Bill C-38 (Historical)

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

This enactment permits Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River in Ontario for a period of 120 days despite certain conditions of its licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I would like to say that this bill is necessary because the situation in Canada and the world is urgent. Some cancer and heart patients will not be able to receive diagnoses or treatment. Canada now has a shortage of isotopes. It is not the same in every province, but I can speak about one case in particular.

For example, in British Columbia there is enough supply currently in some institutions, but others are in severe shortage. Alberta does not use this supplier, so it is fine. Saskatchewan is on a wait list for generators. Manitoba is using suppliers from Europe.

Ontario has limited supplies--I believe under 20%--and all regions of Ontario indicate shortages. Quebec is looking at contingency plans, but it expects shortages in the near term. In the Atlantic provinces, it is very severe. Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic provinces have severe shortages. New Brunswick has two regions out of six that are affected. It goes on.

That is today. Tomorrow it will be worse. The day after tomorrow it will be worse still.

Let me take the opportunity to quote just very briefly from Dr. Brian Day, president of the Canadian Medical Association, in a letter to Ms. Keen that was delivered earlier today:

The Canadian Medical Association...joins the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine...to express our deep concern and profound disappointment with the disruption of supply of medical isotopes due to the extended shutdown of the reactor at Chalk River. The devastating impact that this has had on patient care across Canada, and indeed around the world, has been compounded by what we perceive as a true lack of understanding of what the extended shutdown means to patients who need access to vital diagnostic procedures. For physicians it means we are increasingly being forced to make difficult clinical decisions without appropriate critical diagnostic tools.

I will read another quote for members:

Nuclear medicine services are now being rationed across Canada. Patients are not getting timely access to critical diagnostic procedures...This is impacting on diagnostic services; timely surgery; and therapy planning, placing patients increasingly at risk.

I will read one final sentence:

The decision to take the reactor off-line for an extended period of time has already affected critical medical management decisions and the numbers affected will escalate every day that the shutdown is in effect.

Members do not have to believe me. They do not have to believe this caucus. They can believe the head of the Canadian Medical Association. They can believe the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine.

That is the situation we find ourselves in. As responsible parliamentarians, we should act.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister. I have a hypothetical question to see whether I have understand the urgency of the bill. If AECL submitted a safety case to the commission, would a bill then not be needed very quickly to provide some control over safety? Perhaps the Liberal natural resources critic discussed this.

Could the agency then monitor the proper operation of AECL? Could the commission be responsible then? Could it not be responsible because a single pump was being used?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, as we outlined earlier, the commission was promised by AECL that it would have the two pumps as late as December 6, that it believed that was the safety case, so the commission would look forward to an amendment that would allow for this one pump to be there, and the commission is ready to review that. Under the present case and licence, it would not be one pump. It would require the two pumps that were committed to by AECL in its licence.

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

Mr. Chair, I have to say that I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North that this is a terrible situation to find ourselves in. We are weighing on the one hand the emotional issue of patient care and the needs, health and safety of patients. It is a very real but very emotional issue that we are grappling with here. On the other side of that coin, we are also weighing worker safety and public safety in the Chalk River area and in the national research universal reactor at Chalk River.

I want to follow a line of questioning, if members will permit me, to find out how we got to this point, because I think it is important. I need to know, because I have asked this question of a couple of people and I think I know the answer, who does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission report to in regard to its findings?

Do you report to a minister or directly to the government? When you find problems at facilities, where do you report those problems?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, the CNSC is an independent agent. It reports through the Minister of Natural Resources, not to the Minister of Natural Resources, so the minister is not involved in the decisions of the commission day to day.

It does, like other administrative tribunals, which are a form of justice, publish its findings. It makes its findings and publishes them and reasons for decisions. If anyone does not agree, the licensee, any group or any individual, then they can challenge the decision at the Federal Court. There is an arm's length relationship between the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Minister of Natural Resources

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

Mr. Chair, I am not sure, then, if the witness is finding issues with AECL's facility at Chalk River.

You are calling the safety into question, obviously, or you would not have shut it down. Would the Minister of Natural Resources have been made aware of this through your reports through the ministry or through that department?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify a misconception that has been repeated several times today. The CNSC did not shut down AECL. AECL was in a planned shutdown, as Mr. McGee said, and voluntarily decided to continue the shutdown in order to put the pumps into place. CNSC did not shut down this reactor. AECL chose to keep this reactor down.

In terms of notifying, we notify everyone in the same way. We issue a decision with reasons for decision, like the other 20-some administrative tribunals in the federal system, and everyone is notified at once. This permits the minister to be at arm's length from the decision making of the commission tribunal.

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

Mr. Chair, so if people were notified and ministers were obviously made aware, I am just curious: was anyone was made aware that if there was a prolonged shutdown there would be an impending crisis with respect to the radioisotopes? If they were, then why was something not done to mitigate that knowing it would go into a prolonged shutdown?

I just want to know if it would be the minister or AECL. AECL agreed to continue the shutdown. Did you inform any of the ministers that we were going to have a shortage?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, let me start by saying that the decision to keep the reactor in a shutdown state was the only safe and prudent decision available to me at the time based on the opinion of the CNSC staff that I was outside the licensing basis with the facility.

If I had chosen at that point to restart the reactor, I would have been charged with a licence violation. I should not presuppose what the enforcement activity would have been, but I would have been exposed to enforcement activity.

From a safety perspective, I have to respect the staff's opinion and understand more clearly what the status is. I think everyone heard me say earlier in testimony that we now believe that we were not and are not outside the licensing basis. However, at that point in time I made the only safe and prudent decision, out of respect for the opinion of professionals in the CNSC staff. Until I could adequately disposition that opinion I had to take action to remain shut down both from a prudent perspective as well as a legal perspective.

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

Thank you, but I would like you to answer my question, which was: Did you inform the health minister or the natural resources minister that there was going to be a shortage?

You would know that you are shutting down and you do not know when you are going to start up again. At some point you are going to incur a shortage of radioisotopes because these things do not get made by themselves.

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, I did not personally notify any ministries. We have a corporate government affairs group and I cannot comment on what they may or may not have informed anybody of.

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

Mr. Chair, I would then ask either of the ministers if they were informed.

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

Mr. Chair, on Friday, November 30, there was an email sent by the government relations person at AECL that in fact there was a shutdown, that it expected to resume operations soon.

I do not have the specifics of that, but it was not sent at a senior level. It was not sent to me personally. I became aware of it some time on December 3 and then there were discussions on December 4 about an action plan, but it was not communicated before that.

I was first made aware I believe late in the day on December 3 and started working on it on December 4.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, just for the record, I and my department were informed on Wednesday, December 5.

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

Mr. Chair, I find it disturbing that it took so long to inform the ministers of this impending crisis, and that it would take international pressures and a shortage of this magnitude to bring us to this point.

I am going to pass it over to my colleague.