Natural Resources Committee on June 9th, 2026

[Christian Leuprecht]

It is part of the Canadian mindset to use our wealth of natural resources as an instrument of political power to influence our political environment—in a very unstable era—in order to ensure the reliability, stability, prosperity, security and sovereignty of Canada and our allies and partners.

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

Mr. MacDonald, almost all of our G7 allies have a national uranium enrichment capability.

Why are we the only ones unable to do this domestically?

[Alex MacDonald]

It's really a historical response. Canada chose a technology, the CANDU reactor, that did not require enriched uranium. One of the rationales for enrichment of uranium domestically is always a domestic need, first of all. Now we're in a different phase of our nuclear history, with the development of SMR technologies. We used to be a CANDU country exclusively, and now we're going to a mixed technology. Some of our allied partners have CANDUs, but a lot of them have light water reactors that require this infrastructure.

It's not just about domestic need. Yes, that's going to come to Canada, but it's also about supplying the world with this needed commodity. Canada, as a tier one nuclear nation involved in many aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, is very well positioned to support our allies, especially given the geopolitics of how this commodity market has emerged with Russia and China dominating it. Our allies—the U.S. included—are trying to wean themselves off dependence on Russian enriched fuel in particular.

As Canada goes through more technology selections that may include light water reactors that require this fuel, we don't want to be in a dependent situation. We should have the ability to provide all the operational requirements for the energy infrastructure that we're building.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

We are now going to Mr. St-Pierre for five minutes.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Earlier we heard about Brookfield from an opposition MP. It's really their go-to buzzword. I'm hearing it a lot these days. I also find it funny, this obsession by the Conservatives with Brookfield. Did you know that it appears that the Leader of the Opposition himself owns an exchange-traded fund called VCN, or Vanguard All Cap? Ironically enough, one of their top 10 holdings is Brookfield. Is the Leader of the Opposition himself invested in Brookfield? When I'm hearing this buzzword over and over, it makes me ask myself these questions.

Mr. Leuprecht, you touched on global investments, which I wanted to follow up on. The International Energy Agency, the IEA, released a world energy investment report a couple of weeks back. Global energy investments for this year are set to reach about $3.4 trillion. About $2.2 trillion of that is expected to flow into clean energy. That includes renewables, nuclear, grids, storage, energy efficiency and, generally speaking, electrification. Of that $3.4 trillion, about $1.2 trillion is going to oil, gas and coal.

About two-thirds of global investments in energy are going toward clean energy, if the IEA is correct, and one-third is going into conventional energy for this year. It appears that clean energy is set to double conventional energy.

I'm curious, Mr. Leuprecht. What do you make of this assessment by the IEA?

[Christian Leuprecht]

Canada is blessed with renewable resources. We can be a global leader in technology for the energy transition if we make prudent investments. I think we have seen Canadian companies...to that effect. The problem is that in this country, we do not have the necessary economies of scale. We will only be able to harness those economies of scale in partnership with the United States—which, given the policy approaches in the United States, may be a challenge—with our European allies or with partners in the Indo-Pacific region.

Canada needs to think, both on clean energy and on fossil fuels, in a global fashion in terms of what world we want to live in five, 10 and 20 years from now. How do we intelligently invest the profits we are generating from fossil fuels in the world that we all ultimately want to live in?

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That's great. Thank you for your response.

Mr. MacDonald, I have two minutes left. I'd like to ask you a question about opportunities in nuclear energy.

I'm really curious. In your opinion, what opportunities exist for indigenous communities in Canada in the field of nuclear energy, particularly with regard to small modular reactors?

[Alex MacDonald]

Yes. Thank you.

In terms of indigenous participation in nuclear opportunities, there's a vast variety of opportunities in which they could participate. There are some situations in Canada in which indigenous groups have already taken equity stakes or positions in Canadian nuclear operations. Those could be expanded or mimicked across the country, based on development.

In terms of the applicability of, say, microreactors for northern and remote communities, there's been a lot of historic work done in Canada to determine the feasibility of the application of those technologies. I think there's a very good case for it.

