Natural Resources Committee on June 4th, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you, gentlemen.

[George Christidis]

I'd be happy to...Madam Chair.

Refurbishments are the story in Ontario. It was $26 billion, on time and on budget.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

We're a couple of seconds over. I just wanted to make sure that Monsieur Simard could finish his questioning.

I certainly invite all of you to submit information per his questions.

Now we are going to move to Mr. Malette for a five-minute round.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Christidis, we've talked about safety. You've talked about one regulator. Can you expand on that and what can we do as a government to help?

[George Christidis]

We'll share our detailed regulatory positions. They're quite clear.

Overall, it's just for the industry. I would argue that all industries in their respective regulatory frameworks understand the process, timelines, reduction of duplications and focus on safety. In this environment, where, quite frankly, there's a heightened need for industrialization, jobs and investment, the regulatory regime is going to be quite important in terms of attracting investment and meeting those climate, energy and social goals.

It's a global trend. It's a global trend that all regulatory regimes, whether you're talking Europe, United Kingdom, United States or Asia, are all looking at a combination of those factors about meeting multiple goals through those regulatory regimes.

[Sam Boutziouvis]

Pardon me, Madam Chair. Can I have just 30 seconds?

Mr. Malette, if I may, I'll make it as simple as possible. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is world class. They used to do these assessments. They should be allowed to do them again. The CNSC is the appropriate life-cycle regulator for nuclear.

Consolidation makes eminent sense for this committee and this government to consider, because life-cycle regulation and seamless transitions are extremely important from a regulatory point of view and, secondly, duplication of work on the regulatory front should be avoided as much as possible.

Going back to the first point, the CNSC should be the life-cycle regulator for nuclear.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Christidis, you've mentioned nuclear medicine. I remember being involved with my hospital board, probably 10 or 15 years ago, and I think there was a crisis. Would it have been at Chalk River? We forget about it, but how important is nuclear in nuclear medicine?

[George Christidis]

Thank you for the question.

It's very important. One of the strong benefits of the Canadian nuclear industry and the reactors used at Darlington and Bruce is that CANDU reactors generate medical isotopes that are used for a number of different procedures for nuclear medicine—fighting cancers and other different procedures—to the point where it has gotten significant international attention, including from the IAEA, based in Vienna.

One of the benefits that come from the nuclear industry is the innovation across different sectors—advanced materials, medicine, etc. Therefore, many countries and provinces are looking at nuclear technology as a centrepiece of their innovation system.

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

I want to come back to uranium enrichment. Here in the House of Commons, there's a lot of talk about making Canada self-sufficient. In every industry, too often we export our products before we do more with them.

In the future, could this uranium enrichment be an export for us? What are we looking for from government? Is it possible that one day we would be involved in uranium enrichment and be fully independent? We get along with our allies—you mentioned France—but it's always important to be self-sufficient.

[George Christidis]

Thank you for the question. I don't know if it was to me, but I'll defer to my colleague.

I will say that the president of Cameco recently spoke at the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce—he and Dale would know much more than I do—but he did signal that perhaps it is a conversation that Canada should start to have.

I think Dale could provide a little more insight in terms of what that entails. It is a significant lift, though, that the Canadian government would need to consider. It's a treaty-based type of initiative.

I do think Dale might have something more to add.

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

Madam Chair, with your permission...?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

The catastrophe is that it's the end of our time.

We will now move over to end this panel, with five minutes for the parliamentary secretary, but I do certainly invite Mr. Austin to address that if he can, if it comes up in the questioning, and definitely provide a written response.

We'll go over to the parliamentary secretary for five minutes.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Christidis, I'll echo your words. If I understood correctly, earlier, you said that, according to the calculations, we would need to add around 150 gigawatts of generation capacity in Canada.

Has your organization made any projections to determine what proportion of these 150 gigawatts should come from nuclear power, compared with other methods of electricity generation, in order for Canada to meet its targets?

[George Christidis]

Thank you for the question.

Indeed, our association has done research, and it has identified, for the energy demand, that about 150 gigawatts will be needed. We project that 115 would come from nuclear to meet that demand. We could certainly share that report with the committee.

As an aside, we have also done a workforce study that we could share for background.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

I think that would be invited by all committee members.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Quite right, Madam Chair. I would very much like this information to be sent to the committee.

