Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 3, the nuclear regulator must be and must be seen to be unbiased and neutral in its dealings with or support for the nuclear industry.
The nuclear regulator should be clearly seen by the public as avoiding the role of an advocate for the industry. This amendment has the potential to compromise the public's faith in the objectivity and neutrality of the AECB because it does not limit the scope of the regulatory information.
Motion No. 3 uses the word educate. Rightly or wrongly, the word educate is perceived to have a more proactive connotation than the word inform. It raises the possibility that this mandate
could be interpreted to include the possibility of advocacy for or against nuclear activities.
Providing the commission with a mandate to educate the public on non-regulatory nuclear issues would be inconsistent with its regulatory role.
With respect to Motion No. 6, it is the government's belief that clause 9(b) is the appropriate mandate for the commission on this matter. It specifies as one of the commission's objectives the dissemination of objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public on the effects of nuclear activities on health, safety and the environment. In fact, the AECB does this now through its office for public information. This is what is needed, no more and no less.
If the proposed amendment is intended to restate the intent of clause 9(b) in different words, it is redundant and unnecessary. If it is intended to go beyond 9(b), it goes too far. The proposed amendments are not acceptable to the government.