One of the things Trump did was violate international agreements. People may have shrugged and put it down to Trump being Trump. But now we have a Democratic governor who is also acting in clear violation of a treaty the US has with Canada by purporting to order a company operating an international pipeline to close down its operation within her state.
The treaty is not long - it would take you and the governor in question about 5 minutes to read. It is also not difficult to comprehend. So even a person with the intellect of a Trump can understand it.
There is a provision that requires 10 years notice to end the obligation. The Governor (who does not have any authority to end the treaty) gave very little notice to the company to pack up its operation.
So what is going on here? Do Americans have so little regard to their country's international obligations that there is no political price to pay for violating those obligations? I think that is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach. Hard to trust the US after 4 years of Trump. Even harder now that this is happening under a Democratic administration. It could be that Biden will step in and point out this is within Federal jurisdiction and tell the governor to stop the nonsense. But, if the premise that the American public cares little about their country's internal commitments and agreements is accurate, why would he? And perhaps that explains his relative inaction on this matter to date.
Here is the Treaty if you are interested
https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=101884
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:22:04 PM
Do Americans have so little regard to their country's international obligations that there is no political price to pay for violating those obligations?
Pretty much. That would be the case in most countries, perhaps with the US an even lesser political price.
I assume the state in question still has a say on stuff like health and safety of a pipeline through its territory? What is the formal status of and given reason for the governor's decision? Is the governor actually cancelling the treaty or in fact acting on local matters that are beyond the treaty? NB I don't think or believe anything regarding all this, just curious.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:22:04 PM
So what is going on here? Do Americans have so little regard to their country's international obligations that there is no political price to pay for violating those obligations?
I don't know if the American populace is as plugged into hydrocarbon treaties from the 1970s as you seem to think. It is the Feds obligation to get the state to abide by the treaty.
I don't know how controversial this pipeline or whatever is going on is though. Is this one of those pipelines that enrages native Americans or something?
This seems like quite the whine even for CC.
IMO it's all part of the push and pull of international relations, rather than particularly Trumpist.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 12:36:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:22:04 PM
So what is going on here? Do Americans have so little regard to their country's international obligations that there is no political price to pay for violating those obligations?
I don't know if the American populace is as plugged into hydrocarbon treaties from the 1970s as you seem to think. It is the Feds obligation to get the state to abide by the treaty.
I don't know how controversial this pipeline or whatever is going on is though. Is this one of those pipelines that enrages native Americans or something?
I don't think they are at all. Which is my point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 12:36:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:22:04 PM
So what is going on here? Do Americans have so little regard to their country's international obligations that there is no political price to pay for violating those obligations?
I don't know if the American populace is as plugged into hydrocarbon treaties from the 1970s as you seem to think. It is the Feds obligation to get the state to abide by the treaty.
I don't know how controversial this pipeline or whatever is going on is though. Is this one of those pipelines that enrages native Americans or something?
I don't think they are at all. Which is my point.
Well you are correct. Normal people do not often know anything about the foreign relations and obligations of their country. Hell just getting the American people to appreciate when our country is doing something like bombing civilians abroad is difficult to do. It is just so remote from their day to day, you know?
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 12:41:50 PM
IMO it's all part of the push and pull of international relations, rather than particularly Trumpist.
If you can point me to a point in time when a US administration declared Canada a security risk (Trump's justification for granting himself authority to impose the aluminum tariff) or a US Governor purporting to order the closure of in international pipeline - I am all ears. I think shrugging this off as normal is also part of the problem. It is a new low imo.
Source?
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 12:51:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 12:36:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:22:04 PM
So what is going on here? Do Americans have so little regard to their country's international obligations that there is no political price to pay for violating those obligations?
I don't know if the American populace is as plugged into hydrocarbon treaties from the 1970s as you seem to think. It is the Feds obligation to get the state to abide by the treaty.
I don't know how controversial this pipeline or whatever is going on is though. Is this one of those pipelines that enrages native Americans or something?
I don't think they are at all. Which is my point.
Well you are correct. Normal people do not often know anything about the foreign relations and obligations of their country. Hell just getting the American people to appreciate when our country is doing something like bombing civilians abroad is difficult to do. It is just so remote from their day to day, you know?
Yes, I know. Which is why I posted this thread. I am not sure what the answer is for how to deal with a country like the US. During the endless softwood lumber disputes Canada has always prevailed when US transgressions get addressed at international trade tribunals. But what does one do with something as bizarre as a US governor ordering an company to shut down its international pipeline?
Acts like this are a strong signal that the globalization is is probably dead. Countries cannot count on others to uphold their bargains (especially the US given its recent history). China is a worse choice of dance partner. The EU, if it survives, may become the reliable winner in all of this but its right wing nation states make that more dubious. We probably go back to the bad old days of nationalism, each nation needed to be largely self reliant rather than having confidence in international trade, and the wars that come with it.
So that is it then - if this isn't resolved in the right way, the alternative is war.
An interesting take.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:53:12 PM
If you can point me to a point in time when a US administration declared Canada a security risk (Trump's justification for granting himself authority to impose the aluminum tariff) or a US Governor purporting to order the closure of in international pipeline - I am all ears. I think shrugging this off as normal is also part of the problem. It is a new low imo.
I'm not disputing that Trump is Trumpist.
But a state level politician campaigning and being elected on an issue of local concern and trying to force the issue doesn't strike me as particularly Trumpists. I mean, Burnaby City Hall tried to stop a pipeline running through Burnaby. I don't think they're Trumpists. Local governments stretching beyond their authority and encroaching on Federal authority (or Provincial/ State authority to go one level down) is not particularly exceptional when it comes to environmental issues.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2021, 01:00:10 PM
Source?
You really don't know what I am talking about?
If you really don't know and you really can't find a newspaper article let me know. But I hope you are really not that ill informed.
Governor Whitmer has given her order. Let's see what happens next.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 01:06:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 12:53:12 PM
If you can point me to a point in time when a US administration declared Canada a security risk (Trump's justification for granting himself authority to impose the aluminum tariff) or a US Governor purporting to order the closure of in international pipeline - I am all ears. I think shrugging this off as normal is also part of the problem. It is a new low imo.
I'm not disputing that Trump is Trumpist.
But a state level politician campaigning and being elected on an issue of local concern and trying to force the issue doesn't strike me as particularly Trumpists. I mean, Burnaby City Hall tried to stop a pipeline running through Burnaby. I don't think they're Trumpists. Local governments stretching beyond their authority and encroaching on Federal authority (or Provincial/ State authority to go one level down) is not particularly exceptional when it comes to environmental issues.
There was no chance Burnaby had any jurisdiction. Their lawyers must have told them that but they proceeded with spending municipal money on a legal challenge that had no shot (and lost at every level of court). The difference is the Federal government intervened in the proceedings and took the position the municipal government had no role.
You can see some local politicians who are not very sophisticated doin such a thing. But when it happens at the equivalent of a Provincial/State or Federal level, you begin to wonder what is going on.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2021, 01:05:31 PM
So that is it then - if this isn't resolved in the right way, the alternative is war.
