Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 16th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

We will go now to the government side, to Mr. Allen for five minutes.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here today. I just want to follow up on a couple of points that have been made.

When you went through the chronology of events in your testimony, you talked about how this was building up, and media reports started tracking this on December 5, indicating a developing health crisis. You talked about a number of e-mails that were received, yet there was no indication in any of these e-mails or correspondence.

What was the quality of that information that was coming to you? What made you bridge the gap that you had to make this phone call to AECL to, as the opposition was saying, infringe on their autonomy? And what were those powers, in your opinion, that you thought the president could have used and did not?

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

First, let me say that right up until November 30, there were e-mails. There was an e-mail sent on November 29 by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission with an attached report that even had boxes ticked off to say that it wouldn't affect employees or the public.

It was clear to me--even as stated in an e-mail of November 30 from AECL, and of course there was more information provided in that e-mail--that they still believed they would be able to resume operations some time in early December.

The point I'm making is that I don't believe the CNSC or AECL even had a sense of urgency up to that point. That wasn't conveyed. They still believed they would be able to resume operations.

Obviously at some point between that Friday afternoon and the Monday when I was briefed, communications between the two agencies appeared that indicated that they would not be able to restart.

We had some discussions. Again, I was officially briefed by the department on Tuesday, December 4. As we started gathering the facts and information, it was clear there was an issue between the two agencies. In fact, I was told then that AECL believed they could restart more safely than before.

That is why I intervened and called the president and CEO of the commission to gather the facts. It was very important. And I was speaking to both agencies throughout this. Every time I called the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, I also called the lead person at AECL up at Chalk River, Dr. Torgeson. I did that because it was important that we have all the information.

We believe it's very clear that the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had the powers to act, had the powers to deal with this matter in her executive responsibilities in that role, and that she did not fulfill or carry out those duties appropriately, obviously.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

To interject, Minister, which actual concrete roles do you think she could have exercised? I didn't get a clear answer to that question.

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

Under the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act, subparagraph 9(a)(i) states:

9. The objects of the Commission are

(i) [to] prevent unreasonable risk, to the environment and to the health and safety of persons, associated with that development, production...or use,

It was clear that she had the powers to deal with this matter. She had the powers to deal with this matter before AECL brought it to her. And obviously there was a dispute between these two agencies. AECL presented a safety case to the president of the CNSC. They believed they had a strong safety case. We were advised by the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that she did not believe they had a complete safety case.

Again, as we gathered this information, what I was encouraging the president to do was to put the matter before...so a decision could be rendered. However, it appeared obvious that that was not going to happen through the progression of our communication. Ultimately, bringing a bill before Parliament ended up being the only way.

Clearly, had we not acted, there is no question in my mind that people would die.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Minister, I'd like to ask about NRCan's responsibilities in this. With a reactor supplying over 50% of the world's isotopes, you'd think the department would have some sense of urgency on this, and when you started getting correspondence on that you would realize there was a problem and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Allen, your time is up. A very quick question and a very short answer from the minister, please.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Why wouldn't the department have, in their communication protocols, alerted you to this?

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

I'll let the deputy minister answer that question.

[Cassie Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

During the period between November 22 and November 29 we had no certainty as to the duration of the shutdown. It was characterized as temporary, so it was seen at that time as not contributing to the kind of situation that we realized after November 30. That is the reason that information was not brought to the attention of the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much.

We go now, for the third round, to Mr. McGuinty for five minutes. Go ahead, please, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us this morning.

I've listened very intently, very carefully to everything you've said, and I have to tell you it's quite a story. What you came here to present this morning is in fact quite a story.

Minister, let me quote Auditor General Sheila Fraser from several days ago, when she said about the situation, “I find it a very unfortunate situation. She”--referring to Ms. Keen--“has a very important role as an independent regulator. I think, like us in this audit office, she is deeply concerned about the independence of her organization as it comes to its ability to make these kinds of decisions. I guess I find it unfortunate that discussions over decisions have become personal.”

Minister, let's take a look at what's been happening around this town in the last two years: Linda Keen; Marc Mayrand was blamed for the veil issue because of your government's pathetic legislation; Bill Corbett is being challenged in court because of your “in and out” scandal; Johanne Gélinas was fired as environment commissioner; Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former Elections Canada head, was driven out by your government; John Reid, hardly a shrinking violet, left as information commissioner; and Graham Fraser, the official languages commissioner, was undermined by the employment of Bernard Lord to do Mr. Fraser's job--all in the context of Prime Minister Harper saying, previous to the last election, that the people of Canada had nothing to fear, because the government would be held in check by Liberal appointees in the senior ranks of the public service and in independent, quasi-judicial tribunals in the courts.

Well, Minister, I guess the question now is should Canadians fear, should Canadians actually fear, the real agenda of the government now that the government is proceeding with what is reminiscent, in my view, of some of the developments in the 1940s and 1950s in the American Senate?

What's particularly egregious about this, Minister, is that these are individuals who head up commissions, boards, quasi-judicial tribunals--mostly independent actors who are specifically mandated by enabling legislation to do their jobs. These days, Minister, it seems that anybody who tries to do their job around this town loses it. These kinds of Republican tactics this town has never seen before. They're new to Canadians.

