Natural Resources Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It's difficult to figure out who exactly we should be asking about the situation in other countries, unless perhaps we can get hold of them. But if you can answer a couple of questions about the Australian reactor, my understanding is that they are still six to twelve months away from production and they've never exported any isotopes. They're designed only to supply their domestic market. In fact they've said in the past, I'm told, that to supply more they'd have to build a new processing plant, and that would take three to five years.

Are you aware of any of that?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

I was certainly aware of everything you've stated up until the last point, which I had not personally heard. However, it's entirely possible that in order to be a sustained supplier into the world market beyond their own borders, they would need to build an enlarged processing plant. That timeframe doesn't seem out of line at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Regan. Your time is up.

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

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Mr. MacDiarmid, how long have you been the President of AECL?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

For 18 months.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

In December 2007, the Prime Minister said he had appointed you to this position in order to have solid leadership. We may well wonder what is going on now: there's been the first isotope crisis, a number of shutdowns, tritium leaks, cost overruns and the current isotope crisis. To say the least, I'd say you haven't been very lucky.

What have you done since your arrival to make the supply of isotopes from CRL and the NRU secure? What concrete action have you taken to ensure that patients can get isotopes?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Thank you very much for the question.

The first action I took, unfortunately, was not one that headed directly to that goal. We had to take the very difficult decision to terminate the MAPLE reactor program. At the time I arrived, the plan was to move forward with the deployment of those reactors. It became evident that would not be a successful program, after a number of tests were done and a lot of analysis was done.

The first action was indeed to terminate the MAPLE program. I felt it was necessary to take that difficult decision as expeditiously as we could, because it forced us to contemplate other actions, because we were heading down a path that did not have success in sight.

Since that time we have clearly been devoting our attention to ensuring that the NRU reactor can serve as a suitable, reliable production environment for isotopes for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the very strong focus of our organization has been on developing, first of all, a protocol in conjunction with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to understand exactly what would be required to obtain a licence extension for the NRU. We've been working very closely with the officials and are indeed progressing along that path.

We have also worked with government officials to estimate the activities required to fulfill those licensing requirements to extend the useful life of the NRU. Documents are in process, the fiscal 2009-2010 corporate plan of AECL and the budgetary requirements for AECL reflected, as has been reported, in the order of $70 million for isotopes, of which $47 million this year is dedicated to what we're terming the isotope supply reliability program. That is designed to ensure that the NRU is able to perform reliably throughout the next licence period beyond 2011.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The situation strikes me as being very worrisome, to say the least. It may seem, from the point of view of members of the public who are going through some difficult medical situations, that you may have been slow in finding solutions, since we know that our reactor is over 50 years old. In light of the explanations we've just been given, I wonder whether the NRU is even going to start up again one day. Have you thought about this possibility?

MDS Nordion claims we could get the MAPLEs running, that the government made the decision to stop funding them too quickly. What do you think?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

To that very last point, we made the MAPLEs decision based on the best available evidence we had at that time, and nothing has changed in the intervening period. We continue to believe that discontinuing that program was the right thing to do.

I should correct some misconceptions that may have come out in various media reports. The MAPLE reactors are not in hot standby mode. The MAPLE reactors are very close to being put into an extended shutdown state. I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge, even if we were to take the decision tomorrow morning, for whatever set of reasons, to try to return the MAPLEs to service, it would be many years and many hundreds of millions of dollars before those reactors would be licensable and could be put into service. It's just not a realistic option at this time.

We certainly support the decision announced by the minister to form an expert panel. We believe that all the best minds should be applied to finding the right direction to take as a country and globally in terms of providing more diversity and reliability in the global supply chain for isotopes.

My last comment is that we certainly share the sense of urgency you all feel. We're Canadians. We have family and friends who are going to be exposed to the same risks we all are. I can assure you that AECL's employees very much feel the pressure and the responsibility to return this reactor to service as quickly as we can.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to give the rest of my speaking time to Mr. Luc Malo, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You can have one short question, please.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. MacDiarmid, in your opening remarks, you indicated that the production of isotopes for medical purposes is part of AECL's core mission. So it's central to AECL. But, when we've known for many years that the NRU is old, it's having difficulties and there are leaks, how come nothing has been done over the years to ensure that AECL's core mission—as you say—regarding the production of isotopes is maintained? Why are we today in an international crisis caused by Canada's carelessness? Why hasn't the government expended the energy necessary to ensure that this element of your mission is still central to Canada's position in the world? Canada now has a tarnished reputation.

You want to make AECL the leading world supplier of nuclear products and services, but I think you've got off to a bad start.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

I think what I really need to do is turn back to some of the comments I just made.

Until the decision was made to terminate the MAPLE program, it was very clear that the investment being made to bring that facility into service was indeed the plan AECL had to continue isotope production. So without question, our world changed when it became evident that we needed to take a different direction from that one.

We have embarked upon what I consider to be the most expeditious plan available to us: first, ensure that the NRU is suitable for service in the near term and the medium and longer terms, beyond its licence expiry in 2011; and second, as was just announced, examine fully all the alternatives that exist for a long-term isotope supply solution for Canada, and indeed the globe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Now we go to Mr. Cullen from the New Democratic Party for up to seven minutes. Go ahead.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here, gentlemen.

Mr. MacDiarmid, you mentioned towards the end of one of your comments that you folks have friends and family, and you understand and appreciate the concern of Canadians when they hear the news. There's this element of uncertainty as to what treatment they will or will not be getting in the long term. I think all of us around this table share that concern. It's a tough spot you're in. You have this big reactor we've put a lot of money into, and it's shut down.

You also said that you believe that Chalk River is a secure and reliable supply of medical isotopes. I'm having problems understanding your confidence. After having put so much money into this facility, we now have a plant that's shut down for at least three months. I don't know what the upper limit could be. Some have suggested that it could be forever. I know that would not be your opinion, but it could be a long time, potentially. International supplies are sketchy, simply because this is not like buying a carton of milk off the shelf. In finding another supplier you're in competition with everyone else we've short-supplied.

Do you still feel confident in that statement that Chalk River is a secure and reliable supply of medical isotopes?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

I do. I would not be supporting the efforts we have under way to be taking the steps we are to return this reactor to service if we were not confident that it was the right thing for us to be doing. It is in fact, and we've said it before, a timeless design. The reactor is indeed a fine research machine. It was destined to have a different end-of-life scenario. While the MAPLE project was under way, we were going to be taking the NRU down a path that would see it return to its roots as a multi-purpose research reactor.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Maybe that's my point then, because you mentioned earlier that MAPLE was meant to seamlessly move in when Chalk River, the NRU, went down. But we cancelled MAPLE in 2006 because it just didn't seem like it was going to work out.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

2008.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Excuse me. The decision was made. It seems to me then.... Are we not pushing this reactor? It's an old reactor. It was maybe never meant to go this long.

My question is just sort of a framework question. Are you folks in charge of understanding the national supply of isotopes? Is that one of your roles?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Supply to Canadians?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes.

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Really it's not our purview, because we distribute into a commercial supply chain through MDS Nordion, and our visibility really ends when we supply to them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I just want to know whose job that is then. Who keeps the stock or knows what's on the shelf right now and anticipates shortfalls? Whose job is that?

[Hugh MacDiarmid]

Indeed, there's always an opportunity for greater coordination for that, but it is certainly something that we know Health Canada officials are involved with, and NRCan officials.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is it Health Canada? I just want to know if there is one agency whose mandate it is to know what we've got, what we need, and anticipate shortfalls. Whose job is that?