Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 76 - Evidence - October 17, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 17, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I wish to welcome all those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online.
[Translation]
As a reminder to those watching, the committee hearings are open to the public and also available online on our website.
[English]
I would now like to ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I am Senator Éric Forest from the Gulf region in Quebec.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia, and I need to declare a conflict of interest as it relates to NRC. I’m a start-up entrepreneur and my company has received NRC IRAP grants.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. I have a conflict of interest because I have the same surname.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
I wish to welcome all those with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online. As a reminder I’d like to say again that it’s important, if we want to follow the committee proceedings online, to use sencanada.ca.
I would also like to recognize the clerk of the committee, Ms. Gaëtane Lemay, and also the two analysts, Mr. Alex Smith and Mr. Shaowei Pu, who team up to support the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators and members of the viewing public, the mandate of this committee is to examine matters relating to federal estimates, generally, as well as government finance.
Today we continue our consideration of the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, which were referred to the committee on April 18, 2018.
[Translation]
This evening, we will be hearing from representatives of federal organizations that we did not hear from in the spring, when the committee held seven meetings and met with officials from 15 departments and agencies to discuss their Main Estimates.
[English]
This evening we have representatives from three organizations before us. First, from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, we have Richard Sexton, President and Chief Executive Officer; and also Shannon Quinn, Vice-President, Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight. From the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, we welcome Michael Saunders, President and Chief Executive Officer; and he is accompanied by Nancy Fitchett, Acting Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Chief Financial Officer. And finally, from the National Research Council Canada, we have Iain Stewart, President, who is accompanied by Dale MacMillan, Vice President, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer.
Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation as witnesses to explain and give your comments on the budget and the vote you are asking for your organizations. I have been informed by the clerk that we will commence with Mr. Sexton, to be followed by Mr. Saunders and Mr. Stewart, and after that, senators will ask questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Sexton, you may go ahead.
Richard Sexton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
[English]
It is a pleasure to be here this evening. I would like to speak to you about the initiatives we have under way at AECL in relation to the appropriations that were approved through the 2018 Main Estimates.
I would like to say a few words about our organization. AECL is a federal Crown corporation that was established in 1952. Our mandate is to enable nuclear science and technology and to manage the Government of Canada’s radioactive waste and decommissioning responsibilities. Most of our sites are in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. Our largest site is the Chalk River Laboratories, located about two hours northwest of Ottawa.
The Chalk River Laboratories are Canada’s largest science and technology complex. The site is the birthplace of significant advancements in nuclear technology. For example, the laboratory developed Canada’s own CANDU reactor technology, which has been deployed in many countries outside of Canada, including Argentina, Romania, South Korea and China.
Also, for decades the laboratory helped develop and produce life-saving medical isotopes to the benefit of over a billion people.
I understand there are some new faces on the committee, so I would like to provide a quick description of how the recent implementation of the Government-Owned Contractor-Operated, or GOCO, model works. First, AECL retains ownership of properties, facilities and assets for our nuclear sites. We also retain ownership of Canada’s $7.5 billion liability for the legacy radioactive waste across our sites.
AECL is now a small oversight organization of approximately 40 employees that specifies what we want to do and monitors performance. AECL has contracted Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL, a private sector corporation, to deliver the work. CNL is now owned by a consortium of three global corporations and is responsible for the development of plans and the overall management and operations of our sites.
The GOCO model allows AECL to leverage the expertise and experience of the private sector to accelerate the decommissioning and radioactive waste management program and build a world-class nuclear laboratory at Chalk River, while reducing costs and risks to Canada.
Tonight, I would like to spend some time updating this committee on how this model is working; indeed, we are confident that it is working for the benefit of Canada.
We continue to have an important mandate in nuclear science and technology, most notably the management of the Federal Nuclear Science and Technology Work Plan, which serves the needs of 13 different federal departments and agencies in the areas of health, safety, security, energy and the environment.
Looking towards the future, opportunities related to small modular reactors, or SMRs, are being explored given Canada’s expertise in nuclear technology, including its existing supply chain, uranium resources, strong regulator and potential market.
SMRs are a potential source of clean, safe and reliable power to enable Canadian resource businesses and are bringing energy options to remote communities. Canada is viewed internationally as having a leading market position, and Canada has an opportunity to build on its competitive advantage to innovate and create jobs both domestically and internationally.
AECL is currently exploring options to host demonstration SMRs in Canada. Such projects, while still in the exploratory stage, could be the next chapter of Canada’s nuclear industry, which, today, is a $6 billion per year industry.
Another important part of our responsibility is to manage AECL’s legacy radioactive waste. We have a responsibility to tackle these challenges now so as to not leave them to future generations. This involves the decommissioning of old facilities and buildings, remediation of contaminated soil and disposal of this waste. Since the implementation of the GOCO some three years ago, approximately 63 buildings have been decontaminated and demolished, paving the way for new and renewed science buildings on the sites.
The transformation of the Chalk River site into a modern, world-class science campus has been accelerated and enabled by a $1.2 billion investment from AECL and the Government of Canada. Work has begun on a new logistics facility, and two new science facilities have been inaugurated.
AECL is managing the Government of Canada’s responsibility for historic low-level radioactive waste where the government has accepted responsibility for that remediation. This includes a $1.2 billion project to clean up historic waste in the municipalities of Port Hope and Clarington in Ontario. The Port Hope Area Initiative represents Canada’s commitment to clean up and safely manage historic low-level waste.
In summary, under the GOCO model, AECL and CNL have achieved much in the short three years this model has been in place. There has been important scientific work advancing alpha therapy and advancing the prospects of demonstrating SMR technology. We have opened new facilities, we have accelerated decommissioning, and we are delivering important environmental remediation work around Port Hope and Port Granby.
We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Michael Saunders, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: Thank you for the opportunity for CATSA to appear before you. Honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, I am Michael Saunders, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, also known as CATSA.
