Report continued from volume A.

1800

Private Members’ Public Business

Energy security

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Energy and Mines should designate line 5 critical energy infrastructure essential to Canada’s energy security, affordability and reliability for families and businesses, protecting its continued safe operation from unfair tariffs and shutdowns.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): Mr. Bailey has moved private member’s notice of motion number 34. Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s an honour again to rise in the Legislature to speak to my private member’s motion, motion 34, on an issue that I feel is fundamental to ensuring a future of growth and prosperity for our province and our country: energy security and reliability. Specifically, I’m focused on the importance of the continued operation of Enbridge’s line 5 pipeline, a strategic energy artery connecting western Canadian resources to the heart of the Canadian economy in the east—more specifically, my riding of Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Speaker, as you will hear, the continued safe operation of line 5 is a national imperative. That is why I have introduced motion 34, which reads: “That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Energy and Mines should designate line 5 critical energy infrastructure essential to Canada’s energy security, affordability and reliability for families and businesses, protecting its continued safe operation from unfair tariffs and shutdowns.”

Energy security means having a reliable, continuous and diverse supply of energy to meet our needs without disruption. For the Great Lakes region, including the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, line 5 is at the very foundation of this security. Many in this Legislature will remember back in 2021 when the members of this House took part in the very first take-note debate on the importance of line 5.

As you will recall, the line 5 pipeline is a 1,038-kilometre energy corridor that transports up to 540,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids each day to terminals and refineries in the east, including the refineries that comprise the Sarnia–Lambton petrochemical complex. In total, more than half of all the light crude oil refined daily in Ontario and more than two thirds of the light crude oil consumed in Quebec is transported through line 5.

This includes the source material used to create propane, a vital heating and energy source, particularly for rural and northern communities in Ontario and Quebec, and, I might add, northern Michigan. Any impact to the operations of line 5 by any level of government south of the border would instantly affect this capacity, forcing Canadian energy producers to scramble for replacement supply.

Unfortunately, this means sourcing oil from distant, logistically challenging and less secure locations around the world. In plain language, it would mean a greater reliance on foreign sources of oil, sometimes referred to as conflict oil.

Despite how other members in the Legislature may feel about the oil and gas industry, they must all agree that Canada and Ontario have the highest ethical, labour and environmental standards on the planet. If we are not transporting Canadian energy from the West to the economic engine of Canada in the east, then we will be forced to purchase it from the global market, which means potentially sourcing products from countries and regions with little regard for the environmental or labour standards that we value here.

The possibility of losing energy independence and the ability to adequately supply Canada’s most densely populated and industrialized region with the energy liquids that it needs is unfathomable. If we were to lose the certainty of oil and natural gas flowing through line 5, it would have an immediate impact on the pocketbooks of Canadians—your constituents and mine. We would see significant spikes in the price of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in Ontario and Quebec. We would see propane shortages and skyrocketing heating bills for constituents, especially those in rural Ontario and, of course, as I said earlier, northern Quebec and Michigan.

Our farmers in Ontario rely heavily on propane, natural gas and diesel for farming operations. Crucial activities like grain drying would face major financial challenges, which could impact our food supply. Increased input and feedstock costs would work their way through the cash register as the building blocks for manufacturing and agriculture, such as plastics, chemicals, fertilizer and transportation costs, would increase. These increased input costs will translate directly to higher prices for everything that our constituents buy, from groceries to household goods. Everything would cost more.

I know this is something that the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Energy and Mines will not allow to happen under their leadership. That is why I am very excited by the opportunity to bring forward this motion today, so that all members of this Legislature can have the opportunity to agree and say, “Yes, we support line 5 and recognize its ongoing significance for our province and our country.” There is no alternative that can replace this energy link to our nation. I certainly hope that all members of this Legislature will take the time to show their support by supporting this motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is an undeniable fact that line 5 is foundational to the quality of life that residents of our province experience each and every day. It’s also a major economic linchpin that supports tens of thousands of workers, if not hundreds of thousands of workers, in every single riding across this province who are employed in the energy industry or producing the products produced from line 5 energy to support their jobs, businesses and organizations. In my community alone, nearly 5,000 men and women are directly employed by the refineries and the supporting businesses that make up the Sarnia–Lambton petrochemical complex.

The economic impact is significant. Line 5’s continued operation directly supports over 28,500 jobs and generates an estimated $65 billion annually in economic activity across Ontario and Quebec. It’s important in value to Ontario, Quebec and the Canadian economy. It’s just as critical as the more frequently discussed auto, steel and aluminum industry.

