Natural Resources Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Kénogami French is better when it's translated.

I didn't want to give you the impression earlier that I wasn't listening to what you were saying. I was looking for a graph that we received as part of a study the committee did on clean electricity, a graph that shows price comparisons. I remember the disproportionate cost we could see when we looked at the cost of wind energy, solar energy and hydroelectricity, and when we then looked at the cost of nuclear energy. I remember a completely disproportionate cost to produce one megawatt.

People are skeptical that nuclear energy is clean energy, but I don't want to get into that debate with you. However, I have always stayed a bit skeptical about the costs associated with generating nuclear energy. I'm currently reading articles in which I see that the Chinese are managing to make very quick progress with storage strategies.

The problem with wind or solar energy is that if it isn't paired with a storage strategy, it isn't the most efficient. We're dependent on the winds and the amount of sunshine. Maybe that issue will be resolved. I get the impression that the disproportionate costs of nuclear power may no longer be justified at that point.

I'd like to hear your comments on that. Could you perhaps reassure the members of the committee?

[Todd Smith]

Thank you for your question.

It's very important to compare apples to apples in this situation. When we're comparing nuclear to wind and solar, we're comparing baseload power, which is there 24-7, to an intermittent source of power in wind and solar. You're absolutely right. We used to call storage in Ontario the holy grail, and there wasn't enough storage.

We analyzed the different forms of electricity at the Independent Electricity System Operator in Ontario, both when I was the minister and when my successors and predecessors were in that role. What we did when we were comparing the cost of wind and solar with that of nuclear was ensure that we were adding storage to the cost so that we could compare a firmer supply. Even then, it's not the same as having nuclear, which is there 24-7.

The other thing about nuclear is that, when it comes to a land-use perspective, you're talking in many cases.... I'll use Bruce Power as an example, approaching now seven gigawatts of electricity coming from a relatively small piece of land on Lake Huron. You would cover thousands of acres of land if you were to use wind or solar to provide that same electricity. At the end of the day, that electricity would still be intermittent and not reliable. It's very important, when we're comparing nuclear with other forms of electricity, that we are comparing stable supplies.

When I was the minister of energy in Ontario, we brought in new forms of electricity and a procurement for storage as well. At the end of the day, when nuclear was compared to wind and solar paired with storage, they came out relatively the same at about nine and a half cents or 10¢ per kilowatt hour.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I don't entirely disagree with you on that. Let us compare apples to apples. Everyone is aware that solar and wind are forms of intermittent energy, whose storage costs and storage efficiency are advancing extremely quickly. I'm not an expert, but that's what I see in the literature I'm able to read. I don't think it's in Quebec's interests to get into nuclear energy, because the costs are high. Our reservoirs are a huge battery that enables us to manage that intermittency. When I look at the technological advances we have made simply in the electrification of transport, I think it's entirely possible that, over the next 10 or 15 years, we'll have storage technologies at an acceptable cost that can give us some security in terms of intermittent energy.

When I look at nuclear energy, I see high costs, but I also see waste management, which is very important. Isn't there a point at which the calculation of costs and benefits could swing against nuclear energy, and it becomes—perhaps because of certain advances—a less appealing technology? We'll have to be ready to manage the waste and maintain these facilities, which do require a lot of maintenance.

I don't know if you have any projections on that or any analysis that you can share with the committee.

[Todd Smith]

It's important to understand the economic benefits that come with nuclear as well. I touched on them earlier, but you're talking about 100,000 jobs currently in Canada's nuclear sector. These are well-paying jobs.

There are some jobs that materialized from the Green Energy Act in the province of Ontario, for instance, but those jobs didn't stick around very long. To be frank, those energy installations, be they wind or solar, won't last nearly as long as the nuclear projects that have been built, that will be built into the future and that will have a stable return for ratepayers over the 80 to 100 years that they will be in existence.

