Debates of May 6th, 2021

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase that. In this hybrid Parliament, there are several MPs who could be joining us in the hybrid format, whether in front of us on the screen or in the House. When the Prime Minister has his choice of those formats under this hybrid rule, Canadians should ask—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rule is that we are not allowed to reference members' presence in the House. It does not matter whether it is a reference to members being virtually present or physically present in the House, he should not reference any presence in the House, full stop. To suggest that some people are here virtually or are here physically is still outside of the rules.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his comments. I was partway through listening to what the hon. Leader of the Opposition had to say on that. I will let him finish up on that point, and I am sure he will want to get on with the answer to the hon. member's question.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps there are many members of the cabinet in the hybrid format. I would ask them to put their hand emoji up because they are probably not here during an emergency debate, and that should concern Canadians.

Going back to the question—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is specifically asking members to raise their hands to indicate if they are here, and that is against the rules. Reference cannot be made to somebody's presence in the House, whether they are attending virtually or physically. The Leader of the Opposition continues to do this by asking members to indicate their presence.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is good that we welcome everybody to participate in this debate. We praise the member for Kingston and the Islands, who gives tremendous performances in the House, especially yesterday. We appreciated his great performance and speech yesterday.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have heard what the hon. Leader of the Opposition has had to say and, in my view, neither his reference to the participation of members, nor his specualtion upon it, is making a direct reference to the absence or presence of members. I am satisfied that he will not dwell on that, and I am sure he will want to get past this point and on to the issue at hand.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is nice to have that clarity from you.

In response to the member's question, in November I asked for a call from the Prime Minister. The call became famous because the Prime Minister released a summary of the call with the opposition leader an hour before the call took place. That famous call is when I proposed a number of measures for the incoming Biden administration, particularly with respect to North American energy security and independence, which both relate to critical pipeline networks and the electricity grid.

The Prime Minister did very little with that, but that was my recommendation at the time. I also made our case to the governor of Michigan through a contact I had in the governor's office. As opposition leader, as much as I would like to lead in the absence of leadership, I cannot action our diplomats. However, I can say we are there to fight, and part of the reason we brought forward this emergency debate tonight is the months of inaction by the government.

Hopefully they will see this debate, whether live or virtually, as we said earlier, and act. It is time to stand up for those workers.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleasantly surprised by what the opposition leader said at the beginning of his intervention.

He said that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I apologize for interrupting the member, but would he please make sure his microphone and headset are connected? It sounds like the member is using the computer microphone.

Now that it is working better, the hon. member for Jonquière once again has the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As I was saying, I was pleasantly surprised by the opposition leader, who started off by saying that Enbridge's Line 5 transports half the oil consumed in Quebec. The reason I was pleasantly surprised is that, throughout the last election campaign, when the subject of the energy corridor came up, the Conservatives were at pains to say that Quebeckers did not consume any Alberta oil. Well, that is totally false, and now the matter is settled. I think today's Conservative Party leader might not agree with the person who was at the head of the Conservative Party during the last election campaign.

I now have a simple question for the opposition leader. Does what we are seeing now with Enbridge's Line 5 suggest that we should be thinking about our energy transition? Now that he has accepted the need for carbon pricing, is he ready to acknowledge that we have to give some thought to the energy transition?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised by the hon. member's question because the Bloc Québécois is not a party that defends blue-collar workers in the regions nor is it a party that listens to farmers who need propane and other energy sources. The Bloc Québécois is a party that opposes energy sector jobs and farmers. It defends the interests of big cities.

I am proud of our team because three weeks ago, I launched an innovative climate change policy that is ready to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while protecting the jobs of Canadians in the regions, in the west, in Ontario and across the country. That is why we need to win the next election, for the regions of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member if he is familiar with why the people of Michigan do not trust the idea that a pipeline built by Enbridge in 1953 will not spill. Has he not heard of the July 2010 spill, when Enbridge's negligence led to the most expensive pipeline spill in U.S. history? Where was that? It was in Michigan.

