Debates of May 6th, 2021

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking a lot about the impacts on southwestern Ontario. My riding is quite close to Sarnia, and those job impacts will be felt if the closure happens quickly.

The member did an excellent job of showing that there needs to be that smart transition and what New Democrats have been calling for in terms of heading towards a low-carbon economy in the future.

A few days ago there was a study conducted by Western University, Lawson Health Research Institute. It talked about the evidence that showed exposure to high levels of pollution could significantly hinder the development of children and that it causes a lot of asthma. We have seen that in Sarnia. It is actually quite a bit higher, the incidence of child—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am going to have to cut the member off and go to the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. There is only so much time left, 30 seconds or less.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I will repeat what I said to the member for Repentigny, and hopefully more clearly this time because I kind of botched it.

A recent study was put out by Health Canada. It showed that the benefits we get from the oil and gas industry, the export costs of $122 billion, are basically exactly matched to the costs that burning fossil fuels have on our economy and our health system. There is $120 billion spent on asthma and all the other health problems that come from air pollution, largely caused by our fossil fuel society.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here tonight to debate the future of a pipeline that has been in operation for over 60 years. I think we must start that debate with a recognition of the fact that Canada and the planet are facing a climate emergency. We have known this for a long time. We are beginning to see the effects of climate change. They are already happening.

As people have tried, whether here in Canada or elsewhere, to push for meaningful action on climate change, it has driven a very polarized debate about pipelines and about the oil and gas sector. On the one hand, some people say we need to completely get rid of all oil and gas extraction. On the other hand, there are boosters of the industry who continue to advocate for what appears to be a limitless expansion and an increase in the rate of extraction of oil and gas. I am not sure that Canadians or anybody on the planet, frankly, has been well served by the extreme polarization of that debate.

Certainly, New Democrats have been very clear that when it comes to that kind of unbridled expansion and lack of critique of the oil and gas sector, or thinking that things can go on as they have for decades without any kind of meaningful change, that is not what is going to get us out of this climate emergency. We do need to change course. We need to think more critically about the oil and gas sector and how to transition successfully toward a low-carbon economy in a way that does not leave workers behind.

Right now we are in a debate where the imperatives of a large company that has known there has been opposition in the State of Michigan and elsewhere to its operations for a long time has refused to act. Instead it has lobbied to create political pressure for the company to be able to continue its operations as it has been doing for some time.

We need to get to a point where we can get concrete action on climate change and transition toward a low-carbon economy. Those companies that have the ability to get politicians like us all together advocating for their interests, when the money is not there to be made anymore can quickly turn their backs and walk away. Who is left holding the bag? It's their workers.

We have a lot of people in Canada who have made their living in the oil and gas sector. As the economy and market forces are driving people away now from fossil fuels, it is incumbent on us to make a plan for what the next stage of our economy will look like so that those workers are not left holding the bag, and so that they do not face economic disaster when those companies move into other more profitable pursuits.

However, we are not talking about that expansionist drive here tonight. We are not talking about pipelines like the Keystone XL pipeline or the TMX pipeline. We are talking about a pipeline that has been in operation for over 60 years. When we talk about that transition, I do not believe it is a transition to zero oil and gas here in Canada. Even if we transition all of our home heating and our transportation away from fossil fuel use, there will continue to be a role for the oil and gas sector. This Parliament is brought to those at home by plastics, among other things, and those require oil and gas for their manufacture.

The question is this: What does a reduced oil and gas industry look like in Canada that can support a number of good paying jobs, albeit not what we saw at the height of the boom in Alberta? The answer has to be that for every ounce of oil and gas extracted from the ground here in Canada there are more value-added jobs like the refining capability that is in Sarnia.

The Line 5 pipeline debate is different from the debates around Keystone XL and TMX in a couple of key ways. One is that we are not talking about more extraction. We are talking about the extraction that has already been going on. Two, we are talking about transporting oil and gas to a place where the very kind of work that we would like to see happen in Canada, the value-added work that creates more jobs and more value here in Canada for every ounce of oil and gas extracted, takes place. Those are the kinds of things that Canada needs to be thinking far more about.

