Debates of May 6th, 2021

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, right now what we are dealing with is the safety of Line 5, and it has been safe, especially under the waters of the Straits of Mackinac. In 68 years there has never been a spill, and I am very confident with the ideas that Enbridge has to encase the pipeline in cement and bring it lower under the lake-bed. I think it will be protected.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to join this debate. I am not in Ottawa. I am joining it from the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wyandot peoples. This continues to be the home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

I am very proud to be part of this debate tonight, and I want to begin by commending three members whose speeches I have found to be quite informative as I was listening to the debate.

I thought the member for Mount Royal gave a passionate speech and brought in a set of legal arguments that I was not totally aware of. I think one of the purposes of debate is to learn, and the member for Mount Royal certainly added to my knowledge and understanding of the international law issues around this and some of the legal opportunities we could engage in.

I also want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton. This is obviously a personal issue for many people in her riding. She brought forward her engineering experience and her passion for farmers and workers in her riding, and I thought that was quite exceptional. I really want to commend the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I also want to commend the most recent speech, which I just listened to, by the member for Kitchener Centre. Having built upon the history and legal work of the member for Mount Royal and the sincere personal and economic concern about this issue from the member for Sarnia—Lambton, the member for Kitchener Centre was able to put this into a broader context. I would hope this issue crosses partisan divides and unites us in the House so we can say that Line 5 is an essential tool for the economic, social and cultural well-being of Canada. We need to unite to do our very best to convince the decision-makers involved in this decision to make the right decision.

I speak to this issue as a son of the Great Lakes. I speak to it as someone who comes from the border city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. I note that my staff wrote me out a nice phonetic spelling for “Mackinac”, but that was not necessary. I grew up going to Mackinac Island every year. I crossed the Mackinac Bridge many times a year. I know the Straits of Mackinac and the people of Michigan. I have been both a tourist and a friend in many parts of the state of Michigan. I have great respect for the people of Michigan and want them to understand that the partnership we have, particularly on Line 5, is in many ways something we can work on together.

I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been quite well made in many speeches. Instead, I want to bring in, as part of my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, some issues that I would like to speak to the Americans about tonight. I know that some of them are probably listening.

I do not think we need to convince each other of the importance of this line. Some may have some differences. I would disagree with some of the concerns that have been raised, but I do not doubt anyone's concern about the importance of supporting Line 5.

Canada and the United States have long enjoyed one of the most productive, collaborative and mutually beneficial bilateral relationships in the world. Line 5 is one example of the mutually beneficial partnership that has existed for almost 70 years. Ours is a partnership of neighbours, forged by shared geography on this continent, similar values, common interests, people-to-people and family connections and powerful multi-layered economic and security ties. Our two countries enjoy the largest trading relationship in the world, which has been talked about tonight. We defend and protect North America together. We are stewards of our shared environment, and we stand on the world stage to respond to many pressing global challenges together.

As recently as February 23, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States committed to a road map for a renewed relationship and a renewed U.S.-Canada partnership that sets out a blueprint for an ambitious whole-of-government approach to this important bilateral relationship. Together our leaders have created an enhanced partnership that will advance global health, security, and climate change; bolster co-operation, defence and security; and reaffirm the commitment to diversity, equity and justice.

Obviously that plays out in our COVID-19 pandemic response: We need to be in this together. We recognize that we have differences. We have a border, and that border needs to be thick at times. In a pandemic, we thicken the border. However, we always try to keep it as thin as possible to keep trade travelling across our borders day after day.

We have been working on research. We have been working on combatting the virus through the sharing of vaccines and through collaboration on diagnostics and other projects. This is something we need to do, and it is a top concern, obviously, to both governments.

However, Line 5 is also of great concern, because it is not only symbolic; it is a real issue between our two economies and our two peoples. The people who produce energy in this country, largely western Canadians in Alberta and Saskatchewan, need to have markets for the energy they produce. Canada produces the best, cleanest energy in the world, and we need to support the economies and the people of western Canada.

