[ungodlycrosscheck]

Alvin... Why would Linda Keen be feeling vindicated? I'm not sure by your response you actually understand what Linda Keen's role as the head CNSC was and moreover how had the former NRCan Minister Gary Lunn not overided her the global supply of isotopes would have been impacted.

Let's not forget the Liberals spent over $600 million on the new Maple reactors despite ample evidence they wouldn't work. Hmm, seems to me like the Conservatives are inheriting someone else's mess.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

ungodlycrosscheck:

Alvin... Why would Linda Keen be feeling vindicated? I'm not sure by your response you actually understand what Linda Keen's role as the head CNSC was and moreover how had the former NRCan Minister Gary Lunn not overided her the global supply of isotopes would have been impacted.

Actually, I am not sure if you understand what the role of the head of CNSC should be, as an independent regulatory agency.

Have you been following the tone of the comments from the government regarding both scenarios? The first time, it was a health crisis from hell; the second, it's a minor inconvenience with all the bases covered. I am sure you understand the difference, particular in how the reactor can actually be restarted more or less immediately in the first case, and that we're looking at what, at least 3 months downtime in the second?

Let's not forget the Liberals spent over $600 million on the new Maple reactors despite ample evidence they wouldn't work. Hmm, seems to me like the Conservatives are inheriting someone else's mess.

Indeed. And what plans have been put in place (or even drafted) by the Conservatives in spite of such ample evidence, who have been in power for how many years now?

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

Despite ample evidence? Care to cite any of this evidence? AECL designed and built the reactors and during testing, they discovered that they had a positive void coefficient. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals didn't decide to immediately demolish the reactors that AECL had spent hundred of millions to build. Instead, they gave AECL a chance to fix them shortly before Harper took power. When AECL couldn't figure out a way to fix them, the Tories shut down the project. Both are reasonable actions. The problem is that the Tories didn't have any alternative plan to rebuild or replace the Maples when they knew for several years that they were having problems that might not be fixable. Again, in the months since they abandoned the program, they haven't developed a hint of an alternative. They've had years to fix this. They've done nothing. That's the problem here.

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Yes the first time an overzealous regulator decided to shut down the Chalk River Reactor before the federal government could conclude agreements with international partners to ensure supply. The second time, the government anticipating future problems with the aging Chalk River reactor put in place adequate contingencies by working allies to ensure supplies and alternatives existed should a future shut down be necessary. Big diff.

Indeed. And what plans have been put in place (or even drafted) by the Conservatives in spite of such ample evidence, who have been in power for how many years now?

Ah yes, the Conservatives have been in power for three years, plenty of time to design and build a new nuclear reactor. Heck, I designed one over lunch and I'm off to Home Depot in a few hours to pick up supplies and begin construction in my back yard tonight. I figure I'll be producing 'topes by the barrel by the weekend and rolling in the Benjamins by this time next week.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

ungodlycrosscheck:

Yes the first time an overzealous regulator decided without ample warning to shut down the Chalk River Reactor before the federal government could conclude agreements with international partners to ensure supply. The second time, the government anticipating future problems with the aging Chalk River reactor put in place adequate contingencies by working allies to ensure supplies and alternatives existed should a future shut down be necessary. Big diff.

No offense, that's pure BS. News reports suggested that Lunn had been adequately informed of the situation, and the CNSC's mandate is to ensure safety of nuclear facilities first and foremost. The decision to override is a political one - not something that CNSC should undertake. As to the second, well, is that cribbed from the question period? Because quite frankly, it's totally devoid of information.

Ah yes, the Conservatives have been in power for three years, plenty of time to design and build a new nuclear reactor. Heck, I designed one over lunch and I'm off to Home Depot in a few hours to pick up supplies and begin construction in my back yard tonight. I figure I'll be producing 'topes by the barrel by the weekend and rolling in the Benjamins by this time next week.

