Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the proceedings this evening. I am looking forward to having a better answer than the one I received during question period on Thursday, May 13. I asked a question of the Minister of Natural Resources about Line 5 and what the government of the day had done to ensure it would continue to run.

I will give a bit of background on Line 5. Enbridge Line 5 dual pipeline is part of a system shipping oil from Saskatchewan and Alberta through pipelines to refineries in Sarnia, a petrochemical hub in the southern Ontario region. From there, it goes to Quebec via the Line 9 pipeline. These pipelines connect provinces around Canada and ensure we create jobs in a sustainable way. We all know pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to move oil and natural gas, which is also moved in Line 5. The minister, floundering through his CTV interview, said that if Line 5 was to be shut down, oil and gas would be moved by truck, rail and in tankers, which would be less efficient than through a pipeline.

I am hoping to get an answer on why the government filed the amicus brief at the last second. First, why did the government not submit it sooner to the district court? Second, why did the government not use some of its connections? We all know, and we have seen that it was on the BNN report. Maybe we could have picked up the phone and talked with President Biden to see if he would reach out to his political ally, Governor Whitmer, to see if they would cease the debate about whether Line 5 should be shut down. We know this was a political decision made by the governor in her 2018 campaign.

The actual costs if Line 5 is shut down are huge, not only in Canada but in the United States as well. It will cost tens of thousands of jobs. The Biden administration could, if it wanted to, issue an executive order either telling the Government of Michigan that it cannot revoke the easement or telling the governor not to revoke the easement until it has been determined whether a U.S.-Canada pipeline transit treaty applies. A pipeline transit treaty between the United States and Canada was brought into effect in 1977.

This was stated on BNN by Kristen van de Biezenbos, associate law professor at the University of Calgary, in regard to the 1977 transit treaty. This treaty has never been invoked and it was unclear whether it could actually be invoked in the Line 5 situation. There is still a question about whether it can be invoked, so it has to be settled in the courts.

At some point in time the government needs to take action before it reaches a crisis point. I wish the government would show western Canadians and the petrochemical workers at the refineries in Sarnia that this is a serious issue. I have concerns with the late reaction and coming to the table at the 12th hour to submit the amicus brief. Many people who I represent have told me that they sometimes feel they are not being heard as strongly as those in other areas of western Canada.

I would just ask whoever is going to answer the question why the brief was filed late, whether the 1977 pipeline treaty can be invoked and whether the Prime Minister picked up the phone and asked the President to intervene in this situation.

Warren Steinley

$465,527.00