Evidence of meeting #12 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was situation.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Grant Malkoske  Vice-President, Strategic Technologies, MDS Nordion
Douglas Abrams  President, Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine
David McInnes  Vice-President, International Relations, MDS Nordion
Morris Rosenberg  Deputy Minister, Department of Health

12:05 p.m.

Vice-President, Strategic Technologies, MDS Nordion

Grant Malkoske

What can be done today?

I think we've talked a lot in this and other discussions about a communication protocol. We think that is important.

I also mentioned that I think we need a national supply strategy to ensure that the NRU reactor does not go down again on an occasion such as this and to quickly bring the MAPLE reactors online, because these will be brand new reactors solely dedicated to the production of medical isotopes. There would be two of them, one to provide a backup to the other.

Until such time, we're in a bit of a tenuous situation globally for this.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Mr. Malkoske.

We'll now go to Mr. Brown.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To follow up on what my colleague Mr. Tilson was touching upon, I have a question for Dr. Abrams.

In a press release on December 13, the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine expressed pleasure and relief that Parliament “has taken a strong and balanced approach in assessing the risks of operating the Chalk River facility versus the risk to Canadians of not having access to essential medical diagnostic and therapeutic services”.

I want to get your opinion. If we didn't have that day in Parliament, what would have arisen? Do you think that was the correct approach today, as you did when the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine expressed that opinion on December 13?

12:10 p.m.

President, Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine

Douglas Abrams

To answer the first question, I think that as the length of time the reactor was down progressed, we would have stabilized on the amount of technetium and molybdenum that we were able to get. I think we would have maximized what we could get from the worldwide supply, so we would have reached an equilibrium at that point. At that point there probably would have been about 30....

BMS has about 80% of the Canadian market and Covidien has about 20% of the Canadian market. Covidien was able to ramp up a little, and that would have brought it up to maybe 35%. Let's say they could double it, to 40%; we probably would have had a 50% to 60% shortage of radioisotopes and we would have needed to make sure that our supply was as appropriate as possible.

At the same time, we probably would have been able to look at other isotopes for some of the tests. Thallium 201 probably would have been able to take a little more of the technetium heart scans, and the use of fluoride from cyclotrons may have been able to ameliorate some of the bone scans. The problem with the fluoride would have been that there are very few cyclotrons in Canada and that it has a very short half-life of two hours. It would have been a stopgap measure. Only the larger centres in Canada could do that.

We would probably have been able to rationalize better and better what we were doing. The number of Canadians missing their tests probably would have been around 50% to 60%. That's just looking at the numbers as I see them now.

The communiqué was generated out of relief that something had happened. We felt that the government must have had the appropriate information to make that decision. We're not in a position to evaluate how the decision was made or why the decision was made, but once it was made, it was certainly a relief to all the nuclear medicine physicians in Canada.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Mr. Abrams.

The time is 12:15 right now. I want to acknowledge that the Honourable Tony Clement is here now to take his place for our committee.

I want to thank you very much for coming and being witnesses here at our committee. You have answered some very good questions.

We will take 30 seconds. If the witnesses wouldn't mind vacating their seats now, we would ask the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, to join us.

Thank you.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

I would like to call the committee to order.

The minister has kindly joined us once again. We do see our minister here very frequently, and we thank him for taking the time to present at committee.

What's going to happen is that the minister will make a presentation. Following that, we will go into questions. Mr. Thibault will be first, with 15 minutes.

We will start, please, with the Minister of Health. Mr. Clement.

12:15 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Health

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

I'm here this afternoon with my deputy minister and my assistant deputy minister on this file.

It is my pleasure to address the health impact the Chalk River nuclear shutdown with you.

As members of the Standing Committee on Health, you are keenly aware of the importance of correct diagnosis, especially in cases of critical illnesses such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. Radioisotopes are used in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

As members know, the Chalk River reactor is an essential source of medical isotopes in Canada and indeed world-wide. The extended shutdown of the NRU reactor significantly reduced the supply in Canada and throughout the world.

As soon as I became aware of the situation, on December 5, my officials and I started acting immediately to stem what was quickly evolving into an urgent health crisis. We communicated with 773 health care facilities across Canada, including 245 nuclear medicine facilities, to determine initially the severity of the shortage. We found that shortages were felt in smaller rural and remote areas, particularly in Atlantic Canada, and that shortages were imminent elsewhere.

We inquired into gaining supply from the four other medical isotope suppliers in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and South Africa. In doing so, we found that French and South African reactors were going through routine maintenance at exactly the same moment. All in all, we found that overseas suppliers could increase their output by only 10%, or at maximum, 15%. Furthermore, overseas suppliers indicated that the earliest they could provide us with the additional supply would be December 29. Based on the information we were receiving, this would have been too little, too late, as the shortage situation would have, I'm absolutely convinced, escalated to unmanageable levels long before that.

