Debates of May 6th, 2021

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting listening to the debate tonight. I have to say it is disappointing to hear opposition colleagues, particularly the Conservatives, politicize this issue so often, not always, but quite often. Let us keep in mind that there are thousands of jobs at stake, direct and indirect. Those folks are Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Green supporters. Some do not vote, but they still care passionately about their country and certainly about their families, obviously.

What is the minister's message to those in Sarnia and southwestern Ontario? Those of us who know London will know that Sarnia is just down the road. I want to thank the minister for continuously engaging on this issue, whether it is with local MPs from the southwest or Mayor Bradley, whom I know he has spoken to. What is his message to the people of Sarnia and southwestern Ontario? It is a critical time. We have seen the rhetoric continue to develop in the United States in a negative way. I am looking to hear some reassurances from the minister. I know he has them, because I know how much he cares about this.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my message to them is that we will not them go cold in the winter. We are not just talking about hundreds of thousands of homes in southwestern Ontario; we are talking about hundreds of thousands of homes in Michigan. We are talking about essential jobs and homes in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I have stood in this House and debated KXL and other pipelines, but this is an existing pipeline that powers and heats homes now, that employs thousands of people now. When we look at the economy of our country and of the United States as we pursue the vital mission of lowering our emissions, it is important that in that process people do not go cold in winter. That is essential and important. That is why I implore an argument, not just in this House but in Michigan as well, that we get it right. Let us take the time to get it right. There is too much at stake.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.

There is nothing trivial about the reason we are here tonight. However, is the shutdown of Line 5 really so imminent, given the Canada-U.S. treaty on cross-border pipelines? Basically, the treaty states that the countries will not take unilateral action on existing pipelines.

Another question might be asked. In the event of a shutdown, is the reality as frightening as the worst-case scenario painted by the official opposition?

The issue of Enbridge's Line 5 gives us an opportunity to discuss the necessary energy transition that Canada must embark on and to put into perspective the legitimate reasons for Governor Whitmer's actions, which were neither spontaneous nor unpredictable.

The issue at the root of the debate over Enbridge's Line 5 is environmental safety. We need to know the truth about how safe the pipeline is. Given that in 2010, the pipeline spilled the equivalent of 20,000 barrels of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the public and government authorities have every right to be concerned about waterway health and safety.

The Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, criticizes the company for persistently violating the easement's terms and conditions and for not doing enough to protect the Great Lakes, contrary to what the Minister of Natural Resources said earlier about the company.

The governor says Enbridge has routinely refused to take action to protect the Great Lakes and the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean drinking water and good jobs. She also said the company has repeatedly violated the terms of the 1953 easement by ignoring structural problems that put the Great Lakes and families at risk.

The concerns of the American stakeholders are therefore nothing new. In fact, the concerns of the State of Michigan predate Ms. Whitmer's time in office. She is just the one who decided to take action. Inevitably, this will generate some discontent and concerns. It will force this oil company to review its priorities because, suddenly, the company has crossed the line and someone finally said no.

For that matter, why did Enbridge routinely refuse to be proactive about managing Line 5, particularly in the sensitive Straits of Mackinac? When the company itself reported defects in the protective coating of its structure, noting erosion and damage caused by commercial tugs, why did it fail to show any integrity?

Michigan could also be using the threat of shutting it down to force Enbridge to upgrade its bloody pipeline in order to make it safer. The company is loath to spend the money, so it is using every tool it can think of, including lobbying politicians. The Governor of Michigan is fed up, and the writing has been on the wall for quite some time.

Between 1996 and 2014, Enbridge was responsible for 1,276 spills totalling nearly 10 million gallons of oil in both the United States and Canada. These data are conservative. Why? Because they are Enbridge's data. Do not bother looking for those figures on the company's website. They were there at one point but have since been removed. The documents I consulted, which are very well referenced, reveal another worrying problem, and that is how much power this industry has when it comes to Canadian regulators.

