Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 330
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2021-05-06 19:34 [p.6843]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.
There is nothing trivial about the reason we are here tonight. However, is the shutdown of Line 5 really so imminent, given the Canada-U.S. treaty on cross-border pipelines? Basically, the treaty states that the countries will not take unilateral action on existing pipelines.
Another question might be asked. In the event of a shutdown, is the reality as frightening as the worst-case scenario painted by the official opposition?
The issue of Enbridge's Line 5 gives us an opportunity to discuss the necessary energy transition that Canada must embark on and to put into perspective the legitimate reasons for Governor Whitmer's actions, which were neither spontaneous nor unpredictable.
The issue at the root of the debate over Enbridge's Line 5 is environmental safety. We need to know the truth about how safe the pipeline is. Given that in 2010, the pipeline spilled the equivalent of 20,000 barrels of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the public and government authorities have every right to be concerned about waterway health and safety.
The Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, criticizes the company for persistently violating the easement's terms and conditions and for not doing enough to protect the Great Lakes, contrary to what the Minister of Natural Resources said earlier about the company.
The governor says Enbridge has routinely refused to take action to protect the Great Lakes and the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean drinking water and good jobs. She also said the company has repeatedly violated the terms of the 1953 easement by ignoring structural problems that put the Great Lakes and families at risk.
The concerns of the American stakeholders are therefore nothing new. In fact, the concerns of the State of Michigan predate Ms. Whitmer's time in office. She is just the one who decided to take action. Inevitably, this will generate some discontent and concerns. It will force this oil company to review its priorities because, suddenly, the company has crossed the line and someone finally said no.
For that matter, why did Enbridge routinely refuse to be proactive about managing Line 5, particularly in the sensitive Straits of Mackinac? When the company itself reported defects in the protective coating of its structure, noting erosion and damage caused by commercial tugs, why did it fail to show any integrity?
Michigan could also be using the threat of shutting it down to force Enbridge to upgrade its bloody pipeline in order to make it safer. The company is loath to spend the money, so it is using every tool it can think of, including lobbying politicians. The Governor of Michigan is fed up, and the writing has been on the wall for quite some time.
Between 1996 and 2014, Enbridge was responsible for 1,276 spills totalling nearly 10 million gallons of oil in both the United States and Canada. These data are conservative. Why? Because they are Enbridge's data. Do not bother looking for those figures on the company's website. They were there at one point but have since been removed. The documents I consulted, which are very well referenced, reveal another worrying problem, and that is how much power this industry has when it comes to Canadian regulators.
I encourage everyone to search for the words “national energy board” and “Enbridge” in the May 2, 2016, edition of Canada's National Observer. Members might be surprised by what they learn. It is enlightening.
The Bloc Québécois cannot condone the behaviour and reactions of Enbridge and the Department of Natural Resources to Governor Whitmer's announcement. The concerns are legitimate. Michigan was already affected in 2010. The governor has decided to focus on prevention rather than remediation.
I want to be clear. We do care about the repercussions of this measure if it goes ahead. Still, we have concerns. We do not support pipelines, and we certainly do not want to continue to rely on an outdated energy source.
Such transitions take time and planning. If we plan changes and anticipate challenges and solutions, moving away from oil is not only feasible, it is close at hand.
We know that a legal, political and diplomatic showdown between Enbridge, U.S. authorities and the Government of Canada is approaching. We would like to remind members that Quebec's refineries can quickly implement a plan B and switch to other sources of supply. We should also remember that Newfoundland and Labrador is Canada's third-largest producer, so depending on what happens with Line 5, planning for supply from this region would be wise.
Nevertheless, the pipelines running beneath our rivers will continue to pose a risk to environmental safety, and the transportation of oil and gas via pipelines will continue to face political opposition, as it should.
The current situation should spur us to make the energy transition. In Quebec, the transportation sector is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter, accounting for more than 80% of total emissions. Quebec's transportation electrification industry is booming, and our expertise, whose development we have made a priority, should serve as an example to the rest of Canada.
We do not manufacture cars in Quebec, but we do manufacture trains, buses, streetcars, subway cars and public transit vehicles that are all well suited to zero-emission electric technology. We are on the right track to get our transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions down.
We need federal zero-emission legislation. The more electric transportation evolves, the less dependent we will be on oil. Supply issues will gradually go away, and we will keep our money within our own economy.
