Debates of May 6th, 2021

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really like my colleague from Calgary Centre. I consider him to be a gentleman, so I do not want to ask him an awkward question.

I think the Governor of Michigan's criticisms are valid. Does my colleague agree that we can criticize the government for being slow to act and dragging its feet, but that Enbridge itself might bear some of the blame as well?

When the Governor of Michigan accuses Enbridge of not doing enough to protect the Great Lakes, does my colleague agree that the company should do more?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very theoretical question because I am sure my colleague is well aware that there has never been an oil spill in the Great Lakes on either the Canadian or the American side. I think Canadians are just as keen as Americans are to keep the waters of the Great Lakes safe.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is not theoretical is the fact that there are many people, both in Canada and on the other side of the border, who are concerned about the environment and they are concerned about climate change. They lack confidence in environmental review processes. While this is not exactly the same because it is an existing pipeline and, as I said earlier, New Democrats are supportive of keeping Line 5 operational to support the jobs in Sarnia and in the value-added sector in oil and gas within Canada, there are legitimate environmental concerns here. Those concerns, both here and the larger concerns I just made reference to, are going to continue to play within this industry and are going to continue to be a challenge to it. Jobs in the oil and gas sector, whether a high number or a lower number, are going to continue to be contested, unless we can get to a place where we have environmental review mechanisms and enforcement mechanisms that people have confidence in.

I hear the member and his party often boosting the industry, but what do they propose in terms of giving Canadians and, as I say, Americans on the other side of the border, more confidence in the environmental review mechanisms and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the first I have heard that Canadians do not have confidence in the environmental review standards, which are both provincial and federal. Most people think they are onerous and overlap, and can take years or sometimes decades to get through.

I think that as far as the world goes, Canada has the most robust environmental review regime known across many jurisdictions. I am challenged by the supposition of my colleague's comments, which do seem to be beyond reality, is perhaps the narrative. I have yet to hear from a Canadian who says the environmental review process is too short.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a member who finally had a speech dedicated to what should we be doing now to save Line 5 and ensure that these good-paying energy jobs stay in Canada, and that customers, consumers in Ontario and Quebec, continue to have an ample supply of energy so that they can live their lives like they have been living them for the last few decades. I listened to the West of Centre podcast where we had the Minister of Natural Resources on it. He talked a really great game. They were doing all of these things. They were absolutely committed.

I wonder if the member could rate the performance of the natural resources minister in this current crisis with the potential shutdown of Line 5 in the next week and a half?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the minister has unfortunately let down Canadians on so many files. I mean, I have been in this House for a year and a half. I have been working solidly on the natural resources file for several months now, ever since I was named the shadow minister for natural resources, which was last September. Since September, we have had failures on so many files.

As a matter of fact, I would like to point out to the minister that he would have to reach out to my office to say what it is that they are succeeding on, because I do not see the successes. All of the big projects are failures. Keystone XL failed. We are slowing down on TMX. We are failing on Line 5 now, at this point in time, at the very last minute. We are failing on Keystone XL, Trans Mountain and Teck Frontier, all projects that should have advanced in this Parliament and have not met the bar with the minister. I think he is challenged by getting his projects, which would benefit this country, through a reluctant cabinet on the government's side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank every member who is in the House tonight for this very important debate, showing their support and their understanding of how serious this is. Obviously, for my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, this is an extremely serious issue.

As many have said tonight, there are three refineries and multiple other related businesses in Sarnia—Lambton, and a shutdown of Line 5 could impact as many as 23,000 jobs in my riding. Just to put that in perspective, in the pandemic about a third of Canadians are on the CERB and many businesses are on government supports; we are talking about a substantial percentage my riding who would be out of work. I want to take this opportunity not just to repeat what has been said already in the House, but to try to give an understanding of the situation that exists and to call for action of a specific nature, as we move forward.

Members know that Governor Whitmer has brought this executive order. This is an election promise that she ran on. To be fair, I do not think she was aware at the time of the impact on her own constituents. Thirty per cent of Michiganders in the upper hand of Michigan use propane that comes down from Line 5 to heat their homes in the wintertime.

We know that members of many of the trade unions that got Governor Whitmer elected are actually going to lose work over the tunnel project that has been proposed to resolve any outstanding concerns about the pipeline. That is a $500-million tunnel project that would, in fact, encase the pipeline below the Straits of Mackinac and eliminate the risk totally.

