nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Canada remains anti-nuke, but its potential path to the bomb is getting shorter.

This country has all the elements needed for a clandestine nuclear weapons program — if it so desired


Evan Dyer · CBC News · Jul 26, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-remains-antinuke-road-to-bomb-getting-shorter-9.7283194

For decades, Canada’s official policy on nuclear weapons has been that they shouldn’t exist, and there is no sign that principle is about to be abandoned.

But for reasons of history and geography, Canada is also one of the world’s non-nuclear countries with the easiest technical path to a nuclear weapon. And because of the particular design of its CANDU reactors, it would also be one of the countries best-positioned to produce weapons-grade fissile material without tripping international alerts — although such a move would carry huge geopolitical risks.

Technological changes that are expected in the coming years will likely make Canada even more of a threshold nuclear arms power than it is today, whether it chooses to cross that threshold or not.

“The only thing that inhibits Canada is the will to do it, the political decision to do it,” said nuclear weapons expert Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland, who served as head of national security and international affairs in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

He’s also a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control, and the originator of the “Fetter Model,” the standard technique used in arms control verification for detecting the presence of nuclear warheads through radiography.

“Canada was a major participant in the Manhattan Project, as was the U.K.,” Fetter told CBC News. “Immediately after the [Second World War], we froze you out and said, ‘No co-operation.’ So Canada decided — as did the U.K. — to develop its own completely indigenous program.”

The heavy water route

The U.K., of course, went on to become a nuclear arms power, while Canada did not.

Canada designed the CANDU heavy water reactors that use unenriched, natural uranium containing only about 0.7 per cent of the U-235 isotope needed to make nuclear weapons. Most of the world’s 440-odd nuclear reactors are light water units that require uranium enriched to about four per cent U-235 content.

For this reason, and despite being the world’s second-biggest producer of uranium, Canada has never enriched domestically.

However, the CANDU is anything but a proliferation-proof technology, because it is not only the best kind of reactor for producing the plutonium-239 isotope used in bombs, but also for concealing its production.

“You do produce plutonium in a light water reactor,” said Fetter. “But that plutonium is contained in highly radioactive spent fuel and it’s not really high-quality.”

Light water reactors work by loading enriched uranium, sealing the reactor core and then running it for 18-24 months before shutting down, reopening the core and replacing fuel. This makes it relatively easy to keep track of how much fuel is going in, and what is happening to the spent fuel that comes out. It’s impossible to secretly swap fuel rods while the reactor is generating power.

The Canadian heavy water reactor doesn’t work that way.

Harder to monitor

“All uranium-fuelled reactors produce plutonium. The issue with the CANDU is that it has online refuelling,” explained Ed Lyman, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. “You’re refuelling continuously, which makes it harder for the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].”

Canada, which produces all of its own uranium, would be in a strong position to divert fissionable material undetected if so inclined, say the experts.

The plutonium produced in a heavy water reactor is also much easier to turn into a nuclear weapon, said Fetter.

“Of the countries that have made nuclear weapons with plutonium, many of them have used a heavy water reactor,” he said.

That’s why India used a Canadian heavy water reactor to produce its first nuclear weapon in 1974, an all-plutonium implosion-type bomb. The “Smiling Buddha” test was the first to break the nuclear monopoly of the “Big Five” UN Security Council powers.

Fetter said the U.S. had heavy water reactors only for the purpose of producing plutonium and tritium. (Tritium, also produced in abundance by the CANDU reactor, is another critical component of a modern two-stage thermonuclear weapon that Canada has in abundance.)

Using riskier fuels

Canada is also branching out into a new kind of technology that will require enriched uranium: the small modular reactor (SMR). Some of the proposed SMRs would use uranium enriched to a level as high as 20 per cent, known as high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU).

HALEU is already a proliferation concern in itself, said Lyman.

“Anything below 20 per cent is considered low-enriched uranium and has a much lower level of oversight. The IAEA considers it indirect-use material you can’t directly use in a bomb,” he explained. “But there’s evidence, both historical and technical, that that’s not true, and that the actual cutoff for weapon-usable uranium is below 20 per cent. Could be 15 per cent, could be 10 per cent.

“And so I worry about this push for advanced reactors, SMRs that use HALEU up near 20 per cent, like the ARC 100 in Canada, that the material itself is in the dangerous band. And if Canada were to pursue a whole fleet of SMRs using HALEU, and especially if they were to build their own enrichment plants to support that, that might give them a threshold capability for bombs, even if they never make highly enriched [over 20 per cent] uranium.”

ARC Canada points out that its proposed reactor in New Brunswick, which would become the only commercial fast-breeder reactor in the world outside Russia, mitigates against proliferation risks by having a long fuel cycle with a core that stays sealed for 20 years.

But there’s another factor: The arrival of SMRs that consume enriched uranium has got the government of Canada thinking about enrichment.

To enrich or not to enrich

“Any country which has a complete fuel cycle is a latent nuclear weapons country, in the sense that it is not far from making a nuclear weapon,” said former IAEA director and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei.

Scientists consulted by CBC News said Canada would probably have little economic motive to build its own enrichment facilities. Canada’s nuclear energy strategy foresees importation of enriched uranium from France and the U.S. in the immediate future, even though that often means buying back Canadian-mined uranium after other countries have added value.

But the strategy also notes that “geopolitical volatility has exposed fragility in nuclear fuel supply chains at every stage — mining, milling, refining, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication.”

Canada plans to double its exports of uranium in raw form, “but there is also a compelling case for expanding downstream capabilities selectively.”

Domestic enrichment might not save Canada money, but would increase its strategic autonomy.

