Natural Resources Committee on March 18th, 2010

[A voice]

I don't think that would take very long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, that's good by me.

[A voice]

We can leave it up to the chair to organize the trip.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Shall we leave that to the very end of the meeting to deal with?

[Voices]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So we'll continue with our questioning of the officials. We have a new arrival at the table, however not new to this committee. I welcome Mr. Farrell.

[Cassie Doyle]

Could I introduce--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, if you would.

[Cassie Doyle]

I've asked two colleagues to join me at the table. I'd like to introduce Jim Farrell, who's the assistant deputy minister of the Canadian Forest Service, and also Bill Merklinger, who's Natural Resources Canada's chief financial officer and ADM of corporate management and shared services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Doyle and Mr. Dupont again.

We'll just continue the rotation of questioning.

We'll start with Monsieur Bellavance.

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

It's me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's Madame Brunelle from the Bloc Québécois, then, for up to five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to talk about the budgetary aspect of this famous isotope crisis. I have a specific question. How much did it cost to repair the NRU since it was shut down in May 2009? Do you have any figures at hand?

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. Chair, up to now, the costs that have been incurred and the costs that will be incurred up to the end of this fiscal year amount to $72 million.

While the work is being done, we will have to review, together with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the costs that will be incurred during the coming fiscal year. The fact that the reactor is not running does not necessarily mean that there will be added costs, as for example when we get to the stage of reopening the plant, personnel is always assigned to the reactor normally anyway.

Thus, this does not necessarily mean that there will be additional costs at every step. Over the past weeks and months, added costs were incurred by overtime for employees, for subcontractors, and for experts. This is where the added costs came from. Today, I cannot tell you what the added costs will be for 2010-2011.

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

Based on what we are being told, there is still hope that this reactor will start up again in June if there are no other delays. Is that correct?

[Serge Dupont]

We hope to restart the reactor. Yesterday Atomic Energy of Canada mentioned that, based on what was announced last week, service was set to resume at the end of May. Experts met early this week. One of the necessary repairs, that had proven extremely difficult, was also completed. In light of that, and from what we learned during that repair and the discussion with experts, AECL is reviewing its schedule and will soon be able to give us a better estimate of when service might resume.

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

In the budget, $222 million over five years was set aside to develop the TRIUMF technology, which is a new way to produce isotopes. Is this the only solution being considered by your department? It seems to me that this cannot meet all the needs.

[Serge Dupont]

I would like to make a clarification with regard to TRIUMF. This is the most cutting-edge and advanced nuclear physics lab in Canada. This funding will allow TRIUMF to continue to operate as it has done in recent years. At present, TRIUMF does not produce technetium 99, which is the isotope we are talking about and which is in short supply. The $222 million is not necessarily for the production of technetium, but rather to enable TRIUMF to continue its activities and eventually improve them.

TRIUMF will look at some point at the production of technetium, in collaboration with private sector partners, but the funding for TRIUMF in the budget is not specifically for the production of technetium.

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

Would it be to produce a substitute?

[Serge Dupont]

It could eventually be to produce a substitute if TRIUMF, along with private sector partners, develops alternative means by which to produce technetium. This could either supplement current production or eventually replace it, but we're still at a relatively preliminary stage.

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

The future of isotope production seems bleak. Chalk River will likely start up again, but for how many more years before another shutdown? Similar steps were taken to those being taken now for TRIUMF among others, and you're telling us that there will be no production of isotopes for the MAPLE projects. This has not worked out for technical reasons. So, production has ceased.

Ultimately, what hope have we of continuing to produce isotopes in Canada and continuing to meet our needs? Has this file been abandoned, which would mean that isotopes will be produced abroad? The cost we will have to incur in order to obtain a supply could increase, which is of great concern to our doctors among others.

[Serge Dupont]

I want to clarify that there has not been a full response to the blue ribbon report that was given to the Minister of Natural Resources in December. However, the budget has identified various solutions. It allocates $35 million over two years to develop alternative sources of isotopes. There are interesting projects highlighting the work being done at universities across Canada, such as at the University of Sherbrooke and others across the country. There are also projects being conducted at the University of Manitoba to produce isotopes using cyclotrons or accelerators.

There is an opportunity here for Canada to demonstrate its technological leadership once again. I believe that the government has already demonstrated in the budget that it has heard the appeal by the blue ribbon panel and that it is allocating funding for that purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Brunelle.

We go now to Mr. Harris from the government side, followed by Mr. Tonks from the official opposition.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dupont, I know very little about nuclear reactors, and I don't think there's one within 2,000 miles of where I live. But I'm thinking about what it takes to repair and upgrade a nuclear reactor. It's not like going into a furniture factory where you can get some absolute estimates on the cost of repairing equipment. I would imagine there are so many complexities and ultra-sensitive repair work when you're working around nuclear power and the components, including the uranium and the minerals and everything that go into making that power.

I'm thinking that even if I were almost an expert in it, to say okay, it's going to cost $120 million to get this up and we're going to have it done by this date.... Even with all that expertise, that would probably be as subjective as you can possibly get because of all the things that could happen in that repair time.

I notice there's been an extension. Am I on the right track thinking that this is not something that you just say it's going to cost this much, we're going to be finished by...? This is far more complex than that.

[Serge Dupont]

I think that's right. In this context, the challenge for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is to try to provide the best guidance it can. They can't just say it's too complicated. They can't tell you when they're going to come back on. They obviously have to work on a critical path and try to discipline themselves to stick to a critical path. Also try to realize they're working fundamentally with money from the taxpayers and have to be very diligent about that.

At the same time, there are some risks, so quite often they've had to come back and say they have to revise that. They were really targeting and working hard to get it done by a certain date, but given the experience to date or given how much more difficult it's been than they had originally thought, they're adjusting to this new target. They're trying to keep that transparency because doctors and the international community, the other producers, need to understand where things are heading. I think we always encourage AECL, and in any kind of communication we certainly say there are risks around this. There's no certainty in this world for the reasons you're citing.