Natural Resources Committee on June 4th, 2026

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

It almost seems like a strategy at the end of the year might be too late. It would be my chair's prerogative to insert that little comment. We'll all do our jobs here to continue to work together and try to get some action.

For six minutes, we will move to our colleague, Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Gentlemen, I have a few questions. Please do not think that I have any preconceived notions about nuclear power, but I would like to share with you some entirely legitimate concerns. Let us look at it together.

Mr. Christidis, in your opening statement, you spoke about the regulatory framework. Did you suggest that you would like the impact assessments for nuclear power to be less restrictive? I thought I heard you say that earlier. Is that correct?

[George Christidis]

That's a very important question, so I want to be absolutely clear. We're talking about no duplication and making sure that there's one regulator within.... It's in the documentation for consultation that the government released. Safety is absolutely essential. Our industry is based on social licence. We really want a strong and independent regulator, but we need certainty in the process and the certainty of timely decisions.

Quite frankly, given the recent history in Canada of energy infrastructure across different sectors, there's this need for certainty of the regulator. It is not a surprise that there are uranium, potash, etc. We need—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you. I understand.

So, you don't want there to be any duplication of impact assessments. In your view, there should only be one assessment. Should it be carried out by the federal government?

[George Christidis]

The nuclear industry is federally regulated.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

[George Christidis]

It absolutely has to be. The CNSC is a specialized regulator. It's an arm's length court—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand.

[George Christidis]

We say that the impact assessment agency should be there.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have some advice for you.

Nuclear power involves certain risks, as you are well aware. If you speak to anyone of my generation, you will see that what we still remember is Chernobyl and its irreversible environmental damage. Calling for a relaxation of impact assessments is, in my view, not a good idea. I'm telling you this as a politician. I think you'll face a backlash that will outweigh any benefits you might gain.

Why do I think that? Like me, you may have seen the recent ruling by a judge regarding waste management at Chalk River. When it comes to nuclear energy, people lack the technical knowledge, yet they still have reservations, because nuclear power can have significant environmental repercussions which, in turn, can have an impact on people's health.

In my view, it is not a good idea, from a communications standpoint, to appear before a House of Commons committee to ask for a relaxation of impact assessments. It is possible to find workarounds, but the fact remains that, in the minds of the majority of people, nuclear energy is associated with danger.

I'm saying this in a completely friendly spirit. All we're trying to do here is ensure that Canada and Quebec are energy-secure. If we want to move forward and get certain projects off the ground—projects which, in the case of nuclear power, might not go ahead in Quebec—we need to give this some thought. It's in the collective interest. However, and I say this in the collective interest as well, I do not think it is a good course of action for you to call for a reduction in impact assessments.

[George Christidis]

Madam Chair, if I may, I want to be absolutely clear. No one's talking about a reduction. We're talking about not having duplicative agencies. The question is the creation of an impact assessment agency in the Canadian—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Is there any duplication of assessments at the moment?

[George Christidis]

The recommendation we have—and we could certainly provide the submissions that we've crafted—is about the Impact Assessment Act being recognized or flowing within the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, a single regulator—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, I understand.

[George Christidis]

We'd be happy to provide our submission.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Right. I was just sharing my understanding of the matter.

I'd like to come back to a second point.

Federal schemes provide tax relief and certain tax credits. However, when I look at the difference between the costs of a nuclear project and those of an intermittent energy project—whether it be wind or solar power—I see a huge disparity. This means that, ultimately, the disparity in the tax credit is also enormous.

If you were to say that a company like Hydro-Québec could receive a tax credit for building a dam, that would involve enormous costs. It's a poor example, since Hydro-Québec doesn't pay tax to the federal government, but it's just to illustrate that we're talking about huge sums.

If we grant these same benefits to nuclear projects, there is a risk that this will tie up a considerable amount of public money. I therefore have some reservations in this regard, particularly as we know that wind and solar projects incorporating battery storage strategies are progressing very rapidly.

Should we put all our eggs in one basket—in this case, the nuclear basket?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you to my colleague. Of course, it was his time, so I didn't interrupt.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll give him time to reply later. I'm not that petty.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

We are over the time. I was going to invite the witnesses to follow up with thorough written submissions as well, to respond to you.

Would colleagues like to give the witness a chance to answer, since Monsieur Simard's opened it?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I can give him some time on my next turn.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Give a quick response, and then you can provide the committee with more written context.

[George Christidis]

Our basic position is that, first of all, energy sources should have applicability for the investment tax credit and that all clean technologies have a role to play.

Nuclear technology, though, creates significant jobs. Part of the response is the investment that's made, through either the investment tax credit or programs. There's a huge opportunity to actually create jobs. Wind and solar have a role to play, but they're a valuable variable technology.

If I may suggest, all we need to take a look at is the history of Germany.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you. Of course, I invite you to expand on that in a written submission.

Now we will go to Mr. Malette for five minutes.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Christidis, don't worry. I have another five minutes, and I have a few nice questions for you.

Mr. Austin, of course, you are the expert, and nuclear is very complex. You talked about uranium being very critical and how we have good reserves. You also mentioned uranium enrichment. You will have only about five minutes, but I'll ask this question.

For our education, could you walk us through the supply chain, where we have shortfalls and where we need to invest, and maybe touch on uranium enrichment?