This is about pipeline pollution. It is not about trying to stop a pipeline that gets goods to market. We need to find an alternative to get those goods to market and allow the government of Michigan to keep a campaign promise to protect the Great Lakes.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the former leader of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, encouraging more transport of hydrocarbons by rail and by truck. We know how that has gone in Lac-Mégantic. We know how that is actually worse for the environment because all of those sources emit greenhouse gases, so that is not a plan.

This is the trouble with the ideological left and I include the government in that group of parties there. They are against everything and they have no real ideas or credibility on how to actually reduce emissions while keeping hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed, how to innovate and how to lower carbon intensity. People cannot just shut down everything. When someone is part of a party, whether the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party, that will never be in government, they can live in fantasy.

However, when one is in government, like this government, for almost six years, its fantasy is dividing this country, it is making us less prosperous and when they cannot even defend a pipeline that has operated safely for years and we have to bring an emergency debate about it, that shows that this tired, incompetent government needs to go.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing this House from my home on the island of Newfoundland, which is the ancestral homeland of the Mi'kmaq and Beothuk peoples, and it is also one of Canada's three proud oil-producing provinces.

The importance of our oil and gas industry is not lost on me. The hard-working men and women who work in it are not lost on me. Every day I can see supply ships heading right out from the harbour here in St. John's, right through the narrows and out to the rigs over 300 kilometres from shore. Indeed, my province relies more on oil revenue than even Alberta or Saskatchewan.

I know that this debate is very important. It is about energy security; Canada's energy security, the United States' energy security and North America's energy security. That is precisely what Line 5 is and the Government of Canada takes this issue very seriously. I take this issue very seriously.

The opposition have claimed in the media and again in this House, and they will continue to say, that we have done nothing on this issue. That we sat on our hands, that we do not take this issue seriously, but that could not be further from the truth. It is misleading, it is irresponsible and it is politically self-serving. Leave it to the members of the official opposition to play partisan politics and seek to score some cheap political points on the backs of working Canadians, of Canadian oil and gas workers, and of Canadians who just want to heat their homes.

We cannot solve this issue with false bravado by beating our chests while simultaneously sticking our heads in the sand, like the members opposite so often do, by calling people who disagree with them brain-dead. That bombastic approach does a great disservice for our oil and gas workers and it does nothing to advance their cause. We are better than that and we owe it to the workers in the industry to be better than that.

These workers built this country. We are the fourth-largest producer of oil and gas in the world. We have the third largest reserves. We do not get there without the people behind it. This is our number one export, one of our biggest industries.

Tonight's emergency debate allows us to focus on something very important, something we do not see enough in Canadian politics. I am talking about the “Team Canada” spirit that unites the political parties, government and the private sector, in support of a critical piece of North American energy infrastructure, specifically a relatively small section of Enbridge Line 5. This section extends 7.2 kilometres across the Straits of Mackinac, a waterway between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

I will say to this House what I have said to members of the committee: Shutting down Line 5 would have profound consequences for Canada and the United States. It is a critical energy and economic link. The heating of Canadian homes, the flying of Canadian jets, the operation of Canadian refineries in Sarnia, in Montreal, in Lévis, are non-negotiable. The jobs of those workers are non-negotiable: the 5,000 direct jobs and the 23,000 indirect jobs in the Sarnia region and the thousands of jobs in Quebec.

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 in our very first call. 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.

I have been speaking continually with Enbridge, as has my office. We are doing what we can to support them. I have also been speaking with labour, with the Canada's Building Trades Unions, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Canadian Labour Congress. Every day, we are working hard on this issue.

I have spoken with the member for Sarnia—Lambton, with Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley, given the criticality of this issue for the Sarnia region. Just before this debate tonight, I spoke with my counterparts in Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Ministers Julien, Eyre and Savage, as well as Alberta's special representative in D.C., a former member of this House, James Rajotte. I will be speaking with Ontario Minister Rickford soon as well.