“Canada will continue to monitor the energy security implications of these supply chains,” says the strategy. “The longer-term question of whether Canada should develop domestic enrichment capability remains under assessment.”

Enrichment could get easier

A handful of non-nuclear arms powers have developed enrichment facilities. They include Brazil, Japan, Argentina, Germany and the Netherlands, but only Brazil combines a modern centrifuge facility with a large domestic supply of uranium.

Japan could theoretically produce weapons-grade uranium, but its nuclear technology, like South Korea’s, is largely American, its nuclear program is subject to strict inspections, and it has no uranium mines of its own — in fact it buys much of its supply from Canada.

A Canadian company, Cameco, is currently exploring the next frontier of uranium enrichment. The SILEX method uses laser excitation to separate U-235 more quickly and efficiently than spinning it in a centrifuge.

Already, a centrifuge facility can fit in an area the size of a high school gym. SILEX, said Fetter, “potentially could be even smaller and use less energy than centrifuge enrichment, which would make it harder to detect a clandestine facility.”

The SILEX project has already received U.S. government funding and acquired land in western Kentucky for a plant expected to be operating by 2030.

Crossing the threshold

For all the Carney government’s talk of “a more dangerous and divided world,” there is still no public signal that Canada might abandon its long-held opposition to nuclear arms.

If the strategic situation were to change, Canada would have to decide whether to go the open route and formally depart the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), or pursue nuclear arms through a clandestine program as other countries have done with a mixed record of success.

Plasma physicist Tara Drozdenko worked on nuclear weapons issues under the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. She represented the United States on NATO’s Senior Group on Proliferation, and headed the Country/Regime Sanctions Unit at the U.S. Department of Treasury, where she managed the government’s nuclear-related sanctions on countries such as Iran and North Korea. 

Today, she’s not sure Washington remains committed to preventing proliferation, or how it would react to a Canadian decision to leave the NPT.

“In a normal administration, there would be condemnation, there would be reproach, there would be a lot of diplomatic efforts,” she told CBC News. “I don’t know what would happen in this administration. Would there be threats? Would there be some people that are like, yeah, everybody should have nuclear weapons? I really can’t predict what this particular administration would do.”

Clandestine plants and secret programs

So far, all the countries that have developed nuclear weapons — Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan and North Korea — began their efforts in secret.

Drozdenko says Canada’s own nuclear industry, the design of its reactors and the fact that it has the world’s best uranium deposits would all give it a strong hand were it ever to pursue such a risky course.

“Canada is probably really well-positioned to do that, if Canada was determined,” said Drozdenko. “You have a lot of land that’s not heavily populated, and if you used technologies that didn’t have a lot of energy or thermal signature, I don’t think the U.S. has its intelligence assets pointed at Canada right now.”

At some point, such a program would inevitably become known.

“It would require withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty, which would be really impactful to the treaty worldwide, especially as a NATO country and up until now a pretty close ally of the U.S. I think that would be pretty catastrophic to that treaty,” Drozdenko said.

Fetter said Canada could probably easily assemble a simple “gun-type” nuclear weapon like the one used on Hiroshima, but would face scientific hurdles if it tried to build a modern thermonuclear weapon without conducting tests. North Korea required half a dozen tests to get there.

In the U.S., Russia and China, supercomputers today have replaced actual testing. Canada has the computing capacity but lacks the detailed data that nuclear arms powers have assembled on materials science, and the complicated timing and interactions inside a nuclear warhead — some of the most closely guarded secrets in the world.

But Fetter also said he didn’t expect North Korea to be able to put a modern, two-stage thermonuclear warhead on a ballistic missile and make it work.

“Canada has a lot of smart people,” he noted.

With Canada embarked on a new era of greater military spending, including the purchase of modern submarines and its first foray into the world of cruise missiles, it is clearly assembling elements that could bring it closer to “breakout” as a nuclear arms power, if it desired.

The question of how other countries would react is the unknowable factor, said Drozdenko.

“Does Canada want to be in the position of North Korea, the pariah state that’s making clandestine nuclear weapons?” she asked.

So far, the answer has always been no.

July 29, 2026 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Uranium | Leave a comment

Government gives Canadian Strategic Missions Corporation (CSMC) $4.5M for Micro-Nuclear Technology in Canada’s Arctic

COMMENT  CSMC are very adept at getting government funding (no private investors) for an idea. The company CEO has a background in real estate and “making deals.” They already had at least $3.1 million in public funds before this latest grant, which leaves them about …. $1 billion or so short of building a reactor, if indeed they know how to do that. 

CSMC awarded $4.5 million through the Government of Canada to accelerate micro-nuclear technology for Canada’s Arctic

Canadian Strategic Missions Corporation (CSMC) is honoured to announce that it is receiving a $4.5 million Government of Canada investment through the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) to advance Canadian-made energy solutions that will secure the North.

This investment is a major milestone that will accelerate the development of CSMC’s micro-nuclear reactor towards detailed design and a fueled demonstration, readying the technology for deployment in Canada’s Arctic. This project represents a critical step toward ensuring Canada can meet its energy and defence needs with sovereign, made-in-Canada solutions.

Daniel Sax, CEO and Founder of CSMC said -“As private industry continues to drive innovation within the nuclear sector CSMC is proud to partner with the Canadian government to accelerate the R&D process. Our goal is to bring promising new technology online faster – in line with peer markets – to ensure that our nation can reinforce its defence capabilities, including in the North.”………………………. https://canadiandefencereview.com/csmc-awarded-4-5m-for-micro-nuclear-technology-in-canadas-arctic/

July 28, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Canada’s Federal Government in Disarray Over Nuclear Waste Project Assessment .

