Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 6 of 6
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Madam Speaker, I present two petitions today in the pursuit of justice for Dylan Paradis, Andrew Dockrell and Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer, rail workers killed on the job in British Columbia in 2019. The tragic circumstances of that night were made even worse by the botched company investigation that followed. Their families, rail workers and working people deserve justice and change.
Today's CBC News story makes clear the grotesque level of complicity between the government, the TSB and CP Rail. It is clear the current system is designed to protect corporate interests, not the safety of workers and the public interest. Railways cannot be allowed to police themselves. TSB investigators, like Don Crawford, must be able to do their jobs independently from meddling from private companies. They must be properly protected from interference.
The two petitions presented today are signed by hundreds of Canadians. The first one calls on the government to launch an inquiry into the causes and consequences of Canada's private railway self-investigations and bring this grave injustice to light.
The second petition calls for Transportation Safety Board investigators to be granted the authority to refer potential criminal violations to proper independent police forces and to protect them as eligible whistle-blowers under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This is all in the pursuit of justice.
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-05-31 15:16 [p.7629]
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. To summarize, they reference Canada averaging 145 fatalities and 3,400 hospitalizations every year due to all-terrain vehicle rollover accidents. The use of crush protection device installations on these vehicles would reduce the number and severity of these accidents significantly. Other industrialized nations have recognized this issue and mandated implementation by manufacturers, safety authorities and industry users. Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to require manufacturers to include crush protection devices on all new sales of all-terrain vehicles.
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 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 Robert Oliphant Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Robert Oliphant Profile
2021-05-06 21:51 [p.6863]
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to join this debate. I am not in Ottawa. I am joining it from the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wyandot peoples. This continues to be the home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
I am very proud to be part of this debate tonight, and I want to begin by commending three members whose speeches I have found to be quite informative as I was listening to the debate.
I thought the member for Mount Royal gave a passionate speech and brought in a set of legal arguments that I was not totally aware of. I think one of the purposes of debate is to learn, and the member for Mount Royal certainly added to my knowledge and understanding of the international law issues around this and some of the legal opportunities we could engage in.
I also want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton. This is obviously a personal issue for many people in her riding. She brought forward her engineering experience and her passion for farmers and workers in her riding, and I thought that was quite exceptional. I really want to commend the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
I also want to commend the most recent speech, which I just listened to, by the member for Kitchener Centre. Having built upon the history and legal work of the member for Mount Royal and the sincere personal and economic concern about this issue from the member for Sarnia—Lambton, the member for Kitchener Centre was able to put this into a broader context. I would hope this issue crosses partisan divides and unites us in the House so we can say that Line 5 is an essential tool for the economic, social and cultural well-being of Canada. We need to unite to do our very best to convince the decision-makers involved in this decision to make the right decision.
I speak to this issue as a son of the Great Lakes. I speak to it as someone who comes from the border city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. I note that my staff wrote me out a nice phonetic spelling for “Mackinac”, but that was not necessary. I grew up going to Mackinac Island every year. I crossed the Mackinac Bridge many times a year. I know the Straits of Mackinac and the people of Michigan. I have been both a tourist and a friend in many parts of the state of Michigan. I have great respect for the people of Michigan and want them to understand that the partnership we have, particularly on Line 5, is in many ways something we can work on together.
I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been quite well made in many speeches. Instead, I want to bring in, as part of my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, some issues that I would like to speak to the Americans about tonight. I know that some of them are probably listening.
I do not think we need to convince each other of the importance of this line. Some may have some differences. I would disagree with some of the concerns that have been raised, but I do not doubt anyone's concern about the importance of supporting Line 5.
