Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Don Valley West.
I thank the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie for initiating this emergency debate. This a pressing issue and a national priority that belongs on the floor of the House. Just as importantly, it is one of those rare matters upon which members from both sides of the House are in complete agreement.
The Governor of Michigan's attempts to shut down the Line 5 pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac strike at three key pillars of our future. First, a shutdown would significantly stall the robust economic recovery we need to help us build back better from this global pandemic. Second, it would badly damage North American energy security. We need to power our post-COVID-19 recovery. Third, it would undermine our commitment to creating a low-carbon economy that leaves no one behind.
Why is Line 5 so critical for all these priorities? First and foremost, it supports thousands of jobs on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border. It supplies the fuels and other essential products that underpin our national economies and support our pandemic responses, such as heating our homes and businesses and powering everything from farming and manufacturing to air travel. Second, Line 5 is critical to our continent's highly integrated energy sectors, linking western Canada's petroleum industry to key markets and refineries in both central Canada and the northern U.S. Third, Line 5 allows us to get our resources to global markets and generate the revenues we need to invest in a clean energy future.
Without Line 5, refineries would have to get their feedstock through alternate forms of transportation that are more dangerous and produce more emissions, such as rail, truck and barge. Estimates suggest that shutting down Line 5 could add as many as 15,000 dedicated trucks, or 800 rail cars, a day to transport the displaced product. Not only would this significantly increase CO2 emissions at a time when we are making efforts to reduce them, it would also raise the risk of rail disasters and oil spills, impacting our communities, wildlife and ecosystems. All of this added risk and environmental damage would be for nothing.
The U.S. pipeline regulator, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has repeatedly inspected Line 5 through the Straits of Mackinac and, as recently as last year, has consistently found the pipeline fit for service. It is why we have seen such broad and consistent support for the continued safe operation of Line 5.
The Prime Minister and members of the opposition, multiple governments, industry and unions have all come together as members of team Canada to show that shutting down Line 5 on a whim does not make sense. As the Minister of Natural Resources has said, Line 5 is non-negotiable for Canada, full stop.
With that in mind, I would like to use the rest of my time to explore why support on this side of the border is so strong and unwavering. Line 5 is crucial for Canada's energy security. It currently transports up to 540,000 barrels of oil and natural gas every day that are vital to central Canada' supply of gasoline, home heating fuels and jet fuel, not to mention the more than roughly 20,000 jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, that depend on this pipeline. Propane transported by Line 5 is used by our schools and hospitals, and by our businesses that are hoping to come back stronger than ever in the wake of COVID-19.
It is not just Canada that will suffer if Line 5 is shut down. Michigan is dependent on Line 5 for 55% of its propane needs, and prices for propane in that state could rise by 38¢ a gallon if it shut down. Additionally, refineries in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as here in Ontario and Quebec, would be unable to obtain the crude oil they require to operate. This could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs here in Canada and in the United States.
While I understand the Governor of Michigan is concerned about leaks, her fear is unfounded. In the 68 years that Line 5 has been operating, not once has it suffered any leaks along the 7.2 kilometres of pipeline that cross the Straits of Mackinac. What is the secret to that success? The twin pipes are made of specially constructed seamless steel measuring almost an inch thick, which is three times the thickness of what is required even today. The pipe was then covered with fibre-reinforced enamel and laid in an area where the risk of corrosion was minimized by cold temperatures and a lack of oxygen.
Furthermore, this stretch of pipeline is carefully monitored using sophisticated cameras and radar on a 24-7 schedule to ensure no vessels drop anchor over it. All of this is managed by specially trained staff using sophisticated computer systems, and is further supplemented with regular inspections by expert divers and remotely operated vehicles.
This is a stretch of pipeline that far exceeds the minimum standards required of it. As a result, there are 68 years of safe, leak-free history to back it up. Despite all of this, Enbridge has proposed even more stringent safeguards including a cement-encased tunnel deep under the lake-bed. It would be a tunnel large enough for a new pipeline system and would also be able to accommodate other future uses, such as electricity transmission, making it a piece of infrastructure that would maintain its usefulness as we transition to a net-zero future.
All of this brings me to my final point, which is that the fate of Line 5 is a matter for the federal government in Washington, D.C., to decide. It is not a matter to be decided by the state governor in Lansing, Michigan.
This is because in 1977, when Jimmy Carter was president of the United States and the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau was our prime minister, our two countries signed a consequential treaty born of the OPEC oil embargo and several years of bilateral discussions to ship oil and gas by pipeline from Alaska and Canada's north to southern markets. In the preamble of that treaty were three key points worth revisiting today.
First, the treaty recognizes that pipelines are “an efficient, economical and safe means of transporting hydrocarbons from producing areas to consumers, in both Canada and the United States”.
Second, it notes that the pipelines operating at the time provided an important service to both Canadian and American consumers.
Third, it states that both national governments were “convinced”, and that is the word used in the treaty, that it was appropriate for the two countries to enter into a treaty to govern the transmission of hydrocarbons by pipeline rather than leaving it to unilateral action.
Canada's preference is for this matter to be resolved amicably between Enbridge and the State of Michigan. No one wants to see a protracted legal battle. There is also consensus on both sides of the border that we want a robust economy coupled with strict environmental stewardship. This is what Line 5 and the Great Lakes tunnel project are all about.
It is for all these reasons that I remain optimistic that cooler heads will ultimately prevail. Ultimately the friendship and mutual economic interests that have defined our nation's 154-year history with the United States will once again prevail with Line 5.