In the time that we have seen massive increases, not in the last five or six years when the oil and gas sector in Canada has been hit very hard, but over the last 20 years when we saw a huge expansion of our oil and gas infrastructure, we also saw a dramatic decline in the refining capability of the country. There are various reasons for that in terms of the market, and that is what happens when we do not have a government with its hand on the tiller, that is actually trying to make a plan for how Canadians themselves, not just international shareholders, can benefit the most from the oil and gas that is taken out of the ground.

With respect to shutting down Line 5 in the next couple of weeks, New Democrats have been very clear that this is not a good thing. It is going to impact thousands of workers in Canada, both on the supply end and the receiving end where there is value-added work being done.

That said, we understand the frustration of folks who have legitimate concerns about the Great Lakes, who want to see real action get taken. It is not like these concerns are new, and so there is a lot of frustration that a company that has been hearing these concerns for a long time could continue to get away with doing business as usual. They are talking about a corridor underneath the Great Lakes that could replace the existing pipeline. That sounds like a good thing in terms of eliminating one of the environmental threats, but that replacement is also not going to get built in the next two weeks. Therefore, the question is, what do we do in the meantime?

What we would like to hear from our own government and governments in the U.S. who, like New Democrats, support the ongoing operation of Line 5 is a plan for how to mitigate those environmental risks in the meantime. We would like to hear how we get to a place where we have another option that does not involve massive shipments by rail and by truck to these refineries in Canada, and that is something that has been seriously lacking. We owe that, not just to what Conservatives like to write off as environmentalists; these are concerned Canadian and U.S. citizens on both sides of the border. We also owe it to indigenous people on both sides of the border, whether it is the Bad River Band or it is the Wiikwemkoong on the banks of Lake Huron who are concerned, not just about what it means for the lake in a general environmental sense but also what it means for local economies who depend on the Great Lakes.

I appreciate that people do not have a lot of faith in Enbridge. They have every right not to; they should not. We should demand more. We should demand governments that have a plan for how to transition to a low-carbon future. We should have governments that take public interest regulation and enforcement seriously. If we had a stronger culture of that, then some of the issues around this pipeline would have been addressed much sooner. We need to be building a culture, not of saying yes to the oil industry any time it asks because it happens to employ a lot of people, but a culture that impresses upon that industry its responsibility, with governments who understand their own responsibility and are willing to enforce public interest regulation to ensure that these powerful companies do not just get away with anything and it is not just business as usual. That has to be there.

There is a governor in Michigan now who clearly feels that sense of exasperation and is putting pressure on Enbridge. We need to find a way to keep Line 5 open for now without dissipating that real and important pressure on Enbridge to do the right thing by the environment and by local people whose economies depend on the success and the health of the Great Lakes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague, in which he alluded to the potential for environmental disasters.

Earlier we heard the Minister of Natural Resources say that nothing has happened with this pipeline in 60 years. I will make an analogy, as my colleague from Jonquière did earlier when he was talking about diet poutine. I love that type of analogy. It would be like the people of Pompeii pointing to Vesuvius and saying that nothing has happened in 60 years, so nothing will happen in the future.

I wonder if the Minister of Natural Resources' argument is valid. According to him, since nothing has happened in connection with the pipeline in 60 years, then nothing will ever happen in the future.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the minister's fallacious argument.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, the answer is no. We cannot say that because there has not been a disaster in the past, there will not be one in the future.

We really have to think about how U.S. states and governments in Canada can succeed in creating a culture that promotes accountability in the implementation of regulations that are in the public interest.

Currently, few people trust Enbridge, the regulations or the governments whose job it is to enforce environmental standards. That is what must change. It is discouraging to realize tonight that the government has no plan, nor even any real inclination to take on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his work on the Canada-U.S. committee that studied this issue. I believe he participated in that.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on some of the specific recommendations that the government should do and the things it is does not appear to do.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I did participate. I am the NDP vice-chair of that committee.

