Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last time I was given a little more time than usual. With your permission, I won't do the same thing; I'll try to be brief instead. We sent the committee some notes for a statement from which I am simply going to go over certain points.
First of all, on the basis of what you've heard for a number of weeks and months, we all acknowledge the impact of an extended outage of the NRU on Canadians and Canada's health system. It's a serious problem and the health and safety of Canadians are still the government's top priority.
You have heard from the representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited about their efforts to bring the reactor back into service reliably as quickly as possible. In addition, the president and CEO of Atomic Energy of Canada has already mentioned that the minister has clearly said the safe and reliable return to service of the NRU is AECL's top priority. He also said that the minister was trying to ensure that the corporation made every effort to achieve that objective.
Today I'm going to talk about the efforts being made under the leadership of the minister of Natural Resources to improve the security of supply in the short, medium and long terms.
When I last had the honour of appearing before the committee, I outlined the fragility and complexity of the global supply chain and spoke of Canada's role in mobilizing major producing and consumer countries toward enhanced security of supply.
On January 28 and 29, 2009, at Canada's instigation, an international workshop was convened in Paris under the auspices of the Nuclear Energy Agency. Eighty-five participants from 16 countries participated, including representatives from governments, industry, regulators, and the medical community.
A consensus was reached on the need to improve the coordination of reactor schedules, increase transparency, improve the efficiency of the distribution system, and provide timely notification of available supplies to the medical community. This was on the basis that the security of isotope supply is a global problem requiring a global solution.
Following this workshop, the steering committee of the NEA agreed in April 2009 to establish a high-level group to carry the international agenda forward. It includes representatives of all of the countries that own the five aging reactors producing the bulk of the world's medical isotopes--Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and South Africa--along with Japan, the United States, and Australia, which is an emerging producer. Canada chairs the high-level group. Australia is vice-chair.
I note that all of these steps were undertaken before the unplanned NRU outage. Our message was simple: collectively, we rely on aging reactors and a fragile supply chain. There is a collective responsibility to bring forward additional sources of supply and manage available supplies responsibly, particularly in periods of shortage.
From our perspective, these efforts and relationships have paid off. Less than two days after AECL announced a prolonged and unplanned outage in May, we convened our global partners by conference call, and the minister addressed the group to encourage a supply response. Contacts have been maintained since then through conference calls and a first face-to-face meeting of the high-level group in Toronto on June 17 and 18.
When the Petten reactor of the Netherlands underwent an extended outage, from August 2008 to February 2009, Canada increased its supplies from the NRU. Our international partners therefore did the same. Since May, the Petten reactor has stepped up production by 50% and the South African reactor by 20%. Processing capacity was expanded in Belgium to accommodate larger volumes of irradiation by nuclear reactors. Australia intensified efforts to bring its OPAL reactor on stream. We noticed, when the Petten reactor went down for one month near the end of July, that the Belgium reactor went into production and helped reduce global shortages. The Petten reactor has now been brought successfully back into service, which will be very useful as we head into the fall.
That said, the situation will remain fragile and potentially volatile, and our medical community will have to be disciplined and vigilant at all times to ensure the best possible use of available supplies. We of course hail all the efforts that have been made in that direction.
We're also looking beyond the immediate or short term. We're engaged in discussions with the United States government, the Oak Ridge and Idaho National Laboratories, and the Universities of McMaster and Missouri on the possibilities of putting in place back-up arrangements to augment supplies when the NRU has to be down for periodic maintenance, as would be the case under a program of life extension.
Three technical meetings, co-chaired by NRCan and the U.S. Department of Energy, have been held since June to develop options for replacing part of the NRU supply, beginning as early as September 2010. Significant work is needed to complete the requisite analysis and safety cases. We've been impressed to date by the level of commitment shown by the U.S. administration in these efforts, facilitated by positive exchanges initiated by our minister.
I would add that jurisdictions around the world are reviewing options and supply scenarios. The U.S., which is by far the largest global consumer, is determined to develop domestic supply capacity. The Europeans and Asians, likewise, are assessing new and alternative sources of supply. This is a welcome development, because a reliable, resilient global supply chain cannot be overly dependent on any one source, whether Canadian or other. The U.S. and other global partners recognize that the supply of isotope—a radioactive product that cannot be stored and must be distributed in real time, as we discussed last time—must be more diversified and more distributed geographically.
Canada too must review its options and how our needs in the medical system may be met over the medium to long term. To this end, the Minister of Natural Resources appointed the expert panel you have already heard about. I would simply mention the names of the four eminently qualified individuals serving on this panel—Peter Goodhand, Richard Drouin, Dr. Thom Mason, and Dr. Eric Tourcotte—who have agreed to prepare a report for the minister by November 30.
As you have heard, 22 expressions of interest have been received and are being reviewed by the panel. These proposals deserve careful consideration. The decisions to be taken in regard to future supply will shape our marketplace and how we serve our needs for the next 20 years or more. There is a range of factors to consider, including determining carefully the role of the public sector in achieving the necessary security of supply for Canadians and commercial interests in bringing forward supply capacity.
The panel is being supported by a secretariat staffed with officials from Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada.
While some of the proponents have chosen to publicize their proposals, I would note that others have explicitly asked that the submissions remain commercially confidential with the panel. The panel and secretariat have respected these requests.
Mr. Chairman, we are making every effort to minimize the impact of the current disruption in the global supply of medical isotopes on Canadians. We have taken measures consistent with our means to improve the collaboration and coordination between international partners and reactor operators. We have worked domestically and internationally to find alternatives to the supply of isotopes.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions the committee may have.
