Debates of Dec. 11th, 2007

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before we commence the debate on Bill C-38, I would like to ask the House's indulgence in the sense that we are doing something that has not been done for a very long time, which is having witnesses in committee of the whole. We have some logistical problems with microphones, et cetera, so I would beg the House's indulgence as we try to do this procedure that we have no experience at.

We will have witnesses in the chamber, which is something I believe has not been done since the second world war and, in respect of that, I would recognize the government House leader on a point of order with respect to admission of a new witness to the list.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Chair, earlier we considered a motion for witnesses before this committee of the whole. There is an additional witness that our witness from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would like to have added. I seek the consent of the committee to add as a witness Barclay D. Howden, the director general of the Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The committee has heard the request of the government House leader. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

There have been discussions and what has been agreed upon, if I understand it correctly, is that we will have an opening five minute statement first by the Minister of Health, then by the Minister of Industry and then by one of the witnesses who has indicated that she would like to make a statement.

Therefore, we will have three five-minute statements and then we will proceed to 20 minute rounds beginning with the official opposition, then the Bloc Québécois, then the NDP and then the government, and we will proceed from there. Of course parties can divide their 20 minutes as they see fit, having more than one questioner or whatever, and may ask questions of either the witnesses or the minister.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, just for the sake of clarity, I think the government House leader would want to confirm that the other people we are expecting as witnesses tonight are indeed on route and will arrive during the course of the evening.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have been assured of that. They are taking a little longer than anticipated due to the inclement weather and I understand that this committee will have to adopt a motion to invite them in at the appropriate time, but at that time they will be available to make statements and be questioned.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Yes, again, we have had some discussions and I understand that when the witnesses, who are making their way here in the inclement weather, arrive they will be escorted in to sit at the table. I do not think any motion or suspension of the sitting will be necessary.

Without any further adieu then, I recognize the hon. Minister of Health.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Chair, I am speaking today in support of the government's legislation, Bill C-38, to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River.

As the Chair knows, the extended shutdown of this reactor has resulted in a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes. These isotopes are used by physicians for cancer and heart disease treatment and diagnostic tests.

This shortage has resulted in an intolerable situation in which cancer and heart disease treatments and diagnostic tests are being delayed or cancelled.

Our government is very concerned about the fact that Canadians are unable to obtain the treatment they need.

We have learned that many institutions have very limited supplies and some centres, particularly in the Atlantic provinces and in smaller communities across the country, are focusing on emergency patients only.

If the shortage goes on any longer, it will have a serious impact on public health in several provinces. We are already seeing some of the effects.

One hospital in Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, has told me that most of its staff in nuclear medicine has been sent home. Without isotopes, there is no work to do. Its last generator expired at 12 noon last Friday and its has no backup. All appointments for patients have been cancelled and all emergency patients are being turned away.

Another gentleman in St. Catharines, Ontario, suffering from cancer, had his badly needed treatment this morning cancelled because the hospital did not have the necessary nuclear isotopes.

Dr. Brian Day, president of the Canadian Medical Association, has indicated that the CMA is “very concerned” about the situation and that, “In balancing relative risk, it is important to ensure that the serious and immediate human health consequences of the isotope shortage are fully taken into account”.

This is obviously a very critical situation, and resuming medical isotope production is an immediate priority for Canada's government. In fact, ensuring that cancer patients receive their treatment should be a priority for all the members in the House, and I urge them all to support this legislation.

We reacted promptly and firmly the moment we were alerted to this extended shutdown of the reactor and we are exploring all our options. We remain in constant contact with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to ensure that those two organizations cooperate to find a solution to this severe shortage.

We have been working with our officials as well as national and international partners to identify alternative sources of supply in other countries, other isotopes that can be applied and other diagnostic options which may be available.

We have worked diligently toward resolving the situation, but the best solution for Canadians would be to make these necessary medical isotopes available as quickly as possible. For this, we need to get the reactor at Chalk River up and running again. That is why I support Bill C-38.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, it is a great opportunity to speak. We are here to discuss Bill C-38 and to discuss the extended shutdown of the Atomic Energy of Canada NRU reactor at Chalk River and the serious shortage of medical isotopes it has created.

I want to state from the outset, upon learning of this situation, our number one priority all along has been 100% solely focused on resuming the production of isotopes or looking for an alternative supply. We believe this was the thing we had to resolve.

I can advise the House that on November 30, Natural Resources Canada and my office received an email from government relations, and I did not personally receive this, on the Friday, not raising any alarm bells and advising them that the reactor would resume operations early in December.

After the weekend, upon learning of this and discussing it with the deputy on December 4, we immediately launched into action, with our focus on resuming the production of medical isotopes and looking at all the options available to us, both in Canada and around the globe. I am working very closely with the officials at the Department of Health.

I and my deputy engaged in conversations with both AECL and the CNSC on December 5 and December 8. We encouraged both parties to look constructively and to work cooperatively together for any possible solution on how we could expedite the situation we were in.