One of the big things that has not been present enough in this conversation, if the member will permit me some criticism of the committee and its study, is indigenous voices. We did not hear from any indigenous witnesses at committee. I submitted some recommendations on that. If we are going to find a good way forward, we need to be engaging indigenous people on both sides of the border. That is going to be really important to finding a lasting solution.

One of the things that Canadians and Canadian governments, in particular, need to absorb when we look at natural resource projects is that there is no longer a path and there never should have been a path to undertaking large natural resource projects without meaningful engagement and the consent of the people on whose traditional territories these projects are being built.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

I would like to take some time today to talk about the relationship between Canada and the United States, the trade relationship specifically, because it is germane to the discussion we are having as it relates to understanding what the relationship is like between Canada and the United States and how important it is to both countries.

I will remind members that no two nations are dependent more on each other for their mutual security and prosperity than Canada and the United States. We are stronger together, and as recent history has shown during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can rely on the strength and security of that relationship between Canada and the United States, and the supply chains that exist.

Canada and the U.S. have one of the largest trading relationships in the world, and I will provide a few trade figures that underscore the sheer scale of our cross-border trade.

In 2019, bilateral trade in goods and services totalled $1 trillion. That is more than $2.7 billion in trade every single day. Our level of economic integration is unique. Approximately 76% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are inputs used to make goods in the U.S., and in addition to what we sell to the U.S., contains on average roughly 20% American content. We make things together and value together.

Canada is the number one export market for most U.S. states; 32 in 2019 and 2020 to be more precise. Approximately 75% of Canada's goods export to the U.S. The U.S. is the single greatest investor in Canada. In 2020, the U.S. stock investment in Canada was $457 billion, representing nearly half of all investment in Canada, and Line 5 is part of this relationship.

Our enduring trade relationship, starting with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989 and continuing with NAFTA in 1994, has been a model for success in the world. We renewed our commitment to the commercial relationship with the coming into force of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. This new NAFTA addresses modern trade challenges, reduces red tape at the border and provides enhanced predictability and stability for workers and businesses across the integrated North American market. These outcomes strengthen our commercial relationship, promote new opportunities for Canadians and support our collective economic prosperity.

Crucially, the new agreement preserves virtually duty-free trade in North America and ensures continued predictability and secure market access for Canadian exporters to the United States. Under the agreement, Canada and the U.S. offer trade on similar terms, and bilateral trade is generally balanced. These outcomes reinforce integrated North American supply chains and help enhance our competitiveness globally.

Importantly, the new NAFTA also incorporates new and modernized provisions that seek to address 21st century issues, including digital trade, small and medium-sized enterprises, good regulatory practices and binding obligations on labour and environment. The new agreement supports inclusive trade with outcomes that advance interests of importance to gender equality and indigenous peoples.

The U.S. represents an especially attractive market for Canada's under-represented exporters, including women, indigenous and racialized peoples and LGBTQ entrepreneurs. We are pleased to have implemented an agreement that preserves the elements of NAFTA that are most important to Canadians and are fundamental to support cross-border trade and investment, such as the NAFTA chapter 19 binational panel dispute settlement mechanism, the cultural exemption and the provisions on temporary entry for business persons.

Our unique relationship with the United States was recognized in a “Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership” announced by the Prime Minister and President Biden on February 23. The two leaders committed to work closely together in many areas, including launching strategies to strengthen that relationship and supply chain security. My colleagues across the government and myself are working with our U.S. counterparts to strengthen and advance our integrated bilateral supply chains in areas critical to growth and seeking other ways to continue to build together.

This collaboration contributes to the North American competitive advantage on the world stage, which, in addition to CUSMA, is bolstered by our integrated energy market, long-standing foreign policy and security co-operation, and is resilient and well-balance in the supply chains. Canada and the U.S. can be competitive internationally with an integrated North American market.