Very funny (Lisa Raitt should take some pointers from you, come to think of it - it work better than rubbing onions to the eyes). I don't suppose they can build a reactor in six days, but have they even instructed AECL to start designing a new one so that NRU can be replaced? Is 3 (or hell, even one) years not enough to make THAT particular decision, given how aware the government is on the severity of the problem?

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

You're such a partisan Tory that you actually think that a non-partisan nuclear regulator should allow a nuclear reactor that she knows to be unsafe to operate just so that it doesn't inconvenience or embarrass the minister? Wow. Please tell me that they're at least paying you for this stuff. Good thing there weren't any overzealous regulators to embarrass the Soviet government at Chernobyl. Oops.

There's a bit of a difference between building a reactor in five days and developing a plan to start building a reactor in three years.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

unimaginative:

But of course, she is a Liberal appointee, remember? *snicker* Didn't say that to Kevin Page though...

AoD

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Alvin, I like the banter, truly, and I appreciate the counterpoint.

I don't know if you are beig sarcastic, but the comment about helping Raitt made me laugh. Come to think of it she does have a vacant Chief of Staff position and the D-Comm gig is unfilled. It's an office running short on HR.

In any case, there is nothing I could teach Minister Raitt, she's doing fine on her own, she'll survive this and I suspect has a long career ahead of her. My days of working on the Hill are long behind me and I'm not looking on making a comeback.

Anyone who doubts her talents just has to watch her in the House, she rarely refers to her notes, she's well briefed and she's very good at absorbing attacks and returning fire. Anyone who disbelieves this should have seen her crippling rebuttal of NDP dickweed Thomas Mulcair last week. I've pasted it from Hansard below, from June 3 QP.

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the Prime Minister had to say about this a year ago. He said:

...no matter what their personal circumstances, ministers must follow the rules concerning documents. The rules were breached in this situation and that is why the minister resigned.

He said that on June 3, 2008. That was then and this is now. The rules say that she is the one responsible, not some underling. How come a year ago the minister had to resign and today they are allowed to blame an underling, a subservient person, for all the responsibility of the minister? How is that acceptable?

Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned with the language being utilized by the member opposite. He utilized the term “subservient”. The people who work for us on the Hill work very hard. Indeed, in this case, clear procedures were not followed and the individual took responsibility by offering to resign and I accepted it.

I am more concerned about the tone in which the hon. member has put this forward, indicating that perhaps only a woman could be subservient.

 

[unimaginative2]

Wow...that's exactly the kind of mind-numbingly stupid answer that brings question period into such disrepute. Still, you're absolutely right. Lisa Raitt is one of the Tories' best performers and she's definitely the kind of person they need to cultivate. If they had a leader like her (assuming she speaks French) they'd at least have a chance at a majority. She's one of the few relatively bright lights in that cabinet, so I'm not surprised that Harper has chosen not to throw her under the bus (I love every opportunity to use that phrase. Best overused phrase ever).

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Raitt doesn't speak French. She is apparently learning.

 

[unimaginative2]

I'll bet she is. Neither did Harper, but he's good enough these days. I think this string of scandals may have been an arrow through the heart of her leadership hopes, though.

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

I don't think this meets the test of a scandal... but regardless, others have survived worse. Think Jean Charest who was punted as a Minister of Sport for the transgression of calling a judge and intervening in a legal matter. He's done okay last checked.

 

[unimaginative2]

Wind money given to oil producers instead, Raitt tape suggests

By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau | Halifax Chronicle-Herald EXCLUSIVE
Wed. Jun 10 - 4:32 PM

OTTAWA – Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.

Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.

Mr. Prentice is the MP for Calgary-Centre North, home to much of Canada's oil industry. Mr. Harper also represents a Calgary riding.

Ms. Raitt made the comment as she and Ms. MacDonnell were being driven around British Columbia on Jan. 30, a few days after the budget.

The conversation was inadvertently recorded on Ms. MacDonnell's digital recorder and eventually came into the possession of The Chronicle Herald.