During this time we also established a group of experts from the fields of oncology, cardiology, and nuclear medicine, as well as representatives of the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine. Based on the information from this group, it was clear we were in the midst of a growing health crisis, and one that needed action. One of the members of our expert group, Dr. Karen Gulenchyn, told the natural resources committee of Parliament last week that “...we believe that unmanageable shortages would have occurred within a week”. This group estimated that approximately 10% of affected patients were indeed facing life-and-death decisions.

The group of experts also gave information that another 30% to 40% were facing the risk of under-equipped physicians making inappropriate diagnostic and treatment decisions. This message was reiterated in a letter dated December 10, 2007, to Linda Keen, and copied to me, in which Dr. Brian Day, who of course is president of the Canadian Medical Association, stated that the CMA “...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”.

He goes on:

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'm hoping we can all agree that a faulty diagnostic or treatment decision today is the first step to a more complicated or critical situation tomorrow.

In short, in order to serve the needs of patients in a way Canadians rightfully expect, gaining a minimal supply of medical isotopes from overseas was no substitute for a running reactor at Chalk River, which produces more than half of the world's supply. As a result, we had a responsibility to seek information from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission about ways to resolve the growing health crisis.

First we wanted to see if there could be an expeditious hearing to consider the merits of AECL's safety case, without in any way directing the commission to reach a particular conclusion. Alas, such a decision was not reached.

Second, our government issued a policy directive stipulating that the commission's decisions take into account the health of Canadians who depend on nuclear substances to meet medical needs, but that had no effect.

So our government had to take decisive action on December 11 by proposing to Parliament Bill C-38. Of course this bill passed with all-party support, and by December 19 isotope production was returned to pre-shutdown levels, and deliveries resumed over the holidays.

Dr. Andrew Ross, a nuclear medicine specialist at Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, called our action “a great Christmas present”. Indeed, he was not alone. The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine thanked all parliamentarians of “all political stripes” for the fast legislative action.

Now that the situation has passed, my officials are continuing to work with the expert advisory group to establish contingency plans in the event of any future supply disruption.

This includes assessing the possibility for alternative sources, along with substitute diagnostic techniques that could be used if needed, and examining opportunities for enhancing international collaboration to coordinate supply.

This work is also aiming to ensure timely notification of issues that may affect supply.

As a result, we have developed a notification protocol between AECL, Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada. It provides clarity about who needs to be contacted and when. As well, it states that information will be shared immediately when it concerns Chalk River's operations and therefore the supply of medical isotopes.

In the future, if my department receives information about a potential shortage, we will be able to draw on the best practices employed in December and the lessons learned from that experience to immediately establish contact with provinces, territories, the health care communities, and relevant experts to assess the potential impact and launch strategies to respond.

In closing, Madam Chair, I want to underline the fact that our government acted out of necessity for the health of Canadians. Going without isotopes provided by Chalk River meant health care providers were under-equipped to meet the urgent needs of patients. As the shutdown went on longer, the potential for a health crisis grew stronger. Accordingly, our government acted decisively to stop it before it was too late. We did so with all-party support in Parliament.

Together, all parliamentarians put aside partisanship to act as needed when lives were threatened.

Our government did what was needed for the health of Canadians—and I thank everyone here today for your votes in December which helped achieve this result.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Minister Clement.

We will begin the round of questioning with Mr. Thibault. As you know, there are 15 minutes for you, Mr. Thibault. You may share your time.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Minister Clement, thank you for coming, and thank you for agreeing to come to the committee on such short notice.

First, I'd like to give you an opportunity to clarify one point in your comments. You indicated you contacted European and South African sources, and no isotopes were available for us there. We heard this morning from Mr. Malkoske that his company, Nordion, had received some from Europe and from South Africa. Is your statement that no further isotopes were available, or none?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you, honourable member.

Our research indicated that at best the maximum number of isotopes available would be able to accommodate 10% to 15% of the demand for those isotopes within our country. In any event, those isotopes would not be made available before December 29.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Perhaps you can seek clarification from your staff, but I believe both of those shipments to Nordion were prior to the end of December.

I don't want to spend too much time on the decision in Parliament. We all supported it. We got to a position where we had a lack of isotopes and we had to get isotopes generated in our system. I understand it's operating normally and a Natural Resources Canada committee is looking at those questions.

I do object, however, to the way your government handled Ms. Keen. A regulator has to follow the law and regulate. If cabinet or Parliament have to take decisions beyond that of the capability of the regulator, then that's a job for cabinet or Parliament, and Parliament exercises responsibility in that regard.

I'd like to discuss a couple of areas with you. First, on communication--and this is coming from the presentation or in response to a question by Mr. Malkoske this morning--you didn't just deal with communications within Canada in your presentation, but international communications. Very few reactors are capable of producing these isotopes. We are the biggest producer.

If you look at this situation, we had an extended stage shutdown. At the same time, just subsequent to our shutdown, there were two other shutdowns by reactors internationally. It seems a simple solution to have an international protocol among all producers that no shutdown be very close to another, because one of those can always be extended for one reason or another.

Are those discussions happening internationally? Are we going to be in the position next year, in two years, or in ten years when exactly the same situation can repeat itself?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Thibault.