Despite continued collaboration and success, there are always going to be challenges such as those with softwood lumber and what we are seeing today. U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber, for example, are unwarranted and unfair. This long-standing trade irritant distracts from the strong commercial relationship with the U.S., hampers current efforts and economic recovery, and harms workers and communities across Canada as well as U.S. consumers and home builders.

Canada remains ready to work together with the United States to find durable, mutually acceptable negotiated outcomes to this dispute. In the meantime, Canada will continue to vigorously pursue its challenges of U.S. duties under NAFTA chapter 19, CUSMA chapter 10, before the WTO.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought into focus the complexity and deep integration of medical supply chains between Canada and the U.S. Our collaboration allows for smooth flow of personal protective equipment across the border and into the hands of health care workers in both countries. It is important to keep our integrated supply chains working and ensure that products can flow across the borders unimpeded.

Canada is a trading nation with the U.S. and is by far the most important export destination. Approximately 80% of new exporters are SMEs that export to a single market, and almost 70% of new exporters choose the U.S. as their first export destination. The U.S. is a proven testing ground for new exporters and established ones piloting a new product or service.

Most Canadian exporters active in overseas markets originally began their exporting journey in the U.S., and the markets remain attractive to new exporters, particularly as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic both limits international travel and exacerbates the risk of faulty business decision-making in unfamiliar cultural environments.

This is a challenging business environment. Canada's Trade Commissioner Service in the U.S. is continuing to adapt and bring new service offerings to support Canadian companies of all sizes. E-commerce and related technologies are playing a critical role at this time and this will likely accelerate in the coming months. The Trade Commissioner Service is committed to supporting our companies to take advantage of this shift to digital trade by helping more exporters access online e-commerce platforms and helping our digital start-ups access the U.S. and other major players in a global and tangible economy.

To briefly summarize, Canada and the U.S. enjoy one of the most productive, collaborative and mutually beneficial bilateral relationships in the world. The continued safe operation of Line 5 supports this for both nations. Our government is deeply committed to further building on this foundation as we continue to keep our people safe and healthy from the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic and work toward our mutual economic recovery and growth.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coming from southwestern Ontario, I understand the incredible importance of having Line 5 open. I am looking at our agriculture, whether it be the drying of crops or heating of barns, fuel and heat, a variety of different things and the thousands of jobs.

I also look at the fact that if we did not have this, we would have so many trucks on the roads. We are talking about 2,000 trucks on the roads and 800 rail cars having to go back-and-forth. The fact is that we do not even have enough drivers to drive those trucks.

We know the deadline is next week. Does the government have a plan B if this does not go through?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member would know that I would be unaware of the specific plans.

At the end of day, she answered the question with her preamble. The incredible work that would be involved in moving this product without the use of the pipeline would be, as she so eloquently indicated, extremely difficult to do. The minister also indicated this earlier when he talked about the number of rail cars and trucks, not just in Canada but in the United States, that would be put on the roads.

Yes, the government has been working on this despite the fact there have been suggestions from the other side of the House that this is not the case. I am very confident the government will come to a mutually beneficial agreement with the United States that will see us successful on both sides of the border by maintaining this important infrastructure.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to talk briefly about Enbridge.

The American authorities blamed Enbridge for its culture of deviance on safety, which contributed to the spill in Michigan. There had also been a spill in Saskatchewan, and nothing had been done. Even though the company said it took measures, it did not take any. Then the spill in Michigan happened, along with the problem that we have tonight.

Does my colleague not think that this crisis could have been avoided if Canada had intervened with Enbridge to make it toe the line?

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

Mr. Speaker, hindsight is certainly 20/20, and we can always look back and try to assess how we did on something a lot more easily than in the moment, but I can say that, for me personally, making sure we are conscientious of that environmental responsibility and making sure that everything is as safe as possible is of utmost importance. I know it is for this government, as well. We can see that from the minister's passion in the speech he gave today. There is a deep desire to make sure that our environment is protected to the best ability possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Kingston and the Islands has an open mind when it comes to pipeline debates. Here we have two sides that are seemingly miles apart. The Minister of Natural Resources says this pipeline is demonstrably safe. Michigan obviously thinks otherwise. Earlier, I asked the Conservative whip what he would do, and I know the member liked it, because he repeated it to another member.