Again, that was followed up by correspondence by myself and the Minister of Health, with letters to both organizations encouraging that in writing and following that, receiving their responses.

We are now before the House after we believe we have received the advice of the experts that we can resume production of this facility in an absolutely safe manner.

Therefore, we have presented Bill C-38 to the House as we believe it is in the public interest of Canadians. This reactor is responsible for some 25,000 medical procedures a day.

We look forward to receiving questions from all opposition parties and members of the House. We look forward to their support so we can resume the operation of the reactor to resume production of medical isotopes.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We will now hear from Ms. Linda Keen, president and chief executive officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

[Linda J. Keen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Mr. Chair, I thank the House for the invitation to be here today.

I am pleased to come before committee of the whole to discuss with members the important role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is to assure the health, safety and security of Canadians and the protection of the environment under our legislation, which was given to us by Parliament, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. I will specifically address the NRU reactor issue.

I would like to begin my remarks this evening to emphasize my personal commitment to the health and safety of Canadians. The CNSC does understand the seriousness of the shut down of the NRU reactor in Chalk River and the importance of the beneficial use of radioisotopes in the nuclear medicine field. In fact, the CNSC does regulate and license every hospital and health clinic in Canada and we have been working with them to expedite any licence amendments that are necessary for them to be using new methodologies or new equipment.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was created by Parliament in 2000 under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, but nuclear facilities and substances have been regulated for over 60 years. With 2,500 licensees in Canada in every aspect of the nuclear industry, be that mining, refining, power reactor, research reactors, clinics, and industrial uses, the CNSC has what is arguably the largest mandate in the world for regulation. This is done on behalf of Canadians. Canadians are our only client.

There are no nuclear facilities in Canada that are not under the regulatory control of the CNSC and under the regulatory control of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Nuclear regulation is a federal responsibility. There are no provincial regulators in existence to back up this responsibility.

I can assure the House that the commission is comprised of highly skilled, competent and dedicated nuclear scientists and engineers like Barclay Howden, who is with me today. I am proud to support their judgment, their competence and their use of their professional credentials. We are nuclear experts.

As the leader of the CNSC, I have been entrusted with the obligation to fulfill this mandate, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, to provide this regulatory oversight.

The Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which was passed by Parliament, is considered one of the most modern and up to date legislations in the world. In fact, we are a model for many countries around the world.

The commission is a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal. It is non-partisan. It is a court of record and it has a long history of regulating nuclear facilities. It is independent of all influence, be it political, governmental, private sector, or non-governmental organizations, but it does not have an economic mandate. Our members are appointed because of their expertise. They are scientists, engineers, business people, who are dedicated servants of Canadians.

As a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, the commission must act within the specific authority and powers given to us by Parliament under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

I would like now to address the NRU.

The commission had serious concerns regarding the safety of this 50 year old nuclear reactor when its licence was ready to expire. When the commission considered the licence renewal application in the spring of 2006, it seriously questioned the safety of this NRU. Its decision, effective August 1, 2006, to grant this new licence was based on specific assurances by AECL that its safety case was complete and that the seven key safety upgrades were completed.

On November 19, during a safety inspection, the staff discovered that significant safety upgrades to the reactor were not carried out. This is a violation of its operating licence.

Upon discovery of this non-compliance, AECL announced voluntarily its decision to shut down this reactor to connect these two critical pumps in order to be in compliance with the act and safety needs. The AECL indicated to us, at a commission meeting on December 6, that it agreed with the CNSC staff that this was a safety issue and that it would keep these reactors shut down.

In order to resolve this, the commission needs to see a safety case. It needs to see a licence amendment. As of this evening, CNSC has not received a licence request or a safety case and the staff is working 24/7 to help AECL to proof out their safety case, but we have not received it. The CNSC remains ready to act when and if AECL is ready to give this to us.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I understand, for the information of members, that other witnesses have arrived and are proceeding through security at the moment. They will be joining us shortly.

We will now proceed to the first round of 20 minutes with the official opposition.

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, this side of the House is very aware that we are faced with a serious issue both of nuclear safety and public health. We are here, it seems to me, to focus on one question above all. Is the legislation, Bill C-38, proposed by the government necessary to resolve this crisis or is there any other way that we can go?

This side of the House remains anxious to resolve this crisis as expeditiously as possible, but we need to consult with experts like yourself to assess the nuclear safety risk and the public health risk, which we will investigate with other witnesses.

The letter of December 10 to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Health indicates that the CNSC had “serious concerns” regarding the safety of the 50 year old NRU reactor when its former licence was due to expire. What specifically were the safety issues and, perhaps, safety upgrades that it was felt were mandatory as a condition of renewal of licence?

[Linda Keen]

Mr. Chair, I was chair at that time we were looking at this renewal. The fact that it was a 50 year old reactor made the CNSC request very specific upgrades that were in line with modern standards. These are international modern standards for reactors.