So let me ask you something here. Maybe I have another alternative narrative; maybe what you're really doing here today is covering up for Stephen Harper's intemperate remarks on the floor of the House of Commons by alleging that Linda Keen was some kind of Liberal hack doing the deeds and the doings of the Liberal Party of Canada; maybe those intemperate remarks got him in trouble. And now you, less than 24 hours after we met here with your colleagues, fire Linda Keen in the dark of night, while Canadians aren't watching, when yesterday your parliamentary secretary was at this committee fighting for your right for rebuttal, to respond to Linda Keen, because you did not trust what she was going to say.

What kind of conduct is this, Minister? What kind of government are you a part of if you are simply doing the bidding now of a PMO by fabricating a story about health concerns?

Minister, I have a couple of questions for you.

Exactly what part of the job did Ms. Keen fail to perform? Tell us exactly where she's in breach of her responsibilities, as circumscribed by the enabling legislation, as a nuclear safety regulator. Tell us exactly how you see the health and safety of Canadians actually in the mandate of that enabling legislation.

Then also tell us, please, can you point to a section of the act that states that it's the commission's responsibility to ensure that MDS Nordion can meet its sales demands? Can you tell us where there's a legal international obligation for Canada to supply medical isotopes to the United States and other nations?

Come on; every Canadian is watching you now. They see this story and they don't believe you. They don't believe your government. And we believe you're covering up for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's unfortunate, intemperate, yet revealing remarks about a senior regulator in the government of Canada.

Tell us clearly, Minister, how exactly Ms. Keen did not perform her duties. Tell us how as “regulator” she is unable to continue to play her role within the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Minister, you have about half a minute to answer all those questions.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, just briefly then, the facts are as they are, as I've outlined them. Clearly we had to act. This culminated in an act of Parliament. That was the only way we could ensure the safety of Canadians and in fact people would not die unnecessarily. It did not have to happen.

Every single party had an opportunity, had unlimited time, in the House of Commons and in the Senate, to question me, Minister Clement, both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and AECL, and independent experts before they made the decision to support the resumption of the NRU reactor so that it could produce medical isotopes--which, I might add, the president and CEO continued to maintain could not happen.

With regard to Ms. Keen, our government believes she did not fulfill her role, her executive powers--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How?

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

--as president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Precisely how, Minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Order, please, Mr. McGuinty. Give the minister a chance to respond. Your questioning time is up.

Go ahead, Mr. Lunn.

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

She did not fulfill her role. She had the statutory authority to deal with the matter in an expeditious and urgent manner, and she also had the authority in her management role to put the matter before the commission, Mr. Chair.

Again, we stand behind this decision. We believe we took decisive action, as we needed to, to ensure the health and safety of Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Now to Mr. Trost, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I ask the minister a couple of my questions on the Auditor General's reports, I should put it on the record here that the entirety of Parliament took this measure to get this reactor going. A senior member of the NDP, at the end of the debate, said this was one of Parliament's finest hours. And I agree with him. There are members from other opposition parties that are on the record saying they supported this legislation, Bill C-38. I think we need to remember that it wasn't you who made this decision; we made this, the people who are questioning you today.

The other thing is I couldn't let my colleague's comment about fabricating health concerns go by. Considering the letters from the Canadian Medical Association, the various doctors with backgrounds in nuclear medicine and cancer specialties, considering the concerns they put on the public record to the CNSC and to the entirety of the country, I don't think those gentlemen were fabricating health concerns. They are professional medical people with many years of training. I don't think we, as committee members, should criticize their judgment or their character in anything that we do. I think this was very clearly a major health concern.

The question I have to your critics would be what would they have done in your shoes? I think they need to answer that.

Now, Mr. Minister, I'd like to go back a little bit to the Auditor General's reports of 2002 and 2007. My understanding is that in 2002 the natural resources minister at that time did not meet with the Auditor General to discuss her report. You did in 2007.

Was your practice unique? Why did you think it was important? Do you have any idea why previous ministers refused to meet with the Auditor General concerning her reports?

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

I can't answer on their actions. The previous two reports.... I think it's important to note that these reports are done on all crown agencies. The Auditor General does a review once every five years. This is something she's required to do. The 1997 and the 2002 reports haven't been released, but the 2002 report identified a number of issues with respect to Chalk River, with respect to AECL, with respect to lack of funding. I was aware of those in the very early days when I took office. I was briefed by my department in some of our discussions of issues we needed to deal with, and we believe we have taken decisive action.

When the Auditor General wrote the 2007 report, I was briefed in early October. This was a report to AECL. I welcomed that report and I looked forward to its release.

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

Mr. Minister, I understand that.

Now, in the report the Auditor General said, and I quote from the front page of the report:

We did not do a technical assessment of the safety and security of the Corporation’s nuclear research facilities or waste management practices, as they are monitored by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

So nothing in the 2002 or 2007 report had anything to do with technical safety. The CNSC is the only body that reports to you on those sorts of issues. Is that correct?

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

That's correct.

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

So there was nothing anywhere in these that had anything to do with the seven safety upgrade issues and the dispute about the one--nothing at all?