We the Nuclear Free North is an alliance of people and groups opposing a Deep Geological Repository for nuclear waste in Northern Ontario. We oppose the transport, burial and abandonment of this radioactive waste in our northern watersheds.

Thunder Bay – Intervenors in the federal assessment of a nuclear waste transportation and burial plan are saying that the federal government is in disarray over the assessment of nuclear projects. This follows the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s release, last week, of the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO’s) proposed deep geological repository for nuclear fuel waste. The NWMO plan incudes the transportation, processing, burial and abandonment of all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste in an underground repository proposed for a site between Ignace and Dryden in northwestern Ontario.

The Impact Assessment Agency posted the Guidelines to a public registry on July 3rd, following a 30-day comment period in April. The same day, a Notice of Commencement was issued, signaling the start of the assessment statement phase of the multi-year process. In this phase, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization must prepare an Impact Statement and supporting documents to meet the requirements set out in the Guidelines.

“Overall, the guidelines set out a reasonable set of requirements. We were pleased to see that the Agency rejected NWMO’s pitch that long-distance transportation and long-term safety of the project should be excluded – those are fundamentally important issues – but we are disappointed that NWMO will not be required to present alternatives to the project,” commented Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North.

The assertion that the federal government is in disarray stems from the series of overlapping and – in some respects – contradictory messages and announcements issued by them in recent months related to the assessment of nuclear projects.

In May, the federal government released a discussion paper proposing that the impact assessment of nuclear projects be handed over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), rather than conducted by the independent Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The CNSC is the licensing body for nuclear facilities and is described by both academics and industry observers as a “captured regulator”. CNSC is led by nuclear industry insiders and has never refused a licence application since its inception.

In  June, the federal government announced that it would potentially designate the NWMO’s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) as a “Project of National Interest” under the Building Canada Act. Such a designation would mean guaranteed approval of the DGR, even in the absence of evidence to support the safety of the project. The announcement defined the implications for the DGR project as including “streamlining” of the review and “issuing a document outlining the conditions under which the project may proceed.” According to the federal government, listing the DGR as a “Project of National Interest” would result in “shifting Canada’s regulatory focus from ‘whether’ the project should proceed to ‘how’ it will proceed.”

In July, the federal Impact Assessment Agency issued a Notice of Commencement of a full impact assessment of the NWMO’s proposed deep geological repository to be delivered by the Impact Assessment Agency.

“While the Guidelines are imperfect, they do provide at least a fighting chance of the public and Indigenous peoples being able to contribute to a thorough assessment of the NWMO’s project, and to have the NWMO’s proposal tested in front of a (hopefully) impartial hearing panel”, said Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator with Northwatch.

“This is a massive and unprecedented project. The risks will be widespread – along the transportation route, in the vicinity of the repository, and downstream from the site – and long-lasting. These radioactive wastes remain significantly dangerous for a million years. Let’s not rush to any unsupported conclusions about the project’s safety”, added Charles Faust, speaking on behalf of Nuclear Free Thunder Bay.

The comment period on the May discussion paper closes on July 22nd. The federal government is expected to decide by this fall whether the NWMO project is to be designated as a “Project of National Interest”, which would circumvent the impact assessment process. The NWMO is required to provide the Impact Assessment Agency with a workplan for the development of their Impact Statement by the first week of October.

Contacts:
Brennain Lloyd, 705-493-9650, brennain@northwatch.org
Charles Faust, 807-633-0202, cfaust@tbaytel.net
Wendy O’Connor, 807-358-6711, wendywoodswalker@rocketmail.com

 

July 15, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Saugeen Ojibway Nation Says It Was Shut Out of Canada’s Nuclear Strategy

The Nation whose territory hosts the Bruce nuclear site says Ottawa never consulted it on a plan for up to 10 new reactors — and that its consent is required.

Miranda Miller, Jul 08, 2026, https://www.owensoundcurrent.com/p/saugeen-ojibway-nation-says-it-was

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation says the federal government wrote Canada’s new Nuclear Energy Strategy without involving the Nation whose territory hosts the country’s largest nuclear facilities.

In a statement released July 7, the SON Joint Chiefs and Councils said they were disappointed and frustrated by the lack of consultation on the Strategy, which Ottawa released June 22.

Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Tim Hodgson unveiled the plan, which sets out to build up to 10 new large-scale reactors across Canada — two under construction by 2035, five more planned or under development by 2040 and at least one outside Ontario.

SON says it was not part of developing that Strategy, despite what it calls the significant impacts nuclear development has already had, and stands to have, on its Land, Water and People.

What the Strategy could mean for the Bruce site

The federal plan could include the proposed Bruce C project, an expansion of up to 4,800 megawatts at the existing Bruce Power site in the Municipality of Kincardine, within SON territory.

Bruce Power submitted the project to a federal impact assessment in 2024. The assessment is now in its impact-statement phase and is expected to run to roughly 2028. If built, Bruce C would make the site among the largest nuclear stations in the world.

SON has been taking part in that project-level assessment. Its objection is narrower and specific: that the national Strategy setting the direction for new builds was developed without it.

A letter to a Prime Minister who had no role

SON says its Joint Chiefs and Councils wrote to the Prime Minister before the Strategy’s release to raise concerns about the lack of early engagement.

The Strategy document itself states that Prime Minister Mark Carney was not shown the Strategy and had no role in developing it, which government officials have attributed to the ethics screen he holds over certain assets. Owen Sound Current has not independently reviewed SON’s letter or any federal reply.