There has not been an issue. I have heard members talk about how what has happened in the past is no predictor of the future, but this technology we are talking about is in use in many places around the world. There are many pipelines that are built under the water, and not just small sections of 50 kilometres, which we are talking about in the Straits of Mackinac, but thousands of kilometres. In fact, Governor Whitmer is likely unaware that there are eight other pipelines that run underneath the St. Clair River in my riding, which has Michigan on the other side, some of those pipelines belonging to Enbridge as well.

This technology is safe. Just to let members know, for those who know my background as a chemical engineer, I have looked at all the reports that have been written about Line 5. The Environmental Protection Agency does regular monitoring, regular inspections and audits on this line. The federal pipeline safety department, PHMSA, also regulates this line, inspects the line and follows up. The State of Michigan is involved in monitoring, Enbridge has its own continuous monitoring on this line. There is a huge amount of technology that goes into making sure that this line is safe, and it has operated for 68 years without an incident.

I have talked about the impact to Michigan.

Regarding the line that comes from Alberta, obviously there is an economic hit for Alberta and this is at a time when Albertans have already been punished by the bad policies of the Liberal government, including the “no more pipelines bill”, Bill C-69 and the many cancelled oil and gas projects including Teck mines, northern gateway, Kinder Morgan backing out, the KXL and the Petronas LNG and now the Kitimat LNG. There is just an ongoing punishment there, so this would just be another hit to Alberta at a time when it can least afford it.

The other states that are being impacted are Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. There are refineries in Ohio and Pennsylvania that supply all the jet fuel for the Detroit airport. There are many jobs in Michigan as well. Overall, we think 50,000 jobs could be impacted by this; not to mention in Ontario, many farmers heat their barns for their animals, dry their grain and heat their greenhouses with the fuel that is coming down through Line 5.

When I hear people who are anti-pipeline and want to shut down Line 5, I ask them if they live in Ontario and drive a car because, if they do, their gasoline is coming out of Line 5. Do they eat food, like beef, chicken and pork that is grown in Ontario or Quebec? If so, they are going to be impacted by Line 5.

Do they eat vegetables or grains that are produced in any of these provinces? If so, this definitely would be an impact to them. It has already been mentioned as well that the plastics industry and many of the great smart phones and things we enjoy so much are a result of the fossil fuels that are coming down through Line 5. There is a huge impact there, and I was pleased to see the natural resources minister emphasize again that this is essential for the economic and energy security of Canada.

I have been calling on the government for action. I called on it to have the Prime Minister intervene with President Biden directly to let him understand the importance. The Prime Minister did raise it, but we have not seen President Biden take an action, and I am sure that is because the case is before the court. Right now, what is being decided in the court is whether this issue should be heard at the state level or at the federal level. There are a number of these amicus curiae briefs of support and against that have been submitted. There are 14 Democratic states that have submitted a brief against keeping Line 5 open, and one Republican from Ohio has submitted one in support of keeping Line 5 open. This is why it is so important that the Canadian government provide a brief of support, and it is due next Tuesday, so we are running out of time. It is fine to say we will do all things and take every effort, but seeing the piece of paper submitted by May 11 would be very helpful.

At the same time, I agree with the member for Mount Royal, who indicated that he does not believe that a state court at this point in time has the power to force Line 5 down and also that they will likely not put an injunction out while the case is before the court. In terms of that timing, the judge did order mediation between Governor Whitmer and Enbridge, and that mediation is coming to an end within the next week. Then, the deadline for the briefs exists, and she will have to review all of that information before she can render a decision about whether the case should be heard in federal court or state court. Then, of course, the case needs to be heard, so that would be another whole bunch of testimony that will happen.

Although I do not think things are going to happen next Wednesday, I do think that there is no other contingency plan in place. The tankers, railcars and trucks have been suggested. We are short of railcars in Canada right now, and there is a shortage of trucks as well, so even if we could find them, to take that volume is certainly environmentally worse from an emissions point of view. We know, with the Lac-Mégantic issue that occurred, that rail is not as safe as a pipeline is.

I think those are important considerations, and I would say that, when it comes to the Canada-U.S. committee, which I was fortunate to sit in and go through, it came with seven recommendations for the government. This is the call to action I would like to see the government act on. It called for mediation; that is happening. It called for U.S. decision-makers at all levels to be contacted, and I know there are efforts of lobby within Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Michigan. It is unfortunate the Governor Whitmer will not meet with the natural resources minister. She did take a call with the leader of the official opposition and with Doug Ford, and so I think we need to press on there. The amicus brief, as I have mentioned, is an important support for Canada to bring. Then, it called for the Prime Minister to press and, if necessary, put a treaty violation complaint in if this continues, because this certainly is a federal treaty that allows that line to operate.

I have not heard of any contingency plans, but somebody should start thinking about those. The companies in my riding are thinking about that. As well, we should look at our other vulnerabilities, because if we continue to see that the U.S. is not going to stand as our friend in these matters, then what other supply chain and critical energy infrastructure is vulnerable, and what will we do about that? The committee then called to have members of Parliament engage, as we are tonight, and so I am happy to see everybody all on the same page, calling for the action.

Let us move forward. Let us keep Line 5 open.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for her remarks. She really did spell out in detail many of the safety measures that are followed to ensure that this pipeline remains safe.

I have been fortunate to be on the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group and have met with a lot of U.S. federal representatives on this issue. In meeting with the people, I found that most, but not all, of them were onside, although some raised questions.

What I cannot understand, and maybe the member can answer this, is why the Governor of Michigan is absolutely unwilling to listen to reason on this issue. As the member mentioned, Enbridge is looking at the tunnel prospect going forward.

I hate to use the word, but is it just boneheadedness on the governor's part? Why the resistance?

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to it being an election promise that the governor ran on, I think it is interesting to note that the State of Michigan has approved two of the four permits to build this tunnel. Why would the State of Michigan be approving these things if the governor was definitely shutting this line down? I would say that it does show a willingness and that she understands that the tunnel project is the appropriate solution to this issue.

I think that she also has some people potentially running against her, so there are political things at play in terms of making sure that she sticks with her promise. However, I think she would love for somebody to intervene and overrule her at this point.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know this issue is particularly close to her heart, since it is happening in her riding. Even so, I thought her speech was thoughtful and she did not resort to political rhetoric. I thank her for that as well.

I would like to hear her thoughts on something. We know that an energy transition will not happen overnight, but I think we can all agree that the Line 5 pipeline shutdown will not happen overnight either. Nevertheless, in the long term we will need to find a way out of fossil fuels. I wonder if she thinks this would be a good idea as part of a negotiation.

Instead of trying to hold on to Line 5 forever, we could have a discussion at some point about how, after taking the time to do things right, we will have to shut down the pipeline.

Would that not be a good approach right now, to avoid choosing a drastic and ill-prepared solution?

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

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need a plan for the transition. I think that will take a long time because farmers who are currently using oil will need another method.

People who own cars and rely on oil will need to buy electric cars, for example. We need a plan, and I think that plan could take 10 years.

We need a plan.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for likely being the greatest advocate for Line 5 and getting this problem resolved quickly.

I have been hearing from lots of farmers in my riding. The member talked about it in her speech, but I would like her to expand on how important Line 5 is to our farmers and our agri-food supply, not only here in Ontario but in Quebec as well, and the impact it would have on everyday Canadians' grocery bills if this does not get resolved ASAP.

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

Mr. Speaker, farmers heating their barns, drying their grains or heating their greenhouses are going to immediately see a shortage of propane. As we know, when the supply is short the price goes up.

In the most extreme cases, such as when we saw the rail blockades, we know that there is potential for those barns to not be heated and for the animals to freeze. That was a real threat, so that is something that could happen in extreme circumstances. More likely, the cost would go up, and that would cause the cost of all food to go up. We have seen people struggling, especially those on a fixed income, so this would be extreme, especially for our seniors.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following public bills to which concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-204, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trafficking in human organs; and Bill S-205, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Don Valley West.

I thank the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie for initiating this emergency debate. This a pressing issue and a national priority that belongs on the floor of the House. Just as importantly, it is one of those rare matters upon which members from both sides of the House are in complete agreement.