What do you think your government should be doing to move this forward, when clearly the two sides are so far apart?

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before the hon. member answers that question, I know it is kind of laid back and relaxed late in the evening, but I just want to remind hon. members to place their questions through the Chair and not to each other. Otherwise, I will start answering the questions and members do not want that to happen.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Elmwood—Transcona put it very well when he was talking about the need for this particular piece of infrastructure. Yes, everything in this room has come into contact with the necessity for having oil and gas at one point or another, but that does not, in my opinion, negate our responsibility to be as conscientious and environmentally sensitive as we can, especially moving forward as we aim to reach that net-neutrality, so I appreciate the preamble to his question.

More specifically to what the government should be doing, I would expect that any government, not just this government, would be working with its counterparts, and obviously that is not always happening in public, to come to an agreement, a compromise or a settlement that can be both productive and meaningful on both sides, trying to get to the root of the problem as both sides see it, as we would in any negotiation, so that this project can continue to deliver the incredible amount of service it is delivering right now throughout both Canada and the United States.

I trust that this government, and in particular this minister, is working really hard on this issue.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to take part in a debate where all parties in the House have the rare opportunity to agree. We must do everything we can to ensure that Line 5 continues to operate.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States and working with my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP to deliver a unanimous report to the government.

It was also a pleasure to have our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton frequently join the committee, because this affects her riding almost more than anywhere else. This is about jobs. This is about economic security for Canadians. This is about the price we pay for things like gas, and this is about our relationship with our closest ally.

How did we get here? What is Line 5? Line 5 is a 645-mile pipeline that was built in 1953. It was built long before most of us were born, when Dwight Eisenhower was the President of the United States and issued a presidential permit to allow for the construction, operation and maintenance of Line 5. In Canada, Louis St. Laurent was our Prime Minister. That is how far back this line has been carrying shipments of light crude oil, light synthetic crude oil and natural gas liquids to Canada. It carries today about 540,000 barrels per day, and since it first entered into service in 1953, it has carried approximately 80 million barrels. It is responsible for transporting about 70% of the total Michigan crude oil production. It starts in Wisconsin and moves through Michigan to Ontario, where it ends near Sarnia.

What has happened? A notice has been given by the Governor of Michigan that she intends to end the easement that has been in effect since 1953 permitting the continued operation of Line 5. For a period of time, a portion of Line 5 crosses the Straits of Mackinac. It is about a four-mile portion of Line 5, and it is a dual pipeline. The governor has issued a shutdown order, telling Enbridge it can no longer operate that portion of the pipeline, which has no alternative, so essentially shutting down that four-mile stretch would mean the pipeline can no longer operate.

However, the governor has cited hypothetical safety concerns. We learned at committee that, first of all, there has never been an escape of product into the Straits of Mackinac since 1954, when the pipeline started operating. Second, there have been numerous tests that have been done, and what they have determined, from private companies, is that the chance of a leak is less than 0.05% per year, meaning less than one in 2,000 chance per year that there would be any leak into the Straits of Mackinac.

The company has come forward with an alternative. The company has said, “Let us build a tunnel, an alternative”, and previously Michigan had agreed to this. The company will need a few years to get that in place, which would mean we would no longer have this four-mile stretch. I respect Governor Whitmer, in the sense that she had a very tough time during the recent presidential election. She was threatened in a way that no public official should ever be threatened, and my complete sympathies go to her and her family for what she went through, but this decision puts Canadian families, Canadian workers and also American families and American workers through a horrible ordeal because it risks their jobs and it risks their economic security. I would beg her to reconsider.

One thing I would like to say is that, like our friends in the United States, Canada has a federal system, which means that in Canada we have sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution and certain powers are federal and certain powers are provincial. In the United States, there are certain powers that are federal, and in my view, based on the evidence we heard at committee, the Governor of Michigan lacks the power to terminate this easement.