Sure, there are costs associated with the transition. The financial argument is often invoked to convince people that we must continue relying on fossil fuels, but we need to be vocal about the real cost of energy and gas, which is much higher than the price we pay at the pump. The real cost includes the upstream and downstream environmental costs, in terms of the environmental damage created by the extraordinarily dirty extraction process, soil contamination and threats to wildlife, on top of the environmental costs of atmospheric pollution caused by burning oil here and in other countries.
Add to that the social costs, including the cost to our health care system, due to the prevalence of illnesses directly related to air pollution, especially the growing number of children and even babies with lung or respiratory issues. Plus, there is all the public money paid in subsidies and tax benefits to the oil and gas industry to sustain a dying industry, starting with the obscene Trans Mountain pipeline.
What about the cost of clean-up? How do we describe the losses incurred during oil spills? According to the International Monetary Fund, the global negative externalities for 2017 alone amount to more than $2 trillion U.S.
Again, Canada's landscape is conducive to clean, renewable energy. The wind, solar and geothermal energy industries are reaching out to the government. The government just has to accept. The technology and resources are there.
The Conservatives are resolutely defeatist about their ability to break up with the extractive industries, while the Liberals insist on fuelling dependence on fossil fuels while claiming to favour a green transition. We are not fools. This is a green mirage.
Michigan's policy choices should be an eye-opener for us. They are certainly coming as a surprise to Enbridge and the powerful lobbies in their industry. Their track record, their failure to live up to their commitments, their lax maintenance of their facilities, and the arrogance that comes from feeling untouchable have just caught up with them.
Canada, the G7 country that subsidizes oil and gas production the most in relation to its gross domestic product, the country that announces to the world that it is committed to fighting climate change and then turns around and authorizes oil drilling in a marine protected area, might have avoided a diplomatic crisis and what is happening today if it had intervened with Enbridge sooner.
When governments give everything to the oil companies, the companies end up thinking they are in charge. Gretchen Whitmer has shown them that they are not in charge anymore.
View Mario Simard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Simard Profile
2021-05-06 19:50 [p.6845]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reading an excerpt from the request for the emergency debate, and members will all understand why. It reads, “The Minister of Natural Resources has confirmed this one pipeline alone is responsible for 53% of Ontario's crude and 66% of Quebec's.”
Members cannot imagine how happy I was to hear the leader of the official opposition mention that 66% earlier. I was happy because I remember how, during the election campaign, the Conservative Party, with its much-touted energy corridor project, kept repeating that most of Quebec's oil comes from dictatorship countries or the United States.
Earlier I was blown away when the leader of the official opposition told us that was not true. I hope that this lie, which was repeated multiple times, will not come up again in the future. I must say I was somewhat offended by the answer that he gave me. The leader of the official opposition told me that the Bloc Québécois is not a party that supports the regions and that we stand up for urban centres. I was offended because the regions of Quebec mainly live off the forestry industry, not the oil industry. I have never heard a typical Conservative talk about forestry. I was therefore somewhat offended, but I am not vindictive, so I will quickly move on to something else.
Earlier this afternoon, as I was reflecting on today's debate, I thought there was a rather interesting connection with the pandemic we are experiencing. What does a crisis do? A crisis makes us confront our vulnerabilities. We went through this early on in the pandemic when we saw the gaps in our supply chains. Masks and vaccines come to mind. It forced us to confront our vulnerabilities. It showed us that we were not ready. We depend on exports, and I feel as though we are also dependent when it comes to our energy and our energy consumption. We are dependent on something, and we know what that is: oil.
Another major crisis that certainly lies ahead is climate change. Will we be ready to live through this climate crisis?
Based on what I am hearing tonight, I want to say no, because we do not seem to have learned anything from what has happened to us. Canada is still fundamentally an oil state that thinks only in terms of oil and for oil.
I believe the debate on Enbridge is an opportunity to revisit two fairly simple concepts: energy independence and the energy transition. I do find it surprising that it is the United States, or at least one U.S. state, that is asking us to take care of ecosystems. Let us be smart about this. We have to realize that the Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people. We know there was a 3.2-million-litre spill in the Kalamazoo River.
I do not think it is appropriate for us to get a wake-up call from a U.S. state and for us to tell Enbridge today that it can go ahead, anything goes, it can do what it likes and we will put environmental considerations aside as long as the oil industry is fine and there are jobs. I think that we, by which I mean everyone besides me, must do some collective soul-searching about Canada's dependence on oil and gas, because I believe it is a terrible disease that Canada has been carrying around for over 20 years.
