the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) needs to do better job!

See this would be back.!

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)

On November 18, 2007, Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) shut down its nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, halting production of two-thirds of the world’s radioisotopes used for medical diagnostic testing.

Lunn" width="100" height="130"> Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resource(Source: pm.gc.ca)

The shutdown, requested by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), resulted from the failure of AECL to install a backup power system to the reactor’s cooling pumps. According to an assessment by the Safety Commission, a major nuclear accident of proportions similar to the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system capable of withstanding natural disasters was installed [1]. In testimony before the House of Commons Committee for Public Safety, Linda Keen, then President of the CNSC, testified that the risks posed by the Chalk River nuclear reactor, far exceeded international standards for nuclear risk tolerance [2].

The extended shutdown caused a global shortage of medical radioisotopes and forced the delay and cancellation of important medical testing for thousands of critically ill patients around the world. During the shutdown, the Conservative government came under intense criticism amid public concerns for not only continued medical care but also of nuclear safety.

Facing questions from the public, Conservative Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn claimed he was not made aware of the extended reactor shutdown and the ensuing isotope shortage until December 3, 2007. Health Minister Tony Clement claimed that he was only informed on December 5, 2008 [3].

, Tony Clement, Minister of Health (Source: pm.gc.ca)

However, reports and witness testimony after the isotope crisis say otherwise. Former AECL Chairman Michael Burns testified he briefed Mr. Lunn as early as November 22, 2007; MDS Nordion – the medical company that marketed the radio-isotopes – testified that they warned senior officials at the Department of Natural Resources about the isotope shortage on November 22, 2007; AECL itself e-mailed the Department on November 22, 2007; the nuclear medicine industry was informed of the shortage on November 27, 2007; and a source close to AECL told the Globe and Mail that an e-mail was sent to Mr. Lunn before Dec. 1, 2007 urging him to turn his attention to the mounting problem [4].

Rather than working with AECL to install the backup power supply system, Minister Lunn demanded Ms. Keen and the Safety Commission approve immediate start-up of the reactor, without the backup power supply, a violation of national law and international standards regarding nuclear safety [5].

Finally, on December 11, 2007, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-38, calling for the immediate start up of the reactor. In an effort to protect those in need of medical isotopes all parties supported the bill. By December 16, 2007, the backup power supply was installed and the reactor was restarted.

In the aftermath, experts criticized the Conservative government’s mismanagement of a routine shutdown that led to an international medical crisis. Why was there not adequate scrutiny to ensure the proper safety of the reactor before a shutdown was needed? If a shutdown and the resulting loss of radio-isotope production was predictable, why did the government not seek to purchase nuclear materials from other suppliers in order to maintain the supply of radio-isotopes?

Testifying before the House of Commons Health Committee, Health Minister Tony Clement claimed his department had made calls to foreign isotope suppliers but found “overseas suppliers could only increase their output by ten to 15 per cent. Furthermore, overseas suppliers indicated that the earliest they could provide the additional supply was Dec. 29." This was later refuted by Grant Malkoske, a vice-president at MDS Nordion, who told the Commons health committee his company had already received from South Africa by Dec. 12 about 20 per cent of required isotopes used to diagnose and treat cancer and heart patients. [6].

In the ensuing investigation, the House of Commons Natural Resources Committee called on Linda Keen, President of the CNSC to give her account of the events. However, late at night, on the eve of her appearance, Minister Lunn fired Ms. Keen for failure to "take into account the health of Canadians who, for medical purposes, depend on nuclear substances produced by nuclear reactors," delaying her testimony [7].

Two weeks later, her appearance rescheduled, Ms. Keen informed the committee that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s “primary responsibility in the case of this facility is to protect Canadians by ensuring that the nuclear facility is operating safely. Indeed, under the law, the commission did not have the authority to take the issue of isotopes into consideration when making its decision up to Dec. 10.” In the estimation of the CNSC, Ms. Keen testified, the Chalk River reactor posed an unacceptable risk, a risk 1,000 times greater than the international standard [8].

Critics decried the Conservative government’s actions as attacks to silence those who refuse to toe the party line and for firing Ms. Keen for doing her job – looking out for the safety of people working in and living near a nuclear reactor. Critics also expressed serious concerns concerning the Conservative government’s actions and its implications for the proper oversight of arms-length, independent bodies tasked with the ensuring the safety of Canadians [9].

