plan and our decision to attend today's hearing and that organized by the CNSC where we were also represented.
Our organization must express its disappointment with the quality of the consultation process conducted by the CNSC in this case. Committee members should take note of the fact that we learned, to our great surprise, at the hearing that neither the project promoter nor the CNSC had had the courtesy to inform Quebec's political authorities about the nature of the project. The Quebec municipalities potentially concerned by the transportation of the proponent's radioactive waste were also kept in the dark. How then is it possible to explain why a plan to transport radioactive waste produced in Canada, involving the use of Quebec land, could be developed without the political authorities more specifically concerned being informed of the fact?
We were also disappointed by the lack of consideration shown by certain commission members at the hearing before the CNSC following the presentation of our brief. Certain comments suggested that the Quebec municipal councillors who had endorsed the resolution submitted to them had acted without the appropriate knowledge. Our resolution was even compared to a circular letter. When our brief was filed with the CNSC, 30 municipalities had endorsed the resolution at the time. Now there are 138 municipalities.
Allow me to reassure the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. In Quebec, when resolutions are adopted by elected members, they are adopted upon careful reflection. We have appended the wording of the resolution to our presentation and you will be able to determine whether it is appropriate.
Further to the CNSC hearing, we sent a document to Mr. André Régimbald, engineer and director general of nuclear substance regulation at the CNSC, informing him that it would be useful for CNSC staff to read our resolution and that we would like CNSC staff to be able to inform us in a detailed manner of any factual error that it might contain. That request was sent to him on January 26. At that time, 113 Quebec municipalities had adopted the resolution. We are still awaiting a response.
I must note the vigilance of the municipal elected representatives of our organization. Without the alert issued by my colleagues, the plan secretly developed by the Ontario Bruce Power company to use the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway and Quebec's road system to transport this radioactive waste to Sweden would not have received all the attention it deserved from the Quebec public and their provincial and municipal elected representatives.
Bruce Power's conduct and the CNSC's attitude have shown Canadians and Quebeckers the sad example of a private business and government agency utterly lacking the slightest respect for democratic rules that should actuate them in a matter with such obvious geopolitical implications.
The factual reasons for not authorizing the Bruce Power project for so-called metal recycling purposes are numerous. Even though they were stated by many stakeholders, the CNSC decided, in spite of everything, to support Bruce Power in its project.
In the circumstances, the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources will have a historic role to play. They will have to set aside all partisan political considerations in order to overturn this decision by the CNSC. Based on our analysis of the situation, the decision made by the CNSC has political consequences, and if carefully assessed by parliamentarians, they would want their direct intervention in this matter and the immediate withdrawal of the licence granted to Bruce Power.
In our view, the CNSC has exceeded the limits of its mandate by granting Bruce Power the licence. Did Mr. Binder do so in full knowledge of the facts? Did the CNSC take advantage of the absence of clearly defined policies to favour the nuclear industry to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian public?
One statement by Mr. Binder at the commission's public hearing leads us to believe that he was aware the decision he would have to make in fact exceeded his mandate. The evidence given at the hearing by Mr. Miles Goldstick, from the Swedish Environmental Movement's Nuclear Waste Secretariat illustrates this statement. During his remarks, Mr. Goldstick mentioned that the recycling project proposed by Bruce Power raised significant issues regarding the future management of nuclear waste on a global scale. President Binder called Mr. Goldstick to order, clearly stating that that aspect of the issue exceeded the mandate of the public hearings.
In fact, Mr. Binder should have adopted Mr. Goldstick's argument and added it to other policies in the matter to justify the decision to stay Bruce Power's application. The potential consequences of the interprovincial and international geopolitical issues involved are too serious for the members of this committee to remain silent on this matter.
Now I'm going to speak to the political reasons for withdrawing the CNSC's decision. The CNSC's decision to grant Bruce Power a licence to export and import radioactive waste for recycling purposes is utterly unacceptable from a political standpoint. A rigorous analysis of the situation should have led president Binder to inform the minister responsible for these activities that the political implications of a decision favourable to Bruce Power put it in a situation in which it exceeded its mandate.
In our view, this matter emphasizes the fact that the appropriate political authorities in Canada and Quebec should, on an urgent basis and in cooperation with the public, develop a policy clarifying, first, Canada's policy on the import and export of radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors that are decommissioned or rebuilt. Second, that policy will have to clarify Canada's policy—