Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am humbled to be in this debate tonight. I know so many of my colleagues on this side of the House wanted to comment on the emergency of Line 5. I am here representing so many of them. We do have a good list of speakers, but many more wanted to address this issue. They have been advocates for this industry for years, advocates for how we will benefit across Canada, from the riches, the technology and the environmental advances that come with the energy industry. I thank all my colleagues for being such great advocates, before I came here, as well.
If I were to criticize the government's approach, it would be a target-rich environment considering how it is actually dealing with energy in this country, but particularly with how it is dealing with Line 5. We have had months to deal with this. If I had to pick one failure here, and I am going to start with just one, of the government, it is the lack of leadership.
A new United States president is sitting in Washington, with a new, better relationship with the Canadian government, supposedly, yet where is Canada, and what is happening with that special relationship? The steel and aluminum trade is still constrained. The softwood lumber agreements are not to be heard of. So much for CUSMA, with buy America, and Keystone XL was cancelled on day one. So much for energy security. So much for environmental progress. So much for North American jobs. So much for indigenous advancement.
The Prime Minister's response to Keystone XL was that he was disappointed, but he was clearly not engaged. With a shrug, he moved on, along with his Minister of Natural Resources, to other things. Effectively, all the progress thousands of Canadians brought to energy advances, and the Prime Minister gacve a quick shrug and moved on. This is the Prime Minister. He is not really involved with this file. It has been delegated to his Minister of Natural Resources. Leadership and accountability have been pushed down a level.
As much as anyone in this House, I admire the Minister of Natural Resources' words on the importance of an industry that contributes more to Canadians than any other industry in this country. However, I have heard his words repetitively. I have heard his protests about how hard he tried on Keystone XL, and I have reminded him then that this trying and failing is becoming repetitive with his cabinet colleagues.
His cheerleading has been falling on deaf ears with his government's leadership, who are once again saying, just like with Teck Frontier's project withdrawal, “Let us just move on.”
Before I move on any further, I need to mention I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
At that point, months ago in January, I spoke directly to the minister about the importance of solving Line 5 as quickly as possible. I told the minister that time and uncertainty are our enemy and that we need to elevate the urgency. Disappointment, a shrug and moving on are repetitions Canadians do not want to hear yet again.
It is now May 6, as my colleague said, six days from the date the Governor of Michigan wants to shut Line 5. In the U.S. courts, this matter may be held in abeyance until court jurisdiction is decided and the mediation process between the parties is completed. I should point out that this mediation was recommended by the federal court judge. Before that, the Governor of Michigan's administration would not even return the calls of the company or the Canadian government.
Yesterday, the governor of Michigan said she would ignore the legal process and shut down Line 5 on May 12. That is tough negotiating. The minister says phrases such as, “This is non-negotiable”, “No stone unturned” or “This is different from Keystone XL”, and we can see how Canadians are becoming wary of the minister's words.
The minister has failed on several resources files, and this approach needs to change. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. The minister must know it is beyond time to move this file off of his desk and onto his boss's desk.
This is not just a natural resources file. My party's leader led our debate here tonight because he knows this issue is not just a natural resources file. It is fundamentally important to Canadians across this whole country. It touches so many departments, such as foreign affairs, international trade, transport and energy. We need a whole-of-government approach to solving this issue.
My leader is in the debate. Where is the minister's leader, the Prime Minister? He is not here. He is not working on this file. He is not engaged in an issue the outcome of which affects tens of thousands of Canadians, the Canadian economy and our relationship with our major trading partner. It is long past due.
The Prime Minister needs to get off his hands and engage in this file. I would tell him to pick up the phone and fly down to meet the President. This is his new and improved political relationship with the U.S. President. It is time he plays that relationship card to show us it exists and has some currency.
We have seen the government act on files when it felt it should be active. We have seen a fulsome reaction to some trade issues. We have seen the leadership of the government take actions above and beyond accepted democratic norms in order to save jobs in one engineering company.
I have not spoken enough about the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship, but that is a huge casualty in this file. Last year, we watched the government accept it had badly negotiated a renewed North American free trade agreement. Real negotiators saw through our team's virtue signalling and inability to solve difficult issues.
I listened as the lead minister on the file stated that her greatest success was removing the energy-sharing agreement from the previous texts of NAFTA. I knew then that the current government did not understand the nature of trade between our two countries. With the U.S. government's decision on Keystone, and maybe the ignorance on Line 5, Canada's energy trade with our dominant trading partner is expendable. That is not a comfort. That is real risk.
Canada-U.S. trade was solidified three decades ago by leaders on both sides who understood how strong we were together. The government has alluded to a special relationship with the incoming U.S. administration and it should prove it. It needs to be utilized. The initial results are very discouraging.
Here are the risks. Are American federal or state courts now going to decide Canada's energy security? We know local courts in the U.S. can be parochial. Judges make mistakes that take years to go through a process to unwind through courts and legislatures. What is the worth of the trade and security agreements we have made with our largest trading partner? Who benefits from all this confusion? Who bears the costs?
If we fail at this, farmers, workers, Canadians, Americans, consumers, an energy-secure continent and the rule of international law regarding the environment will all be losers in this equation. Ironically, some of the pipeline's oil that flowed underneath the Straits of Mackinac will then flow above it.
What is the tangible outcome? By all accounts it is negative. We have been pounding the desk for months to have the Prime Minister engage directly with President Biden on this file. Where is he?