For example, Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety Act and invested a federal agency called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which people call PHMSA, with exclusive authority to regulate pipeline safety. The act provides that the state authority “may not adopt or continue in force” safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or interstate pipeline transportation. It comprehensively regulates pipeline security.

In the United States, as in Canada, there is something called the supremacy clause, which means that if the federal government enters into an area of jurisdiction, the state cannot, by its actions, trump the federal legislation. Having enacted the Pipeline Safety Act, it would seem to me that it would be unconstitutional, if I can use that word, for the Governor of Michigan to revoke the easement, because all the safety concerns from the pipeline are dealt with through PHMSA and its regulations. They have confirmed as a result of all their reviews, and there have been a number of independent reviews done, that the dual pipelines, which are the two lines going under the Straits of Mackinac, are fit for service and safe to operate. That is very important, and I reiterate that since starting operation over 65 years ago, these pipelines have never released any product into the Straits of Mackinac.

Another issue, constitutionally, is who gets to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In the United States, the Constitution says that the federal government is exclusively responsible for regulating interstate commerce. There is no argument here that this does not go through a number of states. As I mentioned before, Line 5 originates in Superior, Wisconsin. It then goes into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and receives product at Lewiston, Michigan, where local Michigan crude oil is collected and transported to U.S. and Canadian refineries. It transports 14,000 barrels of Michigan oil per day. Then, the oil is taken not only to Sarnia, but also to Marathon's Detroit refinery and to two refineries in Toledo, Ohio. In addition, in Ontario, the pipeline is connected to other pipelines that transport crude to Pennsylvania and to my home in Montreal, Quebec.

It is hard to argue that this does not constitute interstate commerce: Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. That is more than one state, and it is definitely commerce. My feeling is that this is under federal jurisdiction.

Then, let us look at international. There is no dispute that international commerce is federal, and the United States has even entered into pipeline treaties with Canada, including a 1977 pipeline treaty that ensured the continued operation across the border, which should not be ended by any one state.

In the context of Canada-U.S. relations, clearly it is not acceptable for different states to be involved in deciding whether a pipeline can cross the border between our two countries. The same is true for a pipeline that crosses several states. There is no question that a state like Michigan should not have the power to stop oil flowing through its territory between Wisconsin and Ohio or Pennsylvania. We therefore need specific, clear rules that apply to all states. That is why the United States has a federal government.

Given that there is a congressional law, a law passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, that deals with this issue and exclusively regulates the safety of the pipeline, given the fact that it is a pipeline that goes between four different states, at least, given that it is a pipeline that transverses an international boundary between the United States and Canada, and given the fact that the United States government has actually entered into an agreement with Canada related to the continued operation of the pipeline and issued a presidential permit for this pipeline, I would argue legally that Enbridge is correct in its pleadings in the Western District of Michigan and the Governor of Michigan does not have the power to end the easement or to cease operations of the pipeline. I also agree with Enbridge's position that it would be up to Michigan to seek an order of the court, an injunction, to stop the pipeline from operating.

In the meantime, we need to be team Canada. We need to appeal to state legislatures in Michigan and elsewhere, especially those states that are impacted by the governor's decision. We need to appeal to fellow legislators in Washington, whether it is the Prime Minister to the President, or all of us to our fellow legislators. We need to let them know how important this pipeline is to Canada, and perhaps to their states, which they may not be aware of. We need to make sure we do everything in our power to protect the jobs of Canadians and Americans, protect the continued operations of a pipeline that has operated safely for over 65 years and make sure the refineries in Canada do not lose—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there and move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that we have not seen any movement. I am from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and my riding borders Michigan, albeit over bodies of water. We are here at the eleventh hour. The government has had five months under the new U.S. administration, and we have not seen any movement on this.

My constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and those in the farming community across southwestern Ontario, are wondering where they are going to get propane to heat their livestock barns and their greenhouses or dry their grain. There would be thousands of transport trucks on the road on a daily basis in order to meet those needs. We saw the shortage during the rail strike.

