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

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Binder  President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Nigel Lockyer  Director, TRIUMF
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Chad Mariage
Jean-Luc Bourdages  Committee Researcher

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Good morning, everyone.

We are continuing our study that resulted from a motion adopted by the committee on June 3, 2008. We're continuing our study of the decision of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the government to discontinue the MAPLE reactors project, together with the ramifications of this decision on the supply of isotopes.

We have with us today two witnesses: Michael Binder, president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and Nigel Lockyer, director of TRIUMF. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you both for being here today.

Mr. Binder, do you have a presentation to make?

11:05 a.m.

Dr. Michael Binder President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Yes, sir.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Go ahead, then.

11:05 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Dr. Michael Binder

Thank you.

My opening remarks are available in both English and French but with your permission, I will present them in English.

What I'll do is I'll flip this slide deck.

I thought it would be good to talk a bit about how the commission operates and works. If you look at slide 2, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that regulates all nuclear facilities and activities in Canada, from nuclear plants to waste management.

On slide 3--just to reiterate--our core mission is to regulate to protect health, safety, security, and the environment in our international obligations. How do we do this? By setting up a clear regulatory framework, by conducting rigorous and open public hearing and consultation processes, and by relying on our world-class scientists and engineers.

On slide 4, we have pretty modern legislation that enables us to set up regulatory policy, to license nuclear facilities and nuclear activities, and to ensure compliance. It is governed by commissioners appointed by the Governor in Council, and the commissioners are renowned Canadians and experts in their own field. If you turn to the next slide, I actually put their names there so you can see they bring to the table diverse experience in geology, medicine, engineering, mining, etc.

On slide 6 there is a very quick overview of the public hearing that the commission conducts. That particular public hearing allows all the proponents and all interveners and the public to come in front of the commission and argue the merits of a submission. It's a unique kind of public hearing. It has two days of hearings. In day one, the proponent comes in and makes the application. Our own staff make a public analysis of the application and then it's all on the record, and 60 days later all interveners can come in front of the commission and argue the merits of the case. It's a pretty unique kind of process that maximizes the input of all interveners who are interested in the subject.

On slide 7--just to brag a bit about our own staff--there's amazing expertise in the commission, ranging from nuclear engineering and physics, environmental protection, radiology protection, waste management. They basically analyze any submission appearing in front of the commission and propose action, recommend what to do, ensure that the commission's decisions are implemented, and do a pre-audit audit and compliance analysis.

On slide 8--just to try to explain--the nuclear business is a very complicated business. We've set up some pretty extensive criteria for safety and for health. This is just an attempt to tell you the kinds of issues we are dealing with in every application that comes in front of us for a nuclear facility, from operating performance, performance assurance, equipment fitness, analysis, radiation protection, emergency preparedness, site security, etc.

On slide 9--just to state the obvious--the MAPLE project was subject to the same safety criteria as any other nuclear submission that came in front of us. We have exercised diligent regulatory oversight and allowed for AECL to do all the testing they had to do to try to understand the operation of the MAPLE project. It was the decision of AECL to discontinue the MAPLE project, and they'll have to come in front of us for an application for safely decommissioning the MAPLE reactors.

It's similar for the NRU. The NRU was also subject to the same safety criteria that I showed you before. We have conducted compliance and verification inspection, and I'm happy to report that the NRU right now is operating safely.

There is some question about whether the NRU licence will be extended beyond October 2011. The NRU is operating safely now. There is no reason to believe it will not continue to operate safely. The question is, for how long? That will be determined only when AECL appears in front of the commission with a submission that proposes the life extension, with all the things they have to do to make sure the plant is operating safely.

In conclusion, the CNSC regulates operations, but it is not running those operations. Regulators regulate, operators operate. Our role is to make sure, first, that we are protecting the health, safety, and security of Canadians and the environment, and second, that we are implementing Canada's international obligations efficiently.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Binder.

We will now go directly to Nigel Lockyer from TRIUMF. Mr. Lockyer, please explain to the committee what your organization is and then go ahead with your presentation.

June 17th, 2008 / 11:10 a.m.

Dr. Nigel Lockyer Director, TRIUMF

All right.

My name is Nigel Lockyer. I grew up in southern Ontario, went to high school in Hamilton, and attended York University in Toronto. I did my graduate and post-graduate work in the U.S. I was a professor of physics for 22 years at the University of Pennsylvania. I'm a particle physicist by training, with a strong interest in accelerator physics and medical physics. I am the director of TRIUMF and a professor of physics at UBC.

TRIUMF has a mission statement, and it's just one paragraph:

TRIUMF is Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics. It is owned and operated as a joint venture by a consortium of Canadian universities via a contribution through the National Research Council Canada with building capital funds provided by the government of British Columbia. Its mission is: To make discoveries that address the most compelling questions in particle physics, nuclear physics, nuclear medicine, and material science; To act as Canada's steward for the advancement of particle accelerators and detection technologies; and To transfer knowledge, train highly skilled personnel, and commercialize research for the economic, social, environmental and health benefit of all Canadians.

TRIUMF has four programs involving medical isotope production.

