Natural Resources committee  The government is more than just required to consult the committee and the House of Commons, because when it comes to holding private capital in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited—and by that, I mean partial privatization of the commercial component—an act of Parliament is necessary.

Natural Resources committee  That there has not been a point?

Natural Resources committee  That is correct, Mr. Chair. In 2007, they finished construction of the last reactor. They're now in the pursuit of refurbishments. The markets, however, have been selective in terms of the jurisdictions involved, that is the parts of the world where AECL has been successful to date.

Natural Resources committee  That is the right ballpark number, Mr. Chair. There are all kinds of numbers, depending on the timeframe one is looking at. I've seen 100 projects on the books to the year 2030. Other scenarios would have an even stronger growth over the next 30 to 40 years, but it's certainly in the range of 100 and up.

Natural Resources committee  Well, again, the minister was disappointed with an outcome; I don't think the minister was pointing fingers or saying something had not been pursued diligently. Again, I think if you look at her words, she's disappointed with the outcome, disappointed with the timeline, and wants to ensure that AECL maintains this as a very, very clear focus, an overriding priority.

Natural Resources committee  That's a good question, because in large measure that's the value of the asset to Canadians and the value of the asset to our industry as well. There are different arrangements whereby intellectual property can be negotiated in a transaction. We are not at a stage where the government has decided on the form of the transaction, the parameters of the transaction, and whether intellectual property is retained but licensed; or acquired and therefore purchased for its value; or acquired with some conditions in terms of ongoing remuneration to the originator of the intellectual property.

Natural Resources committee  That is a very good question. How much is AECL worth? Mr. Chair, it may not surprise you that I do not have a figure as to AECL's worth. It is important to understand that there are two sides to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. One side is more of a business, selling reactors and nuclear engineering services, while the other is basically a laboratory, with a lower market value at the end of the day.

Natural Resources committee  As regards the NRU, obviously the minister and the Minister of Health, at the time, as well, were expressing disappointment with the timeline. I think that disappointment was shared by all Canadians who look to AECL to supply that very critical input to our health care system.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank the committee for the opportunity to outline the government's perspective and agenda in respect of the Canadian nuclear industry. My intervention will be brief and organized along the following key messages. First, there is an important role for the nuclear industry in meeting energy and environmental needs in Canada and abroad.

Natural Resources committee  We do not expect that, absent the NRU, one gets back to 100% supply when the NRU is up. The situation has fluctuated, for example, in the month of June and July, with Canada getting in the range of 70% of normal supplies or sometimes higher, sometimes 80%, sometimes close to 100%, and sometimes lower, sometimes closer to 50%.

Natural Resources committee  In the short term, there will be other consultations with other countries, in particular to look at reactor production schedules for 2010. The minister, our colleagues from Atomic Energy of Canada and I have been in close contact with our international partners, the Belgians, the French, the Irish, and we will continue to do so.

Natural Resources committee  With respect to Canada's nuclear capacity, I would simply say that your comments are somewhat consistent with those our minister made when she announced the Atomic Energy of Canada restructuring proposals on May 28 to better mobilize our resources and ensure that Canada succeeds in this field, which is growing around the world.

Natural Resources committee  You're correct about the medium term. Let's say it's roughly 18 months to three years, essentially operating with the same type of paradigm that we are now. Any short-term solution in a North American context--and we met with the U.S. Department of Energy, with their nuclear regulator, with the CNSC, with the chief laboratories in the U.S. and Canada--is essentially irradiating the same kind of material that goes into the NRU in another reactor and then shipping the irradiated material to Chalk River for processing, essentially under the same process as is done with the NRU.

Natural Resources committee  Again, in terms of replacement of the NRU, if we're talking about building a new research reactor, in rough numbers, that's $1 billion, and it is an investment for the next 50 to 60 years. That would be deserving of some time to make sure that you get it right. There are other supply alternatives when it comes to isotopes, but as regards a new research reactor, that is an important consideration.

Natural Resources committee  First, the Prime Minister's statement was clear; that takes nothing away from the efforts underway to restart the reactor and to extend its useful life. Second, the model used to date is not sustainable. It isn't sustainable from the standpoint of health or for Canadian taxpayers.