An interesting take.
Your move, Canada. :menace:
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 01:07:54 PM
Governor Whitmer has given her order. Let's see what happens next.
Ok, at least now I know this is about Michigan. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 01:07:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2021, 01:00:10 PM
Source?
You really don't know what I am talking about?
If you really don't know and you really can't find a newspaper article let me know. But I hope you are really not that ill informed.
I do not think this made anyone's radar in the USA. I don't know why or how it would reach the mainstream consciousness.
Well, I read the treaty and found a news story about it. The governor of Michigan is closing a section of pipeline out of a fear of another oil spill and climate change. The Treaty may allow this, I don't know.
QuoteIn the event of an actual or threatened natural disaster, an operating emergency, or other demonstrable need temporarily to reduce or stop for safety or technical reasons the normal operation of a Transit Pipeline, the flow of hydrocarbons through such Transit Pipeline may be temporarily reduced or stopped in the interest of sound pipeline management and operational efficiency by or with the approval of the appropriate regulatory authorities of the Party in whose territory such disaster, emergency or other demonstrable need occurs.
It sounds like something that should be argued in a court. Can Canada sue the state of Michigan? If so, that should be the best route.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 01:11:00 PM
There was no chance Burnaby had any jurisdiction. Their lawyers must have told them that but they proceeded with spending municipal money on a legal challenge that had no shot (and lost at every level of court). The difference is the Federal government intervened in the proceedings and took the position the municipal government had no role.
You can see some local politicians who are not very sophisticated doin such a thing. But when it happens at the equivalent of a Provincial/State or Federal level, you begin to wonder what is going on.
My expectation is that there'll be conversations on the Federal level between the two countries. Maybe there'll be some interruptions followed by lawsuits and/ or arbitration, or there will be no stoppage followed by lawsuits and/ or arbitration. Neither Canada nor the US are interested in a trade dispute at this point, I don't think, which is where this will lead if Whitmer manages to actually shut the pipeline down for any length of time. I also don't think the US federal government is particularly keen on letting State level politicians enroach on Federal responsibilities like trade agreements and treaties.
So I my expectation is that Whitmer makes some strong statements and maybe there's a bit of an inconvenicence for a few days or weeks at most (with a cost, of course), but that's about it. I could be wrong. But bottom line is that I don't think there's anything particularly Trumpist about local politicians attempting to exceed their remit into foreign affairs for local reasons. Whether it's Trumpist or not (and which larger pattern this may be part of) depends on how everything proceeds after that moment.
Quote from: The Larch on May 11, 2021, 01:14:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 01:07:54 PM
Governor Whitmer has given her order. Let's see what happens next.
Ok, at least now I know this is about Michigan. :lol:
What, you don't know the details of this? Don't worry, CC will summarize for you in a completely impartial manner...
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/energy-and-mining/7023162-Enbridge-to-keep-Great-Lakes-pipeline-running-defy-looming-Michigan-shutdown-order
AN actual article about the dispute.
It is going to arbitration. As these things do. As is, in fact, written into the treaty itself.
Much ado about very little.
The treaty states the pipelines are subject to reasonable regulation by governmental authorities having jurisdiction. There is also a provision for a temporary suspension of all operations in the event of "demonstrable need temporarily to reduce or stop for safety or technical reasons the normal operation of a Transit Pipeline" None of those key terms - "temporary" or "demonstrable need" - are defined, creating some ambiguity.
This looks like a garden variety legal dispute over interpretation of a statute. The Canadian company has the right to go to federal court to get injunctive relief - including emergency injunctive relief if needed. Looks like they would have a decent case.
To be clear, I think Whitmer is a dumbass, and this is basically political posturing.
But the idea that there isn't actual concerns here, which one would be led to believe by CC's "summary" of the issue, is spurious. There are concerns. The pipeline is old, and they need to do work to make it safe, and the timing of that work (and cost) is going to be contested in a rather fraught political climate when it comes to environmental issues around carbon fuels.
It is not nearly as simple as the US just being assholes and screwing over poor, poor Canada because they are ogres. As usual.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/02/canada-enbridge-line-5-whitmer-michigan/
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 01:28:00 PM
The treaty states the pipelines are subject to reasonable regulation by governmental authorities having jurisdiction. There is also a provision for a temporary suspension of all operations in the event of "demonstrable need temporarily to reduce or stop for safety or technical reasons the normal operation of a Transit Pipeline" None of those key terms - "temporary" or "demonstrable need" - are defined, creating some ambiguity.
This looks like a garden variety legal dispute over interpretation of a statute. The Canadian company has the right to go to federal court to get injunctive relief - including emergency injunctive relief if needed. Looks like they would have a decent case.
Indeed. This isn't Japan bombing Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2021, 01:23:12 PM
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/business/energy-and-mining/7023162-Enbridge-to-keep-Great-Lakes-pipeline-running-defy-looming-Michigan-shutdown-order
AN actual article about the dispute.
It is going to arbitration. As these things do. As is, in fact, written into the treaty itself.
Yep - article IX
However, if the Canadian company can show irreparable harm from Whitmer's order and a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, they may also be able to get a federal court TRO pending arbitration.
Crazy Canuck is really fucking stupid. I mean it would be nice if the US lived up to its treaty obligations, but if we did this country would still belong to Native Americans.
Naive is the better word.
Imo, there's a reckoning happening in the RoC right now. They are slowly but surely learning that the Americans do not consider them, well at all.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2021, 01:37:24 PM
Naive is the better word.
Imo, there's a reckoning happening in the RoC right now. They are slowly but surely learning that the Americans do not consider them, well at all.
Sounds like you agree with CC's overall analysis then, even if your reaction differs.
I'm not sure though... there's always been bullshit when it comes to US-Canada relations and trade. Trump was obviously going low places, but I'm not sure there's a sea change with Biden compared to the pre-Trump era.
Michigan's declaratory judgment complaint filed in Nov 2020 - seems like this dispute has been going on for a bit now: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf
Michigan contends that Embridge violated the terms of easement by failing to provide proper supports, failing to conduct required coating testing, ignoring curvature restrictions, failure to exercise due care to mitigate potential impacts from anchors, etc. These are all allegations, not proven facts. However, if proven, it would seem to provide a basis for action consistent with Article IV of the treaty.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2021, 01:37:24 PM
Naive is the better word.
Imo, there's a reckoning happening in the RoC right now. They are slowly but surely learning that the Americans do not consider them, well at all.
Sounds like you agree with CC's overall analysis then, even if your reaction differs.
I'm not sure though... there's always been bullshit when it comes to US-Canada relations and trade. Trump was obviously going low places, but I'm not sure there's a sea change with Biden compared to the pre-Trump era.
Yeah, this doesn't look like anything even remotely "new".
That doesn't make it any less bullshit though - it just isn't some example of some New and Even More Outrageous Contempt From the US. It's just pretty normal political and economic bullshit.
I could as well post some outrage bait about how Canada, once again, shows that they all their concern about the environment is clearly posturing, and they continue to not care about polluting the environment and their callous disregard for obviously failing pipelines that are likely to pollute the Great Lakes.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2021, 01:37:24 PM
Naive is the better word.
Imo, there's a reckoning happening in the RoC right now. They are slowly but surely learning that the Americans do not consider them, well at all.
Sounds like you agree with CC's overall analysis then, even if your reaction differs.
Yes, I think that applies. But, in Quebec it's nothing new.
CC, I don't know what you are doing here. Your opening post didn't provide much information about the case. You left out, the name of the state, the governor, the company and most important the stated reason for doing this. You started with hostile argument and not surprisingly put several people on the defensive. Berkut, and garbon may very well agree with you and believe Whitmer stepped out of bounds. But when your start using Trump's name you kind of shut down any sort of argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 01:56:45 PM
CC, I don't know what you are doing here. Your opening post didn't provide much information about the case. You left out, the name of the state, the governor, the company and most important the stated reason for doing this. You started with hostile argument and not surprisingly put several people on the defensive. Berkut, and garbon may very well agree with you and believe Whitmer stepped out of bounds. But when your start using Trump's name you kind of shut down any sort of argument.
I suspect CC doesn't care so much about the case itself as much as its utility to drive his outrage-o-meter over how terrible the US and Americans are....
Lets imagine that Embridge is not from Canada but from Oklahoma and instead of an international treaty governing the case, there is just a regular federal statute governing interstate commerce.
Seems to me this dispute would play out exactly the same way it is playing out now. The issue here isn't some kind of anti-Canada xenophobia, it's just the kind of regulatory-commercial conflict that plays out all the time in this country.
The fact that a treaty is in play doesn't change the analysis - a ratified treaty becomes a part of federal law, it doesn't become some kind of magical legal trump card that overrides the entire legal system.
The governor is revoking the easement because she claims that the operator (Enbridge) won't take the required steps to maintain their right to the easement. That seems a clear violation of the treaty, but Witmer claims that her actions are authorized by state law and the treaty's exception for "an actual or threatened natural disaster, an operating emergency, or other demonstrable need temporarily to reduce or stop for safety or technical reasons the normal operation of a Transit Pipeline." I don't think that she is acting "by or with the approval of the appropriate regulatory authorities of the Party in whose territory such disaster, emergency or other demonstrable need occurs" because the Federal government, not the state government, is the Party to the treaty.
The treaty doesn't forbid tiresome whining, so I guess we can't stop these kinds of complaints by Canadians, but we also don't have to indulge them.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2021, 02:05:31 PM
I don't think that she is acting "by or with the approval of the appropriate regulatory authorities of the Party in whose territory such disaster, emergency or other demonstrable need occurs" because the Federal government, not the state government, is the Party to the treaty.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but I don't think I agree. The relevant language under article IV says: " a Transit Pipeline shall be subject to regulations by the appropriate governmental authorities having jurisdiction over such Transit Pipeline . . "
The State of Michigan has jurisdiction over the pipeline, concurrently with the federal government. I assume the same would be true for a Canadian Province through which the pipeline travels. Thus, under the treaty, Michigan, as an appropriate governmental authority with jurisdiction over the pipeline, may lawfully apply its own regulations, provided that it does so "in the same manner as for any other pipelines or the transmission of hydrocarbons by pipeline subject to [its] authority" and provided that exercise of regulatory authority relates to one or more of the 4 enumerated categories.
Note I take no position as to whether the Michigan action satisfied all these conditions. But if it did, I think they could take action consistent with the treaty.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2021, 01:34:49 PM
Crazy Canuck is really fucking stupid. I mean it would be nice if the US lived up to its treaty obligations, but if we did this country would still belong to Native Americans.
Unlikely. European settlers would still have taken the land without the US army's help.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2021, 02:38:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2021, 01:34:49 PM
Crazy Canuck is really fucking stupid. I mean it would be nice if the US lived up to its treaty obligations, but if we did this country would still belong to Native Americans.
Unlikely. European settlers would still have taken the land without the US army's help.
History suggests... no.
History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though. :sleep:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2021, 02:50:39 PM
History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though. :sleep:
I am not doing too bad with actual history either, thanks.
"The army's help" is woefully underselling it.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2021, 02:50:39 PM
History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though. :sleep:
I expect Oex is drawing on examples where European settlers did not have the army's help, and did not succeed, and applying it to the hypothetical you proposed.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 11, 2021, 03:01:24 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2021, 02:50:39 PM
History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though. :sleep:
I am not doing too bad with actual history either, thanks.
"The army's help" is woefully underselling it.
My wife had an ancestor who was in the Georgia Militia during the War of 1812 and they kept invading what is today Alabama, getting whipped by the Creek Confederacy, and retreating back to Georgia. This happened a few times (three?) until Andrew Jackson showed up to ruin the Creek Confederacy's day. So yeah it does seem you needed at least a little military skill to successfully win.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 03:05:17 PMMy wife had an ancestor who was in the Georgia Militia during the War of 1812 and they kept invading what is today Alabama, getting whipped by the Creek Confederacy, and retreating back to Georgia. This happened a few times (three?) until Andrew Jackson showed up to ruin the Creek Confederacy's day. So yeah it does seem you needed at least a little military skill to successfully win.
Yes, and that is a pattern we can generalize. Settlers encroach, their cattle devastate Indigenous fields, hunters pillage hunting territories, violence ensues. Sure, settlers sometimes organized in de facto armed bands, but these armed bands usually had their successes against already weakened Indigenous polities in spaces of earlier contact. In most cases, the escalation promptly required the involvement of organized military, either to prevent all-out war, or to centrally manage all-out war.
The narrative of "settlers would have taken lands" as some sort of nameless horde of locust has long been a useful narrative that simultaneously portrayed the decline of Indigenous polities as some inevitability of history, and sufficiently diffused responsibility for how said history unfolded. It's also part of a long trend in American history to minimize the role of government (Otto gestured towards that in another thread).
Just run the EUIV simulator package and publish the results.
Okay, so a buddy of mine if a chemist with Enbridge whose duties primarily revolve around line 5 (he has to do with the proper coatings etc of the materials going through the pipeline to ensure the chemistry/stability of the pipeline). Because he's not a bore I've gotten some details from him but despite the fact his entire career hangs in the balance with this dispute he'll mostly talk about normal things.
Part of the problem is that although the pipeline passes through Michigan, Michigan doesn't necessarily get a lot of benefit from it. I mean the Upper Peninsula gets it's supply of heating propane from it, but the large majority passes through Michigan back into Canada in Ontario. Ontario in turn relies on a huge amount of it's petroleum supplies from Line 5. A sudden shutoff would cause massive problems for Ontario (and for my friend). But there would be few repercussions to Michigan itself.
The pipeline is not foolproof. It does pass through an environmentally sensitive area. But it has existed safely for 50+ years. Enbridge is willing to bury the pipeline underground but it won't be done on Whitmer's timeline. But Whitmer doesn't care.
Speaking as an Albertan, it just seems that all of the environmental concerns are a smokescreen. When you dig into the arguments they all eventually come down to climate change - that pipelines need to be shut down in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. I'm not a climate denier - we do need to reduce our use of fossils fuels. But this has always been a demand problem, not a supply problem. You shut down all the pipelines from Alberta it won't do a thing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - the US and eastern Canada will just need to import more saudi oil.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 11, 2021, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 03:05:17 PMMy wife had an ancestor who was in the Georgia Militia during the War of 1812 and they kept invading what is today Alabama, getting whipped by the Creek Confederacy, and retreating back to Georgia. This happened a few times (three?) until Andrew Jackson showed up to ruin the Creek Confederacy's day. So yeah it does seem you needed at least a little military skill to successfully win.
Yes, and that is a pattern we can generalize. Settlers encroach, their cattle devastate Indigenous fields, hunters pillage hunting territories, violence ensues. Sure, settlers sometimes organized in de facto armed bands, but these armed bands usually had their successes against already weakened Indigenous polities in spaces of earlier contact. In most cases, the escalation promptly required the involvement of organized military, either to prevent all-out war, or to centrally manage all-out war.
The narrative of "settlers would have taken lands" as some sort of nameless horde of locust has long been a useful narrative that simultaneously portrayed the decline of Indigenous polities as some inevitability of history, and sufficiently diffused responsibility for how said history unfolded. It's also part of a long trend in American history to minimize the role of government (Otto gestured towards that in another thread).
Are there many cases of indigenous people exterminating settlers or driving them into the sea.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2021, 12:36:26 PM
I don't know how controversial this pipeline or whatever is going on is though. Is this one of those pipelines that enrages native Americans or something?
No, it's one of those pipelines that enrage the hard left and the greens because there is oil&gaz involved.
Which is fine, but as BB notes shutting down pipelines is not going to help with reducing oil and gas usage. You need to work on the demand side.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2021, 01:37:24 PM
Imo, there's a reckoning happening in the RoC right now. They are slowly but surely learning that the Americans do not consider them, well at all.
so, basically, you're saying that Americans consider Canadians the same way the Canadians consider Americans? What a shocker. :P
I suppose Canadians do tend to believe their own propaganda too, like other nations.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 01:46:55 PM
Michigan's declaratory judgment complaint filed in Nov 2020 - seems like this dispute has been going on for a bit now: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf (https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf)
BB talked about it in the Canadian politics thread last fall. Nothing much has changed, except the level of outrage in Canada. Lots of Canada's gaz supplies come from this pipeline.
I guess Canadians do love fossil fuels, as long as the pipelines are elsewhere :P
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 03:01:44 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2021, 02:50:39 PM
History suggests they had the army's help. I will bow to your greater expertise in alt history though. :sleep:
I expect Oex is drawing on examples where European settlers did not have the army's help, and did not succeed, and applying it to the hypothetical you proposed.
And he's assuming they just give up. This is also unlikely. Besides, there were still the governments of Mexico and Britain involved in the general area, settlements could petition them if the US had given up the annexation business.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 02:02:21 PM
Seems to me this dispute would play out exactly the same way it is playing out now. The issue here isn't some kind of anti-Canada xenophobia, it's just the kind of regulatory-commercial conflict that plays out all the time in this country.
the way I understand it, this pipeline is critical for a part of Canada, and the governor acted arbitrarily. Even if you say "oh this has been going for a while", that "a while" is 6-8 months. That's not nearly enough time to build another pipeline or find another way to bring the oil.
But I guess Quebec and Ontario should not complain, no one here wanted another pipeline from the West to the East coast on Canadian soil.
It's easy to posture about the environment when it's not her state that depends on this existing pipeline. And refusing to build a new pipeline is entirely different than ordering a quick shutdown of an existing one with no alternatives in place.
If the situation was reversed and Ontario ordered the closure of a pipeline bringing oil to the US, critical to Michigan State, gov Withmer and American medias would be screaming about how unfair the Canadian governments are.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 02:12:12 PM
The State of Michigan has jurisdiction over the pipeline, concurrently with the federal government. I assume the same would be true for a Canadian Province through which the pipeline travels.
No, it's a Federal issue. The province could say no, but ultimately, if the Feds decide it's being done, it will be done and no amount of lawyering would change that.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2021, 02:38:51 PM
Unlikely. European settlers would still have taken the land without the US army's help.
settlers by themselves weren't numerous and armed well enough to confront the indian tribes by themselves, hence the need for US army intervention, with reinforcements from the East in the first place. There's a dude named Custer who learnt the hard way that the Natives weren't always as defenseless as they appeared.
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2021, 05:44:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 02:02:21 PM
Seems to me this dispute would play out exactly the same way it is playing out now. The issue here isn't some kind of anti-Canada xenophobia, it's just the kind of regulatory-commercial conflict that plays out all the time in this country.
the way I understand it, this pipeline is critical for a part of Canada, and the governor acted arbitrarily. Even if you say "oh this has been going for a while", that "a while" is 6-8 months. That's not nearly enough time to build another pipeline or find another way to bring the oil.
My point is that it is more than enough time to get an injunction from a court to preserve the status quo. It doesn't seem the company tried to do this. Instead it seems the company's strategy seems to be to simply ignore Whitmer's order while pursuing mediation. That raised my eyebrows a bit but I'm sure the company is well represented and getting good advice. In any event, while the company may be exposed to some kind of sanction, there doesn't appear to be any disruption that would impact Canadian national interests, at least at this point.
Quote
If the situation was reversed and Ontario ordered the closure of a pipeline bringing oil to the US, critical to Michigan State, gov Withmer and American medias would be screaming about how unfair the Canadian governments are.
They probably would, but so what?
Anyone who doesn't like what the governor is doing could always just kidnap her.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 01:28:00 PM
The treaty states the pipelines are subject to reasonable regulation by governmental authorities having jurisdiction. There is also a provision for a temporary suspension of all operations in the event of "demonstrable need temporarily to reduce or stop for safety or technical reasons the normal operation of a Transit Pipeline" None of those key terms - "temporary" or "demonstrable need" - are defined, creating some ambiguity.
This looks like a garden variety legal dispute over interpretation of a statute. The Canadian company has the right to go to federal court to get injunctive relief - including emergency injunctive relief if needed. Looks like they would have a decent case.
The Canadian brief now filed in court rather sees it the way I proposed.
"Further, such unilateral action by a single state would impair important U.S. and Canadian foreign policy interests by raising doubts about the capacity of the government of the United States to make and uphold commitments without being undermined by an individual state,"
"Canada's ability to rely on bilateral treaties are at the heart of the U.S.-Canada relationship."
If you are seriously suggesting that it is part of the regulatory function to shut the thing down - then what the point is it to have a treaty with your country to safeguard the pipeline.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 02:02:21 PM
Lets imagine that Embridge is not from Canada but from Oklahoma and instead of an international treaty governing the case, there is just a regular federal statute governing interstate commerce.
Seems to me this dispute would play out exactly the same way it is playing out now. The issue here isn't some kind of anti-Canada xenophobia, it's just the kind of regulatory-commercial conflict that plays out all the time in this country.
The fact that a treaty is in play doesn't change the analysis - a ratified treaty becomes a part of federal law, it doesn't become some kind of magical legal trump card that overrides the entire legal system.
So ignore that this is a international agreement and boundary. Isn't that the core of the problem counselor?
Minsky was saying the provision was in the treaty itself...
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2021, 01:22:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 01:11:00 PM
There was no chance Burnaby had any jurisdiction. Their lawyers must have told them that but they proceeded with spending municipal money on a legal challenge that had no shot (and lost at every level of court). The difference is the Federal government intervened in the proceedings and took the position the municipal government had no role.
You can see some local politicians who are not very sophisticated doin such a thing. But when it happens at the equivalent of a Provincial/State or Federal level, you begin to wonder what is going on.
My expectation is that there'll be conversations on the Federal level between the two countries. Maybe there'll be some interruptions followed by lawsuits and/ or arbitration, or there will be no stoppage followed by lawsuits and/ or arbitration. Neither Canada nor the US are interested in a trade dispute at this point, I don't think, which is where this will lead if Whitmer manages to actually shut the pipeline down for any length of time. I also don't think the US federal government is particularly keen on letting State level politicians enroach on Federal responsibilities like trade agreements and treaties.
So I my expectation is that Whitmer makes some strong statements and maybe there's a bit of an inconvenicence for a few days or weeks at most (with a cost, of course), but that's about it. I could be wrong. But bottom line is that I don't think there's anything particularly Trumpist about local politicians attempting to exceed their remit into foreign affairs for local reasons. Whether it's Trumpist or not (and which larger pattern this may be part of) depends on how everything proceeds after that moment.
I think you are being naive or at best overly hopeful. Why one would have any confidence in the good faith of Americans to uphold their bargains is hard to fathom at this point.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 11, 2021, 05:42:32 PMAnd he's assuming they just give up. This is also unlikely.
Why is it unlikely?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 05:54:48 PM
My point is that it is more than enough time to get an injunction from a court to preserve the status quo. It doesn't seem the company tried to do this. Instead it seems the company's strategy seems to be to simply ignore Whitmer's order while pursuing mediation. That raised my eyebrows a bit but I'm sure the company is well represented and getting good advice. In any event, while the company may be exposed to some kind of sanction, there doesn't appear to be any disruption that would impact Canadian national interests, at least at this point.
Again from my friend I can confirm that Enbridge is paying a lot of money for very expensive legal advice on this topic. Apparently they mostly think they're on solid legal footing, but you never know...
For all the same reasons that historically caused people to migrate to North America?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 06:06:34 PM
I think you are being naive or at best overly hopeful. Why one would have any confidence in the good faith of Americans to uphold their bargains is hard to fathom at this point.
I'm not quite so negative as CC on this point.
But I think we've seen from the Biden administration that while they are certainly less hostile to US allies than under the "former guy", Biden is unwilling to take a hit from being seen as anti-American. So from the buy American rules, to refugee numbers, to this, they're just unwilling spend any political capital for any foreigners (including Canadians).
Whitmer is posturing. Biden does not have to spend political capital at all. He just lets the federal government and judicial systems just operate. Whitmer has no real legal basis to stand on.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2021, 01:05:31 PM
So that is it then - if this isn't resolved in the right way, the alternative is war.
An interesting take.
Let's not be too hasty. We have six options.
https://youtu.be/t3zNCg55kiw?t=182
Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread? It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes. Is this a big issue in Canada?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 07:31:00 PM
Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread? It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes. Is this a big issue in Canada?
I had to search for an article after CC refused to link his source.
Once I found an article, it became clear why he refused to link a source.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 07:31:00 PM
Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread? It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes. Is this a big issue in Canada?
Yes. When the elephant farts, the mouse is always scared.
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2021, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 05:54:48 PM
My point is that it is more than enough time to get an injunction from a court to preserve the status quo. It doesn't seem the company tried to do this. Instead it seems the company's strategy seems to be to simply ignore Whitmer's order while pursuing mediation. That raised my eyebrows a bit but I'm sure the company is well represented and getting good advice. In any event, while the company may be exposed to some kind of sanction, there doesn't appear to be any disruption that would impact Canadian national interests, at least at this point.
Again from my friend I can confirm that Enbridge is paying a lot of money for very expensive legal advice on this topic. Apparently they mostly think they're on solid legal footing, but you never know...
Thinking it through - Michigan seems to be proposing to revoke the easement that gives the pipeline the right of way. Not really my area of knowledge, but I believe the next step would be Michigan would have to take the initiative to get a court order to get the company to vacate; I don't think Michigan could "self-help" on this and start tearing up pipeline. If that's correct, then Enbridge's strategy of ignoring Whitmer's bluster is probably sound and this is really about Whitmer playing to the gallery and establishing a marker in the negotiation with the company. And if all that is true, then I really don't see the broader concern about US foreign policy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2021, 06:02:21 PM
The Canadian brief now filed in court rather sees it the way I proposed.
"Further, such unilateral action by a single state would impair important U.S. and Canadian foreign policy interests by raising doubts about the capacity of the government of the United States to make and uphold commitments without being undermined by an individual state,"
"Canada's ability to rely on bilateral treaties are at the heart of the U.S.-Canada relationship."
That's some good rhetoric for the prelim. Should get the law clerk's attention.
QuoteIf you are seriously suggesting that it is part of the regulatory function to shut the thing down - then what the point is it to have a treaty with your country to safeguard the pipeline.
If you don't want sub-national jurisdictions to be have regulatory authority over the subject matter of a treaty, there is an easy way to handle that: put language in the treaty that removes all such authority from sub-national jurisdictions. This treaty didn't do that. And it's not like a one-way street - both nations are federal.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2021, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 07:31:00 PM
Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread? It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes. Is this a big issue in Canada?
I had to search for an article after CC refused to link his source.
Once I found an article, it became clear why he refused to link a source.
Here's where I posted about this in February, by the way.
I think CC is being a little over-the-top in his rhetoric, but I categorically reject the "this is nothing to worry about" argument.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4648.msg1293677.html#msg1293677
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2021, 07:50:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 07:31:00 PM
Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread? It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes. Is this a big issue in Canada?
Yes. When the elephant farts, the mouse is always scared.
That seems an odd statement when this incident hinges on the speech and actions of a largely irrelevant governor of a minor state.
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2021, 05:44:10 PM
the way I understand it, this pipeline is critical for a part of Canada, and the governor acted arbitrarily. Even if you say "oh this has been going for a while", that "a while" is 6-8 months. That's not nearly enough time to build another pipeline or find another way to bring the oil.
But I guess Quebec and Ontario should not complain, no one here wanted another pipeline from the West to the East coast on Canadian soil.
It's easy to posture about the environment when it's not her state that depends on this existing pipeline. And refusing to build a new pipeline is entirely different than ordering a quick shutdown of an existing one with no alternatives in place.
If the situation was reversed and Ontario ordered the closure of a pipeline bringing oil to the US, critical to Michigan State, gov Withmer and American medias would be screaming about how unfair the Canadian governments are.
The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company. Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage.
The basic dispute is over whether the pipeline company, Enbridge, hasn't done the maintenance required for the pipeline as it passes through the Straits of Mackinac, where it is exposed to strong currents (which sweep away the supporting sediment) and is occasionally damaged by the anchors ships have dropped to prevent themselves from being driven by the currents into shallow water. There have been a series of previous agreements between the state and Enbridge to compel Enbridge to conduct the maintenance and build a tunnel to carry the pipeline completely below the bottom of the straits.
Governor Whitmer apparently campaigned on the promise that she would shut down the pipeline. Nothing indicates to me that this is some conspiracy against "oil and gaz." It seems more a populist attack on a big corporation that has been shirking its responsibilities. I find the main source of the revocation, that the original 1953 easement was itself illegal, to be highly dubious.
I suspect that this is political grandstanding, a time-honored tradition in both the US and Canada. Whitmer can to "keep her promise" while knowing that she cannot really succeed in shutting down a pipeline that has been approved by successive Michigan administrations (with some reservations) for almost seventy years. She'll be able to blame the courts for foiling her well-considered scheme (also a tradition in politics).
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2021, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2021, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2021, 07:31:00 PM
Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread? It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes. Is this a big issue in Canada?
I had to search for an article after CC refused to link his source.
Once I found an article, it became clear why he refused to link a source.
Here's where I posted about this in February, by the way.
I think CC is being a little over-the-top in his rhetoric, but I categorically reject the "this is nothing to worry about" argument.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4648.msg1293677.html#msg1293677
I don't think it is a nothing to worry about argument, it just isn't a "OMG TEH US CANNOT BE TRUSTED AND THIS WILL LEAD TO WAR!" argument.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 12:45:52 AM
I find the main source of the revocation, that the original 1953 easement was itself illegal, to be highly dubious.
The newer complaint the state filed included the claim that the company had violated the easement conditions. That would be legally stronger if the facts could be proven. The allegations seem rather ticky-tacky though: for example, they don't allege the pipeline is structural unsound, they allege the company hasn't facilitated testing of its soundness.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 12:45:52 AM
The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company. Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage.
Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.
The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario. Canada is highly involved. So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 08:48:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 12:45:52 AM
I find the main source of the revocation, that the original 1953 easement was itself illegal, to be highly dubious.
The newer complaint the state filed included the claim that the company had violated the easement conditions. That would be legally stronger if the facts could be proven. The allegations seem rather ticky-tacky though: for example, they don't allege the pipeline is structural unsound, they allege the company hasn't facilitated testing of its soundness.
In fairness (which may well be too generous in this case) it's a bit late to wait until it actually is structurally unsound.
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 10:14:59 AM
Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.
The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario. Canada is highly involved. So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141
Enbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware. And of course Canada is going to take a position in the lawsuit. I would not, however, classify filing an amicus brief as being "highly involved." Greatly concerned, yes.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 10:14:59 AM
Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.
The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario. Canada is highly involved. So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141
Enbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware. And of course Canada is going to take a position in the lawsuit. I would not, however, classify filing an amicus brief as being "highly involved." Greatly concerned, yes.
:lol:
You're so full of shit grumbler - don't ever change. :hug:
Enbridge of course does have a series of interconnected companies. And no doubt some of them are incorporated in the US - maybe even Delaware.
But the top company, Enbridge Inc., is incorporated in Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
I can't link directly to it because of some "prove you're human" captchas, but go to sedar.com, search for Enbridge Inc., go to their annual report filed March 21, 2021, go to page 6 which is the start of their Form 10-K. One of the first entries is "Canada - State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization".
Hell you can also go right to Enbridge's website and see copies of their original certificate of incorporation (under the CBCA. https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Governance/CG_EI_Articles_and_amendments.pdf?la=en
(now this is 600+ pages of documents that I haven't gone through all of them which is why I went to SEDAR and the Annual Report, but the first 60 pages are all consistent with it being a CBCA corporation)
And for all of which I'm not trying to say that Enbridge is a Canadian company - but when you said "The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company. Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage." you were just flatly wrong.
Good luck getting an admission of THAT.
Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian registered company with its HQ in Calgary.
However, the entities that own and control the pipeline do appear to be Delaware registered companies, at least according to the the State of Michigan's complaint (see paras 7-10):
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf
FWIW the pipeline operations appear to run out of an office building in Texas, which is listed as the address for the Enbridge entities at issue.
To see it put: 5400 WESTHEIMER CT HOUSTON, TX 77056 USA into google maps or whatever.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2021, 07:51:58 PM
Thinking it through - Michigan seems to be proposing to revoke the easement that gives the pipeline the right of way. Not really my area of knowledge, but I believe the next step would be Michigan would have to take the initiative to get a court order to get the company to vacate; I don't think Michigan could "self-help" on this and start tearing up pipeline. If that's correct, then Enbridge's strategy of ignoring Whitmer's bluster is probably sound and this is really about Whitmer playing to the gallery and establishing a marker in the negotiation with the company. And if all that is true, then I really don't see the broader concern about US foreign policy.
Whitmer is threatening to seek disgorgement of profits if her order is ignored - https://apnews.com/article/canada-environment-and-nature-business-5c5a2b17c51f1700aa6d29c970d078f2 - so I will take that as confirming my supposition above.
The pipeline operation is not at risk; there is no prospect of a shutdown and the consequent parade of horribles. Just a typical commercial squabble. Tempest in teapot.
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 10:28:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 10:14:59 AM
Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.
The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario. Canada is highly involved. So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141
Enbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware. And of course Canada is going to take a position in the lawsuit. I would not, however, classify filing an amicus brief as being "highly involved." Greatly concerned, yes.
:lol:
You're so full of shit grumbler - don't ever change. :hug:
Enbridge of course does have a series of interconnected companies. And no doubt some of them are incorporated in the US - maybe even Delaware.
But the top company, Enbridge Inc., is incorporated in Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
I can't link directly to it because of some "prove you're human" captchas, but go to sedar.com, search for Enbridge Inc., go to their annual report filed March 21, 2021, go to page 6 which is the start of their Form 10-K. One of the first entries is "Canada - State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization".
Hell you can also go right to Enbridge's website and see copies of their original certificate of incorporation (under the CBCA. https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Governance/CG_EI_Articles_and_amendments.pdf?la=en
(now this is 600+ pages of documents that I haven't gone through all of them which is why I went to SEDAR and the Annual Report, but the first 60 pages are all consistent with it being a CBCA corporation)
And for all of which I'm not trying to say that Enbridge is a Canadian company - but when you said "The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company. Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage." you were just flatly wrong.
:lmfao:
I'll bet you never even read the actual filing by Michigan, did you? You just jumped to the conclusions you desired and went straight into ad hom mode. Don't ever change, BB. :hug: Just consult a legal expert every once in a while when posting about this kind of stuff.
From that filing:
QuoteENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, ENBRIDGE ENERGY
COMPANY, INC., and ENBRIDGE ENERGY
PARTNERS, L.P.,
Defendants.
See any mention of your precious Enbridge Inc there? No? Then how can they be relevant to the case?
Quote7. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership is a Delaware limited partnership conducting business in Michigan. Upon information and belief, it is the successor in interest to the Grantee of the 1953 Easement, Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc.
8. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Michigan.
9. Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership conducting business in Michigan.
10. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., and Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (collectively "Enbridge") control and operate the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline that extends from Superior, Wisconsin, across the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, crosses the Straits of Mackinac through the Straits Pipelines portion of Line 5, and continues through the Lower Peninsula to Marysville, Michigan and then crosses beneath the St. Clair River to Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.
Enbridge, Inc is not mentioned as one of the parties, either.
So, whose argument is "full of shit," here?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian registered company with its HQ in Calgary.
However, the entities that own and control the pipeline do appear to be Delaware registered companies, at least according to the the State of Michigan's complaint (see paras 7-10):
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf
Sure. I have neither the time or inclination to parse out the finer details of Enbridge's overall corporate governance structure. I acknowledged that Enbridge almost certainly had some US subsidiaries that might well be incorporated in Delaware - which turns out to be correct.
But the overall structure / governance of "Enbridge" has a very large Canadian component. Like I said my buddy, based here in Edmonton, works primarily or even entirely on Line 5. Trying to write this off as some internal american squabble that doesn't involve Canada (except as a sufferer of collateral damage) is not accurate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 01:26:12 PM
FWIW the pipeline operations appear to run out of an office building in Texas, which is listed as the address for the Enbridge entities at issue.
To see it put: 5400 WESTHEIMER CT HOUSTON, TX 77056 USA into google maps or whatever.
The Texas-Alberta axis to dominate the world's energy supply is well known.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 01:40:40 PM
See any mention of your precious Enbridge Inc there? No? Then how can they be relevant to the case?
Enbridge Inc. is the mother company. It owns all these different subsidiaries, no doubt done to maximize tax savings or some other corporate governance reason.
Here's (right from Enbridge Inc.'s website) is a nice map showing you the pipelines that Enbridge Inc. owns. The astute amongst you will note that it includes Line 5.
https://www.enbridge.com/Map.aspx#map:infrastructure,crudeInfrastructure
Oh and here's a direct link to Enbridge Inc's 2020 Annual report (the one I mentioned earlier but gave complicated directions to find).
https://www.enbridge.com/investment-center/reports-and-sec-filings/~/media/Enb/Documents/Investor%20Relations/2021/ENB_2020_Annual_Report.pdf
IF you search for "Line 5" you'll find of course it gets extensively discussed as an ongoing legal risk.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 01:20:34 PM
Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian registered company with its HQ in Calgary.
However, the entities that own and control the pipeline do appear to be Delaware registered companies, at least according to the the State of Michigan's complaint (see paras 7-10):
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf (https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf)
Quebecor is a Quebec company, formed and operated in Montreal. Yet, it is registered in Delaware.
Many companies are officially registered in the Caiman islands, Brisith Virgin island and other such nice places, yet not many company executives live there all year long. ;)
Basically, where the company is registered means nothing about where it's really from.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 01:40:40 PM
See any mention of your precious Enbridge Inc there? No? Then how can they be relevant to the case?
One of the named entities is a limited partnership and another is an LLC. So the question is who is the general partner of the LP and who is the managing (or sole) member of the LLC? Just a guess but if it isn't the Inc itself it's probably an entity controlled by the Inc.
Anyways I think the inquiry is a non sequitur. This is a binational company that may be HQed in Canada but has tons of employees and shareholders in the US and a bunch of US board members. There are people on the US side of the border ripping Whitmer and there are enviros and First Nations folk on the Canadian side cheering her on. Trudeau didn't file an amicus because the corporate stationery has a Calgary address, he filed because the operation of the pipeline impacts Canadian interests. For all he cares the company could be run in Antarctica by Martians.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 01:40:40 PM
See any mention of your precious Enbridge Inc there? No? Then how can they be relevant to the case?
One of the named entities is a limited partnership and another is an LLC. So the question is who is the general partner of the LP and who is the managing (or sole) member of the LLC? Just a guess but if it isn't the Inc itself it's probably an entity controlled by the Inc.
Anyways I think the inquiry is a non sequitur. This is a binational company that may be HQed in Canada but has tons of employees and shareholders in the US and a bunch of US board members. There are people on the US side of the border ripping Whitmer and there are enviros and First Nations folk on the Canadian side cheering her on. Trudeau didn't file an amicus because the corporate stationery has a Calgary address, he filed because the operation of the pipeline impacts Canadian interests. For all he cares the company could be run in Antarctica by Martians.
Well despite what some of my fellow capital-c Conservatives might think I'd like to hope that Trudeau would look out for a multi-billion dollar company that is headquartered in Calgary... :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2021, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 01:40:40 PM
See any mention of your precious Enbridge Inc there? No? Then how can they be relevant to the case?
One of the named entities is a limited partnership and another is an LLC. So the question is who is the general partner of the LP and who is the managing (or sole) member of the LLC? Just a guess but if it isn't the Inc itself it's probably an entity controlled by the Inc.
Anyways I think the inquiry is a non sequitur. This is a binational company that may be HQed in Canada but has tons of employees and shareholders in the US and a bunch of US board members. There are people on the US side of the border ripping Whitmer and there are enviros and First Nations folk on the Canadian side cheering her on. Trudeau didn't file an amicus because the corporate stationery has a Calgary address, he filed because the operation of the pipeline impacts Canadian interests. For all he cares the company could be run in Antarctica by Martians.
That's my point. The defendants named in the case are not Canadian legal entities, they are American legal entities. But the case heavily impacts Canada, so naturally they are going to file an amicus brief. That doesn't mean, though, that they are "heavily involved" in the case. At least, not yet. I could see them becoming heavily involved if the ruling on the easement goes against the defendants (i.e. that the Canadian government make a formal protest to the US government, rather than just filing amicus briefs).
First BB say "You're so full of shit grumbler" and then, when his position is proven false, he argues that he say he has "neither the time or inclination to parse out the finer details of Enbridge's overall corporate governance structure," though, of course, that governing structure has nothing to do with the case. No concession that no Canadian company is, in fact, a defendant in the case, just a lot of red herrings about what maps the parent company has on their website.
In any case, I don't see how Whitmer's administration can win this one. Their proposed remedy is way out of line with the claimed harm. But I'm not sure the suit is intended to be won, so much as it is to pressure the defendants to concede on some maintenance and replacement issues, while feeding her base with the "stand up against the big companies" image.
I just wanted to review what happened here because it's such a languish exchange.
Quote from: grumblerThe dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company. Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage.
I immediately know that Enbridge is emphatically not "an American pipeline operating company", so I reply gently.
Quote from: BarristerEnbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.
But grumbler isn't going to accept a simple correction on a minor point!
Quote from: grumblerEnbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware.