I encourage everyone to search for the words “national energy board” and “Enbridge” in the May 2, 2016, edition of Canada's National Observer. Members might be surprised by what they learn. It is enlightening.

The Bloc Québécois cannot condone the behaviour and reactions of Enbridge and the Department of Natural Resources to Governor Whitmer's announcement. The concerns are legitimate. Michigan was already affected in 2010. The governor has decided to focus on prevention rather than remediation.

I want to be clear. We do care about the repercussions of this measure if it goes ahead. Still, we have concerns. We do not support pipelines, and we certainly do not want to continue to rely on an outdated energy source.

Such transitions take time and planning. If we plan changes and anticipate challenges and solutions, moving away from oil is not only feasible, it is close at hand.

We know that a legal, political and diplomatic showdown between Enbridge, U.S. authorities and the Government of Canada is approaching. We would like to remind members that Quebec's refineries can quickly implement a plan B and switch to other sources of supply. We should also remember that Newfoundland and Labrador is Canada's third-largest producer, so depending on what happens with Line 5, planning for supply from this region would be wise.

Nevertheless, the pipelines running beneath our rivers will continue to pose a risk to environmental safety, and the transportation of oil and gas via pipelines will continue to face political opposition, as it should.

The current situation should spur us to make the energy transition. In Quebec, the transportation sector is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter, accounting for more than 80% of total emissions. Quebec's transportation electrification industry is booming, and our expertise, whose development we have made a priority, should serve as an example to the rest of Canada.

We do not manufacture cars in Quebec, but we do manufacture trains, buses, streetcars, subway cars and public transit vehicles that are all well suited to zero-emission electric technology. We are on the right track to get our transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions down.

We need federal zero-emission legislation. The more electric transportation evolves, the less dependent we will be on oil. Supply issues will gradually go away, and we will keep our money within our own economy.

Sure, there are costs associated with the transition. The financial argument is often invoked to convince people that we must continue relying on fossil fuels, but we need to be vocal about the real cost of energy and gas, which is much higher than the price we pay at the pump. The real cost includes the upstream and downstream environmental costs, in terms of the environmental damage created by the extraordinarily dirty extraction process, soil contamination and threats to wildlife, on top of the environmental costs of atmospheric pollution caused by burning oil here and in other countries.

Add to that the social costs, including the cost to our health care system, due to the prevalence of illnesses directly related to air pollution, especially the growing number of children and even babies with lung or respiratory issues. Plus, there is all the public money paid in subsidies and tax benefits to the oil and gas industry to sustain a dying industry, starting with the obscene Trans Mountain pipeline.

What about the cost of clean-up? How do we describe the losses incurred during oil spills? According to the International Monetary Fund, the global negative externalities for 2017 alone amount to more than $2 trillion U.S.

Again, Canada's landscape is conducive to clean, renewable energy. The wind, solar and geothermal energy industries are reaching out to the government. The government just has to accept. The technology and resources are there.

The Conservatives are resolutely defeatist about their ability to break up with the extractive industries, while the Liberals insist on fuelling dependence on fossil fuels while claiming to favour a green transition. We are not fools. This is a green mirage.

Michigan's policy choices should be an eye-opener for us. They are certainly coming as a surprise to Enbridge and the powerful lobbies in their industry. Their track record, their failure to live up to their commitments, their lax maintenance of their facilities, and the arrogance that comes from feeling untouchable have just caught up with them.

Canada, the G7 country that subsidizes oil and gas production the most in relation to its gross domestic product, the country that announces to the world that it is committed to fighting climate change and then turns around and authorizes oil drilling in a marine protected area, might have avoided a diplomatic crisis and what is happening today if it had intervened with Enbridge sooner.

When governments give everything to the oil companies, the companies end up thinking they are in charge. Gretchen Whitmer has shown them that they are not in charge anymore.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from the Bloc Québécois a few questions about the costs of oil and gas.

