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

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, we have had stoppages in the past at Chalk River, but in the past we have had always ways of making up the isotope.

We have had stoppages in Chalk River, but we have also been able to keep up the production of the isotopes. We have had the NRU reactor and the NRX both operating at Chalk River.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, could the production of isotopes in Chalk River be transferred to another CANDU reactor?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, the isotope production in Chalk River is not carried out by a Candu reactor. The NRU reactor is a research reactor. It is very different from a Candu reactor. In fact the NRU reactor was used to help develop the Candu reactor.

Medical isotopes, such as the most important isotope, molybdenum 99, are not made in Candu reactors.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, when the Chalk River reactor is shut down for four days, do all the clients still manage to get their isotope products?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, this is correct. The isotope has a 67 hour half-life. Therefore we are able to meet the market requirements, but we have to of course realize there are also other supplies throughout the world and not all the reactors go down at the same time for scheduled maintenance.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Chalk River reactor produces Tc-99 and Cobalt-60. In addition to its medical uses, Cobalt-60 is used for sterilizing food. Does that mean that clients who use Cobalt-60 currently do not have any other supplier?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, Cobalt-60 has a much longer half-life. Therefore when we make the Cobalt-60, it stays around for several years. Therefore, we have a good supply of cobalt. Cobalt is a wonderful material as was mentioned. It can sterilize food. It can sterilize medical supplies. It can provide cancer therapy. One of the most exciting new applications of this is what is called the gamma knife, so it is knifeless surgery.

It is an important product, but it has a long half-life, so being down for a while does not affect the supply.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I now have a question for the Minister of Health. Why is there no plan B to solve the problem of the Chalk River shutdown?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say there is a plan under normal circumstances.

I have said before that we were under the impression, as everyone else was, that there are regular shutdowns of the facility for, in my non-nuclear terms, maintenance or double-checking and so on.

We were first told that there was an elongation of this shutdown on December 5. From our perspective, that is when we kicked into action in order to see what could be done given that there was an unscheduled shutdown for a longer period of time.

As our visitors have suggested, when there is a half-life of 67 hours, there is not the ability to stockpile. That is the source of the critical situation in which we find ourselves.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, it was mentioned that the Chalk River reactor provided between 60% and 70% of medical isotopes worldwide. That is what was said. At present, who are the other suppliers capable of providing the remaining 30% to 40%?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, I do not have an exact list of all the suppliers, but there are reactors in Europe. They do not have the capacity that NRU does. There is a reactor in South Africa, but again, it does not have the same capacity, based on our market intelligence, I guess we could say, that NRU does. There is a small reactor in Australia as well.

Most of those reactors provide supply through a different company than the supply chain-value chain that we work with, but the bottom line is that they do not have the capacity to make up the market demand. I think that in a free system they would be doing it right now if they did.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, for the accuracy and completeness of the record, I am aware of five production facilities worldwide: NRU in Canada; BR2 in Belgium; HFR Osiris in France; HFR Petten in Netherlands; and Safari-1 in South Africa.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Were these five suppliers called to determine if they could provide these isotopes?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

The problem is world demand. If NRU is not operating, everyone turns to the other reactors to meet demand. I believe that the South African reactor is now in a regular shutdown. That is the problem. That is the challenge for everyone.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Québec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

How much time does the Bloc have?

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

You have exactly seven minutes.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, my question is for the Minister of Health. If the reactor is not brought back on line, what does that mean for public health?

I think the question we have to answer is this: what are the risks for the population? We need to know so that we have a good understanding of the impact on public health. What could happen? For example, are there any existing reserves? Will the reserves really be used up in the next few days? We need an answer to that question, too, to evaluate the situation. We have to take that into account.

Clearly, the members of Parliament are torn. I would like to address my question to the Minister of Health. The point of the bill is to address a problem, to deal with the fact that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not complying with the standards it should be complying with under the terms of its licence. Can the minister explain why this bill was introduced today?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I would like to say that this bill is necessary because the situation in Canada and the world is urgent. Some cancer and heart patients will not be able to receive diagnoses or treatment. Canada now has a shortage of isotopes. It is not the same in every province, but I can speak about one case in particular.