Ms. MacDonnell tells Ms. Raitt that CanWEA, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, had sent a letter to its supporters complaining about the lack of funding for wind energy in the budget.

“I'm not going to put up with the whining of CanWEA, and the reason being is that they're not utilizing the money that is there now,†says Ms. Raitt. “And until these things don't start getting built.â€

Ms. MacDonnell appears to read from the letter from CanWEA: “We know that the proposal was actively promoted and pushed by Minister Raitt. In fact, it is our understanding that it was actually part of the budget until it was taken out very late in the process.â€

Ms. Raitt responds: “No. No. I would never have told that.â€

“You wouldn't have told her,†says Ms. MacDonnell. “Is that true?â€

“Yes,†says Ms. Raitt. “It is true.â€

“So somebody is talking,†says Ms. MacDonnell.

“Someone in Finance talked,†says Ms. Raitt. “Am I going to get blamed for this?â€

Ms. Raitt was worried about the prime minister's reaction to the fact that CanWEA was somehow aware of budget talks, which are supposed to be kept in confidence.

“I certainly didn't know the fact that it came out late in the process,†she said.

“I would have no way of knowing that. I understand that's what happened. My suspicion is, what I told you, that Jim took the money for his clean energy plan. They said 'Ah, they don't need it.' There should never have been any choice. No one asked my opinion on it. If they had, I would have lobbied. Maybe that's why I'm invited to P and P (priority and planning, a cabinet committee). Oh, the prime minister's not going to like that.â€

Ms. Raitt at first blames the normally tight-lipped Finance officials for leaking the information. Later in the conversation, though, she and Ms. MacDonnell seem to agree that it may have been Natural Resources officials who let CanWEA know that the money had been there but was pulled.

“Those quotes clearly point to the fact that I'm on the team,†says Ms. Raitt. “And I am. That's what happened. I don't have that pull. Period.â€

“Do you think someone on the EnerCan side did it?†she asks Ms. MacDonnell.

“That would probably be the most likely explanation, that they're trying to do damage control with the different groups,†she says. “'We did it. We pushed. We brought it. It was there.'â€

“'The minister brought it to Flaherty,'†says Ms. Raitt. “I didn't push it hard at the table though.â€

They go on to discuss problems with wind energy funding, with Ms. Raitt complaining that wind energy producers aren't accessing federal funding that is already available – a subsidy based on kilowatt production.

“If they can't finance it, and they can't get their (environmental approvals), and they can't buy their equipment, then it doesn't go further and they don't get the kilowatt cent,†she says.

“So I asked Tyler what's the sunset? How long do people have to hold onto money? And I don't know what the answer is yet. But there's $862 million still waiting for this project.

“I'm upset that the ministry, that the department, told people that that was going to be oversubscribed by a certain date. That's built this whole fear. It was a $1.5-billion announcement, started in '07. No one would ever think the funding would run out unless they were told it would run out. So that's my sadness.â€

CanWEA complained publicly about the lack of new money in a news release after the budget.

“Our ability to compete with the United States for investment in wind energy projects and manufacturing opportunities will decline as a result of this budget,†said president Robert Hornung.

“At a time when the United States has made measures to support renewable energy deployment a key component of its plans to stimulate the U.S. economy, Canada is moving in the opposite direction.â€

CanWEA had called for a $600-million fund to expand wind energy. It declined to comment when contacted Wednesday.

On May 19, Ms. Raitt announced the $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil patch at a speech at the University of Alberta, saying the money would encourage “new technologies now to help protect and preserve our environment for future generations.â€

Mr. Prentice's office refused to comment on the recording on Tuesday, and the minister's office told reporters he would end a media question and answer session on Wednesday if anybody asked him about the recording.

Speculation about the recording has been rife since the Canadian Press reported Tuesday that Ms. Raitt mentioned Mr. Prentice on the recording, apparently because Conservative officials knew about the comments and were bracing themselves.

