Debates of Dec. 11th, 2007

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I understand that it is not five minutes, Mr. Chair. We have 20 minutes, I believe. I will be sharing my time, but we have 20 minutes as a total slot.

I have one final question and then I will pass the line of questioning along to some of my colleagues.

I do not think we can overestimate or underestimate the safety issue. I would ask you, then, gentlemen, in your own words and your own expert opinions, to provide whatever assurances you can to the House that if this legislation passes, if it meets the agreement of all parties involved here tonight, and we are talking about passing this at third reading tonight and getting it to the Senate, in which case it is going to become law very quickly, this will be a safe facility.

In your opinions, if the legislation is drafted in the next 120 days, can you give an absolute 100% assurance not only to members of the House but the Canadian public that this will be a safe facility?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, in my opinion, we have operated NRU in a safe facility before this shutdown. After we make the modifications that we are currently making to the pump, we will continue to operate it in a safe mode and I can assure everyone that that will be the number one priority.

Isotope production is important, but it is not anywhere near as important as safety. It will be safety first. I can give that absolute assurance. I am going to pass this over because my CNO is going to give the same thing.

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, you have my absolute assurance that this reactor will be operated safely. My commitment to safety is unwavering and nothing that transpires in that period of time would change that.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, my colleague is absolutely correct. This is a safety issue and most importantly a safety issue, but it is a needs issue for those people who need this product.

I would like to lead my questioning toward Ms. Keen.

In your opening comments you described yourself as an expert in nuclear safety. As I have said, we are talking about safety. You also stated in your opening comments that yours is a non-partisan position. I would like to follow up a little bit on that.

Your appointment to the CNSC was in the year 2000, I understand, is that correct?

[Linda J. Keen]

That is correct.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

And you were a career public servant before that time? Is that correct?

[Linda J. Keen]

I did work both in industry, and with the federal and provincial governments, yes.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Until your appointment at CNSC my understanding is that you were assistant deputy minister at the Department of Natural Resources when the now opposition House leader was the minister of natural resources. Is that correct?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. The hon. member asked a question. Order, please. Ms. Keen has the floor.

[Linda J. Keen]

Yes, I would like to answer this question by saying that I am an Albertan. I was born in Alberta. I never belonged to any political party in my life.

I joined the public service in fact when there was another government in power. I am saying that I am non-partisan. I serve with good behaviour. I have met every requirement of the Ethics Commissioner and I do my work on a non-partisan basis and I have no political affiliation.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

The question I asked was, were you the deputy minister at the Department of Natural Resources when the minister of natural resources, the now opposition House leader, was the minister.

[Linda J. Keen]

Yes and I was appointed by the Public Service Commission.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you.

The opposition House leader in fact recommended your appointment. Is that my understanding?

[Linda J. Keen]

I have no idea. I was interviewed by PMO. What they did was they went out and searched for people. I applied, I was interviewed, and I was given the appointment. I have no idea about the recommendation. I applied for the job.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Before you worked at natural resources were you also at the Department of Agriculture when the opposition House leader was minister of agriculture?

[Linda J. Keen]

I will have to recall because--

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order. This line of questioning is essentially insinuating that political considerations are affecting the professional judgment of a public servant.

We are here, Mr. Chair, to adjudicate a dispute that AECL quite properly said was a difference of professional opinion.

This commissioner is entitled to the respect of the House and she is not receiving it.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I do not think that falls under the realm of a point of order.

We will go back to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think we have established what we need to know so far.

I think I will go back, if I can, to the safety issues. I was just trying to establish the fact that we have nuclear safety experts making decisions. That is my point.

The most important issue that we have to deal with tonight, as my colleague has asked: is this a safety issue? Is the safety issue resolved?

We have heard much discussions and we have heard an answer that there is no animosity between the two groups of witnesses sitting at this table. We certainly hope that is the case. There are 76,000 patients waiting for these services.

Mr. Torgerson, you had commented that you had operated with one pump prior to this and you were comfortable with the fact that it was safe at that time. Can you confirm that and tell us if that is accurate?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, we have operated the NRU reactor without either pump being hooked up to the new seismically qualified emergency power system.

I should state to everybody and repeat what our chief nuclear officer said. These pumps in the past have had two different sources of power. They have had the normal power to run the pumps and they have had an emergency source of power to run the pumps.

This is a third source. So there have been two sources operating before and we have been able to operate the plant safely with two power sources on the pump. This is adding a third.

Obviously, if we can operate a reactor safely with two power supplies on the pump, we believe that we can operate it with three power supplies on the pump. That is what we have done to pump five.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, these are both arm's length organizations and the fact that we are here on the floor of the House in committee of the whole should be an indication to both organizations that this has not worked out and that the organizations have not been operating the way in which they were originally intended to operate. The very fact that the organizations are here I think is an indication of that.

We are here because we have had to intervene in this matter as the government because of the matter between AECL and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We have assessed the risk to the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who no longer have access to medical isotopes and the risk with respect to the operations of this medical isotope facility.

We have determined as a government that the greater risk is in the fact that some 30,000 Canadians per week, some 400,000 Americans per week, who use medical nuclear scans no longer will have access to those scans. Therefore, we have had to intervene and we are here today because of that.

We have determined that the risk to the health of Canadians is far greater if they do not have access to these medical isotopes than the risk is to the operations of this facility that produces these medical isotopes.

I think that I can sum up by saying that we are disappointed that it has come to this. This is not a recent matter. This has been going on for years. As a matter of fact, both organizations were called in front of the industry committee in May 2005. Ms. Keen was there. Robert Van Adel from AECL was there to explain to the government and to the opposition at the time why the relationship was not working and when it was going to be straightened out.

At the time it was indicated by AECL that it was making efforts with respect to the hiring of a new regulatory officer with respect to some other internal changes, cultural changes, that were supposed to be taking place in the organization to address some of these issues between AECL and the nuclear safety regulator.

With respect to the nuclear safety regulator, similar commitments were made that the relationship was going to be improving and things were going to be put on the right track.

Here we are some three years later and things are still not where they should be, if anything. We are here today because things have not been worked out. If anything, they have gotten worse.

I would like both parties to respond to that.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are only a couple of minutes left. If each party could take about a minute to respond to that question.

[Linda J. Keen]

You have the microphone. You start.

[David F. Torgerson]

See, Mr. Chair, we are cooperating very well.

I would like to say that we respect our colleagues at the CNSC. I personally want to be regulated and I want to have a strong CNSC with skilled and talented people in it because that is an effective CNSC.

Perhaps, because I am basically a techie, I do not see the same sense of animosity between the CNSC staff and our staff that the member has alluded to.

On the other hand, I think it is important, as the member said, that we cooperate with the regulator. We are dependent upon the regulator. Frankly, we cannot get along without the regulator. We really have to have a regulator that we can work with and who can work with us.