For example, in British Columbia there is enough supply currently in some institutions, but others are in severe shortage. Alberta does not use this supplier, so it is fine. Saskatchewan is on a wait list for generators. Manitoba is using suppliers from Europe.

Ontario has limited supplies--I believe under 20%--and all regions of Ontario indicate shortages. Quebec is looking at contingency plans, but it expects shortages in the near term. In the Atlantic provinces, it is very severe. Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic provinces have severe shortages. New Brunswick has two regions out of six that are affected. It goes on.

That is today. Tomorrow it will be worse. The day after tomorrow it will be worse still.

Let me take the opportunity to quote just very briefly from Dr. Brian Day, president of the Canadian Medical Association, in a letter to Ms. Keen that was delivered earlier today:

The Canadian Medical Association...joins the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine...to express our deep concern and profound disappointment with the disruption of supply of medical isotopes due to the extended shutdown of the reactor at Chalk River. The devastating impact that this has had on patient care across Canada, and indeed around the world, has been compounded by what we perceive as a true lack of understanding of what the extended shutdown means to patients who need access to vital diagnostic procedures. For physicians it means we are increasingly being forced to make difficult clinical decisions without appropriate critical diagnostic tools.

I will read another quote for members:

Nuclear medicine services are now being rationed across Canada. Patients are not getting timely access to critical diagnostic procedures...This is impacting on diagnostic services; timely surgery; and therapy planning, placing patients increasingly at risk.

I will read one final sentence:

The decision to take the reactor off-line for an extended period of time has already affected critical medical management decisions and the numbers affected will escalate every day that the shutdown is in effect.

Members do not have to believe me. They do not have to believe this caucus. They can believe the head of the Canadian Medical Association. They can believe the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine.

That is the situation we find ourselves in. As responsible parliamentarians, we should act.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister. I have a hypothetical question to see whether I have understand the urgency of the bill. If AECL submitted a safety case to the commission, would a bill then not be needed very quickly to provide some control over safety? Perhaps the Liberal natural resources critic discussed this.

Could the agency then monitor the proper operation of AECL? Could the commission be responsible then? Could it not be responsible because a single pump was being used?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, as we outlined earlier, the commission was promised by AECL that it would have the two pumps as late as December 6, that it believed that was the safety case, so the commission would look forward to an amendment that would allow for this one pump to be there, and the commission is ready to review that. Under the present case and licence, it would not be one pump. It would require the two pumps that were committed to by AECL in its licence.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have to say that I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North that this is a terrible situation to find ourselves in. We are weighing on the one hand the emotional issue of patient care and the needs, health and safety of patients. It is a very real but very emotional issue that we are grappling with here. On the other side of that coin, we are also weighing worker safety and public safety in the Chalk River area and in the national research universal reactor at Chalk River.

I want to follow a line of questioning, if members will permit me, to find out how we got to this point, because I think it is important. I need to know, because I have asked this question of a couple of people and I think I know the answer, who does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission report to in regard to its findings?

Do you report to a minister or directly to the government? When you find problems at facilities, where do you report those problems?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, the CNSC is an independent agent. It reports through the Minister of Natural Resources, not to the Minister of Natural Resources, so the minister is not involved in the decisions of the commission day to day.

It does, like other administrative tribunals, which are a form of justice, publish its findings. It makes its findings and publishes them and reasons for decisions. If anyone does not agree, the licensee, any group or any individual, then they can challenge the decision at the Federal Court. There is an arm's length relationship between the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Minister of Natural Resources

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure, then, if the witness is finding issues with AECL's facility at Chalk River.

You are calling the safety into question, obviously, or you would not have shut it down. Would the Minister of Natural Resources have been made aware of this through your reports through the ministry or through that department?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify a misconception that has been repeated several times today. The CNSC did not shut down AECL. AECL was in a planned shutdown, as Mr. McGee said, and voluntarily decided to continue the shutdown in order to put the pumps into place. CNSC did not shut down this reactor. AECL chose to keep this reactor down.

In terms of notifying, we notify everyone in the same way. We issue a decision with reasons for decision, like the other 20-some administrative tribunals in the federal system, and everyone is notified at once. This permits the minister to be at arm's length from the decision making of the commission tribunal.