Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

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

I'm just switching gears to Mr. Novog—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You have 20 seconds.

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

On the research reactor at McMaster, how much funding do you get from the federal government for medical isotopes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Give a quick answer.

[David Novog]

Going back over the last 25 years, historically, McMaster's reactor has been self-supporting. We manufacture medical isotopes and do irradiation services, so the reactor itself has been largely self-sustaining.

There have been recent investments for us to do a one-time increase of our radioisotope production and increase hours of operation, but in terms of sustained funding, it is a struggle for the reactor on a yearly basis to make sure that it's at least a cost-neutral revenue centre within the university.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thank you both.

Mr. Guay, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Novog, I'm going to start with you.

A 2023 poll by Ipsos found that 62% of Canadians “agree that nuclear energy can help Canada meet its climate change goals”. You talked about the labour shortage going on right now, but more broadly, how can we take advantage of that and Canadians' willingness to give nuclear energy a fair shot again?

[David Novog]

In the nuclear industry, we always use the term “success breeds success”. Part of the reason for the public sentiment realigning with nuclear baseload energy generation is the success we've seen at Bruce and Darlington over the last decade from major, multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects. It's clear that the climate benefits are there and the reliability of the energy system is there, but I think the public lacked confidence in our ability to execute these kinds of large, multiscale projects.

I don't know if people saw the announcement, but last week, the last unit at Darlington was brought out of refurbishment on time and on schedule. The project, as a whole, was months ahead of schedule and $150 million below target.

Those kinds of successes make people believe that the promises made by the nuclear energy sector are achievable.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Thiele, this one's for you.

We all live in an interesting geopolitical situation with our friends down south. We've been orienting our export of electricity north-south, and it made a lot of sense because we've been sending a lot of decarbonized electricity down south. However, we also have our own needs. The interties and the dynamic in the U.S....may or may not apply federally versus states.

How do you see this geopolitical environment having an impact, and how can storage play a role so that we can export the right electricity to our friends down south?

[Andrew Thiele]

I'll start by touching on the support of storage for interties.

You've correctly mentioned that previously we traded a lot of energy north and south. Fundamentally, moving forward, that will probably still be the case, but what has come into clearer focus are the opportunities to trade energy east and west.

Storage supports interties by making trade more reliable and more valuable. Interties are strongest when you can move power at the right time, not just when it is available. That's fundamentally one of the key principles of storage. The fact that it can be deployed in such a short and timely construction timeline allows you to deploy it where it is most beneficial to the system.

Think about interconnection points that oftentimes have a lot of energy congestion—too many electrons going on a node. Deploying storage strategically allows you to make better use of the existing infrastructure from an interties perspective, but also to leverage it as new transmission comes on board.

To comment quickly on the international uncertainty we face when it comes to trade and tariffs, fundamentally, the energy question—that we have to have energy security here in Canada—is of critical importance to us at Energy Storage Canada. How we see organizations in my home province of Ontario moving from EV manufacturing to grid battery cell manufacturing is an example of developing a robust domestic supply chain to ensure we have the opportunity for energy security in the future.

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

I was also interested, Mr. Thiele, by your recommendation at the end. I'm going to ask you to elaborate a little more, but if we run out of time, I invite you to submit that to the committee so we can include it.

Talk to me a bit about your suggestion to optimize tax credits. If you want to elaborate, I had the sense that you were encouraging carrots instead of sticks on the restrictions versus encouraging with measures for the Canadian content of the supply chain.

[Andrew Thiele]

Yes, I'm happy to pick up on both of those comments and expand a little more. It's certainly something that ESC continues to feed into multiple federal processes, as well as through our own engagement in the pre-budget submission and others.

To quickly touch on the investment tax credit side, right now as they stand, some storage technologies—and specifically thermal energy storage, which has a considerable role in heat to power—are excluded from these tax credits. That means storage in and of itself and the many opportunities presented by the various types of storage technology, beyond just grid-scale benefits, are not eligible for the suite of tax credits that could fundamentally reshape how we make some of our energy decisions.

On the restrictions piece, in the federal budget in November, we saw a nod towards the opportunities for domestic content provisions in projects. ESC, obviously, as I stated in my remarks, is very supportive of pursuing a domestic supply chain, but we cannot risk current projects that are under way, that are securing resources and that have implementation timelines that could be impacted by decisions that change project dynamics over a short period of time.

The way that ESC has often approached this challenge—and it's certainly something that has come up across multiple provinces—is to ask, “How do we this in a phased way that allows for projects to continue while fundamentally supporting a future growth scenario for the resources?” There are certain components that could be secured domestically much easier or in a much shorter timeline. Those are the ones that we would encourage the government to focus on first, and then it can phase in further domestic content adoption over a longer period of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Thanks to both of you.

That's your time, Mr. Guay.

We are now moving on to Monsieur Simard.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Thiele, I have a quick question for you.

In your opening remarks, you talked about the near-term reality and, among other things, the inputs needed for storage technologies. I can't help but see a connection with the critical minerals sector. As part of a committee study, we heard from a witness who told us about a rare earths project, among other things. He told us how difficult it was to refine rare earths, which include several elements that are essential to the battery industry.

Could you give us more details on this input issue so that we can see how to improve the Canadian value chain? Of course, the critical minerals sector can be improved, but there must be other sectors that can be improved too, if we really want to improve our value chain when it comes to storage. Can you tell us more about that?

