Canada and Nuclear Safety

Canada's nuclear-safety watchdog appears to be too cozy with the industry it's supposed to monitor, suggests an independent report.  The study ordered by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), an independent federal government agency that regulates the use of nuclear energy and material, cites long-standing complaints that the regulator focuses far more on the companies it licenses than on concerned lobby groups or citizens.

The commission "has in the past put more focus on communicating with licensees than with non-government organizations and the broader public," says the report by the Institute on Governance, a non-profit organization aimed at promoting effective governance.

"And this may have contributed to the perception among NGOs that the (commission) has too close a relationship with industry. Recent efforts to more effectively engage NGOs are aimed at addressing this issue."

Critics have gone further, saying the commission's closed-door sessions with nuclear interests should raise alarms that the regulator is being co-opted.  A spokesman dismissed those concerns. Marc Leblanc said president Linda Keen, who also serves as the commission's CEO, will continue to privately meet with licensees and potential applicants.

While it may be necessary for the commission to know those it regulates, Keen also chairs a seven-member quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that sets regulatory policy and makes licensing decisions for major nuclear facilities across Canada.

The institute report, dated March 31, was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The commission also recently posted the document on its website in an ongoing effort to improve procedures, said Leblanc. "Sometimes just looking at ourselves is not enough."

The document notes that the commission has no formal policy governing informal meetings with industry interests, for example. "While there are many good practices in this area, at the moment this balancing is very much a matter of judgment on the part of senior staff, the president and CEO, and the (commission) secretariat," says the report. "More formal documentation and-or guidelines would be useful."

The Ottawa-based institute is a non-profit organization that studies use of power and how public-interest decisions are made. Leblanc welcomed its findings but said there's no need to change course. Parliament set out the act and regulations under which the watchdog and other tribunals similarly operate, he noted.

"The president will periodically meet with the boards of directors of licensees or potential licensees or interested persons," he said in an interview. "We are very careful as to when these take place and the matters to be discussed.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with a commission head addressing those groups to tell them what are her expectations in terms of our regulatory mandate and explaining what it's all about." Leblanc stressed that Keen refuses to meet with boards of directors of corporations that have matters to be aired at a tribunal hearing within 60 days, and sometimes longer.

"There may be instances where we won't speak to anyone at any time for at least 150 days given the nature of matters that may come before the commission."

It's not the regulator's job to release minutes or transcripts of meetings that Keen attends "as an invited guest," said Aurele Gervais, another commission spokesman. However, the CNSC keeps its own "records and notes" which can be requested under Access to Information, he said. Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch says there's no need for Keen to risk even the perception of unfairness by seeing applicants who may later seek favourable rulings.

"Holding meetings outside of a formal commission hearing, that's like a judge meeting with a plaintiff or the defence and saying: 'Here's how it's likely to go, and what I need from you in order to give you the decision that you want."'  Potential applicants who need information can read statutes online or public records of past decisions, he added.

David Martin, energy co-ordinator for Greenpeace, says his group has never had the benefit of a private audience with Keen.  "Oh, never. No. The only time we've had any direct contact with Linda Keen has been through the regulatory processes where she's sat on the commission."

The watchdog only recently started a consultation process with public interest groups in the face of growing pressure, Martin said.  That said, there's legitimate concern over the extent to which Keen and senior staff are privately meeting with nuclear interests, he said.

This is all happening as the industry holds a "full court press" to expand operations – while pushing for more lenient environmental assessments – in several provinces, Martin said.  "When you understand that they're conducting these meetings effectively in secret, and you combine that with the increasing regulatory leniency that the (commission) is showing to the nuclear industry, I think two and two make four. This is an agency that has been seriously co-opted, and is in serious need of reform."

Tom Adams, former long-time executive director of Energy Probe, says it's routine in Canada "for regulated entities to lunch with the regulators."  Access of lobbyists to such decision-makers in the U.S. is much more restricted, he says.

He acknowledged that "regulators need to understand the regulated industry in a way that's different than the way a civil or criminal court would need to understand the parties that are appearing before them."  That said, "we should have much better transparency rules for starters," Adams said. "Any time there's a meeting between a representative of a regulated entity with a regulator, I think the public should have the right to know about that."  Sounds very sneaky to me, I would like to see a higher degree of transparency.

By: Sue Bailey and Jim Bronskill