Debates of May 10th, 2021

Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to relevance. The member has been going off on a tangent that is nowhere near the concurrence report we are debating. He is talking about Bill C-3, Bill C-14, Bill C-19, all except the matter before the House right now. This is a concurrence report. We are supposed to be debating about Line 5. This is important.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member raising the point of order. I would remind the hon. member that whenever there is a debate in the House, there is some latitude, but hon. members have to keep the relevance to that debate in their speeches. I am sure the hon. member will come back to that if he has been wavering from that debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, of course, these are just my preliminary remarks to try to explain the behaviour. If I were a Conservative MP, I would be embarrassed, too, and would want to get right to the motion on Line 5.

We debated Line 5 extensively in an emergency debate. If the member had listened to his colleague who introduced this report, he would have heard his colleague also make reference to the trade agreement. I fully understand the embarrassment of the Conservatives when the truth of the reality, in terms of their destructive force, is being pointed out. Maybe they disagree with the House leadership of the Conservative caucus, and I would encourage them to have that discussion.

However, when it comes to Line 5, let me provide some specific quotes. This is how the minister has responded. The Conservative Party of Canada is saying that the government is not doing anything on Line 5 and that it does not appreciate the importance of Line 5. Nothing could be further from the truth. From day one, the government has been following the issue and, more importantly, taking action on the issue.

On the day the emergency debate was introduced, a question was put to the minister. I specifically quoted it during the emergency debate. Let me quote the answer that the Minister of Natural Resources gave last Thursday:

Mr. Speaker, people will not be left out in the cold. The heating of Canadian homes or the flying of Canadian jets or the operation of Canadian refineries are non-negotiable.

Line 5 is not just vital to Canada, it is also vital to the United States. Therefore, it is vital to all of North America. Shutting it down would have profound consequences. There are 5,000 direct jobs in Sarnia, 23,000 indirect jobs in the region, thousands of jobs at refineries in Montreal and Lévis, but also in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and that is the case we are making. Line 5 is essential for North American energy security.

The minister has provided answers on many different occasions, all providing assurances that the government understands the importance of it. The other day, when I was talking about the issue of longevity, at one time I pointed out that it was oil tankers that actually shipped the oil products, and then it went to pipelines. Ever since then, and I believe it was in the 1950s, it has been delivered through the pipeline. I believe it has met the expectations of people on both sides of the border.

I understand the economics of it. It is not just about the gasoline that is being shipped, or the final product. It is about all forms of commodities, including gasoline, propane, clothes and all sorts of things. Is there any wonder why the Government of Canada is seized with the issue?

We saw the Conservatives throughout that emergency debate and during question period. I do not believe there is going to be anything that comes out of today other than the Conservatives saying, “We did some more filibustering during Government Business.” We will not see anything further come out of this than what we heard last Thursday night. The Conservatives will continue to say that the government is not doing enough and that it should be talking to so and so.

Let me give another quote from the Minister of Natural Resources that I quoted last Thursday night. This is in response to my Conservative friends who continue to try to spread misinformation to Canadians and try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada is not active on this file.

During the emergency debate last Thursday night, he said:

We have been clear from the start. We would leave no stone unturned in defending Canada's energy security. We have been looking at all of our options. We are working at the political level. We are working at the diplomatic level. We are working at the legal level. It is a full-court press.

We raised Line 5 directly with the President of the United States and members of his cabinet during the virtual Canada-U.S. summit in February. The Prime Minister also raised the critical importance of North American energy security in conversation with Vice President Harris.

I raised the issue with U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in our very first call. I was frank and unequivocal in expressing how significant this issue was for Canada. The Minister of Transport raised Line 5 with his counterpart, Transport Secretary Buttigieg, whose department oversees the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the U.S. federal regulator for pipelines, which has consistently stated that Line 5 is safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs raised this issue with his counterpart, Secretary of State Blinken. Ambassador Hillman has been making the case directly to Governor Whitmer. Meanwhile, in Detroit and in Lansing, Consul General Joe Comartin has been making the case to state lawmakers and members of the Whitmer administration.

Let me take this opportunity to thank Governor Whitmer, Consul General Joe Comartin in Detroit, the team at the Canadian embassy in Washington and all of our diplomats who have been engaging on this issue in Washington, Detroit and Lansing who defend Canada's interests there every day.