References
[1] Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog; Nuclear Safety Commission warns of possibility of serious accident at ChalkRiver, but PM says there's no safety issue in restarting reactor, The Globe And Mail , December 12, 2007; Isotope shortage jeopardizes cancer treatments, Kingston Whig-Standard (On), December 6, 2007
[2] Reactor posed unacceptable risk, former watchdog says; Keen defends actions before House, claims Lunn stepped 'over the line', Times Colonist (Victoria), January 30, 2008
[3] Clement promises answers on shutdown; Health Minister visits Chalk River facility as questions remain about when cabinet first learned about problem, The Globe And Mail, December 20, 2007
[4] Firm knew of isotope crisis before Ottawa; MDS Nordion warned customers in a letter while government says it was in the dark, The Globe And Mail, December 21, 2007; Gov't aware of crisis at nuclear plant, MP says; Minister had provided funding to fix problem, Edmonton Journal, December 19, 2007
[5] Head of Nuclear Safety Commission fired, Dawson Creek Daily News, January 16, 2008
[6] Government 'scouring the globe' for isotopes, Montreal Gazette, December 11, 2007; Testimony clashes, tempers flare at committee studying nuclear shutdown, North Bay Nugget (On), February 13, 2008
[7] Harper takes new swipe at nuclear watchdog; PM defends decision to restart ChalkRiver reactor to provide medical isotopes, saying shutdown should never have happened, The Globe And Mail, January 11, 2008; Lunn defends late-night move to fire nuclear watchdog; Nuclear safety boss had been scheduled to testify before Commons committee, The Globe And Mail, January 17, 2008
[8] Keen says safety, not isotope production focus of commission's mandate, Canwest News Service, January 30, 2008; Reactor posed unacceptable risk, former watchdog says; Keen defends actions before House, claims Lunn stepped 'over the line', Times Colonist (Victoria), January 30, 2008; Keen defends decision to shut reactor in name of safety; Bureaucrat insists risk was 1,000 times greater than standard, The Ottawa Citizen, January 30, 2008; Reactor posed unacceptable risk, former watchdog says; Keen defends actions before House, claims Lunn stepped 'over the line', Times Colonist (Victoria), January 30, 2008
[9] Ousted regulator just doing her job: National Affairs, The Daily Courier (Kelowna), January 18, 2008; Mugging of bureaucrat will come back to bite Tories, Kingston Whig-Standard (On), January 22, 2008

Harkat search was overly intrusive.

Judge rules Harkat search was overly intrusive

FRED CHARTRAND/ THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO

Mohamed Harkat looks on as his wife Sophie (right) checks her watch as they wait to appear in Federal Court for proceedings related to federal attempt to deport him under a national security certificate in Ottawa, June 2, 2009.

Jun 23, 2009 03:46 PM

Tonda MacCharles
Joanna Smith
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–A Federal Court judge has declared a sweeping search of Mohamed Harkat's home overly intrusive, even for a security certificate case.

Justice Simon Noel says the Canada Border Services Agency must return all information, equipment and records seized from the home of Harkat, and his wife Sophie, and destroy any copies of the data.

"The breach of Mr. Harkat's Charter rights was significant," the judge said. Although he did not find the agency acted "in bad faith," Noel wrote the court "cannot condone the type of intrusive search undertaken by the CBSA.

Mr. Harkat may have a diminished expectation of privacy, but that does not give the state a "carte blanche" to unreasonably intrude on what privacy is left to him," Noel wrote in a decision released early this afternoon.

Harkat is one of five men that Ottawa is seeking to deport on national security grounds, under extraordinary immigration warrants known as security certificates.

The case has plodded through the courts for years, and Harkat was released on strict conditions in 2006 while his challenge to the government's move to send him back to Algeria proceeds.

Today, the judge said the agency should have to seek a warrant if it has valid concerns the strict bail order isn't being followed by Harkat.

Noel mentioned evidence which suggested Mrs. Harkat failed to arm an alarm system to a computer room when she left her husband home alone (Harkat's lawyers had suggested CBSA left the family the wrong code for the alarm).

Yet Noel equally warned the Harkats of the importance of respecting his release conditions to the letter, and guarding "that inattention does not lead to a breach.

At a hearing earlier this month, Noel had voiced many of his concerns that the search was over the top. It involved 16 agents and police, including three canine teams, coming just before a full hearing on whether Harkat should be deported to his native Algeria.

