Natural Resources Committee on Aug. 21st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There is a minute and a half left.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the witness, can you confirm that there were no shutdowns at the Chalk River reactor that caused a global isotope shortage prior to 2007?

[An hon. member]

Good question.

[Serge Dupont]

I heard the answer provided to you by AECL. I'm not sure I could confirm that. It is my understanding, Mr. Chair, but I'm not sure I could confirm it with zero element of doubt. I'm certainly prepared to go back and look at the history.

I don't know, Tom, whether you could respond.

[Tom Wallace]

No, but I think the answer given was that the previous major shutdown was in the early seventies, and there was a backup reactor, the NRX, available at that time. So it didn't create the global shortages we've seen recently with the shutdown of the NRU—or, actually, with the shutdown of the Petten reactor last year. Notwithstanding the efforts of the NRU to ramp up production, there was still a significant impact on the global marketplace.

But prior to 2007, which I think is what you referred to, I'm not aware of any incidents of the kind we've experienced in the last few years. There have been periodic shutdowns of other reactors in the world over the last five years, not just in Canada, which have led to a tight supply situation on occasion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

We now go to Ms. Gallant for up to three minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we have to recognize that the government that was responsible for the 10 years prior to the shutdown bears some responsibility here too.

It seems that your department is working towards a future where security of Canada's supply of medical isotopes is built on a more effective international coordination of isotope-producing reactors. I'm going to ask you a series of questions, so please time your answers accordingly.

Is this the most desirable scenario, as opposed to a stand-alone, Canada-only system for a secure supply? Does the department foresee Canada being a significant contributor to this international network of isotope-producing nations in the long term? Will Canada's contribution to a network of reactor sources be a reactor that is fully integrated with other countries? It seems that we're pausing to consider the merits of many other approaches, while getting started on a replacement for the NRU reactor is delayed for another one or two years. Is this period of discussion really worth the risk of any further delay in replacing the NRU?

[Serge Dupont]

Again, in terms of replacement of the NRU, if we're talking about building a new research reactor, in rough numbers, that's $1 billion, and it is an investment for the next 50 to 60 years. That would be deserving of some time to make sure that you get it right. There are other supply alternatives when it comes to isotopes, but as regards a new research reactor, that is an important consideration.

Is it necessarily better than a self-standing Canadian kind of solution? We think so. The reason is that, whatever solution you will have, to have the world dependent on one supply chain when there cannot be inventory of any kind held for any reasonable period of time is not healthy. There has to be more distributed supply.

It is also somewhat uncharacteristic for the U.S., for example, to be the largest consumer in the world, have no indigenous production capability, and rely fully on its international partners. It is perfectly normal, and I think salutary, for the U.S. to look at its own production options.

Should Canada be a significant contributor to the world market in the long term? We certainly have skills, we certainly have capacities, and we have a history. What we have not had to date is a reasonable business model. Frankly, this has not been an attractive business for Atomic Energy of Canada. It may have been for some of the other parties in the supply chain. As I mentioned earlier, the real public policy imperative, number one, is to ensure that the needs of the health care system are met. If, as well, there could be commercial opportunities realized through the export of that capacity, the production in Canada and export, that's great. But the judgment is still out on that, and I think that's what we hope to hear as well from the panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mrs. Gallant.

Madam Brunelle, go ahead with questions, for up to three minutes.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Further to the Prime Minister's statement that he does not want to continue isotope production, could you tell us where the government's thinking currently stands? Will the government continue to produce isotopes?

[Serge Dupont]

First, the Prime Minister's statement was clear; that takes nothing away from the efforts underway to restart the reactor and to extend its useful life.

Second, the model used to date is not sustainable. It isn't sustainable from the standpoint of health or for Canadian taxpayers. Colossal amounts would have to be invested for Canada alone to continue to supply the global market with isotopes, unless the proposal is commercially viable. It is reasonable to use public funds to meet the needs of Canadians, but not to meet foreign needs.

So the economic model has to be reviewed. I think that's what's underlying the Prime Minister's remarks. The current model isn't working and it has to be changed. That said, in the meantime, the government will shoulder its responsibility and ensure that the market is served.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

In the meantime, we have to continue meeting the needs of Canadians at least. As a result of the prolonged shutdown of the NRU, have you coordinated the outages of the other reactors in the world? Some must unfortunately shut down. Has the government put a short- or medium-term action plan in place? For the long term, it's considered that these 22 proposals may perhaps be analyzed. Could you give me a little information on that matter?

[Serge Dupont]

In the short term, there will be other consultations with other countries, in particular to look at reactor production schedules for 2010. The minister, our colleagues from Atomic Energy of Canada and I have been in close contact with our international partners, the Belgians, the French, the Irish, and we will continue to do so. In September, there will be a meeting in Belgium, where we will study the 2010 calendar and try to see, based on potential risks, the best possible periods of operation for the reactors. There are constraints, and we won't necessarily be able to have ideal scenarios in all cases, but I think there is a genuine awareness among all partners that everyone has a role to play to improve the situation to the best of their ability.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You talked about costs. I'm sure your analysis was painstaking, but perhaps it isn't final. I would like you to be able to take Canadian expertise into account. I sat on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and I was really very surprised when they wanted to sell MDS Nordion, which built the Canadarm. It seems we in Canada tend to do that when we have expertise. It no doubt becomes quite costly and sometimes a little difficult to support, so we abandon it. However, you have to think of the entire scientific community. We are proud to be a leader in certain fields, and you definitely have to assess that.