[Translation]
CATSA is an agent Crown corporation that is fully funded by parliamentary appropriations and is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. CATSA was mandated by the Government of Canada to protect the public by securing critical elements of the air transportation system. As the screening authority for national civil aviation, CATSA is regulated by Transport Canada, the national authority responsible for ensuring civil aviation safety.
[English]
In this context, CATSA’s mandate outlines its four core responsibilities within the realm of aviation security: preboard screening, or PBS, the screening of passengers and their belongings prior to their entry into the secure area of an air terminal building; hold baggage screening, the screening of passengers’ checked, or hold, baggage to prevent the boarding of prohibited items; non-passenger screening, the random screening of non-passengers accessing restricted areas at the highest-risk airports; and the restricted area identity card, the program that uses iris and fingerprint biometric identifiers to allow non-passengers access to a restricted area of an airport.
[Translation]
CATSA expects to screen more than 70 million passengers and their belongings in 2018-19. Given the continued long-term growth of air transportation, that number is expected to reach nearly 88 million by 2023-24, an increase of 18 million passengers over the next five years.
Excluding Budget 2018, CATSA received $586.2 million in voted appropriations through the Main Estimates. With that funding, CATSA will be able to continue delivering its core mandated activities. This will include the ongoing deployment of CATSA’s new hold baggage screening system at airports across Canada, as part of its capital life-cycle management plan, and the enhancement of select pre-board screening checkpoints to improve the passenger experience.
[English]
In addition to this funding of $586.2 million, Budget 2018 provided CATSA with $240.6 million in incremental funding for 2018-19. This funding will primarily allow CATSA to continue to strive for a wait-time service level where on average 85 per cent of all passengers are waiting 15 minutes or less to be screened at Canada’s eight busiest airports on an annual basis. And it will allow CATSA to continue also to deliver the enhanced non-passenger screening program.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I want to say how delighted I am to be here with my colleagues Nancy Fitchett, Acting Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Chief Financial Officer, and Neil Parry, Vice President of Service Delivery, who will help me answer any questions you have regarding our Main Estimates or the funding we received under Budget 2018. Thank you.
Iain Stewart, President, National Research Council Canada: I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today with respect to the 2018-19 Main Estimates of the National Research Council, or NRC for short. I am joined by my colleague Dale MacMillan, Vice-President of Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer.
The NRC has two branches. The first is a network of labs. We have some 3,700 highly skilled researchers and staff who work in 14 research centres operating out of 22 locations across the country.
The NRC’s total annual expenditures amount to $1.02 billion, including $192 million for small and medium enterprises, or SMEs, under the Industrial Research Assistance Program, or IRAP, for short.
[English]
IRAP is a program that supports technology SMEs through funding to help share their risk. It’s distributed through a team nationally and is available on average for around 3,000 enterprises each year.
The NRC just celebrated last year its one hundredth anniversary. The NRC has had a range of inventions over its life, things like radar, pacemakers, the black box for airplane crashes, vaccines for meningitis, flying jet planes on algae fuel. Things of this nature have come out of the laboratory side. A broad range of Canadian SMEs have gone on to growth and success through the financial support of IRAP.
The National Research Council Canada works in collaboration with others. We are networked with universities and colleges across the country. We do about 800 to 1,000 contracts with business for business-collaborative research through the labs. As I mentioned, we support about 3,000 companies a year, but we talk to and deal with about 7,000 SMEs a year. We work with research hospitals, other government departments, provincial government departments. We’re a very networked and collaborative organization.
For the Main Estimates this year, as I mentioned, we have $1.02 billion in funding for this year; $806 million is our appropriation, and $220 million is statutory income, of which the largest part is earned through external contracts for other government departments or for Canadian and other business interests operating in Canada.
The overall goal of our activity is to encourage business innovation; second, the advancement of knowledge, understanding the world in which we live; and third, supporting public policy mandates, like National Defence but also metrology and subject matters like that.
Budget 2018 increased our funding by $258 million a year on average. This was intended to increase our collaborations with universities and our support for SMEs. It was also to do other things, such as encourage more exploratory disruptive research in technology areas as well as stabilize our finance because part of our core budget had been B-base funding renewed every five years.
Last, the budget exhorted us to work on the diversity and inclusiveness of our workforce. The NRC is a diverse workplace, but there are certainly opportunities to improve the representation of women, Indigenous Canadians, and disabled Canadians and Canadians from visible minority groups. The budget exhorted us to make further efforts in that regard.
The Chair: Thank you all for your information and clarification in order to justify your budget requests.
Senator Pratte: I would begin by asking a couple of questions of Mr. Sexton. I am not absolutely familiar with the new GOCO model, which is quite recent. I would like to understand a little bit better how it works. For instance, in the case of decommissioning nuclear installations, there are obviously difficult decisions to take as to how you will proceed, what you will do with the radioactive waste, and so on. I understand that it’s your contractor who makes these decisions, or do you as the oversight institution have a say in how such a laboratory or plant will be decommissioned and how waste will be treated?
Mr. Sexton: That’s a great question. First, we don’t as AECL specify exactly how the work might be executed. I would provide some assurance to you and others who might hear my response that it is really the safety and how the work is executed is overseen very carefully by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Our expectation would be that all work would be done safely, that all work would be in full compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, which are principally driven by the CNSC requirements. We do oversight of that work. We have individuals who go out and verify that it’s meeting best practices. I do have individuals on my staff who are very experienced in delivering this type of work, and we’re always interested in assuring that it’s done safely, efficiently and cost-effectively. The principal assurance about safety and where the waste might go, that’s really under the purview and responsibility of the CNSC.
Senator Pratte: The oversight role you play is mainly financial and management oversight, is that it?
Mr. Sexton: We would also work with the contractor and decide with them what areas we might need to have decommissioned in order to work to build some new facilities, so it’s fairly collaborative. Our mantra is we say “the what” and they do “the how.” So we might decide that we want to move and build new buildings. We have got $1.2 billion. So always working with our contractor, we make the final decisions in terms of what direction we are going. That’s laid out in a fairly detailed 5-year and 10-year plan which we approve along with our board.
So that’s the strategy that we have. And the contractor is expected to execute against that, and we look at it year by year to see whether this is meeting what Canada needs.
