Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 958
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (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.
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
View Greg McLean Profile
2021-05-06 21:05 [p.6856]
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?
View Raj Saini Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Raj Saini Profile
2021-05-06 21:36 [p.6860]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Don Valley West.
I thank the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie for initiating this emergency debate. This a pressing issue and a national priority that belongs on the floor of the House. Just as importantly, it is one of those rare matters upon which members from both sides of the House are in complete agreement.
The Governor of Michigan's attempts to shut down the Line 5 pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac strike at three key pillars of our future. First, a shutdown would significantly stall the robust economic recovery we need to help us build back better from this global pandemic. Second, it would badly damage North American energy security. We need to power our post-COVID-19 recovery. Third, it would undermine our commitment to creating a low-carbon economy that leaves no one behind.
Why is Line 5 so critical for all these priorities? First and foremost, it supports thousands of jobs on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border. It supplies the fuels and other essential products that underpin our national economies and support our pandemic responses, such as heating our homes and businesses and powering everything from farming and manufacturing to air travel. Second, Line 5 is critical to our continent's highly integrated energy sectors, linking western Canada's petroleum industry to key markets and refineries in both central Canada and the northern U.S. Third, Line 5 allows us to get our resources to global markets and generate the revenues we need to invest in a clean energy future.
Without Line 5, refineries would have to get their feedstock through alternate forms of transportation that are more dangerous and produce more emissions, such as rail, truck and barge. Estimates suggest that shutting down Line 5 could add as many as 15,000 dedicated trucks, or 800 rail cars, a day to transport the displaced product. Not only would this significantly increase CO2 emissions at a time when we are making efforts to reduce them, it would also raise the risk of rail disasters and oil spills, impacting our communities, wildlife and ecosystems. All of this added risk and environmental damage would be for nothing.
The U.S. pipeline regulator, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has repeatedly inspected Line 5 through the Straits of Mackinac and, as recently as last year, has consistently found the pipeline fit for service. It is why we have seen such broad and consistent support for the continued safe operation of Line 5.
The Prime Minister and members of the opposition, multiple governments, industry and unions have all come together as members of team Canada to show that shutting down Line 5 on a whim does not make sense. As the Minister of Natural Resources has said, Line 5 is non-negotiable for Canada, full stop.
With that in mind, I would like to use the rest of my time to explore why support on this side of the border is so strong and unwavering. Line 5 is crucial for Canada's energy security. It currently transports up to 540,000 barrels of oil and natural gas every day that are vital to central Canada' supply of gasoline, home heating fuels and jet fuel, not to mention the more than roughly 20,000 jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, that depend on this pipeline. Propane transported by Line 5 is used by our schools and hospitals, and by our businesses that are hoping to come back stronger than ever in the wake of COVID-19.
It is not just Canada that will suffer if Line 5 is shut down. Michigan is dependent on Line 5 for 55% of its propane needs, and prices for propane in that state could rise by 38¢ a gallon if it shut down. Additionally, refineries in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as here in Ontario and Quebec, would be unable to obtain the crude oil they require to operate. This could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs here in Canada and in the United States.
While I understand the Governor of Michigan is concerned about leaks, her fear is unfounded. In the 68 years that Line 5 has been operating, not once has it suffered any leaks along the 7.2 kilometres of pipeline that cross the Straits of Mackinac. What is the secret to that success? The twin pipes are made of specially constructed seamless steel measuring almost an inch thick, which is three times the thickness of what is required even today. The pipe was then covered with fibre-reinforced enamel and laid in an area where the risk of corrosion was minimized by cold temperatures and a lack of oxygen.
Furthermore, this stretch of pipeline is carefully monitored using sophisticated cameras and radar on a 24-7 schedule to ensure no vessels drop anchor over it. All of this is managed by specially trained staff using sophisticated computer systems, and is further supplemented with regular inspections by expert divers and remotely operated vehicles.
This is a stretch of pipeline that far exceeds the minimum standards required of it. As a result, there are 68 years of safe, leak-free history to back it up. Despite all of this, Enbridge has proposed even more stringent safeguards including a cement-encased tunnel deep under the lake-bed. It would be a tunnel large enough for a new pipeline system and would also be able to accommodate other future uses, such as electricity transmission, making it a piece of infrastructure that would maintain its usefulness as we transition to a net-zero future.
