Evidence of meeting #97 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aecl.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll do our best to split the time.
Just on the location, very quickly, how long has the Chalk River site been the AECL site?
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I think it has been over 60 years.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
That's what I thought, 60 or 70 years. It has been there as long as I can remember, anyway, and I'm not that old.
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I'm told it has been 70 years.
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Yes.
May 8th, 2018 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
First of all, I want to congratulate you on the report. We see a lot of reports come through. In general, you've done a good job, even in the context that the board was changing, as well as the administration. That's just a general comment.
One of the things that came to me that I was surprised about was with respect to public meetings. One of the findings in the report was that since 2009 there had not been a public meeting held. As you are aware, that is a requirement under the Financial Administration Act.
I believe, though, that since then, you've held one meeting. It was held last year. Can you tell me why, from 2009 until 2017, there was not one publicly held meeting?
4:25 p.m.
Chair of the Board of Directors, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I can't tell you why, precisely.
4:25 p.m.
Chair of the Board of Directors, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I think it fell somehow during all this restructuring and all the changes that had been made.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
That's why it's even more important to have public meetings at that point, than not.
4:25 p.m.
Chair of the Board of Directors, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Absolutely, and that's why we set up the public meeting last year, which I think was very well attended. This week, actually, we have our second annual public meeting in two years. We'll have that public meeting in Pinawa to allow the individuals in the Whiteshell area, and others, because it's webcast across the country. Anyone who wants to listen in can do that.
I can assure you that in the coming years we will have an annual public meeting every year.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
I appreciate that, but again, I'm just concerned that there wasn't one for about six or seven years. It's so important, because as Mr. Deltell was saying, it is an industry that is not very well perceived in the sense that there are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of concerns. The fact is that the less you communicate with the public, the more you actually exacerbate those concerns.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Okay.
I'm just curious. I'd like to know from you guys, with respect to the change that happened when you converted to this government-owned, contractor-operated model, what the benefits are. What have you seen? I know you haven't been there that long, but before, it was basically government owned, and now it's contracted out. What are the benefits that you see from that?
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
The benefits have been seen across the world, because Canada did a great job of going out and saying, “Here's what our situation is with the lab. What are other countries doing? What has been working?”
I would argue that the GOCO model that is being implemented in Canada is truly a Canadian GOCO model. It's based on many of the lessons learned both at the Department of Energy and at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in the U.K., which has a $165-billion liability. Their liability is significantly larger in terms of decommissioning and waste management.
The benefit you get is a cultural transition that occurs relatively quickly. It's one that improves safety performance. There's actual data out there that shows that the performance relative to health and safety and environment actually improves. You also get better value for money. You have a contractor who's able to extract lessons learned across the world on this type of work. It's very complex. It requires a high degree of specialization in terms of understanding how to do this. What you get through the GOCO model is that expertise and a commercial edge to it.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
We're up on our time.
Shaun do you want to go now? Is it all right if we go here and back?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Just before I go into the next round of questions, I noticed that Mr. Sexton used the term “notoriety”. He said that AECL Chalk River has notoriety around the world. Notoriety has a negative connotation, the state of being famous or well-known for some bad quality or deed.
When you use that word, I was quite disturbed as you're now the president.
Would you explain why you used notoriety instead of fame? Why did you use something with a negative connotation about Chalk River Laboratories?
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Well, I'm sorry if I left that impression. It probably wasn't the best term to use.
What I really wanted to express is that the status of the Chalk River site has significantly improved in terms of the rest of the world understanding it, understanding what its mission is, and recognizing that it is now in the process of being revitalized. It's now playing a significant role on the international stage relative to things like small modular reactors. It's seen as an example of change using the GOCO model. We regularly interface with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, sharing some lessons learned in terms of that.
I misspoke in terms of notoriety. What I meant was that in the most positive way the reputation of CNL has been improved significantly over the last couple of years.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay. Thank you.
Now I want you to move to the near surface waste disposal. It was raised earlier.
I understand that CNL is currently involved in another near-surface waste disposal site which is near Port Hope. They are currently taking the materials out of the neighbourhoods and putting them into this facility. They're getting hands-on experience beforehand, and later on they will be applying this experience to the near-surface waste disposal at Chalk River.
When the proposal for the near-surface waste disposal facility was brought to the CNSC initially, they were sent back with 200 recommendations.
Can you tell me whether or not all of those recommendations were addressed?
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I can't tell you if all of them were. I can tell you that, when the process is done, every one will be addressed, and that's just part of the process.
In terms of the comments or questions around disposition. That is part of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission process. It's a very systematic and robust process, so if there are any questions, CNL would be expected to provide a detailed, written response on whatever the questions were. I know that CNL is well on its way to answering those questions. In this process it's not unexpected that there are several rounds of these types of questions. This is a complex question. The regulator is quite robust, as it should be, to ensure the health, safety, and protection of things like the river. This is part of the process. It's not unexpected that there would be a high volume of questions. That's normal for this type of review process.