Senator Pratte: So when the government decides to provide money to you, the $1.2 billion investment, are you in charge of spending that money, or do you just give out the money to the contractor?
Mr. Sexton: No. It’s a very controlled process where, first of all, we approve the five-year plan or 10-year plan. We approve it and they propose it. On a year-by-year basis, for this particular set of monies, we lay out a very detailed annual program of work and budget that specifies exactly what our expectations are around whatever they might spend. They are responsible for issuing contracts and those types of things, but what needs to be done is our decision.
Senator Pratte: So is this a form of P3?
Mr. Sexton: No. I would not say it’s a P3. It’s a model that is used internationally. I have experienced working in the U.K. and also in the U.S., and it’s a model that seems to work reasonably well for these complex clean-up, lab-type operations, and that’s the model that’s being used here in Canada.
Senator Pratte: I have a final question, and then I’ll go on second round.
So if a group of citizens are worried or concerned about a particular project, and it happens — you have some controversial projects — who would they address their complaints or concerns to? Is it to you, to the contractor, to the government or to the safety commission?
Mr. Sexton: If it’s a member of the public, they can go in any direction they want, as we all know. What generally happens is that CNL, our contractor, proposes these types of activities, something like the Near Surface Disposal Facility, and it’s certainly drawn some interest on the part of the public. That’s drawn into a very systemic process that the CNSC has where they will take it and evaluate it. They provide opportunities for members of the public to question it. They even fund members of the public or concerned citizens.
And then who answers those questions frequently depends on the nature of the question. If it’s a very technical question, typically CNL or CNSC will answer it. If it’s a broader question, sometimes AECL will answer it. If there is a question out there from a member of the public about who is ultimately responsible for this waste, we say that’s us.
Senator Pratte: Thank you very much.
Senator Andreychuk: I have the same line of questioning. It used to be a much simpler system. If we want to contain a contaminated site, who says that it needs to be changed? Where is the technical capability? Who triggers it? And how does it go through the process? Because the more you speak, the more confused I get. It’s CNL and this and that.
If there is contamination, we have to contain it. Who makes the decision of how it will be contained? Who has the oversight? In other words, if something goes wrong, where does the buck stop? You say you have certain oversight roles but not really in certain areas. It seems to be a very complex system, but it’s not clear to me from your explanations.
Mr. Sexton: I’m sorry. I would say, even when I was first exposed to this system, because it’s used internationally, it is a bit complicated, but there are reasons why it’s complicated. I can’t go into that here.
If there is a building or an area that has contamination that needs to be remediated, the decision starts with the scientific folks that we have out at Chalk River, for example. So those individuals who have skills and understanding about what the material is and what might best contain that material will propose something to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They will say, “This is what we want to do. We believe that this will take care and essentially contain it.” It’s a great word because that’s really what you do most of the time with this material. You just try to keep it in a particular configuration so that you can continue to monitor it for a long time or until it decays away.
So the decision is based on science and on best international practices. For all these types of activities there are accepted practices for how to do this type of work. The CNSC has those.
Senator Andreychuk: I think I understand that scientists have to tell us, and then it goes through a process, and we should be accountable. But who makes those decisions? Because there are a lot of agencies. And when something goes wrong — and we have had that around the world — people want to know what went wrong, why it went wrong and who was accountable. I think our job is oversight and to make sure the systems are accountable. We are spending a lot of money. We have dangerous commodities. Who is accountable if that series of people and contractors breaks down? Because you were saying you had some oversight but not all the oversight. So who has oversight that it is properly contained, that it is built properly, that it continues to be supervised and is not a danger any more than the risk we take by having it?
Mr. Sexton: In my view, that is the responsibility of the CNSC. They are the agency responsible for verifying anything proposed by a licensee. The licencee is CNL. They own the material under a licence. It’s our responsibility, but they own the material, and they are responsible to the CNSC for ensuring that that material does not pose any risk to a member of the public, the worker or the environment. That is their responsibility.
So if an activity is proposed, they are the agency responsible, using science, to make sure that whatever is proposed is appropriate. And moving forward, by the licence, they will also make sure that whatever actions were done are continually monitored to make sure that the desired outcome is actually occurring.
Senator Andreychuk: So what is your responsibility?
Mr. Sexton: Our responsibility is ultimately to a member of the public. Should that go wrong and something happens, which I think is very unlikely given the robustness, we are responsible financially. So we will make sure that we are responsible for whatever needs to be done around whatever action may occur.
Senator Andreychuk: So the money you are requesting is used to make sure that the oversight is there. Should any disaster of any kind occur, are you contemplating that there is something built in there to address it? Or are you just working on day-to-day administration?
Mr. Sexton: We don’t operate in a world where we have disasters or would anticipate disasters. The way we operate is that day to day we make sure, as is the case right now, that material is in a safe configuration, that it is not impacting the public or the environment. Much of the work and even the controversy that you are hearing about is to take a safe condition and make it safer. And that’s something that the CNSC has been overseeing for years and years. Our responsibility is to ensure that the contractor is delivering on a schedule and doing it in the proper timing, so we lay out long-term plans. But AECL does not have the capacity or the responsibility to verify that it’s technically correct. That is the CNSC, and it’s clear to those doing that work that they are responsible for that material, to keep it in a safe configuration. Our responsibility is more of a financial responsibility.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question is for Mr. Sexton. Clearly, this is a very complex realm, especially when you consider major issues such as decontamination and the awarding of carbon credits. An equally important consideration is the fact that nuclear energy is being embraced as a way forward in order to replace coal power and generate hydroelectricity. Although it’s all incredibly complex, sometimes it’s worth simplifying things. There is a saying that goes if you want something done right, do it yourself. I’d like to know about the thought process that led you to this new model. In other words, why did you decide to delegate responsibility for the management and operation of the nuclear laboratories and go with a government owned contractor operated model? What were the main reasons that prompted the change?
[English]
Mr. Sexton: I’ll start the answer and ask Shannon to complete it because she was involved.
