Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you don't have time, I would ask that you respond to the questions in writing to the committee after this.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Auditor General, we hear that one of the outstanding problems that AECL had with the previous government was its inability to get approval for a corporate plan. This led to a number of unresolved strategic issues, including the funding of a replacement research reactor mentioned in the 1998 report. The issue came up again in the 2002 report, where it was stated that there was no consensus on how best to manage the nuclear platform, which included sustaining nuclear medicine.
So the previous government had been made aware of the problems at AECL on more than one occasion by your office. In the special examination report of the board of directors of AECL in 2007, in the section that refers to the unresolved strategic challenges and, more specifically, the completion of a dedicated isotopes facility, there was not the same sense of urgency that had been indicated in the 2002 report. How should the government of the day have responded to the 2002 report—which would have avoided what happened in 2007?
In 2002, billions of dollars were being directed into foundations. So funds for R and D were available, but why not for AECL?
What was AECL doing wrong that they would not be considered an appropriate candidate for what your reports have identified as a crown corporation in desperate need of funding?
Does your office audit the CNSC?
And lastly, in the 1998 report, there was mention of the workers finding some kind of nerve gas buried there. Could you tell me specifically what that substance was, and on whose behalf was it buried there?
We'll just go from there. Thank you.