[Serge Dupont]

With respect to Canada's nuclear capacity, I would simply say that your comments are somewhat consistent with those our minister made when she announced the Atomic Energy of Canada restructuring proposals on May 28 to better mobilize our resources and ensure that Canada succeeds in this field, which is growing around the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Brunelle.

Finally, in terms of this panel, we will go to Mr. Allen. You have up to three minutes, sir.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

In your remarks, Mr. Dupont, you talk about your medium-term actions and being engaged in discussions with the United States government, Oak Ridge, and McMaster with a view to replacing part of NRU's supply beginning as early as September 2010. Some of the testimony that we heard previously from McMaster in relation to the safety cases and the analysis that would have to be done made it sound to me that the timeline, if they were selected, would be a little bit longer than that. What do you see as the most logical types of solutions that could be implemented for part of NRU's capacity as early as September 2010?

As well, do you look at the medium term as being, realistically, what you can do within the next two to three years? Obviously, as you've said, we have to change the whole strategy, and that probably involves a much longer timeframe.

[Serge Dupont]

You're correct about the medium term. Let's say it's roughly 18 months to three years, essentially operating with the same type of paradigm that we are now. Any short-term solution in a North American context--and we met with the U.S. Department of Energy, with their nuclear regulator, with the CNSC, with the chief laboratories in the U.S. and Canada--is essentially irradiating the same kind of material that goes into the NRU in another reactor and then shipping the irradiated material to Chalk River for processing, essentially under the same process as is done with the NRU.

That is a complex task. We're talking about the transportation of irradiated and highly radioactive material across borders, in some cases, and looking at the capacities of different reactors to accommodate these targets, given their physical characteristics. We've pursued work with the Oak Ridge laboratory, which seems to have a reactor that could accommodate that for portions of time, the Missouri University reactor, and McMaster. McMaster takes a bit more time than the others to get onstream.

We are pursuing that, and the U.S. administration is equally committed to trying to find solutions, but in the best case we're into September 2010 to replace part of the production of the NRU.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Allen, you have 30 seconds.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

With Petten back on line and Australia looking to come at the end of the year, what does it look like if that all happens, in terms of replacing what we have now and the situation we have now?

[Serge Dupont]

We do not expect that, absent the NRU, one gets back to 100% supply when the NRU is up. The situation has fluctuated, for example, in the month of June and July, with Canada getting in the range of 70% of normal supplies or sometimes higher, sometimes 80%, sometimes close to 100%, and sometimes lower, sometimes closer to 50%. The situation will continue to evolve.

We are not in a position to provide definitive forecasts over an extended period of time, and I'll come back to the shorter time forecasts, because a lot depends on what flows back to Canada as supply from the other reactors in South Africa and in Europe.

On the shorter timeframe, Health Canada deals with the two suppliers of technetium generators in the U.S., Lantheus and Covidien. There, with some weeks' notice, we get a fairly accurate picture of what kind of supply to expect.

So I can't really give you a good picture, but we should be in a position where you're not at 100% but you're higher than 50%. It's going to fluctuate over that period of time, depending on a range of considerations, including commercial relations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

On a point of order, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the committee to meet again no later than next Friday to hear from Dr. Urbain, Dr. Driedger, Dr. O'Brien, and Dr. Lamoureux on the topic before us today and on the impacts that they are seeing on front-line doctors across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the proposal.

Mr. Anderson.

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

That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to make the point that the opposition couldn't even get their witnesses organized before they called this meeting. That's one of the things that have ticked me off about this whole thing, and particularly their attitude today.

I'm glad Mr. Regan brought this up. I don't think they've treated this meeting seriously at all, and evidence of that would be the fact that they released their news release earlier today before the meeting was even half over. On Monday morning we heard from the opposition that they wanted to have a meeting. We're required to have it within five days. That basically gave us three days to set it up--Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday--so we could have it today. We did that. The clerk worked very hard, worked overtime to try to put this together. We set up a three-and-a-half-hour meeting today. It's hardly a short meeting, as Ms. Bennett called it. We've been here.

There is concern over witnesses, apparently. We have used the opposition's witness list. That's what we used to set this up. We brought as many new witnesses into the hearing as we possibly could; it was set up that way. There was apparently some concern over five witnesses, and it gets awfully ridiculous, Mr. Chair, because three of those five witnesses have already appeared at either this committee or at the health committee. One person--and they don't even know this themselves, because it's in their news release--declined. This is their witness who declined. They don't even have that much knowledge of what went on this week to know that.

I think that is probably a pretty good sign of why this meeting was held. It wasn't to find out about isotopes; it was to set up some sort of political charade, which we've seen this afternoon.

Mr. Chair, we're having a health minister here even though this is the natural resources committee. I think we've gone the extra mile for these folks. Clearly, the opposition has been poorly organized right from the beginning, and that's evident by the fact that the witnesses were not even called prior to their deciding that they had a witness list and submitting it to us. A good number of those witnesses were not available.

So between that and the Liberals' having released their news release earlier today, I think it shows what they really intended to do with this today, which is, as Mr. Cullen said earlier, to make it into a spectacle, and they've been able to do that. We probably are not going to get a lot of this testimony out into the public view, because these folks are more intent on trying to make this into, as Mr. Cullen called it, a spectacle rather than dealing seriously with this issue.

So we don't need to meet again, and we don't need to meet again in the near future, and we're going to happily decline Mr. Regan's offer.