We have been in constant communication on this issue since the fall. We have set up an officials-level working group to make sure we stay aligned and that we work together. It has been, and it will continue to be, a team Canada approach. Line 5 does not just affect one province, it supports this entire country. In the face of external challenges to our energy security, Canadians expect, rightfully, that their governments, federal and provincial, politicians of all stripes, act as one, to be united, and united we are.

MPs and senators in the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group held 23 virtual meetings with U.S. congressional lawmakers during a blitz of advocacy in March, raising Line 5 in every one of those meetings.

Look no further than to the special committee on the economic relationship between Canada and the United States that this House unanimously voted to create. I appeared before the committee, as did some of my colleagues. I would like to take a moment to thank the members of that committee for their efforts. I suspect we will be hearing more from them tonight.

There was no daylight between parties on the issue. The committee unanimously agreed that Line 5 is a significant aspect of Canada's economic relationship with the United States. The committee unanimously agreed, as their first recommendation, that the government should encourage Enbridge and the State of Michigan to resolve the dispute through a mediated settlement.

We know full well the economic impacts that a shutdown would have in this country. I have already mentioned the jobs, but it bears repeating. It is 5,000 direct jobs in Sarnia, 23,000 indirect jobs in the region, thousands more in Montreal and Lévis, 53% of Ontario's crude oil supply, four refineries depend on Line 5, all of the jet fuel for Pearson International Airport, 66% of Quebec's crude oil supply via Line 9, Suncor's refinery in Montreal and Valero's refinery in Lévis.

The United States depends on Line 5 as much as we do. No two other countries in the world have their energy sectors as closely intertwined as we do, 70 pipelines, nearly three dozen transmission lines, right across the border. A shutdown would have negative impacts on Michigan and the Great Lakes Region, to put it mildly. Sixty-five percent of the propane needs of Michigan's upper peninsula come from Line 5; 55% of state-wide propane needs come from Line 5. Michiganders heat their homes with the product that it delivers. In fact, when we saw extreme cold weather events wreak havoc on power grids in Texas, Michigan was protected from the same circumstances because of Line 5.

There are thousands of jobs at refineries in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan that are at risk should Line 5 shut down. It supplies Marathon's refinery in Detroit. It supplies PBF Energy and bp-Husky refinery in Toledo, Ohio, refineries that have said they have very limited alternatives and would need to close down. Thousands of direct and contracted skilled trades jobs are at risk, and a loss of $5.4 billion in annual economic output. Line 5 powers Detroit's auto industry. It flies jets from Detroit Metro Airport.

Its impact cannot be overstated. It would cause a combined shortage of 14.7 million gallons a day in the region. Michigan, alone, would face a 756,000-gallon a day propane shortage.

We are hopeful that the court-ordered mediation process unfolding between Enbridge and the State of Michigan will yield a local solution. To the opponents of Line 5, I ask, “What is the alternative?”

The reality is that those energy molecules will still get to market, people will not be left out in the cold. As I have said, that is non-negotiable. The demand for the 540,000 barrels a day of oil that Line 5 transports will not go away.

We can either use a pipeline that is demonstrably safe, is efficient, is economical and, as a piece of critical infrastructure, is itself low-emitting, or be forced to put oil on trains, on trucks and on marine transport. It would take 800 rail cars and 2,000 trucks a day just in Canada. In the United States, the number of extra trucks needed could be up to 15,000 a day. That is unquestionably less safe and would increase emissions.

We do not need more trucks on the road jamming up the 401 and 403 in the GTA or the 40 in Montreal, or jamming up our already congested border crossings. Those idling trucks would be releasing their emissions in Governor Whitmer's back yard, in Michigan, while they waited to cross the border.

Let me be crystal clear. The protection of the environment of the Great Lakes is of vital importance. I do not think anybody in the House disagrees with that. The reality of the situation is that Line 5 is safe. It has been safe for 65 years, operating in the Straits of Mackinac without incident.