The other piece when it comes to storage of waste.... In the price per kilowatt hour in Ontario—and I focus on Ontario because that's where most of the CANDUs are in Canada, although we have Point Lepreau in New Brunswick—a chunk of that is designated to deal with the spent fuel and waste from the nuclear facilities. That will be spent in building a deep geological repository for which there is a willing host community, in Ignace in northwestern Ontario, with the first nations' support as well. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is busy working on that project.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Mr. Martel, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Smith, I appreciate nuclear power as a form of energy. First, I find it reliable. There's no need for water; there's no need for wind.

I have a question for you. Why do people in Quebec have a negative perception of nuclear energy? It seems to me that it would be a good complement. With everything that's coming, it seems that we're going to have trouble meeting electricity needs.

I don't know if you can answer me, but people in Quebec are extremely against it. I don't know if that has changed, but I'd like to know what you think about all that.

[Todd Smith]

Well, there are members around the table who might have a first-hand reason for that, other than me. I live in Ontario, and I grew up in New Brunswick. I do know that there were two nuclear plants at Gentilly, in Quebec. They were CANDU plants that provided reliable electricity to the people of Quebec.

A few weeks back, I was a guest speaker at an event with Investissement Québec in Trois-Rivières, and many members of the nuclear sector from Quebec were there. In spite of the fact that there are no longer operating nuclear plants in Quebec, there are still a significant number of companies that provide components and expertise to CANDU reactors globally.

I wasn't part of any decisions that were made back in 2011 to close the plants at Gentilly, but I know there was a serious impact on jobs in the Trois-Rivières region and in other parts of Quebec as well.

The other thing is that—and this is just me as a former Ontario energy minister talking—Quebec has been very fortunate for decades to have abundant hydroelectric power. The opportunities to continue to build hydroelectric are diminishing, so it's very important that Hydro-Québec and whatever the Government of Quebec looks like later this fall really take a good hard look at nuclear. I believe there is a place for it in Quebec.

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

That's interesting.

Mr. Smith, Nova Scotia recently lifted its ban on uranium exploration and mining. If Quebec were to decide to lift its moratorium on nuclear energy, what do you think would be the potential economic benefits for the province and its workers?

[Todd Smith]

Are you asking about the province of Nova Scotia or Quebec?

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

I'm talking about the province of Quebec.

[Todd Smith]

There would be a significant impact on Quebec. The more we see CANDUs being built across Canada, the more the economy will begin to flow from east to west. Uranium from Saskatchewan will make it to the east coast. It already has at NB Power at Point Lepreau, and they just signed an MOU with the Government of Ontario to explore the small modular reactor that's being built at Darlington.

I believe there's also potentially a nuclear play in Saint John, or just outside Saint John at Point Lepreau, for another Enhanced CANDU 6 reactor that could support not just the power needs of New Brunswick but also Prince Edward Island, Quebec and potentially Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

I know that the federal government is interested in looking at this pan-Canadian approach to electricity, and I believe that strategically locating CANDUs across the province does make sense because it provides that baseload 24-7 power that is so necessary to have a functioning, reliable grid.

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

How many additional CANDU reactors could be deployed in Canada by 2035 if the approval processes were simplified?

[Todd Smith]

It's not a simple answer, and 2035 is a pretty tight timeline. It takes about five to six years to build a CANDU reactor if we receive approvals. There have to be environmental assessments and certification at the sites. That takes about two years. You can do the math.

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

Mr. Smith, what are the main regulation and policy barriers that would currently stand in the way of a quick deployment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give a quick answer, please.

[Todd Smith]

There are many, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would be best placed to answer that question, but access to water is certainly one, as are the environmental assessments that would have to be done.

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

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Hogan, you have five minutes.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith, for being here.

As you noted in your opening remarks, the world is looking for secure energy sources. That need has certainly accelerated because of the war in Iran. I was looking at some stats today. China makes up 80% of the photovoltaics market. In one month, their exports of photovoltaics jumped from 34,000 megawatts to 68,000 megawatts, to give you a sense of how much the world is looking for secure sources right now. I think that illustrates the global anxiety we see.

I personally believe—as I think most energy voices believe—that our energy demand challenges require an “all of the above” approach. That certainly includes nuclear, and Canada is a tier one nuclear power.

