Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to join this debate. I am not in Ottawa. I am joining it from the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wyandot peoples. This continues to be the home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
I am very proud to be part of this debate tonight, and I want to begin by commending three members whose speeches I have found to be quite informative as I was listening to the debate.
I thought the member for Mount Royal gave a passionate speech and brought in a set of legal arguments that I was not totally aware of. I think one of the purposes of debate is to learn, and the member for Mount Royal certainly added to my knowledge and understanding of the international law issues around this and some of the legal opportunities we could engage in.
I also want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton. This is obviously a personal issue for many people in her riding. She brought forward her engineering experience and her passion for farmers and workers in her riding, and I thought that was quite exceptional. I really want to commend the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
I also want to commend the most recent speech, which I just listened to, by the member for Kitchener Centre. Having built upon the history and legal work of the member for Mount Royal and the sincere personal and economic concern about this issue from the member for Sarnia—Lambton, the member for Kitchener Centre was able to put this into a broader context. I would hope this issue crosses partisan divides and unites us in the House so we can say that Line 5 is an essential tool for the economic, social and cultural well-being of Canada. We need to unite to do our very best to convince the decision-makers involved in this decision to make the right decision.
I speak to this issue as a son of the Great Lakes. I speak to it as someone who comes from the border city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. I note that my staff wrote me out a nice phonetic spelling for “Mackinac”, but that was not necessary. I grew up going to Mackinac Island every year. I crossed the Mackinac Bridge many times a year. I know the Straits of Mackinac and the people of Michigan. I have been both a tourist and a friend in many parts of the state of Michigan. I have great respect for the people of Michigan and want them to understand that the partnership we have, particularly on Line 5, is in many ways something we can work on together.
I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been quite well made in many speeches. Instead, I want to bring in, as part of my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, some issues that I would like to speak to the Americans about tonight. I know that some of them are probably listening.
I do not think we need to convince each other of the importance of this line. Some may have some differences. I would disagree with some of the concerns that have been raised, but I do not doubt anyone's concern about the importance of supporting Line 5.
Canada and the United States have long enjoyed one of the most productive, collaborative and mutually beneficial bilateral relationships in the world. Line 5 is one example of the mutually beneficial partnership that has existed for almost 70 years. Ours is a partnership of neighbours, forged by shared geography on this continent, similar values, common interests, people-to-people and family connections and powerful multi-layered economic and security ties. Our two countries enjoy the largest trading relationship in the world, which has been talked about tonight. We defend and protect North America together. We are stewards of our shared environment, and we stand on the world stage to respond to many pressing global challenges together.
As recently as February 23, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States committed to a road map for a renewed relationship and a renewed U.S.-Canada partnership that sets out a blueprint for an ambitious whole-of-government approach to this important bilateral relationship. Together our leaders have created an enhanced partnership that will advance global health, security, and climate change; bolster co-operation, defence and security; and reaffirm the commitment to diversity, equity and justice.
Obviously that plays out in our COVID-19 pandemic response: We need to be in this together. We recognize that we have differences. We have a border, and that border needs to be thick at times. In a pandemic, we thicken the border. However, we always try to keep it as thin as possible to keep trade travelling across our borders day after day.
We have been working on research. We have been working on combatting the virus through the sharing of vaccines and through collaboration on diagnostics and other projects. This is something we need to do, and it is a top concern, obviously, to both governments.
However, Line 5 is also of great concern, because it is not only symbolic; it is a real issue between our two economies and our two peoples. The people who produce energy in this country, largely western Canadians in Alberta and Saskatchewan, need to have markets for the energy they produce. Canada produces the best, cleanest energy in the world, and we need to support the economies and the people of western Canada.
Let us never doubt that it is part of our job all the time to defend and stand with the people of western Canada. I am an easterner. I am an Ontarian. I am a Great Lakes member of Parliament. That does not mean I am any less committed to the whole of this country and the well-being of everyone in it. In the Line 5 project, we have energy that needs to move across the country, and we know that pipelines are the safest, healthiest way for energy products to do so.
After the people of Don Valley West gave me an extended leave of absence between 2011 and 2015, which I believe was unfortunate for them and for me, I was able to spend four years as the president and CEO of the Asthma Society of Canada. This week is asthma week in Canada, and we remember the number of issues that people with respiratory illnesses face. One of those is the need to have clean energy. The cleanest way to transport energy across this country is through pipelines. We do not want it crossing the country in trucks, trains and tankers. That is a dirtier, less healthy way to transport energy.
We are committed to pipelines, and not one party in the House has a monopoly on that commitment. We come at this issue strongly, convinced that Canada needs to have a robust energy industry, and we need to transport energy safely, carefully and to the benefit of Canadians across the country. To do that means we need to continue to fight for Line 5.
What I have not appreciated in the debate tonight nearly as much as the speeches I gave is the hand-wringing, whinging, whining and blaming that has gone on in some of the speeches. I have not found that helpful. To disagree with the way our Prime Minister handles certain things is the opposition's right. It is in the job description of the opposition. However, we have to add constructive thoughts. Even the member for Sarnia—Lambton was very clear in saying that the issue had been raised by the Prime Minister.
We have tossed the ball into the court of the American decision-makers continuously and steadfastly, with incredible diligence, and have done it faithfully to the people of Canada coast to coast to coast. That means the energy producers, the energy users and the energy transporters. We hold things in a careful balance to find a way forward as we move to a more sustainable, greener economy. We still have energy needs and we still need to do things carefully and cautiously.
I also do not appreciate the thought that we have a magic wand on one side of the House or the other. We do not have a magic wand. What we do have is persistence, data and an argument that will remind our American siblings and cousins that this is an important part of our shared economic prosperity and future together. We can do it in a cleaner way, obviously.
Canada is moving its economy toward a net-zero position. We believe in sustainability. We believe that climate change is real. We are not denying that. We also recognize that in the process, we will need to keep Canadians moving. We will need to keep farmers producing produce and food for Canadian tables. We will need to ensure people can heat their homes and keep their businesses going. We will do that and we will stand with them.
What I would expect of the opposition—