Evidence of meeting #4 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome.
We are here today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) to commence the study on the activities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River.
There are two parts to our meeting today. From 3:30 to 4:30, we have, from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Michael Binder, president. With him is Patsy Thompson.
Welcome to both of you.
Before we get started with your presentation, we have Mr. Cullen on a point of order.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's just a small thing. On particular days like today, when we have an issue that we suspect is going to have some public interest, we should either have a different room to use--we move rooms occasionally--or at least set up a table to accommodate the media. It makes it difficult for us to do the work. I know there are other times in the scheduling that you do through your office. It's just a note. It seems like this day is going to get some attention, and a different space would have been appropriate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Your point is well taken, Mr. Cullen. We understand that there aren't enough spots for media with the translation feeds. In the future, we will really try to accommodate them better.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you very much for bringing that up.
If we could, now we'll just go ahead with a 10-minute presentation.
Mr. Binder, please.
Dr. Michael Binder President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss nuclear regulation in Canada and the mandate of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
I've prepared short opening remarks. I understand they've been distributed.
Accompanying me this afternoon is Dr. Patsy Thompson, our director general of environmental and radiation protection and assessment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by explaining the role and responsibilities of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Simply stated, the CNSC is Canada's nuclear watchdog. We regulate nuclear facilities and activities in Canada. We regulate nuclear power plants, uranium mines, waste management, nuclear medicine, and small devices.
Our core mission is to protect the health, safety, and security of the public and our environment, and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
We are governed by the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), which clearly sets the objects, roles and powers of the Commission.
One of our fundamental operational principles is to conduct our regulatory work in an open and transparent way. We routinely hold public hearings to license major facilities and to discuss significant developments that affect our policies, regulations, and our stakeholders.
We held 28 such public hearings and meetings in 2008. We heard from 260 intervenors and made 37 licensing and 13 environmental assessment decisions. In fact, just last week, in a public hearing here in Ottawa, the commission heard an update from CNSC and AECL staff on the recent leaks at the NRU.
We webcast our public hearings. Everyone can see and hear the proceedings. To get a real feel of how open and interactive our hearings are, I invite you and other honourable members of Parliament to tune in to future hearings or to look at our recent proceedings, which are stored on our website at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca. We want to make sure that the work of the CNSC is accessible, interactive, known, and understood.
To make sure that our nuclear safety mandate is carried out, we have developed a rigorous regulatory oversight framework. Our Canadian safety standards are benchmarked against international standards.
We rely on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, and other eminent groups of doctors and nuclear experts, such as the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and the International Commission on Radiological Protection, as well as Health Canada and Environment Canada. We rely on these organizations to develop and advance the science that takes into account health and environmental effects in nuclear management.
We take these international and domestic standards and incorporate them into licensing requirements that our licensees must meet.
And then we go further. When it comes to safety considerations we expect more from our licensee than these standards. Indeed our licence conditions for all nuclear sites include reporting and action levels that are far more stringent than the international standards. These reporting and action levels require licensees to identify and report to us any significant event as soon as possible so that action can be taken long before there is potential impact on human and environmental health.
We set these very demanding reporting requirements or thresholds to ensure the safety of Canadians and the environment. Setting an effective regulatory framework is important. However, one has to make sure that the rules and regulations are being complied with. We require licensees to monitor, measure, and report periodically on operations, performance, and releases to the environment to ensure that this approach works. To ensure this is being done, we also have on-site staff at all major nuclear facilities in Canada who monitor and oversee nuclear safety on a daily basis.
Given that we deemed the December leak at the NRU to be of low safety significance, we were caught by surprise at the level of interest the events generated. As requested by the Minister of Natural Resources, reports by CNSC and AECL on those events were tabled in Parliament. The reports explain that AECL acted appropriately in its reporting to the CNSC. There was no cover-up; there were no risks to health, safety, or the environment from these events.
We have distributed a handout for you this afternoon, which portrays the actual releases against regulatory limits.
I would be willing to take you through those handouts.
We have recognized that we, both the industry and the regulator, can improve communication on all our activities, and we are acting to meet these expectations. As you may be aware, there was another small leak of heavy water at the NRU this past weekend. AECL notified the CNSC of the leak on Sunday morning, and AECL exercised its voluntary reporting obligations and provided information on its website yesterday. We also updated our website. The lessons learned from the December event are being implemented.
Like the other event in December, the leak had no impact on the safe operation of the NRU, and it posed no risk to the health and safety of the public, workers, or the environment.
In closing, I want to note that Parliament legislated the basis for a solid and clear nuclear safety regulatory framework. That framework is based on international and domestic standards and best practices.
