Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 16th, 2008

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Who approved it in PCO then?

[Cassie Doyle]

The head of senior personnel in PCO.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Who might that be?

[Cassie Doyle]

Patricia Hassard.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

Minister, in this matter, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission did its work by demanding that the reactor, which had been shut down for routine maintenance, not be restarted before the work was done. If a guilty party had to be found, one would have to look in the direction of Atomic Energy Canada, whose president, who was one of your supporters and was appointed by your government, did in fact resign at the end of the year.

Why did you let the situation deteriorate by allowing Atomic Energy Canada to operate the plant for a number of months without insisting that the work required by the commission be carried out?

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

Well, Mr. Chair, it's been disclosed that there was a dispute between the two agencies. In fact, a number of documents have come forward that show that both agencies were fully aware that in fact it was in its current configuration and it was allowed to continue.

The reality that we faced in early December, again going back to the testimony of all the experts, was that this could operate safely, in fact safer than before, and that it was unnecessary to put the lives of Canadians in jeopardy. Obviously, the connection of this third backup power system is ongoing and will be completed. I understand it's ahead of schedule.

Those were the facts that were presented to us, and we had to deal with them as a government, and we did for the benefit of all Canadians to ensure their health and safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We go now to the Bloc Québécois, Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to reply with yes or no.

As we speak, is Atomic Energy Canada Limited operating the NRU reactor in accordance with its licence?

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

Yes.

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

So you are in agreement with Atomic Energy Canada Limited, which questions the conditions set by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in order to renew its licence. That is at the heart of the issue.

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

You're absolutely right--dispute. There is a dispute between the two agencies. Parliament passed an act that allowed them to operate in the current configuration, with only one of the two pumps hooked up to the new emergency power backup system. In that case, yes, they are in compliance. To resolve the dispute between the two agencies to allow them to operate is why we passed Bill C-38.

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

Minister, I apologize for interrupting you.

I simply want to tell you that we parliamentarians supported the bill not because we felt that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had not done its work properly, but because we were torn between two options. We chose the lesser of the two evils. I would like you to stop bolstering your statements by referring to the vote that was held in Parliament. When we learned that people would be dying, it became very difficult to oppose the bill. But at no time did we have any doubt about Ms. Keen's work or her competence. I simply wanted to express that to you.

You say that, as we speak, the reactor is being operated in compliance with the licence, an opinion which does not seem to be shared by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. However, the commission is the body with the expertise to judge whether or not a reactor is being operated safely. It has the expertise and the mandate in this regard. You consulted all kinds of other experts. Be that as it may, the expert mandated by law to assess the situation considers that this reactor is not being operated according to the conditions of the licence. You have to admit that that is somewhat surprising.

You fired Ms. Keen. Why did you do so last night rather than waiting for the results of the investigations which were ordered, either by the health minister, Atomic Energy Canada or Ms. Keen herself, concerning the performance of her commission's staff? Why did you act so hastily, in a manner I deem cavalier and rude, before Ms. Keen even had the opportunity to appear this morning, as president?

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

In fact, it was just the opposite, Mr. Chair. When we dealt with this matter, as the committee is aware, we wanted to get all the information before we made a decision. That is why I wrote Ms. Keen on December 27, advising her that we were considering this but that we would like to have all of her input and an opportunity for her to correspond directly, which in fact she did.

Only after receiving all of that information did we begin the evaluation. At one point the government believed that Ms. Keen had not fulfilled her executive responsibilities as president and CEO, and that we had not needed to get to this position.

It's important that the government have confidence that she could fill her mandate. We did not believe that she had the confidence of the government. It's incumbent upon us to make a decision to that effect. That is what, in fact, we did.

I advised my deputy minister early yesterday of the decision we were making. That decision was carried out by senior personnel with regard to the timing and the process that they follow. That's not something that I would do. That would be done by senior personnel in the Privy Council Office.

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

Minister, I must interrupt you. I am practically out of time.

The impression I get from your testimony, after two hours, is that your department was lax on numerous occasions and that Atomic Energy Canada was disorganized, but you were too timid to denounce this publicly. As for the management of this crisis, one gets the impression that you did indeed try to save lives, but that you were also trying to save your own skin and that of your party.

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

Not at all. In fact I believe we acted in a very expeditious manner from December 3 until, I believe, December 12, when Parliament passed Bill C-38 in nine days. I believe that. And if you look at the chronology of events and the actions we took trying to resolve this matter, it should never have had to come to Parliament. The powers were within the office of the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to resolve this. The former president and CEO of the commission chose not to exercise those powers. That is why we have taken the course of action that we have. We have a duty as the Government of Canada to act, and that is in fact exactly what we did.

As the member said earlier in testimony, it was difficult to oppose this bill. I agree. This was an important piece of legislation. All parties supported it for the right reasons.

We were left with no choice but to put this bill before Parliament, because it became clear that had we not, the former president of the commission would not exercise her executive powers, and lives were at stake. That is why we have taken the action that we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Madame DeBellefeuille, your time is more than up.

We will go now to Ms. Bell for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the minister has said over and over again, everyone in Parliament supported Bill C-38, but not necessarily for the reasons he puts forward. It was not that we didn't have confidence in the safety commission. We had to weigh the issues and come up with a plan that respected both the need for medical isotopes and the overriding need for nuclear safety. I want to stress that nuclear safety, in our view, is paramount in this as well.

Mr. Minister, you have said that it was a condition of the licence that was under dispute. Would that be to have the backup generators?

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

What happened, Mr. Chair, if I might explain, was that there are two backup systems, and this was a third backup system.

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

That's under dispute.

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

Whether in fact it was part of the licence. There were two pumps. The backup system was being maintained. It could operate with one of the pumps that had 100% design capacity. In other words, if it actually got to the point where you needed the third backup system, one of the pumps would be able to handle 100% of the capacity. It is important to stress that they didn't even have one pump prior to November 18.

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

I just want to know who is disputing this.

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

AECL has maintained that they have documentation and correspondence between CNSC and AECL on numerous occasions right from 2005 all the way through to--

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

Who decides the conditions of licensing?

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

If I can just finish, they have correspondence all the way through suggesting that both agencies were fully aware that this pump was not hooked up, and they continued to allow them to operate.

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

Who decides the conditions of licensing?