I'm not privy to those particular discussions. It would probably be more appropriate in terms of Natural Resources Canada.

In terms of our own shop here, what I wish to do, through a better protocol, is to ensure that if there is an unscheduled shutdown situation.... This is where I think there could have been, in retrospect, some improvement. We went from a scheduled shutdown situation here to a prolonged, unscheduled shutdown. Where we have that situation, you would have a better protocol.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Yes, but you'll understand that any time you have a scheduled shutdown, you have a great risk of an extended shutdown, because you can have problems at start-up or in your regular scheduled maintenance you can find some problems that cause you not to reopen as quickly. This is a situation we had this time.

We had two other reactors in the international chain that had scheduled shutdowns in the same timeframe. That is the huge risk. I don't know that the Government of Canada should leave it only to Natural Resources. I think it's a health issue.

Wouldn't you have discussed that at the emergency cabinet meeting very shortly after November 22, when you saw the problem we were having here?

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

As I have mentioned, we at Health Canada were first aware of the problem on December 5. That was when we were notified. At that time, we acted forcefully and quickly in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

I take your point. From the point of view of making sure that there's better coordination for the health and safety of citizens world-wide, I'd certainly be in favour of having that information more widely shared as to what is in shutdown mode and when. I think that's a good idea.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

I'll accept your word that you became aware on December 5, but I don't believe your department was aware on December 5, because when I heard from Nordion this morning, when I look at the testimony of other people at Natural Resources, it seems that your department, on December 5, was ready to react.

We looked at the cyclotron, the other products that were available. They were ready to react. They contacted all those health care institutions quite rapidly. So I think somebody in your department knew before then.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I'll pass it over to the department, if you don't mind.

February 12th, 2008 / 12:30 p.m.

Morris Rosenberg Deputy Minister, Department of Health

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can affirm to you that I was informed on December 5, and I believe the department was informed on December 5 that there was this extended shutdown. We sprang into action immediately and started making calls and pulling together the advisory group.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

I know Mr. Rosenberg is an able man. I had the pleasure of serving as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health for 18 months, at the time Mr. Rosenberg came into his present duties.

I became aware of the situation when you had news articles appearing by the Canadian press on December 1 and you had a CBC story from Halifax on December 4. I'm not privy now to the clippings that are collected by your department on a daily basis. Your department won't share that with opposition critics, but we find them. Your department was aware at that time. There's no way such a situation can come....

I can't conceive that on November 22 the chairman of AECL would find out about an extended shutdown.... Mr. Burns, ironically, is in charge of nuclear energy--it reminds me a bit of The Simpsons. And he's not a Liberal hack; he's a Conservative appointee as chairman of that corporation. He says that the Minister of Natural Resources was advised at that same time.

Now, I've been a minister before. I know that advice to the minister isn't necessarily on the minister's desk at the same time, but I can assure you it's in the minister's office on that day, or in the deputy minister's office. I can't conceive that you could have an extended shutdown at Natural Resources on November 22 and that the Minister of Natural Resources would only find out on December 3, and that the Minister of Health would only find out on December 5, or that nobody in the Department of Health.... I'm sure Nordion put out a press release on November 21, I believe.

12:30 p.m.

A voice

The thirtieth.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

On November 30 they put out a press release advising their customers. It's inconceivable to me that this information wouldn't have come to the Department of Health.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Let me reply to that by saying that I think Minister Lunn has made it absolutely clear that he was not advised until December 3. Indeed,what was happening between November 22 and December 3 was a disagreement among the licensing agency, the safety commission, and AECL. The AECL's communications to Minister Lunn continued to be that they expected to be on line very quickly, and that only changed at the beginning of December, when it was clear that the unscheduled shutdown was going to continue for some time.

So when you look at this, it's not as if everybody knew on November 22 that the reactor was going to be shut down for one month, two months, or three months. That, in fact, was not the case. In fact, the people who ran the reactor indicated to all concerned that they expected to be on line very quickly.

As I said, it was only at the beginning of December—and in my case, and my department's case, December 5—that we were aware we were in a situation where the licence-granting agency was not going to be granting a licence for some time to come.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Michael Burns says that on November 22 Minister Lunn was informed of an “extended shutdown” of the NRU reactor—an extended shutdown. Now, if I'm operating this reactor or I am responsible for this reactor that's providing half or 75% of the isotopes internationally--

12:35 p.m.

A voice

It's 50%.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

--and there's great demand in Canada, and you've pointed out in your presentation the risk from a possible extended shutdown.... I can't see how the Department of Health would not have been notified, how the minister would not have been notified, because this is a significant part of the operations of our health care system—all the diagnostic side and some of the treatment side.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Again, I disagree with your characterization of November 22, as does the Minister of Natural Resources. The fact of the matter is that he's put it on the record since the very beginning that lower down in his department there was some communication, but it was disputed by other experts; it was disputed by other people in AECL. So the fact of the matter is, in terms of the Government of Canada knowing we were in an extended shutdown with an extended dispute with the licence-granting agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, all of that came to a head in the early part of December, and our department was aware of the situation on December 5.

That's all I can tell you.