She had some good questions: What are the costs of remediating this land and what are the costs of pollution that society bears on behalf of the oil and gas industry?

Inasmuch as there are some effects of every industry we have, does she know about the amount of tax, the amount of economic rent, that is paid by the oil and gas industry to governments across Canada to take care of all of these things? There is approximately $24 billion a year, plus another couple of billion dollars a year in excise taxes, that are brought to this equation by this industry to deal with all our health care, all our education, all the things that contribute to our society. Can she comment on that, please?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

In response, I would like to ask him how much pollution costs. According to Health Canada, 15,000 people die prematurely because of pollution in Canada. How many people with asthma have to go to the hospital? A doctor recently testified that she was seeing more and more babies with lung problems. How much does that cost in terms of health care costs, and also in terms of the social cost of newborns staying in the hospital?

Unions representing energy workers support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but an energy transition plan is needed. Even in 2021, wind and solar energy are already starting to be cheaper than oil. There are many jobs in these new sectors, good jobs that, through tax deductions at source, can help us improve our health care, education and other systems.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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

I do not think anyone is disputing the importance of a green transition, but this evening, we are debating the importance of Line 5. I know one of the by-products of the oil transported through Line 5 is propane. During the 2019 strike, the propane shortage had a major economic impact on Quebec and eastern Ontario.

I would therefore ask my colleague if she thinks it is a good idea for Michigan to shut down Line 5 on May 12 and if she believes it will not really affect Quebec's economy.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because it gives me a chance to explain that the Bloc Québécois is not doctrinaire.

Yes, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that we will still need fossil fuels in the years to come. Let us not kid ourselves. However, the energy transition will be well under way. Replacing oil and gas with more eco-friendly options is technologically and economically feasible. That said, we are certainly not suggesting that turning off the tap tomorrow morning will help with the energy transition.

I just want to point out that this transition calls for a complete overhaul of how we produce and consume energy for the long term. The thing is, we have to stop just talking and start taking action to make the green transition happen. Baby steps will not get us there. We need great leaps to achieve net zero.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this a quick comment because of the time constraints.

Just to add to that back and forth between the member for Repentigny and the member for Calgary Centre, Health Canada recently came out with a study which showed that air pollutants cost, in the health costs of Canadians, about $120 billion a year. That compares almost exactly with the value of Canadian fossil fuel exports, which is $122 billion a year. Fossil fuel exports are the same as our health costs. I agree that health costs have a much more personal impact.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

What price do we put on a life? What price do we put on the destruction of natural environments? As I said earlier, we need big steps to achieve a sustainable energy transition that will create good jobs and ensure better health.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reading an excerpt from the request for the emergency debate, and members will all understand why. It reads, “The Minister of Natural Resources has confirmed this one pipeline alone is responsible for 53% of Ontario's crude and 66% of Quebec's.”

Members cannot imagine how happy I was to hear the leader of the official opposition mention that 66% earlier. I was happy because I remember how, during the election campaign, the Conservative Party, with its much-touted energy corridor project, kept repeating that most of Quebec's oil comes from dictatorship countries or the United States.

Earlier I was blown away when the leader of the official opposition told us that was not true. I hope that this lie, which was repeated multiple times, will not come up again in the future. I must say I was somewhat offended by the answer that he gave me. The leader of the official opposition told me that the Bloc Québécois is not a party that supports the regions and that we stand up for urban centres. I was offended because the regions of Quebec mainly live off the forestry industry, not the oil industry. I have never heard a typical Conservative talk about forestry. I was therefore somewhat offended, but I am not vindictive, so I will quickly move on to something else.

Earlier this afternoon, as I was reflecting on today's debate, I thought there was a rather interesting connection with the pandemic we are experiencing. What does a crisis do? A crisis makes us confront our vulnerabilities. We went through this early on in the pandemic when we saw the gaps in our supply chains. Masks and vaccines come to mind. It forced us to confront our vulnerabilities. It showed us that we were not ready. We depend on exports, and I feel as though we are also dependent when it comes to our energy and our energy consumption. We are dependent on something, and we know what that is: oil.

