Bill C-38 (Historical)

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

This enactment permits Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River in Ontario for a period of 120 days despite certain conditions of its licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I do not think that falls under the realm of a point of order.

We will go back to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think we have established what we need to know so far.

I think I will go back, if I can, to the safety issues. I was just trying to establish the fact that we have nuclear safety experts making decisions. That is my point.

The most important issue that we have to deal with tonight, as my colleague has asked: is this a safety issue? Is the safety issue resolved?

We have heard much discussions and we have heard an answer that there is no animosity between the two groups of witnesses sitting at this table. We certainly hope that is the case. There are 76,000 patients waiting for these services.

Mr. Torgerson, you had commented that you had operated with one pump prior to this and you were comfortable with the fact that it was safe at that time. Can you confirm that and tell us if that is accurate?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, we have operated the NRU reactor without either pump being hooked up to the new seismically qualified emergency power system.

I should state to everybody and repeat what our chief nuclear officer said. These pumps in the past have had two different sources of power. They have had the normal power to run the pumps and they have had an emergency source of power to run the pumps.

This is a third source. So there have been two sources operating before and we have been able to operate the plant safely with two power sources on the pump. This is adding a third.

Obviously, if we can operate a reactor safely with two power supplies on the pump, we believe that we can operate it with three power supplies on the pump. That is what we have done to pump five.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, these are both arm's length organizations and the fact that we are here on the floor of the House in committee of the whole should be an indication to both organizations that this has not worked out and that the organizations have not been operating the way in which they were originally intended to operate. The very fact that the organizations are here I think is an indication of that.

We are here because we have had to intervene in this matter as the government because of the matter between AECL and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We have assessed the risk to the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who no longer have access to medical isotopes and the risk with respect to the operations of this medical isotope facility.

We have determined as a government that the greater risk is in the fact that some 30,000 Canadians per week, some 400,000 Americans per week, who use medical nuclear scans no longer will have access to those scans. Therefore, we have had to intervene and we are here today because of that.

We have determined that the risk to the health of Canadians is far greater if they do not have access to these medical isotopes than the risk is to the operations of this facility that produces these medical isotopes.

I think that I can sum up by saying that we are disappointed that it has come to this. This is not a recent matter. This has been going on for years. As a matter of fact, both organizations were called in front of the industry committee in May 2005. Ms. Keen was there. Robert Van Adel from AECL was there to explain to the government and to the opposition at the time why the relationship was not working and when it was going to be straightened out.

At the time it was indicated by AECL that it was making efforts with respect to the hiring of a new regulatory officer with respect to some other internal changes, cultural changes, that were supposed to be taking place in the organization to address some of these issues between AECL and the nuclear safety regulator.

With respect to the nuclear safety regulator, similar commitments were made that the relationship was going to be improving and things were going to be put on the right track.

Here we are some three years later and things are still not where they should be, if anything. We are here today because things have not been worked out. If anything, they have gotten worse.

I would like both parties to respond to that.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are only a couple of minutes left. If each party could take about a minute to respond to that question.

[Linda J. Keen]

You have the microphone. You start.

[David F. Torgerson]

See, Mr. Chair, we are cooperating very well.

I would like to say that we respect our colleagues at the CNSC. I personally want to be regulated and I want to have a strong CNSC with skilled and talented people in it because that is an effective CNSC.

Perhaps, because I am basically a techie, I do not see the same sense of animosity between the CNSC staff and our staff that the member has alluded to.

On the other hand, I think it is important, as the member said, that we cooperate with the regulator. We are dependent upon the regulator. Frankly, we cannot get along without the regulator. We really have to have a regulator that we can work with and who can work with us.

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, I would like to reinforce that because the industry has the ultimate responsibility to put together a safety organization and in fact ensure that there is good communication. The commission often asks when licences come before us what is the communication situation on any particular area?

Clearly, AECL is going to be doing a root cause on this matter as to how it got a point of not having this safety area addressed. The CNSC staff have agreed that they are going to be doing a lessons learned to look at this. There was, obviously, and Mr. McGee said this in front of the commission at the commission meeting and there are transcripts to this, this understanding that was different than what happened with the CNSC.

I think that communication is important. We do have site staff now. Before we did not have this. We have put a group of people on site to make sure this happens. I think that Canadians need to see that it is important to the regulator and it is important for all of our 2,500 licensees.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Just for the record, the act that is in front of us says that we will deregulate the Nation Research Universal Reactor. AECL, as a whole, will still be regulated but that reactor will no longer be regulated by the commission. Is that accurate or not?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will read subclause (1), which states:

Atomic Energy Canada Limited may resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River in Ontario for a period of 120 days after the coming into force of this Act despite any conditions of its licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act relating to the installation of the seismically qualified motor starters on the heavy water pumps and the connection to the emergency power supply.

It is very specific that this exemption applies is to only these pumps and we have legal opinions to support that.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, that was a straightforward question, because subclause (2) states:

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited may resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River only if it is satisfied that it is safe to do so.

It does not talk about the pump. In my opinion, and I want the minister to confirm this, the regulator is not regulating this reactor according to the act. If this act receives royal recommendation, the regulator will not have regulation over that nuclear reactor?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, we disagree with that interpretation. Our interpretation is very clear from all of the advice that we have received. It is specific only to these two pumps and that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would have complete jurisdiction over all other aspects with respect to regulating the reactor at Chalk River.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I hope the minister can table for us the legal opinion that he is using as guidance.

My next question is for Mr. McGee. Mr. McGee, do you accept and recognize that there is, and I know it was said earlier, the need for a regulator, the authority and responsibility of a regulator, over all nuclear reactors?

[Brian McGee]

Yes, I absolutely do.

I would also like to say, though, and I believe it is something that has been said earlier this evening, the operator, me, my staff and my team are ultimately responsible for the safe operation. Our goal is not compliance. Our goal is safety well beyond compliance.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. McGee, do you accept the fact that AECL had accepted the recommendations of the commission 16 months ago during the licence and that it needed six or seven recommendations in order for them to be in compliance with the licence? Is that accurate? Did AECL accept those recommendations to be in compliance?