I'll make a few comments to kick it off.
I think Canada has had a decades-long program looking into the management of the most serious nuclear waste—that is the used nuclear fuel—and has been managing its nuclear waste all this time.
Canada, like some of the other early nuclear countries, started in the 1940s, in wartime, so we have a legacy of waste that was not particularly well documented and disposed of in the early days. That's been a difficult and troublesome topic in terms of cleanup of places like Chalk River.
As far as the nuclear fuel is concerned, I think that engineers would believe that it's quite understandable and feasible that we know how to store the waste underground in deep geological repositories. From a technical point of view, we look at the numbers and we would say that the risks to our lives are extremely low from those kinds of depositories and we know how to do it. The key is the social licence, because only when people will accept a waste depository in their neighbourhood can it go ahead. It seems to me that the NWMO is pursuing that in a very careful and well-thought-out way and is engaging with people in a way that I hope will succeed in building and creating that social licence, so I think that's actually the key.
The cost of waste management and treatment as a portion of the cost of electricity from nuclear power is very tiny. It's an extremely small fraction of the total cost of the electricity that's being produced, so I don't feel concerned over the total cost as it will arise over the years, knowing that the nuclear utilities are supposed to put money into a waste fund that will fund that work.
I think the key is the social licence.