Today, he said the CBSA must "carefully review the discretion granted to them by this Court with a view to ensuring that any interpretation they may be using is based in common sense and a respect for the privacy rights, diminished though they may be, of Mr. Harkat."

Harkat's Ottawa-based lawyer Matthew Webber said he is "gratified" the court accepted his argument that the search was unreasonable.

"(It was) outside the rights of law to do what they did," Webber said today.

Webber said that while Harkat had to give up some of his privacy in exchange for his release he did not give up his rights in their entirety.

"Those rights are sacrosanct in this country," Webber said.

Neither the CBSA nor government lawyer David Tyndale immediately responded to a request for comment.

A spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said the government is carefully reviewing the decision.

oh i fee so so sorry for the government of canada. not

Grow up PMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

awww the government did not get its way
TO BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No harm' in asking for Khadr release, judges argue

Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service

Janet Hamlin/AFP/Getty Images

OTTAWA -- A federal lawyer conceded Tuesday that she cannot "point to any risks" in the federal government seeking Omar Khadr's repatriation to Canada. But she urged a federal appeal panel to reject the prospect, because judges should not be second-guessing the foreign-policy decisions of elected officials.

Justice Department lawyer Doreen Mueller reluctantly made the admission when she was repeatedly quizzed by the bench on why the Conservative government refuses to ask the United States to release Khadr from detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"If the government makes the request, is there a negative impact on its security interests?" asked Justice Karen Sharlow. "What is the harm in asking?"

"I can't point to any risks," acknowledged Ms. Mueller, who was in court to argue a Conservative government appeal to an April court ruling ordering the government to seek Mr. Khadr's return from the U.S. military unit, where he has been detained for seven years as a terrorism suspect.

Ms. Mueller told the Federal Court of Appeal that Justice James O'Reilly was out of line when he "interfered with government foreign affairs"by ordering the government to act. Moreover, the order was particularly extreme, given there is only a "remote hypothetical possibility" that the U.S. would agree to Mr. Khadr's release, Ms. Mueller said.

Mr. Khadr's lawyer, Nathan Whitling, told the court many countries have secured the repatriation of their citizens, and even non-citizens, from Guantanamo Bay.

"Canada should do what it can to assist Mr. Khadr," said Mr. Whitling. "The fact that it might not work is not justification for doing nothing."

The appeal court reserved its decision on whether to uphold Mr. O'Reilly's unequivocal decision, which concluded the Harper government violated Mr. Khadr's Charter right to fundamental justice, and Canada's human-rights obligations, by years of indifference toward the young man.

Mr. Khadr, who was born in Toronto, was only 15 when he was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. He is accused of murder as a war crime by throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. army medic in July 2002.

In his decision, Mr. O'Reilly took into account that Mr. Khadr was given no special status as a minor, even though he was barely 16 when he arrived at Guantanamo Bay in October 2002.

Moreover, the Canadian government had "direct involvement"in Mr. Khadr's maltreatment at the military camp by handing over information to U.S. authorities to use against him, all the while knowing the teen had been tortured through sleep deprivation, said Mr. O'Reilly.

Ms. Mueller argued that Canada's duty to protect its children ends at the border, and that Mr. O'Reilly got it wrong by surmising that the country's special justice system for minors applies abroad.

"It is one thing when Canada is prosecuting a child . . . but it is quite another thing to say that Canada has these same obligations when a Canadian child is being prosecuted by another country," she said.

Justice John Evans, however, countered it is "a different situation" if there is a Canadian connection to mistreatment of a Canadian child abroad.

Justice Marc Nadon quizzed Ms. Mueller on why the government's appeal factum glossed over Mr. O'Reilly's "serious finding" that Canada was knowingly involved in Khadr's sleep-deprivation torture.

Ms. Mueller responded that it was a "great leap" for Mr. O'Reilly to conclude that Canada condoned Khadr's mistreatment by knowing he was sleep-deprived before officials questioned him, then passed intelligence on to the Americans.

"It is not possible to say Canada condoned his mistreatment," said Ms. Mueller, asserting that complicity would have required "active direct conduct" by government officials.

The Harper government has maintained Mr. Khadr is charged with a serious crime, and the government should wait to find out if the U.S. intends to drop charges before making any moves.

Mr. Khadr's trial was suspended in January after U.S. President Barack Obama said the military unit would close within a year. Mr. Khadr is the only remaining westerner at the prison.

WHY are we not doing this???

