Evidence of meeting #45 for International Trade in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was export.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
You should say the truth. You should say things that are true, not the other way—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Correct him after, when he's finished his four minutes.
You have half a minute left.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Mr. Gratton, you obviously put the spotlight on how China now has superiority when it comes to smelting and refining. What are the solutions? I'd like to provide you with more adequate time to respond to that. Are they joint ventures with other countries, perhaps, or perhaps the lessons that Canadian mining has learned in Chile? Is there anything more you could tell us?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada
You've touched on it. I think it's going to require a collaborative approach with allied countries.
As I said before, we're going to have to have more feed and more mines, so we need to develop our domestic capacity. It's going to require some state support. It's not going to be something the private sector will take on the risk for all on its own. Other pieces have to fall into place, but the Europeans really want more from us, so maybe they're willing to step up to help boost our capacity.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Thank you to our witnesses. I almost think we needed another hour, but we started late and we're running tight on time. Thank you very much for your information.
We will suspend momentarily so our other witnesses can come to the table.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I call the meeting back to order.
We have with us now, from the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, Jeff Nankivell, president and chief executive officer. From Candu Energy Incorporated, an AtkinsRéalis company, we have Todd Smith, vice-president of marketing and business development. From the Resource Works Society, we have Margareta Dovgal, managing director.
Welcome to all three of you. We appreciate you being here with us.
I think you all have your interpretation devices close by, so we'll open it up.
Mr. Nankivell, I invite you to give your opening remarks of up to five minutes, please.
Jeff Nankivell President and Chief Executive Officer, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear today.
My role here is to focus on the Indo-Pacific dimension of all of this. I'm drawing on the work of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada on critical minerals, economic security and Canada's partnerships with countries such as Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, the Philippines and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. A list of the relevant APF Canada publications on these topics—and there have been quite a few in just the last year—has been submitted to the clerk of the committee, along with the notes for my opening remarks.
Energy security, in all its aspects, has been a core focus of our successful Canada-in-Asia conferences. As mentioned by Ms. Exner-Pirot just a few minutes ago, we have been convening this conference annually in Singapore since 2023. Clean tech has also been a theme in that conference, and it has been a main theme of our long-running series of trade missions to Asian markets for women-led businesses.
My main message today is that Canada's clean economy export potential is real but uneven. We have world-class assets in uranium, hydroelectricity, clean grid expertise, mining, selected critical minerals, nuclear know-how and responsible governance. That said, export success depends on turning these assets into operating capacity, bankable projects, committed buyers, processing capability and durable partnerships.
First, on nuclear technology, as you know, Canada is already a leading uranium exporter. Canada has deep CANDU expertise and growing interest and capability in small modular reactors, but reactor exports require sovereign-level financing, licensing, regulatory compatibility, non-proliferation arrangements and other things, as you will hear, so the constraint is not really technology only. It's whether Canada can package a complete national offer in a highly competitive environment with other capable players.
Other witnesses will speak to the specifics of these efforts in the nuclear sector. From our work at APF Canada, I can attest to the strong interest in Canada's nuclear capacities that I hear about directly from governments in the region. A promising step already under way is the nuclear energy initiative of the Canada-ASEAN Business Council, which is working with AtkinsRéalis—and you'll hear shortly from Mr. Smith—and key higher education institutions, such as Humber Polytechnic and Ontario Tech University. Countries in Southeast Asia are starting from scratch on nuclear power, and they need to begin immediately, not only to prepare the regulatory framework and regulatory capacity but also to train the workforce that will be needed. Both of these are areas of world-class Canadian strength.
Second, on clean electricity, the principal opportunity in Asia is not to export Canadian electricity itself. It's to export our clean grid expertise and clean electricity embedded in products and services. This includes low-carbon industrial goods such as green aluminum and steel, hydrogen and ammonia derivatives, data centre services, hydroelectric engineering services, grid management and utility-scale project delivery.
ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, offers a significant opportunity in this regard. It has a regional agenda to expand and interconnect power systems through an ASEAN power grid. My APF colleagues and I have heard directly from senior ASEAN officials—including the deputy secretary general of ASEAN at the 2026 Canada-in-Asia Conference, at which he was a keynote speaker—about their keen interest in Canadian know-how and technology related to the development and management of long-distance electricity grids.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
Canada-ASEAN relations are entering a period of unusual momentum. We're getting close to a free trade agreement, so grid modernization is a sector in which Canada should be ready with a concrete offer.
Third, on critical minerals, Canada needs a differentiated approach, as you've been hearing. The different minerals are at different stages of development, and they require different tools. Mines alone are not enough. The focus really needs to be—and this is the view of our partners and allies in Asia—on processing, refining, recycling and the ability to meet industrial specs at scale.