Enbridge is committed to making a safe line even safer. It has proposed the Great Lakes tunnel project, which would take the pipeline off the lake-bed floor and house it in a cement tunnel underneath the lake-bed, protecting it from anchor strikes and protecting the Great Lakes.

This is exactly what Michigan was looking for, and Michigan continues to issue permits to allow the project to proceed. As I said, we are looking at all our options. We are ready to intervene at precisely the right moment.

The 1977 Transit Pipeline Treaty remains in effect and we have other legal tools we can avail ourselves of should the situation require it, but let me reiterate we are encouraged by the mediation process that is unfolding and we encourage Enbridge and the State of Michigan to reach a local solution that maintains the integrity of North American energy security.

We are taking the same approach members of the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship Between Canada and the United States have asked us to, and the same approach Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario have urged us to. It is an approach that says diplomacy first. It is an approach that says team Canada, with collaboration at the forefront with provincial governments and stakeholders.

Make no mistake about it, this is an irritant in the Canada-U.S. relationship, just as President Biden's decision on Keystone XL was deeply disappointing and hurt our workers, and just as the countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber are unfair, unjustified, unwarranted and hurt our forestry workers. However, we cannot lose sight of the great opportunities and possibilities of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

There are opportunities to make this relationship even stronger, and it is a relationship that is bigger than one project or one piece of energy infrastructure. This new administration is more aligned with the goals of the Government of Canada than ever before, and not just with our goals. It is more aligned now with the goals of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan than ever before. It is aligned on leaving no worker behind and putting workers at the forefront of building a low-emissions energy future. It is aligned on tackling the greatest challenge of our generation, which is the reality of climate change. It is aligned on securing North American energy security through the protection of critical energy infrastructure and resilient supply chains free of geopolitics.

The U.S. wants to work with us on critical minerals because we have 13 of the 35 minerals it deems essential, and we want to ensure resilient supply chains that prevent Chinese dominance. It wants to work closely with us on CCUS, speaking with a unified voice and seeing it as an opportunity to have oil and gas workers lead decarbonization efforts.

The Prime Minister and President Biden agreed in their February summit to work together to build our economies back better as we confront the climate crisis. North American energy security is a big part of this, and this was spelled out in their joint “Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership”. This formal document recognized the important economic and energy security benefits of the bilateral energy relationship and its highly integrated infrastructure.

The “Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership” presents us with a plan to protect our highly integrated energy infrastructure, such as Line 5, to maintain the security and resilience of supply chains like that of Canadian crude heading south.

It is a plan to renew and strengthen existing bilateral agreements on critical minerals, advance nature-based climate solutions, harmonize standards and regulations to increase competitiveness and provide an even playing field for our companies.

It is about people. It is about workers and ensuring that no worker is left behind, making sure that energy-producing regions or provinces such as mine are not left behind. We need the ingenuity, the determination and the hard work of our energy workers in our energy-producing provinces to build up our low-emissions energy future.

Let me conclude with where I began. This is an issue that impacts all of Canada. This government takes the issue of Line 5 and Canada's energy security very seriously. We have put forward a team Canada approach, working with the provinces, with Enbridge, with the unions and with the House. We are leaving no stone unturned in defending Canada's energy security and the workers who built this country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

May 6, 2021

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Administrator of the Government of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 6th day of May, 2021, at 6:27 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, and Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for his recognition that Line 5 is essential for our economic and energy security. Certainly he knows the serious impact this would have in my riding.

I was fortunate to sit on the Canada-U.S. committee that was in agreement on the seriousness of this issue and made specific recommendations for the government to act on. One of these was that the government should submit an amicus curiae brief, which is due on Tuesday, May 11.

