Finance Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

It's actually one of my first times at the finance committee, and it's ironic that we're discussing atomic energy. Just a few weeks back, I had a chance to talk to some of your employees, including one of the scientists. I can tell you that there is a great deal of anxiety in terms of this individual's job, but he was telling me about the experience of other people employed. There is a great deal of anguish and anxiety. These individuals actually brought forward a couple of questions.

First, has an analysis been done within the workplace on the impact that a private owner would have for AECL?

[Cécile Cléroux]

In the process that is under way, this is part of the studies being made by AECL themselves. This is part of the elements that will have to be taken into account as the government makes the decision about divesting, or not, this component of AECL.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Were any of the engineers, scientists, or other employees at AECL consulted during the process? Or will they be consulted?

[Cécile Cléroux]

There wasn't extensive consultation to be undertaken on those topics, but the channel of communication is open. There have already been meetings, with the different representatives of employees, to be able to listen to their concerns and for us to be able to adjust the process going forward, taking those concerns into account.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

One of the things you mentioned was that investors have been solicited for the purchase. Can you share with us how many investors have been solicited and how many offers have been put forward so far?

[Cécile Cléroux]

Since the divestiture concerns a commercial entity, we cannot divulge at this time the different companies that have been included. Everyone has signed a non-disclosure agreement, and this is part of the process that is ongoing. So at this time it is premature to be able to share that information.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I have a special interest in Canada-India relations. We know that the Prime Minister was there in late November of last year. India currently has about 17 reactors, which are only providing 2.5% of the energy for their particular population. I know that counties such as India and, as John said, China have expressed an interest. Can you perhaps share with us, on the number of investors that have been solicited, whether any component of that includes foreign ownership?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The variety of investors that have been solicited are really based on the potential to make the Canadian nuclear industry a flourishing one, so the investors that have been solicited include those potential investors.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

So they do include foreign investors.

[Cécile Cléroux]

They include companies, investors, that have the potential for proposals that will make the Canadian nuclear industry flourish. This is the only thing we can say at this time.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I think the concern, from people I've spoken to and from what I can hear from other colleagues who have expressed their questions to you as well, is again an anxiety for the 30,000 jobs that we have here, even if there is a foreign ownership that does take over and that agreement is considered by cabinet. Will a protection be put in place for those 30,000 jobs of AECL employees?

[Cécile Cléroux]

It's not 30,000 jobs at AECL, per se. You're talking about the amount of direct and indirect employment related to the nuclear industry in Canada. As to the approximate number of people who are part of the reactor division, we talk about roughly 2,000 people; that's a round number, an approximation.

Those jobs are part of the objectives that have been put forward by government, part of the elements that will be taken into account when examining the binding offers that will be forthcoming.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

We will now move on to Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The concept of conflict of interest is part of our work, on a daily basis. If you look at the ownership of the Rothschild company, you will see that the main shareholders are still well established, particularly in Paris. The family, the five brothers, have opened businesses in a number of cities, including Vienna, Frankfurt, Paris, London and another that escapes me at the moment. Mr. McCallum very correctly pointed out that AREVA is one of the companies for which it would be commercially very advantageous to kill off AECL and stop production of the CANDU reactor, which is a competitor. As well, one analysis suggests that certain parts of the design of the CANDU reactor, if we consider how it is designed, in today's world, involves real accident risks.

I would like to know whether the conflict of interest relating to the CANDU reactor, whether real or potential, and involving the other companies owned by Rothschild and AREVA, will be included in the equation before this big contract is awarded to N M Rothschild & Sons.

[Jean-Frédéric Lafaille, Policy Director, AECL Review - CANDU, Department of Natural Resources]

The process that led to Rothschild being retained was managed by Public Works and Government Services Canada. That question would have to be put to their representatives because the contractual relationship between Public Works and Government Services Canada and...

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

To be sure we understand each other clearly, my question is this. Was an analysis done of the possible conflict of interest between Rothschild and AREVA? Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Lafaille.

My second question relates to the CANDU reactors. Historically, since it was designed and first brought on line, has there ever been an action in damages arising out of an accident at any CANDU reactor?

[Cécile Cléroux]

We are going to have to answer you later. Because we aren't representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, we don't have that information with us. We will find out and send you the information.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

The bill currently being examined, Bill C-15, which seeks to reduce the limit in the event of nuclear accident to $650 million, is that part of the proposals? In other words, is passage of the bill assumed in discussions with potential purchasers of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited?

[Cécile Cléroux]

According to our information, one isn't conditional on the other.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

That is a very important piece of information, thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

We will now move on to Mr. Carrier, Mr. Regan and Mr. Paillé.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Cléroux.

If I understand correctly, you spoke a little earlier about the part of AECL's operations. The reactor part, only, accounts for about 2,000 employees. How many employees are there at AECL?

[Jean-Frédéric Lafaille]

There are about 5,000 employees.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You say that this relates to the reactors, but I didn't see that in the bill. I am looking at clause 2141, concerning the powers given to AECL. Those powers allow it to sell or dispose of some or all of its assets, to sell or dispose of some or all of its liabilities. So it doesn't have the clarification you gave, that this relates primarily to the reactors.

Is this an orientation that arose along the way? I don't think it appears in the bill.

[Cécile Cléroux]

The announcements that were made in May 2009 and December 2009 clearly indicated that what could be the subject of a transaction is the CANDU reactors portion and not the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited research and development portion. The bill is drafted in such a way as to allow it to go ahead for some or all, because it had to be worded that way. At present, the research and development component of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not part of the transaction process underway.