This is a model that’s used internationally. You suggested that there was some delegation or a change in delegation. I would say, well, not really. It’s a different way of configuring the business aspects of this, and it’s a different way of leveraging international experience in how best to execute this. But the actual responsibility for the management of waste that Canada is responsible for, really, it’s the same people doing it. There is a slightly different management process, but the 3,400 people that work for CNL used to work for AECL; it’s the same people. It’s really a refinement of a delivery model that has proved to be more efficient than the existing or the previous arrangement.
I’ll let Shannon give you a bit of an answer around how Canada and the government decided to get to this point, because she was involved.
Shannon Quinn, Vice President, Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: Part of the question you asked is isn’t it better just to do it yourself, which we all know is historically what AECL did. Through the restructuring, AECL’s mandate did not really change. Today we continue to be responsible for enabling nuclear science and technology for the benefit of Canada and for properly discharging Canada’s responsibilities with respect to radioactive waste. That has remained, and we continue to have all of those same responsibilities, and we discharge those responsibilities for the best interests of Canadians.
What has changed is that now some of the execution of that work gets done by the private sector. The rationale behind that is that, on the government side, we have expertise in looking out for the interests of Canadians, but we don’t always have the same level of experience in actually doing the work on the ground. When we looked internationally at sites in the U.S. and the U.K., they have been using this alternative model for a number of years because you can take advantage of some of the expertise that resides primarily in the private sector around the actual delivery of the work.
This model is really trying to get the best of both worlds, where you still have AECL as a federal crown corporation and an agent of the Government of Canada looking out for the interests of Canadians and making decisions around the prioritization of the work and the type of work that will respond to the priorities of government. Then you also have multinational corporations who have done this very same work in other jurisdictions internationally bringing to bear that experience. They have executed this work on the ground in other countries. They have run these projects before, and they have systems and capabilities and the kind of business rigour that the government simply doesn’t have. We are seeing today some of the benefits that were anticipated from this model. When these private sector corporations came in, they did look at some of the plans in place and were able to identify areas to look at new options that would be as safe or safer, and would be able to discharge some of the liabilities in a way that was more expeditious and over the long term would reduce the risk to Canada.
I think the short answer to your question is that, in some instances, the Government of Canada simply doesn’t have the same level of experience executing the work, and that’s what we have contracted out. The Government of Canada has retained the responsibility for prioritization and for the decision making around exactly what will be done and when.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In a nutshell, then, Canada is using the expertise of large American or British multinationals, which develop their own capability. Canada has delegated responsibility for building Canadian expertise to a foreign corporation. Do I understand that correctly?
[English]
Mr. Sexton: Yes, but I would say that through this process Canada is also developing its own capability. This is not just contractors coming in and executing the work. The work is very complex, but as AECL and CNL proceed to execute this work, they are also going to be joining that club of countries that know and have real experience delivering this type of work.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: If it’s complex for you, imagine what it is like for us or for Canadians.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Thank you, all of you, for being here.
AECL is responsible for nuclear waste. Is that only the waste created at the Chalk River site and a site in — is it Manitoba or Saskatchewan?
Mr. Sexton: It’s Whiteshell; and also Port Hope. There are some other smaller sites. Anything that AECL actually had responsibility for, or that the government decided it was going to be responsible for, but it does not include the operating reactors.
Senator Neufeld: None of the facilities that generate Ontario’s hydro. The nuclear waste from those is not your responsibility?
Mr. Sexton: That’s correct.
Senator Neufeld: Okay. There is a new facility — and you touched on that — to store waste, but it’s created a bit of controversy. Can you tell me where that is at today? When do you plan on that taking place?
Mr. Sexton: The facility is proposed to be built on the Chalk River site. Most of the waste actually is at the Chalk River site, and 90 per cent of the material that will be placed in this facility is already at the Chalk River site. The other significant portion, the smaller portion, comes from a site we own and operate out at Whiteshell.
That’s the material, and generally people wonder what it is. It’s building material, so you have buildings that were built in the 1950s and 1960s and were used to handle radioactive material. The material falls on the floors and walls and they become radioactively contaminated.
So this Near Surface Disposal Facility is designed so that as the workforce takes those buildings down, the waste is sometimes put in trucks or bags or boxes or whatever and it’s then transported into this facility that will contain and prevent that material from going out into the environment.
It’s a complicated system of layers and pipes and stuff to ensure that you know exactly that the material is contained.
Where is it at? The CNL has developed an environmental impact assessment. That’s how the process works. That environmental impact assessment is under review by the CNSC. There are ongoing questions about the design, and we monitor the questions.
As to when exactly it will be approved, we don’t have a firm date, but we expect in the next year or two, no longer than that. And once it gets approved then the construction is about 18 months to two years. It’s not a particularly long or even complex design in our world.
Basically, it looks almost exactly like the facilities that were built down at Port Hope and Port Granby, so if anyone wants to know what these things look like, we just built two of them. Waste is being placed in those two facilities as we speak. It’s not really a new thing. It’s just new to Chalk River.
Senator Neufeld: One other question: There has been lots of talk over the years, at least that I have been here, from AECL with regard to developing small modular nuclear reactors to use in different places or even around the world, but I’m thinking about it for Northern Canada to replace diesel generation. I believe that development has been going on for a long time. Where is that at today?
Mr. Sexton: It has been going on for a long time, but I think there has been a step change in the last two to three years, and part of that step change has been that our contractor has brought in international experience, so they are very familiar on the technical side with the SMR world.
I’d say the world has changed a little, so whatever SMR was five years ago, it’s really a lot different now. It’s an exciting time for the lab, and I think it’s an exciting time for Canada because at this point, Canada is viewed by the international community interested in SMRs as a very friendly place to come and demonstrate your technology.
When I use the world “friendly,” I mean Canada has a very solid, reputable and well-known regulator. It has a supply chain that is capable of building some of these things. It has a lab like Chalk River that can do some of the R&D and research and material studies, and it has customers, potentially, in Canada in the form of mining industries and remote communities. SMR also has the capacity to be exported because in the real commercial model, you would have enough of these that are smaller, more affordable and simpler. Some of them are walk-away safe, so there are a lot of advantages to it.