There are three recommendations I would offer. The first is to distinguish, among areas where we're already competitive, areas where we are getting into commercialization and where capacity remains years away. That should guide governments in concentrating financing, policy support and international engagement. Second, focus on midstream activity and system capability. Third, organize international partnerships around bankable projects.
I look forward to your questions, which I will be pleased to answer in either official language.
Todd Smith Vice-President, Marketing and Business Development, Candu Energy Inc., AtkinsRéalis
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's great to be here. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before the committee on behalf of Candu Energy and AtkinsRéalis.
AtkinsRéalis, as you may know, is a Canadian-headquartered engineering and nuclear technology company. We employ over 42,000 people globally. Through Candu Energy, we're proud stewards of the CANDU technology, a Canadian technology and one of Canada's most successful advanced technology exports. CANDU reactors have operated safely and reliably for more than six decades. We've deployed them in Canada, of course, but also internationally in places like Romania, South Korea, China, Argentina and others.
I'd like to start off by making three key points here today. First, CANDU is a uniquely Canadian export opportunity. Canada is one of only a handful of countries in the world that's developed, built, operated and exported its own nuclear reactor technology. Few Canadian innovations have the potential to create economic value over such a long period of time.
CANDU is not simply a reactor. It represents a complete Canadian ecosystem that includes engineering, advanced manufacturing, fuel production, project management expertise, research institutions and a highly skilled workforce. The intellectual property is Canadian-owned, and the supply chain extends to hundreds of companies right across the country. When a country does choose CANDU, it's not purchasing a reactor alone; it's entering into a long-term partnership with Canada that can last up to 100 years through construction, fuel supply, operations, maintenance, refurbishment and ongoing technical support.
These partnerships create sustained demand for Canadian exports. They support high-value domestic jobs and strengthen Canada's presence in strategically important regions around the world—and the economic benefits are significant. Independent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada found that each CANDU reactor exported internationally can generate up to $4.8 billion in Canadian GDP impact and support more than 2,200 Canadian jobs. To put that into perspective, a six-reactor deployment in a country such as Poland could contribute nearly $30 billion to Canada's GDP and support more than 13,000 Canadian jobs. That would represent one of the largest advanced technology export opportunities in Canada's history, with benefits flowing to engineers, our manufacturing sector, our tradespeople and small and medium-sized businesses across Canada.
My second point is that global demand for nuclear energy creates a once-in-a-generation trade opportunity for Canada. Around the world, governments are turning to nuclear energy to strengthen energy security, to support economic growth and to meet their climate commitments as well. More than 30 countries have joined efforts to significantly expand global nuclear capacity by 2050, recognizing that reliable, large-scale, emissions-free electricity will be essential to powering growing economies and meeting climate goals. We're actively engaged with countries across Europe and Asia—and in the ASEAN as well—that are evaluating new nuclear generation, including Romania, Poland, Turkey and the Philippines, and several other economies that are emerging economies.
The opportunity extends far beyond reactor construction. Canadian companies can export engineering services, specialized equipment, digital technologies, training programs, fuel cycle expertise, maintenance services and operational know-how. Each international CANDU project creates opportunities for hundreds of Canadian suppliers, many of them small and medium-sized businesses.
In today's increasingly uncertain geopolitical environment, countries are seeking trusted partners for critical energy infrastructure, and Canada's reputation for safety, reliability, regulatory excellence and democratic governance gives us a strong competitive advantage.
Vice-President, Marketing and Business Development, Candu Energy Inc., AtkinsRéalis
When countries invest in Canada's nuclear technology, they're investing in Canadian expertise, Canadian workers and Canadian innovation.
My last point is that government and industry collaboration is essential to winning these opportunities. Whether it's the U.S., France, South Korea or China, successful nuclear exports bring together government financing institutions, diplomatic networks, regulators and industry behind a common strategic objective. To succeed, Canada must continue to embrace a team Canada approach. We've seen first-hand that coordinated engagement among industry, Global Affairs Canada, EDC, CCC, provincial governments and Canada's diplomatic network can open doors and build confidence with potential customers. Canada has a proven technology, an experienced workforce and a globally respected supply chain. We can take that and ensure that we're growing Canada's economy, both in our country and around the world.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Now we have Ms. Dovgal, please, for up to five minutes.
Margareta Dovgal Managing Director, Resource Works Society
Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you to members of the committee for inviting me to be here.
At Resource Works, we examine how resource development contributes to Canada's prosperity and well-being. My work focuses principally on oil and gas, but we also track nuclear, electricity and mineral processing, areas that I understand the study is tackling today. Across these sectors, the question is about what makes investors commit capital, build productive capacity and reach customers.
Canada understands oil and gas, competitiveness and export capacity reasonably well, despite a decade of political choices working at cross-purposes to that. That experience helps us understand how good industrial policy can enable export growth and diversification. Getting this right matters for wages, public revenues and affordability.