Why do I say that? I spoke earlier about the energy transition.
Concerning getting out of the crisis, the Liberal government announced to us that it wants a “green recovery”. We all remember that. Ms. McKenna and Mr. Wilkinson were involved, as well as Mr. Guilbeault. I thought that the green recovery was promising and that we could perhaps live—
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2021-05-06 20:03 [p.6847]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.
Another very important element is keeping the Great Lakes safe. I think we are nearing a consensus that immediately shutting down Line 5 is not a good thing, but what can the government do to keep the Great Lakes safe?
View Mario Simard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Simard Profile
2021-05-06 20:04 [p.6847]
Mr. Speaker, earlier I said that the Great Lakes provide drinking water for 40 million people. We need to send a clear signal to Enbridge that we care about the drinking water of 40 million people.
It is not by holding an emergency debate where we tell Enbridge it can do want it wants and we will stand behind it that we will successfully secure the drinking water of these 40 million people. Enbridge is gambling with the quality of life of many people. It needs to realize that, and I get the impression that is the message the Governor of Michigan is trying to send.
For its part, the Canadian petro-state prefers to pander and stake everything on oil, telling Enbridge to do whatever it wants and that as long as there are economic spinoffs and jobs, Canada will be happy.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Tonight we are debating the critical situation around Line 5, an Enbridge pipeline that transports crude oil and natural gas liquids from Alberta through Michigan to refineries and other facilities in Ontario, notably in Sarnia, and Quebec. It is capable of carrying 540,000 barrels per day. A similar pipeline in the Enbridge system, Line 6, also serves these markets, with 667,000 barrels per day.
As others have mentioned, including the Leader of the Opposition, this emergency debate is not at all like the debates we have had here about other pipelines, such as Keystone XL or Trans Mountain. These are expansion projects designed solely to increase the amount of raw bitumen exported from Canada at a time when world demand has flatlined and the climate crisis requires that it decline steeply in the future.
This is a debate about the impending closure of a pipeline that brings western Canadian oil to eastern Canada, creating Canadian jobs. This is about maintaining the status quo, at least for the moment, and maintaining those jobs in the industrial heartland of Canada.
One similarity between this and the other pipeline debates is that at the heart of it, there is credible environmental concern. I would like to start by laying out the positions of the two sides in this confrontation: the Canadian workers and companies that need the pipeline to continue supplying oil to Ontario and Quebec, and the State of Michigan, which is concerned about the prospect of environmental damage.
Line 5 was built in 1953, and the Michigan section operates under an easement granted by the state. Back in November, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer stated that the pipeline is a threat to the environment, particularly if a rupture occurs in the section that travels on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. That section has been a bone of contention for years, and it has suffered damage on occasion from dragged anchors. However, fortunately there have been no leaks in that water section.
Michigan has also pointed out violations in the easement conditions, including inadequate supports for the pipeline on the bottom of the strait. For its part, Enbridge has proposed to enclose the underwater section in a concrete tunnel to protect it from future accidents, and it has obtained some of the permits necessary to carry out that work.
Michigan, however, has claimed that because of past violations and present concerns, the pipeline is “a ticking time bomb” and will revoke the easement as of May 12, which is only six days away. If Enbridge is still using the pipeline after that date, the governor's office has stated that it will be breaking the law.
What will the impact be if this pipeline is shut down? There are about 4,900 jobs in Sarnia that directly rely on the supply of crude oil that Line 5 now supplies. One of the products that plants in Sarnia produce is jet fuel, which supplies large airports such as the Toronto Pearson Airport. The oil not diverted in Sarnia is carried on to refineries in Quebec, so the impact could be huge.
There is some debate on how alternate supplies could mitigate these impacts. Pearson airport stated in a recent article in the National Post that it is not too worried about a shut down of Line 5, as it has diversified its sources of jet fuel. The refineries in Quebec said that they have made arrangements to get their crude oil from another pipeline. Industries in Sarnia may be able to get some crude oil through increased flow in Line 6, since they managed oil that way when Line 6 was ruptured in 2010. At that time, they got alternate supplies through Line 5.
It is clear that the petrochemical sector in Sarnia could be facing significant shortages that would have to be made up through transport by rail and truck. That is not an ideal situation, and it is one that could result in a direct loss of jobs in the Sarnia industrial complex and indirect job losses throughout the region. We have to have a strategy to keep Line 5 going and protect those jobs. That strategy goes through convincing Michigan that it is in all of our interests to keep Line 5 operating.
