Debates of May 10th, 2021

Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to look at the questions that were asked of me. The only person who asked me a question on policy was the NDP member. The other members, who are Conservatives, just attacked me. That proves the point of my entire speech. Although they will grandstand, as the member for Regina—Lewvan did just now, and suggest they want to talk about the issue, they do not. The only member who asked me about substance was the NDP.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather fascinating to see that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands is so desperate to talk about Bill C-19 when, today, we were forced to vote on limiting debate on this bill.

Bill C-19 has been around for four months. We could have talked about it, but there was complete radio silence for four months and now, today, the government imposed a gag order.

If the Liberals were so eager to debate Bill C-19, why did they wait until today to say that it was urgent?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has been tabled since December, yet the Conservatives still do not even know what the content of it is, as demonstrated during the 30-minute question and comment period.

I will say to the member that, yes, this bill might be before the House today, but by supporting the ridiculousness that is being demonstrated by the Conservatives today, we are losing three more hours to talk about it. It is up to Bloc members as to where they want to fall on this. They can agree that this is the position they want to take, but at the end of the day, we are losing more time as a result of this discussion.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert.

Today's concurrence debate on the interim report for Enbridge Line 5 is vitally important and matters to Canadians. Canada is on the precipice of a national energy security emergency, and the deadline is Wednesday, May 12. A critical piece of Canada's energy infrastructure is set to be shut down, and Canada simply does not have the luxury of time.

On November 13, 2020, the State of Michigan revoked the easement that allows the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline to travel underwater through the Straits of Mackinac between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Unless reversed, this decision requires Enbridge to cease operations of this section of the line by this Wednesday. However, any disruption to Line 5 will be devastating for Canada's energy security and economic well-being.

Enbridge Line 5 carries up to 540,000 barrels a day of petroleum products, including light crude oil and natural gas liquids from Alberta and Saskatchewan. It supplies over 53% of Ontario's crude oil and 66% of Quebec's. Line 5 provides an estimated 4,900 direct jobs and up to 23,000 indirect jobs in the supported industries. It supplies significant portions of diesel fuel, propane for Canada's east and much of the jet fuel that supports Pearson airport. Line 5 generates over $65 billion of direct and $28 billion of indirect revenue in annual trade.

Closure of this section of the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac would require 2,000 tanker trucks or 800 railcars a day to keep pace with the demand. Estimates indicate that there would not be enough surplus truckload and railcar capacity to support this increase. Furthermore, a rise in the volume of trucks on Canada's roads and at the border would dramatically increase congestion, vehicle emissions and the risk of serious traffic accidents.

This should be a wake-up call for Canada, not only because of the short-term challenges but for the long-term ones as well. Citizens in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces heat their homes, support their families and keep planes and trains moving and crops growing because of western Canadian oil and gas that travels to eastern Canada, among other places, through Line 5.

The decision to shut down a portion of the pipeline happens this Wednesday, so in the short term, what is the plan B if Canada is unable to get this decision reversed? Where will the additional trucks or railcars come from when there is already a shortage in our ability to use rail and get supplies to market? How will the tens of thousands of jobs be replaced? What will this shutdown do to the price of oil, gas and propane? How will aircraft at Pearson airport get back in the air? Even more importantly, how will this affect our economic recovery after COVID, at a time when lives and livelihoods have already been so drastically disrupted during the pandemic?

Even more disconcerting are the long-term implications. A unilateral decision made outside of Canadian jurisdiction threatens the very health and security of millions of Canadians. Even if it was not a U.S. political decision and was instead a natural disaster or equipment failure that threatened the delivery continuity of this pipeline, Canada's overwhelming dependence on this one infrastructure asset is simply too great. Canada must have an alternative, preferably one that transits from east to west entirely within Canada.

COVID-19 has made every Canadian increasingly aware of the risk of dependence on other countries for critical health, safety and security supplies. As a trading nation, being part of a global supply chain is central to Canada's economic prosperity. However, this must be balanced with domestic self-sufficiency for critical items that Canadians cannot live without, such as PPE, vaccines and critical drug supplies. With the threat to Enbridge Line 5, Canada's self-sufficiency should also include the supply of oil, gas and propane, which support the agriculture that feeds us and the energy that keeps us warm.

