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

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, based on what we know and CNSC staff concerns about the safety case that we have already submitted, which we believe is adequate, we believe that it will take us, best case, end of day Thursday, but safety analysis is not an exact science. To answer the questions we need to determine exactly what is required. The best case is end of day Thursday.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to know from Mr. McGee when the reactor can be up and running, assuming the safety case were acceptable to the commission. I just want to have a visual understanding as to what day the reactor could be up and running if the safety case were submitted on Thursday.

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, what we are talking about is the date the licence amendment would be given. At that point, AECL would then return to start the reactor up. It is AECL's responsibility once it gets the licence amendment. If it were allowed now to have one pump under the current licence, we would not need a licence amendment. It is absolutely clear that we need a licence amendment. It is clear that if it operated with one pump it would not be within the current licence.

AECL needs to start this up once it has a licence amendment.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I need help. What we are saying is we really do not want to suspend the regulation, but at the same time we want the nuclear reactor to be up and running quickly. It sounds like it is just a matter of paperwork that is not being done. Why are we not getting that paperwork done quickly?

They both are willing to do it as quickly as possible. I do not see why we should suspend the regulator when all that is needed is to have the paperwork done.

What I am hearing here today is that this matter could be resolved within four to five days and if it meets the requirements, the licence could be issued. Unless there are other issues beyond that safety case, this licence could be issued within five days. I think it would take us as much time to get this law passed through the Senate and receive royal assent and it would be setting a very dangerous and unusual precedent.

This is perplexing to me and to many Canadians, and it is unacceptable. This has to be resolved today. I need a commitment from AECL and the commission to work together. I have seen a letter from AECL to both ministers saying that they are working on it. I do not see why we need this law. But I still have not seen any reasons why they cannot work together.

That is it, Mr. Chair.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There are two and a half minutes left for the official opposition.

The hon. member for St. Paul's.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the patients who are waiting. I want to know what the minister's assessment of that will be. The Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine says that 50,000 Canadians' treatment is delayed a month and the CMA says it is 30,000 a week.

I would like to know whether the minister has an assessment. Seeing that these coming weeks tend to be the weeks when hospitals do not do surgeries and tests, what would be his assessment for the weeks of December 17, 24 and 31? Would he be able to provide the provinces and territories with extra funds to run overtime to get rid of the backlog of patients who have been waiting too long?

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

Mr. Chair, right now, because there are no isotopes being produced, the wait times are being extended. But of course they are not expending for the isotopes because they do not exist, so I am not sure how that fits in.

The way I would like to answer the question, though--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

When it comes back.

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

When this comes back, they are going to have to rev up, that is absolutely right.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

And they are going to need money to do it.

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

Mr. Chair, they get lots of money from us, I would say to the hon. member.

In terms of the instant issue, which is what clearly we should be seized with, I can say to the hon. member that across the country, right now, not tomorrow or the next day, there is, depending upon the province, depending upon the jurisdiction, a 40% to 60% reduction in the availability of services, whether they be diagnostic services or treatment services. Of course they are triaging to do as much treatment as possible, but now treatment is starting to be affected.

I would draw to the hon. member's attention that the Canadian Medical Association had a very cogent letter to Ms. Keen which says, and this is signed by Dr. Brian Day, the President of the Canadian Medical Association, “The Canadian Medical Association joins the”--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to now--

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for St. Paul's, please. The time slot is now complete.

I now recognize the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

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

Mr. Chair, the minister will have an opportunity to continue his response.

When there is a shortage of isotopes, who decides how they are distributed? It was mentioned previously that there are Canadian clients and 400,000 American clients, but who makes the decisions about distribution when there is a shortage?

Is there a policy on giving priority to Canadians' needs before sending isotopes to the United States?

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

Mr. Chair, of course, this is not our decision. The decision is made by the hospitals, doctors and specialists. If a patient needs treatment, they have the responsibility to get that isotope.

There is no national triage system in place. What I can say to the hon. member is that in terms of the coordination among nuclear specialists today in Canada, there is an unprecedented degree of cooperation and coordination among all of the medical specialists to ensure to the best of their ability that those who need the treatment the most are first in line to get the treatment.

My only caveat and warning to this chamber is that as medical isotopes become rarer and rarer each and every day, the ability of medical specialists to triage successfully declines and declines. That was the point I was trying to make.

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

Mr. Chair, since the product is in short supply, when Chalk River resumes production, will Canadians or Americans get priority? Who will decide to supply Canadian hospitals before American hospitals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that if there is a contract between Atomic Energy of Canada and a hospital, when there is a request, it will be the responsibility of Nordion or Atomic Energy of Canada to set in motion a process to respond to that request.

That is the decision. If there is a need in Canada, if there is a contract in place with a Canadian hospital, that contract will be supplied.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. McGee has control over the distribution of isotopes, right?

How does he decide which client gets priority? Is it Canadians or Americans? Do the contracts determine who gets priority?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, I just want to go back to something that I said earlier and that is that NRU is a huge producer of medical isotopes. When we are running, we can supply all the isotope that is required in Canada and a large proportion of what is required in the United States. We have at times gone up in production, much higher than our normal production, when there have been shortages in the United States from other suppliers.

I am confident that when we are operating again, we can supply all the isotope that is required in Canada and a lot of the isotope that is required in the United States.

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

Mr. Chair, I have another question for Mr. McGee.

It was mentioned that Chalk River has existed for 50 years. How long have isotopes been produced there?

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

For the sake of clarity, the gentleman who is replying to the questions is not Mr. McGee but Mr. Torgerson.

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, first of all, the use of medical isotopes and the isotope business is an area that was in fact pioneered in Chalk River. People in the early days of Chalk River developed the business, which is now a worldwide business.

We have been producing isotopes currently in production since the early 1970s. I believe since 1971 we have produced medical isotopes for Nordion and now what is called MDS Nordion.

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

Mr. Chair, it was mentioned earlier that the Chalk River reactor has frequently been shut down, but for short durations. I believe three or four day periods were mentioned.

How often do these three or four day stoppages occur?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, these are deliberate stoppages. Every four weeks we shut the reactor down for about four days in order to do maintenance. This is regularly every four weeks.

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

Mr. Chair, there have never been stoppages at the Chalk River nuclear reactor for major repairs or refurbishment, as is the case for the CANDU reactors in Gentilly? Hydro-Québec plans to stop the Gentilly reactor for a year and a half to complete the refurbishment. The Chalk River reactor has never been stopped for an extended period?