I am wondering if the member would comment on how farmers would get their feedstock, their propane, if this pipeline were to shut down.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I did not say there has not been any progress over five months. I said that we need the continued operations of the pipeline. I am in complete agreement with the member. We heard at committee how aggressively the government, our ambassador to Washington and others have been in making this very clear to the Americans.

The saving grace is that Enbridge has taken Michigan to court and has made it very clear it will not cease operating the pipeline. Michigan has not secured an injunction to stop the pipeline from operating. The case Enbridge has made is very strong, and we need to continue to make sure that the Biden administration in Washington clearly understands that this pipeline must continue to operate. I am in full agreement that we need to do everything in our power to do so.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him.

He used the same argument as the Minister of Natural Resources, namely that nothing has happened to Line 5 in 60 years. As I said earlier, that is what the people of Pompei said about Mount Vesuvius: nothing has happened in 60 years. I could even mention the movie La Haine directed by Mathieu Kassovitz. In this movie, a man falls from a 30-storey building, and the whole time he is falling, he says to himself, “So far, so good”. It is not the fall that counts, but the landing.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. How does the argument that there has not been a natural disaster in 60 years prove that nothing will happen in the future?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean that I have a great deal of respect for him as well.

I am not saying that it will not happen just because there has not been a spill in 65 years. What I am saying is that many studies have been conducted in the past five years, including the study by Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems in 2017. According to this study, the risk of the pipeline failing is 0.0476% per year. That means the risk of the pipeline rupturing is less than one in two thousand.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of commentary about how this is a different pipeline debate because this is very much a status quo pipeline. The member referenced the origins of Line 5 being built in 1953. I think of eroding infrastructure like Line 5 throughout the U.S.A. and Canada and consider the shutdown of Line 5 to be imminent.

We are in an emergency debate without an alternative. The government has failed to initiate the transition, or at the very least mitigate a worst-case scenario, and this is case in point that the status quo is not working.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement that we need to make a transition, but I do not think that transition is going to happen tomorrow. Many Canadians rely on the good jobs and income that come from the oil and other liquids that are delivered in the pipeline. I do not believe it is going to get shut down tomorrow or imminently.

The legal case, as I tried to illustrate in my presentation, is a very good one, and I think the governor of Michigan lacks the power to do it. We need to ensure the U.S. federal government intervenes, but the courts in the United States, I trust, will make sure that an illegal action, such as trying to end an easement illegally, will not be allowed to happen.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am humbled to be in this debate tonight. I know so many of my colleagues on this side of the House wanted to comment on the emergency of Line 5. I am here representing so many of them. We do have a good list of speakers, but many more wanted to address this issue. They have been advocates for this industry for years, advocates for how we will benefit across Canada, from the riches, the technology and the environmental advances that come with the energy industry. I thank all my colleagues for being such great advocates, before I came here, as well.

If I were to criticize the government's approach, it would be a target-rich environment considering how it is actually dealing with energy in this country, but particularly with how it is dealing with Line 5. We have had months to deal with this. If I had to pick one failure here, and I am going to start with just one, of the government, it is the lack of leadership.

A new United States president is sitting in Washington, with a new, better relationship with the Canadian government, supposedly, yet where is Canada, and what is happening with that special relationship? The steel and aluminum trade is still constrained. The softwood lumber agreements are not to be heard of. So much for CUSMA, with buy America, and Keystone XL was cancelled on day one. So much for energy security. So much for environmental progress. So much for North American jobs. So much for indigenous advancement.

The Prime Minister's response to Keystone XL was that he was disappointed, but he was clearly not engaged. With a shrug, he moved on, along with his Minister of Natural Resources, to other things. Effectively, all the progress thousands of Canadians brought to energy advances, and the Prime Minister gacve a quick shrug and moved on. This is the Prime Minister. He is not really involved with this file. It has been delegated to his Minister of Natural Resources. Leadership and accountability have been pushed down a level.