We've heard from many witnesses that one of Canada's strengths is stability, and we can provide secure energy sources. You said that success begins with state-level confidence and that we have a reputation as a reliable, non-politicized supplier.

Can you expand on that for this committee?

[Todd Smith]

Sure.

I agree wholeheartedly that now, because of the geopolitical events that have been occurring, there is a demand for stable electricity supply. This dates back to 2022 and Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which created a sense of heightened insecurity across Europe and other places as well. Stability and certainty are key.

When I was the minister in Ontario, the CEO at Bruce Power, Mike Rencheck, would always say that it's imperative for us and for our incredible supply chain that we have across Canada to have the certainty, from government and from policy makers, that these projects are going ahead.

These projects don't happen overnight. There's careful planning that goes into ensuring that you have the proper cadence, building the human capacity that you're going to need to build and operate the plants, as well as giving the supply chain the time it needs, especially for long-lead items—some of the larger components in the reactors—to be built on time to meet the day that they're supposed to go into the ground.

Canada excels, and really is a bit of a unicorn globally, at building on time and on budget, but that all stems back to certainty from government. Completing the refurbishment project at Darlington, a nearly $13-billion project, ahead of schedule and under budget is very rare with most of the other nuclear companies globally. It all starts with policy certainty from government.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Being steady and stable is probably even more important in this sector for ephemeral reasons. Nobody wants to see chaos in the nuclear space. It creates general anxieties in an environment in which sometimes there are anxieties expressed about what could happen, what might happen. Of course, we've all heard horror stories and seen challenges.

It seems to me that there are three broad buckets of nuclear export opportunities. One is electricity, that baseload power, which is largely confined to the continent. You've talked more about the technology and the knowledge opportunities, I think. For the purposes of our report building, can you expand on that technology and knowledge transfer opportunity? You talked about 70%, for example, of a new reactor coming from the Canadian supply chain. What are we talking about there? What does that look like?

[Todd Smith]

It's not just the components that would come from Canada; it's the engineering services that would come from companies like AtkinsRéalis and other partners that we have in the sector, such as Kinectrics and Laurentis Energy Partners. That would be the engineering piece.

One thing that is a strength in Canada is our regulator. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is seen as one of the top regulators on the planet when it comes to regulating nuclear energy assets. It's very important for the CNSC to be locking arms with the Government of Canada, with AtkinsRéalis and Candu as we work to build these reactors around the world.

The other piece of it that's also really important—when we're in places like the Philippines and Indonesia, for instance—is where the workers are going to come from to build these plants and operate them. It's key that we are working with our partners in the supply chain but also working with our partners in post-secondary education. We have an organization called UNENE, the University Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering. It took me about five years to learn what that acronym meant.

We have a number of Canadian schools that are active in the UNENE space. As a matter of fact, UNENE in Romania has partnered with all nine of the post-secondary institutions in that country to ensure that they have the level of human capacity they need. These types of partnerships are crucial.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Smith, you talked earlier about a comparison between nuclear, wind and solar power with storage. If you had any information to table with the committee on that, it would be very timely.

You're a former minister, so you understand when we talk about everyone's well-calculated interests. An Ontario minister calculates Ontario's interests and does so very well. A Quebec politician calculates the interests of Quebeckers, and that goes without saying too. I don't get the impression that what the federal government is going to invest in clean electricity—and in nuclear power in particular—will benefit Quebec. Let me explain.

Quebec's situation is unique. Right now, our problem is managing peak demand. If it becomes easier to manage peak demand, Quebec will be able to provide enough energy to electrify the transportation fleet. If we can manage peak demand, we may even be able to export more hydroelectricity to Ontario. I know that's part of Hydro‑Québec's plans.

Seeing these people on the ground who are implementing highly developed solutions for managing peak demand, I get the impression that Quebec's future lies more in that direction. It may be different for Ontario, but I think there's a form of competition where—us as well—we want to get our share of federal funding to succeed in doing that.

We share the same goals. It's the common good. Still, maybe our interests diverge a bit on this. I'd still like to hear what you have to say about the possibility of having more interconnection between Quebec and Ontario.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have about 30 seconds, Mr. Smith.