All of this brings me to my final point, which is that the fate of Line 5 is a matter for the federal government in Washington, D.C., to decide. It is not a matter to be decided by the state governor in Lansing, Michigan.
This is because in 1977, when Jimmy Carter was president of the United States and the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau was our prime minister, our two countries signed a consequential treaty born of the OPEC oil embargo and several years of bilateral discussions to ship oil and gas by pipeline from Alaska and Canada's north to southern markets. In the preamble of that treaty were three key points worth revisiting today.
First, the treaty recognizes that pipelines are “an efficient, economical and safe means of transporting hydrocarbons from producing areas to consumers, in both Canada and the United States”.
Second, it notes that the pipelines operating at the time provided an important service to both Canadian and American consumers.
Third, it states that both national governments were “convinced”, and that is the word used in the treaty, that it was appropriate for the two countries to enter into a treaty to govern the transmission of hydrocarbons by pipeline rather than leaving it to unilateral action.
Canada's preference is for this matter to be resolved amicably between Enbridge and the State of Michigan. No one wants to see a protracted legal battle. There is also consensus on both sides of the border that we want a robust economy coupled with strict environmental stewardship. This is what Line 5 and the Great Lakes tunnel project are all about.
It is for all these reasons that I remain optimistic that cooler heads will ultimately prevail. Ultimately the friendship and mutual economic interests that have defined our nation's 154-year history with the United States will once again prevail with Line 5.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-05-06 22:06 [p.6865]
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure, but also a sense of urgency, that I rise today to participate in this emergency debate. I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Peace River—Westlock.
The word “emergency” is indeed very appropriate because if nothing changes, in a matter of days, on May 12, the entire Canadian economy might be shaken by a serious economic situation that will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. People across the country will unfortunately be affected by an American decision that will have very real consequences for Canadians, especially in Quebec. I am, of course, talking about shutting down Line 5.
What precisely is Line 5?
Line 5 is a pipeline that starts in Edmonton and goes to Sarnia. I will take this opportunity to send my regards to my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton, who is incredibly committed to her fellow citizens and is a champion for the cause of the Line 5 workers. As I was saying, this pipeline takes Canadian oil from the West and sends it to Sarnia, in Ontario. From there, the oil is transported in Line 9 toward Quebec, among other places, and it crosses three American states. One of these states, Michigan, has decided to turn off the taps. Michigan does not want Line 5 on its territory. We have known this for months. We will have the opportunity to talk about it later, but something could have been done, something different from what have seen so far.
I would like to point out that this situation could have major consequences for Quebec. Like my colleagues, I note that there is not a lot of talk about it in Quebec. However, if it actually does happen on May 12, I am sure that some people will be in for a rude awakening.
As I said earlier, Line 5 carries oil from western Canada to Sarnia. From Sarnia, the oil crosses Ontario and goes to Montreal through Line 9. Without this Line 9, more than half of the oil consumed in Quebec could be cut off and two-thirds of the crude oil consumed in Quebec could be cut off.
A study published by the École des hautes études commerciales points out that nine billion litres of oil are consumed in Quebec, along with more than three billion litres for industry. This means that more than 10 billion litres of oil are consumed in Quebec. It is said, and rightly so, that there is a lot of interest in green energy in Quebec and, of course, in electric vehicles. However, the reality is that 10 billion litres of oil are consumed in Quebec every year, and that is increasing, by the way.
If, God forbid, Line 5 were to be closed, 800 additional rail cars and 3,000 more tractor trailers would be hauling gas. No one wants that. If, God forbid, this were to happen, Quebeckers will have to look elsewhere for their energy supply. This means that we will buy oil in Brazil, Saudi Arabia or Algeria. This oil will not arrive miraculously, but will arrive by boat. Magnificent and enormous tankers will be travelling the St. Lawrence River. I am not sure that Quebeckers will be very happy about that.
There are two refineries in Quebec: one in Montreal, the other in Lévis. It is not true that there is no oil in Quebec because Quebeckers do not like oil. There is oil, and there are people who make their living from it.
We must stop thinking of oil as “the gas we put in our cars”. It is much more than that. There are 50,000 people in Quebec working in the petrochemical industry. People across Quebec work in the plastics industry and God only knows just how much plastic we needed over the past year and a half with the pandemic. People work with polyester, whether it is used as a fibre or in asphalt. We need oil for all these things. I will not even mention the 300 things we wear every day, such as polyester shirts. The reality is that oil is part of our daily life, whether we like it or not. Quebeckers live with oil. We must realize that the closure of Line 5 could have major consequences for these people, no just those working in the petrochemical industry, but also those working on farms and in the food industry, in other words, our farmers who feed us.
God knows that the current pandemic is making us more aware of food self-sufficiency. If we want our farmers to occupy the land and work properly then they need to have access to this type of energy. If not, we will have to turn elsewhere because we risk losing our crops, our agriculture, our animals. That is why we need to be aware that what is happening right now could have major adverse consequences on Quebec's economy.
As a Quebecker, I am very proud that Quebec developed extraordinary expertise in hydroelectric power. As Quebeckers, we can be proud of the creation of Hydro-Québec in the 1940s under the auspices of the Liberal government of Mr. Godbout. The following government, the Union Nationale, started the major shift to state ownership and the first large hydro projects. Just think of the mega-project on the Betsiamites River in 1952-53. No one remembers, but it was the first major project. There was also the Manic-5 generating station, built around 1958 under the Union Nationale government. The major shift to state ownership occurred in 1962 under the Jean Lesage government. The James Bay project, developed in 1971, recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. In Quebec, we can be proud of that energy.
We also have a petrochemical industry, and Quebec has pipelines. Jason Kenney did not invent pipelines. Quebec has had pipelines since 1941, before Alberta even had its big oil boom. There are nearly 2,000 kilometres of pipelines in Quebec right now. There are nine pipelines under the St. Lawrence. In 2012, less than 10 years ago, Quebec opened a pipeline that goes from Lévis to Montreal. The pipeline spans 248 kilometres, over nearly 630 plots of land and 26 waterways, including the St. Lawrence River.
We have this expertise in Quebec, but it is part of a bigger whole. We are proud of having a wide range of energy sources. Nevertheless, Quebec still has oil needs. Whether people like it or not, this form of energy is essential to keeping our economy and everything else running.
Line 5 is a pipeline. We have pipelines in Quebec, and people need to stop acting as if we did not. We are all aware that no one is safe from disasters. We also know that pipelines are 99.999% effective. Yes, one drop of oil in the river is one drop too many. We all agree on that. However, the overall track record for pipelines is not all that bad. This is the most effective, safest, greenest and most economical way to transport oil.
As I have said, the clock is ticking and we need to take action. The Prime Minister has already been in contact with his U.S. counterpart. Since the Prime Minister has a close relationship with the current U.S. President and they are fairly aligned ideologically, he has a duty to use this close relationship and friendship with the new tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to make sure that Canada's interests are being well represented.
Since the beginning of the debate, it has been said that all Canadian parliamentarians have come together to contact American parliamentarians. I commend them for that. However, leadership needs to come from the top down. The Prime Minister needs to make direct calls to the decision-makers, the governor of Michigan and those directly affected. Why does the Prime Minister not use his friendship with former President Obama to convince him to play an active role in this case? The Prime Minister could use his friendship with President Barack Obama in a useful way on behalf of Canadians. Why not ask him to get involved in this situation, which is important for the Canadian economy and beneficial for the American economy too?
I am pleased to see that all Canadian parliamentarians are united in this decision, but we need to take action now more than ever to ensure that Line 5 does not shut down in a week's time.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to participate in this debate tonight. I also considered it a privilege to sit on the committee that studied this issue and filed a report. I am going to take my time tonight to make reference to the report and the recommendations therein.
I have sat on a lot of committees over the years, but I have seldom sat on a committee where the views were so unanimous. The views of the witnesses were entirely in line with each other. The views of the parties and the participants on the committee were in line with each other. The report was a unanimous report, although there were separate opinions filed by the Conservative Party and the NDP. The general, overall view was that this was a unanimous view, almost a team Canada view, on the seriousness of this particular initiative by the Governor of Michigan.