Climate change is real, and as Canadians we must do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to sound environmental stewardship. The Canadian oil and gas industry meets the highest environment regulations and standards in the world. Other countries look to Canada to achieve a higher standard in environmentally responsible resource production. If all of the oil- and gas-producing nations around the world adopted Canadian standards, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by a substantial 25%. Canadians can be proud of the current standards that have been achieved and the research that is under way to further push the boundaries of greenhouse gas reductions.

Despite being the world's sixth-largest oil-producing nation, Canadians get 44% of their supply from foreign producers rather than domestic supply. Increased use of Canada's domestic oil and gas supply would reduce Canada's energy vulnerability and the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions.

The future of Line 5 is in the hands of the U.S. courts, and with it Canada's fortunes. That is why this report by the Canada-U.S. economic relationship special committee is so important, as are the critical recommendations. I would like to share with the House four of the seven recommendations that are drastically worthy of note.

The first says, “That the Prime Minister of Canada and his Ministers pursue frequent and direct dialogue on the issue of Line 5 with the U.S. President and his administration, in an attempt to resolve this dispute diplomatically as soon as possible.” We have not seen this. It must happen. We do not have the luxury of time, and we need a sense of urgency. We need the Prime Minister to take this matter up with the President of the United States.

Second, we need to put forward Canada's legal perspective, so we recommend:

That, based on the information currently available to the Special Committee, the Government of Canada file an amicus curiae brief if a negotiated or mediated settlement permitting the continued operation of Line 5 is not reached between Enbridge, Inc. and the State of Michigan prior to the date by which such briefs must be filed. The brief should set out Canada’s legal position with respect to the operation of pipelines that cross international boundaries, including but not limited to advising the court of any rights set out in bilateral or multilateral treaties or agreements....

This includes the one that protects the Line 5 pipeline, which is the 1977 agreement between the Government Of Canada and the Government of the United States Of America concerning transit pipelines.

Third, we need to start looking into what our plan B is if the decision is not reversed. We recommend:

That the Government of Canada work with industry to develop contingency plans designed to ensure that Canadian oil and gas products will continue to be delivered in a timely fashion to the Canadian refineries and industries that rely on the Line 5 pipeline should an interruption to Line 5’s service occur.

Obviously we do not want an interruption. Obviously we want this decision to be reversed. However, we cannot just say that it is going to happen. We have to have an urgent plan B.

Lastly and most importantly, we recommend:

That, in light of the external threat posed to Line 5’s continued operation, the Government of Canada should evaluate other possible vulnerabilities to Canada’s critical energy infrastructure and supply chains, and develop contingency plans to ensure that Canadian interests are protected in the event of disruptions.

Canada's energy security, economic recovery and commitment to climate change require an oil and gas pipeline that connects west to east entirely within Canada. It is the right thing for Canada and it is the right thing for the contribution that Canadians make, as global citizens, to the world.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

In all likelihood, according to what experts are saying, it is very unlikely that we have to worry about Line 5 being shut down on the May 12 deadline, if we are even worried. According to some sources, the Governor of Michigan may be using that threat to force Enbridge to upgrade the pipeline, whose condition has raised some concerns because of its age.

What does my colleague think about the statement that there is no need to worry about the shutdown of the Enbridge pipeline and that authorities are probably more concerned about safety?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is to never say never. The Governor of Michigan has said that she is absolutely committed to shutting this down, not to mention that this is not something new. The discussion started officially in November of last year, but this narrative and this trend toward shutting it down has been going on since 2015. Canada has not taken it as seriously as we needed to.

I do not believe that is going to go away, which is why, at the same time, even if we are able to reverse a decision and have this pipeline continue, we still need a plan B and some mechanism to protect Canada's energy security going forward.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, back when the Kalamazoo spill happened and 840,000 litres went into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, environmentalists were already flagging the problem with Line 5 crossing the Straits of Mackinac. I saw an underwater video of that pipeline flagging this issue way back then. Why did the Harper Conservative government do nothing about this? Why have we waited so long when we knew that this could be a potential problem? We need to hold companies, like Enbridge, responsible for their infrastructure, especially when we are reliant on that infrastructure for our economy.