It begs the question: What is the Conservative Party talking about? Do the Conservatives just believe they can click their heels and voila, or they can pull something out of a hat and the issue is resolved overnight? Do they believe that three days from now there will not be any gas coming through the pipeline? That is the impression they are trying to give when they portray this issue.

It is a very serious issue, and I do not want to do anything to marginalize the importance of it. However, I will criticize the Conservative Party for its attitude and its ongoing desire to give misinformation on what is such an important issue. Some provinces that are likely more affected than other provinces include Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. However, this affects all of us in Canada, if not directly then indirectly.

As the minister, the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have recognized the importance of this issue, there have been many discussions taking place. I wonder if the Conservatives' national caucus can share with the House specifically what it has done. Better yet, why do the Conservatives not provide a real, tangible idea, as opposed to being concentrated on trying to promote western alienation or giving misinformation to people of Ontario and outside of that area?

The Government of Canada understands the issue. We continue to have dialogue on all fronts at the political and diplomatic levels and are using many other mechanisms to make Canada's case as strong as it is. We all know that is the case.

We all know that the emergency debate would have sufficed, and that the real reason the Conservative Party is bringing the report forward on a concurrence motion has nothing to do with the report. It has everything to do with wanting to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary wanted to know what the Conservatives have done. I have done an email and letter-writing campaign to Governor Whitmer with all the stakeholders; brought petitions to the House; and participated in the lobby. However, despite all the government's words about how it will do everything politically, legally and diplomatically possible, here is the crux of the matter: Within less than 24 hours, the legal brief of support for the court case on Line 5 will be due. Enbridge has requested that the government do the amicus curiae brief. The Canada-U.S. committee unanimously said that the government should do the brief.

The government has waited until the eleventh hour. Where is the brief of support for Line 5?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government, its ministries, the diplomats and our professional civil servants all know what their responsibility is. They understand the importance of this issue to Canadians and North America, and will, in fact, ultimately be prepared to defend Canada's interests, as they have been doing for the last number of months and beyond.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was appalled when my hon. colleague said during his speech that the Conservatives are blocking the work of the House. The Liberals are the ones who walked away and shut Parliament down. It is unbelievable. The Liberals shut Parliament down, yet they dare to accuse others of blocking the work of the House. That takes a lot of nerve.

The Liberals shut the House down for a month and a half under the pretext of preparing a new throne speech, when they could have shut it down for only 24 hours. We all know that they did it to try to cover up scandals. My family is all too familiar with hairnets, so my question for my hon. colleague is this: would he not agree that there is not a hair's breadth between the Liberals and the Conservatives?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the government prorogued and we lost two days, but for the first time in 30-plus years, the House of Commons sat during the summer, albeit as a committee. However, for all intents and purposes it was like question period, and literally hundreds if not thousands of questions were asked. This provided opposition parties a great opportunity to hold the government accountable on a wide variety of issues.

I make no apologies in this area, as we provided more transparency and accountability than the previous administration. The member can take a look at the number of questions that were put forward. I would have loved, as an opposition member, a five-minute time slot to ask three-second or three-minute questions or to give a five-minute speech. We did that last summer.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member talked about the 23,000 indirect jobs in the region that are impacted by the loss of Line 5. Those are jobs in my region. Those are jobs in the regions of many of my colleagues. He said that no stone would be unturned, yet as the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton said, we are in the final moments, in the final stretch. People are desperately worried about feeding their children and paying for rent and mortgages. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that they are taken care of.

What is the government's plan to ensure that these workers will have jobs or some security if Line 5 is lost?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member raises the importance of this from a human side. It does not matter whether people are directly employed or indirectly employed, there will be a tremendous human cost if Line 5 is not allowed to continue. I choose to believe it will continue and that we have the necessary people in the background. Line 5 has a history of being there for many decades and providing. I am very much concerned, as I know the government is, about the human cost, but I am confident that Line 5 will continue into the future.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question of my hon. colleague about how focused our government has been on the issue of Line 5, because it is close to London and there are jobs at stake.

Like my hon. colleague, I was listening to the emergency debate on Thursday and I was very happy to hear our Minister of Natural Resources underscore very passionately how much we are seized with this issue. He has spoken to me about it over the last couple of months, and I know he has done so much work.

