Canada’s new nuclear strategy, announced by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources on June 22, is ambitious and what Canada needs. Heralding a renaissance of the country’s nuclear industry, it calls for the construction of ten new nuclear power plants by 2041 and a doubling of uranium exports by 2035. (Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada – Natural Resources Canada)
The idea behind the new strategy is to leverage Canada’s comparative advantage in all aspects of nuclear energy production and its supply chain to meet the rapidly increasing domestic and global demand for electricity. In doing so, the government aims to position Canada as an “energy super-power” while at the same time shifting away from reliance on carbon-producing fuels and toward clean sources of energy. Importantly, the government sees nuclear as one part of a diverse mix of low carbon energy sources, including renewables like solar, wind, and hydro.
Like other clean energy, nuclear power contributes to the shift away from reliance on fossil fuels – the clean energy transition. The compelling need for such a shift, evident for many years, has been underscored by recent geopolitical instability in global energy markets, including the disruption of fossil fuel markets during the current conflict with Iran. Reliance on fossil fuels and its impact on climate change is hitting home right now as much of Canada deals with oppressive heat and flooding. In August 2003, a series of power surges over a 12-second period triggered a cascade of shutdowns at more than 100 generating plants throughout eight U.S. states and Ontario, resulting in the largest blackout in North American history. It was nuclear energy that brought us back. Bruce Power led the recovery of Ontario’s electricity system, with three of Bruce B’s four units reconnected to the provincial grid within hours of the event, bringing back power to Ontario residents and businesses.
Building on Canada’s comparative advantage – in mining, technology, and well-established supply chains – and its strong regulatory environment and safety record, the move to nuclear would also have economic benefits, while enhancing the country’s energy independence. The nuclear sector currently supports 90,000 direct and indirect jobs, with 90% in high-skilled roles. The strategy aims to double the workforce by 2050, catalyze billions in private investment, and strengthen Canada’s domestic supply chain, which includes over 250 companies producing high-precision components and providing operational services. For similar reasons, some countries have already made the move to nuclear. In France, for example, nuclear energy already accounts for nearly 70% of the nation’s power supply. (Statista)
Like all ambitious plans, this one comes with some risks and caveats. It is likely to be expensive, it may take some time to actually produce energy, and there are lingering concerns amongst the public about safety. These concerns need to be taken seriously but, Canada has an exemplary record when it comes to nuclear – arguably the best in the world. The renewed commitment to nuclear is a smart and timely move. It is also consistent with the vision of Lester Pearson of investing in long-term science and technology. Pearson embraced the promise of nuclear power some sixty years ago, and it was on his watch that Canada’s first full-scale nuclear reactor, Douglas Point, came on-line in 1967.
One of the main concerns with nuclear energy is cost (Beer). Critics argue that the cost of nuclear power is significantly greater than the cost for other energy sources. While they argue nuclear exceeds initial estimates, this has not been borne out in the most recent refurbishments at Bruce Power and Darlington, which came in under budget and on time. There are certainly questions around newer technologies like the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which form an important part of Canada’s strategy.
These concerns are worth considering but, on their own, they are not a sufficient reason to avoid nuclear expansion. For one thing, economists note that costs for new technologies like SMRs tend to come down over time, as the technology is developed and refined – making it a good deal less expensive in the long term. As summed up by James Scongack, Founder and Chair of the Canadian Nuclear Isotope Council, at The Pearson Centre’s June 2026 Catalyst for Change event, in the nuclear sector, “a quarter is not three months, it’s 25 years.” (Scongack) In addition, nuclear power has some significant cost advantages over other clean energy sources. For example, it requires a substantially smaller physical footprint than solar, wind, or hydro, resulting in lower development and transmission costs.
Nuclear power also provides a far more reliable “baseline” of electricity supply compared with other renewables. According to one study, nuclear plants “operate at 93% capacity, while that figure for wind is only 38% and for solar, 24%.” (McCarthy) Moreover, where relevant infrastructure, supply chains, technical expertise, and raw materials already exist, as they do in Canada, the costs and timelines would be significantly reduced. (Tennant) For these and other reasons, a recent paper by Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) concluded that meeting additional baseload demand with SMRs would cost $34 billion, compared to $47 billion using a hybrid renewable system. (McCarthy) These are long-term commitments, which Lester B. Pearson recognized earlier than most.