I would say we are at the forefront, in Canada, on SMRs, and we’re moving to a position where we think there is a reasonable potential for having one of the technologies demonstrated at one of the AECL sites.
Senator Neufeld: When do you think something could be deployed? I have heard about what you’re talking about for a number years here at the Finance Committee. When do you think something like that could be deployed, let’s say, into Northern Canada?
Mr. Sexton: You have to demonstrate it first. I think 2026 is when we can get a demonstration, and as to when you could deploy it to the North, that’s not fully a technical question. There are a lot of issues associated there. Does the community want them?
Senator Neufeld: I got all that. So 2026?
Mr. Sexton: That’s what’s in our 10-year plan.
Senator Neufeld: That’s good enough for me because the plants up there now will wear out long before 2026.
The Chair: Thank you. This is just to remind senators that we have representatives here from two other agencies.
Senator C. Deacon: Maybe I can ask my quick question to AECL. So there is $1 billion of federal expenditures at the core of a $6 billion a year industry in Canada?
Mr. Sexton: Correct.
Senator C. Deacon: How do you define that $6 billion?
Mr. Sexton: That’s a number used by the industry that sums up all the money spent generating electricity. It’s all the supply chain, it’s some of these very large —
Senator C. Deacon: It’s all the expenditures on nuclear energy in this country?
Mr. Sexton: That’s my understanding.
Senator C. Deacon: You’re central to that?
Mr. Sexton: We’re the incubator for the CANDU technology. We’re the science side of it. We’re not the generator side.
Senator C. Deacon: Half your money is spent on cleaning up stuff from which the value has already been taken; it’s now just a cost?
Mr. Sexton: Correct.
Senator C. Deacon: And $450 million is in the largest lab in the country, and SMRs are one of the products of that?
Mr. Sexton: We hope so. They could be. They’re not there now.
Senator C. Deacon: Are there other products?
Mr. Sexton: There’s a wide variety of outputs.
Senator C. Deacon: Maybe you could provide something around the value you’re creating from the IP that is generated. That’s a huge research number, and I’m certain there is value created from it. It would be great to see you reporting on the value that is generated from the research you’re conducting. There is a big investment going in. What’s coming out the other side?
I think you need to report on that because right now it seems there is a lot going in, but in the future it’s like the British pub that says “free beer tomorrow.” You keep going back and it still says that. When are we going to get the value from that?
Mr. Sexton: I will keep my answer short, but a tremendous amount of that value is in the electricity that’s generated, so a lot of the research and support we provide to the generators in Canada is the value.
The Chair: Mr. Sexton, regarding the question that was asked, I hope you could revisit it and please send additional information to the clerk of the committee so that we can be in a position to make the proper recommendations when we table our report in the Senate.
Mr. Sexton: We will.
Senator C. Deacon: I’m really interested in CATSA because it’s so important, and you have had to make so many adjustments.
I’m wondering how you measure the per-passenger cost of screening and how that is tracking over time. Is that a metric that you monitor?
Mr. Saunders: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, it is a metric that we monitor. We have tracking associated to the cost per passenger as they travel through each airport. Some of the airports, such as Toronto Pearson, will have a lower cost than one would expect to see in Northern Canada, so we do have those costs. They trend higher over the winter months because of the increased bags and bins we have to look at, but we do track that.
Senator C. Deacon: Programs like NEXUS must affect, in a positive way, the per-passenger cost, you would expect?
Mr. Saunders: NEXUS is not a CATSA program.
Senator C. Deacon: I understand that, but your investment per passenger might be lower because it’s a better-vetted passenger, is it not?
Mr. Saunders: It’s a lower-risk passenger that we afford an expedited security screening experience to, but it’s really the same experience with minor modifications. You don’t have to take your shoes off, you can leave a belt, you can leave your liquids and gels in the bag, a light jacket, and small articles in your pockets — minor.
Senator C. Deacon: Are you looking for opportunities to streamline processes with lower-risk passengers in future?
Mr. Saunders: We are working closely with our regulator, Transport Canada, and we have given a number of suggestions, and we’re working closely with them to see if we can’t come up with improvements in the process and improvements in getting more membership into that program, and then the costs would go down, yes.
Senator C. Deacon: The other is the 15-minute average per passenger for making it through the screening process. Average numbers there don’t help a lot because for those of us who are sometimes tight on connections it’s the one extreme in particular that’s the concern. When you’re hitting that high threshold of well beyond 15 minutes, how often does that happen, and do you report that number where you’re really exceeding what is deemed to be a reasonable threshold?
Mr. Saunders: As you recall, I mentioned in my opening comments that this is on an average on an annual basis, so there are peak periods when people will wait a little longer for sure. That does happen. Obviously we keep an eye on it and try to mitigate that to the greatest extent possible.
Senator C. Deacon: Do you report that number?
Mr. Saunders: We do have that number, yes.
Senator C. Deacon: You do report it?
Mr. Saunders: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: And you track it, and it’s trending over time?
Mr. Saunders: It’s trending, yes.
Senator C. Deacon: In a good way?
Mr. Saunders: From my perspective, in a good way. As I mentioned in my opening comments, we’re funded to 85-15, meaning 85 per cent of the passengers on a national basis, on average, getting through security screening in under 15 minutes. Our performance from April 1 to September 30 is 92.8 right now. And that includes the summer period, so we’re doing quite well.
Senator C. Deacon: Great tracking. Great to hear that benchmarking going on.
Senator Oh: My question is for, Mr. Sexton, for a simple one, and then I’ll move over to the air transport.
I remember in China, you built two reactors outside of Hangzhou. Did your company build that?
Mr. Sexton: I’m not sure who built it. I think it’s a CANDU reactor, and that was before my time. Shannon might know.
Ms. Quinn: Yes.
Senator Oh: In 2014, we celebrated the 10-year anniversary for the two reactors. I was there on behalf of the government. I just want to know who maintains the two reactors. Do we have a service contract? Do we make money from the maintenance of the two reactors?