Another major crisis that certainly lies ahead is climate change. Will we be ready to live through this climate crisis?

Based on what I am hearing tonight, I want to say no, because we do not seem to have learned anything from what has happened to us. Canada is still fundamentally an oil state that thinks only in terms of oil and for oil.

I believe the debate on Enbridge is an opportunity to revisit two fairly simple concepts: energy independence and the energy transition. I do find it surprising that it is the United States, or at least one U.S. state, that is asking us to take care of ecosystems. Let us be smart about this. We have to realize that the Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people. We know there was a 3.2-million-litre spill in the Kalamazoo River.

I do not think it is appropriate for us to get a wake-up call from a U.S. state and for us to tell Enbridge today that it can go ahead, anything goes, it can do what it likes and we will put environmental considerations aside as long as the oil industry is fine and there are jobs. I think that we, by which I mean everyone besides me, must do some collective soul-searching about Canada's dependence on oil and gas, because I believe it is a terrible disease that Canada has been carrying around for over 20 years.

Why do I say that? I spoke earlier about the energy transition.

Concerning getting out of the crisis, the Liberal government announced to us that it wants a “green recovery”. We all remember that. Ms. McKenna and Mr. Wilkinson were involved, as well as Mr. Guilbeault. I thought that the green recovery was promising and that we could perhaps live—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I paid attention to the member's speech and he used the names of three cabinet ministers in a row. In this chamber, we are not supposed to use the names of ministers, but I would like to keep listening to his speech.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I remind the hon. member to refer to people in the House by their riding or title, not by name.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize. I am incorrigible. It will not happen again.

I was saying that in light of this promise of renewal and, perhaps, an awakening to the Canadian obsession with oil, I was eager to learn about this real green recovery plan.

All we have seen to date of this green recovery plan is a strategy for the electrification of transportation. That is fine and I accept it. This could let us get off fossil fuels. What is ironic is that the lion's share will be sent to Ontario, the only province that no longer has an electric vehicle incentive. However, since we are not that snide, we will accept the transportation electrification strategy.

The other big piece of the green recovery plan is hydrogen. I have to admit that I do not understand it. If we do not learn from this crisis, I believe we are going to hit a wall, and this wall will be hydrogen. The federal government's hydrogen strategy involves the production of grey hydrogen. My colleagues will not believe it, but producing one tonne of grey hydrogen using hydrocarbons generates between 10 and 11 tonnes of carbon dioxide. How can they claim that it is green?

Earlier, I made a joke to the Minister of Natural Resources, who made yet another announcement today about net-zero oil. In my opinion, net-zero oil is like diet poutine. There is no such thing. Poutine is not a diet food, and a plan for a green recovery should not include a grey-hydrogen strategy. That is not going to work. As I was saying, producing a tonne of this hydrogen generates 10 to 11 tonnes of greenhouse gases. That makes zero sense if the government is trying to lower its emissions.

As I was saying, the Liberal government made an announcement about its green recovery strategy, but there was not a single mention in this strategy about the forestry industry, which is probably the most promising industry in the fight against climate change.

The forestry industry is not just about two-by-fours anymore. It is not just about the commodity products we once knew. It is about so much more, and through what is known as the bioeconomy, we can replace many oil-based products.

Since I have only two minutes left, I will wrap up quickly. If, in the spirit of getting out of the crisis, we try to gain a bit more energy independence and be a bit more proactive in the energy transition, since we see that staking everything on oil is the road to ruin in the long run, and we want to commit to taking that direction, then forestry is the perfect industry. The forest is a carbon sink. Unfortunately, the Liberal government seems to turn a deaf ear to the subject of the forestry industry. I have not seen any concrete action by this government to support Quebec's forest.

I will close by saying that there is one figure in the budget that just kills me and provides food for thought. It is the $17.6 billion vested in the green recovery plan. Remember that number.