Let us never doubt that it is part of our job all the time to defend and stand with the people of western Canada. I am an easterner. I am an Ontarian. I am a Great Lakes member of Parliament. That does not mean I am any less committed to the whole of this country and the well-being of everyone in it. In the Line 5 project, we have energy that needs to move across the country, and we know that pipelines are the safest, healthiest way for energy products to do so.

After the people of Don Valley West gave me an extended leave of absence between 2011 and 2015, which I believe was unfortunate for them and for me, I was able to spend four years as the president and CEO of the Asthma Society of Canada. This week is asthma week in Canada, and we remember the number of issues that people with respiratory illnesses face. One of those is the need to have clean energy. The cleanest way to transport energy across this country is through pipelines. We do not want it crossing the country in trucks, trains and tankers. That is a dirtier, less healthy way to transport energy.

We are committed to pipelines, and not one party in the House has a monopoly on that commitment. We come at this issue strongly, convinced that Canada needs to have a robust energy industry, and we need to transport energy safely, carefully and to the benefit of Canadians across the country. To do that means we need to continue to fight for Line 5.

What I have not appreciated in the debate tonight nearly as much as the speeches I gave is the hand-wringing, whinging, whining and blaming that has gone on in some of the speeches. I have not found that helpful. To disagree with the way our Prime Minister handles certain things is the opposition's right. It is in the job description of the opposition. However, we have to add constructive thoughts. Even the member for Sarnia—Lambton was very clear in saying that the issue had been raised by the Prime Minister.

We have tossed the ball into the court of the American decision-makers continuously and steadfastly, with incredible diligence, and have done it faithfully to the people of Canada coast to coast to coast. That means the energy producers, the energy users and the energy transporters. We hold things in a careful balance to find a way forward as we move to a more sustainable, greener economy. We still have energy needs and we still need to do things carefully and cautiously.

I also do not appreciate the thought that we have a magic wand on one side of the House or the other. We do not have a magic wand. What we do have is persistence, data and an argument that will remind our American siblings and cousins that this is an important part of our shared economic prosperity and future together. We can do it in a cleaner way, obviously.

Canada is moving its economy toward a net-zero position. We believe in sustainability. We believe that climate change is real. We are not denying that. We also recognize that in the process, we will need to keep Canadians moving. We will need to keep farmers producing produce and food for Canadian tables. We will need to ensure people can heat their homes and keep their businesses going. We will do that and we will stand with them.

What I would expect of the opposition—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there. We are slightly over the 10 minutes. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will have a chance to expand on those thoughts over the course of the next five minutes.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments from the member on the other side. I also appreciate him bringing his role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to this debate as well, because it is very important. I have heard his words and ask him this.

At what point in time does he feel this will receive enough importance, with six days left before the decision is made by the Governor of Michigan to shut this line down, to elevate it to the Prime Minister meeting with the United States President to move the issue forward? This is very important to so many people in Canada. How do we move it to a level of extreme importance for our trading partner?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said in this debate, the Prime Minister of Canada has this on his agenda. He has already raised the issue with the American administration, with the President. It has been raised in a number of ways at a number of times.

We also have cabinet government in our country. The Prime Minister is seized with the issue at his level. However, Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a number of ministers have this on their plate and are working in concert also with the Ontario government. This is what we do. It is not all on one person's plate. That would be an unwise way to act. The way to act is to ensure the Prime Minister raises the issue, raises it well and ensures his ministers, the people around that cabinet table, are raising it with their people.

I want to give a shout-out to the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association. It raised the issue with its counterparts, and we do that with legislators across the country. I see the chair from Malpeque is in the room. We also raised the issue with the special committee on Canada-U.S. relations. This is parliamentary. It is government. It is provincial. It is federal. It is industrial. It is civil society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He clearly has a lot to say, and I appreciate that.

From what I understand of the situation and tonight's debate, it is uncertain whether Line 5 will actually be shut down on May 12. Hypothetically speaking, let us say that Line 5 did close on May 12. We can assume that Quebec would find other sources of supply rather quickly, which might be a good thing.

What action would the government take? Would it find a way to reopen Line 5? Would it find other sources of supply? Would it move toward other energy sources to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite relieved that is not my responsibility as the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs or the member of Parliament for Don Valley West. However, I am convinced that the Minister of Natural Resources and all those at the provincial level who are looking at the important ways energy fuels our economy have the responsibility.

It has been very clear in this debate that no Canadian has or his hand on the tap to turn this pipeline on or off. That is happening somewhere else. It has also been pointed out in this debate that legal arguments are being made. There will be court decisions around this activity. There could be stays.

What we do now is we keep going on all the diplomatic channels. We keep going on the business and industry channels. We know Canadian business is smart. Canadian business is entrepreneurial and it will work. That is why I am not a New Democrat. I believe in the market's ability to fix these problems.

Government is there to assist those businesses. We will be there to guide them and we will not let people go cold.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure, but also a sense of urgency, that I rise today to participate in this emergency debate. I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Peace River—Westlock.

The word “emergency” is indeed very appropriate because if nothing changes, in a matter of days, on May 12, the entire Canadian economy might be shaken by a serious economic situation that will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. People across the country will unfortunately be affected by an American decision that will have very real consequences for Canadians, especially in Quebec. I am, of course, talking about shutting down Line 5.

What precisely is Line 5?

Line 5 is a pipeline that starts in Edmonton and goes to Sarnia. I will take this opportunity to send my regards to my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton, who is incredibly committed to her fellow citizens and is a champion for the cause of the Line 5 workers. As I was saying, this pipeline takes Canadian oil from the West and sends it to Sarnia, in Ontario. From there, the oil is transported in Line 9 toward Quebec, among other places, and it crosses three American states. One of these states, Michigan, has decided to turn off the taps. Michigan does not want Line 5 on its territory. We have known this for months. We will have the opportunity to talk about it later, but something could have been done, something different from what have seen so far.

I would like to point out that this situation could have major consequences for Quebec. Like my colleagues, I note that there is not a lot of talk about it in Quebec. However, if it actually does happen on May 12, I am sure that some people will be in for a rude awakening.

As I said earlier, Line 5 carries oil from western Canada to Sarnia. From Sarnia, the oil crosses Ontario and goes to Montreal through Line 9. Without this Line 9, more than half of the oil consumed in Quebec could be cut off and two-thirds of the crude oil consumed in Quebec could be cut off.

A study published by the École des hautes études commerciales points out that nine billion litres of oil are consumed in Quebec, along with more than three billion litres for industry. This means that more than 10 billion litres of oil are consumed in Quebec. It is said, and rightly so, that there is a lot of interest in green energy in Quebec and, of course, in electric vehicles. However, the reality is that 10 billion litres of oil are consumed in Quebec every year, and that is increasing, by the way.

If, God forbid, Line 5 were to be closed, 800 additional rail cars and 3,000 more tractor trailers would be hauling gas. No one wants that. If, God forbid, this were to happen, Quebeckers will have to look elsewhere for their energy supply. This means that we will buy oil in Brazil, Saudi Arabia or Algeria. This oil will not arrive miraculously, but will arrive by boat. Magnificent and enormous tankers will be travelling the St. Lawrence River. I am not sure that Quebeckers will be very happy about that.

There are two refineries in Quebec: one in Montreal, the other in Lévis. It is not true that there is no oil in Quebec because Quebeckers do not like oil. There is oil, and there are people who make their living from it.

We must stop thinking of oil as “the gas we put in our cars”. It is much more than that. There are 50,000 people in Quebec working in the petrochemical industry. People across Quebec work in the plastics industry and God only knows just how much plastic we needed over the past year and a half with the pandemic. People work with polyester, whether it is used as a fibre or in asphalt. We need oil for all these things. I will not even mention the 300 things we wear every day, such as polyester shirts. The reality is that oil is part of our daily life, whether we like it or not. Quebeckers live with oil. We must realize that the closure of Line 5 could have major consequences for these people, no just those working in the petrochemical industry, but also those working on farms and in the food industry, in other words, our farmers who feed us.

God knows that the current pandemic is making us more aware of food self-sufficiency. If we want our farmers to occupy the land and work properly then they need to have access to this type of energy. If not, we will have to turn elsewhere because we risk losing our crops, our agriculture, our animals. That is why we need to be aware that what is happening right now could have major adverse consequences on Quebec's economy.

As a Quebecker, I am very proud that Quebec developed extraordinary expertise in hydroelectric power. As Quebeckers, we can be proud of the creation of Hydro-Québec in the 1940s under the auspices of the Liberal government of Mr. Godbout. The following government, the Union Nationale, started the major shift to state ownership and the first large hydro projects. Just think of the mega-project on the Betsiamites River in 1952-53. No one remembers, but it was the first major project. There was also the Manic-5 generating station, built around 1958 under the Union Nationale government. The major shift to state ownership occurred in 1962 under the Jean Lesage government. The James Bay project, developed in 1971, recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. In Quebec, we can be proud of that energy.

We also have a petrochemical industry, and Quebec has pipelines. Jason Kenney did not invent pipelines. Quebec has had pipelines since 1941, before Alberta even had its big oil boom. There are nearly 2,000 kilometres of pipelines in Quebec right now. There are nine pipelines under the St. Lawrence. In 2012, less than 10 years ago, Quebec opened a pipeline that goes from Lévis to Montreal. The pipeline spans 248 kilometres, over nearly 630 plots of land and 26 waterways, including the St. Lawrence River.

We have this expertise in Quebec, but it is part of a bigger whole. We are proud of having a wide range of energy sources. Nevertheless, Quebec still has oil needs. Whether people like it or not, this form of energy is essential to keeping our economy and everything else running.

Line 5 is a pipeline. We have pipelines in Quebec, and people need to stop acting as if we did not. We are all aware that no one is safe from disasters. We also know that pipelines are 99.999% effective. Yes, one drop of oil in the river is one drop too many. We all agree on that. However, the overall track record for pipelines is not all that bad. This is the most effective, safest, greenest and most economical way to transport oil.

As I have said, the clock is ticking and we need to take action. The Prime Minister has already been in contact with his U.S. counterpart. Since the Prime Minister has a close relationship with the current U.S. President and they are fairly aligned ideologically, he has a duty to use this close relationship and friendship with the new tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to make sure that Canada's interests are being well represented.

Since the beginning of the debate, it has been said that all Canadian parliamentarians have come together to contact American parliamentarians. I commend them for that. However, leadership needs to come from the top down. The Prime Minister needs to make direct calls to the decision-makers, the governor of Michigan and those directly affected. Why does the Prime Minister not use his friendship with former President Obama to convince him to play an active role in this case? The Prime Minister could use his friendship with President Barack Obama in a useful way on behalf of Canadians. Why not ask him to get involved in this situation, which is important for the Canadian economy and beneficial for the American economy too?

I am pleased to see that all Canadian parliamentarians are united in this decision, but we need to take action now more than ever to ensure that Line 5 does not shut down in a week's time.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech, but I want to go back to what one of his colleagues said earlier about the Leader of the Opposition who, in fact, did contact the Governor of Michigan. I wonder if he can report on what that conversation was all about, what happened, what the leader said and what the governor said. It did not work, obviously, because we are in this situation. Still, it would be interesting to know what dynamics the leader picked up on from the Governor of Michigan over this issue.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague of one thing. I was not a witness to that conversation, but I have witnessed the hard work and passion of the leader of the official opposition in this Parliament when we had the time to talk about the Canadian economy.

I can assure the member that the first point our leader addressed with the Prime Minister when he was elected the new Leader of the Opposition was the economy of Alberta, which is suffering so much. Alberta's economy could suffer more with this situation.

I can also assure the member that when the Leader of the Opposition talked with the Prime Minister about the budget, he raised the issue of Line 5. I can assure the member that the Leader of the Opposition is a champion of the Canadian economy and he is a champion of Canada's natural resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his speech.

I understand him. I think he is being realistic when he says that we depend on the petrochemical industry. It is true that we cannot close our eyes and pretend that we do not need oil. However, in the long term, oil will not last forever. In the future, there may well be other challenges like the ones we are seeing now or the ones we saw with Keystone XL and TransMountain. It is important to understand that we will not need more pipelines in the future. We will need fewer pipelines, especially considering climate change.

If we want to keep Line 5 going, the aim should not be to keep it forever, but to start a transition process and eventually shut it down. I would like my colleague to tell me whether that is not the realistic approach we must take.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I admire her very much, and I admire her deeply sincere political engagement.

I would like to remind her that nobody has a crystal ball. We do not know what will happen. I remember back when I was a kid, there were ads on TV saying there would be no more oil by the 1980s. That is what we were told back then.

I want to say that the concern the member raised is important. We all know we have to shift and transition. That is why, three weeks ago, our leader unveiled a thoughtful, realistic and responsible game plan to address climate change. Our plan includes that transition, and transportation electrification is a big part of it.

The member and I both know that there is extraordinary potential in places like Saint-Jérôme in Quebec, and we want to support that potential with investments in excess of $1 billion for electric vehicle batteries.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. One thing I am concerned about tonight's debate is that we are not talking enough about solutions to this issue. We are not hearing good ideas coming forward as to how to alleviate this logjam. We are also not talking about why this has come about.

This is about fear. This is about the Governor of Michigan and her constituents being concerned about a spill. We know that Enbridge has a track record of a spill in the Kalamazoo, along with other breaks. We have also seen President Biden kill Keystone XL. We have seen the Norwegian government withdraw the money from their sovereign wealth fund. These are all signals that we are not doing enough here in Canada to tackle climate change and do our part.

Why do the Conservatives continue to argue in defence of tax breaks and subsidies to oil and gas companies, instead of calling on them to do a bigger and better part? Why are they not calling for more stringent environmental regulations to build trust with the Governor of Michigan—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give 15 seconds to the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent to answer.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague.

I am sure he knows that Canada has the highest standards for producing petroleum and natural resources. We have to be proud of that and do what we can to sell the proudness that we have for our natural resources.

Yes, I am proud, as a Canadian, of the petroleum industry and the hydroelectricity in Quebec. We have to be proud of ourselves and say to everybody, especially to the Americans, that here in Canada we have the highest standards in producing our natural resources. Be proud.

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

Madam Speaker, Enbridge Energy's Line 5 pipeline could be shut down in a week. This is another example of the Liberal government's failure to act. We have known about the May 12 deadline for months, and the Liberals have done nothing. Pipelines and getting goods to market are topics that are very important to me and my constituents, and under the Liberals, we have seen countless energy projects and pipelines cancelled, pipelines that could have prevented this situation.

We have seen this government pass Bill C-48, the shipping ban bill, and Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill. Also, the Liberal government abandoned Albertans in failing to stand up for Keystone XL. Indeed, this government's record on pipelines is brutal. In cancelling energy east and northern gateway, and causing the cancellation of the Carmon Creek project, they have left 134,000 Canadian oil patch workers and their families in the lurch. When the Liberals stand up and say that this is about jobs, I say, yeah right, that is a bunch of BS. The Liberals are ashamed of Alberta and the prosperity that comes from our natural resources.

Canadians want good, ethical and responsibly sourced oil, yet we have refineries in Saint John, New Brunswick, that must take oil from countries with atrocious human rights records and no environmental protections whatsoever; measures that we do not have because of the national east-west pipeline that our Canadian oil is unable to get across this country.

Our Canadian oil is produced with some of the highest standards in the world. For now, we have the Line 5, which transports half a million barrels of oil a day from the Canadian west to the Canadian east, from production fields in Alberta to refineries in Ontario and Quebec. This is a win-win for all of Canada, and several provinces get their direct share of the benefits of our natural resource. Indeed, Canada needs more Canadian oil, not less. We need more Canadian energy, not less. We can share our energy. I know that Quebec is a world leader in hydroelectricity. Why can we not share that and go back and forth?

Pipelines are not just something to transport oil in. They are something that we transport all kinds of things in. As we transitioned from oil and moved to the production of natural gas, we switched over many pipelines from oil to natural gas. Who knows what in the future we will be transporting through these same pipelines. These pipelines will not become obsolete as we use less and less oil.

Moreover, we are at a crossroads here today. In fact, we are actually at the edge of the cliff in regard to Line 5 due to Liberal inaction. This pipeline that plays such a critical role in the Canadian economy could be shut down very soon. We did not have to be here. We could have had other pipeline projects initiated five years ago, which could have been in play today, and yet here we are with only one pipeline transporting oil from west to east.

This Line 5 pipeline plays such a critical role in the Canadian economy, and it could shut down very soon. With the closure of Line 5, the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians will be impacted. Not that the Liberals seemed to care when it was 134,000 Albertans who were losing their jobs because of the lack of pipelines, but today here we are with 5,000 direct jobs in the Sarnia region and 25,000 jobs in southern Ontario and Quebec impacted.

This pipeline provides $165 billion in revenue and thousands of indirect jobs both in Quebec and Ontario. We cannot abandon these jobs either. Just because this government does not want to stand up for jobs in Alberta does not mean that we should not stand up for these jobs in Ontario and Quebec. Justin Trudeau cannot and should not be choosing which jobs are worth saving. The energy sector—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Chair, point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would caution the member not to use the name of the Prime Minister.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, in the member's big attack on the Liberals, he should not be referring to the Prime Minister by his name. Instead of attacks, it would be nice if he could get into the debate and propose some solutions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for calling it out. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock knows that we cannot use names in the chamber.

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

Madam Speaker, the energy sector is a key component to our continued recovery, and we cannot abandon this industry and the families it supports.

Today is a sad day, and we must have an emergency debate to ensure that a pipeline will not be shut down. In fact, we are less than a week away from that deadline. Michigan's governor wants to shut down Line 5 on May 12. Currently the case is before a judge and it will soon go to the courts of the United States and that is in their hands.

For the past several months I have joined my Conservative colleagues in asking questions of the Liberal government about its actions on Line 5. In fact, on February 24, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources stated the government was fully committed to the continuing and safe operation of Line 5, yet the Liberals have abandoned any action and have failed to meaningfully engage to ensure the continuation of Line 5.

Here we are today, one week away from the shutdown of Line 5. Are we going to let America's courts determine our energy security? It seems like we are.

Right now Enbridge, the owner of the pipeline, is in mediation, but there is no guarantee in this regard in either situation. We cannot take that risk in courts. That is why other projects and pipelines that would have been built today would be the solution. The Government of Canada needs to take leadership and ensure this pipeline continues, but we could have had other pipelines in play to ensure we were not held ransom, as we are today.

Line 5 impacts millions of Canadians, and through increased prices, greater truck traffic and environmental risks, the Liberals have failed to protect Line 5 and other pipeline projects. During the special committee on Canada-U.S. relations, members heard that Line 5 is not just an important pipeline, it is an economic lifeline for both Canada and the U.S. It would impede access to the energy that is needed to run both of our economies and would cause energy shortages and have a significant impact on the price of gasoline, diesel, propane, jet fuel, plastics and chemicals.

To Conservatives, Line 5 is of national importance. Action needs to be taken. The Governor of Michigan has referred to this pipeline as a “ticking time bomb”. We cannot have a Prime Minister who sits on his hands and lets others decide our fate.

Time and again we have seen these death by delay tactics on major projects like the Teck Frontier mine and the failure to stand up for Keystone XL. The Prime Minister is missing in action, much like his failure to show up for the negotiations on the TPP. The Prime Minister is the captain of the Canadian ship. We are asking him, rather than letting us drift along on the current, to put his hand on the tiller and provide some direction.

We cannot rely on American courts or politicians to defend our interests. We have already seen how American politicians and a disinterested Liberal government have made the construction and completion of Keystone XL impossible. To save Line 5, we need action and a political response at the highest level. The shutdown of Line 5 is not an issue that can be swept into the closet. The impending closure is right in front of us, and millions of Canadians will be impacted by this shutdown.

The Canadian government needs to stand up for its treaties and agreements. The transit pipelines treaty is one of these agreements. Back in 1977, Joe Biden, then a senator and now the American president, voted for and supported the transit pipelines treaty. This treaty ensures that oil and petroleum products can travel from Canada through the U.S. and come back into Canada.

This pipeline has operated safely for 68 years, but Michigan's governor's plan to cancel an easement, which would shut down this pipeline, needs our action now, and we have a treaty to back it up. Our Prime Minister needs to work directly with the American president to ensure the continuation of Line 5. This task would ensure that Line 5 cannot be delegated. It requires action at the highest level, and this matter needs to be dealt with quickly so that Canadian jobs are protected.

I have heard over and over again from the Liberals how this is about jobs, that pipelines are safe and that there are 1,500 trucks, 800 railcars, northern gateway and Keystone XL. However, northern gateway, Keystone XL and energy east all would have displaced foreign oil, displaced these trucks, displaced railcars, taken the oil off the rail and taken it off the road.

The logic is the same for all other pipelines, not just Line 5, and energy east would have been operational by now, if the Liberals had not stuck a stick in its spokes. If there is no action on Line 5 and Line 5 is shut down, 5,000 jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, will be lost due to the Prime Minister's inaction.

Enbridge Line 5 plays a key role in our national energy supply chain: 15,000 trucks a day would be required to replace the capacity of this pipeline.

The special committee heard from Scott Archer of UA Local 663, who commented on the importance of Line 5 by saying that for Canadians, this is “non-negotiable. You need to take a stand to protect Canadian families, businesses and industry.”

The continued operation of Line 5 is of national importance. In February, I asked a question on behalf of my friend JD from Slave Lake: On what day will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and defend Alberta's energy interests and market access? We have seen continual failure and lack of action by the current do-nothing Liberal government on pipelines, especially Keystone XL and now Line 5. Why did he not act before this came before the courts?

To secure our future and to ensure—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I feel is really missing from this conversation is the voices of indigenous people. We know that the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States did the interim report on Enbridge Line 5. There was not one indigenous witness who participated in that report.

To build meaningful relationships with indigenous peoples when it comes to energy, to apply the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on both sides of the border, indigenous voices need to be included.

Does my colleague agree that this was a serious oversight, and that indigenous people need to be part of this really important conversation?

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

Madam Speaker, indigenous Canadians and all Canadians need to be part of this important discussion. As a member of Parliament who represents over 15 first nations and Métis communities in northern Alberta, I have seen first-hand the devastation that comes when the Liberal government does not protect and stand up for Canadian oil field worker jobs. The northern gateway cancellation was devastating to many of my northern Alberta communities, as they are involved in the construction of, particularly, the Carmon Creek project, which was right in the heart of my riding.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I heard him say that the solution could be to build more pipelines. I think that is diametrically opposed to what we need to do to fight the climate crisis. Joe Biden, the new U.S. President, revoked the Keystone XL construction permit, which proves that even the U.S., an oil-producing nation with a population larger than Canada's, understands that we need to move toward an energy transition.

With all due respect, I want to be sure I understand. Does my colleague believe that building more pipelines is really in line with fighting the climate crisis?