Would my hon. colleague not agree that the Conservatives are taking advantage of this? Instead of agreeing to a team Canada approach, they are using this as an opportunity to try to make it seem as if the government is ignoring the issue when we are doing quite the opposite.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member has been a very strong and convincing advocate for her community for years now. I respect the question she poses because she understands how critically important Line 5 is to her community and beyond it.

She is right that we should listen to what the minister has been saying. We can read about this for ourselves from last Thursday's emergency debate. We can hear it through the answers that are being provided. Members can rest assured that whether they are politicians in Ottawa and Washington or diplomats, there are a lot of people at play here to ensure that Line 5 continues to serve Canadians and, I would suggest, Americans too.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot of speakers have outlined the importance of this pipeline to our economy. Enbridge has proven itself to be grossly incompetent in a number of areas, and Michigan's governor has serious reasons to be concerned. In a 15-year period, Enbridge has had more than a thousand spills, with 7.4 million gallons of oil spilled into the environment, including the 843,000 gallons that were dumped into the Kalamazoo River. People have a reason to be concerned.

Should we not be holding this company to more account when our economy is so dependent on this one pipeline?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address this in two ways.

One, there is the accountability of Enbridge itself. There is no doubt that, whether it is on this side or the U.S. side of the border, there is an obligation for governments to work with private companies at times. This could be a very good example of that.

Then there is the other very important issue and the reason we are debating this motion today: Line 5 itself. We should not be playing any games with Line 5 given its importance to North America. I encourage our American counterparts to set their targets on Enbridge if the case suggested by my colleague from the Green Party is true.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in on this debate. What we just heard was basically a 20-minute, anti-Conservative diatribe from the member for Winnipeg North. What would he bring forward for concrete answers? We heard today in question period from the Minister of Natural Resources that the Liberals are going to wait. They have a plan and they are going to be there at the last second to jump in. Maybe the Prime Minister will don his Superman cape and try to save Line 5.

Why have they not been working hard on this for the past year instead of the past two days?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would put it this way: Why would the Conservatives not bring forward an opposition day in which they could highlight a few examples of what the Government of Canada could be doing? Ultimately, that resolution would have been voted on. They could have played a more proactive, constructive role on the issue, as opposed to continuing to play a disruptive role on the floor of the House of Commons by filibustering the government on important legislation and important agenda issues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for Fredericton, Health; the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Persons with Disabilities.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am participating in today's debate as the Bloc Québécois's representative on the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States, where I am one of the vice-chairs.

Just a few weeks ago, the committee spent a few meetings studying concerns about Line 5 and the potential impact if it were to close. I would venture to say that unanimity ruled. Every single one of the witnesses said the same thing: closure would be catastrophic. However, none of the witnesses were able to put any figures on anything related to jobs at risk in Quebec.

I asked every witness the same question. Have any studies shown that we have reason to fear? None of them had any such studies handy, nor could any of them clarify anything about Michigan's claims. The witnesses' verdict was clear: The governor of the U.S. state was simply wrong. Nobody even suggested or raised the merest hint of even the slightest possibility that everything was perhaps not entirely unfounded.

I want to inform the House that the Bloc Québécois is well aware that a shutdown of Line 5 would have consequences for jobs in Quebec. There is a chance that Line 5, an Enbridge pipeline that supplies a good number of the refineries in Quebec, could be shut down, which raises legitimate concerns that require informed responses.

I want to stress that our position may sound ideological, but it is not. We recognize that Line 5 is not as bad as tanker trucks, for example, which come with their own dangers. We recognize that it is not as bad as shipping oil by rail, and we experienced the hazards of this mode of transportation with the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, caused by deregulation in the sector by successive federal governments.

I remind members that in 2013, a train filled with oil exploded in the middle of a small town called Lac-Mégantic, killing 47 people and destroying some 40 buildings in a massive fire. Inadequate regulation of the transportation of oil by rail is part and parcel of Canada's economic vision. Ottawa has cut the number of inspectors for rail cars and the railways themselves.

This issue speaks to my constituents because a few years ago, members of an activist group in my riding known as Convoi citoyen, ventured onto the tracks not far from the Saint-Hyacinthe station and took several photos of uncovered wires and tracks that were sitting on wet earth instead of cement. We are not stupid. We know that Line 5 is better and less dangerous than rail transportation.