The business case differs across the three sectors being evaluated. Nuclear exports involve technology, equipment, fuel, finance and decades of service, as Mr. Smith just mentioned. Electricity needs supply and grids. Mineral processing needs plants, feedstock and buyers. Each depends on the ability to build and on market access, where needed, through infrastructure and trade agreements. The fundamentals, I would say, are the same. Lessons from oil and gas are instructive.
Competitiveness of the kind that enables export comes from a combination of taxation, regulatory certainty and physical market access. Having something the world needs gives us an opportunity; whether we capture it depends on decisions made by people who have other places to put their money. An investor considering Canada is comparing the return, the time required to earn it and the risk that the conditions will change along the way. A project can be profitable and still lose on that comparison. This is why resource abundance and international demand can coexist with very little new investment. If comparable projects are proceeding elsewhere while ours remain proposals, that difference deserves explanation.
Taxes can reduce returns. Delays can tie up capital. Uncertainty about approvals can make it harder to secure customers, order equipment and arrange financing. These are all conditions governments can set, and indeed it sounds like we're attempting to set those.
Where investment risk can be borne by the private sector, it should be. It's fiscally responsible and it's also how we can drive forward the most entrepreneurial, innovative and transformative solutions that create the best result for national prosperity. Government shouldn't necessarily pay to counter, through one part of the causal chain for export capacity, a problem that its own rules have created elsewhere. A band-aid subsidy can shift a policy-imposed cost from investors to taxpayers without removing it. That's wasteful.
Critical minerals processing facilities, for example, need feedstock. If we can't get a mine built affordably because federal rules such as industrial carbon pricing add costs absent in competitor jurisdictions, efforts to export more will cost more. We will fall behind while Chinese competition squeezes processing margins. That delivers a lower net benefit.
Investors look at profitability and predictability. Can they make money reliably? They compare investments against each other: What specifically warrants an investment in this jurisdiction, this technology or this market opportunity over another?
There has been a lot of talk this past year about oil and gas exports from the west coast. One obvious route is prohibited by federal legislation—the north coast oil tanker ban. Another push to expand Trans Mountain along the southern route is now under way. We have a product that the world needs, and we need a way to get more of it to market. Other energy producers will build and start to operate scores of similar export pipelines in the same time that it will take us just to consider one.
I will leave the committee with four practical recommendations.
First, start with investment decisions. For each export opportunity, ask what would make a private investor choose Canada over the alternative. Identify the customer, the expected return and the risks. Government's ambition for a sector has to be matched by conditions under which someone will actually commit capital.
Second, keep commercial risk with private investors wherever they can bear it. Having their own money at stake gives them a reason to scrutinize costs, find customers and develop better ways of doing things. That discipline is how we drive innovation and productivity.
Third, before offering public money, examine whether government has made the investment unattractive in the first place. When comparable projects are proceeding elsewhere, look at our taxes, approval timelines and market access restrictions.
Fourth, when public investment is justified, be specific about what it will accomplish. Identify the missing infrastructure, financing constraint or other barrier, and explain how the intervention would make a viable project possible or what else stands in the way. The test is whether it enables productive investment that can stand commercially rather than creating a permanent obligation to compensate for rules that we could change. Announcements of funding to promote export are only as good as the productive activity they can unlock to advance the economic well-being of Canadians.
Government has adopted ambitious new language on building and trading. These are the tests of whether its rules can now serve that ambition.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Thank you very much.
I'm quite interested in the export of clean energy from Canada. During the summer, I visited a few Asian countries, trying to find out what they need on the ground. On different occasions, the feedback I got was that Canada is trying to sell clean energy, especially nuclear energy, but the countries are telling us no, that this is not what they need at the moment. They said there's a gap between their level of development at this time and the level of nuclear energy that you want to export.
It seems like we want to sell them apples, but they are telling us they need oranges. The fact that Vietnam, as an example, secured a 50-year contract with an oil company for a stable, secure oil supply for the next 50 years tells us that they are not there yet.
Are there any comments from the panellists on that?
Vice-President, Marketing and Business Development, Candu Energy Inc., AtkinsRéalis
I can start first, Jeff, if you want.
We were just with the President of Vietnam, who's in town, and heard his speech to Parliament. I think Vietnam is investing in a number of different energy sources. They've already made a couple of announcements. One, regarding their first nuclear power plant, came in March of this year. They are going to be teaming up with the Russians and Rosatom on that first nuclear power plant, but we're also going to be speaking to the president tomorrow about the opportunity for Canada to perhaps deploy CANDUs in Vietnam as well, at Ninh Thuan 2, which is the second site, about 40 kilometres north of the first site. That's been designated for Russian technology.
Vietnam, potentially one of the fastest-growing countries in the world, is looking at all sources as they move forward to meet their growing energy demand, their growing population and their growing economy.