Debates of May 6th, 2021

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

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

Madam Speaker, I believe, 100%, that building more pipelines is totally in line with fighting climate change. Canadian oil is the lowest carbon footprint oil production in the world. Having tankers bring in oil from around the world is not environmentally friendly in any way, shape or form, whether it is CO2 emissions or just general environmental standards that take place where the oil is produced.

While Canada has dithered, the United States has gone from being our biggest market to being our competitor on oil. The United States has ramped up oil production significantly over the last 20 years. The Americans just purely do not need our energy any longer.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to elaborate on the importance of the energy sector to indigenous people in the area that he serves. I know it is critical for employment, and they are very active participants in the energy sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre for his advocacy for his community and for his advocacy on the oil patch in general.

Across my riding, many of the 14 first nations had a stake in the northern gateway pipeline project. The northern gateway pipeline project would have come right through many of their communities. It would have given them jobs. Many of these communities have construction jobs. They are into road building. They work in the forestry sector building roads and they service oil wells that are in their area. They work in all of the sectors that provide services to the oil patch. They drive trucks. They drive the big equipment. They do the things that are required to make the oil patch work.

Since the current government has taken power, we have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of activity that has happened up in northern Alberta, leaving many of these people without jobs.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to participate in this debate tonight. I also considered it a privilege to sit on the committee that studied this issue and filed a report. I am going to take my time tonight to make reference to the report and the recommendations therein.

I have sat on a lot of committees over the years, but I have seldom sat on a committee where the views were so unanimous. The views of the witnesses were entirely in line with each other. The views of the parties and the participants on the committee were in line with each other. The report was a unanimous report, although there were separate opinions filed by the Conservative Party and the NDP. The general, overall view was that this was a unanimous view, almost a team Canada view, on the seriousness of this particular initiative by the Governor of Michigan.

Before I forget, I should mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Not only were the views virtually unanimous—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I hate to interrupt my esteemed colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, but I believe he meant to share his time with the member for Winnipeg North.

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

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought that was what I just said, that I was sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. If I did not say that then I will repeat it because I know what great enthusiasm the chamber has for the member for Winnipeg North and his views on pretty much any subject one can imagine. I thank my hon. colleague for that intervention.

Not only were the views virtually unanimous, but the quality of the witnesses was extraordinary. Some of the witnesses included the two lead trade negotiators from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Natural Resources, the very able ambassador of Canada to the United States and Maryscott Greenwood, for those who have been involved with Canada-U.S. affairs over the years. I see my colleague from Malpeque knows Maryscott Greenwood as a very able person.

Witnesses also included the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada's Building Trades Unions, the Canadian Propane Association and the Laborers' International Union. The mayor of Sarnia was particularly interesting presenting of his views, along with the Government of Alberta, the Government of Ontario, the Government of Saskatchewan, the Sarnia Construction Association and Local 663. That is not a complete list of the witnesses, but I have to say that the views that were expressed were, as I said, virtually unanimous, as was the seriousness with which they were expressed.

Regrettably, the witness that we probably wanted to hear from the most was either the governor or a representative from the State of Michigan. Whether they were unable or declined, I do not know, but it was regrettable that we were not able to hear from the State of Michigan as to why it considers, in the words of the governor, that this particular section of the pipeline is a ticking time bomb. I do not know how a ticking time bomb ticks for 68 years and does not gone off.

There was no evidence in front of the committee that this is actually an environmental risk that needs to be addressed immediately by way of injunctive relief. It appeared to have more to do with politics, promises made and things of that nature, rather than any particular imperative with respect to environmental damage.

I do take note that in the background there seemed to be a reputational issue with the proponent Enbridge, and it is a cautionary note for all corporations that reputations do matter. I take it that there is a lot of, for want of a better term, bad blood between the corporation and the state. It is speculation on my part rather than evidence that this was possibly a motivating factor to what is, by any standard, a very extraordinary injunctive relief.

My colleague from Mount Royal, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, did an outstanding presentation on the legal positions of Canada, the corporation and the State of Michigan. I would hope that those who want to run around lighting their hair on fire and being alarmist take some comfort in his legal analysis. I think it bears a great deal of merit.

I thought he in particular pushed witnesses to the point where the feeling among the committee members was that the legal position of the Government of Canada, and indeed the corporation, is quite a strong one. While there is an impending date, that is not a date that will result in an immediate shut down of the line.

I hope that is of some comfort and I urge hon. members to review the member for Mount Royal's speech because I think it does set the legal framework as well as it can be done.

The committee arrived at seven recommendations, the first of which is probably the easiest, which was to encourage a settlement between and among the parties. That is obviously the preferred course.

