Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert.
Today's concurrence debate on the interim report for Enbridge Line 5 is vitally important and matters to Canadians. Canada is on the precipice of a national energy security emergency, and the deadline is Wednesday, May 12. A critical piece of Canada's energy infrastructure is set to be shut down, and Canada simply does not have the luxury of time.
On November 13, 2020, the State of Michigan revoked the easement that allows the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline to travel underwater through the Straits of Mackinac between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Unless reversed, this decision requires Enbridge to cease operations of this section of the line by this Wednesday. However, any disruption to Line 5 will be devastating for Canada's energy security and economic well-being.
Enbridge Line 5 carries up to 540,000 barrels a day of petroleum products, including light crude oil and natural gas liquids from Alberta and Saskatchewan. It supplies over 53% of Ontario's crude oil and 66% of Quebec's. Line 5 provides an estimated 4,900 direct jobs and up to 23,000 indirect jobs in the supported industries. It supplies significant portions of diesel fuel, propane for Canada's east and much of the jet fuel that supports Pearson airport. Line 5 generates over $65 billion of direct and $28 billion of indirect revenue in annual trade.
Closure of this section of the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac would require 2,000 tanker trucks or 800 railcars a day to keep pace with the demand. Estimates indicate that there would not be enough surplus truckload and railcar capacity to support this increase. Furthermore, a rise in the volume of trucks on Canada's roads and at the border would dramatically increase congestion, vehicle emissions and the risk of serious traffic accidents.
This should be a wake-up call for Canada, not only because of the short-term challenges but for the long-term ones as well. Citizens in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces heat their homes, support their families and keep planes and trains moving and crops growing because of western Canadian oil and gas that travels to eastern Canada, among other places, through Line 5.
The decision to shut down a portion of the pipeline happens this Wednesday, so in the short term, what is the plan B if Canada is unable to get this decision reversed? Where will the additional trucks or railcars come from when there is already a shortage in our ability to use rail and get supplies to market? How will the tens of thousands of jobs be replaced? What will this shutdown do to the price of oil, gas and propane? How will aircraft at Pearson airport get back in the air? Even more importantly, how will this affect our economic recovery after COVID, at a time when lives and livelihoods have already been so drastically disrupted during the pandemic?
Even more disconcerting are the long-term implications. A unilateral decision made outside of Canadian jurisdiction threatens the very health and security of millions of Canadians. Even if it was not a U.S. political decision and was instead a natural disaster or equipment failure that threatened the delivery continuity of this pipeline, Canada's overwhelming dependence on this one infrastructure asset is simply too great. Canada must have an alternative, preferably one that transits from east to west entirely within Canada.
COVID-19 has made every Canadian increasingly aware of the risk of dependence on other countries for critical health, safety and security supplies. As a trading nation, being part of a global supply chain is central to Canada's economic prosperity. However, this must be balanced with domestic self-sufficiency for critical items that Canadians cannot live without, such as PPE, vaccines and critical drug supplies. With the threat to Enbridge Line 5, Canada's self-sufficiency should also include the supply of oil, gas and propane, which support the agriculture that feeds us and the energy that keeps us warm.
Climate change is real, and as Canadians we must do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to sound environmental stewardship. The Canadian oil and gas industry meets the highest environment regulations and standards in the world. Other countries look to Canada to achieve a higher standard in environmentally responsible resource production. If all of the oil- and gas-producing nations around the world adopted Canadian standards, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by a substantial 25%. Canadians can be proud of the current standards that have been achieved and the research that is under way to further push the boundaries of greenhouse gas reductions.
Despite being the world's sixth-largest oil-producing nation, Canadians get 44% of their supply from foreign producers rather than domestic supply. Increased use of Canada's domestic oil and gas supply would reduce Canada's energy vulnerability and the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions.
The future of Line 5 is in the hands of the U.S. courts, and with it Canada's fortunes. That is why this report by the Canada-U.S. economic relationship special committee is so important, as are the critical recommendations. I would like to share with the House four of the seven recommendations that are drastically worthy of note.
The first says, “That the Prime Minister of Canada and his Ministers pursue frequent and direct dialogue on the issue of Line 5 with the U.S. President and his administration, in an attempt to resolve this dispute diplomatically as soon as possible.” We have not seen this. It must happen. We do not have the luxury of time, and we need a sense of urgency. We need the Prime Minister to take this matter up with the President of the United States.
Second, we need to put forward Canada's legal perspective, so we recommend:
That, based on the information currently available to the Special Committee, the Government of Canada file an amicus curiae brief if a negotiated or mediated settlement permitting the continued operation of Line 5 is not reached between Enbridge, Inc. and the State of Michigan prior to the date by which such briefs must be filed. The brief should set out Canada’s legal position with respect to the operation of pipelines that cross international boundaries, including but not limited to advising the court of any rights set out in bilateral or multilateral treaties or agreements....
This includes the one that protects the Line 5 pipeline, which is the 1977 agreement between the Government Of Canada and the Government of the United States Of America concerning transit pipelines.
Third, we need to start looking into what our plan B is if the decision is not reversed. We recommend:
That the Government of Canada work with industry to develop contingency plans designed to ensure that Canadian oil and gas products will continue to be delivered in a timely fashion to the Canadian refineries and industries that rely on the Line 5 pipeline should an interruption to Line 5’s service occur.
Obviously we do not want an interruption. Obviously we want this decision to be reversed. However, we cannot just say that it is going to happen. We have to have an urgent plan B.
Lastly and most importantly, we recommend:
That, in light of the external threat posed to Line 5’s continued operation, the Government of Canada should evaluate other possible vulnerabilities to Canada’s critical energy infrastructure and supply chains, and develop contingency plans to ensure that Canadian interests are protected in the event of disruptions.
Canada's energy security, economic recovery and commitment to climate change require an oil and gas pipeline that connects west to east entirely within Canada. It is the right thing for Canada and it is the right thing for the contribution that Canadians make, as global citizens, to the world.