As much as anyone in this House, I admire the Minister of Natural Resources' words on the importance of an industry that contributes more to Canadians than any other industry in this country. However, I have heard his words repetitively. I have heard his protests about how hard he tried on Keystone XL, and I have reminded him then that this trying and failing is becoming repetitive with his cabinet colleagues.

His cheerleading has been falling on deaf ears with his government's leadership, who are once again saying, just like with Teck Frontier's project withdrawal, “Let us just move on.”

Before I move on any further, I need to mention I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

At that point, months ago in January, I spoke directly to the minister about the importance of solving Line 5 as quickly as possible. I told the minister that time and uncertainty are our enemy and that we need to elevate the urgency. Disappointment, a shrug and moving on are repetitions Canadians do not want to hear yet again.

It is now May 6, as my colleague said, six days from the date the Governor of Michigan wants to shut Line 5. In the U.S. courts, this matter may be held in abeyance until court jurisdiction is decided and the mediation process between the parties is completed. I should point out that this mediation was recommended by the federal court judge. Before that, the Governor of Michigan's administration would not even return the calls of the company or the Canadian government.

Yesterday, the governor of Michigan said she would ignore the legal process and shut down Line 5 on May 12. That is tough negotiating. The minister says phrases such as, “This is non-negotiable”, “No stone unturned” or “This is different from Keystone XL”, and we can see how Canadians are becoming wary of the minister's words.

The minister has failed on several resources files, and this approach needs to change. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. The minister must know it is beyond time to move this file off of his desk and onto his boss's desk.

This is not just a natural resources file. My party's leader led our debate here tonight because he knows this issue is not just a natural resources file. It is fundamentally important to Canadians across this whole country. It touches so many departments, such as foreign affairs, international trade, transport and energy. We need a whole-of-government approach to solving this issue.

My leader is in the debate. Where is the minister's leader, the Prime Minister? He is not here. He is not working on this file. He is not engaged in an issue the outcome of which affects tens of thousands of Canadians, the Canadian economy and our relationship with our major trading partner. It is long past due.

The Prime Minister needs to get off his hands and engage in this file. I would tell him to pick up the phone and fly down to meet the President. This is his new and improved political relationship with the U.S. President. It is time he plays that relationship card to show us it exists and has some currency.

We have seen the government act on files when it felt it should be active. We have seen a fulsome reaction to some trade issues. We have seen the leadership of the government take actions above and beyond accepted democratic norms in order to save jobs in one engineering company.

I have not spoken enough about the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship, but that is a huge casualty in this file. Last year, we watched the government accept it had badly negotiated a renewed North American free trade agreement. Real negotiators saw through our team's virtue signalling and inability to solve difficult issues.

I listened as the lead minister on the file stated that her greatest success was removing the energy-sharing agreement from the previous texts of NAFTA. I knew then that the current government did not understand the nature of trade between our two countries. With the U.S. government's decision on Keystone, and maybe the ignorance on Line 5, Canada's energy trade with our dominant trading partner is expendable. That is not a comfort. That is real risk.

Canada-U.S. trade was solidified three decades ago by leaders on both sides who understood how strong we were together. The government has alluded to a special relationship with the incoming U.S. administration and it should prove it. It needs to be utilized. The initial results are very discouraging.

Here are the risks. Are American federal or state courts now going to decide Canada's energy security? We know local courts in the U.S. can be parochial. Judges make mistakes that take years to go through a process to unwind through courts and legislatures. What is the worth of the trade and security agreements we have made with our largest trading partner? Who benefits from all this confusion? Who bears the costs?

If we fail at this, farmers, workers, Canadians, Americans, consumers, an energy-secure continent and the rule of international law regarding the environment will all be losers in this equation. Ironically, some of the pipeline's oil that flowed underneath the Straits of Mackinac will then flow above it.

What is the tangible outcome? By all accounts it is negative. We have been pounding the desk for months to have the Prime Minister engage directly with President Biden on this file. Where is he?