Before I forget, I should mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
Not only were the views virtually unanimous—
View Francis Drouin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I hate to interrupt my esteemed colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, but I believe he meant to share his time with the member for Winnipeg North.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I thought that was what I just said, that I was sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. If I did not say that then I will repeat it because I know what great enthusiasm the chamber has for the member for Winnipeg North and his views on pretty much any subject one can imagine. I thank my hon. colleague for that intervention.
Not only were the views virtually unanimous, but the quality of the witnesses was extraordinary. Some of the witnesses included the two lead trade negotiators from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Natural Resources, the very able ambassador of Canada to the United States and Maryscott Greenwood, for those who have been involved with Canada-U.S. affairs over the years. I see my colleague from Malpeque knows Maryscott Greenwood as a very able person.
Witnesses also included the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada's Building Trades Unions, the Canadian Propane Association and the Laborers' International Union. The mayor of Sarnia was particularly interesting presenting of his views, along with the Government of Alberta, the Government of Ontario, the Government of Saskatchewan, the Sarnia Construction Association and Local 663. That is not a complete list of the witnesses, but I have to say that the views that were expressed were, as I said, virtually unanimous, as was the seriousness with which they were expressed.
Regrettably, the witness that we probably wanted to hear from the most was either the governor or a representative from the State of Michigan. Whether they were unable or declined, I do not know, but it was regrettable that we were not able to hear from the State of Michigan as to why it considers, in the words of the governor, that this particular section of the pipeline is a ticking time bomb. I do not know how a ticking time bomb ticks for 68 years and does not gone off.
There was no evidence in front of the committee that this is actually an environmental risk that needs to be addressed immediately by way of injunctive relief. It appeared to have more to do with politics, promises made and things of that nature, rather than any particular imperative with respect to environmental damage.
I do take note that in the background there seemed to be a reputational issue with the proponent Enbridge, and it is a cautionary note for all corporations that reputations do matter. I take it that there is a lot of, for want of a better term, bad blood between the corporation and the state. It is speculation on my part rather than evidence that this was possibly a motivating factor to what is, by any standard, a very extraordinary injunctive relief.
My colleague from Mount Royal, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, did an outstanding presentation on the legal positions of Canada, the corporation and the State of Michigan. I would hope that those who want to run around lighting their hair on fire and being alarmist take some comfort in his legal analysis. I think it bears a great deal of merit.
I thought he in particular pushed witnesses to the point where the feeling among the committee members was that the legal position of the Government of Canada, and indeed the corporation, is quite a strong one. While there is an impending date, that is not a date that will result in an immediate shut down of the line.
I hope that is of some comfort and I urge hon. members to review the member for Mount Royal's speech because I think it does set the legal framework as well as it can be done.
The committee arrived at seven recommendations, the first of which is probably the easiest, which was to encourage a settlement between and among the parties. That is obviously the preferred course.
The second recommendation was that the Government of Canada continue to engage with relevant stakeholders. As I said, we heard from a great number of witnesses up and down the political food chain, for want of a better term, up and down the industrial food chain, up and down the labour food chain, all of whom had been engaged at the most significant levels with their counterparts in the United States and all of whom reported very similar reports on their actual engagement.
The third recommendation had to do with the filing of an amicus curiae brief if a negotiated, mediated settlement was not reached and the brief just set out the legal position. As I said, I thought that the member for Mount Royal articulated that brief about as well as it could be articulated. It should be noted that the 1977 agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning transit pipelines is in our view the treaty that will prevail.
I take note that we cannot have a situation where we have 67 pipelines crossing the border on a daily basis and any governor or any premier at any point unilaterally deciding that a particular pipeline needs to be shut down for good reasons or for not-so-good reasons. That in and of itself is probably the determining factor as to whether even the Governor of Michigan has any jurisdiction to unilaterally shut down a pipeline.
The fourth recommendation was that the Prime Minister and his ministers pursue frequent and direct dialogue with the U.S. President and his administration. We have heard tonight that has happened and it continues to happen with three or four ministers directly engaged with it. It has been on the agenda with the Prime Minister and the President.
