Government Operations Committee on April 19th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

We will go to our final five-minute intervention with Mr. Whalen, and following that I will excuse our witnesses. We'll suspend for a moment or two to go in camera for committee business.

Mr. Whalen, please.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you again for coming back.

At noon today we talked a lot about the main estimates, but also the process by which we hope to harmonize the estimates process, and maybe also the costs in accrual accounting. Another issue that the minister alluded to this morning was the pilot project on transport funding and going to a more project-oriented reporting system. A lot of the questions we had today were really about project funding. If we'd had more insight through the estimates process, our questions might have been more advanced.

With that in mind, I have a couple of questions about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and its increase of something on the order of $850 million over last year to transition to a new model of delivery. With respect to the process of moving to the government-owned, contractor-operated contractor, does your department have insight into the process by which the contractor was selected?

[Brian Pagan]

First of all, there was a policy decision to move from AECL being a crown corporation to a government-owned, contractor-operated model. That went to both cabinet and then to Treasury Board for approval. The contracting process, the selection of the consortium, was a submission to Treasury Board for approval.

So to that extent, yes, there was a line of sight and approval from Treasury Board ministers. The process was administered and run out of Natural Resources Canada and AECL, but they had to come back to Treasury Board for the requisite approvals on that.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Was it a widely responded-to process for the selection of the contractor?

[Brian Pagan]

I would have to get details on the RFP process and the number of bids, but yes, there were very prominent global firms bidding for that. The consortium is an international consortium of both Canadian and international firms.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Great.

My understanding is that some type of self-funded model for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste was meant to have been set up. How is that being funded? Is it part of this $850-million increase to establish this fund? Is the fund being managed by the Government of Canada? Is it being managed by banks?

The self-funded fund for management of the nuclear waste is stipulated under the contract.

[Brian Pagan]

Right. As part of the new model, the government-owned, contractor-operated model, for what is now known as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, there was a transfer of some responsibility. There was a program previously at NRCan, known as the nuclear legacy liabilities program, and that might be the initiative you are referring to. That was transferred from Natural Resources Canada to AECL as part of this policy overview. The funding this year.... That liability would stretch out several years to extinguish.

What we see in our appropriation requirements this year is the portion of the funding required to deal with that program in this fiscal year.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Do you know what percentage or what amount of the $850 million is the contingent environmental liability, the nuclear liability, that's being transferred to the government-owned corporation?

[Brian Pagan]

Volume III of public accounts will have a detailed listing of the government's different liabilities and obligations. We would go back to that and extract that information for you.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Is this something we should be able to figure out ourselves, just by looking at the estimates? This really gets back to the theme of how this reporting process can allow parliamentarians to move quicker to the heart of the issue they're trying to get at in these sessions.

[Brian Pagan]

Right. That's a great question, Mr. Whalen.

In the C.D. Howe report that the minister referenced earlier today, and that I would commend to the committee, Controlling the Public Purse, there was a grading of Canada's senior governance. The starting point for C.D. Howe was to ask whether a reasonably informed parliamentarian or citizen could move from the budget to the estimates to the public accounts and find information.

For the most part, we get reasonably good marks for the transparency and coherence of our documents. We do fall down in terms of this rating because our estimates are before the budget. We mix people up, as a consequence. There can be challenges reconciling accrual numbers and cash numbers.

The minister, as he said, has the intention of dealing with that. If we could get the estimates after the budget, then that would enhance your ability to follow the trail, so to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I think I'll call an end to it. We're out of time, however I have a couple of points. You referenced the C.D. Howe report. Our clerk has informed me that he's able to distribute that to all committee members.

Also, Mr. Pagan, you and your colleagues referenced on a number of occasions additional information that you didn't have at your disposal but would be able to provide. Could we have your commitment that all of that information will be provided to the committee, through the clerk, for distribution to all of the committee members?

[Brian Pagan]

It would be our pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

With that, witnesses, thank you very much for your appearance here for the second time today. You are excused.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes and then go in camera for some committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]