Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 27th, 2026

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, I must say that your opening remarks are very concerning. Beyond the fact that we often embarrass the government here, I think we need to move on and act responsibly in a situation that I consider dangerous for three reasons.

In the statements you've made, I see a considerable loss of accountability for the government, which will become responsible for managing nuclear waste. I also see a loss of sovereignty, even though my colleagues indicated that the secrets surrounding small modular reactors may already be known. There is still one troubling aspect, which is that there is a leak of expertise that we should have in the nuclear field. Above all, I see a loss of autonomy in the future if we no longer have the capacity to manage our nuclear waste and to intervene regarding various factors related to modular reactors. We're not very far along.

I would therefore ask you to tell the committee what the government should do in the very short term in relation to this. A report will be written. None of us is a nuclear expert. We're all neophytes, I think. What should the committee do in the very short term to resolve this situation?

[Christian Leuprecht]

First, let's talk about economic logic.

We know that CANDU technology has never been welcome in the United States, and since the consortium makes more money from its American units than from the Canadian unit, it could be inferred that there is no international interest in promoting CANDU technology. From a competitiveness standpoint, there is an incentive to sideline Canadian nuclear intellectual property and to give an advantage in the global nuclear market to American technology over Canadian technology. It's just economic logic.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

What I understand from what you're saying is that promoting CANDU technology would be in the hands of that company. They would be the ones with the expertise to do that.

Did I understand you correctly?

[Christian Leuprecht]

This is part of the essential chain of expertise because there is only one national nuclear laboratory in Canada, which is managed by a consortium that now intends to focus entirely to the American side.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Hendrickson, you can answer as well.

[Ole Hendrickson]

If I could speak about the decommissioning and waste management briefly, that is the bulk of the money that AECL is receiving in annual appropriations and what is being given to CNL. It's about two-thirds of our annual appropriations. Are we getting access to private sector expertise in that area? There's possibly some, but I think that, after 10 years, that is well established in CNL.

I recall Mr. Leuprecht saying, why not return CNL to a Crown corporation? I think that's a very strong point. We no longer need that private sector expertise. It should be fully incorporated. There have been 100 buildings at Chalk River Laboratories that have been decommissioned now, so there's lots of expertise in the staff who have done that. We can just let the Americans go.

In terms of what the committee can do, there is a special examination by the Auditor General coming up in 2026-27. The committee should make some instructions to the Auditor General to have a really close look at how well this GOCO has worked.

[Christian Leuprecht]

It's a matter of international competitiveness.

Why is it treated like the little sister next to the big brother? We should have some confidence in our capabilities, our sovereignty, Canadian knowledge and the competitiveness of Canadian knowledge.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I agree with you, especially since I think what we're experiencing right now may be a collective realization of the naiveté we had towards the United States until very recently.

In the context of the tariff crisis and what we're seeing in our relations with the Americans, I wonder if there is another case in which a country has relinquished part of its sovereignty over nuclear issues to a private foreign company. I'm wondering if that exists anywhere else. I know that France has a lot of nuclear power, and I know that there is nuclear power all over Europe.

Are there any countries that give up a portion of their sovereignty in order to allow other states or foreign countries to manage nuclear waste and nuclear-related matters?

[Christian Leuprecht]

As I always say in English, the Americans are our best friends, whether we like it or not.

A more pragmatic approach would mean being more systematic in areas where the United States is an indispensable ally and in areas where there is competition. We want to safeguard certain Canadian national interests. Canada is, after all, a founding member of the G7, and it must conduct itself on the international stage as the middle power the Prime Minister refers to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

Colleagues, we're going to go on to our second round of questioning. We're going to start with Mrs. Gallant for five minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to Ole. It's always wonderful to see somebody from the valley. Thank you for your decades of paying attention to our environment in the valley.

My questions will be for Dr. Leuprecht. Here is the first one.

In your opinion, was the statement of requirements stacked for this consortium to win the contract?