The fifth recommendation is that Canada should evaluate other possible vulnerabilities to Canada's critical infrastructure and supply chains and develop contingency plans. There are contingency plans; unfortunately, all of them are very difficult, putting 1,500 trucks—
View James Cumming Profile
CPC (AB)
View James Cumming Profile
2021-05-06 23:09 [p.6873]
Madam Speaker, I rise virtually today to speak in this emergency debate about a critical piece of infrastructure, in an industry that is critical to the economy of our country and our recovery post-COVID-19.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline carries Canadian oil east, running through Wisconsin and Michigan. It is supplying about half the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. For decades, the pipeline safely shipped oil that is refined in Sarnia into gasoline, diesel, home-heating fuel and aviation fuel. It is also a major source of propane used in Ontario and Quebec. A lot of farmers use the propane to heat their homes, barns and commercial greenhouses, as well as to dry grain. Sourcing propane elsewhere could drive the cost of ag production up, along with the cost of food for Canadian families. This would, without a doubt, hurt industry and competitiveness.
Canada's oil and gas sector suffered another tremendous blow with the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline project. Keystone was all about securing additional export markets for access for western Canadian crude, to help this struggling sector and secure better average prices for our resources. Another great threat to our economy is looming: the cancellation of one of the most vital supply lines in our country. Tens of thousands of good jobs are at risk and, with no doubt, there will be increasing costs for many goods and services.
While I appreciate the discussion today, I do find it somewhat ironic that many of the voices that we are hearing from were silent while the energy industry was struggling, other projects were being cancelled and capital was being deployed outside of our country. Today's discussion is a symptom of a much larger problem, a problem that is six years of relative inaction by the government. I agree with the Minister of Natural Resources that this industry is, and has been, a critical pillar of our economic success. He spoke today about the action the government has taken since this fall. The much larger question is: where has the government been for the last six years?
I acknowledge that Line 5 has the attention now, but where has the government been when it comes to supporting this critical industry? The government has had six years to negotiate an agreement on a North American energy strategy. The cancellation of Keystone XL and now this crisis on Line 5 demonstrate to me the lack of a proactive strategy by the government. I would also note that there is virtually no mention of this important sector in the budget and absolutely no mention of a strategy for greater energy, security and self-sufficiency.
I am a proud Albertan and I recognize the critical importance that the natural resource industry plays today and how critical it will be for our economic recovery. The government has sent many signals that do not support its argument that it sees this industry as being critical. Support is not demonstrated by enacting legislation like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. Canada has a critical trading relationship with the U.S., but we can also provide energy solutions for other jurisdictions and displace countries that do not extract resources to the same high and improving standards we have demonstrated.
In April of this year, there was a paper written by Philip Cross, and I would recommend reading it, with the title, “How oil sands investment and production benefit Canada's economy”. I would like to take this opportunity to share with colleagues a few of its salient quotes. This sector is one of the key supply sources of energy. “The oil sands are a uniquely Canadian success story and an increasingly rare example of innovation in Canada.” It is “important for the industry and governments in Canada to set the public record straight on what this industry has accomplished and its importance to Canada’s economy.” “The largest oil sands plants today are operated by Canadian companies...[such as] Suncor Energy, CNR, and Cenovus.” “Canada’s participation in the oil sands extends to First Nations.”
A number of indigenous ventures have participated in the oil sands: One Earth, Mikisew Group of Companies, Boucher, Tuccaro Group and Acden, to name a few. The economic benefits are enormous: $8.3 billion in oil sands investment represents 4.5% of all the business investment in Canada. “This exceeds all investments made by the retail trade industry, construction, or all business services, and is four times more than auto...” “Both investment and production in the oil sands are important to Canada’s economy...” Some $10 billion in investments results in Canada's GDP going up by 0.5% and increases overall employment by over 81,000. Combined with Ontario, Central Canada reaps about 13.6% of the jobs.
Canada's oil and natural gas resources are among the most responsibly produced energy resources on the planet, under the most stringent environmental regulations in the world. In Canada's oil sands, conditions have fallen significantly. According to data from the Government of Canada's 2019 national inventory report, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada's oil sands have fallen 34% per barrel since 1990, and they are going down further.
Media portrayals rarely present what the oil sands mine looks after the land has been rehabilitated, something all companies must commit to and set aside funds for when they begin operations. The boreal footprint of the oil sands is significantly less when compared with that of what is flooded to build massive hydro power projects.
Let us talk about a bit about innovation. The Alberta carbon trunk line system is the world's newest integrated large-scale carbon capture utilization and storage system. Designed as the backbone infrastructure needed to support a lower-carbon economy in Alberta, the ACTL system captures industrial emissions and delivers the CO2 to mature oil and gas reservoirs for use in enhanced oil recovery and permanent storage. As the largest capacity pipeline for CO2 from human activity, it is capable of transporting up to 14.6 million tonnes of CO2 per year, which represents 20% of all current oil sands emissions, or equal to the impact of capturing the CO2 from more than three million cars. The future of a lower-carbon economy relies on key infrastructure investments like the ACTL system to provide sustainable solutions to global energy requirements.
I wanted to illustrate today that we have these enormous assets and that we should recognize the fine work that industry has done to supply this important resource. Today I heard much discussion about an energy transition, but we are in the here and now. There are significant jobs at risk not only in the energy sector, but in sectors that depend upon a safe, secure supply of energy. Canada relies on exports to fuel our economy, and without the safe supply of energy, we run the risk of seeing our manufacturers, agricultural sectors and other industries go down, as they depend on this supply.
I have no doubt there will be a transition over time, but in the interim, I suggest that Canada has the opportunity to be a market leader in the supply of energy as we build into this transition. Oil will be critical during this transition, but we also have a tremendous opportunity to be an exporter of LNG and nuclear technology as we displace coal as an energy source.
Many speak about the new jobs that are about to be created to replace these valuable energy sector jobs, but I have yet to hear a substantive plan that demonstrates what those jobs will be and in what specific sectors they will be. The hard reality is we are a large country with a small population. We have built infrastructure and an impressive social safety net that supports people across the country. Much of this is as a result of the revenue produced from the natural resources and commodities that we have been blessed with. We should not lose sight of this important fact.
Line 5 is an important piece of this infrastructure, and shutting it down would have a dramatic impact on the citizens and industry in Ontario and Quebec. This makes us abundantly aware of the importance of energy security for our country. The last thing we want to rely on are alternatives for transportation, such as rail or truck traffic, or foreign markets for supply.
I hope the government will recognize not only the importance of Line 5, but also that the natural resources sector could be an important part of our future success. Jobs and people's economic well-being are at stake. My province has taken the brunt of the economic slowdown, and we are overdue for the government to do more than talk about the support of an industry. It should demonstrate with action.
It is time for the Prime Minister to show Canadians the specific plan for the natural resources sector and the thousands of jobs that this sector employs. The industry is ready and willing to be a substantive part of our economic recovery. This is about leadership, and it is also time for the Prime Minister to reach out to the President and reinforce the economic importance of energy security for both our countries, and ensure the continued operation of Line 5.
View Francis Drouin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nickel Belt, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, for whom I have the utmost respect. I know he does an incredible job. He fights for his constituents in the Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury area, and represents them well. I have a lot of respect for him as a person.
Tonight, we are debating the importance of Line 5 and crude oil. I know that this has a direct impact on my constituents in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. Although it is not directly about crude oil, the indirect effects are similar to concerns about propane gas. I felt them myself during the strike of November 2019. I know it is important for many people. Although it had nothing to do with Line 5, the CN strike and the propane crisis had a major impact on my constituents and on Quebec.
Actually, I would like to thank a local business, Propane Levac, that took the bull by the horns and found a solution with CN. I also want to thank CN, with whom we worked in close collaboration. Even during the strike, we managed to get some propane in eastern Ontario and even to supply a large part of Quebec. That was all made possible by Propane Levac. During the month of November, most farmers relied on propane to run their driers to dry their grain, which was so important. Once again, I would like to thank Propane Levac, who played an important role during this crisis.
Line 5 is important for Ontario and for Quebec.
We know how important Line 5 also is for the U.S. We know that Canada exports 56% of the crude oil used in the U.S. and 91% of Canada's energy exports, which include crude oil, natural gas, electricity from clean sources and uranium, are exported to the U.S. The point is that our economies are integrated. There is about $2.1 billion in economic activity every day across the U.S.-Canada border. Obviously, it is an important economic relationship that goes far beyond any prime minister or president. If Line 5 were cancelled, it would be an insult to Canada, Canadians, Ontario and Quebec. There will be a solution. We will be able to find a solution to that problem.
