Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ouellet would like to ask a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Ouellet.

Before you start, I would like to say, Madam Fraser—and you've been a witness before committees probably more than anybody else—that when you are in an area in which you feel uncomfortable answering, just don't answer. You know that.

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Fraser, if I understand correctly, you published a special examination report in 2007 dealing with the advanced CANDU reactor, or ACR, and its costs. You state the following in that report:

In addition, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission withdrew its service of providing pre-licensing assessments for AECL, citing resource constraints.

When you talk about resource constraints, is it a question of money or of human resources? Exactly what are you referring to?

[Sheila Fraser]

The commission indicated to us that there was a lack of human resources and of expertise, and that there were other priorities. These people told us they were not able to allocate the necessary resources to the licensing system.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

So do you not feel that the government was underfunding the CNSC?

[Sheila Fraser]

From what I understand—and you may have to confirm this with Ms. Keen—the commission was given extra funding in order to try and settle this issue. They indicated that it was not necessarily a question of money, but that in this case, rather, the issue was one of a lack of resources and of the necessary expertise to carry out the job.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Ouellet, your time is up.

We now go to the New Democratic Party, to Ms. Bell, for seven minutes.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Fraser, Ms. Cheng, and Mr. Plouffe for attending today. It was a very interesting report that you did.

You say in your report, about the funding issues, that if there was not sufficient funding to replace aging buildings, there was a potential for a safety issue. I think those things are very worrisome for Canadians overall.

And this was over a long period of time. I understand reports were done in 1996, in 2002, and also in 2007. Did all those reports—I haven't seen the older ones—identify underfunding as well?

[Sheila Fraser]

Our reports go back at least to 1988. Almost from the very beginning there has been a question of level of funding to address several issues, including the Chalk River installations, but also, for example, the nuclear waste disposal plan. That, I'm pleased to say, was one issue on which we indicated in this special examination that there had been good improvement made.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you. And I think you indicate throughout the report and in your remarks today that there wasn't enough funding at AECL to maintain their mandate, to maintain their facilities, and also to finish the MAPLEs in a timely fashion.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, we note that there is significant funding pressure. The major issue, though, is the government policy and the strategy for this corporation—the whole strategy around nuclear energy and then what the role of this crown corporation is in it—and that, of course, could influence the level of funding required. That has been a long-standing issue and one that is still not resolved.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

During your investigations into the operations of AECL...you talked about governance, and I don't know what it included. Did you investigate the reporting mechanisms between AECL, the commission, and either NRCan and the ministries of natural resources or health?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. In fact, we looked at the relationship with the regulators mentioned in paragraph 80. We also talk about the relationship with the federal government. In fact, we noted that there had been improvement in the relationship with the regulator, which had been problematic in the past. AECL had set up a regulatory office and seemed to be establishing a much better relationship with the regulator.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

What about the reporting mechanism and timelines? In the case of an incident or an emergency, was there any mandate on the part of AECL to report directly to the minister or to make the Minister of Health or the Minister of Natural Resources aware of the incident in a timely fashion?

[Sheila Fraser]

That's not an issue we looked at in this report.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Fair enough.

In point 16 of your notes today you mention that there was a lack of clear direction for AECL's corporate plans. They hadn't been approved over many years. Was any reason given at any point during your investigation for that lack of approval?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, there was no reason given.

I would like to emphasize how important corporate plans are. They really set out the strategy for the corporation and the direction it should be going in. In particular, as we note in this special examination report, Atomic Energy's mandate is not specified in legislation, so the corporate plan becomes even more critical to give them a sense of strategic direction and an indication of where they should be going over the longer period.

As we said, that is not a new problem. There was a period of seven years when it was not approved. It is something that needs to be addressed, and we do not have an explanation for it.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

It is important. I am quite surprised.

I have one other question.

You also talked about the budget overrun for the MAPLE reactors and for the advanced CANDU reactors because of the changes they were making, and how the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission could not pre-approve the licence for them. I wonder whether that, in your mind, created any of the systemic dysfunction we were told about by Mr. Burns, in his comment back in December or early January that there was systemic dysfunction between AECL and CNSC.

[Sheila Fraser]

I think it has been clear—certainly in past reports we have indicated—that there has been a very difficult relationship between the regulator and the corporation, although in this report we noted that AECL had made attempts by establishing this office and more regular communication to establish a better relationship.

Certainly it is no secret to anyone that the corporation was quite upset when they were not able to get the pre-licensing done, because it is a major impediment to their marketing these reactors internationally.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you so much.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have about 40 seconds, Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Lastly, then, the MAPLE reactors were going to be the dedicated isotope facility. If they were online today, have you any sense of what percentage of isotope production they would have?

[Sheila Fraser]

Their intention was to replace the NRU because the NRU is over 50 years old. This was the solution, the replacement for the NRU. In fact there were two MAPLE reactors so there would be a backup in case there was ever an issue.

There is a contractual agreement that one should be operating later this year. It is still, to our knowledge, not operating, and there are technical difficulties that have yet to be overcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

We go now to the government side to end the first round of questioning, to Mr. Allen for seven minutes.

Go ahead.