Line 5 also plays a critical role in the fight against inflation and maintaining affordability for families and businesses. As we know from the introduction of the federal carbon tax, energy cost increases are an input cost that is applied to everything and passed to consumers, from growing food and heating homes to manufacturing goods and transporting them to markets. Maintaining the reliability and predictability of transporting energy from the West through line 5 must be a priority for all levels of government in order to maintain energy affordability and economic stability for Ontario. That is why I am extremely pleased that under the leadership of Premier Ford and the Minister of Energy and Mines, the government of Ontario just last week announced that they’re studying ways to establish a new Canadian east-west pipeline and energy corridor.

The economic benefits of line 5 are undeniable. As a nation, we should be looking at how we can duplicate the economic boost that line 5 generates every single day in our country, to generate even more prosperity and economic activity right now across the nation. Alberta and Saskatchewan have the raw materials, and Ontario, thanks to Premier Ford and the Minister of Energy, has the vision and the industrial might to grow our energy independence and reduce our dependence on the United States.

Pipelines are by far the safest and most cost-effective way to transport oil and natural gas liquids over long distances. Shipping these materials by rail, truck or ship is costlier, more dangerous and will all increase greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Line 5 has been in safe operation for over 65 years, and with the ongoing improvements, the line can continue to be in operation for decades to continue. Enbridge is making significant investments to reduce the potential for any environmental impact from the continued operation of Line 5, including the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, which will replace the existing dual pipes in the Straits of Mackinac with a brand new pipeline encased in a state-of-the-art tunnel deep below the lake bed.

Line 5 is a decades-old example of the interwoven energy relationship between Canada and the United States. It is a critical piece of energy infrastructure that helped accelerate Ontario’s growth and has provided the fuel, literally and figuratively, that powered Ontario to become the economic engine of our nation.

To protect Ontario jobs and workers, to grow our economy, and to become more self-sufficient and self-reliant, we must send a message that members of this Legislature are united in the belief that Ontario’s energy security and independence is a top priority.

1810

In Premier Ford and the Minister of Energy and Mines, I know that we have two leaders who understand the importance of securing our energy future. I ask that the members of this Legislature join me in voting in support of this motion. I look forward to the Minister of Energy and Mines taking the next step to designate line 5 as a critical energy infrastructure essential to our nation’s security.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing the remaining debate on this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s always a pleasure to stand in this place and bring the voices of the people of Waterloo to the Legislature.

This is an interesting motion. It’s interesting timing that the member has brought it forward. I was a little surprised that job creation was not front and centre in the motion. However, I do believe it’s embedded there in principle.

I will also say that this debate did happen back in 2021. At the time, our colleague the MPP for Essex, Taras Natyshak, had moved an amendment to the motion, as I recall—I’m sure the member recalls—and it recognized workers. It read as follows: “The Legislative Assembly should recognize that natural resources are responsible for thousands of jobs in Ontario and call upon the federal and provincial governments to protect workers.”

We do look at legislation now, especially in the current context of a very aggressive tariff war, thinking about how this will impact workers, employment, the sustainability of future industries. So we are looking at this motion through that lens.

And for those of you who are just tuning in, many may not understand or know the logistics of how energy distribution happens, and specifically crude and liquid natural gas in Ontario, but for the vast majority of Ontario, roughly 50% comes through, ultimately, line 5. Line 5 is a 1,000-kilometre stretch of pipeline that starts in Superior, Wisconsin, and runs across about 1,000 kilometres of the Upper Peninsula of Wisconsin and Michigan. It eventually finds its way to Mackinac and through the Straits of Mackinac across to Ontario.

In 2021, the pipeline was 67 years old. The pipeline today is 71 years old. At the time it was considered a feat of engineering, but certainly, there have been some concerns raised around the integrity of any pipeline, quite honestly, and specifically a pipeline that lies on the bed of the Great Lakes, whereby if there were to be some sort of catastrophe with this line—as we know happens with energy distribution of all facets—it could potentially damage, destroy the drinking water, the source of fresh drinking water, for roughly 60 million people that rely on drinking water in the Great Lakes basin.

So there is an urgency to upgrade and modernize this line in the name of health and safety and of the economy. Recognizing these challenges and the concerns that folks have, downstream, if you will, of the Straits of Mackinac, Enbridge, who is the owner of the pipeline, has sought and received permits to begin construction on a new tunnel to eventually remove the pipeline that rests on the lake bed and bring it underground some 100 feet, which is quite phenomenal in its design.