Ms. Raitt's comments about the budget wrangling were made on the same five-hour recording in which Ms. Raitt called the medical isotope crisis “sexy†and criticized her cabinet colleague, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, which has led to a media storm in Ottawa.

The Chronicle Herald went to Nova Scotia Supreme Court on Monday to fight an emergency injunction that would have blocked publication of the stories that came from the recorder.

After refusing to apologize on Tuesday under opposition pressure, Ms. Raitt did tearfully apologize for her remarks in a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday, making reference to the toll cancer has taken in her own family.

(smaher@herald.ca)

 

[urbandreamer]

Who's funnier: Lisa Raitt or David Raitt?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Now let's look at the more serious side of the issue, from the Post:

David Akin: Isotope firm questions Harper's plan to abandon production
Posted: June 11, 2009, 10:15 AM by NP Editor
MDS Inc. of Mississauga, Ont. announced its financial results this morning. MDS is the parent company of MDS Nordion, the Kanata, Ont.-based company which buys all of the medical isotopes produced by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s at the Crown corporation's Chalk River Laboratory.

For the three months ending April 30, MDS Nordion had an operating profit of US$23 million and net revenue of $65 million. That was down from the same quarter last year of $24 million and $80 million. MDS also had this to say in its press release this morning:

After the end of the quarter, in May 2009, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) announced that its National Research Universal (NRU) reactor would be out of service for at least three months. Based on historical EBITDA trends related to NRU-supplied isotopes, MDS expects the financial impact of this shutdown to reduce MDS Nordion's adjusted EBITDA by approximately $4 million for every month the NRU is out of service. MDS is assessing plans to reduce costs over the extended shutdown period. MDS Nordion continues to deliver positive EBITDA from sterilization technologies and radiopharmaceutical product and service lines.

MDS continues to work to secure a long-term reliable supply of medical isotopes. In 1996, MDS Nordion contracted with AECL to complete and commission the MAPLE reactors, which were intended to replace the NRU. In May 2008, this project was unilaterally discontinued by AECL and the Government of Canada. MDS invested over $350 million in the MAPLE project, and believes that the completion of the MAPLE reactors is the best solution to provide global medical isotope supply. More recently, MDS Nordion urged the AECL and Canadian Government to consult with international experts and obtain their assistance to activating the MAPLE project to address the current medical-isotope supply shortage. In addition, MDS Nordion is examining longer-term supply alternatives and announced in the second quarter its collaboration with TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, to study the feasibility of producing a viable and reliable supply of photo fission-based Molybdenum-99.

This will have some relevance today. Last night, we reported: Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada plans to leave the production of medical isotopes to other countries — despite the fact that for a time last year, this country was producing nearly all such isotopes in the world.

“Eventually, we anticipate Canada will be out of the business,†Harper said Wednesday. [Read the rest of the story]

AECL -- again, it's a Crown corporation so taxpayers stand behind its obligations -- signed a deal with MDS Nordion guaranteeing a 40-year supply of medical isotopes. The MAPLEs were to produce that 40-year supply. MDS is suing AECL and Canada for $1.6 billion for cancelling the MAPLEs. What now will AECL and Canada owe MDS Nordion now that the prime minister has rather abruptly announced that Canada is out of the business altogether and will not -- MAPLEs or no -- honour its word to MDS Nordion to provide it with medical isotopes for the next 40 years?

MDS Nordion executives, as it happens, had already been scheduled to testify today at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources (hashtag #RNNR for you Twitterers) where executives are expected to make the case for the MAPLEs. Both Liberal and NDP MPs are pushing the government to at least have international experts review AECL's decision to kill the MAPLEs.

Why is all this important? The medical isotopes at Chalk River help 2 million Canadian cancer and heart disease patients every year.

National Post

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...ions-harper-s-plan-to-abandon-production.aspx

AoD