We've had a 30-year collaboration with MDS Nordion aiding them to produce 15% of Canada's medical isotopes. We produce 2.5 million patient doses per year. This is done with three small cyclotrons, or particle accelerators, which run essentially 24/7. There are about 90 staff, roughly 50 from MDS Nordion and about 40 from TRIUMF, who operate the cyclotrons. This has been a very successful partnership.

TRIUMF also produces isotopes with its main high-energy cyclotron, the 500 MeV cyclotron, which is the core of the facility. TRIUMF also has produced more than 6,000 patient doses of FDG, a sugar labeled with F-18, for the B.C. Cancer Agency in the last three years. We've done that since they entered into the business of PET screening for cancer patients, including several hundred children. These are produced using another small cyclotron at TRIUMF. The contacts would be Don Wilson and Francois Benard from BCCA.

TRIUMF also produces all the isotopes for the Pacific Parkinson's Research Centre at UBC, which has roughly 1,500 patients a year. That program is led by Dr. Jon Stoessl from UBC and Dr. Tom Ruth from TRIUMF. This is a highly successful 20-year program. Dr. Ruth is a radiochemist and a world expert on the production of medical isotopes. He's served on U.S. academies addressing medical isotope production and so on, so I would recommend him to you as one of Canada's true experts in this field. In this case, we produce primarily F-18 and C-11.

There are about eight operational cyclotrons in Canada in major medical centres and another eight being installed or commissioned, for a total of sixteen. For example, the Ottawa Heart Institute has its own cyclotron for producing medical isotopes, which are primarily focused on PET imaging.

These cyclotrons make isotopes primarily for PET, or positron emission tomography. That's a three-dimensional imaging of the metabolism of the patient. There are about 30 PET scanners in Canada. There are about 300 in the U.S. There are about 400 cyclotrons listed in the IAEA database around the world that are non-commercial. So that's 400 cyclotrons. If you include commercial cyclotrons, you have to guess, but it's about 900 worldwide.

PET is gaining a significant role in cancer screening, because it's able to assess the response to your cancer therapy.

Let me mention SPECT. There are two imaging modalities that are primarily used in nuclear medicine. One is SPECT, which is the older workhorse of the industry. It stands for single photon emission computed tomography. It drives the field today. There are about 900 SPECT cameras in Canada. I'm guessing that you have about eight processes per day, so if I round up, I can say that there are about 10,000 per day in Canada. It's larger than PET by about a factor of ten. PET is more advanced, more expensive, and to me, in the future, is the one that's going to be taking over in the field.

The sales of PET exceeded SPECT in the U.S. last year for the first time, so it gives you a sense that the field is changing.

PET is now purchased in combination with a CT scanner, which is an imaging X-ray, and you can also buy a SPECT with a CT scanner. You buy either a PET/CT or a SPECT/CT.

SPECT uses technetium-99. PET uses primarily FDG. They both can use other things, but they are the two.

The lifetime of FDG--or the half-life, to be more precise--is about two hours. The half life of technetium, as you know, is probably about six hours. The difference there is that SPECT uses technetium-99, which comes from a generator of molybdenum-99, and that generator is distributed around. For the FDG, you just produce it directly.

One final comment about TRIUMF is that its research, internally, is focused primarily on producing unstable isotopes, so in some sense, the business of TRIUMF is producing either this generation of isotopes or the next generation of isotopes.

I'll just stop there and wait for questions.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Dr. Lockyer.

We'll go to questions, but before we do, I'd like to say that Dr. Binder will be leaving at 12:20. As well, Mr. Trost has given notice that he wants to move his motion, so we will go to that in the last part of the meeting.

Now we're going directly to questions. First we have the critic for the official opposition, Mr. Alghabra, for up to seven minutes.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for coming here.

I will first congratulate Dr. Binder on his appointment as the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I want to take this opportunity to benefit from his experience over the last few months there and see how we can learn, because we are hoping to develop a report on nuclear safety and the supply of isotopes in this committee.

Dr. Binder, there were reports a few months ago that the minister had added to the letter of mandate to the president of the commission to take into account the security of the supply of isotopes. Is that correct?

11:20 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Dr. Michael Binder

There was a directive that was issued, and it becomes part of our legislation.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

No, the cabinet directive was very broad. In fact, it was complementary to the act itself, which states to take into account public safety and public well-being, but wasn't there a specific letter or recommendation or directive from the minister to the commission, stating that the commission must take into account specifically the supply of isotopes?

11:20 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Dr. Michael Binder

No. There was a letter of congratulation mentioning trying to work together. I responded by saying that I was looking forward to working together, but there was no direction.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Okay, good. I just wanted to clarify that, because there were reports that was the intent.

Some things came up during our study that were not noticed in the past. There was a practice occasionally that the department would appoint a deputy minister to the board of directors of a crown corporation. This time we also noticed that the deputy minister of natural resources was on AECL. At the same time, the president of the commission reports to the minister and the department.

I would like you to comment on that. Do you think that might pose a potential, or at least a perception of, conflict of interest? You yourself said in your presentation that the job of the CNSC is to regulate operations, but it is not responsible for those operations; it is AECL that is responsible for those operations. Do you think the fact that both agencies report to the same minister might pose some kind of a potential conflict of interest?