I do have to say, there are many jobs associated with this—engineering, construction, trades—and we need jobs, Speaker. And we want to create a healthy economy.

We have heard the Premier talk at length about a Team Canada approach on this, and I’m asking for us in this Legislature to try not to make this overly political—although everything is political in some responses. We know that jobs and the workers who work in that industry, who endeavour each and every day—the highly skilled workers—to perform their jobs safely and effectively for their communities, they need us to be united in this place today. And given the war that we are in with the United States on the economy and on the really unjust use of tariffs—although it is amazing that the government continues to apply strategies that are not actually creating jobs, I will say. This, however, would create many, many jobs.

So I think it goes without saying that we on this side, His Majesty’s official opposition, consider energy security as a matter of economic sovereignty and therefore will be supporting the motion today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’m honoured to be able to stand up and address the motion today from our colleague the honourable member for Sarnia–Lambton.

I want the member for Sarnia–Lambton to know that Sarnia and the petrochemical industry have a special place in my life. I remember as a very young kid, with my mom and my brother, seeing my dad off at least once a year at the old train station in Kingston when he went off to conferences in Sarnia. My dad, James Hsu, was a professor of chemical engineering and many of his students worked, or still work, in places like Sarnia.

The local economy in Sarnia relies heavily on the refining and petrochemical sector connected to line 5 operations. Line 5 is a pipeline owned and operated by Enbridge and was built in 1953. It carries approximately half a million barrels a day of light crude and natural gas liquids, like propane, from Superior, Wisconsin—and the crude products come from further west in Western Canada—through Michigan and into Sarnia, Ontario. The line supplies refineries in Sarnia and Montreal and provides a large share of Ontario’s and Quebec’s propane supply.

A portion of line 5 runs under the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan, and that has been the focus of environmental concerns and legal challenges. In 2021, the Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, ordered the pipeline to be shut down due to environmental risks. Enbridge refused, and there’s a dispute before the US courts, but at that time the government of Canada invoked the 1977 Canada-US transit pipelines treaty which protects the uninterrupted flow of hydrocarbons between the two countries. So the federal government has been watching the progress of this case very carefully.

Now, this motion is non-binding. It calls on the Minister of Energy and Mines to formally recognize line 5 as “critical energy infrastructure.” And while it’s symbolic, it does express political support for the pipeline and it aims to send a signal of provincial solidarity with the federal government’s position and with industrial stakeholders in southwestern Ontario.

It’s pretty clear that shutting down line 5, if you tried to do it today, would be an economic disaster. It is, in fact, critical energy infrastructure. Closure of the pipeline would disrupt all sorts of supply chains. It would disrupt the economy, cause fuel shortages—gasoline, diesel, home heating. All of these things are interconnected and it would have a very large economic impact.

The pipeline, is an international—where it crosses the border—cross-border project and it’s regulated under Canadian federal law and US law. Ontario does not have direct jurisdiction over its operation or maintenance, but what we’re doing today is supporting the policy alignment with the federal government of Canada.

I want to talk a bit about the environmental and Indigenous considerations. The section of the pipeline that’s under the Great Lakes has been criticized because of its condition—it is old. It’s been criticized by environmental organizations and Indigenous groups for posing spill and contamination risks, and this is focused on the Straits of Mackinac, which connects Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. It lies in Michigan.

Opponents might argue that designating line 5 as critical infrastructure reinforces a long-term dependence on fossil fuels and undermines provincial and federal climate targets, but Enbridge is pursuing plans for a tunnel replacement under the Straits of Mackinac to address safety concerns. I think they recognize its age. But this remains under review in the United States.

1820

However, it is a fact that the governor of Michigan has threatened to shut down line 5, and it’s pretty much a fact that nobody knows what Donald Trump will do.

Also, because we must eventually transition away from fossil fuels anyway, it would be prudent to mitigate the risk of any disruption by allowing renewable energy and energy storage to compete for as large a slice of Ontario’s electricity supply mix as it can. And I think we must be more urgent about this than the current government has been.

In conclusion, let me say that line 5 is, in fact, critical energy infrastructure, and we should be supporting its continued safe operation and supporting the federal government’s efforts to prevent unfair tariffs or shutdowns—unilateral shutdowns imposed by the state of Michigan. So we will be voting in favour of this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): Further debate?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’m proud to rise tonight to support private member’s motion 34 from my friend from Sarnia–Lambton: that the Minister of Energy and Mines should declare line 5 as critical energy infrastructure which is essential to Canada’s energy security, affordability and reliability for families and businesses and that we must protect it from unfair tariffs and shutdowns.

