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—