SON says its territory already hosts Canada’s largest nuclear facilities and stores most of the country’s nuclear waste, accumulated over decades without the Nation’s consent. It warns that treating nuclear energy as a pillar of national industrial strategy risks repeating a pattern of putting industry priorities ahead of SON’s rights and stewardship responsibilities.

Consultation language versus accountability

The Strategy commits to upholding Indigenous rights and Crown consultation requirements, and states elsewhere that it aims to increase Indigenous equity participation in nuclear projects.

SON says that language does not explain how those rights will be protected in practice, and that commitments without clear actions and accountability are not meaningful.

Chippewas of Nawash Ogimaa Kwe Veronica Smith said Canada and Ontario cannot continue to treat SON territory as “an energy sacrifice zone — an area where the Land, Water and People bear the risks while the benefits flow elsewhere.”

Chippewas of Saugeen Acting Chief Randall Kahgee said SON members are central to decisions on major nuclear development. SON leadership and its Environment Office say they continue to press their position in discussions with Canada and Ontario, and that SON’s consent is required for any new nuclear development in or affecting its territory.

July 14, 2026 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues | Leave a comment

Radioactive Taxpayer Cash Cow, Canada 2026

Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force Canada, July 2026

Critics from civil society organizations and academia are calling out the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada released on Jun. 22 by the federal government as a cash cow for the nuclear industry. This hubris-driven attempt to grab world “energy superpower” status based on past-century technology will be accomplished without public input. The document reads like a wish list of nuclear developments, including the goal of 10 new large reactor projects in Canada by 2040.

This strategy is a gross economic mistake, dangerous for human health and security, and a diversion from urgently needed action on safer, faster and cheaper renewable energy. This benefits only the fossil fuel sector (during reactor construction) and the nuclear industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars – because nuclear power is by far the most expensive of all electricity sources and is unnecessary to reach net zero.

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

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

The pressing issue of nuclear waste is sandwiched into the section of the strategy on massive expansion of uranium production, with false reassurances that the problem has been solved by handing management of nuclear waste over to the nuclear industry.

A proposed deep geological repository for high-level waste proposed for northwestern Ontario is assumed, 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 DGR was a “Project of National Interest”, meaning that its approval would be guaranteed without an appropriate health, safety and environmental assessment.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Waste Transportation and Burial Plan Could be “Pre-Approved

3 July 26, https://nuclearwastewatch.weebly.com/

NUCLEAR WASTE ACTION ALERT! On June 24th three federal Ministers lined up to announce that it had referred three projects to the Major Project Office to consider the potential “listing” of the NWMO DGR under the Build Canada Act (aka Bill C-5). That’s a bit cryptic, but what it means is that these projects – if listed – would in essence be pre-approved. As the Minsters’ statement put it, this would mean “shifting Canada’s regulatory focus from ‘whether’ … to ‘how.”


Shockingly, one of these projects is the extremely controversial plan to transport, process, bury and abandon all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste at the Revell site in northwestern Ontario.  The project is the subject of broad opposition and is in the early stage of an impact assessment. It’s unprecedented – there are no other operating deep geological repositories for nuclear fuel waste anywhere in the world – and the plan is still largely conceptual, with many parts of the operation not yet designed. If ever there was a project that needs a rigorous review it is this one. The plan includes 2-3 trucks per day hauling the waste for thousands of kilometres and radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for one million years. Does this sound like a project that should be handed over to the rubber-stamp department?
 
The federal government is not inviting public comment. Take one minute to send your message today. Go to tinyurl.com/MessageMPs. 

The Nuclear Fist: Five Federal Initiatives Pushing and Promoting Nuclear Power
There are currently five federal nuclear related initiatives / announcements:   “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms” announced May 8th with the deadline now extended to July 22; the electricity strategy “Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy” which was announced  May 14 with comment invited but no deadline; the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment electrification study with the deadline – and the study – now extended to mid-September; the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada announced June 22 with no comment invited and so no deadline for comment, and the June 24 announcement of the potential “listing” of the NWMO DGR under the Build Canada Act (aka Bill C-5), also no public comment period.


The federal government has unleashed a “discussion paper”  outlining the next rush to dismantle what remains of environmental assessment. Top target: independent assessment of nuclear projects, which the paper proposes would be handed over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The deadline for comment has been extended to July 22. It’s expected that new legislation will follow quickly. Read more HERE.

July 7, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Say goodbye to independent assessments of nuclear projects in Canada

3 July 2026

The Nuclear Fist: Five Federal Initiatives Pushing and Promoting Nuclear Power
There are currently five federal nuclear related initiatives / announcements:   “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms” announced May 8th with the deadline now extended to July 22; the electricity strategy “Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy” which was announced  May 14 with comment invited but no deadline; the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment electrification study with the deadline – and the study – now extended to mid-September; the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada announced June 22 with no comment invited and so no deadline for comment, and the June 24 announcement of the potential “listing” of the NWMO DGR under the Build Canada Act (aka Bill C-5), also no public comment period.

​Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to end independent assessment of nuclear projects and hand over this responsibility to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. ​READ SUBMISSIONS 

Why is this a bad idea?

The CNSC cannot be trusted because it:

  • Is led by industry insiders
  • Often is seen as a promoter and co-proponent of nuclear projects
  • Reports to the Minister who promotes nuclear power
  • Has never denied a licence application
  • Often excludes the public from its hearings
  • Does not have the required independence from the nuclear industry
  • Secretly authorised transport of radioactive fuel waste from Gentilly-1 nuclear plant across Quebec into Ontario 

Nuclear power is uniquely complex and risky.
Fast-tracking nuclear projects is outright dangerous:

  • Accidents can have catastrophic consequences
  • Nuclear materials are toxic and radioactive – some literally forever!
  • Nuclear power is linked to nuclear proliferation

Decisions about nuclear projects must be based on sound information that has been examined and tested by the public, independent experts and an independent review panel. Social concerns, protection of public health and the environment, and economic value must all be considered. 