Those of you living in Canada, it would be incredible if you could call in 1 -800-267-8376 dial 3, followed by 1. Ask about why the Canadian embassy in Tehran refuses to accept injured protesters when many other embassies do. IT DOES work, trust me and it will make a HUGE impact it we all did it. The fight for democracy will never end

Persian Canadians Network

Government of Canada could have serious liability!

Author's note: This post will be my personal perspective. I will attempt to be as factual as possible
however, since this is a developing situation, all information is subject to change.

According to published reports, the world is going to run out of the base material for most medical isotopes by July of this year. There has been a breakdown of the Chalk River medical isotope material reactor. It is a 52 year old reactor that was supposed to be shut down in the year 2000 and replaced by 2 new nuclear reactors so Chalk River could be decommissioned. The new reactors were given the names Maple 1 & Maple 2. They would have been coming on line by now if things went according to plans made by the then Liberal government. However, that all changed with the election of the Conservative party in 2006. The new government decided to shelve Maple 1 & 2 due to cost overruns and certification requirements. They then told the regulatory body (A.E.C.L. - Atomic Energy Canada Limited) running Chalk River to baby the current reactor in an attempt to keep it going for another couple of years. Last year, the reactor started getting cranky and they had to shut it down for a couple of months causing the first worldwide shortage of medical isotope material. More on that later. They managed to get the reactor back online after the Government of Canada forced the Nuclear Regulatory Safety Commission and A.E.C.L. to restart it before repairs or retrofit were completed. This required an act of Parliament. Parliament did this because it didn't look very good for one of the largest suppliers of medical radioactive material to not have a working reactor. Canada provides 50% of the world supply of material and the world supply of isotopes will not be replenished until we can get a medical/research reactor online. The most conservative estimate to get the 52 year old reactor up and running is 3 months however that assessment is highly flexible. They are still having problems finding a cooling line leak among other problems.

But that is only the beginning. The base material from Canada is shipped internationally to many companies and government institutions to be converted into medical isotopes.

Now, moving on to what a medical isotope is. Is is used as a disease detection marker. The most obvious examples are several different types of cancer detection tests, lung scans and an alternative to the cat scan die (luminescent die) as some people are allergic to the die but not to another type of isotope. The list of procedures where isotopes are used is an extensive one. The particular isotopes used have a very short shelf life.

How will this affect all of us? For any of the procedures I have mentioned, that test will not be able to be done or done with an alternative method that is less accurate in in a lot of cases, much more difficult to perform. Depending of the type of test the doctor wants done, there will be a lot of people put at risk, especially cancer patients.

Now the liability argument. Canada is under international contract to supply this radioactive material. The very least that could happen is that all of our customers turn around and sue us for breach of contract. At the very worst, civil suits might be filed due to the death of patients that did not receive proper treatment and care because isotopes were not available to run much needed tests. As well, there will be massive diplomatic fallout due to the lack of the material. In rare circumstances, criminal proceedings could be brought against institutions and companies. I've never heard of this happening before but even the political party in charge could be sued. For the record, since I am not a lawyer, I don't know if any of these scenarios could happen except for the standard civil suit.

I think this situation should be getting much more national and international attention than the current fiasco over E.I. reform, which for my international audience stands for employment insurance (for unemployment). This is a subject you could fight over in an election instead of the usual petty bickering that has been happening over the last 3 years. After all, millions of peoples lives could be at risk and thousands could die.

lets see if this passes in to law or gets in to Cort or the supreme cort looks at it?

ISPs must help police snoop on internet under new bill

Last Updated: Thursday, June 18, 2009 | 3:02 PM ET Comments579Recommend219

CBC News

Internet service providers would have to make it possible for police and intelligence officers to intercept online communications and get personal information about subscribers under bills tabled Thursday.

"We must ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to catch up to the bad guys and ultimately bring them to justice. Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st-century tools," said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as he announced the new bills with Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan at a news conference in Ottawa.

The bills are intended to modernize the Criminal Code and help law enforcement officials chase those suspected of using the internet and other new technologies to communicate and commit crimes, as well as maximize the ability to conduct international investigations, Nicholson said.

Targets 'safe havens'

One bill, announced by Van Loan, would require telecommunications and internet service providers to:

• Install and maintain "intercept-capable" equipment on their networks.
• Provide police with "timely access" to personal information about subscribers, including names, address and internet addresses, without the need for a warrant.

Van Loan said the bill won't provide new interception powers to police, but simply update the legal framework designed "in the era of the rotary telephone."

