Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 16th, 2008

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

It's important to note that this was also identified in the 2002 Auditor General's report, which wasn't released but is released now. What we have done is put $250 million this fiscal year alone into Chalk River to deal with everything from legacy liabilities to health and safety regulatory issues there. We have launched a review. We are taking action. We believe it's imperative that this finally happen after the neglect it has had.

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

It's fairly clear to everyone now that there is no connection between the report and the extended shutdown at Chalk River.

I am interested. Would you just go over the chronology again for us and indicate at what point it was that you felt we had a serious situation? Again, the opposition has been trying to say that we should have known earlier and acted earlier. From my understanding of the situation, the government acted very reasonably and quickly, as did Parliament. Could you tell us at what point you understood there was a real sense of urgency with this issue?

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

Thank you very much.

It's important to point out that scheduled maintenance shutdowns are common. They happen regularly. There was a scheduled maintenance shutdown in 2006, which was extended by ten days. These things do happen.

There was email correspondence with my office. There was mention at a meeting, Mr. Chair, but it didn't become clear until Monday. Even an email received on the afternoon of Friday, November 20, from ACL to Natural Resources Canada said they expected to resume operations in early December, that they were putting forward a one-pump solution, that there were discussions going on with the CNSC. So at that point in time, everybody expected that they would resume operations and that there would be no shortage, but obviously, as events unfolded after that Friday, on Monday it became clear that they were not going to be able to restore them, and in fact it could be as late as the middle of January or even longer before they would be able to restore them. Clearly, as I explained earlier, with the shelf life of the isotope being so short, this was a serious situation. So all hands were on deck at Natural Resources Canada. They were working around the clock, gathering the information, and we proceeded on that basis as we moved forward--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I had to interrupt. Mr. Anderson's time is more than finished.

We'll go to the second round now, to Monsieur St. Amand, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I have a couple of comments and then a series of questions, if I may.

You will know that pursuant to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, section 20 specifically, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a court of record.

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

That's correct.

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

You will recall telling Canadians from the floor of the House of Commons on December 10 that the commission is, in your phrasing, “absolutely independent of government”. You recall saying that?

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

Yes. I believe that.

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

So we on this side--and, I dare say, any close observer of this--could and should conclude that this situation is commensurate with a minister of the crown telephoning a judge. Just to let you know, that's our--

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

I completely disagree with that statement.

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

You can disagree, but that's our approach to the matter.

You're familiar, no doubt, Minister Lunn, with the document that outlines standards of conduct expected of ministers of the Harper government. I'm quoting here:

Ministers and their staff are also expected not to intervene, or appear to intervene, on behalf of anyone, including constituents, with quasi-judicial tribunals on any matter before them that requires a decision in their quasi-judicial capacity, unless otherwise authorized by law.

You've clearly indicated that on December 5 you initiated a telephone call with Ms. Keen, and that--

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

If I may respond, Mr. Chair--

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

Well, you initiated a telephone call with Ms. Keen on December 5, on your own testimony. On December 8 you initiated a second telephone call to Ms. Keen.

I'm groping--truly groping, unsuccessfully--for any justification that would have allowed you to call Ms. Keen and intervene in this matter in such an extraordinary fashion.

I'm asking you to tell the committee, under what legislative authority did you take the extraordinary step of calling the independent regulator, Ms. Keen, on both December 5 and December 8? I see nothing in the legislation. I don't know if you were acting on advice from the Clerk of the Privy Council, advice from your deputy, or advice from the justice department, but it certainly appears to me that you have clearly violated the provisions of Mr. Harper's code of conduct for ministers.

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

Not at all, Mr. Chair. It's completely appropriate for any minister of the crown to approach an agency head to obtain factual information or to deal with an administrative matter. In fact, I had met with Ms. Keen on a number of occasions before this.

I want to make it absolutely clear that in my call on December 5, I was there to find out the facts. Obviously we had a situation. There was a sense of urgency that was unfolding. It was important that we as a government obtain all the information. Of course I'm going to call the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. At the conclusion of that call, no question, I said to Ms. Keen, “I would like you to look at all possible options, and I'm doing the same with AECL, to explore all options and any way that you can assist to help resolve this matter that we believe is in the public interest of all Canadians.”

I want to stress that in the December 8 call, there were a number of people from both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Natural Resources Canada. It wasn't between just Ms. Keen and me. And in that call on December 8, at no point, not at any time, did I suggest to the commission what decision they should make. My only suggestion...and again, I asked her if there was any possible way, on an urgent basis, that this matter could be put before the commission. We believed it was in the public interest of Canadians, and that is what I asked Ms. Keen to do.