Mr. Sexton: As part of the restructuring, part of that business was spun off to SNC-Lavalin. It’s my understanding, based on discussions, that they do have work at the reactors.
I don’t think I would characterize it as maintenance work because, as you might be aware, they’ve had the reactors for 10 years, and therefore it’s principally owner-operated, and the maintenance is done by the Chinese nationals there.
But they do have a business relationship with the operator, and they continue to provide improvements in its operation. That’s a small part of what AECL and CNL do, which is look at materials and failures and provide some of that through SNC sometimes to the foreign market.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
For the air transport, given the increases in air passenger volumes and contractor costs, why is the increase in the 2018-19 Main Estimates authorized at only 0.3 per cent, and to what extent is the increase offset by the other decrease?
Nancy Fitchett, Acting Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Chief Financial Officer, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: Thank you for the question. To be clear, the Main Estimates for CATSA reflect our A-base of $586 million. That amount is insufficient for CATSA to continue to operate and to meet the 85-15, among other things. So we received, through Budget 2018, another $240.6 million. So our total funding for this fiscal year is $827 million, which is about $67 million higher than the previous year. And that does relate largely to increases in passenger growth, as Mike referred to in his opening remarks, as well as screening contractor billing rate increases and other factors.
Senator Oh: Do you know the estimated volume of passengers now passing through Pearson at the end of this year?
Mr. Saunders: I can get that. I don’t have it offhand. By the end of today, 190,000 people will have gone through Canadian security screening across the system. I have the numbers for Pearson per day, per week, per month, but I just don’t have them with me.
Senator Oh: I met with the GTAA a few days ago. They told me that probably by the end of the year the volume of people passing through Pearson will be over 80 million.
Mr. Saunders: Senator, there is incredible growth occurring in the Greater Toronto Area. I too spoke to the CEO of GTAA, Mr. Howard Eng, two weeks ago on this exact subject, so we’re immersed in working closely with them on that.
The Chair: Mr. Saunders, for clarity, could you please peruse the question that was asked by Senator Oh on Pearson airport and send the clerk a response?
Mr. Saunders: For Pearson airport, yes.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here. I was going to ask a question about the ideation but will pass on that piece and come back to NRC. We have a continuation of oversight that Senator Andreychuk spoke about earlier tonight that’s specific.
My question is about lessons learned by the NRC due to the cyberattack on NRC’s infrastructure system, as we all heard about, by China, and the extent to which those learnings have been used and transferred across the government and/or incorporated into the government cybersecurity strategy. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart: Thank you for the question, senator. That was an event that was traumatic for the organization. It resulted in our shutting down our IT. We went back to paper-based transactions. We do, as I mentioned in my remarks, about 800 to 1,000 contracts a year. We were faxing materials to our partners asking them to find fax machines in their closets. It was traumatic and disruptive for our business, so obviously, yes, we did learn a lot.
First, we learned a lot about what I’ll call cyber-hygiene. We spent a lot of time training staff on how to respond to threats, how to treat cybersecurity and how to behave in the office in order to minimize risk. That would be one area in which we learned.
Second, we learned we had to reconfigure our IT systems. We had to physically reorganize them so that they were not set up in the way they were previously set up. This involved moving servers and high-performance computing networks off one set of infrastructure into a new, more secure configuration.
Third, we partnered deeply with the key government service provider, Shared Services Canada, and they have learned a lot as well about how to restructure government IT systems and then also the community they provide security around. Telecommunications in Canada, within the federal government, have also changed their stance around our infrastructure.
Fourth, we are making and have been making investments in newer equipment as well.
I say the long and the short of it is that it was a very traumatic experience. It’s still with us, it’s still in our culture, people still talk about it all the time, and we try to do what we can to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
In this world, in the newspapers, we see all the time that large, sophisticated organizations, even some that are in the business of IT, experience these kinds of events, so I can’t say it won’t happen again, but I can say we have taken it seriously and continue to do so. It is not done yet, if I can put it in that language.
Mr. Sexton: We’ve had our individuals who are responsible on both the AECL side and the CNL side. There has been great sharing of those lessons with other crowns, because I see it. They discuss what happened and what we can do. So it seems as if you have also done a good job of communicating the lessons learned to other federal agencies and organizations.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I have another number question for CATSA. Since 2015, that was the time 2015-16, your budget was higher than what you’re receiving now. It went down in 2016-17, and it went further down in 2017-18 and then it started to go back. So you’re having access now to more funds for your operations. How have you been doing in the past few years?
Ms. Fitchett: We have received an A-base for several years on our operating side that is insufficient to continue to operate the business. Supplemental funding has been provided each year in recent years. Sometimes that funding is provided through Supplementary Estimates (A) or (B) or (C), and sometimes that funding is provided through a budget announcement. In this case, for 2018-19, it was through Budget 2018.
Senator Moncion: When you bring the numbers forward, why is there such a discrepancy between the needs and what you’re given, and you have to go back to get supplementary funds?
Mr. Saunders: I think that’s the nature of the funding model the government has chosen for CATSA.
Senator Moncion: But it wasn’t always like that.
Mr. Saunders: No, it wasn’t always like that. As Nancy mentioned, we are in our fourth year of single-year supplemental funding to maintain that service level at about 85-15 and to continue our programs. We need that supplemental funding.
Senator Moncion: And that’s a problem. You should be getting that right away and not having to go back and beg for more money.
Mr. Saunders: That would be a policy decision. No disagreement, senator.
Senator Moncion: I find it unusual.
Mr. Stewart, you mentioned that you review your base budget every five years. Does that mean that you receive the same base budget and you have to work with the same base budget for five years, or is there an adjustment?
Mr. Stewart: We used to have a piece of our program funding that was exactly like you’re describing. We would get the funding for five years and then go through a review and resubmit and propose again. In the last budget, that funding was turned to permanent funding. So it’s now like you were mentioning: It’s predictable and a huge relief to us because, of course, people’s salaries were tied to that money.