It's funny, because I'm older than my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, and I have more images in my mind than just those of the Chernobyl accident. I know that nuclear energy is used all over the world. This was an accident linked to a technology used by a particular country. I know that you offer much safer technologies for Canadians. That is true of all of you.

The latest polls I've seen suggest that the Canadian and Quebec populations are becoming increasingly open to nuclear energy. What could we do to encourage Canadians to see nuclear energy for what it is—namely, a clean source of energy? As you have all mentioned, it is a predictable, sustainable and low-emission source of energy, at a time when we are trying to reduce our emissions. So, what more could be done, whether by you, by the government or by all of us together?

[George Christidis]

The way I would respond is that I actually think the public is further ahead than you realize. When it comes to the younger demographic's comfort in addressing climate, those who are worried about the climate, they will put nuclear on the table—the younger generation will. We're seeing a significant increase in people asking about the role of nuclear for meeting the climate...but also for jobs and investment. I have to say, the Canadian operating record, the safety record of the industry, is something that gives a lot of confidence in terms of the potential.

I know that Chernobyl comes up often—it's a very logical question. However, you're talking about a defunct Soviet technology in a defunct Soviet system that had a defunct regulatory regime. We're not talking about current experiences.

If I may lean in a bit further, I want to raise this: Japan is in the process of increasing its nuclear energy mix. This is Japan, which has had a very difficult experience with nuclear, to say the least, and it realizes that there's a foundational need for nuclear technologies to meet its climate, energy security and innovation goals.

I'll leave it there, but that would be my response to that question.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Austin, the question I am about to ask you will probably be my last one, given the time I have left.

As a parliamentary secretary, I spend a great deal of my time working with the mining industry. I know that, as you mentioned earlier, Cameco is a major uranium producer.

On the one hand, what challenges do you face?

On the other hand, what opportunities do you have to do even more or to do things better?

[Dale Austin]

Thank you for the question—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

We're at 19 seconds, but here's what's going to happen. I'm going to use my chair's prerogative and you're going to answer this question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dale Austin]

Thank you—I think.

What are our opportunities and challenges? Let's start with the opportunities. The opportunities are exactly what Sam, George and I have been talking about today. There is a tremendous future for nuclear energy in Canada. There is a tremendous future for nuclear energy around the world, and Canada is well placed to capitalize on that.

We have a fully functioning critical mineral and uranium supply chain that's value-added. It exists here in Canada. We have multiple Canadian-owned technologies that we can export to the world. All of those technologies are going to need uranium, and it's uranium that Cameco mines, in abundance, in northern Saskatchewan. It is a tremendous opportunity.

What are our challenges? You've heard them today from my colleagues and me. It is the workforce. How are we going to train the people we need to mine uranium effectively and efficiently? Cameco is very fortunate in that we have tremendous relations with our indigenous partners in northern Saskatchewan. They want to come to work in our mines. Their businesses want to support our mining operations. We're the largest industrial employer of indigenous people in the country. How can we tap into that population of people who are interested and willing to work and live in the north, which is where they live?

It is the workforce and, frankly, if I may, it is northern infrastructure. When the federal government talks about supporting the north, it often talks about north of 60°. There is a tremendous band of economic activity just south of 60°, where the bulk of our uranium mines are. We need roads, highways and systems to move that resource, and that's because we are going to need to move a lot more of it. How are we getting that resource from northern Saskatchewan to Ontario and then to the world?

Those are the two that I would highlight.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

Thank you.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your presence here today.

Thank you to all of the members for those important questions and important responses.

Of course, we'll extend the invitation again: Please follow up with any written submissions with more context and information.

Colleagues, that is all of the time that we have today with this panel.

I have to remind everyone that our next meeting will be on Tuesday, June 9, when we will have an informal meeting with the U.K. Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for an hour, and then one hour of regular business to continue this current study. Please also note that the analysts will need your recommendations for the energy export report before the House adjourns for the summer.

Thank you to all of our support staff, translators, clerks and analysts, and for everybody's patience with the technical challenges here.

Parliamentary Secretary, go ahead.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

That'll be an easy one. The clerk told me something one-on-one on the forestry study that I wanted him to share with the team here.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Jean-Luc Plourde]

All right. I didn't expect to do it right here, but—