It is also clear that Line 5 is better than using tanker ships to transport oil. Quebec, and specifically the St. Lawrence, has become a key part of the geopolitics of Canadian oil. Quebec unfortunately has no jurisdiction over the waterways, seaways, railways or airways that cross our territory, other than the ones that exist exclusively in Quebec. Canada is entitled to act as it sees fit, in spite of protests from local communities.

In 2014, the riverside municipalities of Sorel-Tracy and L'Isle-aux-Coudres complained about the fact that the width of the supertankers had increased from 32 to 44 metres, but the municipalities that received them had not been consulted, nor had the emergency plans been adapted. We know that just 5% to 20% of oil spilled in the river can be recovered.

The case of Lac Saint-Pierre, designated an UNESCO world biosphere reserve in 2000, is striking. Pressure to ban the transportation of bitumen on that part of the river has been totally ineffective despite the publication of a study showing that an oil spill would traverse the entire lake in just eight hours.

Again, we are no fools. If we look a little more closely—on paper, to be sure—line 5 is a lesser evil in comparison to trucks, trains and ships.

Unfortunately, we would have liked to hear a more critical point of view on pipelines. The witnesses at committee were unanimous, as were our colleagues. All the federal parties kept referring to “team Canada”. Today I am talking on behalf of “team Quebec”.

The Bloc Québécois is focused on the 21st century economy, or the energy transition.

We applauded the U.S. President's intention to revoke the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, whose only objective is to create new markets for oil from the oil sands.

Citizens are sharing their concerns with us about the environmental safety of pipelines, particularly with regard to waterways, but also about the potential economic impact of shutting down those pipelines. We are not stupid. We want to keep jobs but not at any price, because we do not want to put our waterways at risk. We also understand the concerns many people have about the gas prices at the pump because the cost of energy and transportation is taking a toll on the wallets of Quebec families, who are already struggling because of everything that has been going on this past year.

It is important to make the distinction between the Keystone XL pipeline and Enbridge Line 5. While Keystone XL seeks to further develop the oil sands, Line 5 was built in 1953 and essentially carries light crude oil and natural gas liquids to refineries in Quebec. It passes through the United States, mainly the much-talked-about State of Michigan.

Line 5 was approved under U.S. State Department regulations and not by presidential permit as was Keystone XL. Line 5 is protected by the 1977 Agreement between the Government Of Canada and the Government of the United States Of America Concerning Transit Pipelines. Therefore, there are still legal avenues to be explored.

We should also ask ourselves whether the repercussions of a potential shutdown would be as catastrophic as we are hearing for the price of gas at the pumps for Quebeckers. We know that Quebec refineries also have other possible market supply sources and that the shutdown would be problematic primarily for Ontario. We are aware of that.

However, we should remember that Newfoundland and Labrador is Canada's third-largest producer. If Enbridge's Line 5 is shut down, it would still be possible to consider Canadian supply from that region. For example, if people wanted a nearby source, one inside Canada's border, Newfoundland and Labrador could be a source of supply.

Let us move on to environmental safety. As I mentioned earlier, during our study, each and every witness we heard told us that the State of Michigan was way off base every step of the way. No one was willing to consider that the concerns were legitimate, and yet, we know there was a leak in 2010 that resulted in an oil spill in the Kalamazoo River, in southern Michigan. It seems to me that we can also understand that Michigan is worried about the risk pipelines pose to waterways. At the time, the people from Enbridge said not to worry, that they would really strengthen their safety measures. That is fine. In that case, the burden of proof lies with them to show that real measures were taken.

I think everyone agrees that every accident is one too many, and each is a collective failure to protect ecosystems. Because Line 5 has had leaks, perhaps the idea of retrofitting it should not be excluded. Perhaps the status quo is untenable. Unfortunately, we are not hearing anyone in this place speak about this possibility.

We must now come at the oil issue another way because Canada, as we know, has the third-biggest oil reserve in the world. According to official statistics, it has 172 billion barrels of extractable oil, of which 166 billion are in the Alberta oil sands. Canada is ranked fourth in global production and fourth in global oil exports.