What can you do?
Between now and July 22 you can provide comments on the government’s discussion paper. Following that, when legislation is tabled, you can comment on the legislation. Throughout this time, contact your Member of Parliament and members of Cabinet by email, phone and in-office visits and share your concerns about these changes, and the speed with which they are being made.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://nuclearwastewatch.weebly.com/assessing-nuclear-risk.html

July 5, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Anishinabek Nation stands united in unequivocal opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through the entire Anishinabek Nation territory.

ANISHINABEK NATION TERRITORY (July 1, 2026) – The Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief shares a statement as the Nation prepares to celebrate Canada Day.

“We wish you a Happy Canada Day! 

Anishinabek Nation statement on Canada Day

ANISHINABEK NATION TERRITORY (July 1, 2026) – The Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief shares a statement as the Nation prepares to celebrate Canada Day. https://anishinabeknews.ca/2026/07/anishinabek-nation-statement-on-canada-day/

“We wish you a Happy Canada Day!   We celebrate the diversity, cultures, and contributions of this Nation with pride and encourage others to join in celebration. However, we also encourage citizens of this Nation to take the time to understand that this land you have come to know as Canada has a colourful past with a legacy that continues to negatively affect the Original People of this land. While some parts of the country are celebrating, First Nations people are contemplating the Government of Canada’s plans for a toxic nuclear waste dump in a small town in Northwestern Ontario within the Treaty 3 territory.

The Anishinabek Nation stands united in unequivocal opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through the entire Anishinabek Nation territory from southern Ontario to the proposed burial of nuclear waste in the Township of Ignace, Ontario, and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. While Prime Minister Carney claims, ‘We are defending and building together, the true North, strong and free’, there is a stark contrast between words and actions, and rightsholders and citizens of this land are taking note. Instead of protecting our homeland, the plan is to pollute it with toxic nuclear waste, far from the populations that utilize and benefit from nuclear energy produced in the south.

The Anishinabek Nation stands united in unequivocal opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through the entire Anishinabek Nation territory from southern Ontario to the proposed burial of nuclear waste in the Township of Ignace, Ontario, and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. While Prime Minister Carney claims, ‘We are defending and building together, the true North, strong and free’, there is a stark contrast between words and actions, and rightsholders and citizens of this land are taking note. Instead of protecting our homeland, the plan is to pollute it with toxic nuclear waste, far from the populations that utilize and benefit from nuclear energy produced in the south.

Imagine for a moment that the federal and provincial governments proposed nuclear waste in a DGR in Southern Ontario, the most densely populated heart of the country. Would you be so eager to impose such a dangerous burden on those communities that have no choice but to live with the risk? Would there be silence or dismissiveness? Or would Canadians stand up and demand meaningful engagement, transparency, and respect for their health and environment?

magine for a moment that the federal and provincial governments proposed nuclear waste in a DGR in Southern Ontario, the most densely populated heart of the country. Would you be so eager to impose such a dangerous burden on those communities that have no choice but to live with the risk? Would there be silence or dismissiveness? Or would Canadians stand up and demand meaningful engagement, transparency, and respect for their health and environment?

As stated in Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent,” and we do not consent to the transportation of this nuclear waste in our territory and member First Nations.

We call on the federal government to reconsider its pursuit of a dangerous, toxic nuclear waste dump that threatens our future generations, and to cease these reckless plans immediately. We ask that you respect the treaty relationship, our inherent rights, and our sovereignty. Listen to our voices and prioritize safe and environmentally sound solutions that do not put any communities or the environment at risk. It is painfully clear that the transportation and disposal of hazardous nuclear waste bring risks, uncertainty, and consequences for all.

July 4, 2026 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

National interest in nuclear site gets mixed reaction

Organizations opposing the waste site say they’re worried, should the repository be deemed a project of national interest, that oversight would weaken.

“Our major concern would be the approval process being fast-tracked,” 

 

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization says such a designation would not weaken oversight, opponents of the deep geological repository don’t agree

Matt Prokopchuk, Jun 24, 2026

IGNACE — The potential for changing how a proposed nuclear waste facility is studied has set off a flurry of reactions across the region.

On Wednesday, the federal government announced three initiatives were being referred to its Major Projects Office, which will consider whether to name them projects of national interest under the Building Canada Act. That designation is designed to alter the processes that determine whether projects get approved, with the goal of speeding up that decision.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed deep geological repository for high-level used fuel near Revell Lake was one of the initiatives Ottawa announced was up for consideration.

“The deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel is nationally significant infrastructure that supports clean growth, advances reconciliation, delivers long term economic benefits and strengthens Canada’s energy security and resilience,” the Nuclear Waste Management Organization said in an emailed statement.

The NWMO is a government-mandated not-for-profit funded by the nuclear industry tasked with the long-term management of the country’s nuclear waste. It selected the Revell Lake-area site in 2024.

The project is currently undergoing a multi-phase environmental impact assessment and regulatory review by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They have been tasked with deciding whether to green-light the proposed facility through a scheduled years-long study.

Organizations opposing the waste site say they’re worried, should the repository be deemed a project of national interest, that oversight would weaken.

“Our major concern would be the approval process being fast-tracked,” said Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North, a coalition of organizations and residents opposing the transportation and storing of nuclear waste in northern Ontario. “What we’ve been relying on so far is the impact assessment office and an impact assessment. And we’ve been assured that it was going to be a full impact assessment, which was a win for us.”

