Canada’s Nuclear Energy Strategy a “Cash Cow” for the Nuclear Industry

Gordon Edwards, 30 June 2026

Ottawa – Critics from civil society organizations and academia are calling out the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada released by the Federal Government as a cash cow for the nuclear industry and a hubris-driven attempt to grab world “energy superpower” status based on past-Century technology.

The Strategy, released on June 22, is an ambitious agenda to spend public funds on new nuclear reactors to the detriment of readily available clean renewable sources, and to short-circuit independent oversight of nuclear projects.

The document reads like a wish list of nuclear developments, including the goal of 10 new large reactor projects in Canada by 2040. It parallels a US announcement made the next day, also promising 10 new large reactor projects and standing to benefit some of the same corporations.

Critics are calling the Canadian strategy a gross economic mistake, dangerous for human health and security, and a diversion from urgently needed action on safer, faster and cheaper energy alternatives. The federal initiative would seriously delay or derail an urgently needed energy transition, buying time for the fossil fuel sector and funneling billions of tax dollars to well-connected nuclear industry players.

“While the world moves urgently to clean renewables and storage to meet electricity needs, Canada is diverting major resources to dirty, dangerous and absurdly expensive Cold War era technology which will burden future generations,” commented J. P. Unger, director with the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital.

“The strategy reads like a public relations fantasy rather than the cost data and financial risks analysis that would attract private investment” said Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Sustainability and Environmental Studies Program, St. Thomas University.

“Lost is the memory of massive cost overruns and extensive delays that plagued the construction of the current fleet of reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s. Those decisions led to the demise of “Ontario Hydro” – death by drowning (in debt),” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

“Gone is the “sticker shock” that caused Ontario to cancel the last push for a nuclear “renaissance” in the early 2000s. Forgotten are the financial realities of previous international sales, where Canada swallowed huge losses (Argentina) or accepted goods like strawberries rather than actual money (Romania) in exchange for the CANDU reactors they were peddling overseas”.

The document also promises to “streamline” the regulation of nuclear projects by removing independent oversight and speeding up approvals. This presents a huge public risk when dealing with inherently dangerous technology like nuclear power.

The government is also promoting the export of home-grown CANDU reactors, something that will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as happened when Canada gifted reactor technology to India, sparking an arms race in South Asia.

“Putting all our eggs in the nuclear exports basket completely ignores the risk of a major nuclear accident anywhere in the world, which history has shown will immediately tank enthusiasm for this technology,” said Anne Lindsey, an organizer with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition’s No-Nukes campaign
The pressing issue of nuclear waste is sandwich

“This strategy is not fooling anyone who is serious about the energy transition. Private money is pouring into wind, solar and energy storage developments, not nuclear energy – by far the most expensive way to generate electricity.”

“Lost is the memory of massive cost overruns and extensive delays that plagued the construction of the current fleet of reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s. Those decisions led to the demise of “Ontario Hydro” – death by drowning (in debt),” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

“Gone is the “sticker shock” that caused Ontario to cancel the last push for a nuclear “renaissance” in the early 2000s. Forgotten are the financial realities of previous international sales, where Canada swallowed huge losses (Argentina) or accepted goods like strawberries rather than actual money (Romania) in exchange for the CANDU reactors they were peddling overseas”.

The document also promises to “streamline” the regulation of nuclear projects by removing independent oversight and speeding up approvals. This presents a huge public risk when dealing with inherently dangerous technology like nuclear power.

The government is also promoting the export of home-grown CANDU reactors, something that will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as happened when Canada gifted reactor technology to India, sparking an arms race in South Asia.

“Putting all our eggs in the nuclear exports basket completely ignores the risk of a major nuclear accident anywhere in the world, which history has shown will immediately tank enthusiasm for this technology,” said Anne Lindsey, an organizer with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition’s No-Nukes campaign

The pressing issue of nuclear waste is sandwiched into the section of the strategy on massive expansion of uranium production, with false claims and reassurances that the problem has been solved by handing the long-term management of nuclear waste over to the nuclear industry. A deep geological repository for high-level waste proposed for northwestern Ontario is taken as if already established despite major questions and opposition, including legal challenges.

Two days after the Nuclear Strategy was released the federal government announced that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed Deep Geological Repository was being considered for listing as a “Project of National Interest” under the Build Canada Act, meaning that its approval would be guaranteed.

“Designating NWMO’s DGR project as a Project of National Interest would be a betrayal of public trust”, commented Brennain Lloyd with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch.

“The project is unprecedented, it’s still at a conceptual stage of development, the transportation will impact millions along the route, and the waste is lethal virtually forever. That project approval could be a foregone conclusion – despite the lack of evidence that the project can be done safety – is absolutely beyond reason”.

The nuclear strategy followed the discussion paper Getting Major Projects Built in Canada and the National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy, both released in early May. The discussion paper announces plans to gut the impact assessment process for nuclear projects, while the electricity strategy promotes nuclear power ahead of lower cost options such as renewable energy and energy efficiency which could be brought online much more quickly.

Unlike the discussion paper and the electricity strategy, there is no public comment period on the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada.