Repudiating Damoff's Petition Response: The Truth about Enbridge's Line 5

This post is a response letter to Secretary Pam Damoff written by the Cross-Border Organizing Working Group

Introduction

More than 5,000 individuals and 300 organizations have called on the Canadian government to stop interfering with tribal, state, and federal actions in the US against the 71-year-old tar sands pipeline Line 5, through wrongful use of a 1977 "agreement" between the two countries. [1, 2] A delegation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous activists delivered this message in person to Parliament, and MP Mike Morrice presented it as a petition to the House of Commons. [3, 4] Secretary Damoff, you issued a response to the petition on behalf of the government. That so-called response ignores nearly all the points made in the petition, and offers a litany of easily-refutable falsehoods instead. See below for a rebuttal of those falsehoods, in order of their appearance in the response.

We demand the Canadian government stop perpetuating falsehoods about tar sands pipelines. We demand the Canadian government start telling the truth to their constituents and the world. And we demand for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to retract any and all use of the 1977 Agreement to keep decrepit carbon bomb Enbridge Line 5 going.

FALSEHOOD #1

"Canada's… price on pollution [is]… significantly cutting pollution across the country."

TRUTH #1

Canadian carbon dioxide pollution has been rising in most years since the Liberals came to power in 2015, including the three most recent years for which estimates are available. [5]

FALSEHOOD #2

"[T]he Government is firmly committed to ensuring Canada's… economic security…"

TRUTH #2

The highly volatile fossil fuel industry compounds economic insecurity. The GDP attributable to "Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction" fluctuates up and down much more than does the GDP from most other sectors of the economy. [6]

FALSEHOOD #3

"[T]he 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty… ensures the uninterrupted transmission of hydrocarbons in transit… from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, transiting through the United States."

TRUTH #3

The pretense "that the 1977 Treaty allows Enbridge to trespass indefinitely on someone else's land – sovereign land at that – and deprives the landowner of any recourse unless the United States and Canada resolve the matter through international dispute resolution… is without merit, has no basis in the text of the Treaty, and is offensive to the fundamental rights of sovereign governments and property owners." (Italics added) [7]

FALSEHOOD #4

"Line 5… helps provide energy that is essential for… a resilient Canadian economy…"

TRUTH #4

Since fossil fuel is the main industry that must be phased out to save the climate, reliance on it makes the economy fragile, not resilient. Yet since the Liberals took power, Canadian fossil fuel extraction has exploded by 22%, while Canadian renewable electricity generation has actually declined. [8, 9]

FALSEHOOD #5

"[E]conomic growth… strengthens the middle class…"

TRUTH #5

On balance, economic growth does no good for the average Canadian. Under the Liberals, the country's GDP has grown more than 15%. [10] Yet Canadian averages of healthy lifespan and educational performance have both declined since 2015 when the party took office, with downturns in these two vital signs of well-being starting well before the pandemic. [11, 12]

FALSEHOOD #6

"[D]amage to Canada and the U.S. from a Line 5 shutdown would be widespread and significant…"

TRUTH #6

"[T]he potential harm of a shutdown… does not outweigh the imminent harm posed by Line 5." (Italics added) [13]

FALSEHOOD #7

A "shutdown would threaten more than 33,000 U.S. jobs…"

TRUTH #7A

The "third-party study" cited to support this claim was commissioned by a front group for the oil industry, and lead-authored by someone working for an institution funded and directed by an oil executive. [14, 15, 16, 17]

TRUTH #7B

In general, fossil fuel generates fewer jobs per dollar invested than just about any other industry. [18] In fact, the fossil fuel industry has been shedding jobs even while ramping up production. [19] In contrast, ecologically sound investment tends to boost employment. For example, decommissioning and removing Line 5 will create more jobs than would building a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to lock in continued use of the deadly pipeline. [20]

TRUTH #7C

Meanwhile, over a million jobs dependent on the Great Lakes are threatened by the spills that continued use of Line 5 would make inevitable. [21]

FALSEHOOD #8

"A Line 5 shutdown would also impact energy prices…"

TRUTH #8

A consulting firm with more 300 clients in the fossil fuel, renewable energy, chemical, mineral, bulk-commodity, private-equity, and surface-transportation industries concluded that "energy markets will adapt… in the event that Line 5 is shut down. With advance notice, the markets can be expected to do so without supply shortages or price spikes." (Italics added) [22]

FALSEHOOD #9

To keep Line 5 operating would simply be "maintaining and protecting existing infrastructure…"

TRUTH #9

Enbridge would have to invest massively in new infrastructure to keep it going: 41 miles along a new route in Wisconsin, and the aforementioned tunnel in Michigan. The petition points this out, and cites the calls by the IEA and UN Secretary General to cease all such climate-wrecking new investment. Secretary Damoff, did you read the petition before putting your name on the government's response? [6]

FALSEHOOD #10

"Canada is committed to… respecting the rights of the Bad River Band, such as in relation to governance of its Reservation."

TRUTH #10

The very next paragraph falsifies this claim, by advocating the aforementioned 41-mile stretch of new pipeline. This advocacy disregards and disrespects the Band's clear opposition to the re-route, and their treaty rights to protect ecosystems against such assaults far beyond the reservation. [23]