What are the environmental risks that Michigan is citing in its decision to cancel this easement? One of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history happened on another Enbridge pipeline in Michigan. As I mentioned, Like 6 goes through Sarnia via Michigan and goes around the south end of Lake Michigan instead of crossing under the Straits of Mackinac. In 2010, Line 6B ruptured and sent about 20,000 barrels of bitumen into the Kalamazoo River just east of Battle Creek, Michigan. The spill contaminated over 50 kilometres of the river and took five years to clean up. The people of Michigan are therefore very well aware of what could happen. Line 5 itself has suffered a number of leaks over the years, totalling over a million gallons in all.
In the order to cancel the easement for Line 5, Michigan has pointed out numerous violations of the original agreement, including the design of the support systems of the pipeline on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac. Recent assessments show that the underwater part of the pipeline is suffering from thinning walls and other stressors. Another study makes it clear that a rupture in this section could damage hundreds of kilometres of shoreline along Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Also, the Ojibwa of Michigan consider any agreement to allow Enbridge to continue operating Line 5 a violation of their treaty rights.
We need to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem and the thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec. The federal government needs to have a plan that would do both. All I have heard from the minister is that Line 5 is not negotiable. However, I think it is obvious that the only way out of this dilemma is through negotiation, proving to the State of Michigan and everyone else who cares about the environment, me included, that Line 5 will not have a history similar to Line 6B. We should point out the economic impacts that this closure would have on Michigan itself. Michigan and the neighbouring states of Ohio and Pennsylvania also receive some of the fuels carried through Line 5, including over half of Michigan's propane supplies.
As usual, experts are advising that a diplomatic solution would be best, but Enbridge is counting the 1977 transit pipelines treaty if talks fail, and right now it does seem that both sides are the length of a continental pipeline apart. The treaty states:
No public authority in the territory of either Party shall institute any measures...interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbon in transit.
It also states that the treaty is “subject to regulations by the appropriate governmental authorities”. I will leave that to the courts to decide, but the treaty is clearly a last-ditch strategy that may work.
As I said at the beginning, we have been debating this pipeline dispute in Canada over the past decade or more. This is an existing pipeline that supplies oil to Canadian industry and maintains good jobs. It is an integral part of the economies of Ontario and Quebec. We will be using oil and gas over the next three decades, albeit in declining amounts, as we transition to zero emissions by 2050, and Line 5 is an important delivery mechanism for that purpose.
This dispute has been a wake-up call. The public is increasingly unwilling to live with the environmental risks associated with pipelines and the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. We in the NDP, and I think everyone in the House, are concerned about workers in the oil and gas sector, whether they work in the Alberta oil patch or the industrial cities of Ontario. We need a plan, not just empty promises, to provide good jobs for those workers over the coming decades. We need training programs that will allow them to move to jobs in building retrofits, electrification, electric vehicle manufacturing, battery technology and the myriad of other sectors that will provide good employment for decades to come. We need government programs to provide those jobs to prove to workers that we are serious about helping them.
As that transition takes place, we need to protect the jobs that Line 5 provides and protect the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. The federal government must have a clear and effective plan to do both.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2021-05-06 20:14 [p.6849]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for recognizing that this is not like other debates we have had. Line 5 does not have an alternative right now. People have talked about plans to use 2,000 trucks and 800 railcars a day, but the capacity to do this by next Wednesday does not exist, so I certainly agree that there is no plan.
What does the member think the government ought to be doing? We need detailed plans, not the vague words we heard from the natural resources minister.
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my speech, I think it is clear that both sides have doubled down on this.
The Canadian government clearly wants this pipeline to continue, for good reason. Michigan, on the other hand, has doubled down on the fact that it is not going to continue because of environmental concerns.
There is one path forward that I see for the government, outside of the courts, and who knows, it may go to the courts and it may be in the courts for years. However, if it stays out of the courts, if we want a diplomatic solution, a mediated solution, the only path I can see is that Canada have a plan to really prove to Michigan that this is environmentally safe.
The minister said it is demonstrably safe. Obviously it is not or Michigan would not be proceeding in this manner. We need a solution that increases the environmental safety along all lengths of the pipeline, not just the Straits of Mackinac.
View Jenica Atwin Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2021-05-06 20:16 [p.6849]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
I want to ask the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay about his comments around Enbridge and its track record.
I cannot help but think that if there is success in not having Line 5 shut down, we would be placing immense trust in Enbridge to maintain the safety and the sanctity of the Great Lakes. We can look at some of the infractions. Enbridge has been cited as having persistent and incurable violations of the easement.
Is it not a history of a lack of enforcement of safety protocols that has gotten us into this mess to begin with?
View Richard Cannings Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I would agree. I realize how important this pipeline is to Canadian industry and Canadian jobs, but I can also very much see Michigan's stance on this.
Michigan experienced one of the worst oil spills in North America, in the Kalamazoo River. Line 5 has been leaking off and on, on the land portions of the pipeline. As the member said, there are violations of the original easement agreement in terms of how the pipeline was constructed and maintained. I can see why Michigan is very concerned. That is why I think Canada should try to allay those concerns through promises to really up the ante in terms of environmental safety.
It really shows to everyone here why these environmental impact studies of pipelines are so important. I hear complaints all the time, especially from the Conservative side, that these environmental impact studies are a waste of time. Here is an example where, if we had done things right in the first place and not had these incidents, we would not be here tonight talking about this.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2021-05-06 20:20 [p.6850]
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.
View Anthony Housefather Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Anthony Housefather Profile
2021-05-06 20:49 [p.6854]
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—
View Mario Simard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Simard Profile
2021-05-06 21:15 [p.6857]
Mr. Speaker, I really like my colleague from Calgary Centre. I consider him to be a gentleman, so I do not want to ask him an awkward question.
I think the Governor of Michigan's criticisms are valid. Does my colleague agree that we can criticize the government for being slow to act and dragging its feet, but that Enbridge itself might bear some of the blame as well?
When the Governor of Michigan accuses Enbridge of not doing enough to protect the Great Lakes, does my colleague agree that the company should do more?
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
View Greg McLean Profile
2021-05-06 21:15 [p.6857]
Mr. Speaker, that is a very theoretical question because I am sure my colleague is well aware that there has never been an oil spill in the Great Lakes on either the Canadian or the American side. I think Canadians are just as keen as Americans are to keep the waters of the Great Lakes safe.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2021-05-06 21:20 [p.6858]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank every member who is in the House tonight for this very important debate, showing their support and their understanding of how serious this is. Obviously, for my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, this is an extremely serious issue.
As many have said tonight, there are three refineries and multiple other related businesses in Sarnia—Lambton, and a shutdown of Line 5 could impact as many as 23,000 jobs in my riding. Just to put that in perspective, in the pandemic about a third of Canadians are on the CERB and many businesses are on government supports; we are talking about a substantial percentage my riding who would be out of work. I want to take this opportunity not just to repeat what has been said already in the House, but to try to give an understanding of the situation that exists and to call for action of a specific nature, as we move forward.
Members know that Governor Whitmer has brought this executive order. This is an election promise that she ran on. To be fair, I do not think she was aware at the time of the impact on her own constituents. Thirty per cent of Michiganders in the upper hand of Michigan use propane that comes down from Line 5 to heat their homes in the winter time.
We know that members of many of the trade unions that got Governor Whitmer elected are actually going to lose work over the tunnel project that has been proposed to resolve any outstanding concerns about the pipeline. That is a $500-million tunnel project that would, in fact, encase the pipeline below the Straits of Mackinac and eliminate the risk totally.
There has not been an issue. I have heard members talk about how what has happened in the past is no predictor of the future, but this technology we are talking about is in use in many places around the world. There are many pipelines that are built under the water, and not just small sections of 50 kilometres, which we are talking about in the Straits of Mackinac, but thousands of kilometres. In fact, Governor Whitmer is likely unaware that there are eight other pipelines that run underneath the St. Clair River in my riding, which has Michigan on the other side, some of those pipelines belonging to Enbridge as well.
This technology is safe. Just to let members know, for those who know my background as a chemical engineer, I have looked at all the reports that have been written about Line 5. The Environmental Protection Agency does regular monitoring, regular inspections and audits on this line. The federal pipeline safety department, PHMSA, also regulates this line, inspects the line and follows up. The State of Michigan is involved in monitoring, Enbridge has its own continuous monitoring on this line. There is a huge amount of technology that goes into making sure that this line is safe, and it has operated for 68 years without an incident.
I have talked about the impact to Michigan.
Regarding the line that comes from Alberta, obviously there is an economic hit for Alberta and this is at a time when Albertans have already been punished by the bad policies of the Liberal government, including the “no more pipelines bill”, Bill C-69 and the many cancelled oil and gas projects including Teck mines, northern gateway, Kinder Morgan backing out, the KXL and the Petronas LNG and now the Kitimat LNG. There is just an ongoing punishment there, so this would just be another hit to Alberta at a time when it can least afford it.