“Now, that is all potentially taken apart if this referral to the major projects office actually does go through.”

According to a federal government media release, consultations about whether to list the project will “begin over the coming weeks,” with a decision expected in the fall.

Newswatch has requested comment from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada about what listing the deep geological repository under the Building Canada Act would mean to the ongoing review the agency is doing.

Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Chief Clayton Wetelainen told Newswatch, should the project receive the “national interest” designation from the Major Projects Office, the First Nation’s independent parallel approvals process won’t be affected. Wabigoon Lake is one of two host communities for the repository, along with Ignace.

“That’s why we, in our agreement to host it, to look at it, is that we have our own independent sovereign regulatory approval process that will mitigate if there’s anything that Wabigoon Lake sees that is going to be problematic,” he said.

The NWMO, in its statement, argued making the project one of national significance “would not reduce the scope, rigour or independence of the regulatory decision-making process.”

Opponents say they’re not convinced, adding that the public consultation phases of the ongoing impact assessment have garnered hundreds of comments, with many expressing concern or outright opposition.

“The risks are monumental and Canadians deserve a thorough examination of the risks in a full impact assessment,” O’Connor said.

“That is what we continue to press for and we were sure that was going to happen and now this (announcement) puts it in question again.”

The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, which represents 37 municipalities across the region, including Ignace, said in a media release that it and its sister organization in the northeast “welcome” the referral, but “stress that the project must continue through a rigorous regulatory, environmental, scientific, and Indigenous consultation process before any final decisions are made.”

The organizations added that similar consideration should also be given to the Trans-Canada Highway through the north — particularly with the prospect of hundreds of trucks of nuclear waste travelling each year on Highways 11 and 17.

“Should the deep geological repository ultimately proceed, transportation associated with the project could occur on northern Ontario highways within the coming decades,” NOMA’s media release said.

“Preparing for that future requires a highway system that is safe, reliable, resilient and capable of supporting nationally significant projects.”

In Wabigoon Lake, Wetelainen said the time to make a decision on a nuclear waste site is now.

“It’s a problem today and it’s been a problem yesterday,” he said. “The critical voices and the people who are supportive of it, are going through some times.”

July 4, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution – It’s the Problem! NO CANDU!

F. R. Greening Ph.D. 3 July 26

Carney’s Liberal Government has recently become fixated on promoting nuclear power as the best way for Canada to generate so-called “clean”, carbon-emission-free, electrical energy. In support of this policy the government likes to boast about Canada’s past accomplishments in developing and exploiting nuclear engineering technology through our very own, home-grown expertise.

Now this view may have had a basis in truth back in the 1970’s when Chalk River Laboratories truly was a center of nuclear research excellence that led to the development of the CANDU reactor. It’s also true that the first generation of CANDU reactors, located at Pickering and Bruce, were quite successful, with operating capacity factors well over 80% during their first 10-years of operation.

But this was back in the 1970s; fast forward to 2026 and, with all of these first generation CANDU reactors either refurbished or permanently shut down, we are left with a somewhat uncertain future for nuclear energy in Canada. Indeed, I believe we are now in an electrical energy crisis here in Ontario because our home-grown nuclear power stalwart – the CANDU reactor – has been in failure mode for at least the past 10 years.

This decline is due to the aging of Ontario’s fleet of 18 CANDU reactors: 6 at Pickering, 8 at Bruce and 4 at Darlington.  All Pickering and Bruce Units are now over 40 years old, and it is important to note that these nuclear reactors were designed and built using 1960’s technology, with 1960’s computers. Thus, it is impressive that Pickering B and Bruce B units lasted 40 years before requiring major refurbishments.

However, the performance of Darlington is another story because all four Darlington units required refurbishments after only about 30 years of operation, thereby creating a short-fall in Ontario’s nuclear energy production. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 1, below, which shows Ontario’s nuclear power output has declined from about 92 TWh in 2014, to a current value of about 75 TWh – a loss of about 20 % in Ontario’s electric power output in just 12 years. But to make matters worse, it is predicted that this decline will continue to about 60 TWh by 2030, before all existing CANDUs have been refurbished, and/or new reactors have been built and commissioned.

[Greening supplies graphs on this issue

 the percentage of Ontario’s electricity derived from natural gas has increased substantially from about 10% in 2015 to 30% in 2026. Furthermore, extrapolation of these data points predicts that natural gas as a source of electricity for Ontario will exceed nuclear generated electricity production by 2028.

It is indeed ironic that “Climate-Change Carney” recently, (Canada Day!), declared:]

“We can’t afford to restrain the growth of an important part of our energy mix – natural gas – to meet a short-term goal. I want to be clear on this point. The changes we have made will mean that our GHG emissions will be higher in the next few years than were projected under the previous (Liberal!) government’s plan”.

What Carney fails to acknowledge, however, is that when it comes to Ontario’s electrical energy short-fall, nuclear power is not the solution; it’s the problem! If Ontario’s CANDU reactors were performing up to expectations, there would be no need for OPG to rely on natural gas combustion,

, with the associated annual release of tens of Megatonnes of CO2, as a viable alternative.  And Carney et al’s blind faith in Canada’s alleged nuclear prowess, as exemplified by the CANDU reactor, is in reality a myth that is not supported by fact!

By way of proof of Canada’s less than excellence in its CANDU reactor’s performance, consider lifetime capacity factor data, (derived from the IAEA PRIS website), for seventeen countries with extensive nuclear power programs. Sad to say, Canada has the lowest lifetime capacity factor, a miserable 68.2%, compared to any other country on the list.

July 4, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

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.