Canada and the United States have long enjoyed one of the most productive, collaborative and mutually beneficial bilateral relationships in the world. Line 5 is one example of the mutually beneficial partnership that has existed for almost 70 years. Ours is a partnership of neighbours, forged by shared geography on this continent, similar values, common interests, people-to-people and family connections and powerful multi-layered economic and security ties. Our two countries enjoy the largest trading relationship in the world, which has been talked about tonight. We defend and protect North America together. We are stewards of our shared environment, and we stand on the world stage to respond to many pressing global challenges together.
As recently as February 23, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States committed to a road map for a renewed relationship and a renewed U.S.-Canada partnership that sets out a blueprint for an ambitious whole-of-government approach to this important bilateral relationship. Together our leaders have created an enhanced partnership that will advance global health, security, and climate change; bolster co-operation, defence and security; and reaffirm the commitment to diversity, equity and justice.
Obviously that plays out in our COVID-19 pandemic response: We need to be in this together. We recognize that we have differences. We have a border, and that border needs to be thick at times. In a pandemic, we thicken the border. However, we always try to keep it as thin as possible to keep trade travelling across our borders day after day.
We have been working on research. We have been working on combatting the virus through the sharing of vaccines and through collaboration on diagnostics and other projects. This is something we need to do, and it is a top concern, obviously, to both governments.
However, Line 5 is also of great concern, because it is not only symbolic; it is a real issue between our two economies and our two peoples. The people who produce energy in this country, largely western Canadians in Alberta and Saskatchewan, need to have markets for the energy they produce. Canada produces the best, cleanest energy in the world, and we need to support the economies and the people of western Canada.
Let us never doubt that it is part of our job all the time to defend and stand with the people of western Canada. I am an easterner. I am an Ontarian. I am a Great Lakes member of Parliament. That does not mean I am any less committed to the whole of this country and the well-being of everyone in it. In the Line 5 project, we have energy that needs to move across the country, and we know that pipelines are the safest, healthiest way for energy products to do so.
After the people of Don Valley West gave me an extended leave of absence between 2011 and 2015, which I believe was unfortunate for them and for me, I was able to spend four years as the president and CEO of the Asthma Society of Canada. This week is asthma week in Canada, and we remember the number of issues that people with respiratory illnesses face. One of those is the need to have clean energy. The cleanest way to transport energy across this country is through pipelines. We do not want it crossing the country in trucks, trains and tankers. That is a dirtier, less healthy way to transport energy.
We are committed to pipelines, and not one party in the House has a monopoly on that commitment. We come at this issue strongly, convinced that Canada needs to have a robust energy industry, and we need to transport energy safely, carefully and to the benefit of Canadians across the country. To do that means we need to continue to fight for Line 5.
What I have not appreciated in the debate tonight nearly as much as the speeches I gave is the hand-wringing, whinging, whining and blaming that has gone on in some of the speeches. I have not found that helpful. To disagree with the way our Prime Minister handles certain things is the opposition's right. It is in the job description of the opposition. However, we have to add constructive thoughts. Even the member for Sarnia—Lambton was very clear in saying that the issue had been raised by the Prime Minister.
We have tossed the ball into the court of the American decision-makers continuously and steadfastly, with incredible diligence, and have done it faithfully to the people of Canada coast to coast to coast. That means the energy producers, the energy users and the energy transporters. We hold things in a careful balance to find a way forward as we move to a more sustainable, greener economy. We still have energy needs and we still need to do things carefully and cautiously.
I also do not appreciate the thought that we have a magic wand on one side of the House or the other. We do not have a magic wand. What we do have is persistence, data and an argument that will remind our American siblings and cousins that this is an important part of our shared economic prosperity and future together. We can do it in a cleaner way, obviously.
Canada is moving its economy toward a net-zero position. We believe in sustainability. We believe that climate change is real. We are not denying that. We also recognize that in the process, we will need to keep Canadians moving. We will need to keep farmers producing produce and food for Canadian tables. We will need to ensure people can heat their homes and keep their businesses going. We will do that and we will stand with them.
What I would expect of the opposition—
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.
Results: 1 - 6 of 6

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data