Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

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

Do you know what the world supply of radioisotopes is?

You don't have any idea of it? Okay.

You've established what your mandate is, and those were some of my questions as well.

Is it your estimation that Minister Lunn overstepped his bounds in seeking to have you change the safety commission's decision regarding the pumps and the procedures that were put in place that caused the AECL to remain closed?

[Linda Keen]

My concern was that on the December 8 phone call that Minister Lunn requested—he requested this phone call, and I arranged for one of my staff to be with me on the phone call—it was the belief of both myself and the person on that phone call that the minister was telling us that we would bring the commission together and this is what the commission would decide to do. That was our impression of that December 8 phone call.

As I said, in the letter of the 10th as well, which is public information—and I have the exact quote here—the minister said to me in that letter, we want to know what were your reasons for doing this. Under quasi-judicial tribunals, once you're seized with a scenario, which we were because of AECL's letter of intent of December 7, this now becomes someone telling you what to do in a specific decision.

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

I've called for an independent investigation into this whole scenario that led us up to the passing of Bill C-38, because I felt that a lot of questions were unanswered. Since that time, have you called for an independent investigation into your dismissal as president? Is that what I'm to understand?

[Linda Keen]

Yes. In my letter of January 8, I specifically said I would be willing to subject myself to a review of my performance by an independent or international group.

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

Thank you.

I've also called, in a motion to the House, to have the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission report to the Minister of Environment instead of the natural resources minister, because at this point, CNSC and AECL both report to the same minister. Would you think that is a conflict? You've been in a position of having to report to the minister, and I'm just wondering if it would help at all if CNSC reported to a different minister.

[Linda Keen]

I have raised the issue of the problems that arise when a licensee and a regulator report to the same minister. I've repeatedly raised this with ministers and deputies as they've changed and I've done the briefing. In fact, this had been the source of several private members' bills.

I actually met with one of the people sponsoring that bill, which was the MP, Mr. Chatters, who is from Athabasca country, which I know very well. He had said at that time that he could see that I behaved independently, but his purpose for that bill to separate was to ensure that, for future people, that would be the independence. So I can say that it has been a source of tension.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

Now we'll go to the government side for seven minutes.

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start my questions, I do want to clarify the record. Ms. Keen quoted herself as stating that the decision to extend the shutdown was made by AECL alone and was entirely voluntary. At the December 6 meeting of the CNSC to which she referred, the former president indicated that the commission would have shut down the reactor if AECL had not done so. The quote is:

I mean, you are shut down, you chose to keep shut down and that is commendable because otherwise, there would have been order by the Commission to do that.

My first question refers to a report completed by the CNSC. I'd like to start by asking you how aware the CNSC was of the very real impact extending the shutdown would have had on the health of Canadians. In Canada, 30,000 patients per week have nuclear medical scans; 10% of the scans are used for critical diagnostic procedures such as in heart function testing, in breast cancer, and in kidney transplant rejections.

In the CNSC's original notification of the licensing issue, the significant development report prepared November 23 for your December 6 meeting, in the section “Effects of Event”, the subsection regarding persons who are affected, there's a yes or no option under “Workers” and “Public”. The commission put “no” on both of these categories. Was it the perspective of the CNSC at that time that disrupting the supply of critical diagnostic material was not affecting the public?

[Linda Keen]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair. There were actually three comments in there, but I'll deal with the last, which is a question.

The Significant Development Report was reporting the state of risk to people and risk to the environment because of the situation that occurred at that time. Because the reactor was in shutdown state when the Significant Development Report was done and when it came to the commission meeting of the six, it wasn't a hazard to people or a hazard to the environment, because it was closed down. So that was the assessment of the staff at the time.

If the reactor had been in a different state, there would have been a different reaction. But it wasn't a hazard to people or the environment at that time because it was shut down.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It's my understanding that the Atomic Energy Control Board and the CNSC in its early days had a committee that included medical experts in order to provide advice to the CNSC and that this committee was disbanded. Did you ever consider the utility of having a committee to obtain ongoing advice from medical experts on radiation safety and on the use and availability of nuclear technology and medical isotopes in medical practice?