The Governor of Michigan's attempts to shut down the Line 5 pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac strike at three key pillars of our future. First, a shutdown would significantly stall the robust economic recovery we need to help us build back better from this global pandemic. Second, it would badly damage North American energy security. We need to power our post-COVID-19 recovery. Third, it would undermine our commitment to creating a low-carbon economy that leaves no one behind.

Why is Line 5 so critical for all these priorities? First and foremost, it supports thousands of jobs on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border. It supplies the fuels and other essential products that underpin our national economies and support our pandemic responses, such as heating our homes and businesses and powering everything from farming and manufacturing to air travel. Second, Line 5 is critical to our continent's highly integrated energy sectors, linking western Canada's petroleum industry to key markets and refineries in both central Canada and the northern U.S. Third, Line 5 allows us to get our resources to global markets and generate the revenues we need to invest in a clean energy future.

Without Line 5, refineries would have to get their feedstock through alternate forms of transportation that are more dangerous and produce more emissions, such as rail, truck and barge. Estimates suggest that shutting down Line 5 could add as many as 15,000 dedicated trucks, or 800 rail cars, a day to transport the displaced product. Not only would this significantly increase CO2 emissions at a time when we are making efforts to reduce them, it would also raise the risk of rail disasters and oil spills, impacting our communities, wildlife and ecosystems. All of this added risk and environmental damage would be for nothing.

The U.S. pipeline regulator, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has repeatedly inspected Line 5 through the Straits of Mackinac and, as recently as last year, has consistently found the pipeline fit for service. It is why we have seen such broad and consistent support for the continued safe operation of Line 5.

The Prime Minister and members of the opposition, multiple governments, industry and unions have all come together as members of team Canada to show that shutting down Line 5 on a whim does not make sense. As the Minister of Natural Resources has said, Line 5 is non-negotiable for Canada, full stop.

With that in mind, I would like to use the rest of my time to explore why support on this side of the border is so strong and unwavering. Line 5 is crucial for Canada's energy security. It currently transports up to 540,000 barrels of oil and natural gas every day that are vital to central Canada' supply of gasoline, home heating fuels and jet fuel, not to mention the more than roughly 20,000 jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, that depend on this pipeline. Propane transported by Line 5 is used by our schools and hospitals, and by our businesses that are hoping to come back stronger than ever in the wake of COVID-19.

It is not just Canada that will suffer if Line 5 is shut down. Michigan is dependent on Line 5 for 55% of its propane needs, and prices for propane in that state could rise by 38¢ a gallon if it shut down. Additionally, refineries in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as here in Ontario and Quebec, would be unable to obtain the crude oil they require to operate. This could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs here in Canada and in the United States.

While I understand the Governor of Michigan is concerned about leaks, her fear is unfounded. In the 68 years that Line 5 has been operating, not once has it suffered any leaks along the 7.2 kilometres of pipeline that cross the Straits of Mackinac. What is the secret to that success? The twin pipes are made of specially constructed seamless steel measuring almost an inch thick, which is three times the thickness of what is required even today. The pipe was then covered with fibre-reinforced enamel and laid in an area where the risk of corrosion was minimized by cold temperatures and a lack of oxygen.

Furthermore, this stretch of pipeline is carefully monitored using sophisticated cameras and radar on a 24-7 schedule to ensure no vessels drop anchor over it. All of this is managed by specially trained staff using sophisticated computer systems, and is further supplemented with regular inspections by expert divers and remotely operated vehicles.

This is a stretch of pipeline that far exceeds the minimum standards required of it. As a result, there are 68 years of safe, leak-free history to back it up. Despite all of this, Enbridge has proposed even more stringent safeguards including a cement-encased tunnel deep under the lake-bed. It would be a tunnel large enough for a new pipeline system and would also be able to accommodate other future uses, such as electricity transmission, making it a piece of infrastructure that would maintain its usefulness as we transition to a net-zero future.

All of this brings me to my final point, which is that the fate of Line 5 is a matter for the federal government in Washington, D.C., to decide. It is not a matter to be decided by the state governor in Lansing, Michigan.

This is because in 1977, when Jimmy Carter was president of the United States and the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau was our prime minister, our two countries signed a consequential treaty born of the OPEC oil embargo and several years of bilateral discussions to ship oil and gas by pipeline from Alaska and Canada's north to southern markets. In the preamble of that treaty were three key points worth revisiting today.

