Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

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

Thank you. I'm running out of questions on this topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You're finished, Ms. Bell? Thank you very much.

We go now to the government side, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. Anderson, go ahead, please.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

One of the things I'm realizing from this is that hindsight, with the opposition, is good enough that they can see a gnat at 100 yards, but when it comes to accuracy, I doubt if they could hit an elephant at that distance.

I've got some concerns about a couple of issues here. I want to ask about MDS.

MDS said they had brought up that there was a potential of a shortage at the November 22 meeting. They said they pointed out the implications at that time of an extended shutdown, but I don't think anybody at that time thought an extended shutdown would go into December.

The opposition and some of the media have tried to leave the impression that MDS was saying there was an urgent situation. Did MDS Nordion follow up with your department at all? Did they come back to you in the next few days and say, “There is an emergency here; we have to do something”? Did you get any contact with them beyond what was at this meeting?

[Cassie Doyle]

No, there was no follow-up on the part of MDS Nordion to our department following the November 22 meeting.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

So that would seem to say they brought it up, left it on the table, and it was left there as one item in a meeting, but I would make the point that they didn't see it at the time as an absolute emergency either.

[Cassie Doyle]

I have spoken to the official who attended the meeting. We have talked to others who were at the meeting as well. There is a sense that there was no reference to any emergency. In fact, on November 22, there was indeed the possibility that the reactor would come on before the end of the month, and that was I think what everyone at that meeting considered to be important. The reason MDS Nordion raised this issue was to ensure that AECL was working flat out to try to get the reactor back on line, which of course they had been doing, but at that time they felt that the one-pump option would prevail.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I want to come back to one other issue that we've covered a couple of times, because it seems the opposition wants to play with timelines here. We've heard time and again that everyone had the impression that the shutdown would end in late November or early December. It was only on the weekend of November 30 that there began to be a realization that that shutdown could be extended quite a bit longer than that.

Is that information accurate? Generally, the expectation was that the shutdown could go to the end of November, or a little bit into December, but there was no sense that there was going to be a longer shutdown until that November 30-December 3 weekend.

[Cassie Doyle]

We certainly have studied the timelines fairly carefully on this. I can tell you that the first time I had a briefing with AECL--where information was presented that this shutdown could extend even as far as into January--was on December 4.

So up until November 30, the information we had in the department was that it was temporary and that they were working to try to bring the reactor back on as early as the first days of December.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I am going to split my time with Mr. Trost, but I'd like to ask one other question.

Is there a place in the communications protocol with AECL for CNSC? We know that it's an independent regulator, but is there a place for them to communicate as well? I'm wondering what the structure of that is.

[Cassie Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The communications protocol is between the two departments and AECL as the operator of the NRU reactor. But I would add that the minister has written to the president and chair of CNSC to reinforce the communications protocol and say that if there is any licensing issue or any information the CNSC has at their disposal that would indicate a shutdown on the reactor, the minister's office and the minister himself wish to be advised directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Trost now for up to three minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a couple of brief questions regarding the December 5 and, I believe, December 8 meetings with CNSC. Mostly, I'm interested in your characterization of them.

It's my understanding that on December 5 the minister, you, and CNSC had a teleconference. Could you go through your view of what was accomplished in that meeting? What was the tone of the meeting--was it professional, etc.--and what was accomplished in it? That's from your perspective, the December 5 teleconference meeting.

[Cassie Doyle]

The December 5 teleconference was held with the chair and president of CNSC and the minister. I was in attendance, as were a couple of other officials from the department, and I believe there were officials from CNSC. So it was a formal call.

The purpose was really to obtain information from CNSC as part of our strategy on what actions were available to resolve the situation. So it really was a call that was focused on questions being asked of the chair and president on the status of the issue at that particular time. We realized that part of the call was on a licensing issue pertaining to the NRU reactor.

So that first call was really information gathering.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

So the purpose was purely information gathering, very professional, and there was no attempt to pressure CNSC or anything like that, in any bully-like fashion?

[Cassie Doyle]

Mr. Chair, that is correct.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

On December 8 there was another conference call between the minister and CNSC. According to CNSC officials, their view is that the minister wanted CNSC to immediately approve the restarting of the reactor. After the minister left the phone conversation, she says the officials--and I'm assuming this would include you--were aggressive and showed significant frustration at the answers.

In your opinion, did you and the officials and the minister behave appropriately and professionally, and was there any untoward pressure put on the CNSC in the December 8 conference call?

[Cassie Doyle]

Mr. Chair, I did respond to this question on January 16, so I will just reiterate that I believe everyone on that call conducted themselves in a professional way. The purpose of the call was to canvass Ms. Keen for information on the earliest possible date on which the commission could be convened. The question was how quickly the commission could be convened in order to hear the case that was creating the continued shutdown at Chalk River.

Also, there were specific questions asked all around on information as to the overall safety of the reactor, whether the reactor, should it be started up again, would be any less safe than it was when it was taken out of operation; indeed, whether if one pump was installed before the restart it would in fact be safer than it had been prior to the shutdown on November 18.

That was the subject of the call. It was a very professional call. Officials attended on both sides, along with the minister and Ms. Keen.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I could be wrong, but their characterization is that you were aggressive. You don't strike me as very aggressive, but maybe it's different on a phone conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

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

We go now to the second round, starting with the official opposition.

Mr. St. Amand, for up to five minutes. Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good day, Ms. Doyle and Ms. Kirby.

When was it, Ms. Doyle, that you were appointed as deputy minister?

[Cassie Doyle]

Mr. Chair, I was appointed in June 2006, and I took up my duties in July 2006.

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

All right. So as of November-December 2007, you'd been deputy minister for 17 to 18 months. As I understand it, it was on November 22 that someone else at the department became aware of the situation vis-à-vis Chalk River. Is that correct? It was Sylvia....

[Cassie Doyle]

Yes, that's correct.

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

Within a few days of November 22 you were appointed to the board of AECL. Is that correct?

[Cassie Doyle]

Mr. Chair, that is correct. On December 3, I was appointed through GIC.