Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 16th, 2008

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

Mr. Chair, throughout the event our total focus was on resuming the production of isotopes and looking at inventories, wherever we could get access to them. At the conclusion of this, we looked at all of the information, the statutory powers, and where we thought we needed to look at things. At that point I wrote a letter to Ms. Keen on December 27. I wanted to have her input in fullness before we made any decision. Again, I sent that letter to Ms. Keen, and unfortunately it became public.

Once we received her reply and had an opportunity to examine her reply in fullness, only then did we make the decision that we did not believe she fulfilled her duties, her executive powers, as the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and we took the action we did. She has lost the confidence of the government with respect to her executive powers as president and CEO of the commission.

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

The question was fairly specific. When in fact did you decide to fire Ms. Keen?

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

I would say we came to that final conclusion yesterday.

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

Was your parliamentary secretary informed of this?

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

No.

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

Yet it seems that in the House of Commons, before we even got to the point of the debate on Bill C-38, the Prime Minister's comments led us to believe that he had lost confidence in Ms. Keen long before that.

I'm trying to ascertain the sequence of events and her commitment to nuclear safety and your directive to her to look at medical safety. Was that a shift in her responsibilities at the time, or was that something that was within her purview before?

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

We believe she had that authority in her mandate, although she maintained that she did not.

I want to emphasize this. As we went through the progression, right from December 3, of gathering the facts, and when I spoke with the former president and CEO of the CNSC on December 5, it was always focused on getting a solution, but it became very clear very quickly, even by her own officials and AECL independent experts, that in fact this was not about safety; this was a potential difference of opinion between the two agencies with respect to licensing. Clearly we could not put the lives of Canadians in jeopardy.

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

Thank you.

One more quick question. If this committee were to find that you should be censured based on what your responsibility might be in this matter, and if the House were to pass the required motions asking you to tender your resignation, would you comply with that?

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

No. I serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and I have his confidence.

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

Okay. So what do you see as your responsibility in this matter?

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

I take ultimate responsibility. I'm responsible for the actions at Natural Resources Canada. That is why we took the decisive action that we did and we put a bill before Parliament.

I had been advised that it's been many decades since a procedure like this was used where you brought witnesses on the floor of the House of Commons during debate. We took extraordinary measures once it became clear what we had to do. In fact we did that to ensure the health and safety of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Bell, your time is up.

We now go to the government side for seven minutes. Mr. Anderson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today.

I think we have two issues we're trying to deal with here. One is the risk management of the isotope issue, and the second one is the Auditor General's report. I notice that in the last couple of weeks the opposition members have been trying to tie the two together, although there is no direct connection there.

I'd like to talk first about the risk management issue. We really found ourselves in a situation five weeks ago where we had to make a decision on whether there was going to be isotope production or not. That was pretty much as clear as it could be. We could have chosen not to act, in which case we may still not have had isotope production today. Some of the indications were that it would be the end of January or later before that production would start. You mentioned earlier that there are 25,000 procedures per day, so we'd be in a very serious situation.

All parties in Parliament worked together and made the decision that they did not agree that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission position represented the health and safety interests of Canadians. Parliament made the move and made a choice that they were going to ask that the reactor be put back into production.

I would like you to explain a bit. What would the consequences have been of our not acting, of not doing anything at that point? Was there a real health risk?

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

At that point, when we actually put the bill before Parliament, the inventory of isotopes was down by over 65%. Up until that point, in the days leading up to it, we were briefed by officials that we were cancelling diagnostic procedures across the country, but we were literally days away from cancelling serious medical procedures, such as cancer treatments, the impact being that people would die. So this was very serious.

That is why we had to put this matter before Parliament with Bill C-38 to give us the authority that we could resume production when it became apparent that this was not a safety issue.

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

You talked a bit this morning about your phone calls to Ms. Keen. You've said that your primary reason for calling her was to ask her to reconvene the commission to try to find a solution, to work with AECL to reach a solution. Ms. Keen seems to have taken exception to those calls.

Could I ask the deputy minister, were you in on those phone calls?

[Cassie Doyle, Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I was in attendance on the call, as were three other members of my executive team at NRCan.

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

Could you give your version of those calls? I'm just interested in how you felt the calls went. Did the minister treat Ms. Keen with respect and professional courtesy?

[Cassie Doyle]

Yes, the minister conducted himself in an entirely professional way.

He was obviously seized by the urgency of the situation, but he was canvassing Ms. Keen for information on the earliest possible date on which the commission could be convened to hear the case on the status of AECL's safety case, and information as well on the overall safety of the reactor--that is, before the shutdown and as well in the case that one pump might be reconnected.

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

And his primary request to her was in fact a request that she reconvene the commission in order to try to find a solution to this--is that correct?

[Cassie Doyle]

That is correct.

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

I would think that it's hardly interference to actually ask someone to do their job. I'd like to make that observation.

I'd like to turn to the AG report. Maybe we need a bit more clarity on that.

The content, as you mentioned, Mr. Minister, deals with three issues. It talks about the dedicated isotope facility, which is not the same as the NRU. It talks about the new generation of CANDU reactors and then it talks about the replacement of some of the facilities at Chalk River.

I went through the report. I could find nothing in the report that deals specifically with the present-day isotope production. I'm just wondering if that's an accurate reading of the report.

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

Yes, it is, and your assessment is absolutely correct. The MAPLE reactors, which she referenced in her report, are reactors that have never produced an isotope to this day and have not been in operation and are not expected to be in operation now, as a result of extensions and difficulties, for some time to come.

Again I want to stress that there are problems at Chalk River. This has been starved for over 15 years. There have been chronic problems with funding. It is something our government began to address this year by increasing the amount of funding by up to $250 million.

It is also important to point out that it became clear, in dealing with all of the agencies involved throughout this situation, that in fact this was about a licensing issue. At no point in the Auditor General's report does she ever identify any issues with respect to the licensing of the NRU. It is simply not there.

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

The opposition is apparently trying to heckle me on this question or something; I'm not sure.

They have spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of weeks trying to make a connection between the 2007 AG report and the Chalk River extended shutdown. Is there a connection?

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

There is absolutely none. There is absolutely no connection. Nobody could have anticipated the potential problems, that we would have to shut down the NRU or that there was a licensing issue or a licence discrepancy between ACL and the CNSC. That was not identified in the report. There is no connection.

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

In terms of a response to the AG report, you mentioned that the government has put money into trying to deal with this situation. Can you just explain once more what money the government has put into this? What has it done to respond to her concerns?