Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

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

Can you tell the committee where in the act it specifies that the commission or the president of the commission is responsible for the supply of isotopes?

[Linda Keen]

As I spoke to in my presentation, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act is a new act relative to much legislation of this type around the world, and it doesn't specify this in terms of the supply.

We had opinions by our legal services some time before of what the act covered. We've always examined the act, continuously, and independent counsel agreed. You'll recall that legal services were removed from us on December 10, in the morning. So the commission, when I was there, did not have the expert counsel it had to review that. But it's never included the supply of isotopes.

As I said, I think with the directive implicitly, by the need for the directive to be given to us, the government acknowledged that they were adding a new factor to our mandate. In addition, I've worked with this act for seven years. I've done hundreds of hearings on it. We have 2,500 licensees, 220 of which are medical clinics. No one has ever raised the issue of supply of isotopes with us in terms of a factor to be considered in their licensing.

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

Do you know how financially dependent AECL is on the supply of isotopes?

[Linda Keen]

No, Mr. Chair. I have no understanding of that because economic factors are not to be included in the decision. The decisions of the commission are to be about health, safety, and the protection of the environment. And that's what the legislation tells us to consider when we give a licence, not what the cost would be to that facility to put that in.

If I could add, that was really an important factor when I handled the crises after 9/11, for example, because it was important for us to add extra security. So we absolutely cannot be looking at safety as balancing off with a price tag.

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

To that point, are you familiar with or aware of any regulator responsible for the commercial success of the organizations it regulates?

[Linda Keen]

Mr. Chair, no, I do not know of any regulator of that type.

Since I was the president of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, which included all the world's countries with safety organizations, I have a very good idea of what is the international standard. And I was president of that for three years.

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

By the way, before I ask the other question, it's up to you, of course, but if you don't mind, we would like you to table that letter that the minister.... I know it might be sensitive, so that's up to you. But if that's okay with you, we would like to see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra. Your time is up.

We now go to the Bloc Québécois, Madame DeBellefeuille, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Keen, for your testimony.

To begin, I will join the Liberal critic in saying that at no time did the Bloc Québécois ever doubt your judgment and your competence, even though it supported the bill last December 11. We decided to choose the lesser of two evils. We do not agree with the minister's statement that we supported the bill because we agreed with him that you lacked judgment and competence.

You are a senior official and a woman, and there are not many of those. As a female member of Parliament, I support you and empathize with you in light of your situation. I believe you have a flawless record. Please rest assured that at no time did we ever shed doubt on your competence or judgment.

The more we learn about the situation, the clearer it becomes that there was political interference with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It has become increasingly clear that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Health had other means at their disposal to avoid the crisis we went through.

We sincerely believe that the government chose the wrong target by firing you in such a cavalier and callous manner. In doing so, the government has sent a message to Canadians, namely that it will not shy away from attacking an independent organization whose sole mission is to protect Quebeckers and Canadians in the area of nuclear safety.

As a citizen and member of Parliament, I certainly do not find it reassuring that we are dealing with a government which does not hesitate to attack the independence of an organization like the one you headed.

A reporter from the newspaper Le Soleil said: “The nuclear sector is so dangerous that it requires the greatest degree of transparency, the greatest degree of information and public debate on the issue.” I have read all of the transcripts and every document related to discussions on the matter, and at no time did I have the impression that the CNSC did not give AECL its entire support and energy—you said it was 24/7—to move the process along so that the reactor could be safely started up again without breaching the conditions of the operating licence.

Ms. Keen, given the way the Conservative government dealt with you and the way it disregarded the independence of the organization, do you feel that it has sent a negative message to Quebeckers and Canadians, which is that it does not hold in high regard senior officials and organizations like yours, nor the role played by them, despite the fact that they are incredibly important to the safety of Canadians?

[Linda Keen]

Mr. Chairman,

I think there are two aspects to the question from the honourable member.

First of all, as I indicated in my letter of January 8 to the minister, I strongly believed that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was an independent organization and that we knew what it was like to be a quasi-judicial tribunal. I was the chair of the tribunal organization. I understood what it was and I understood what the guide said.

