On enablers

As JimBobby and others in the progressive blogosphere have suspected for months, the Cons and their minions are floating trial balloons about privatization at AECL. But while it's no great shock to see the Cons pushing for a selloff, it's disturbing to see that the Libs don't seem the least bit interested in challenging the idea:

(Harper-appointed former AECL chair) Mike Burns says the Crown corporation that he used to oversee is losing money in the isotope business and is having problems bringing the new Maple reactors online. He says the solution lies with private industry.

"Nobody is happy. Government is not happy about putting the money in, Canadians aren't happy about having to pay. We've got out of the airline business, we've got out of the petroleum business ... That's what we should be focusing on," Burns sold Sun Media...

"Isotopes are a little business in which we lose a lot of money," said Burns.

"(AECL) needs more private sector content in the company to make it work," he said, explaining that Crown corporations cannot borrow money to invest.

Burns said an ideal solution would be to follow the model of the French nuclear company Areva which is a publicly traded company in which the French government owns 90% of the shares but the corporation is free to borrow funds against future profits.

Omar Alghabra, the Liberal Natural Resources critic, said a public-private partnership was a possible solution to the current atomic crisis.

"There are certainly good arguments for privatization but a decision like that should not be taken lightly," he said.

So what's wrong with Alghabra's response? First and most obviously, he looks entirely happy to play along with the Cons' assertion that their mismanagement should be classified as an "atomic crisis" which requires some drastic action.

But even if one assumes something needs to be done, it's worth noting the utter disconnect between the supposed problem and the proposed solution. After all, if isotope production is indeed a money-losing enterprise, then it stands to reason that a focus on turning a profit will only ensure that it becomes less of a priority. In contrast, a public decision to make needed funding a priority would be the only practical way to ensure that isotopes are actually available in the future.

Of course, the Cons can be expected to present "solutions" which funnel money into corporate hands without actually solving anything. But if the Libs are willing to accept the Cons' reasons for doing so while (at best) quibbling over implementation issues, then it'll be all the more difficult for progressives to ensure that Harper isn't able to decimate the public sector.

On conflict resolution

As suspected, Deceivin' Stephen is now musing about using the nuclear isotope shortage as an excuse to sell off Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. But thanks to Harper's appointee Michael Burns, that isn't even the least sensible "solution" to go public so far:

Mr. Burns said the system could be improved by the establishment of a mediator who could intervene when the AECL and the CNSC reach an impasse. “There is no other way to resolve that conflict if both parties dig in.”

Now, there are probably many types of relationships where mediation is underused. But this plainly isn't one of them.

After all, remember what parties are involved here. AECL is an entity bound by Canada's laws respecting nuclear safety, while the CNSC is the body responsible for determining and enforcing AECL's obligations. Which means that if there's a "conflict", the question resolves into a simple issue of whether or not AECL is willing to follow the law. And it can hardly be the CNSC's fault if AECL "digs in" by insisting that it doesn't have to do so.

Put another way, Burns' request is roughly the equivalent of suggesting that before going through the "conflict" of arresting somebody engaged in ongoing criminal activity, the police should have to go to mediation to see if there's any way the wrongdoer can be left alone.

Now, it's hardly news that some Cons may see themselves and their cronies as being above the law - or at least entitled to rely on their own opinion of what the law should be. But it's something else entirely to attempt to tie the hands of regulators themselves to prevent them from carrying out their jobs. And the rightful blame falling on the Cons over the Chalk River fiasco has to include their responsibility for putting AECL in the hands of a chair whose top priority was apparently to pick a fight with the very concept of regulation.

Biased foresight

Shorter Michael Burns, former Con-appointed chair of AECL:
Of course the federal government didn't have to push aside the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission temporarily in response to last month's nuclear isotope shortage. In fact, it could have avoided the problem entirely if it had followed my advice to gut the CNSC permanently and long ago.