Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is my pleasure to be back before you. Thank you very much for the invitation. We are quite pleased to be here.
You've just introduced my two officials at the table, Sue and Tom, who work at Natural Resources Canada and do a great job.
I would like to use the time I have available this morning in my opening statement to provide the committee with some background on the MAPLE project and the challenge our government inherited.
In accepting the decision of AECL to terminate the project, this government responded in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer, the best interests of AECL, and the best interests of the medical community. In terms of the history of this project, let me say at the outset that the MAPLE reactors have never produced a single isotope. A reactor of this type, designed solely for the production of isotopes, has never been built anywhere in the world. The MAPLE project was unproven technology.
I want to emphasize that the risks of this project were known from the very beginning. We'll get into the timeline of this project in a minute. In fact, the Liberal government of the day was warned by AECL that this was an extremely high-risk project and was advised not to proceed. Despite this advice given to the previous government, this project began in 1996, the construction for the MAPLE reactors began in 1998, and the two reactors were in essence completed in 2000 at a cost of $140 million. It's well known that the MAPLE reactors were plagued with a variety of technical and regulatory challenges almost from the very beginning. In 2000, when the reactors were completed, the technical problems began to occur.
In 2003, three years behind schedule, the issues were severe enough that AECL had to delay the start-up even further. AECL at that point called for a full investigation of the technical problems using outside experts. Experts in nuclear technology found no solution to these problems. The reactors were not able to operate, and hence they could not produce isotopes.
Finally, 12 years later, eight years behind schedule, the reactors were still not up and running, still had not produced a single isotope. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in this project. The Auditor General reported--and, I will say, on numerous occasions--that this project did have difficulties, and recently she reported that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to continue the project. Even then there was no guarantee that the technical problems could ever be resolved or that the reactors could be licensed.
Mr. Chair, on May 16 of this year, the termination of the MAPLE project was announced by AECL. After careful review of the project, including testing done as recently as April of this year, the AECL board of directors and senior managers came to the conclusion that it was not feasible to complete the commissioning and start-up of the reactors. Complete due diligence was done on this decision. The project had failed to achieve any of its goals. No definite solutions could be found, and even at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, there was still no proof the reactors would be able to be licensed.
It was an unacceptable risk to the taxpayer to continue with the failed project, and it was a waste of resources to keep it going. Good governance, good business, and common sense dictated that the project had to be terminated. The reasons are obvious: it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars; it had significant unresolved technical problems; and it was eight years behind schedule and did not produce one single medical isotope.
The MAPLE reactors are in stark contrast to our CANDU reactors. The proven AECL CANDU technology has been successfully brought into production in Canada and around the world, whereas the MAPLEs have not. These two technologies exist for very different purposes. CANDU reactors have been operating safely around the world, meeting their design requirements for decades. MAPLE reactors have power output of 10 megawatts versus over 1,000 megawatts for the new ACR now under development.
The CANDU is a power reactor that runs on natural uranium. The MAPLEs were designed to use small quantities of highly enriched targets to produce isotopes that could be further processed at facilities at Chalk River and in Ottawa. In short, people who attempt to compare the MAPLE and CANDU reactors are comparing apples to oranges, as any nuclear professional will testify.
AECL has a long and well-proven track record in designing and building power reactors. CANDU 6 reactors are generating electricity in Canada, Korea, Romania, China, and Argentina. In fact, just recently I came back from Korea and China and had an opportunity to visit the reactors in China. These were the most efficient reactors running in the Chinese fleet. In Korea they have 20 nuclear reactors, and of the 20 nuclear reactors, AECL reactors are running one, two, three, and five in efficiency and performance. They are very well received.
As for the implications of the decision to terminate the MAPLE reactors, I will be very clear. The termination of the MAPLE project will have no impact whatsoever on the production of medical isotopes. The MAPLE reactors have never produced an isotope.
Isotopes will continue to be produced by the NRU reactor, which is licensed until 2011. The NRU is performing better and more safely than at any time in its operational history. I have asked AECL to pursue an extension of the NRU licence beyond that date.
Our government will work closely with AECL and MDS Nordion to pursue a life extension of the NRU to ensure that the medical community and Canadians get the supply of isotopes they need. We are also prepared to work with the international community to facilitate international supplies if the NRU needs to be shut down for periods of time in order its secure its life extension.
Over the long term, we will work with the private sector to develop solutions to bring on new sources of isotope supply. Some of the private sector solutions could be in Canada and others outside the country.
While research reactors operated by governments and universities could play a role, we expect that private sector enterprises will determine the shape of the industry. This is as it should be for isotopes and for the supply of other drugs and medical technology.
In fact, it is likely the termination of the MAPLE project will encourage additional investments to develop new sources of supply now that industry knows for certain that the project will not be completed and that there's a market opportunity. AECL and its employees are now able to concentrate on the company's core business line, the design and construction of CANDU power reactors for use in Canada and in other countries. I am assured by AECL that the direct impact on employees will be minimal.
Winding down the project and the safe shutdown of the reactors themselves will occupy many of the existing staff for at least several months. After that time, AECL expects there will be significant opportunities to re-deploy staff at both its Chalk River and Sheridan Park operations. It is also well understood that the global nuclear industry is expanding, and therefore the demand for people with these types of skills will continue to grow. In short, there are going to be more jobs than there will be people to fill them in this industry in the future.
The MAPLE reactors were born of litigation and have been the subject of commercial disputes throughout their life. AECL and MDS Nordion are now reconsidering their business relationship, as may be expected. In these circumstances, I am not at liberty, nor would it be appropriate for me, to comment on the business relationship between these two companies, nor to entertain hypotheses on how that may develop.
I understand that the committee has agreed to ask AECL and MDS Nordion to testify as well, and I imagine they will be under similar constraints. I would therefore appreciate the committee's forbearance in recognizing that I am not in a position to discuss matters that are confidential in a commercial sense.
I'd like to thank your for inviting me, and I would be pleased to take any of the members' questions. Thank you.