Will the government be submitting such a brief?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member, and I can assure the House, as I have said, that we are looking at all our options and we will leave no stone unturned in defending Canada's energy security. We are working at the political level. We are working at the diplomatic level. We are also working at the legal level, and we will be ready to intervene strategically at precisely the right moment so that we can stand up for energy workers and stand up, frankly, for energy consumers in this country. By looking after both of those, we are standing up for Canada's energy security. People will not be left out in the cold. As I have said, that is non-negotiable.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. He spoke a lot about team Canada. I hope he will be as passionate and energetic about defending the softwood lumber industry in our dispute with the United States as he is about defending the Enbridge pipeline. I will move on.

This crisis is showing us that we may sometimes be unprepared and dependent. One of the solutions to the Enbridge situation could be to work on developing energy independence, which would require a transition. We never hear the minister talk about this. Just today, he announced $24 million towards developing net-zero oil. In my opinion, net-zero oil is like diet poutine. There is no such thing.

My question for the minister is a simple one. Does he not think that the Enbridge dispute shows how much we need to transition to a low-carbon energy economy, an economy that is less dependent on oil?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that we cannot simply transition an economy by pulling on the plug of the economy. Line 5 is absolutely essential to shipping crude from Alberta and Saskatchewan, but it is also vital to the energy security of the citizens of Ontario and Quebec.

It has been operating safely for over 60 years, and the improvements that Enbridge is coming forward with would make it even safer by taking the pipeline off the lake-bed and putting it underneath the lake-bed to ensure that it remains safe. We want to make sure that all of these are put in place. A significant transition is happening globally, moving away from conventional sources of energy and moving toward renewables and greener sources of energy, all in a quest to make sure that we lower emissions to meet our Paris targets. Investors are turning that way as well.

However, sudden shocks to ordinary men and women, to the citizens of Quebec, Ontario and to the whole country are not a way to make that transition smooth, nor are they a way to make it easier for Canadians. We have to make sure that the economy is strong in order to make sure that the transition is practical.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was happy that other speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition, mentioned that this is a very different debate about pipelines we are having tonight because this pipeline is not an expansion project. It is not like Keystone XL, Trans Mountain or energy east. This is kind of a status quo pipeline that moves Canadian oil from the west to eastern Canada.

Like those other projects, it involves a credible environmental risk. The minister can say that it is demonstrably safe, but Michigan obviously does not think that. Michigan is concerned about the thinning of the pipeline. It is concerned about the pipeline's supports in the Straits of Mackinac. It is concerned that it has leaked multiple times on land, and it has also witnessed the Line 6B spill into the Kalamazoo River that basically destroyed over 50 kilometres of river. Michigan has had a bad history with these Enbridge pipelines.

If we are going to mediate this and use diplomatic processes to get through this, I would think we would have to demonstrate, beyond the idea of putting the pipeline in a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac, other measures that would really make this safe and give Michigan the sense that they could trust this project.

What further measures is the federal government working on that would really take the safety of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes into account?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly sensitive to the history. The hon. member brings up the history of the Kalamazoo spill. That was quite significant, as has been raised in this House, one of the more significant ones in North America.

It is important to point out, though, that what we are talking about essentially is the pipeline depth or distance in the Straits of Mackinac. That has a safe track record of some 60-plus years. Enbridge has put significant funding aside in order to make sure that stretch of the pipeline is even safer, clearly an acknowledgement of the environmental sensitivity of this area. It is a significant improvement.

If we were to go back in time and perhaps make representation of this to previous administrations or Michiganders who live around that area and say this is the intention, no doubt they would see that as good news. As it is right now, that seems to get lost, but it is very important to remember that what is being proposed here is a significant improvement in safety to an area that, as I said, in the Straits of Mackinac, has gone 60-odd years without incident. However, it is important and absolutely vital that we get that balance between the environment and the economy right. I believe that Enbridge is making the right investments to what is a very sensitive environmental area.

There is no question that there is an economic vitality that exists not only for Alberta and Saskatchewan, but also for Quebec and Ontario. It is vitally important that this issue is top of mind when we talk about energy security on our continent.