I certainly recognize that, when we talk about transition, it does not mean that we should celebrate and hope to wake up tomorrow morning with no more oil. It is not that simple. That is the very definition of transition. However, we need to have a plan.

Let us agree, however, as scientists do, that 80% of oil must stay in the ground if we want to take an environmentally responsible approach. Furthermore, 96% of Canada's oil comes from the oil sands, which means that only a very small amount does not come from that source. Oil from the oil sands is among the most polluting in the world. The Natural Resources Canada website touts the technological advances that are leading to less greenhouse gases per barrel. That is also the argument put forward by the Montreal Economic Institute.

It is true that the oil industry has been rapidly evolving. Just 50 years ago, offshore drilling was done by humans. Today, robots are doing the job. Nevertheless, from an environmental standpoint, between 1990 and 2018, greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands development have increased by 456%.

Exclusive dependence on this one source of energy is also a major economic problem. Historically, this phenomenon has been referred to as Dutch disease, which is the structural dismantling of the manufacturing sector and possible ensuing deindustrialization resulting from a strong commodities export sector. The development of natural resources is therefore closely related to the decline in the manufacturing industry of the country in question. Does that remind my colleagues of anything? It makes me think about the loss of over 100,000 jobs related to the increase in the Canadian dollar as a result of the increase in oil exports.

The term “Dutch disease” was coined in the 1960s when the Netherlands had a major increase in revenue following the discovery of natural gas deposits. The country's currency appreciated, which made the export of non-gas products less competitive. Dutch disease serves as a necessary reminder that a country must not depend solely on its commodities sector.

Canada's economic development centres on the extraction of raw materials. That is a paradigm that has existed since the beginning of the Canadian experience, when the Canadian colony specialized in bulk commodities, agricultural products and extractible materials for export. These products do not require a lot of processing and their market is mainly centred around international trade.

Canada's history has been shaped by the search for products that already have a market, by the state, and by capital to extract those products. Basically, it was the easy way to pay Canadian workers and import the goods consumers needed. Canada's economic growth was therefore closely linked to demand in the industrialized countries with which it did business.

Political life in Canada has been heavily influenced by our reliance on exports because political power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of the elite who, historically, combined the two. Geographical realities also explain all this, of course. The state has had to supply capital that the business world did not have the means to provide.

However, focusing on exporting raw materials has a significant influence on public policy. To keep the country competitive, politicians have had to provide infrastructure and adjust their environmental and health regulations.

Exploiting these resources did not require particularly sophisticated technological expertise if they were not being processed in any significant way, though. Essentially, Canada was just an outpost used to supply raw materials for use in processing industries in ways that supported the economic development of the industrialized nations and Canadian companies involved.

The expectation was that the supply of resources dedicated to supporting these exports would continue expanding forever. It was an infinite growth model. The railway, which is what led to the creation of Canada in the first place, had to be paid for by transporting resources, and that helped stall the exploration of new technological opportunities. Ultimately, the system ended up reinforcing our reliance on unprocessed materials. It was a vicious cycle. Increased reliance on raw material exports created a need for greater investment in transportation infrastructure, and that meant less money available for other economic sectors.

This system underpinned colonial history, but the Canadian economy has diversified and become more complex since then. It cannot be summed up as Quebec's forests, Saskatchewan's farms, Ontario's mines or Alberta's oil, of course. Markets have changed, new opportunities have been found, and people have flocked to the cities. However, it is clear that Canada is staying true to that spirit by consistently opting to specialize in natural resources in order to compete worldwide.

Western Canada has focused all its efforts on oil extraction, neglecting the necessary diversification of its economy. To get back to Dutch disease, the consequences could be even greater if the oil sector also goes through some difficulties, like the depletion of its reserves or fluctuations in the price per barrel.

The impact on Canada's economic future is considerable. We are paying for it today with the COVID-19 crisis, as well as the oil crisis, the price of the unwavering support that Ottawa, the banks and the pension funds provide to the oil sector. Pension funds like the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec have increased their investments in the sector. Canadians' and Quebeckers' pensions have therefore been jeopardized by being dependent on oil fluctuations. However, oil investments by foreign companies have declined steadily over the last four years, meaning there are very few royalties to be had.

