Home      About Us      Press Releases      Reports      Events      Committees      Join FARE      Contact «Reports CNSC advised it's too cozy with industry Conflict of interest: We told them that Believe it or not, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission paid a consultant to tell it what we all know -- the federal regulator is way too close to the industry it's supposed to monitor. This report by The Canadian Press appeared in the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail on Oct. 9, 2007: Sue Bailey and Jim Bronskill THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA – 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." »Read the report itself by clicking here Lakeshore Road residents should be applauded Why is broken pipe contaminating lake? Low-level plan found wanting Liner system for waste called problematic CNSC advised it's too cozy with industry Conflict of interest: We told them that What to do if Cameco burns Emergency plan says buy a lot of duct tape Briarpatch magazine interviews FARE How citizens thwarted the nuclear industry Our new council: Where they stand on Cameco emissions The stigma of risk: Assessing the cost of living in the plume International studies show the social price we pay Cost of Cameco on our waterfront: $6 million a year FARE consultant lists jobs, taxes we'd gain if it moved elsewhere Peer review says SEU screening fatally flawed Town council's intervention called for health testing Town tells CNSC: Answer us or else Peer review team acknowledges "the high level of sustained public concern." An intervention by Farley Mowat "One more ounce of contamination would be an ounce too much" Why CNSC screening was inadequate Sierra Legal Defence Fund files brief on behalf of FARE Why we shouldn't trust the CNSC David Craig's commentary aired on CHUC CNSC screening report on Cameco EA This was released on May 11, but was not put on the regulator's website At last: CNSC report on Cameco's mid-term review It notes the many interventions by FARE members FARE affidavit for panel review Waterkeeper submission to CNSC on May 19, 2005 Dr. Eric Mintz February 2004 health study report A critique of the Mortality Study for Port Hope 2002 Letter from FARE to Federal Minister of the Environment Unresolved concerns of the people of Port Hope (5 April 2005) Prepared by Families Against Radiation Exposure and Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee at the request of Paul Macklin, MP 22 July 2004: The 623 questions raised by the Research Sub Committee CNSC: A lax regulator FARE documents how little it did to force compliance between 2002 and 2004. admin@ph-fare.com P.O. Box 202 Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W3 Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to admin@ph-fare.com. Copyright © 2005 Families Against Radiation Exposure, Inc. All rights reserved. Last modified: 15 April 2005 Archived Information » top of this page « administration

About this issue: Frequently Asked Questions Port Hope Radiation Issues in the News Radiation and Health Effects FARE Newsletter Web Links External sites: Lake Ontario Waterkeeper Energy Probe