Natural Resources Committee on Aug. 21st, 2009

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

To reconfirm quickly, these days the government is looking for a long-term solution, and we're exploring the viability of producing isotopes with new reactors, so it does not matter who runs that business.

[Serge Dupont]

I'll be brief in my remark because I may not have fully captured your question.

I think that what was announced on May 28 by the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to restructuring of Atomic Energy of Canada was about the structure, the ownership structure that will best utilize and mobilize the talent that is here in Canada, the expertise, so that we may play as we may play in the global marketplace, and there is a sense that the current structure is not the one that optimizes that outcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Shory.

Mr. Jean, you have one question, I understand.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have a very short series of questions about the cost estimate, taking over from Mr. Julian. Just from my notes, it seems that there was a 40% reduction in annual appropriation for AECL during 1995 by the Liberal government. Are you familiar with those figures?

[Serge Dupont]

Yes, we have the full historical tracking of the--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

So that's accurate. There was a 40% reduction by the Liberal government in 1995.

[Tom Wallace, Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

There was a significant reduction in conjunction with program review in 1995. I'd have to go back to the figures.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

In fact, isn't it true that from 1993 to 2006, under the Liberal government there was approximately $161 million, on average, spent per year for that time period, and since 2006--and a Conservative government--that number has increased to $425 million per year--$1.7 billion over four years? Is that accurate?

[Serge Dupont]

I can't do the math quite that fast, but the numbers look to be in the ballpark. I could certainly provide the committee with the full historicals, if that would be helpful, Mr. Chair.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

For 2009-10, in fact, $580 million was allocated this year to AECL and Chalk River Laboratories.

[Serge Dupont]

That's correct, if that is inclusive of the amounts being appropriated through Natural Resources Canada for the long-term waste program.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

So there has been a significant increase in the funding under this government.

[Serge Dupont]

There has been.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

We go now to Mr. Anderson. You have about two and a half minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I actually want to follow up on a question. I think Mr. Allen started it, and I think Mr. Tonks touched on it as well, and that's talking about the alternatives. Do you have any information on what percentage of treatments are now being done by alternatives? More importantly--I think Mr. Allen asked this earlier--do you have any idea if we're going to...?

Carolyn, do you want to interrupt or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Could we have order, please.

Mr. Anderson, go ahead, hopefully uninterrupted.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay. I had another question.

Do you think we're going to be moving into a time when there's diversification, or once the NRU is back up and some of the other reactors are running, are we going to go back to an almost total reliance on isotopes? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Serge Dupont]

The individuals better qualified to answer those questions would be, obviously, in the medical community. What I can tell you, on the basis on the information provided to us by Health Canada, is that they basically estimate that a significant portion of procedures can be replaced by other substances such as thallium and fluoride, as we heard from Dr. McEwan.

That said, there is a portion, estimated to be in a range of 50%, where there is not necessarily at this time an alternative available to technetium. So that is why it is important to continue to have a minimum supply and a healthy supply of technetium. That is why it's important to continue the international efforts to bring it, in the absence of the NRU.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I want to shift to a completely different subject, one that I think should be important to this committee, and it's that despite some of the announcements made recently about new builds being postponed, nuclear power is obviously still a part of our energy mix, and Canadians want it to be that way. These new builds will require some sense of stability.

I want you to talk a little about what Bill C-20—which has been sent to the committee—will do in terms of providing that stability, because I think that's something the committee should be moving forward on if it really wants to deal seriously with the nuclear issue in Canada.

[Serge Dupont]

Bill C-20 is about updating our nuclear liability regime in Canada. Currently, operators of nuclear facilities have a maximum liability, in the event of a disruption or an accident of any kind, of up to $75 million. That is outside of the realm of the global standard. The limit will be raised to $650 million, which is also roughly equivalent to the amount that may reasonably be purchased in the market by way of insurance. So it provides an environment whereby we both hold entities to account and, at the same time, provide that we may build a viable and vibrant nuclear industry in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

We will now go to a second round. If there is anyone who would like to ask questions, we could have about three minutes from each party. We have about 12 minutes left in this round.

Starting with the official opposition, we have Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on the answer given with respect to the panel committee and the recommendations that would come forward and the role this contracted firm or individual is going to play.

In a critical situation, does the department accept and is the minister prepared to accept that the ultimate decision will be made not by the panel but by some individual or firm contracted to give an opinion? Is that the position the department is taking?

[Serge Dupont]

Not at all, sir. I would suggest that if the firm that is hired purported to provide definitive recommendations in any kind of way, it would have a very wrong understanding of its role. The role of the firm will be to support the panel, to provide it the best possible cross-sectoral analysis of the information provided in the submissions and to bring added professional capacity to the panel so that they may look at the 22 submissions in a concerted and analytically robust fashion, bringing forth their own very significant expertise. I think you will find that the individuals who serve on the panel are doing so with independence of mind, with integrity and credibility that are extremely strong; and they will be making the recommendations to the minister.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.