Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Minister. It's a pleasure to see you again.
I just have to say that I agree that the Canada-U.S. relationship is like no other. Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't highlight the people of Gander and how they hosted thousands of stranded passengers after 9/11. I think that clearly demonstrates that relationship. I have to bring that up, of course.
I want to follow up on some of my colleagues' questions. There was an article in La Presse, back on February 13, titled
“The pipeline that Quebec forgot.”
They talk a lot about Line 5. It's almost as if Quebeckers don't realize the importance of Line 5...and that in 2015 the reversal with Line 9B to get crude to Quebec refineries. In the article, the journalist mentions that in the event Line 5 were to close down:
“And if it is decommissioned, Quebec will resume purchasing its supplies from abroad.”
He also goes on to say the following:
“In Montreal, Suncor should reactivate the old oil pipeline from Maine. Trucks and trains could do the rest of the work.”
You alluded a little bit to this—the impact of the closure of Line 5. Is it possible that we will end up having to import oil from other countries rather than getting it from Alberta and Saskatchewan because of that closure? We want to rely on our own oil and gas industry. Is is also possible that we will have a lot more oil and gas being transported by rail? You mentioned Lac-Mégantic, which is still very much in Quebec's footprint, in our minds and our hearts.
Could you perhaps elaborate on whether it is, in fact, a possibility that the closure of Line 5 will have a major impact not only in terms of the safety of transport of oil but also in terms of where we get our oil?