The second recommendation was that the Government of Canada continue to engage with relevant stakeholders. As I said, we heard from a great number of witnesses up and down the political food chain, for want of a better term, up and down the industrial food chain, up and down the labour food chain, all of whom had been engaged at the most significant levels with their counterparts in the United States and all of whom reported very similar reports on their actual engagement.

The third recommendation had to do with the filing of an amicus curiae brief if a negotiated, mediated settlement was not reached and the brief just set out the legal position. As I said, I thought that the member for Mount Royal articulated that brief about as well as it could be articulated. It should be noted that the 1977 agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning transit pipelines is in our view the treaty that will prevail.

I take note that we cannot have a situation where we have 67 pipelines crossing the border on a daily basis and any governor or any premier at any point unilaterally deciding that a particular pipeline needs to be shut down for good reasons or for not-so-good reasons. That in and of itself is probably the determining factor as to whether even the Governor of Michigan has any jurisdiction to unilaterally shut down a pipeline.

The fourth recommendation was that the Prime Minister and his ministers pursue frequent and direct dialogue with the U.S. President and his administration. We have heard tonight that has happened and it continues to happen with three or four ministers directly engaged with it. It has been on the agenda with the Prime Minister and the President.

The fifth recommendation is that Canada should evaluate other possible vulnerabilities to Canada's critical infrastructure and supply chains and develop contingency plans. There are contingency plans; unfortunately, all of them are very difficult, putting 1,500 trucks—

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

I am sorry, but I have to give the opportunity for members to ask questions and make comments.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his work on the Canada-U.S. committee. He did mention that this amicus brief of support would be one of the actions from the committee and something very important. Could he say why with two business days remaining before the due date for that brief, why we have not seen any activity on the part of the government?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it does not mean that there has not been activity on the part of this government. As I indicated earlier, there has been engagement up and down the political food chain; I am assuming as well up and down the legal food chain and I would anticipate that the timing for the intervention will be to Canada's best advantage.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in light of the timeline and the urgency of the situation, I wonder whether the government would invoke the pipeline transit treaty?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will not profess any great familiarity with the pipeline transit treaty, but I would imagine that that treaty would prevail over all matters, including any unilateral initiatives on the part of a governor or a premier, and that would immediately go to a point of resolution.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, probably more than any other members on the Canada-U.S. IPG, met with the most people, the most representatives on the U.S. side on this issue. I certainly thank him for that.

The member did say in his remarks that one of the areas of concern is the reputational matter related to Enbridge, in other areas than the pipeline under the Strait.

Should we be doing more in that area? Could we be doing more on the ground in the state on the public side of this issue? I know we are short on time, but is there more we could be doing there?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I, together, engaged four or five congresspeople over the course of the last couple of months. Recommendation number 7 was that all members of Parliament and all senators engage wherever they can with their legislative counterparts.

That was one of the suggestions from one of the congresspeople, that there be a greater public engagement so that the people of Michigan know the consequences. There did seem to be a lack of awareness about the unilateral initiatives on the part of the governor. It was suggested to us to have a more public relations-focused campaign.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think that Canadians are fully aware of the reputation of Enbridge across the United States.

After the Kalamazoo, Michigan spill in 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board reviewed the occurrences of that spill. The head of the inquiry actually said to the media that Enbridge had a culture of negligence, and that they resembled, at the time of that spill, a bunch of Keystone cops.

We have a problem in defending, and we will have to defend, that we need to get the products to Sarnia and are cutting a corner getting from Alberta to eastern Canada by ducking through the United States. I would maintain that as a Canadian concerned for the safety of the Great Lakes and the environmental risk there, we have a problem because I do not trust Enbridge either.

That pipeline is old, and when—

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

We have to give an opportunity for the minister to answer in five seconds or less.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can hardly respond to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in five seconds. That is an impossible task.

However, she does make a point, and I take it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on a really important issue and I would like to approach it in a couple of ways.

When I think of the Line 5 pipeline, a couple of thoughts come to mind in a significant way. One is the economics of it. We can all appreciate how important it is for Canada's economy. We could talk about Alberta, where the product is taken from the ground and is brought to the eastern provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec. I would argue the economic argument goes far beyond direct and indirect jobs.

As one member has already said, it goes beyond just gasoline. There are many things that need to be factored into the product that are absolutely critical in terms of Canada's and the U.S.'s economic development going forward. I suggest that if we were to dip into the history of it, we would find that prior to the pipeline, as I found out with a bit of research, at one time it was being transported by oil tanker. I suspect the move toward a pipeline was better for the environment.

