Natural Resources Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I don't mean to appear rude, Minister, but I have seven minutes. You had the opportunity to make your presentation, and I have lots of questions to ask.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm happy to answer them.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I hope you help me out in making sure your answers to the questions are shorter.

Are you saying with certainty that AECL is getting out of the isotope business?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I stated in my opening comments that the NRU, which is a marvellous piece of technology, is producing isotopes. The NRU reactor is operating more efficiently and safer today than at any time in history.

[An hon. member]

It's 50 years old.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We are committed to working with AECL to extend its licence. Canadians can be assured that they will have an adequate supply of isotopes.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Minister, you're confusing me. You're saying the private sector is going to step in, but you're not willing to say that AECL is getting out of the isotope business. What is it?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I am saying that we are working with AECL to extend the licence of the NRU beyond 2011. As well, now that the MAPLE decision has finality to it, you are seeing private sector solutions coming forward. Those will evolve and develop in the coming years.

As a government, we are committed to ensuring that there is an adequate supply of medical isotopes for the medical community.

Again, looking ahead, we believe the private sector will come forward with those solutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.

Madame DeBellefeuille, for seven minutes, please.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Minister. You are here for the second time in a fairly short period. I would like to remind you that, during your last visit, we asked your department to provide certain documents. We have not yet received them, however. That means either that your visits are too close together, or that your department people are too busy. I will let you draw your own conclusions. We are eager to have the documents.

Minister, the decision to terminate the MAPLE project was made on May 16. In February, I was present at the Canadian Nuclear Association annual seminar. In the hallways, I was already being told that the MAPLE project would never see the light of day. Industry people as well as the people I spoke to told me that quite frankly. It seemed to be a fact. I think the industry was waiting for AECL's decision. My reaction as a citizen and as a member new to nuclear issues was to wonder why it had taken so long, why millions of dollars of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money had been sunk into a project that no one, it seemed, actually expected to see implemented.

You also say that nuclear energy is clean energy. But in my view it is also very expensive energy. In your comments, you say that hundreds of millions of taxpayers' and private sector dollars were sunk into the project and spent needlessly.

I would like to know the exact amount that taxpayers and the private sector were obliged to invest in this project, which will never see the light of day. This is a very short and succinct question. Do you have the figures, Minister?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I do. First of all, on the timing of your announcement, I've been hearing the same information that you have from the private sector. I was at the same conference you were at in February. We'll give you the exact numbers. There are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent--$590 million in total to date between the private sector and the federal government, taxpayers' money, on this project.

We were in the process of doing some significant tests. The main technological problem with the MAPLE reactors is what's called the positive power coefficient, which means they cannot be licensed. They were trying to resolve this positive power coefficient. We felt with the fact that these significant amounts of moneys had been invested that it would be prudent to wait another few months for the conclusion of these tests to see if there was a technological solution that could be found, so we would have all the information. To go that far up and then to cancel it two months...without waiting for this last piece of data.... Those tests were concluded around the middle of April. There were different people from different schools of thought telling us how we could make some progress, but the result was that there was no progress.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Minister. I'm satisfied with your answer.

You seem very optimistic, even candid, about the future of medical isotope production. You tell us that the permit is valid until 2011, and that the private sector and AECL are already working on alternative solutions. As you know, the reactor is 50 years old. Even if an alternative solution is found, I don't know whether the life of a reactor like this can be extended for many more years. In my view, it already seems to have reached an unacceptable limit.

The Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine does not share your optimism. On May 21, the society issued a press release in which it expressed concerns about isotope supplies. It stated that it was aware of no realistic contingency plan for the medium and long term, and believes there is a lack of planning that is jeopardizing medical diagnostic services. That is the position of the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine.

The experts—those who use the isotopes—are not convinced your optimism is well placed, and have no information on what may really happen in the future.

At this moment, Minister, are there any plans on the development of the reactor's safety beyond 2011 that we could look at? What sort of planning is th ere? Until now, I have not been very impressed by the planning performance of AECL. AECL failed in its duty in administering and managing the medical isotope crisis.

Can you tell us specifically what is on the table, and what the short term plan is? Everyone knows that a reactor is not built in three years, and that solutions must frequently be implemented over the long term. Since the medical community is concerned, I would like you to tell us clearly what the plan is for action beyond 2011.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you very much.

With respect to this decision, obviously to terminate the MAPLE project...there were no isotopes being produced, so this decision does not impact on the production of isotopes. As far as the future goes--and I hear your comments loud and clear--let me say this. The NRU, as I've said, is a marvellous piece of technology. You're correct, it's 50 years old, but in fairness, it's had a number of upgrades done recently to meet the current licensing conditions. The reactor is operating as efficiently and as safely as it ever has before in its entire history.

When I speak with the experts--and you're going to get an opportunity to talk to AECL, I understand, after me, and you can question them--they are now working with the CNSC. They've engaged in those discussions about post-2011, and I have no reason to believe they will not be able to license that. They may require some further upgrades. I don't know that, but I can tell you this. The government is committed to putting the resources that are required to ensure that this can be done.

Those discussions are ongoing, and the fact that we've made this decision on the MAPLE project allows us now to ask, what is going to be out there in the long term? Already people from the private sector have approached me about different possibilities. Now, they are just literally discussions coming into my office, but from pretty serious people. I'm not going to get into those details. I believe that would be in their interest, not mine, to start speculating about what may or may not come out. But the fact is that we've made this decision. We can now focus on other alternatives as well.

But the NRU is doing an amazing job right now. As I said earlier, it's an amazing piece of technology. I have every reason to believe it will continue. I hear the concerns of the medical community. That is why we made the decision we did. It was long overdue. This project should never have begun. They were warned. The Auditor General, on numerous occasions, warned of the problems with this project.

This is well over a decade. I think we're acting very prudently, very responsibly. They're nuclear decisions. You just don't make them overnight. You have to do your due diligence. You have to do your homework, and that is exactly what we have done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Madame DeBellefeuille.

Ms. Bell, for seven minutes.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the minister again for appearing before us on this very important topic.

You mentioned you inherited a problem in the MAPLEs, and this was a long time in the making. It had been around 12 years. There had been delays and problems. I'm just curious to know how many years ago.... When, if you know, was the first time the industry warned the government that the MAPLEs would not work.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The MAPLE project began in 1996. Construction began in 1998, and it was basically completed in 2000. I'm advised that AECL warned the government of the day in 1996 that this was an extremely highly risky project. If I go back to the Auditor General's report of 1998, this is before construction even began, and I'm reading from the Auditor General's report. She's talking about the MAPLE project--in those days they called it the MMIR. It had “tight timelines and budgets and an unexpected regulatory event”, and again, she doesn't get into the specifics, but the flags were back there in the very beginning.

You can go to the Auditor General's reports. They've been in all of them, in fact, right from 1997.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

They've been in three of them, I think.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, three of them, and she flags that this problem was plagued.... As you know, we took office two years ago. Suddenly I became engaged on this file, and we've done our due diligence to come to the decision we have.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Were the tests that you were waiting for initiated by your government, or had they been initiated by the previous government?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

These tests were all conducted under our government. They were done in 2008.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

We know that the NRU is the only isotope producer in Canada--

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Well, that's not entirely accurate. There's a particle accelerator at UBC that produces isotopes, but the vast majority of the supply comes from the NRU.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

So without any replacements now on board, how long do you think it would be--and I understand what you said, that the private sector is coming forward and starting to look at developing something, but how many years away are we from any kind of a replacement, and will the NRU at Chalk River last long enough to see something new come online?