Speaker, I completely agree with the member from Sarnia–Lambton that line 5 is not just a pipeline; it’s a lifeline, a critical artery that supplies energy that Ontario and much of Canada depends on every day. Every day it transports about 540,000 barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids from western Canada over 1,000 kilometres through the American Midwest and across the Mackinac Channel to refineries in Sarnia and Nanticoke. That’s about 23 million gallons every day.

Line 5 provides 100% of the jet fuel at Mississauga’s Pearson airport and a majority of the crude oil that’s refined into gas, diesel and propane that powers our homes, farms, cars and trucks.

Line 5 supports almost 29,000 jobs directly and tens of thousands more indirectly, not only in energy but in chemicals, manufacturing and transportation. It generates over $65 billion in economic activity each year.

But as my friend from Sarnia–Lambton said, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been trying to shut down line 5 for the last five years based on environmental concerns, even though American federal regulators that are responsible for pipeline safety have found no threats or leaks or any other safety issues with line 5.

Since it opened in 1953, the line 5 pipeline has served us safely for over 70 years. It’s monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, using state-of-the-art technology.

At the same time, we can all agree that safety and environmental protection must come first. That’s why Enbridge proposed an engineering solution, the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, which would encase line 5 inside solid rock as much as 100 feet below the lake bed, basically eliminating any risk of oil spills.

But Speaker, the impact of any closure of line 5, even a temporary closure, would be immediate and disastrous for families and businesses on both sides of the border. It would lead to fuel shortages and job losses and would cripple our economy, not just in Sarnia and southwestern Ontario but across the province, across Canada and throughout the American Midwest. Fuel prices would skyrocket. Trucking, air travel and agriculture would all face higher costs. Families would feel it at the pumps and in their heating bills, and small businesses would face new uncertainties at a time when many are already dealing with the impact of President Trump’s tariffs.

Speaker, line 5 isn’t just essential to Ontario’s energy security; it is the safest, most reliable and most environmentally responsible way to transport the fuel that we need as we continue to transition to clean technology.

In the event of a line 5 shutdown, we would see more tanker trucks and railcars moving oil through our communities, which is less safe, more expensive and worse for the environment. Many members will remember the Lac-Mégantic destruction in Quebec in 2013, when a train carrying crude oil was derailed east of Montreal, causing a massive explosion that killed 47 people and caused major long-term environmental damage.

Declaring that line 5 is critical energy infrastructure doesn’t mean that we’re ignoring safety and environmental protections. We understand that Ontario’s energy mix will continue to evolve. We’re investing in clean technologies, including nuclear, hydrogen and biofuels. But during the energy transition, we cannot afford to lose the reliable energy that keeps our province running today.

Line 5 is not an obstacle to the energy transition; it is part of the foundation that allows us to make the transition responsibly and sustainably. And this isn’t just a provincial issue, or even a national one. Line 5 is a binational energy corridor, critical to both Canada and the US. That’s why both our federal governments have already recognized line 5’s importance under the 1977 Canada-US transit pipelines treaty, which protects the flow of energy between our two countries.

Speaker, again, I want to thank my friend from Sarnia–Lambton for bringing this motion forward. I’m proud to support it, and I urge every member of this House to join us and recognize line 5 as critical energy infrastructure for our country and the US.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault: I’m pleased to rise today in support of my colleague the good member from Sarnia–Lambton and his motion calling on the Minister of Energy and Mines to recognize Enbridge’s line 5 as critical energy infrastructure.

I think it’s important to look at this issue through a rural lens, because for communities like mine in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, line 5 isn’t just a pipeline; it truly is a lifeline. It fuels our farms, heats our homes and supports jobs right across southwestern Ontario.

Most of the propane used in rural Ontario—for heating barns, drying grain and running essential farm equipment—comes from the natural gas liquids transported by line 5. If that supply were disrupted, the impact would be felt immediately. Propane costs would rise, grain dryers would sit idle and farmers would struggle to heat their barns and greenhouses.

It doesn’t stop there. Line 5 is also a key source of diesel fuel—the same fuel that powers tractors, combines and trucks across our rural communities. Any increase in cost or disruption in supply hits farmers directly and ultimately drives up food prices for every Ontario family.

When we talk about protecting line 5, we’re really talking about protecting food production and affordable energy. Because when farmers can’t access reliable fuel, crops can’t be planted, harvested or transported efficiently. When energy costs rise for producers, they rise for consumers too, whether you’re buying groceries in London or filling up your truck in Strathroy.

