Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I was looking through the audit in terms of weaknesses, I noticed, on the issue of systems and practices, that the board has not yet implemented a formal systemic process for monitoring reporting on risks identified in the corporate risk register. That jumped out at me because you're in the business of risk more than anything else. You have to reassure the public on risk.
I want to go back to the incident of 10 years ago, to the impasse between AECL and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission during the isotope crisis. It was about the question of who called what an acceptable risk. There was the issue that the isotopes were not created. It could have serious effects in the medical system. At the time, Linda Keen said the risks were one thousand times greater than international standards. She was overruled and then subsequently fired by the Harper government.
In those 10 years, how has the corporate structure changed in terms of addressing who decides what is an acceptable risk? How do you maintain that with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and how do you report that risk?