[Linda Keen]

Mr. Chair, there are two aspects there. First of all, radiation protection of people--the staff, the people in communities, the general public, in clinics--is the responsibility of the CNSC, and the CNSC has expert staff who are part of international organizations. The International Commission on Radiological Protection gets involved in this quite often. So there is now a broader community available for radiation protection advice.

In terms of advice on supply of radioisotopes, that was not the mandate of the CNSC. We would have assumed that whoever was responsible--Health Canada or the provinces--would themselves have sought that expert advice and not the commission.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I will take the answer to that question as no, they're not seeking ongoing advice from medical experts on radiation safety.

I forgot to mention, Mr. Chairman, that if I have any time left over, I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Trost.

The CNSC has staff on site at AECL. AECL was re-licensed in August of 2006. How could the CNSC staff not have known that this significant safety upgrade that you're referring to was not carried out until November of last year?

[Linda Keen]

It's absolutely correct, Mr. Chair, that we recently put staff on site because of the significant regulatory oversight issues that we have had on that site. So it actually was a response to the ongoing difficult, complex regulatory oversight needed at that site.

When the licence is given, the commission and the commission staff have the expectation that the licensee actually will put in those processes themselves to make sure that things are in place. The AECL absolutely told the commission on at least three occasions that the EPS system, as one of the seven upgrades, was in existence.

So first of all, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of that site is primarily AECL's. The CNSC staff would have had an inspection program, and in fact it was the CNSC staff who, on November 5, as pointed out in my chronology, actually pointed out the issue. That was during an arrangement for an inspection. So in fact the CNSC have had an inspection. One lesson learned, which I talked about, would in fact be to look at this. I think every organization can learn.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you. I will note that the CNSC inspectors had been on site for well over a full year. So if this hookup--the battery backup safety system--was not backed up, the CNSC knew. It came as no surprise. They did know.

[Linda Keen]

That's not true. That's not true.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

You also indicated in your January 8 letter to Minister Lunn, now advertised on your website, that the CNSC staff is compiling the kind of evidence that would be necessary for the commission to review in any consideration of a licence violation.

Since you're only now collecting the relevant information to affirm that AECL was in violation of the licence, how did you make the decision back in December that they were out of licence?

[Linda Keen]

When the commission staff were on site they actually looked at the facility, they looked at the backup documents, and they absolutely knew there was an issue here. They gave AECL a set time--I think it was over a week--to justify why this documentation was incorrect. AECL finally admitted to the CNSC that it wasn't connected. That took them quite a long period of time.

Then they proceeded to look at this. They were looking at the non-compliance issue. But because AECL, on November 22, chose to keep this facility in a shutdown, the immediate priority was to look at how to get to the next step of this. It wasn't to start to compile non-compliance issues; it was how to address the issue that the connection wasn't made. I think it would have been paperwork to go the other way, to spend a lot of time compiling non-compliance rather than getting on with the job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Keen.

Ms. Gallant, your time is up.

We now go to the second round. We're only going to have time for two minutes each in the second round.

We'll go to the official opposition, with Mr. St. Amand, for two minutes.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Ms. Keen, I now understand why the government didn't want you to speak at our last meeting. Your presentation is concise, compelling, and very clear.

Not so clear is Minister Lunn's appreciation of the important principle of independence. He can verbalize it; he can talk it, as he did on December 10 in the House of Commons when he said the commission is absolutely independent of government. That was his phrasing. But when I look at his behaviour during the previous week, his actions that week were totally inconsistent with what he said on December 10.

As I understand it, he telephoned you on December 5.

[Linda Keen]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

He telephoned you again on December 8.

[Linda Keen]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Let me say this is a rare event for you, as an independent commission, to receive a telephone call from the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Linda Keen]

Yes, Mr. Chair. In fact, I had not had any communication with the minister for over a year before this event.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

The upshot of the December 5 and the December 8 telephone calls placed by the minister left you and your staff person with no illusion whatsoever. You were being told by the Minister of Natural Resources what to do and how to do it.

Is that not the case?