[Andrew Thiele]

I will direct this question to my colleague Robert, who's a bit more familiar with that specific subject matter than I am.

[Robert Tremblay]

When we're thinking about lithium batteries, there are various minerals that can be in them, including lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt and iron. Canada has a large land mass with lots of minerals. We already do inputs into battery supply chains, especially nickel and iron.

You're correct that rare earths can be tricky to extract and tricky to process, as I mentioned previously to a member of the committee. A lot of the processing and refinement for the minerals is concentrated. That is an aspect where if more of the value chain can be domesticated.... An area where we are already seeing a lot of domestication, both in Canada and globally, is in the assembly of battery energy storage systems.

Andrew mentioned EVLO, which is a company that does assembly in Quebec, and there are numerous companies in the United States and Europe that are also doing assembly of cells. We can think of that as very analogous to auto assembly and auto manufacturing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tremblay.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to talk about a motion quickly.

Witnesses, I'm sorry to cut you off. If you have the opportunity, I would still encourage you to submit additional information in writing, particularly about the supply chain issue.

Mr. Chair, I would like to quickly talk about a motion that was tabled last September. You probably saw the particular situation surrounding Domtar, which acquired Resolute Forest Products a few years ago through the multinational Asia Pulp and Paper.

In the past, this committee has moved motions to invite Jackson Wijaya. We were reassured that all facilities would be maintained in Canada. Now things are changing rapidly. We did a study on the forestry sector, where we know the situation is difficult. Still, the largest owner of Quebec's cutovers must, in some way, answer for his policies and explain himself before the committee.

For that reason, I'm going to move the following motion:

That considering Jackson Wijaya's numerous refusals to testify before this committee in the past, and Considering the recent closures of the Domtar mill in Kénogami, and the threat of permanent closure hanging over the mill, given that the company had announced an investment plan in recent months; Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee summon Jackson Wijaya, owner of Asia Pulp and Paper and sole shareholder of Domtar, to testify on the impact of such a decision on the mill's employees and the company's intentions regarding its other facilities in Quebec and Canada; and That a report on this study be prepared and presented to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a complete response to the report.

Mr. Chair, there have been preliminary discussions, and I know that my colleague Mr. Hogan may have some amendments to propose. If they relate to what we discussed, I have no objection, but I just want to take a couple of seconds to provide some context.

Domtar has temporarily closed facilities in my region, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean. We know that there will probably be a permanent closure, which is inconsistent with what we were told in the past.

At the time of the transaction, we had discussions with Minister François‑Philippe Champagne, during which the government seemed to want guarantees. Mr. Wijaya's visit could be an opportunity to check to see whether those guarantees have been met. A whole part of this problem affects hydroelectric facilities in Quebec. It's up to the Government of Quebec to resolve this, but I just want to make it clear to my colleagues that the stakes are quite high.

Many employees are currently in a precarious situation because of this. The motion was moved in September. We have given the company ample time to share its intentions with us. Today, six months later, I feel that we haven't made any progress.

A number of political stakeholders, particularly from Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, would really like to hear what Mr. Wijaya has to say.

I'm ready to listen to what my colleagues have to say about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Colleagues, as you know, this motion was put on notice some time ago. It is in order.

I will go to Mr. Hogan.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Simard for his motion. It's an important discussion for this committee, and it's timely because of the drafting of our report. It's a very serious issue. I'm always grateful for his advocacy for the forestry sector. It's a very important sector. We need to be here for affected communities and workers.

I would like to propose an amendment that would change two clauses.

First, I would like to change “summon” to “invite”. It's my understanding that you would invite before you summon, so that seems to be the more neighbourly way to begin this conversation with Domtar, if nothing else.

With regard to the final clause, because we have a forestry report under way, I propose that we replace the last paragraph with “That this testimony be included in the committee’s report on the forestry sector study.”

That's the amendment I move, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

You've heard the amendment.

Mr. Martel.

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

I'd like to know one thing. If Mr. Wijaya sends a staff member, if he doesn't show up himself, what happens?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

We know very well that, according to our rules, it doesn't work that way. If we send someone an invitation to testify before the committee, they can't get out of it by sending someone else. It would be unacceptable for a minister who is invited to a committee to ultimately say that they're going to send a parliamentary secretary. No one here would accept that. With all due respect to Mr. Guay, who is an excellent parliamentary secretary, no one here would accept that. That goes without saying.

The reason Mr. Wijaya has been asked to testify before this committee in the past is that Mr. Wijaya owns a number of companies in the forestry sector. It's simply out of respect for Canadians and Quebeckers that he should be able to come and tell us what his intentions are regarding the forestry sector, to express them clearly and to not shy away from doing so.

I have a fairly simple memory: We invited Mr. Pécresse here during his first week as the CEO of Rio Tinto. He may not have liked it, but he came here to defend his decisions and explain his plan for the aluminum sector in Quebec. He didn't run away. He took responsibility for the public and appeared before the committee.

There's one amendment to the motion that I won't be accepting, and that's the one that would seek to replace Mr. Wijaya with someone else. That's for sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Duguid]

Monsieur Martel.

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

That's what I wanted to know. Mr. Simard spoke at length, but I just wanted to know if we agreed to let another person appear.

Thank you, Mr. Simard.