Thank you for coming.
This is quite worrying to all of us. I am concerned that there's quite a discrepancy between the testimonies that we've heard. I had hoped that there would be a process by which the government would be tracking things like referrals. In the testimony of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, we heard that if referrals go down 10% to 25%, diseases will be found much later.
I am also concerned about the evidence we had from the association of technologists. They are worried that the applications to their courses are diminishing. There is also a concern that if there is not sufficient research capacity at the NRU we will permanently lose international and Canadian researchers to somewhere else. There's a lack of leadership on this.
We've also heard internationally that there is no substitute for reactor-derived isotopes. We will always need isotopes coming from reactors. We don't have a plan B. With only 50-year-old reactors, we have to have a plan.
Rarely do we see physicians all agreeing. Usually there are more positions than physicians in a room. The coherence of the recommendations of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine and the CMA is telling.
Dr. McEwan, the CMA, the CANM, and Ontario are all saying that an independent expert panel needs to revisit the decision on the MAPLEs. They are all saying that they need some of these other isotopes approved much more quickly. Mainly, they're saying that the money issue is serious. Money is needed for medical infrastructure and also to mobilize PET scanning across the country. There doesn't seem to be the kind of relationship that we hoped for between the government and these professional organizations.
There are four clear recommendations from the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine. Will you be recommending those four recommendations and the recommendations of the CMA to the minister?