July 3, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Canada – Federal Initiative to Fast-Track Approvals for Deep Geological Repository a Betrayal of Public Trust

June 24, 2026, We the Nuclear Free North
Borups Corners – We the Nuclear Free North vehemently opposes the Canadian government’s initiative, announced today, to potentially designate the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO’s) Deep Geological Repository (DGR) as a Project of National Interest under the Building Canada Act. Such a designation would mean guaranteed approval of the DGR, despite any lack of evidence to support the safety of the project.

In its media release today, the federal government defined the implications for the DGR project and other projects that were named:

“Listing these projects under the Act would streamline and consolidate key federal permits and authorizations, subject to a document outlining the conditions under which the project may proceed.”

“If the federal government does designate the NWMO’s DGR project as a Project of National Interest, it is very likely that the full Impact Assessment of the Project, currently underway, would be discontinued,” said Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator with Northwatch.

“At best, the remaining vestiges of environmental assessment and licencing would be simply adding details to a done deal. Project approval would be a foregone conclusion.”

Today’s announcement stated that national interest listing of a project would include
“shifting Canada’s regulatory focus from ‘whether’ the project should proceed to ‘how’ it will proceed.”

“In its ‘Getting Major Projects Built in Canada’ framework, the government had proposed that nuclear projects in the Impact Assessment’s Planning Stage, such as the DGR project, be vetted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) instead.”

“Canadians have well-founded doubts about the CNSC’s objectivity and its strong ties to the nuclear industry,” continued Lloyd. “When it comes to the integrity of the CNSC’s potential safety assessment process, the faith of Canadians just isn’t there. CNSC has never denied a licence to a nuclear project.”

We the Nuclear Free North volunteer Wendy O’Connor said, “As we continue our strong opposition to this project, it is jarring that the federal government would propose a measure that could discontinue the Impact Assessment process. Concerned Canadians have already sent more than a thousand comments to the Impact Assessment’s Registry – most of them expressing concerns with or opposition to the DGR project. We have been relying on the Impact Assessment Agency’s full assessment process to stringently vet the project’s social and environmental safety. I want to stress that the decision on this has yet to be made by our federal government. We are watching for promised input opportunities regarding this proposed change. Canadians have a right to a thorough and responsible assessment process.

We the Nuclear Free North also noted that in the case of the two other projects named in the announcement – the Mackenzie Valley Highway and the Grays Bay Road and Port projects – the federal government committed that the project moving forward would be “contingent on both projects successfully completing treaty-based impact assessment and regulatory processes”. No such statement was made with respect to the proposed deep geological repository in Treaty 3 territory. Grand Council Treaty #3 Chiefs in Assembly passed a unanimous resolution opposing the project in October 2024, just weeks before the site selection was announced, and Wabigoon Lake Ojbway Nation, whom the Nuclear Waste Management Organization refers to as a “host” for the project, responded to the site selection by announcing that they would be holding their own sovereign Regulatory Assessment and Approvals Process. There is no acknowledgment of the treaty rights or respect for a treaty-based impact assessment for the deep geological repository project in today’s announcement.

We the Nuclear Free North continues to strongly oppose the NWMO’s proposed DGR project in northwestern Ontario and is requesting meetings with Ministers and Members of Parliament in response to today’s announcement. The organization will monitor federal government announcements regarding actions under the Building Canada Act, including public input opportunities, and share those engagement opportunities with the public.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Canada Initiates Process to List Major [Nuclear] Projects under the Building Canada Act

Listing these projects under the Act would streamline and consolidate key federal permits and authorizations, subject to a document outlining the conditions under which the project may proceed. National interest listing of the project would provide confidence that key federal permits and authorizations for the project will be granted, shifting Canada’s regulatory focus from ‘whether’ the project should proceed to ‘how’ it will proceed.

Government of Canada, From: One Canadian Economy 25 June 26

News release

Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, June 24, 2026 – The world is changing rapidly. In response, a confident Canada is choosing to build. Canada’s government is building major projects – new ports, mines, highways, and energy infrastructure – that will transform our economy and unlock billions of dollars in new investment for Canadian workers and businesses. Key to those efforts is the Major Projects Office (MPO) and the Building Canada Act (the Act), which are helping streamline federal approval and financing processes to get major projects built faster, while respecting Indigenous rights and safeguarding the environment.

Today, the Honourable Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources; the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; and the Honourable Rebecca Alty, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, announced a significant milestone for the government’s plan to build Canada strong. Ministers announced that the government is initiating the process toward potential listing of three major projects – the Mackenzie Valley Highway Project, the Grays Bay Road and Port Project, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO)’s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) – as projects of national interest under the Act.

In March 2026, the Grays Bay Road and Port project and the Mackenzie Valley Highway project were referred to the MPO and today, the Government is referring the DGR to the MPO as well. Located in northwestern Ontario, near Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Township of Ignace area, the DGR project is a world-recognized best practice solution for safe, long-term storage of all used nuclear fuel from Canada’s existing nuclear reactor fleet, as recognized under the federal government’s new Nuclear Energy Strategy.

Listing these projects under the Act would streamline and consolidate key federal permits and authorizations, subject to a document outlining the conditions under which the project may proceed. National interest listing of the project would provide confidence that key federal permits and authorizations for the project will be granted, shifting Canada’s regulatory focus from ‘whether’ the project should proceed to ‘how’ it will proceed. In the case of the Mackenzie Valley Highway and the Grays Bay Road and Port projects, this will be contingent on both projects successfully completing treaty-based impact assessment and regulatory processes.