I see the former leader shaking her head with some disappointment. I know the Green Party is consistent. It does not like pipelines. I have had that discussion with the former leader in the past. Green Party members will talk about using train transportation or other ways to transport it, if not ideally keep it in the ground, and that is great. The Green Party has that hard-set policy, and I respect it. I do not agree with it, but I do respect it. The impact for both Canada and the U.S. is significant.

Here is the other concern that I have. Canada and the U.S. have a very special relationship. We all know that. I do not think it is healthy for either side when a lot of partisan politics are being played. When that takes place, it hardens the feelings south going north and north going south for a lot of people. I do not believe that is good for our relationship. That is why I am pleased with the manner in which the Government of Canada has responded to the issue.

The Conservatives are wrong when they try to give a false impression that the Government of Canada is not doing anything. That is just not true, and I believe they know that. They know that the Government of Canada has put in a great deal of effort. We recognize that. I will read two quotes, one from earlier today when the leader of the Conservative Party posed a question during question period about what the government is saying about the importance of the line.

The minister said earlier today in question period:

Mr. Speaker, people will not be left out in the cold. The heating of Canadian homes or the flying of Canadian jets or the operation of Canadian refineries are non-negotiable. Line 5 is not just vital to Canada, it is also vital to the United States. Therefore, it is vital to all of North America. Shutting it down would have profound consequences. There are 5,000 direct jobs in Sarnia, 23,000 indirect jobs in the region, thousands of jobs at refineries in Montreal and Lévis, but also in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and that is the case we are making. Line 5 is essential for North American energy security.

What the minister indicated today in question period is not something new; this has been consistent from the government. It is the policy. Whether the Prime Minister, that minister or other ministers, we recognize the value of the pipeline.

The Conservatives' back room used to be the MP lobby. Within the House leadership, which has a direct link into the leader's den, there is this political spin to make this into an anti-Alberta issue and that the Liberals do not care. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. What the Conservatives will say after the spin is that the Government of Canada is not doing anything. It is just not true.

I asked the member for Banff—Airdrie, who led the debate tonight, to tell me what the Conservative Party had done. Has the member contacted the governor in question? Did the Conservatives write letters? What has the Conservative caucus in Alberta, let alone the Conservative Party of Canada, actually done? I would ask the Conservatives to share something with me, to give me an example of anything they have done in the last four years. One would think they had done something. It might be disappointing, but we like to have an answer. The Conservatives did not say anything, at least that member did not say anything, and he introduced the motion to the House. At the same time, he slams the government of the day, saying we are not doing anything.

This is what the Minister of Natural Resources said when it was the Liberal Party's turn to speak this evening:

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

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

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

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

How can the Conservative Party say that we are doing nothing? How silly and how stupid. The Conservative Party needs to stop playing the partisan politics of division and hatred toward Ottawa, in particular with the people of Alberta. We saw the same partisan politics in another emergency debate yesterday. It does not matter the issue, if there is a problem, the Conservatives blame Ottawa. They point the finger at Ottawa and say that it is Ottawa is the problem. I remind the Conservatives—

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

I will stop the hon. parliamentary secretary and give way to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to be able to respond to the member.

I have an access to information request here for all briefing notes provided to, and directives by, the Prime Minister with regard to Enbridge Line 5 between November 1, 2019, and March 9, 2021. A thorough search of the records under the control of the Privy Council Office was carried out, however no records relevant to the request were found.

The member keeps saying Conservatives are spinning a false narrative and suggesting the government is doing nothing when we have proof here that shows it is not even on the Prime Minister's radar. How does the member want to respond to that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is not proof. I just finished indicating a list of ways in which we have been communicating with our U.S. counterparts. I posed the question to one of my Conservative colleagues of what the federal Conservative Party had actually done, other than point the finger, accuse and falsely say that we had not been doing anything.

Read some of the speeches—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the assistant government House leader on that side of the House. Hansard will know there is no font for sarcasm, but I hope he gets that.

He brought up last night's emergency debate and I will refer to it. My colleague for Edmonton Strathcona, a member of the New Democratic Party, made it quite clear about the Prime Minister and his potential relationship with Alberta.

She said:

The Prime Minister saw this coming [referring to COVID]. He has watched this happening in Alberta, and he has done nothing, because he would rather watch Alberta burn than help Jason Kenney.

Those are not my words. They are from Hansard. They are my colleague's words: the member for Edmonton Strathcona, a member of the New Democratic Party. I hope it is not true—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

For the record, on that occasion, the member for Edmonton Strathcona withdrew those remarks so I do not think they should be referred to today as though they actually occurred.

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

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.