Shale oil, for example, is a very bad development opportunity, and yet Canada cannot seem to escape it. One of Canada's biggest disappointments is that in the global marketplace, in the midst of this great geopolitical struggle, Canada is ultimately a minor player with basically no influence. It is easy to see the problems that could arise from stubbornly putting all the eggs in one basket, especially when that basket refers to a deregulated and fluctuating energy sector.

It is really tough to get out of oil, though. When the price is high, investments pour in. The renewable energy sector is looking to grow, but the money is just not going there because investments continue to pour in for oil. Conversely, when the price is low, investments will be minimal, almost non-existent, but consumers, whether individuals or companies, will rush to the pump, so there is no money left for renewable energy. I could say it is a lose-lose situation for anyone thinking about a real transition. This is where political will is needed. It is imperative and urgent that we make the transition. Crises come with serious repercussions, but they can also bring great opportunity.

The energy transition that many have been calling for and talking about for quite some time needs to begin with decisive action. We must put an end to Canada's oil dependency. In the meantime, demanding a safe supply of oil can no longer be a luxury. In other words, Line 5 is the lesser evil compared to other modes of transportation that are more dangerous. However, we must not depend on it. We also need to look very closely at the real environmental considerations that can be linked to safety and that are entirely legitimate. They must not be dismissed out of hand, as Canada's federal politicians seem to be doing.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague from the Bloc Québécois thinks about what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said. He said that my party is taking time away from the House, when his party or the government wants to continue having a House that sits as little as possible, since it prorogued Parliament.

Does he think that the government is making an effort and working with the other parties in Parliament as part of a true team Canada approach, not just in words, as they are doing, but in actions?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. To hear the Liberal government accuse the opposition parties of stalling when it prorogued Parliament is laughable. On that I completely agree with my colleague, although we do not share the same fundamental positions on this issue. Nonetheless, we live in a democracy and that is just part of it.

I would say that we must not engage in such childish games. They are not productive.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot for his speech.

Unfortunately, I will be speaking in English because these are technical issues.

I may be the only member of Parliament who read the entire report of the United States transport safety inquiry into the Kalamazoo spill of 2010 in which it detailed gross negligence. Yes, modern pipeline companies have all sorts of alarms, bells and whistles, which we keep hearing about, that will alert control room staff when there is any possibility of a leak. One alarm from that spill rang for five full minutes, while Enbridge employees went around the control room shutting off the noise. The next shift came in and it was not warned there had been signs of a leak. That is when they pumped over 800,000 gallons of bitumen and diluent into the Kalamazoo River, which could never be cleaned up.

I wonder if my colleague has any further points to add on how this reputation of negligence has undermined Canada's case.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, apparently that incident has not changed Canada's official position. Still today, we see that Michigan has concerns. It was traumatized by this event, there are no two ways about it. All we are doing is unanimously dismissing the fears expressed by Michigan.

Again, it is highly likely that these fears are not entirely justified, but they are legitimate and deserve some consideration, some thought and some close attention. That is my response to my hon. colleague.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate and thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his excellent speech. He raised some great points and shared several interesting perspectives, including the idea of rethinking our dependence on fossil fuels.

I want to point out that an increasing number of studies have confirmed that places with regulations for zero-emission vehicles see a significant increase in sales of these types of vehicles. Meanwhile, places that do not have regulations or programs to promote buying zero-emission vehicles, which includes the majority of Canadian provinces, are seeing a resurgence in purchases of larger, higher-emitting vehicles, thanks to the billions spent on advertising by auto manufacturers.

Could my colleague share his thoughts on this?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course we want zero-emission legislation to be passed that would force automakers to sell a larger proportion of electric vehicles. I am talking about automakers and not dealers, which is a very important distinction to make.

It is the right thing to do. Quebec implemented this kind of legislation a few years ago, and California has had such a law for a very long time. Such legislation should be passed here too.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech.

At its last convention, the Conservative Party put in place a national commission on energy security, with a component on energy transportation of all kinds. What does my colleague think of that initiative?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is unfortunate that the delegates rejected a proposal recognizing climate change at this same convention. The idea of establishing commissions to study all these issues is a good one, even though scientists have already examined the energy issue many times and from many perspectives.

That said, I salute the interest of all political parties in the energy issue, which is crucial and probably the geopolitical issue of the 21st century.