Thank you, Minister. I'm satisfied with your answer.
You seem very optimistic, even candid, about the future of medical isotope production. You tell us that the permit is valid until 2011, and that the private sector and AECL are already working on alternative solutions. As you know, the reactor is 50 years old. Even if an alternative solution is found, I don't know whether the life of a reactor like this can be extended for many more years. In my view, it already seems to have reached an unacceptable limit.
The Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine does not share your optimism. On May 21, the society issued a press release in which it expressed concerns about isotope supplies. It stated that it was aware of no realistic contingency plan for the medium and long term, and believes there is a lack of planning that is jeopardizing medical diagnostic services. That is the position of the Canadian Society of Nuclear Medicine.
The experts—those who use the isotopes—are not convinced your optimism is well placed, and have no information on what may really happen in the future.
At this moment, Minister, are there any plans on the development of the reactor's safety beyond 2011 that we could look at? What sort of planning is th ere? Until now, I have not been very impressed by the planning performance of AECL. AECL failed in its duty in administering and managing the medical isotope crisis.
Can you tell us specifically what is on the table, and what the short term plan is? Everyone knows that a reactor is not built in three years, and that solutions must frequently be implemented over the long term. Since the medical community is concerned, I would like you to tell us clearly what the plan is for action beyond 2011.