11:20 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Dr. Michael Binder

The short answer is no. If I understand the legislation, we report to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources.

I must tell you that my observation in the five months I've been there is that the commission is staffed with commissioners who are very independent-minded. They are non-bureaucrats. Some of them are retired; some of them have other jobs, day jobs. They consider all applications in front of them very seriously and in great detail.

I've yet to see any way, even if I wanted to, that I or anybody else could influence the collective decision. So far I have not seen any concern from any intervention from ministers.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

I beg to differ, Mr. Binder. We saw the greatest intervention in Canada's history, which was the firing of the independent commissioner when her judgment was not the judgment of the government. That's not to say, as you said, there will be a first or last time an independent body has a different opinion from the government. But we saw what happened when the president disagreed with the government: they fired her. So it's fair to raise this question that there is a potential conflict of interest.

Some of us are considering having the commission report to the Minister of the Environment instead of the Minister of Natural Resources. How do you feel about that?

11:20 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Dr. Michael Binder

I can't comment on this. This is machinery of government. Other brighter minds than mine will comment on it and decide this. All I can tell you is I've been in government for 37 years. Anybody who thinks they can actually influence me directly is in for a big surprise. I make my own opinions, my own decisions. So far I can tell you I'm very comfortable in our independence and our ability to render decisions independently and on the merit of an application in front of us.

As you know, Parliament is supreme—that's you people—and Parliament has the ability to pass legislation at any time. In fact it's in the act that Parliament can direct the commission. We always are subject to that kind of issue.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Binder. That's why we're examining this. That's why we're studying this. That's why we're considering all these scenarios.

By the way, potential conflicts of interest are not meant to minimize someone's independence as an individual, or their strong-mindedness, or their integrity. It is for the institution, the setup, for the mechanism itself, so it's protected for the long haul and for other institutions. And I think it is a very important question to consider. The reason I'm asking you this is that you're in a position to offer us advice.

Let me ask this question differently. Do you see that changing the reporting direction to the Minister of the Environrment would have any damaging effect on the performance or the effectiveness of the commission?

11:25 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Dr. Michael Binder

I can't comment. This is a hypothetical situation. Right now I do what is in legislation. Whatever legislation does or any changes to legislation may change our behaviour. Right now it's in the law of the land, and I'm abiding by it.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Thank you very much.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.

We now go to the Bloc Québécois, Madame DeBellefeuille, for up to seven minutes.

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Chairman, do you think we'll have time to do two rounds of questions?

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

I can't say, but I would think so.

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Fine.

Welcome and thank you for coming, Mr. Binder. This is the first time I have met you, but I am sure it won't be the last.

We were very touched and troubled by what happened last winter when the former president of the commission was let go. She also had very strong opinions. Despite this, she was relieved of her duties.

I was surprised to learn at our last meeting that the NRU's licence will probably be extended beyond 2011. The company and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited viewed these as modalities and felt that the reactor could probably survive until 2016. This was stated rather confidently.

The main operators perceive this as a fact, but do you not expect that there will be pressure on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to facilitate this licence extension, given that we are in a somewhat difficult situation? We have one old reactor and the MAPLE project has been discontinued.

11:25 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Michael Binder

This is a hypothetical situation. I think we need to wait for a specific submission containing a proposal, a recommendation regarding the extension of the NRU's licence. People may talk, but our response will be based on a specific submission. Our goal now is to ensure that the NRU is operating properly.

It is safe. It's operating safely, and as far as we're concerned, until there is a submission in front of us and we're going through the process I just described, with all the recommendations about how long you can in fact operate this facility safely, we will not comment.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

From what I understand, Mr. Binder, the process of abiding by all the rules and standards in order to obtain a licence extension is rather long. We have an old reactor whose licence will expire in 2011 and we need an alternative. We want to know if the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will be strong enough and independent enough in order to enforce the law and the safety rules. The commission was already disturbed last winter.

How can taxpayers be sure that extending the life of the NRU reactor will be safe? It makes me think of an old car that is constantly being fixed up. There comes a time when you can no longer continue to fix it. Based on what you know, how much longer can the NRU last? Will it be able to be upgraded indefinitely or will we have to stop using it one day?

11:30 a.m.

President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Michael Binder

This won't necessarily be a long process. We are already having discussions with the people from AECL.

We're talking to them right now about the various criteria we need to make an informed decision that the reactor will operate safely. You should know that when we look at all the material coming before us—we look at when the last update was of the various pumps, material, pipes, and the whole security.... In the nuclear business, you are continuously upgrading the equipment: you're replacing old equipment, you're changing and upgrading.

AECL will have to come in front of us and argue the case, whether it will be for a one-, two-, a three-year extension. Our expert staff will assess this. We will seek opinions from other experts. We are now in the process of telling AECL, so that there will be no misunderstanding, what we need to make those decisions.

Those decisions will occur two years from now, so we're giving them ample warning and transparency as to the kinds of criteria we'll be using to assess their submission. We are going to focus on only one thing, and that is whether it is safe.