However, it went back to a cluster program from around 2000, 2001 that was meant at that time to try something, and it was given B-base funding, five years’ funding. It was successful at that time, so it was renewed again and again. In the last budget, ministers recognized that the program had been around a long time, that activity was now an ongoing part of the NRC, so they made it permanent. So that risk and uncertainty are gone.
Senator Moncion: So you funding is adequate?
Mr. Stewart: My funding is adequate. That is a —
Senator Moncion: You’re supposed to say “yes.”
Mr. Stewart: My funding is adequate, and we are greatly appreciative to have it. We also earn income as well to support ourselves. So we greatly appreciate the funds we get and the opportunity to earn more.
Senator Moncion: I won’t badger you with any more questions. You have had enough.
We should have an evening with just —
Senator Andreychuk: With each one of them.
The Chair: We might do that.
Senator Andreychuk: Starting tomorrow.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: My questions are for Mr. Saunders. If media reports are to be believed, you receive numerous complaints about the way some of your employees treat passengers. People have complained about employees being impolite, not providing service in both official languages and so forth. What is your take on that? You seem to be suggesting that you don’t receive many complaints.
Mr. Saunders: No, that’s what I think. Considering how many passengers we screen, the number of complaints is actually quite low.
Senator Pratte: Can you give me a sense of what the number is?
Mr. Saunders: For every 50,000 passengers, we receive 1.31 complaints.
Senator Pratte: You think that’s quite low given the number of passengers?
Mr. Saunders: Yes. I would also add that our satisfaction rate, as surveyed by a third party every quarter, is at an all-time high. I believe it’s in the neighbourhood of 89%. That’s the highest it’s ever been since we were established 16 years ago.
Senator Pratte: Despite those positive results, what do you think you need to work on?
Mr. Saunders: The way that screening officers conduct themselves during searches and the importance of being courteous. From time to time, employees may not be as courteous as they should be. We created a program to help improve that. It’s a four-step program that’s been in place for a year now, and I would say we are starting to see the results. Of course, there is always room for improvement, and we take that very seriously.
Senator Pratte: I have one last question. In one of the more recent reports put out by the Commissioner of Official Languages, it was noted that it was sometimes difficult for francophones to be served in French, and some recommendations may have been made. Have you taken any steps to improve in that area since the commissioner’s report came out?
Mr. Saunders: Indeed, senator, we have. The Commissioner of Official Languages had issued 15 or 16 recommendations, I believe. We have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, all of them. We’ve made great strides on that front.
Senator Pratte: Very good. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: Looking at the time, I’m going to restrict the questions. I will make one comment. I’ve seen, going through every week as we come here, virtually everything. Sometimes it is the fault of the screener, but often we still have a problem educating people, where I’m with someone saying, “Yes, you do have to take out your little bag, take off your belt and that’s normal. They are not picking on you.” So education is still an issue with customers. But I’ve seen that actually we’re talking to each other now. They’re courteous to me. They’re saying “good morning,” where I think five years ago it was just a wall. So I see improvement, not always in Toronto when you have the long lineups and everyone gets a little shirty, so I see lapses there, when the volumes go up, but I see a steady improvement. So I hope you keep that up because I think it’s very important.
Mr. Saunders: It’s very important to us.
Senator Andreychuk: I know people say, “I’m not sure I’m more secure, but I know I have to go through this.” That’s at least a step in the right direction.
On the research council, your roots were there because we were lacking a lot of research, so the prime research when you started many years ago was laudable because we didn’t have that capacity yet at universities in all disciplines. In those days, as I recall, you picked areas that needed nurturing for the benefit of the national interest. Now you are doing so much with universities. Universities are expanding; they are also doing applied research.
How do you choose what research you are going to do? Is it the government saying we want more competitiveness in Canada? Are you doing that kind of thing, matching it up with our interests? How do you choose when you have good competition that you can collaborate with or go your own way?
Mr. Stewart: It’s a great question. When I was asked do we have enough money, in the last budget we received $1.24 billion over five years of new funding, predominantly focused on encouraging collaboration. Your question goes to the heart of what ministers are expecting of us.
I was an assistant vice-president of research at Dalhousie University, so I have not only been a student but also have had the challenge of trying to increase research funding for university professors and understand their needs. I can say from that, as well as from my work in government, that what we do is actually very different.
Universities are ultimately about teaching. They do research in order to teach their students to think, to inquire, to teach them skills. We are very used to eminent leader thinkers at the forefront of international science in Canada and also working with business very closely. Jeff Dahn at Dalhousie University is a world-leading researcher partnering with Tesla on batteries and energy storage. He’s a real world leader, and very applied.
University researchers tend to work in the pursuit of excellence in their area. We are mandate driven and mission driven. We have excellent researchers who are also world leaders in their area, but mainly we are teams of researchers working in large facilities on projects in order to achieve a societal impact.
It might be a new vaccine, as I mentioned earlier. Just the year before last we came up with a vaccine for H1A that affects children in remote and rural Indigenous communities. It’s not a big enough problem that international pharmaceuticals would focus on it, but it’s a big problem for people in those northern communities. With the Public Health Agency of Canada and a private sector company we developed a new vaccine for those Indigenous children in the North. That’s going to go into clinical trials.
It’s applying science to solve a problem for the public good, and that’s our zone. It mostly takes the form of supporting business innovation. What’s the next generation of artificial intelligence for supply chains? What’s the next generation of quantum sensors for finding minerals? Those are the new directions that we’re going to try to work toward.
With respect to government direction, ministers have not told us you should research this or that, but they have set some challenges for us. Minister Bains and Minister Duncan gave us challenges: How can we have higher Internet speeds in rural Canada? How can we develop photosynthetic, cheap materials that we could spread around to turn sunlight into energy? How can we re-engineer cells to use our own cells to solve cancers? So we have challenges we are working on using the new money provided in the budget. Ministers don’t want to get into telling us which research to do and how, but they do like to say this is a problem, see what you can do. And we like that too. We like good problems to chase.