First, the treaty recognizes that pipelines are “an efficient, economical and safe means of transporting hydrocarbons from producing areas to consumers, in both Canada and the United States”.

Second, it notes that the pipelines operating at the time provided an important service to both Canadian and American consumers.

Third, it states that both national governments were “convinced”, and that is the word used in the treaty, that it was appropriate for the two countries to enter into a treaty to govern the transmission of hydrocarbons by pipeline rather than leaving it to unilateral action.

Canada's preference is for this matter to be resolved amicably between Enbridge and the State of Michigan. No one wants to see a protracted legal battle. There is also consensus on both sides of the border that we want a robust economy coupled with strict environmental stewardship. This is what Line 5 and the Great Lakes tunnel project are all about.

It is for all these reasons that I remain optimistic that cooler heads will ultimately prevail. Ultimately the friendship and mutual economic interests that have defined our nation's 154-year history with the United States will once again prevail with Line 5.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his speech. I am quite enamoured of it. If we could have taken that speech and put it in any context around Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain, energy east or Keystone XL, it would have fit with all of those things, yet we have seen time and again that the government has shut down those pipelines. We have seen how the government failed to stand up for the 134,000 oil field workers in northern Alberta when all of those pipelines were on the docket to be cut.

What has changed in the member's mind that now he is suddenly an ardent defender of pipelines?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. That is the first time a Conservative has ever said anything about my speech.

Right now we are dealing with a reality that is in front of us. We see that if Line 5 gets shut down, it will have a devastating impact, not only economically, but also environmentally. As I referenced in my speech, this pipeline is very safe. It was made safe in 1953 by the technology used then, and it will continue to be made even safer by the adjustments and the new infrastructure that Enbridge has proposed to build.

I am very confident that this pipeline will serve its purpose, but more importantly, it will serve an environmental purpose by keeping 15,000 trucks off the road and 800 railcars off the rails. We will minimize the environmental impact while still maintaining a robust economy.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

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

He clearly explained that Line 5 supplies refineries in both Quebec and Ontario, and that its potential shutdown is a legitimate cause for concern. On the other hand, there are all sorts of environmental concerns.

My colleague said that this pipeline was safe, but it is important to remember the 20,000 barrels of oil that spilled into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. One cannot help but think that another similar incident could occur, which is worrisome for the environmental health of our waterways.

If we want to move toward a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and toward net-zero emissions, how can we strike a balance between economic and environmental concerns?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the concerns will be resolved by making sure that the pipeline is built to standards above what are required today. If Line 5 gets shut down, we will see the environmental impacts of putting 15,000 trucks and 800 railcars on the road. There will be a higher chance of spills and a higher chance of accidents on the road. We will see a huge disruption across the border and a thickening of it. Other products will be delayed. Trucks will be all over the road.

If we want to talk about the environment, we know there has never been a spill on this pipeline. We recognize that to get to net zero, we need to make sure that we incentivize our transport industry to either go electric or minimize the impacts. This pipeline serves all of those purposes, especially for the environment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. If Line 5 is shut down, what is the Liberal government's plan to help the thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods would be impacted?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned earlier today, we are using all of our resources and will leave no stone unturned to make sure that we engage at the political level, at the diplomatic level and at the stakeholder level. At the committee on the Canada-U.S. special relationship, we heard from a lot of stakeholders on both sides of the border who are worried about this closure and are engaging with their counterparts.

Right now, the Government of Canada is fully seized and engaged on this file, and we look forward to an amicable resolution between Enbridge and the State of Michigan on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not dispute the importance of Line 5 to the economy, and I have known about the problems with the Straits of Mackinac since 2011. I wonder why it has not been fixed yet. There were indeed 15 spills on this pipeline between 1988 and 2012, resulting in 260,000 gallons of oil spilt. Enbridge has a terrible record of gross negligence and gross incompetence. Over 1,000 Enbridge spills across the Enbridge pipeline system dumped 7.4 million gallons of oil into the environment between 1999 and 2013.

We should be holding these companies to account. If we want these pipelines flowing through the United States or flowing through our provinces, they should be held to account. Enbridge is a grossly negligent company, and people wonder why B.C. does not want the Enbridge northern gateway—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time.

We will go back to the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.