I put that chronology in my letter, and I thought about it very seriously, of the phone call the minister made to me on December 8—you'll recall that this was a Saturday—at home, and the subsequent letter I received on December 10, which asked me to justify the actions.... When, as it is discussed in adjudicative terms, the commission was “seized with the matter” of the AECL possible amendment, and because of it, this was a stepping over the line of what was reasonable for a minister in this case.

The second part of the question is.... As I noted again in my letter of December 8, I strongly believe that this action, including the letter the minister sent to me on December 27, wherein he asked me to justify why I shouldn't be fired.... It's not just the firing; it was the actions of December 8 and 10, as these were reported, and then it was the letter of December 27. Then finally there was the firing. This is the first time there has been discussion of what was actually in the letter. I think all of this will continue to put a chill through those organizations.

I can honestly say that the phone calls I get at night from people who will phone me at home—not from their offices.... They'll phone me at home with support or they'll send a note to my private e-mail. They won't send it to that.... I'm also a director of the Canadian Council of Administrative Tribunals, and it was discussed quite recently.

It's inevitable that people will at least look at this and ask what it means for them during the time period for which they're appointed.

That's my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have time for a very short question.

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

Ms. Keen, as the natural resources critic, I received a lot of email from the citizens of my riding, as well as from other provinces, who are deeply concerned about the Conservative government's attack on the independence of your organization. Many people share your fears. Canadians don't really understand why you were scapegoated and why you are being made to bear the brunt of the medical isotopes crisis.

Ms. Keen, your job is to ensure nuclear safety. AECL's job is to meet its clients' needs by producing medical isotopes. Given this fact, and after having gone through all the available information, I believe, as does the Bloc Québécois, that AECL failed in delivering isotopes to its clients. We also believe that you are not responsible for whether or not the isotope contracts are respected. We believe that the roles got mixed up and the public debate and media spotlight were turned on to you rather than on to those who were responsible, namely Minister Lunn, the government and AECL.

Unless I'm shown evidence...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madame DeBellefeuille, your time has long since passed, in terms of your questioning period.

We'll turn to Ms. Bell, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Keen, for appearing.

I echo some of the sentiments that were made by my colleagues. I won't go into them all, but you have in your presentation to us today echoed some of the words I've used, as to the magnitude of the decision we had to grapple with in Parliament in December around Bill C-38 and with regard to confidence that Canadians have about nuclear safety for the future, based on what has happened here.

I want to thank you for your thoughtful presentation. I will get right to my questions, because I don't get a lot of time.

You have been with the Nuclear Safety Commission for seven years?

[Linda Keen]

Mr. Chair, that's correct.

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

And you've been on international boards and organizations, so you are quite aware of the extent of nuclear capacity worldwide?

[Linda Keen]

Yes, I'm quite well aware of what's going on around the world. Yes.

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

Good.

One of the things we're hearing is that there were alternate supplies. We've been in contact with nuclear radioisotope suppliers in other parts of the world who said they were increasing their capacity of isotope supply because they had heard about what was happening in Canada—this was as early as late November—and you said you had been working with the hospitals to identify an alternate supply. Would any of those supplies come from those places where they were increasing the production?

[Linda Keen]

Mr. Chair, I probably should seek to clarify.

The hospitals that were phoning us were all licensees of ours. Their licence could have specified a certain isotope, and in one case there was a company that wanted to import generators, etc. What they would be doing is phoning us saying that their licence specifies X and what they wanted to do was switch to Y, and they were asking, do you agree? And of course we move very quickly for that.

We were not involved at all in the discussion about where the isotopes supply was coming from. In fact, I wasn't aware that there were surveys going on or anything of the type, and we weren't involved, because it wasn't our responsibility to do this.

But you'll note in the transcript of the December 6 meeting that one of the commission members, Dr. Barnes, actually gave the senior vice-president an opportunity to talk about isotopes and supply in the issue, and he didn't really discuss it very much. That's in the transcripts.

But this wasn't among our responsibilities.

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

So it was just approving the licence for the hospitals to get the alternative supplied.

[Linda Keen]

Yes.

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

Can you remind me when you started those conversations with hospitals?

[Linda Keen]

I don't have those details with me, and unfortunately, because I'm not the president, I no longer can bring staff into this. That would be a question to the commission. But it would have been around that same time period, that really compressed week.

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

Which week was that?

[Linda Keen]

This would have started probably the week of the 10th and 11th, when they really were seeking alternatives.