The support of Indigenous communities for these projects is critical. To determine if these projects are of national interest and should be listed under the Act, consultations will be held with impacted Indigenous rights holders and communities, provinces and territories. Consultations for each project will begin over the coming weeks, with the aim of supporting a listing decision by the Government in relation to the projects in fall 2026. Canada is committed to upholding its duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples throughout the process. This commitment is guided by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, while recognizing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.canada.ca/en/one-canadian-economy/news/2026/06/canada-initiates-process-to-list-major-projects-under-the-building-canada-act0.html

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

SMRs axed from New Brunswick Power’s energy plan

it has become increasingly clear that faith in small modular technology is fleeting.

Looming integrated resource plan likely to leave out new nuclear, a dramatic change from the last plan the utility released

Adam Huras, Telegraph Journal, Jun 09, 2026 

NB Power’s new plan to meet New Brunswick’s electricity needs likely won’t include any new nuclear power, according to the utility.

It’s a dramatic change from the last plan the utility released just three years ago that relied heavily on adding small modular nuclear reactors over the next decade as a linchpin to meeting demand.

And it’s a move that raised eyebrows when first delivered by NB Power CEO Lori Clark at a major industry forum last week in Saint John set up to push forward new nuclear power in the province.

“In the short term, our integrated resource plan would say it’s gas plants, batteries are part of the solution going forward,” Clark said at the Pioneering New Nuclear in Atlantic Canada forum at the Saint John Trade & Convention Centre. That’s despite her openly backing new nuclear as the solution.

Clark also stated that legislation calls on the utility to pick the lowest-cost option to meet demand.

It means new nuclear power will largely be ruled out in a plan that’s soon to be released.

In a statement to Brunswick News, NB Power spokesperson Tracey Stephenson confirmed a new integrated resource plan, to be released in early fall, “focuses on least cost options” and, as a result, “it is likely that new nuclear will not be a part of the base case.”

Stephenson added that “existing nuclear” will be included in the plan.

“Sensitivities will be provided for new nuclear.”

Clark made clear her interest in pursuing additional nuclear capabilities in New Brunswick………………………………………………………………………..

Regardless, the new plan looks to say something different.

NB Power must release a new integrated resource plan every three years to reflect the changing energy landscape and customer expectations.

It ultimately lays out several likely scenarios NB Power can take in the decades ahead to balance demand for more power, calls from customers to keep rates stable, federal mandates, and provincial government direction.

The plan just three years ago was based heavily on small modular nuclear reactor development.

“SMRs are a critical part of the future of electricity in New Brunswick,” reads the 2023 plan. “They provide a unique opportunity for New Brunswick to offer stable and predictable carbon-free generation.”

Four scenarios developed by NB Power in 2023 banked on at least 450 megawatts of power from SMRs by 2034-35.

That ranged upward to 750 megawatts.

The only analysis that removed SMRs from future projections suggested the need for “extreme volumes of wind and solar builds,” over 4,000 megawatts, would be needed in its place.

Under the province’s Electricity Act, NB Power is legally required to seek out the lowest-cost options for energy generation.

That said, amendments to the act passed into law by the former Higgs government in December 2023 mandated the utility to purchase electricity generated by small modular nuclear reactors, even if it wasn’t the lowest-cost option.

Then-Energy Minister Mike Holland said that may have prevented power purchase agreements with SMR operators.

NB Power said in an email that “the mandate regarding the purchase of electricity from small nuclear reactor technology remains,” while pointing to the provincial government for further clarity.

With the Holt government in power, it has become increasingly clear that faith in small modular technology is fleeting.

Two SMR companies that have set up in New Brunswick have both pushed back timelines.

Amid delays, NB Power has said it’s completing pre-development work at Lepreau to accommodate a wide variety of SMRs working towards commercialization, giving the utility the flexibility to eventually choose a viable winner that might not be a made-in-New Brunswick design.

Energy Minister René Legacy said last October that the Holt government wasn’t interested in building a “first-of-a-kind” SMR at Lepreau, adding they’re “always the most expensive.”

Those words came after the federal government pledged $2 billion toward the building of four small modular nuclear reactors at Ontario’s Darlington nuclear plant, with that model now becoming an eventual option for New Brunswick.

More recently, Premier Susan Holt unveiled what she called an “action plan” in response to an independent review of the troubled utility’s finances and its recent pattern of large rate increases for customers.

That said, it delays decisions on things like splitting the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station into its own separate company, as well as a recommendation to build a second larger nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau.

Clark also stated that legislation calls on the utility to pick the lowest-cost option to meet demand.

It means new nuclear power will largely be ruled out in a plan that’s soon to be released. https://tj.news/new-brunswick/smrs-axed-from-nb-powers-energy-plan

June 17, 2026 Posted by | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Experts Warn Against Handing Impact Assessment of Nuclear Projects Over to Captured Regulator.

Academics, environmental lawyers and civil society organizations are raising the alarm about proposals in the federal discussion paper, “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada.” An initial 30 day comment period ending June 7th was recently extended to July 22 after the government received “feedback from thousands of stakeholders, Indigenous groups, and members of the public”.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association says the proposals in the discussion paper are “unjustified, regressive, and contrary to the public interest,” would reduce “public participation, transparency, and accountability,” and “would constitute the most significant rollback of federal environmental laws in recent decades.”

Particularly problematic is the proposal to hand assessment of nuclear projects over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).  Experts say nuclear projects require meaningful public participation and careful evaluation, based on evidence tested rigorously by independent experts.

The CNSC is led by industry insiders, has never turned down a license application, reports to a Minister who promotes nuclear power, and withholds information. Academic studies observe that the CNSC has features of a “captured regulator”. Public trust in the CNSC has declined over many years.  Assessing-Nuclear-Risk.ca.

June 14, 2026 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries