Evidence of meeting #9 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 aecl.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That would be done by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
When was the change made? This was a condition of licensing that you said was under dispute. It was something new, I understood. When was that put in place?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
From late 2005 right through 2006 and 2007 there were discussions with respect to this pump.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
That is a lot earlier than I had suspected. So AECL knew back in 2005 that they needed to comply with this extra licence requirement, and yet in 2007 they still hadn't complied?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Both agencies were aware that the emergency power supply was not hooked up to pump 104 and pump 105, and they accepted that position, obviously, because they were allowed to continue to operate. That is going back to June 2005. Both agencies were aware of that and obviously accepted that position, because they allowed them to continue to operate and continue to renew their licence.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
In July 2007, according to AECL, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission knew of the licence violation, which of course they would have if it had gone back to 2005.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Again, I would not have been briefed. That was never brought to my attention by either the CNSC or AECL.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Wouldn't a violation of a licence agreement put in jeopardy any ability for AECL to continue operation? If any operation is in violation of its licences there is the potential to be shut down for long periods of time.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
If there were a licence violation and if there were a reactor that was shut down, it absolutely would be brought to my attention, but this was not brought to my attention.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
There are smoking regulations in facilities that owners of those facilities dispute, but they are law, and if they don't comply, they can be shut down. Wouldn't it follow that since nuclear safety is so important, if AECL at Chalk River were in violation of its licensing agreement it could potentially be shut down?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
--I can only express the facts to you. In fact, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission allowed AECL to continue to operate, in the configuration it was, right up until November 18. At that point in time there were discussions, and that's where the problem ensued.
In fact, AECL now is completing that last upgrade of the connection of the emergency power supply system to those two pumps.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
You have mentioned that your government has put billions of dollars into improved facilities, yet the only steps you say you have taken to improve relationships.... And we've seen, from the AG's report, systemic long-term problems with relationships between AECL, the CNSC, and also Natural Resources. Now we're hearing that there was no mechanism to report to the minister, or there was no reporting to the minister of a serious violation of a licensing agreement.
What steps are you taking here, if any? To me, it should be an immediate step to improve those reporting mechanisms and the relationships.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Again, I've written letters to both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and AECL. In the event of a shutdown of any reactor in Canada that is beyond a normal maintenance shutdown, I'm to be advised immediately.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Ms. Bell, your time is up.
We will now go to Mr. Anderson for five minutes.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, we've talked a little bit this morning about AECL and the AG's report. I'm just wondering, why did you launch a review of AECL several months ago?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It became clear as we moved forward and as I looked at the situation that there were a number of issues that we needed to resolve. There were unresolved issues surrounding the MAPLE reactor. These projects began in the mid-1990s. Construction began in 1996 and was supposed to be completed in 1998. There have been multiple delays. They are well over budget. There are still technical issues.
So that needs to be resolved, and there are commercial issues that need to be resolved with AECL. Our government felt it prudent that we engage independent experts to report back to us on the entire state of AECL--its commercial operations, its operations at Chalk River--and report back to our government so that we could have a hard look at all of that information and that advice and plan a path forward.
Clearly this was long overdue. I would submit that what we have been able to do in the last two years in office is move this agency forward. That is in fact what we are looking to do with this review. I will be happy to report that in the coming months, once we receive that advice and once the government has made a decision.
I will also state that we are looking for the broadest advice we can get. We have not limited the options. All the options are on the table. Then we will examine that and design a path forward on what are the best options for Canadians.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I want to change the subject a bit.
Mr. McGuinty said earlier that this entire issue is based on fabricated health concerns. I just want to point out that his own deputy leader in the House of Commons, on December 7, talked about the fact that “...medical tests are either being delayed or cancelled because of a shortage of isotopes. The Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine estimates that 50,000 Canadians a month will experience delays in their medical tests.” He talked about a “national medical crisis”. He also said, in his second question, that “This situation is endangering the lives of millions of Canadians.”
This morning you mentioned that up to 25,000 treatments per day depend on these isotopes. Brian Day, in his letter, said that 30,000 patients a week in Canada and up to 400,000 patients a week in the United States depend on these isotopes.
I am just wondering if you can tell me if you think that you and the deputy leader of the Liberals and the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian nuclear medical profession are being realistic in your assessment, or is Mr. McGuinty?