Senator Andreychuk: On cybersecurity, you are working with universities and with other businesses. Do you have some sort of code of conduct or agreements as to how you share information and research from your sources and your computers to theirs? Is it that complex now?
Mr. Stewart: We aspire to lighten our touch in relation to how we collaborate with our business partners. They are trying to move fast and get access to information and ideas quickly. We, in how we look after our information and our IT, are very cyber-conscious as per the last question. Any relationship we have with business is structured by a contractual relationship. It governs IP, how we’ll share and use materials and so on. Usually that hasn’t been a threat vector, if I can put it in that language. We are working together on a project. Sometimes in their premises, sometimes in our premises. We watch closely who is entering buildings, what materials they are bringing and so on.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have two quick questions. Mr. Saunders, you have enormous challenges in major international airports such as Pearson and Trudeau. Having been on the board of directors of a regional airport in a past life, I can tell you that, back then, when your organization was involved, we would walk on eggshells for fear of having our head bitten off if we asked for anything. How receptive is your organization to a partnership?
The regions are in desperate need of quality air service, given how the new economy is taking shape. This is important if they want to attract new families. We are really talking about a fundamental service. Looking back at the early 1980s, I would say that the service was almost better than it is today.
What is your organization’s attitude towards the network of regional airports across the country, airports that play a pivotal role in their regions? Do you behave like a partner or like Big Brother imposing its practices and procedures on them?
Mr. Saunders: Outside Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary…. Basically, we have eight regional airports. I can name them.
The Chair: Can you name those eight airports?
Mr. Saunders: They are Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. They are class I airports.
We have a very good relationship with the leadership of those airports. I meet with the CEOs regularly. We always have the infrastructure assigned to those airports. We ensure all the equipment is updated. We make a solid investment, and we have a good level of engagement with the smaller airports.
Senator Forest: When I was on the board of directors, we didn’t experience that same willingness to work in partnership.
Mr. Saunders: We have made relationships with our partners, especially the airport authorities, a priority.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Stewart. In your 2018-19 departmental plan, you indicated that you plan to launch a series of initiatives this year. Aside from internal research, I’d like to know how much, if any, of the research funding for the program you mentioned earlier supports the important role played by regional niches of excellence?
I am from Rimouski, in the Gulf region. With the help of universities and the marine biotechnology research centre, or CRBM, we have developed expertise in marine biotechnology. The CRBM, by the way, is one of the top research centres in the country.
Do your research and development objectives take that consideration into account, and do you endeavour to strengthen those kinds of critical masses? We have world-class researchers helping Canada and the regions to gain ground internationally and to develop niches of research excellence. This also supports the balance between basic research and technical research, as provided by the CRBM, which partners with companies out west, in the Maritimes and abroad. Does strengthening the expertise of these kinds of centres figure prominently into your strategy and the new approaches you will be adopting?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, absolutely. Under the new supercluster initiative, we now have a supercluster for oceans. My understanding is that it has three components: one for power derived from offshore oil and gas development, one for marine biology and one for tidal energy. Obviously, the second component ties in with the centre you mentioned. Our organization has two research centres involved in oceanic research. The one in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, works more on ocean-related engineering in terms of infrastructure, shuttles and so on.
[English]
It used to be called the Institute of Bioscience. Now it has a more complicated, longer name. It’s the Aquatic and Crop Resource Development Research Centre. The old name captures it; it was marine biosciences.
[Translation]
That’s probably relevant for the organization you mentioned. Individual researchers are usually connected, and that’s probably the case in that group. At the NRC, we have people who work together. We haven’t launched an initiative in this area thus far, but it’s entirely possible going forward. When centres of research excellence exist in the world, we want to work with them. Synergies are possible between the two, university researchers, on one hand, and government researchers, on the other. At the same time, there are certain departments that come into play.
[English]
Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and so on. I think when you look at climate change, the impacts on the natural world around us, the changes that are occurring in the oceans, acidification, species loss, all these kinds of things, you are going see more and more research in that area. If we have an opportunity to collaborate on something together, we are going to pursue that.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Is that something you would consider, further to the new set of initiatives announced in the 2018-19 departmental plan?
Mr. Stewart: Yes. We don’t have any such initiative right now, but it’s something we could look at in the future. We are going to start with three programs this year.
[English]
I’m going to mess up my verb tense, so please excuse me. We are going to launch three more, and then after three more years we are going to launch three more. So we are going to keep having a cycle of these kinds of challenge-based programs, and they are going to touch all aspects of life. We are looking to government to give us direction about which kinds of priorities. Low-carbon economy, a changing natural environment, how we can live more lightly on the planet — these are all topics I expect we will be doing more and more work on.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Feeding and saving the planet?
Mr. Stewart: Yes.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: My question is to AECL. There is a statement in the estimates that says laboratories also provide a service to third parties on a commercial basis.
Will you help me a little bit with what are those commercial agreements and who are they to? I don’t see any revenue here, so I’m just wondering how all that works.
Mr. Sexton: Well, there is revenue. I think Shannon, since she is responsible for the science and technology mission, is best capable of really giving you the details on that.
Senator Neufeld: In the interests of time, if there is quite a bit you want to give, you could maybe provide that to the clerk in writing? And the clerk would get that around to all of us.
Mr. Sexton: That would be fine.
Senator Neufeld: Would that be better?
Mr. Sexton: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: And then we can get maybe a more fulsome report. I appreciate that; thank you.
The Chair: Before we adjourn, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Saunders and Mr. Stewart, do you have any additional comments you want to bring forward?
Mr. Sexton: None here.
Mr. Saunders: I would like to add one thing. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I realize Senator Oh has left the audience, but CATSA has invested in terms of GTA Toronto Pearson over the last few years $25 million in PBS and $144 million in HBS just to accommodate the growth. We are continuing that investment in that airport.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Stewart, nothing?
Mr. Stewart: No.
The Chair: To the organizations that were here for their budget, if you feel you want to add as you peruse your questions and answers tonight, please do not hesitate to do it through the clerk. On this, thank you for sharing your vision, your comments and your clarity on your requested budget.
Honourable senators, I now declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)