How it links into uranium enrichment is that for any microreactor—or small modular reactor, for that matter—to be viable in one of these remote communities, it would require the use of enriched uranium. We're not going to put a CANDU reactor in northern Canada, most likely. We need something that is smaller and more fit for purpose.

In terms of transitioning northern communities off diesel generators and in terms of providing energy infrastructure for greater prosperity and a higher quality of life, nuclear can play a key role, and Canada should be investing in and exploring those opportunities, as well as leveraging indigenous partnerships to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have 15 seconds. Are you good?

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

If you can quickly touch on the job opportunities for nuclear in Canada, that would be great. You have 10 seconds.

[Alex MacDonald]

It's a fantastic employer to date, and I think we would see many jobs through additional technology selections and development in the Canadian economy.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

The last word will go to you, Monsieur Simard.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to pick up where we left off, Mr. Leuprecht. It's not a federal government strategy. I'm quick to criticize the federal government. That's my trademark.

That said, Quebec's sale of electricity to the United States is not a federal government strategy. It's Hydro-Québec and the Government of Quebec, which paid for this infrastructure itself and finds it profitable to import energy at 5¢ and resell it at 15¢. Earlier, you said that Quebec has been buying electricity ever since the federal government took office. That's not quite true. Furthermore, it was Quebec that paid for this infrastructure. I'm telling you this because it's important.

Right now, the oil and gas sector gets tax breaks that are excessive compared to those for natural resources as a whole. The government paid $34 billion for a pipeline, and there are tax credits. There's accelerated depreciation, which applies only to this sector. Those things mainly benefit Americans.

The majority of our energy exports in the oil and gas sector go to the United States. They're refined in the United States. The ownership structure is largely in American hands. These companies have been overproducing oil in recent years. Union representatives have told us that the number of jobs has declined. These companies have invested in automating their operations, but they do not want to invest in their infrastructure.

That's why I'm a bit skeptical when you say that our energy security depends on investing more in sectors that will benefit Americans and make them a profit, and that we should continue to send them oil and gas. To me, that makes no sense at all.

Let's talk more about equalization, which was the last thing you brought up. There are nine million Quebeckers and five million Albertans. Equalization is calculated on a per-capita basis. Every year, Quebec has a $4‑billion trade deficit with Alberta. Moreover, the federal government has invested massively in oil and gas infrastructure, while we have paid for our own infrastructure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If that doesn't strike you as unfair, I wonder what does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you.

I'm going to give Mr. Leuprecht just a brief chance to respond for 20 or 30 seconds.

[Christian Leuprecht]

The formula used to calculate federal equalization payments is a political choice heavily influenced by electoral considerations in Quebec. As for investments and profits flowing to the United States, federal policy has also encouraged these types of investments.

I have proposed strategically restructuring incentives to encourage our European and Indo-Pacific partners to invest in Canada. We need to strategically reorient our approach. In other words, this isn't necessarily the way it should be done. It's also a political choice that we, as Canadians, made at the federal level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both. I thought I detected a rare moment of agreement there.

Colleagues, that brings our meeting to an end. I have one more item, but on your behalf, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and for responding to questions. I think you'll agree that it was a very energetic meeting. We are talking about energy, after all.

Thank you, witnesses. We can let you go.

There's one last item.

Colleagues, regarding the departmental plans, which we were talking about a few meetings ago, the letter received from the department was circulated last week, and invitations were sent to the minister and officials. We've been told there's no visibility on the minister's schedule at the moment, and the officials were wondering if the committee still wanted to hear from them, considering they appeared recently.

How does the committee want to proceed?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

This goes back to the nuclear study, when we were supposed to have the minister for two hours. He came for only one hour and split his time. I would want him back here for that full hour. Next Thursday would be a great time for him, before we break for the summer. I'm not sure what his plans would be, but we should be in Ottawa, and that would be a great time to hear from the minister. I hope we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

I think we have a member of the minister's staff here somewhere. Anyway, I will relay that message, Mr. Tochor.

Colleagues, we went a little over time today, but thank you for your patience.

Again, thank you to the witnesses.

We are adjourned.