In 2016-17, when former President Trump said he was going to renegotiate NAFTA, all of us in the chamber took a united stand. The Conservatives, NDP, some of the Bloc and the Greens all said we were going to fight for Canada and would not point fingers at each other because one party lacked a strategy or because somebody did not say something at the right time. We were all going to stand together and fight for Canada.
I remember all of us, even backbenchers, going to Washington and lobbying members of Congress, whether they were Republicans or Democrats, and we all had the same story. Members of the agriculture committee went there and we talked about a hamburger. Nothing unites the U.S. and Canada more than a hamburger. We discussed the fact that the tomatoes may be grown in Ontario, the buns may be made in the U.S. and the cattle may come from Alberta, be sent down south, processed in the U.S. and shipped back to Canada. The hamburger was a united story to describe how the economies of Canada and the U.S. are truly integrated. It was a good story to tell our U.S. counterparts to describe how Canada and the U.S. have truly integrated economies and are best friends. Yes, we may have disagreements once in a while, but I sincerely believe that the team Canada approach is what made CUSMA the success we know it to be today. I am glad the official opposition supported it at the time.
Now that we are dealing with Line 5, I think the approach should be a team Canada approach. It should not be about finger pointing or saying the Liberals are bad or the Liberals are doing this or that. I do not know if it has something to do with the official opposition leader's numbers in Alberta. I hope it does not, because I know I saw some polls and they were doing even worse than our own Prime Minister in Alberta. I hope it has nothing to do with politics. I would hope they would put the 6,500 jobs that the leader of the official opposition has mentioned in this House tonight in front of partisan politics, because it is important. It is important that we support the workers. It is important that we support the families that still rely on the benefits of Line 5.
I am not going to stand here and say we need to shut down Line 5 because it is going to benefit the environment. That is simply a false narrative. There is a transition toward a green economy. It is not going to happen tomorrow.
It is important that Line 5 not be shut down on May 12. It is important that we continue to support our oil and gas workers. I want to say to my colleagues from Alberta that even though I am from eastern Ontario, I fully support the people of Alberta.
I have a personal connection to Alberta's oil sands because I have a cousin who is a first responder serving those communities. He is the resource person when people are too far away from the hospital. He is the first person to respond to emergency calls because sometimes when people get hurt it is an emergency.
It is true that Line 5 affects not just Alberta, but all of Canada. I believe that it is important that we all stick together and fight to support our government, Line 5 and our oil and gas workers. We know the extent to which Line 5 supports the economy, not just in Alberta, but also in Ontario and Quebec.
Earlier I mentioned how propane still plays a big role in helping our farmers and in my riding. It is also used to heat our homes in some rural areas that unfortunately do not yet have natural gas and where the only way to get heat is with propane tanks.
At some point, I know there is going to be a change and a transition, which is important to talk about. Alberta is an oil-producing province right now, but at some point there will be a green transition, despite the fact that the rest of the world might not be at the same level as Canada in that transition. Some dependence on oil will remain, but at some point the world is going to want access to green technologies. Alberta will be able to play a big role, and if it is not in oil, it will be in some other technology.
In 1910, before Ford marketed its Model T, everyone was using wagons and horses, but we knew we could not depend on those wagons and horses forever. Even today, we say we need oil for our cars, but I know we are transitioning to cars that do not necessarily need gasoline.
This does not mean that Canada does not have a role to play in this new world. We know that we have the 15 mineral components required to do so. We know that Canada can play a major role in this green transition and Alberta needs to be part of the transition, as does Newfoundland.
My message today is that instead of pointing fingers at others in the House, we should join forces against those who want to shut down Line 5. Canada and Canadian workers deserve it.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-05-05 16:29 [p.6692]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
It has been over two years—
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
We have to obtain unanimous consent for the sharing of time.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-05-05 16:30 [p.6692]
Madam Speaker, we do accept that, but we want to raise the point that it is very important, especially for this specific debate where we are talking about billions of dollars, to be sure that everything is said. I want to remind everyone that the best place to talk is here in the House of Commons.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-05-05 16:31 [p.6692]
Madam Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
Does the hon. member for Abbotsford have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The hon. member for Abbotsford.
Results: 121 - 135 of 958 | Page: 9 of 64

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data