When I heard that, I immediately thought of another number, the cost of purchasing and expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline. An oil industry project cost $17.1 billion, and the government is now trying to convince people that we will have a green recovery for $17.6 billion. To me, honestly, it is laughable and perfectly illustrates that Canada is a petro-state that only lives from and for oil. I get the impression that we all have to do some soul-searching today. I will stop there before I get too worked up.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague for the last 10 minutes and I have to say that I am quite disappointed. The issue at hand, Line 5, actually impacts Quebec, but there was barely one mention of what we are here to discuss. The member goes off and talks about a whole bunch of different issues related to whether the government is investing enough in renewable energy, but he does not even talk about the Line 5 issue and how it impacts his province.

My question to him is twofold.

He talks about Canada being a petro-state. Can he talk about the fact that Canada's oil and gas sector has created immense benefit for the entire country, including for his province of Quebec? Can he opine about whether Line 5 is important to the people he represents and to his province of Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is more of a legal debate. I am confident that Line 5 will not be shut down on May 12. I do not want to upset or discourage my colleague, but Quebec could easily obtain conventional oil because of its proximity to seaports. Conventional oil has a much lower carbon footprint than non-conventional oil from the oil sands. However, that is not what I want.

With regard to the economic spinoffs of oil for Quebec, I would like to remind the member of the existence of Dutch disease, a concept that is very easy to find on the Internet if he want to educate himself. Dutch disease completely destabilized Quebec's manufacturing sector because Alberta's economy drove up the value of the Canadian dollar. I therefore have to say that an oil-based Canada has a lot more disadvantages than advantages for Quebec.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

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

What role does biomass play in the transition to a green economy? Does the technology to replace textile fibres with tree fibres exist? How many trees will be cut down to develop that industry, and how many years will it take?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose company at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources I very much enjoy. I am well aware that the forestry industry will not be replacing the entire fossil fuel industry anytime soon.

I just want to point out to him that, in the early 1970s, everyone said it was impossible to develop the oil sands and nobody would ever figure out the technology to make money extracting that kind of oil. Well, the federal government invested $70 billion in it, and someone figured it out.

Nowadays, however, what people want is a low-carbon economy. The forestry industry can make that happen. If the federal government steps up and supports the forestry industry for the first time ever, we might have a better economy 10 years from now.

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

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

Another very important element is keeping the Great Lakes safe. I think we are nearing a consensus that immediately shutting down Line 5 is not a good thing, but what can the government do to keep the Great Lakes safe?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I said that the Great Lakes provide drinking water for 40 million people. We need to send a clear signal to Enbridge that we care about the drinking water of 40 million people.

It is not by holding an emergency debate where we tell Enbridge it can do want it wants and we will stand behind it that we will successfully secure the drinking water of these 40 million people. Enbridge is gambling with the quality of life of many people. It needs to realize that, and I get the impression that is the message the Governor of Michigan is trying to send.

For its part, the Canadian petro-state prefers to pander and stake everything on oil, telling Enbridge to do whatever it wants and that as long as there are economic spinoffs and jobs, Canada will be happy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Tonight we are debating the critical situation around Line 5, an Enbridge pipeline that transports crude oil and natural gas liquids from Alberta through Michigan to refineries and other facilities in Ontario, notably in Sarnia, and Quebec. It is capable of carrying 540,000 barrels per day. A similar pipeline in the Enbridge system, Line 6, also serves these markets, with 667,000 barrels per day.

As others have mentioned, including the Leader of the Opposition, this emergency debate is not at all like the debates we have had here about other pipelines, such as Keystone XL or Trans Mountain. These are expansion projects designed solely to increase the amount of raw bitumen exported from Canada at a time when world demand has flatlined and the climate crisis requires that it decline steeply in the future.

This is a debate about the impending closure of a pipeline that brings western Canadian oil to eastern Canada, creating Canadian jobs. This is about maintaining the status quo, at least for the moment, and maintaining those jobs in the industrial heartland of Canada.

