Evidence of meeting #27 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nru.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director, TRIUMF
I have a quick answer: I don't know how to answer that question.
Prof. Dominic Ryan
I can give one comment.
The MAPLE reactors are only isotope production, so they address only part of the mission that is currently undertaken by NRU. If you want to maintain a presence in the nuclear power industry, if you want to be able to do engineering research, if you want to do fundamental research, you cannot do any of these at a MAPLE facility. The only way to replace NRU properly is with a full-scale research reactor that's multi-purpose in design.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I think the thrust of the MAPLE 1 and 2 really made sense in that you had a dedicated set of reactors. One could back up the second reactor set. The vision was that it be owned by the private sector, and you would have a clear idea of how much it cost to produce them. I think that makes good sense. I think we just really don't know the cost structure of what goes on at the NRU to know whether it's a public good that we're investing in or not. As parliamentarians, I don't think you know that. Maybe you do, but I don't think you do.
In terms of what would happen, I'm too much of a scientist to say that it couldn't restart. I think there hasn't been an inordinate amount of international oversight. I think that has been a problem for us in Canada, that we haven't involved international experts enough in this. So I wouldn't say that it couldn't happen. I think you'd have to see a proposal as to what the costs were of the initial phase. It's a very specialized design, very unique.
Could something be done in terms of putting in other source materials or whatever? I don't know. I think it would be a very difficult process, from my knowledge of it. It's very specialized. Until you get those international experts in, I don't know if you would really know. And I don't know what that would cost.
Dr. John Valliant Director, Isotope Research, McMaster Nuclear Reactor, McMaster University
I think another important point on this is that the nuclear medicine and scientific communities are actually coming together to look at the future. When the MAPLEs were being designed and constructed, the field itself was going to progress forward, as it currently is. In this case, we're looking internally at the entire process and looking at new technologies. So universities like ours are working with TRIUMF; we're working across the country. Specialists are working together to look into the next generation of alternatives.
I think an important thing about the MAPLEs project is that when we're considering it, we should also consider what's coming down the line in terms of new technology, some of which you're hearing about. I think if you're going to decide about the MAPLEs project, that's a new angle that hasn't been considered in the past and is very important.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Valliant, et merci, Madame Brunelle.
We go now to the New Democratic Party, to Mr. Cullen, for up to seven minutes.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Keen, is it fair to say that the nuclear industry is sensitive to its reputation in the public?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
That's an interesting question, actually. I think they're cognizant of what they could contribute. Are they very interested in transparency and trying to get people on their side? To a certain extent, yes, but in terms of a complete, full-court press in terms of being interested in that engagement, the answer would be that I'm not sure, actually. I don't think so.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Let me rephrase it, then. Is their reputation important to the viability? Is the public perception important to how the nuclear industry goes forward?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I think all the survey data, and the data not only in Canada but everywhere else, would say that yes, they can't survive without it. One of the operators calls it “the licence from the public”. Don't worry about the licence from the regulator; if you don't have the licence from the public and the community that you're in, you're not going to be able to survive.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's interesting.
There's a natural separation between the regulator and AECL. They're not meant to influence you. AECL is not meant to knock on your door and ask for a licence and put pressure on you publicly. Is that correct?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I can only speak about the time that I was the regulator. One of the biggest challenges we had was to get both AECL and the government to understand that AECL was just another licensee and should be treated as such. They had to meet all the requirements. They didn't get any special pass because they were part of the portfolio.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You say you had to say this several times. Were there some moments where you suspected AECL thought they deserved special treatment from the regulator, the watchdog?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
Yes. When my renewal came up in 2000, it was clear that AECL had tried to influence matters so that I wouldn't be renewed. I confronted the president at the time and asked what was going on. He said they didn't think I was friendly enough to them. As it turned out, the minister of the day, Mr. Efford, reappointed me for other reasons. That gives you a sense of the tension around the question of new reactors.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In a sense, you're the referee for the game. You're meant to enforce the rules, and one of the teams didn't like it, so they accuse you of being biased or favouring one side or the other. I don't understand how public confidence in AECL and the nuclear industry could not have been eroded by the government's decision to fire you and then accuse you of partisanship.
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I have no survey data on the confidence of Canadians. I will say to you that I was absolutely blown away by the support I got from thousands of Canadians from all over Canada. For the majority of the licensees, it was important to have a strong, independent regulator that their communities could come to. I went to their communities to talk to them. We were in northern Saskatchewan and all over, talking to people about what they could count on from us.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This was called a life-or-death situation by the minister of the day. There was an inordinate amount of pressure to reopen this facility and override the safety concerns. That was what was presented to Parliament. They had an Auditor General's report in hand, pointing out the problems that the minister had seen some months before. I find it strange that the government seemed to be surprised and created a crisis that required your firing to get this back online. Fast forward 18 months—you've said nothing has happened and things got worse. There was no plan put in place. Suddenly the reactor is being branded as old and unreliable, whereas only a few months ago you were the problem.
They can't fire the new person doing your job, so they're going to fire the reactor this time. Where did this come from? These problems did not arrive overnight. They didn't arrive with your report and the decision not to submit another licence. I think $600 million was the figure the Auditor General said was needed to restore the Chalk River facility. Is that right?
Specialist, Safety and Risk Management, As an Individual
I don't have those figures in front of me.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to get back to the question of the confidence of this industry and the ability of Canada to step forward. Various panellists have said how important it is for Canada to continue to play a leading role in the development of isotope science. You folks all deal with international partners, I assume. You talk to colleagues in other countries that are doing similar work. What has the last 18 months meant to Canada's reputation as a leading radioisotope producer?
Director, Isotope Research, McMaster Nuclear Reactor, McMaster University
Thank you.
I just came from the Society of Nuclear Medicine meeting, which is the international group that really brings together the thought leaders in the field. What we have found is that, certainly, people are concerned about the issue. I think they come to Canadians to look for solutions. We had a number of discussions about this.
I would say that the issue is clear: people also have confidence that Canadians can help contribute and solve the problem. In fact, I would say that the eyes of the world are looking at us to help contribute. People are willing to step up and work with Canadians, but I do think they're going to ask Canadians to lead.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Has our reputation improved because of what's happened in the last 18 months?
Conservative