Does the hon. member think we should have stronger regulations on these pipeline companies to make sure that they adhere to environmental standards?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the important question is what are we, as Canadians, going to do today. This should be a wake-up call for us. We have the highest environmental standards in the world and we hold our companies to a very high standard. If the rest of the world were to meet our standard, greenhouse gases would be reduced by a whopping 25%.

The question is not how we got here, but what are we going to do to protect the environment, energy security and Canada's own self-sufficiency so we are not vulnerable to decisions made in other jurisdictions.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her good work on this special committee. One of the points she touched on was the recommendations and specifically working on the contingency plans. With all the testimony heard, with all of the witnesses and with the questions in the House of Commons, has she heard of what the short-term and long-term plans are for this, depending on what decisions are made over the next couple of days?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, my colleagues and I, on the Conservative side, have brought this forward in this urgent discussion today because we have not seen a plan B. The plan B to use trucks and rail is not actually a viable plan B because we have been told by witnesses at committee that there is a shortage of trucks and there is not enough rail capacity.

Essentially, the current government plan says it is never going to happen. Obviously, we, as Canadians, hope that is correct, I do not think it is a viable plan because we need a plan B that says what we are going to do if our greatest fear that this pipeline is shut down happens. That is why the recommendations, the sense of urgency and this discussion are so important in the short term, but also in the long term to make sure that we do not find ourselves in this position again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will go to resuming debate. There is exactly 10 minutes left in the time for debate on the motion that is before the House, so if the hon. member for Prince Albert would like some question and comment time, he may want to stop before the 10 minutes for his speech, but it is absolutely up to him.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if you could give me seven minutes' notice, I will at least have three minutes left for some questions and answers. I am sure the member for Kingston and the Islands has all sorts of burning questions relevant to Line 5 and nothing else.

Last Thursday, Canada's ambassador to the U.S. made the following statement on CBC's Power and Politics regarding the potential shutdown of Enbridge's Line 5:

It is not a threat to Canada's national economic or energy security. I think that it is an important dispute or disagreement that exists between Enbridge and the state of Michigan that needs to be taken very seriously.

The minister said something totally different. This is a bit of a pivot for the government, whose Minister of Natural Resources stated at the committee back on March 4 that Line 5 “is a critical energy and economic link. It is vital to Canada's energy security,” and that the government takes the threat “to our energy security very seriously”.

That was last week. We are talking about the government supposedly understanding the consequences of Line 5 being shut down, yet our ambassador, when asked, does not seem to see the same urgency necessarily as we see here in Canada or as the minister claims to be saying is here in Canada. Why the disconnect?

If we had a true, actual plan in place to deal with Line 5 and the shutdown of Line 5, there would be no missteps, misquotes or misspeaking. There would be a consistent message coming from not only the minister, the Prime Minister, our ambassador and everybody who is talking to people down in the U.S. in regard to Line 5, but there is not one. We have to wonder how seriously the government has taken the Line 5 shutdown.

I am sure the member for Kingston and the Islands would ask, “Well, why aren't you bringing forward suggestions and proposals?” Let me bring in some proposals. On May 12, the line shuts down. How many trains have you acquired? How many railcars have you acquired? How many trucks have you booked? Just on the trains, I think we would need something like 800 railcars a day, which is roughly 200 cars to a train. That is a train every six hours on top of what is already heading down those lines as we speak today.

I am a farmer here in Saskatchewan and we have all sorts of rail issues in the wintertime when it comes to getting trains delivering product to ports on time. Has anyone put in a plan to deal with that?

When we look at trucks, if we are going to go to 25,000 trucks a day, has anyone talked to the Windsor border authority to see how that volume of trucks going across the border will be handled? How many people have you hired to deal with the movement of those trucks across the border? What has been done about talking to the mayors of Windsor and Detroit in regard to facilitating this type of movement through their cities? I bet no one has thought about that.

It is really interesting that the government does not do anything until it is a crisis. Now, there was talk about this during the campaign last fall with the governor, who had this proposal. The governor is of an extreme leftist philosophy and she is an extreme environmentalist. She does not care if she shuts everything down and people get laid off or thrown out of work. She does not care, but she wants to go to her environmental buddies to check a box. If they were really serious about the environment, if they were really concerned about it and really had an issue with it, why would they not put in a reasonable plan? They could have said that they told us that they needed to do something different in the States.