Canadian nuclear facilities are safe. Otherwise we wouldn't license them to operate. Our regulatory framework makes safety our number one priority. We do not compromise on safety; it is in our DNA.
Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Conservative
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was surprised that you have these groups divided into two different hours--the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for an hour and the AECL and Canadian Nuclear Association for the next hour.
These groups are all here. Couldn't we hear from the other two groups for their 10-minute presentations and then have them all available for questions? Certainly that was my intention when I suggested this study to the committee. Why would you not do that?
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
The agenda was turned out days ago. Mr. Regan could have raised this with us at that point; he chose not to. I think we should stay with what we have here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We won't change the agenda. The agenda has been out since Thursday of last week.
We have this group before us now. We'll go forward with the questioning, and in the second hour we have the other two groups.
Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That is appreciated. I suppose in the moment we have in front of us, committees are able to be masters. If the witnesses are here and available, I don't see why there would be any reason to be against such an idea. It allows the discussion. Because these groups are so interconnected on this issue, it just seems to make more sense to have it that way. I don't see why not.
I understand the procedures of committees and this was issued, but if we are here now and the space is available and witnesses are ready to go, why not? I think it will allow committee members a better ability to question the witnesses to find out how this communication was or was not going on, which is essentially the point of this exercise. It seems it will be very disjointed to have one set of testimony, where there will be allusions to what AECL or the other players in the game are doing, and then to hear from them an hour later and have answers in the second hour that we'd prefer to ask the witnesses in the first hour.
I don't know why committee members, particularly on the government side, can't agree to this. The opposition is showing willingness to amend the agenda and have it done this way.
If the witnesses are here and this leads to a better committee hearing, I don't see why not.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
What's better or not is a matter of opinion, but, again, the agenda was out. I know we're all busy, but it is important to have your staff look at the agenda. If you had brought to my attention that there was a different wish on the part of committee, we could have tried to deal with it.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, you're saying that had we contacted you on this you would have changed it--for future reference, just so we can have this clear for the future.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Sure. We certainly would have discussed it, and yes, if that were the will of the committee, absolutely.
Mr. Bains.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
We are having that discussion right now, Mr. Chair. Even though, yes, this was not brought to your attention a few days earlier, the argument is being made that these are interconnected. It makes a lot of sense. Sometimes if you pose a question to one group of witnesses, they might allude to the other group, and that might cause a difficulty for us to get the answers we're looking for.
In the spirit of cooperation, that's what we're asking for. We understand that the agenda was put forward before, but it is a very reasonable request to ask all the witnesses to speak at one time and we'd get a collective opportunity to ask questions. That is a very fair request, and I would ask you to reconsider, please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Again, the agenda has been out. I can't adjust the agenda now.
The witnesses have come believing and understanding how the arrangement would work, when they would present, who else would or wouldn't be at the table, and to change that now is a problem.
Mr. Anderson.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We're using up valuable time here. We could be well into our first round of questions, and we're going to certainly use up more time on this issue if the opposition insists on going through with this. So why don't we just get to our questioning?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will go ahead.
Mr. Regan, you were first up, for seven minutes.
In future, though, certainly bring that to my attention, the clerk's attention, or the attention of the committee, and we will deal with it, but let's get on with the valuable time we have here today.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Binder, perhaps you are aware of a report today in which Ms. Linda Keene has indicated there were conversations she had had. She had two phone calls from Minister Lunn at the time of the isotope crisis in December 2007. In the first call he said he was looking for solutions, and in the second call he ordered her to allow the facility to reopen. Were you aware of those calls or a party to them, or do you know someone else who was a party to those calls?
February 24th, 2009 / 3:40 p.m.
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I wasn't there. I was in a different life, different job, minding my own business. I wasn't aware of any of this until January 2008.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
If you had a call from a minister tomorrow directing you to do something, directing you to allow an NRU shutdown to reopen after you had ordered it closed, how would that be different from the Minister of Immigration calling the Immigration and Refugee Board and ordering them to let someone into the country who they hadn't agreed to let in?
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I have been in this job for a bit more than a year. I have spoken to the minister. I've never been asked to do anything of the sort, and I really wouldn't want to comment on a hypothetical situation.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Well, in fact, it appears it is not hypothetical. It has happened before and there is a concern that it may happen again. Therefore, what would you do if you were called by a minister and directed to do something contrary to what you had decided?
President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
That's not the way we operate. Our commission is a very regulatory, if you like, quasi-judicial body, and the actual decision we take in writing--of being published, tabled--is the only decision that's valid. As a president of the commission, even if I wanted to do something, I couldn't do it without the commission going through due process.