Again, we were assessing the facts. We were informed by AECL that they had a strong safety case, that the reactor could be run. We wanted the CNSC's opinion on that. Their technical people on that very call confirmed that in fact the reactor could be run safer than it ever has been before.

So that was the intention behind my calls, and it was completely appropriate. I would have been remiss in my duties as a minister of the crown had I not called. Then you could be questioning me today for not calling. I had an obligation to call on behalf of Canadians.

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

Minister Lunn, on December 10 you, along with Minister Clement, penned a letter to Mr. Petrunik of the CANDU reactor division.

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

That's correct.

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

Your phrasing: “We are writing to you to express our strong concern that AECL allowed the NRU at Chalk River to become out of compliance with its operating licence.”

So on December 10 the reactor was out of compliance with the operating licence. In effect, you were directing Ms. Keen to allow that reactor to be started up again, clearly in contravention of the licence.

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

Not at all, Mr. Chair. In fact, we wrote to both AECL and the CNSC. The facts were in dispute between the two agencies, so we wrote letters to both agencies. Again, in our progression to try to resolve this issue as the situation was becoming more urgent each day as it passed without the resumption of production of medical isotopes, we wrote to both agencies, again urging them to do everything they could to resolve this matter.

I want to point to the record, Mr. Chair, that in fact it was Parliament that took the final decision to allow the reactor to be restarted. It's not a decision that I could make. And it was supported by every single member. It was supported by all political parties in both houses in record time. They had an opportunity, an unlimited amount of time, to hear from witnesses from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, AECL, independent experts, and myself and Minister Clement. We appeared before both houses. There was an unlimited amount of time before that decision was rendered. It was Parliament that made that decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Your time is up, Mr. Alghabra.

We will now go to the Bloc Québécois. Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, you are holding the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission responsible for the crisis, but it seems to me that you make no reference to the disorder at Atomic Energy Canada Limited and its poor organization. Not once in your statement did you mention that AECL had not been respecting the conditions of its licence for 17 months. And yet, it knew that. The nuclear reactor is no safer today than it was before, since it is still being operated with a single pump. So AECL is still not respecting the conditions of its licence.

As a minister, do you think it is normal to accept that situation and not publicly denounce AECL's poor handling of this matter?

You only focus on the president. We don't hear a word about AECL. You don't even mention the resignation of the director general who had announced his intention of leaving on November 29. That resignation only became effective on December 31. You focus the debate on the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and completely ignore AECL's work, work that was completely disorganized in my opinion, even if I am not an expert.

When the president told the AECL that it was not in compliance with its licence, the organization decided to function with one pump and to propose some safety measures. The commissioner felt that the documents were not complete enough and asked it to do its homework. In the meantime, AECL changed its mind and decided to use two pumps. A few days later, it changed its mind again and decided to function with a single pump. Given the AECL's behaviour, you should have held it responsible for the situation as well, and not just one individual, Ms. Keen, as it happens.

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

Thank you very much.

First of all, the member made a statement that in fact restarting the reactor is not safe. I want to completely and categorically disagree with this statement. I think this is important to note. In fact, there are multiple shutdown safety systems on this reactor. This is the third safety shutdown system. There are other systems.

Prior to November 18 there were no pumps. The reactor operated for 50 years without this third safety system. There are still other safety shutdown systems. This was an additional safety--

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

Excuse me, Minister, but do you agree with me that Atomic Energy Canada Limited should legalize the situation regarding the operation of the pumps and undertake the work it has neglected, so that it respects the conditions of its licence, and holds it legally, and can have it renewed?

Even if the reactor had been operated a certain way for 50 years, that was one of the seven conditions and the AECL did not respect it.

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

I was just getting to that. In fact there were no pumps hooked up prior to November 18, so this is something that was new. And it's in dispute whether in fact it was a condition of their licence. That was in dispute throughout this timeframe. AECL contends that it wasn't a condition of their licence. But it was clear--and it's clear from a number of the communications between the two agencies--that in fact the CNSC was fully aware, all the way through this timeframe, that on a number of occasions these pumps were not hooked to the emergency power supply.

I want to stress again that everybody, including the technical people at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, confirmed that if you restarted the reactor, it would be safer than it was on November 18. That is an important point to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

You have 15 seconds for a very short question, if you would like, Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

That's fine.