Line 5 moves about 540,000 barrels per day of light crude oil and natural gas liquids. It supplies all of Ontario’s aviation fuel and over half the crude oil refined here in our province.

It supports tens of thousands of jobs and generates over $65 billion in economic activity each year across Ontario and Quebec. That includes the refineries and the petrochemical industries in Sarnia, but also countless small businesses and families who rely on affordable energy to make a living.

1830

For more than 70 years, line 5 has operated safely and reliably—a symbol of co-operation between Canada and the United States. But we’ve all seen the ongoing attempts in Michigan to shut it down. If that were to happen, it wouldn’t just hurt Sarnia; it would ripple across the entire province—from our farms to our airports to our manufacturing sector.

That’s why this motion matters. It sends a strong, united message that Ontario stands up for its energy security, its workers, and its rural communities.

Ontario is a leader in clean, reliable energy—from nuclear to renewables to critical minerals—but as we build the energy system of tomorrow, we still need to protect the foundation we rely on today. Line 5 is part of that foundation. It keeps our economy moving, keeps life affordable, and keeps Ontario working.

Again, I want to stress the importance of this line. This is truly a lifeline for rural Ontario. We need to make sure that our farmers have affordable fuel so they can do their job. If their input costs go up, the cost of food goes up. This line has been safe and reliable for 70 years, as mentioned several times.

Speaker, I’m proud to support this motion because standing up for line 5 means standing up for farmers, families and the rural communities that feed this province.

Let’s send a clear message that Ontario will do everything it can to protect its energy security, defend its sovereignty and keep our province strong for generations to come.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): Further debate? Further debate?

The member from Sarnia–Lambton has two minutes for a reply.

Mr. Robert Bailey: First of all, I want to thank the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, of course, and the members from Kingston, Lambton–Kent–Middlesex and Mississauga–Lakeshore. I hope I haven’t missed anybody.

This is very important to the province, to the country, and even to the people of Michigan. I don’t think they would agree with their governor if they knew the whole story.

A little bit of history on this pipeline: It was designed by Bechtel Corp., which was one of the major contractors back in the late 1940s, early 1950s. They built a number of projects across this country. It was a unique design. I read up on it because I wanted to know all about it, because I’ve been promoting this with the local trades.

I don’t want to forget either, the local community and across the country—I’ve been on a number of Zoom meetings. This all started back in COVID. The trades associations, the members from the skilled trades were all on there. We had the people from LIUNA, as well—Joe Mancinelli, well-known in the Hamilton area. All of these people, along with the businesses that would be affected, all appeared on that committee.

I thank the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. I remember that debate with the member from Essex at the time. We had a lot of fun that day. He came from the labour movement, like I did. He was with LIUNA, I think. I was with Nova Chemicals at the time. That was one of the best jobs I ever had, until I came here.

Any time people complain about the hours here or the work, I always say this place is great because we get to debate all the—

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, give yourselves a hand there. That’s right—everybody.

What’s so great about this place—I listened to a debate just an hour ago or so, and all the stories are so moving, and you hear all the people who come here and contribute, just like they did to this debate today about the pipeline and how important it is to Canada, to Ontario, to all the jobs. And it’s not just a matter, as the member from Kitchener–Waterloo said, about all the jobs it’s going to create; it’s about the jobs it’s going to maintain, because there are thousands of people employed across this country indirectly and directly.

Something I’ve read a lot about is, they get their propane for northern Michigan—because they don’t have a source of propane. It comes from Enbridge, from that line up into the north, to help dry their grain, to help heat their homes. So they need that pipeline as much as we do.

I know there’s just been a case, just recently—I think it was in Wisconsin. The Army Corps of Engineers and the courts agreed they were going to reroute a line through Wisconsin as part of line 5. I think that bodes well.

The debate over in—

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’ve got 45 seconds, it looks like.

That debate in Michigan, it’s more about—the Attorney General is really making the life of the governor miserable because she wants to run against her, as just a little bit of background. That’s what’s really going on over there. The governor is having to try and keep an eye on her Attorney General because she’d like to run and replace her.

Anyway, thank you, everyone who took part in the debate today. I look forward to it. I can hardly wait to go back home. I’m going to sing your accolades when I get back to Sarnia–Lambton.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Mr. Bailey has moved private member’s notice of motion number 34.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I didn’t hear a no; that’s great. I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brian Saunderson): All matters relating to private members’ public business have been completed. This House stands adjourned until Thursday, November 6, at 9 a.m.

The House adjourned at 1836.