Natural Resources Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Before Mr. Dabrusin gets into Bitcoin, are we at 5:30?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're almost there. We're getting there.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm counting that we're 12 seconds away. I want her to save the best parts of Bitcoin and other stuff that she wants to talk about for the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It is 5:30 on my clock.

Thank you everyone.

We can pick this up next week. We can suspend the meeting for today.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 30]

[The meeting resumed at 3:41 p.m., Monday, June 3]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order.

Welcome. We are resuming meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of all.

Before we begin, I'd like to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Only use a black, approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

Thanks to all of you for your co-operation.

As a Zoom reminder, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I also have a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

We are resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Angus and on the amendment of Mrs. Stubbs. We will continue with Ms. Dabrusin, who had the floor when we finished our last meeting.

Ms. Dabrusin, the floor is yours.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

When we ended last week, I was just beginning to talk about the many different things that are happening and are increasing the need for electricity. We've talked about things like the manufacturing sector and the automobile sector and a lot of the amazing investments that our government has actually brought to Ontario for battery manufacturing and electric vehicle manufacturing. These are very exciting changes or increases that are happening in Ontario in particular, in my home province, and in other provinces as well, but they will increase the need for electricity.

When we're looking at this issue, we need to consider how it is quite imminent. We are seeing the development and the building of these factories as we speak. They're going to be coming online. We've talked about the amendment that's been brought by the Conservatives to supersede the electricity study and just stop it in its tracks, and I really want to underline that we have to be talking about the electrical grid now. It makes no sense to just stop that study in its tracks.

Because I want to make it clear at this very moment, I take no issue with, and I don't believe that any of the other Liberals on this committee take issue with, the study that's been brought forward by Mr. Angus. As I said, there might be an amendment that I will seek—once we're past this amendment that was brought by Mrs. Stubbs—about making sure we have community voices brought to the table. Other than that, I'm okay with that study going forward. I'm not okay with the amendment that would stop the electricity study in its tracks, so to speak.

Just quickly, the part that I was talking about when we left off was about artificial intelligence and data centres, because we talk a lot about the manufacturing side. We can see that. We can see how people are switching the way they heat and cool their homes or the way we power our vehicles, but another piece that we maybe don't talk about enough is—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've noticed that the Liberals never mentioned once that the study is about the $34 billion in taxpayers' money they gave to the TMX pipeline.

That being said, being that this is a filibuster and we're seeing a tactic to stop us from moving forward as a committee, could you tell us how many meetings we have left in this session?

I am concerned that if the Liberals are going to talk this out until June..... We actually had a report that was almost finished and that we would have been more than willing to talk about to make sure we got it out the door, but obviously, if the Liberals are going to block, interfere and shut down the committee, could you at least tell us how many more days we're expecting to listen to the Liberals so that we can make plans?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.

I guess for clarification for all members—and I stated this on the last day as well—after today's meeting we have five more that we're anticipating. That also depends on when the House may rise. That's what we're at, based on what I know as of today.

Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin, I'll turn it back to you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I appreciated that question, because it goes to the point that, with five more meetings, we would be able to call back the panel that was disrupted from completing their evidence when this motion was brought. It would give us enough time to complete the electricity study before we leave. That's what I'm asking and why I'm opposing the amendment.

I want to mention the artificial intelligence piece, because I do find it very interesting and it's one that we don't talk about enough. I would certainly have questions for witnesses when we get to them, which I'm hoping is sooner rather than later. The International Energy Agency, for the first time this year, commented on artificial intelligence and data centres and their impact on electricity demand worldwide. In fact, I'm looking at the report from January, and they specifically say that market trends, including the fast incorporation of AI into software programming across a variety of sectors, increases the overall electricity demand of data centres, and that search tools like Google could see a tenfold increase in their electricity demand in the case of fully implementing AI into them.

They were talking about how that will potentially make a significant change, but there are a lot of variables that need to be looked at when deciding that, because there are also factors that are being put in place to make them more energy efficient. However, they certainly comment about how generative AI uses a lot of energy.

We need to be thinking about that as we develop what's a very exciting, new prospect for our country in the AI industry and what we can really do to make sure that we're building up within the tech sector. How do we make sure that we have the electricity that we need for that, and how do we make sure that we have the clean electricity that we need for that?

Now, because I think it's very directly on point with the amendment that was brought by Mrs. Stubbs, which seeks to stop the electricity study in its tracks and instead move to the next study—just skip over one place to another—it's important that I highlight to the committee a letter that was sent to the clerk and is signed by the president of WaterPower Canada, the president and CEO of Electricity Canada, the chief executive officer of Electricity Human Resources Canada, the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association and the president and CEO of Electro-Federation Canada.

All those leaders in the electricity industry wrote to us, and I think it's important that we hear this and think about what the electricity industry is asking of us. They said:

Dear members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources—

That would be all of us. It continues:

As representatives of the electricity sector, comprised of industry associations and companies from each province and territory, we strongly encourage you to-

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, I would ask you to hold for a moment. We have a point of order from Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chair, has that letter been distributed to committee members if it's addressed to the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Falk, it's my understanding that it has been sent, but it's being translated. It will be sent out.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay, it's going to be in both official languages. Yes, it should be.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The tactic of talking at committee about a letter that has not yet been translated into French seems problematic to me. Committee tradition dictates that each letter is distributed in French and English before we can discuss it.

I think she's using a tactic to put into the record something we haven't had access to in both official languages. We have a tradition. If one of my francophone colleagues from the NDP were here, I'd have to respect their position. She's using the public record and a filibuster to evade the basic obligation of ensuring we have....

I'm sure she has a million other things she could talk about. She could talk about her relatives. She could talk about prom night, or whatever. I mean, we're here for five more days. At least she should follow the rules.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, on that point of order, we are getting into debate. You're up next, actually, so you'll have lots of time to debate.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Would that be in September?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Maybe. I don't know.

There's a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin. Then I'm going to deal with the matter at hand.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I think it's a matter of disrespect, quite frankly, to talk about me talking about prom and family when, in fact, I have, this whole time, been talking very much not about either of those things. I would hope the member opposite could at least respect this. He may not appreciate that I am speaking about all these issues as much as I am, but I am not talking about things that haven't been directly on point.

I would hope he could respect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Next I'm going to you, Mr. Jowhari—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.