The other states that are being impacted are Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. There are refineries in Ohio and Pennsylvania that supply all the jet fuel for the Detroit airport. There are many jobs in Michigan as well. Overall, we think 50,000 jobs could be impacted by this; not to mention in Ontario, many farmers heat their barns for their animals, dry their grain and heat their greenhouses with the fuel that is coming down through Line 5.
When I hear people who are anti-pipeline and want to shut down Line 5, I ask them if they live in Ontario and drive a car because, if they do, their gasoline is coming out of Line 5. Do they eat food, like beef, chicken and pork that is grown in Ontario or Quebec? If so, they are going to be impacted by Line 5.
Do they eat vegetables or grains that are produced in any of these provinces? If so, this definitely would be an impact to them. It has already been mentioned as well that the plastics industry and many of the great smart phones and things we enjoy so much are a result of the fossil fuels that are coming down through Line 5. There is a huge impact there, and I was pleased to see the natural resources minister emphasize again that this is essential for the economic and energy security of Canada.
I have been calling on the government for action. I called on it to have the Prime Minister intervene with President Biden directly to let him understand the importance. The Prime Minister did raise it, but we have not seen President Biden take an action, and I am sure that is because the case is before the court. Right now, what is being decided in the court is whether this issue should be heard at the state level or at the federal level. There are a number of these amicus curiae briefs of support and against that have been submitted. There are 14 Democratic states that have submitted a brief against keeping Line 5 open, and one Republican from Ohio has submitted one in support of keeping Line 5 open. This is why it is so important that the Canadian government provide a brief of support, and it is due next Tuesday, so we are running out of time. It is fine to say we will do all things and take every effort, but seeing the piece of paper submitted by May 11 would be very helpful.
At the same time, I agree with the member for Mount Royal, who indicated that he does not believe that a state court at this point in time has the power to force Line 5 down and also that they will likely not put an injunction out while the case is before the court. In terms of that timing, the judge did order mediation between Governor Whitmer and Enbridge, and that mediation is coming to an end within the next week. Then, the deadline for the briefs exists, and she will have to review all of that information before she can render a decision about whether the case should be heard in federal court or state court. Then, of course, the case needs to be heard, so that would be another whole bunch of testimony that will happen.
Although I do not think things are going to happen next Wednesday, I do think that there is no other contingency plan in place. The tankers, railcars and trucks have been suggested. We are short of railcars in Canada right now, and there is a shortage of trucks as well, so even if we could find them, to take that volume is certainly environmentally worse from an emissions point of view. We know, with the Lac-Mégantic issue that occurred, that rail is not as safe as a pipeline is.
I think those are important considerations, and I would say that, when it comes to the Canada-U.S. committee, which I was fortunate to sit in and go through, it came with seven recommendations for the government. This is the call to action I would like to see the government act on. It called for mediation; that is happening. It called for U.S. decision-makers at all levels to be contacted, and I know there are efforts of lobby within Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Michigan. It is unfortunate the Governor Whitmer will not meet with the natural resources minister. She did take a call with the leader of the official opposition and with Doug Ford, and so I think we need to press on there. The amicus brief, as I have mentioned, is an important support for Canada to bring. Then, it called for the Prime Minister to press and, if necessary, put a treaty violation complaint in if this continues, because this certainly is a federal treaty that allows that line to operate.
I have not heard of any contingency plans, but somebody should start thinking about those. The companies in my riding are thinking about that. As well, we should look at our other vulnerabilities, because if we continue to see that the U.S. is not going to stand as our friend in these matters, then what other supply chain and critical energy infrastructure is vulnerable, and what will we do about that? The committee then called to have members of Parliament engage, as we are tonight, and so I am happy to see everybody all on the same page, calling for the action.
Let us move forward. Let us keep Line 5 open.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He clearly explained that Line 5 supplies refineries in both Quebec and Ontario, and that its potential shutdown is a legitimate cause for concern. On the other hand, there are all sorts of environmental concerns.
My colleague said that this pipeline was safe, but it is important to remember the 20,000 barrels of oil that spilled into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. One cannot help but think that another similar incident could occur, which is worrisome for the environmental health of our waterways.
If we want to move toward a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and toward net-zero emissions, how can we strike a balance between economic and environmental concerns?
Results: 76 - 90 of 330 | Page: 6 of 22

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data