Another concern with nuclear power is safety. The long-term health and societal consequences of the disasters at Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) brought these concerns into stark relief (Tennant). The possibility that nuclear plants could be targeted by military adversaries or affected by natural disasters continue to be a source of anxiety, although public attitudes are shifting. In fact, the strongest support for nuclear energy is often among the communities surrounding nuclear power plants.
Equally important is the question of safe storage – what to do with the hazardous radio-active waste produced through nuclear fission. While the amount of contaminated material produced by nuclear plants is quite small, its long half-life and toxicity makes safe storage a real issue. Nevertheless, the adoption of more rigorous safety protocols and regulations since Fukushima have made nuclear power plants significantly safer. Technologies and plans for the long-term management of nuclear waste have advanced considerably. Moreover, Canada has a strong safety record, and a robust regulatory framework, developed over several decades, expertly overseen by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). The government’s new strategy explicitly aims to build on that record and improve it through further research. For these reasons, concerns about the safety of nuclear power have diminished significantly in recent years (IAEA).
Meanwhile, the benefits of nuclear technology have become ever more evident. That is perhaps especially true in Canada where, apart from its role in generating power, nuclear technology has been at the heart of vital medical advances. According to Doctors for Nuclear Energy, nuclear energy offers major public health advantages by eliminating air pollution from electricity generation. Unlike coal or oil, nuclear reactors don’t rely on combustion and thus emit no smoke or smog-forming pollutants during operation. This translates into tangible health benefits: air pollution from burning fossil fuels causes millions of premature deaths each year (an estimated 8.7 million deaths in 2018 alone), whereas nuclear plants produce virtually no particulate pollution and consequently negligible air-pollution-related deaths. These contributions have been championed by James Scongack, whose leadership has united organizations across Canada’s isotope supply chain and positioned the country as a global leader in the research, development, and production of medical isotopes and radio-pharmaceuticals.
Nuclear energy projects have also been embraced by some of Canada’s Indigenous groups who see it as a wise investment as well as a chance to be part of the clean energy transition. In late June 2026, for example, the Williams Treaties First Nations committed to join the Ontario and federal governments in funding four SMRs at the existing Darlington nuclear site. (Beer) The Saugeen Ojibway Nation are investors in the production of Lu-177 at Bruce Power, generating millions for the community. These investments represent true economic reconciliation. For all of these reasons, younger people and environmental groups have increasingly come to embrace the technology, albeit with the caveat that nuclear power should be part of a diverse mix of energy sources, and operate within a strong regulatory framework. (Tennant)
In these turbulent geopolitical times, Canada’s nuclear supply chain is almost all-Canadian. From production of uranium in Saskatchewan, to suppliers to the production of medical isotopes, Canada’s nuclear industry can power our nation.
In short, while there are some concerns about the cost and safety of nuclear power there are strong environmental, economic, social, and technological arguments in favour of its adoption. Canada’s impressive nuclear expertise and technological prowess, strong regulatory framework and excellent safety track record, give reason to be confident that the government’s ambitious new nuclear strategy will be a winner. It will also be a fitting continuation of the legacy of Lester Pearson’s vision of investing in long-term science and technology.
By: Sofia Robinson – Research Assistant, The Pearson Centre
Works cited
Beer, Michael. “Ontario First Nations Invest $715M in Nuclear Project as Critics Warn of Financial Risk,” The Energy Mix, June 24, 2026. https://www.theenergymix.com/ontario-first-nations-invest-715m-in-nuclear-project-as-critics-warn-of-financial-risk/
Government of Canada. “Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada,” June 22, 2026. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-sources/nuclear-energy-uranium/nuclear-energy-strategy-canada
IAEA, “Five Reasons the Clean Energy Transition Needs Nuclear Power,” January 27, 2026. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/five-reasons-the-clean-energy-transition-needs-nuclear-power
McCarthy, Shawn. “Concerns Loom Over Canada’s Nuclear Renewal,” Corporate Knights, December 9, 2025. https://corporateknights.com/energy/concerns-loom-over-canadas-nuclear-renewal/)
“James Scongack, Catalyst for Change,” https://thepearsoncentre1965.substack.com/p/james-scongack-catalyst-for-change
Statista. “Share of nuclear power in total domestic electricity generation worldwide in 2024, by country.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-nuclear-power-in-the-power-supply-of-selected-countries/
Tennant, Elissa. “Is Nuclear Energy Clean?” Citizen’s Lobby, July 24, 2025. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/policy/is-nuclear-energy-clean/
Nuclear Waste Management Organization. https://www.nwmo.ca/