One similarity between this and the other pipeline debates is that at the heart of it, there is credible environmental concern. I would like to start by laying out the positions of the two sides in this confrontation: the Canadian workers and companies that need the pipeline to continue supplying oil to Ontario and Quebec, and the State of Michigan, which is concerned about the prospect of environmental damage.

Line 5 was built in 1953, and the Michigan section operates under an easement granted by the state. Back in November, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer stated that the pipeline is a threat to the environment, particularly if a rupture occurs in the section that travels on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. That section has been a bone of contention for years, and it has suffered damage on occasion from dragged anchors. However, fortunately there have been no leaks in that water section.

Michigan has also pointed out violations in the easement conditions, including inadequate supports for the pipeline on the bottom of the strait. For its part, Enbridge has proposed to enclose the underwater section in a concrete tunnel to protect it from future accidents, and it has obtained some of the permits necessary to carry out that work.

Michigan, however, has claimed that because of past violations and present concerns, the pipeline is “a ticking time bomb” and will revoke the easement as of May 12, which is only six days away. If Enbridge is still using the pipeline after that date, the governor's office has stated that it will be breaking the law.

What will the impact be if this pipeline is shut down? There are about 4,900 jobs in Sarnia that directly rely on the supply of crude oil that Line 5 now supplies. One of the products that plants in Sarnia produce is jet fuel, which supplies large airports such as the Toronto Pearson Airport. The oil not diverted in Sarnia is carried on to refineries in Quebec, so the impact could be huge.

There is some debate on how alternate supplies could mitigate these impacts. Pearson airport stated in a recent article in the National Post that it is not too worried about a shut down of Line 5, as it has diversified its sources of jet fuel. The refineries in Quebec said that they have made arrangements to get their crude oil from another pipeline. Industries in Sarnia may be able to get some crude oil through increased flow in Line 6, since they managed oil that way when Line 6 was ruptured in 2010. At that time, they got alternate supplies through Line 5.

It is clear that the petrochemical sector in Sarnia could be facing significant shortages that would have to be made up through transport by rail and truck. That is not an ideal situation, and it is one that could result in a direct loss of jobs in the Sarnia industrial complex and indirect job losses throughout the region. We have to have a strategy to keep Line 5 going and protect those jobs. That strategy goes through convincing Michigan that it is in all of our interests to keep Line 5 operating.

What are the environmental risks that Michigan is citing in its decision to cancel this easement? One of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history happened on another Enbridge pipeline in Michigan. As I mentioned, Like 6 goes through Sarnia via Michigan and goes around the south end of Lake Michigan instead of crossing under the Straits of Mackinac. In 2010, Line 6B ruptured and sent about 20,000 barrels of bitumen into the Kalamazoo River just east of Battle Creek, Michigan. The spill contaminated over 50 kilometres of the river and took five years to clean up. The people of Michigan are therefore very well aware of what could happen. Line 5 itself has suffered a number of leaks over the years, totalling over a million gallons in all.

In the order to cancel the easement for Line 5, Michigan has pointed out numerous violations of the original agreement, including the design of the support systems of the pipeline on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac. Recent assessments show that the underwater part of the pipeline is suffering from thinning walls and other stressors. Another study makes it clear that a rupture in this section could damage hundreds of kilometres of shoreline along Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Also, the Ojibwa of Michigan consider any agreement to allow Enbridge to continue operating Line 5 a violation of their treaty rights.

We need to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem and the thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec. The federal government needs to have a plan that would do both. All I have heard from the minister is that Line 5 is not negotiable. However, I think it is obvious that the only way out of this dilemma is through negotiation, proving to the State of Michigan and everyone else who cares about the environment, me included, that Line 5 will not have a history similar to Line 6B. We should point out the economic impacts that this closure would have on Michigan itself. Michigan and the neighbouring states of Ohio and Pennsylvania also receive some of the fuels carried through Line 5, including over half of Michigan's propane supplies.