Wait a minute. Enbridge already has a reasonable plan. It already had a game plan where it was actually going to burrow underneath the straits and then put the pipe in concrete to make sure of that. It just needs time to get it done, but what is happening? It is just being shut down.

If I was a consumer in Ontario and Quebec, I would be very concerned listening to my members of Parliament. It is lucky we are going into summertime. It is lucky I do not need heat for my house. If I was a farmer going into harvest and it was a damp harvest, it is lucky I do not need propane to dry my corn. If this does get shut down, those questions are not going away and there has been no plan B put in place to deal with them. It is really disappointing when we start hearing parties from the left talking about how they are worried about our own sovereignty. Here is a situation where Canada's sovereignty is being dictated in a U.S. court. That means there are 25,000 jobs in Sarnia being decided outside of Canada. That is what is happening right now.

When we go to the committee and speak to members from other parties, we tell them that this is not that smart. The member who spoke before me talked about this. Maybe we should have our own pipeline. Maybe we should make sure that we have our own capacity, so that we can actually take care of ourselves, especially from the lessons we have learned from COVID-19. Nobody talks about the 25,000 to 30,000 people who, on May 13, if this is shut down, may or may not have jobs. They may or may not be able to pay their mortgage, and may or may not be able to buy groceries.

Is there a game plan put in place for unemployment offices? Is there a game plan put in place to transition them into new jobs?

If we look at it, what about the auto sector and the other manufacturing sectors? Everybody thinks this is just oil and gas. What about the plastics and the other components that come out of those refineries that go into Ontario manufacturing that get shipped around the world? The auto sector right now is having an issue with computer chips. What would happen if all of a sudden it could not get the plastics it needs for the bumpers or other items in its cars? How sustainable is that auto sector in Canada if we cannot even supply the components that go into the cars? Does it just move to the U.S. with everything else and then the left say that is what happens when we shut everything down?

It is very frustrating when I look at Line 5. We had this special committee and I thought everybody was on the same page and understood the importance of it, then I started hearing comments from people in government or our ambassador that were different. I see the member for Kingston and the Islands not even talk about it and show such contempt for the 25,000 jobs, not understanding that two days from now these folks could possibly be unemployed. He wants to worry about an election. The Liberals want to talk about an election. I am worried about the jobs. I am worried about those people. I am worried about the economy. I am worried about Canada having a future for our kids to grow up in.

When we had an NDP government in Saskatchewan, at least people could go to Alberta to work, but when we have an NDP-Liberal government federally, where do our kids go to work?

I will end it there.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the member referenced me a couple of times in his speech, and I appreciate that, I figure I owe him a question.

He said I would probably be asking him a question about proposals, then he proceeded to talk about what was a proposal in his mind, but it was not. What he did was continue to talk about what might have to happen otherwise if the line is shut down.

A proposal would tell the House what the government should be doing differently in order to secure this piece of infrastructure so that it continues. The question is very simple. What more would he do to encourage the governor to reverse her position so that this infrastructure keeps being utilized?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what should the government do? First of all, get your talking points straight. The ambassador should be saying the exact same thing as the minister and the Prime Minister. If he is not there is a—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most members know that I do not use talking points I would think, but he should not be saying—

[An hon member]

Debate.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The point of order is this. He said, “get your talking points straight”, and I am certainly not using your talking points, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member. Yes, I noticed the hon. member for Prince Albert does use the odd “you” and “your” references in his speech. I think it was done in a rhetorical way. Perhaps he was a little more direct that time, but I think the hon. member is aware of that, so we will let him carry on. We will let him finish up his remarks and then I think that is all the time we have.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, through you, the Liberal government should at least make sure that its diplomacy is in such a consistent manner that everybody is talking the same language, selling the same issues, discussing it and making sure they have a game plan on the ground, like we did with the USMCA, where they were actually addressing it to the appropriate key people, the decision-makers, but when the governor will not even talk to them, it kind of tells us how ineffective the Prime Minister is.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

I see the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot on his feet.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House will now resume with the remaining business under Routine Proceedings.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present three petitions to the House today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that I tabled for first reading in the House earlier today. The bill seeks to make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad to receive an organ without consent. It also creates provisions by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they are involved in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The petitioners are hopeful that the bill will be able to pass in Parliament. It has passed the Senate and is now back in the House of Commons.