The safety case that AECL developed and the CNSC looked at had seven specific areas of safety upgrades. They were the second trip system, the qualified emergency response centre, liquid confinement and vented confinement, main pump flood protection, new emergency core cooling and qualified emergency water supply. Those six were put in place. The one that was missing, and the CNSC had been assured by AECL was in place, was the emergency power supply. Of the seven upgrades, six were in place.

However, I would like to assure the House that these upgrades cannot be looked at one by one. It is the integrated operation of all these upgrades together that allows a safe run facility. It is an envelope of seven upgrades. Six were done. The seventh was not done, despite the assurances of AECL, and it is not done to this date.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Why did it take from August 2006, when the licence was renewed, to November 2007 for the failure to complete the seventh upgrade to become noticed by CNSC?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, the CNSC has site staff that perform regular reviews of this. It was scheduled that we would be looking at this facility during this November shutdown and would be doing an overview of all the systems.

However, I must emphasize that the Nuclear Safety and Control Act requires that the licensee is responsible for the safety of this facility. Our oversight was there. It was continuous, but in this specific case this was a scheduled look at all the systems and this was when it was discovered.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, could the witness characterize the relationship between her organization and AECL since November 20, 2007, as both of them search for ways to solve this problem?

Just so the context is clear, Madam Commissioner, there are reports that you are at loggerheads. I want to understand exactly how you are working together to resolve this problem.

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, in fact, the CNSC is not in any way at loggerheads with AECL. We have staff that are on site. We also have had teams from Ottawa, specialists, coming out. We have been available 24/7. Our executive vice-president has received calls from Dr. Torgerson, who is scheduled to be a witness here today.

There have been written communications. We are in constant communication with them. We are seeking to resolve this as soon as possible. However, it is in AECL's court to supply the safety case that it would like to have just one pump operating.

I must say that until last week we thought that AECL was committed to two pumps for safety, just like we were. It was on December 7 in the evening that we received a letter in which AECL said it would like to introduce a new idea: a new safety case with one pump.

We have been working with AECL since then and we have been trying to get this safety case and this licence amendment before us so the commission can look at it. The commission cannot look at a licence amendment by itself. It needs an application.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would ask if the witness could be a little clearer about the safety case requirement. She is saying that they are working together.

The AECL has a potential fix to get this reactor back in service and could “immediately begin to restart the reactor as soon as P-105 is in service and...be at full power in 3 days”. AECL says this in a letter to the Minister of Health and states, “We can operate NRU on an interim basis with P-105” and complete the second pump “within 16 weeks of restarting the reactor”. That is the fix currently being proposed: that AECL can get this reactor back on line very quickly.

What is the holdup? The witness is saying AECL has not submitted a safety case. Could she be more precise about what she requires in order to sign off on the safety side?

[Linda J. Keen]

What we require, Mr. Chair, is one of two things. The current safety case before the commission, which AECL submitted to us, required the two pumps to be installed before the reactor started up. AECL would like to put a new safety case before us and the real part of the safety case is one pump instead of two.

If AECL wants to do one pump only, it must have a licence amendment. It must do this, and all it has to do is request a licence amendment and have a completed safety case. If it does not have a completed safety case, in our view as nuclear experts this facility is not within the licence, is in a violation of the licence, and in our view is not safe enough.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would ask Madam Commissioner if AECL is refusing to supply the safety case or saying, “Give us another day and we can get you one”. What is the position that AECL is taking as to the safety case requirement?

How close are you and AECL? That is what I am trying to figure out.

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, this is a question that is best addressed by AECL as to where the safety case is. We have made it clear in a letter to Dr. Torgerson that we awaiting the safety case. If I may, I would like to ask Mr. Howden, who has been on site, to answer any specifics on this matter.

[Barclay D. Howden, Director General, Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation]

Mr. Chair, the status right now is that early on when the reactor was shut down, we had a meeting with AECL, which presented the start of the safety case: to be able to operate the reactor with one pump connected to the emergency power system and the other pump operational but not connected to the emergency power system.

After that time, AECL decided to take the route of connecting both pumps to the emergency power system, so further detailed work was not done for a period of time. However, on December 7 when AECL resubmitted its intent, we worked over the weekend and continue to work now to make sure that the things they have to do for the safety case will be done. For example, at the meeting, it was about how if there is a safety case one makes many assumptions and needs to have a robust rationale and evidence to demonstrate that the safety case being proposed is actually a robust safety case.

AECL has been working on this and has started submitting that additional information. We have an agreement on what the information is between the two of us. There is a table that has been shared between the two to match up, so that AECL knows what it needs to supply and we know what we need. There has been agreement on that table, and AECL has been working on that information.

Our understanding from AECL, and we talk to AECL at different levels each day, is that some of the information was coming in today and some tomorrow, but its intention is to deliver everything by Thursday, at which time we will have to do a full review of the information.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Just before I recognize the hon. member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore, I recognize the government House leader on a point of order.