Natural Resources committee  Earlier I said that all of the world's CANDU reactors operate in accordance with the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency. All sharing of nuclear technology and the buying and selling of goods and services adhere to nuclear cooperation agreements, which set out stringent non-proliferation requirements.

Natural Resources committee  The proportion of isotopes that we produce and comes back to Canada, as you know, after processing, is about 10%. So 90% of it is really for the export market. I think AECL would be better placed than me to give you a sense of the details of the numbers relating to revenue, which amounts to roughly $35 million to $40 million a year from the sale of isotopes historically—and not just TC-99, but also others—and then the costs of operating the Chalk River facilities and the NRU reactor; therefore, the cost of production of the isotopes.

Natural Resources committee  That's right. But for Ontario, historically nuclear has been critical at about 50%. I think the government wants to maintain roughly the same proportion, 50%, which will certainly imply refurbishing some of the reactors, certainly most of the reactors currently operating, and, depending on what happens in Pickering and in growth in demand, construction of new reactors.

Natural Resources committee  Again, Mr. Chair, what I mentioned in my introductory remarks is that individual jurisdictions will make their choices. I think they will do that on the basis of business cases. They will look at the financial aspects, the environmental aspects, what is base load versus non-base load.

Natural Resources committee  I think my colleague mentioned $8 billion earlier. That is not necessarily the amount invested, but the total amount spent by the Government of Canada on nuclear energy, over a period of approximately 60 years. Some of that money would have gone to operating costs over the years and would not necessarily translate into capital assets.

Natural Resources committee  I think we received, over the course of the exercise...and there would have been interim reports. It was basically one report and then one supplementary report.

Natural Resources committee  No, that's okay. I would imagine it was around January of 2009.

Natural Resources committee  If you would allow, Mr. Chair, I'd like to go back and check the facts, so as not to mislead the committee.

Natural Resources committee  No, that would not be correct, Mr. Chair. I would like to be very clear on this. In November 2007 the government announced a review. Upon launching this review it hired financial advisers. The financial advisers provided confidential reports to the Government of Canada. These reports are commercially sensitive, because they involve estimates of the value of some of the assets and so forth.

Natural Resources committee  Again, I'd have to go back to see when, Mr. Chair.

Natural Resources committee  Again, Mr. Chair, this is not a National Bank report. This is a summary note by the department that would have been done around the time. I guess it's May 2009; that's when it was issued.

Natural Resources committee  I think part of what you mentioned with regard to Europe and some of the changes we've seen there, including from some rather prominent environmental spokespersons, I would say, was that on balance there still would be a concern with regard to such things as nuclear waste. But given the non-emitting properties of nuclear energy, on environmental grounds this was a choice that made sense to assist with the global fight against climate change.

Natural Resources committee  That's an excellent question. Your best answer would be from AECL lawyers. But my understanding would be that you're absolutely correct. When we talk about liability in respect of Point Lepreau, we mean what accrues from the latest contract that AECL has signed for the refurbishment of the reactor.

Natural Resources committee  I have to pause a second, because understanding what is in the public domain and what's not in the public domain, I'm basically forbidden from saying anything about it under the rules of the Ontario process. So I guess what you would have seen in the month of June, I believe, is that Ontario announced that of the three proposals that had been submitted, only the proposal submitted by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited met the conditions of the Government of Ontario, of Infrastructure Ontario, in the competitive process.

Natural Resources committee  I guess I would say that the window for discussion is still open, and therefore the rules of the process still apply.