He noted that police can already get the authority to intercept communications, but the network is often incapable of allowing such interception.

"Criminals, child pornographers, organized crime members and terrorists are aware of these interception safe havens. They identify them and gravitate towards them to exploit them and continue their criminal activities undetected, out of the reach of the investigative powers of law enforcement."

Van Loan added that internet service providers are currently not required to provide subscriber information to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS), and may be unwilling to provide such data without a police warrant, slowing down the investigation of crimes such as child sexual exploitation or online theft.

ISPs must preserve data

The other bill, introduced by Nicholson, would:

• Allow law enforcement officials to obtain transmission data that is sent or received via telephone or internet if authorized by a production order or warrant
• Require telecommunications companies to keep data related to specific communications or subscribers if that information is needed in an investigation and requested via a preservation order.
• Make it a criminal offence for two or more people to agree to or arrange child sexual exploitation by means of telecommunications.
• Modernize the system for tracking warrants.

Nicholson said the government believes the proposed legislation strikes an "appropriate balance" between law enforcement's investigative powers to protect public safety and the privacy and rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Law enforcement officials at the news conference praised the bill.

Calgary deputy chief of police Murray Stooke said police have been requesting the modernization of laws related to interception of communications for a decade. He added that the government consulted broadly with Canadians and interest groups before introducing the new legislation.

"We do understand that the privacy concerns of Canadians must be respected," he added, "but at the same time, we have a growing gap in terms of our capacity [to investigate crimes]."

However, University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist wrote in his blog Thursday that the bills are "pretty much exactly what law enforcement has been demanding and privacy groups have been fearing. It represents a reneging of a commitment from the previous Public Safety Minister on court oversight and will embed broad new surveillance capabilities in the Canadian internet."

Cost to ISPs

Tom Copeland, head of chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), which represents dozens of smaller Canadian ISPs, said Thursday he fears the bill requiring internet-tapping capability could put some of his members out of business.

Van Loan said the companies themselves will have to pay for new equipment to meet the requirements, although the government will provide "reasonable compensation" when retrofits to existing hardware are needed.

The companies will have 18 months to make the changes, but there will be a three-year exemption for those with less than 100,000 subscribers.

But even that may not be enough time for some small providers, as they usually buy used, older network equipment that wouldn't be tappable, he said. Buying that new equipment could cost $15,000, and even if the government covers half, the remainder would be a "significant burden," Copeland said.

"I know a lot of providers who couldn't come up with the other half – it's just not the margins we have."

With respect to providing subscriber information without a warrant, Copeland said he is glad the bill brings some "clarity and consistency" to the issue. Previously, he said, ISPs were unsure whether providing that information would violate the Privacy Act and leave the companies vulnerable to a lawsuit.

He said the other bill introduced Thursday represents no real change to ISPs.

Taser inquiry can find Mounties at fault ....good!

Court rules Taser inquiry can find Mounties at fault

Last Updated: Monday, June 15, 2009 | 11:59 AM PT Comments278Recommend170

CBC News

Clockwise from top left: RCMP officers Const. Gerry Rundel, Const. Bill Bentley, Cpl. Monty Robinson and Const. Kwesi Millington challenged the right of the Braidwood Commission to make a finding of misconduct. (CBC)

The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge questioning whether a provincial inquiry can find fault against the four RCMP officers involved in Robert Dziekanski's death.

Justice Arnie Silverman ruled Monday morning in Vancouver that the inquiry properly warned the officers that it might accuse them of using the Taser on Dziekanski when it was "not justified," of giving "misleading" testimony and of misrepresenting the facts.

The judge said the inquiry's commissioner, retired judge Thomas Braidwood, is entitled to make such findings in his final report into the October 2007 death and is not prevented by any lack of jurisdiction.

Lawyers representing the four officers, who made the constitutional challenge, argued in court last Friday that Braidwood's findings were effectively allegations of criminal misconduct, and therefore outside his jurisdiction.

But Silverman ruled that argument was invalid, and also dismissed the officers' claims that the commission should provide additional details of what they did wrong.

Constables Gerry Rundel, Bill Bentley and Kwesi Millington, and Cpl. Monty Robinson were all present when Dziekanski died after being stunned several times with a Taser at Vancouver International Airport.

The officers could still appeal the decision, but for now it means the Braidwood inquiry would likely begin hearing closing submissions on Friday.