As usual, experts are advising that a diplomatic solution would be best, but Enbridge is counting the 1977 transit pipelines treaty if talks fail, and right now it does seem that both sides are the length of a continental pipeline apart. The treaty states:

No public authority in the territory of either Party shall institute any measures...interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbon in transit.

It also states that the treaty is “subject to regulations by the appropriate governmental authorities”. I will leave that to the courts to decide, but the treaty is clearly a last-ditch strategy that may work.

As I said at the beginning, we have been debating this pipeline dispute in Canada over the past decade or more. This is an existing pipeline that supplies oil to Canadian industry and maintains good jobs. It is an integral part of the economies of Ontario and Quebec. We will be using oil and gas over the next three decades, albeit in declining amounts, as we transition to zero emissions by 2050, and Line 5 is an important delivery mechanism for that purpose.

This dispute has been a wake-up call. The public is increasingly unwilling to live with the environmental risks associated with pipelines and the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. We in the NDP, and I think everyone in the House, are concerned about workers in the oil and gas sector, whether they work in the Alberta oil patch or the industrial cities of Ontario. We need a plan, not just empty promises, to provide good jobs for those workers over the coming decades. We need training programs that will allow them to move to jobs in building retrofits, electrification, electric vehicle manufacturing, battery technology and the myriad of other sectors that will provide good employment for decades to come. We need government programs to provide those jobs to prove to workers that we are serious about helping them.

As that transition takes place, we need to protect the jobs that Line 5 provides and protect the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. The federal government must have a clear and effective plan to do both.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for recognizing that this is not like other debates we have had. Line 5 does not have an alternative right now. People have talked about plans to use 2,000 trucks and 800 railcars a day, but the capacity to do this by next Wednesday does not exist, so I certainly agree that there is no plan.

What does the member think the government ought to be doing? We need detailed plans, not the vague words we heard from the natural resources minister.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my speech, I think it is clear that both sides have doubled down on this.

The Canadian government clearly wants this pipeline to continue, for good reason. Michigan, on the other hand, has doubled down on the fact that it is not going to continue because of environmental concerns.

There is one path forward that I see for the government, outside of the courts, and who knows, it may go to the courts and it may be in the courts for years. However, if it stays out of the courts, if we want a diplomatic solution, a mediated solution, the only path I can see is that Canada have a plan to really prove to Michigan that this is environmentally safe.

The minister said it is demonstrably safe. Obviously it is not or Michigan would not be proceeding in this manner. We need a solution that increases the environmental safety along all lengths of the pipeline, not just the Straits of Mackinac.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a debate like this, it would be important to hear from the Green Party. I am willing to give my speaking time to the member for Fredericton, if that is possible.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

I want to ask the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay about his comments around Enbridge and its track record.

I cannot help but think that if there is success in not having Line 5 shut down, we would be placing immense trust in Enbridge to maintain the safety and the sanctity of the Great Lakes. We can look at some of the infractions. Enbridge has been cited as having persistent and incurable violations of the easement.

Is it not a history of a lack of enforcement of safety protocols that has gotten us into this mess to begin with?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. I realize how important this pipeline is to Canadian industry and Canadian jobs, but I can also very much see Michigan's stance on this.

Michigan experienced one of the worst oil spills in North America, in the Kalamazoo River. Line 5 has been leaking off and on, on the land portions of the pipeline. As the member said, there are violations of the original easement agreement in terms of how the pipeline was constructed and maintained. I can see why Michigan is very concerned. That is why I think Canada should try to allay those concerns through promises to really up the ante in terms of environmental safety.

It really shows to everyone here why these environmental impact studies of pipelines are so important. I hear complaints all the time, especially from the Conservative side, that these environmental impact studies are a waste of time. Here is an example where, if we had done things right in the first place and not had these incidents, we would not be here tonight talking about this.