Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 27th, 2026

[Ole Hendrickson]

This is almost a repeat of my answer to the previous question. A lot of medical isotopes have to be short-lived, because you can't inject something into someone's body that's going to be there for a long time, so they decay quickly. Things like molybdenum-99 and cobalt-60 are used widely internationally, but they remain fairly radioactive even after their use for, say, killing cancer cells has ended, because they decay over time. Again, you need a strategy to manage those when they're returned to Kanata and Nordion or wherever.

[Christian Leuprecht]

My daughter is soon to be an engineering grad from McMaster.

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

Oh, really?

[Christian Leuprecht]

What a fantastic university it is, and what a terrific asset the reactor is to the university.

The point that you raise is, of course, a question about strategic sovereign assets. We know what happens when we have isotope shortages. I'm not inherently against the contract that was issued. The problem is the transparency and accountability of that contract and whether it provides us exactly the sort of answers to the questions you are looking for.

We also need to think about the counterfactual if we lose certain capacities in nuclear. Think about what happened in Germany when it voluntarily decided to get out of nuclear and what that did to the cost of living, productivity, innovation and prosperity in Germany, and the amount of regret there is today.

We need to be very clear that, whether deliberately or inadvertently, we may be giving up critical sovereign capacities that we'll regret having given up some years down the road and that will be very difficult or impossible to get back.

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

Thank you.

I think I'm probably close to time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have 30 seconds.

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

If I can summarize, both of you are advocating for bringing the maintenance and operations in-house, to be run publicly. Am I hearing that correctly?

[Christian Leuprecht]

It's impossible to tell if we don't actually have a third party assessment of the costs and benefits of doing so: economically, security-wise and in terms of sovereignty. That's why I encourage a third party, outside assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, both.

Mr. Simard, you have two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to check something with you in order to understand the situation. When this kind of contract is awarded, it's not like giving a subcontractor a contract to manage a building. You can't simply change your mind after three years, say that the company isn't meeting expectations and decide to find another subcontractor.

Do you think Canada will be tied to this American company for a very long time, or is it possible to find an alternative here in Canada?

[Ole Hendrickson]

I don't know the contract provisions. I know it's not a full 20-year contract, but I think we need to look closely at when we can get out of this contract, and how. I'm convinced that, yes, Canadians could do the job.

[Christian Leuprecht]

Either the contract is extended, or a decision is made to terminate it. It will cost money if the government decides to end the contract, but ultimately, governments spend money on all kinds of things. If there is a strategic reason, a sovereignty-related reason or a security reason, and the government decides to terminate the contract, there will be costs and benefits to assess at that point. Will the contract be terminated immediately? Will the government allow the contract to run its course and then try to find another solution? The committee should take all of that into consideration.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Is it possible to look at this in a more segmented way? Are there elements that absolutely should not end up in the hands of foreign companies? I don’t know whether this would concern waste management, something else, or small nuclear reactors. Should the government not have divided up, within the contract, the elements that, from a strategic standpoint, must remain in Canada? Should it not have considered—

[Christian Leuprecht]

Mr. Simard, I'm not very familiar with how these contracts are structured around the world, but I do know a bit about how it works in France. It would be unimaginable for France to sign a contract that would leave the management of its intellectual property and its national nuclear lab in the hands of American companies.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

That's it for you, Monsieur Simard.

We're going to Mr. Martel and Mr. Guay, each for five minutes, and that will wrap up this panel.

Mr. Martel, you have five minutes.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Canada is a bilingual country, and the website of Canada's partner nuclear laboratory is accessible in English only. Why is it not in French? I'm curious.

[Christian Leuprecht]

Mr. Martel, they are so devoted to the country's culture and bilingualism that their website is in English only. That really shows you where their priorities are and how much respect they have for this country.

There's a nuclear reactor at the École Polytechnique. Are we going to expect all students and professors at the Polytechnique to hold their conversations with the consortium in English just because they don't want to respect this country's bilingualism? If you look at who the consortium's leaders are, you'll see how many of them are bilingual. Again, there's an issue of Canadian content—something we want to protect and promote.

If we're talking about diversification, then we need to respect diversity in Canada.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you. That's interesting. I thought the Bloc Québécois member was going to ask that question. I'm glad I did.

There are some things I have trouble understanding, and that's why it's useful to be here. Canada has comprehensive and globally recognized nuclear expertise that covers the entire value chain. It developed the CANDU technology and has unique expertise in operating and extending the life of nuclear power plants. Canada is also a leader in small modular reactors.

You say that no Canadian company submitted a bid or got involved in this.

[Christian Leuprecht]

Based on the information that's publicly available, there was some interest during the first phase, but at the end of the day, as we all know, only one consortium responded to the call for proposals. To me, that raises questions about how the bid was structured from the beginning. Maybe more could have been done to ensure Canadian content, Canadian interest. At the very least, we need to show that everything possible was done to secure Canadian content and that, ultimately, this was the only feasible solution under those circumstances.

Right now, there is no transparent and public way to verify that conclusion.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Do you think we need expertise from outside Canada? We do business with the Americans. Why would we need other countries? I mentioned the expertise we have. This is serious right now. We don't trust ourselves.

[Christian Leuprecht]

There are nuclear laboratories in a number of allied and partner countries that are roughly comparable, but perhaps not identical, to what is done in Canada. I'm told that the only people in the world who are qualified to manage such a lab are Americans. That's a bit surprising, sir.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I would say that we are not rigorous when drafting contracts. I know you don't have all the details, but what, in your opinion, would make us more rigorous when drafting contracts? What would you include in these contracts?

[Christian Leuprecht]

We're in a situation where almost all federal departments are making very painful and very difficult cuts. Thousands of public servants are losing their jobs. The government has an obligation to demonstrate that this contract will provide the best value for its investment in this country's critical infrastructure. The information that's publicly available doesn't convince me that this is indeed the case. The government has an obligation to convince Canadians that, in the current situation, with the deficit that exists, this is indeed the best solution for Canada.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

How much time do I have left?