I heard a few comments or questions from that side of the committee asking about a report to the CNSC.
Mr. Binder, you just gave a very good answer, very reasonable. However, as a person who has been working in the nuclear industry for more than 10 years, I know that my mentality and that of my colleagues is that we cannot afford any mistakes. For us, for the people working in the nuclear industry, I have to say that science is black and white, right or wrong, because any decision we make could cost big consequences in the future. That's a big potential. I just wanted to mention this mentality of ours.
I have a question for AECL. AECL has been there for more than 60 years. It has enjoyed a long history as a highly regarded organization, in particular with respect to our CANDU reactor design technology at the Chalk River lab. When I joined the Chalk River lab 10 years ago, I was very proud to be part of an organization with such a glorious history. Now, though, it seems that this is all history.
AECL has three divisions. The first division, CANDU engineering, I mean, Sheridan Park, has been sold. The second part, R and D technology division, is now under the so-called GOCO model, so AECL would just oversee that. It's not hands-on management. The third part of AECL, the liability management, I'm sure will eventually be taken care of by other organizations such as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or other facilities such as a deep geological repository for long-term storage of nuclear waste.
What is the motivation for this transition of AECL's role in Canada? How can we maintain our R and D capability when AECL's importance has been so greatly diminished? What is the benefit to Canadians? There are a whole bunch of questions. To any people, any observer from our side, it will appear as though AECL will not have hands-on management but will become a shell of its former self. Why?