[Christian Leuprecht]

From what I understand, this was the standard two-part process where there is a pre-qualifying and then there's an actual bid submission. There were several entities interested, but as we know, we only received one bid. At that point, we had an option. We could have gone back and rewritten the requirements to ensure that we got more bids, or we could just go with that one bid, because everything else would have had higher transaction costs and higher friction. We made a choice.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you for answering my question.

If the Americans will essentially be managing CNL, what is the risk of Canadian engineers and scientists getting replaced by Americans?

[Christian Leuprecht]

Look at the executive. It's already happening, Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

I mean the workers on the ground, in the lab.

[Christian Leuprecht]

Yes, we continue to nurture Canadian talent because that's, I think, what CNL does, and it does it well. However, I have a cautionary story to tell on that. It's not entirely analogous, but of course Nortel, in its day, had the largest number of engineers in the private sector in this country. It had world-leading intellectual property that was in global demand, and we, effectively, let China steal it for free, as you know. It's all on the public record.

If we continue on this trajectory, we at least need to have assurance, through accountability and third party review, that this contract provides us, in terms of Canadian know-how and personnel, the value that taxpayers are looking for, in terms of not just money but national interest.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

The U.S. ambassador said that if Canada doesn't keep its word on the purchase of the F-35s, then NORAD's relationship would change. You mentioned that the Arctic installations.... The micro reactors will be impacted by having a U.S.-dominated, U.S.-run CNL. There are Canadian companies that have micro reactor submissions. Do you think the Americans will get preference over Canadians because of that relationship?

[Ole Hendrickson]

Right now, Cheryl, the Global First Power micro modular reactor project at Chalk River has been stalled. The company—which was formerly under Ontario Power Generation and Ultra Safe Nuclear—has been transferred to another American company, NANO Nuclear, and that project isn't going forward. We're not seeing much progress on micro modular reactors.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Well, I do know there is a Canadian company, CSMC—formerly the Canadian Space Mining Corporation—that seems to have the technology for one. Its founder and CEO is a Canadian, Daniel Sax. That's why I'm asking if that's at risk. For the Arctic installations, you'd think that would be the case.

How can we be assured that we will not have our technology and, by extension, Canadian jobs and the income for CNL, compromised? Is there anything in place, that you can see, to ensure that our workers there, on the ground in Chalk River, will be able to maintain their jobs and will not be replaced by American workers?

[Ole Hendrickson]

There is no risk to employment at Chalk River. That is secure, for generation after generation, because of the decommissioning and waste management responsibilities. That's where Canadian expertise is also extremely important. As I mentioned, radioactive waste is very different from other kinds of waste. For example, Toronto spends half a billion dollars on its waste, but we're spending much more than that. That's annual, and we're spending.... It's just not comparable.

We need those workers in the valley, and they will be there for many generations.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That's time, Mrs. Gallant. Thank you.

Mr. Danko, you have five minutes.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses being here.

This is something that, I think, is very important for our government in the current context. The Prime Minister has been very clear that it is in our national security interest to divest from interests in the United States. That is the trajectory that our government is certainly on, bringing in new trade alliances around the world.

My first question is for Mr. Hendrickson.

I appreciate your attention to the need for long-term solutions, from radioactive waste to environmental considerations, and first nations as well. I'm just wondering, in your experience and opinion, what are some of the best practices around the world that Canada can look to and learn from?

[Ole Hendrickson]

One really important thing is to develop a long-term waste management facility for low- and intermediate-level waste. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has said that they are going to start a process, but they are not a government agency. They are run by private companies. This is where I think the Government of Canada really needs to step in and take control of that. That is the bulk of the waste. I know that everyone focuses on the spent fuel rods, but the low- and intermediate-level waste, much of which is at AECL facilities, has to be a priority. Other countries have successfully demonstrated various ways of dealing with that.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

I'm in Hamilton, and we have—I don't know what you would call it—a micro reactor that's been in operation since 1956. It has been a critical part of Hamilton's economic infrastructure for the development of radioactive isotopes for medical technology, cancer treatment and that kind of thing.

In terms of Canada's strategy for dealing with radioactive waste, how does that tie in to the growing industry for medical radioactive isotopes?

The question is for either of you.