I see now what's happened. There's no particular reason to know about some big pipeline company. I mean it's a big employer in Alberta, but across the continent there's no reason to have really heard of it. So grumbler read the Michigan lawsuit and thinks he's found the big answer to me without knowing anything more about the situation.
At this point I start providing links - I think the most convincing of which was Enbridge's annual report https://www.enbridge.com/investment-center/reports-and-sec-filings/~/media/Enb/Documents/Investor%20Relations/2021/ENB_2020_Annual_Report.pdf which lists Enbridge Inc as being incorporated in Canada, being headquartered in Canada, and owning Line 5 which is the subject of the lawsuit.
So now grumbler tries to move the goalposts. Whereas before he said "Enbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware", now he wants to pretend that all along he meant only the subsidiaries.
Quote from: grumblerThat's my point. The defendants named in the case are not Canadian legal entities, they are American legal entities. But the case heavily impacts Canada, so naturally they are going to file an amicus brief. That doesn't mean, though, that they are "heavily involved" in the case. At least, not yet. I could see them becoming heavily involved if the ruling on the easement goes against the defendants (i.e. that the Canadian government make a formal protest to the US government, rather than just filing amicus briefs).
First BB say "You're so full of shit grumbler" and then, when his position is proven false, he argues that he say he has "neither the time or inclination to parse out the finer details of Enbridge's overall corporate governance structure," though, of course, that governing structure has nothing to do with the case. No concession that no Canadian company is, in fact, a defendant in the case, just a lot of red herrings about what maps the parent company has on their website.
But what's most amazing is that the jurisdiction a corporation is incorporated in has absolutely nothing to do with anything! As viper pointed out a company can be incorporated just about anywhere. Even if Enbridge Inc was incorporated in Delaware (although remember - it isn't) that doesn't make it "an American pipeline operating company".
This is a lawsuit wherein a large multinational corporation based in both Canada and the US is being sued in Michigan. End of story.
If grumbler is offended that I said he was "full of shit" I apologize. While it's not exactly a compliment, I understood it do just be a colorful way of saying "you don't know what you're talking about".
Good luck with the de-escalation attempt Beeb. We'll see how it goes :hug:
Beeb, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that Enbridge is not a single corporation, but a whole series of interconnected corporations, exactly as I said. Enbridge, Incorporated (incorporated in Canada) is not Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Incorporated, nor Enbridge Energy Partners LLC, all incorporated in Delaware and the latter three the defendants in this case. All of them are called Enbridge, but they are not all the same. The latter three own and operate the pipeline in question, and are presumably owned in some part by Enbridge Incorporated.
Enbridge Incorporated is not the defendant in the lawsuit. I've quoted the filing itself, which you seem to believe is not relevant because you think it is in contradiction of the company's web page.
If you have reason to believe that Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Incorporated, and Enbridge Energy Partners LP don't exist or are not incorporated in the US, or that they don't own and operate the pipeline in question, I'd be glad to see the evidence that supports your reason. The judge in the case probably would as well, as well as the Canadian government, which in the amicus brief https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/nrcan-rncan/documents/GOC%20Amicus%20-%20FINAL.pdf (https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/nrcan-rncan/documents/GOC%20Amicus%20-%20FINAL.pdf) listed the same defendants as I did.
As for the assertion that "what's most amazing is that the jurisdiction a corporation is incorporated in has absolutely nothing to do with anything!," the web page you yourself claim is authoritative says on page 7 that
QuoteEnbridge Inc., a corporation existing under the Canada Business Corporations Act, qualifies as a foreign private issuer in the United States of America (US) for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act)
They seem to believe that where they are incorporated has something to do with something.
Quote from: Barrister on May 12, 2021, 11:00:43 AM
I can't link directly to it because of some "prove you're human" captchas
Am I the only one worried that Beeb admitting to being a bot?
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2021, 09:09:47 PM
Beeb, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that Enbridge is not a single corporation, but a whole series of interconnected corporations, exactly as I said. Enbridge, Incorporated (incorporated in Canada) is not Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Incorporated, nor Enbridge Energy Partners LLC, all incorporated in Delaware and the latter three the defendants in this case. All of them are called Enbridge, but they are not all the same. The latter three own and operate the pipeline in question, and are presumably owned in some part by Enbridge Incorporated.
Enbridge Incorporated is not the defendant in the lawsuit. I've quoted the filing itself, which you seem to believe is not relevant because you think it is in contradiction of the company's web page.
If you have reason to believe that Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Incorporated, and Enbridge Energy Partners LP don't exist or are not incorporated in the US, or that they don't own and operate the pipeline in question, I'd be glad to see the evidence that supports your reason. The judge in the case probably would as well, as well as the Canadian government, which in the amicus brief https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/nrcan-rncan/documents/GOC%20Amicus%20-%20FINAL.pdf (https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/nrcan-rncan/documents/GOC%20Amicus%20-%20FINAL.pdf) listed the same defendants as I did.
As for the assertion that "what's most amazing is that the jurisdiction a corporation is incorporated in has absolutely nothing to do with anything!," the web page you yourself claim is authoritative says on page 7 that
QuoteEnbridge Inc., a corporation existing under the Canada Business Corporations Act, qualifies as a foreign private issuer in the United States of America (US) for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act)
They seem to believe that where they are incorporated has something to do with something.
:lol:
I'm pretty sure you'll wear me down from your sheer obstinacy, but not tonight! Don't ever change grumbles!
All of the companies mentioned are owned/controlled by Enbridge Inc. You can tell that through Enbridge's SEC 10-K filing which I posted to. It has other business interests which it only has partial ownership, but those are spelled out. The 10-K filing is not some advertising puffery (you try to dismiss it as the "company's webpage") - it's a document required by the SEC to be filed each year under penalty of prosecution if it materially misstates facts.
The jurisdiction a public company is registered in has almost nothing to do with anything. If you wish, take victory from me adding the word almost - my gift to you. :hug:
From the SEC's website on foreign private issuers:
QuoteII. Foreign Private Issuer Status
A key consideration for a foreign company is whether it qualifies as a foreign private issuer as defined in Rule 405 of Regulation C under the Securities Act and Rule 3b-4 under the Exchange Act. If a company does not qualify as a foreign private issuer, it is subject to the same registration and disclosure requirements applicable to domestic U.S. entities.
A. Definition and Determination of Eligibility
There are two tests to determine whether a foreign company qualifies as a foreign private issuer: the first relates to the relative degree of its U.S. share ownership, and the second relates to the level of its U.S. business contacts. Foreign private issuer status is not determined solely by the country in which a company is organized. Companies organized under the laws of a foreign country that have certain characteristics that make them substantially similar to U.S. companies will not be considered foreign private issuers. In contrast, a company that is incorporated in a state, territory, or possession of the United States can never qualify as a foreign private issuer, regardless of the location of its shareholders, assets, or management.
A foreign company will qualify as a foreign private issuer if 50% or less of its outstanding voting securities are held by U.S. residents; or if more than 50% of its outstanding voting securities are held by U.S. residents and none of the following three circumstances applies: the majority of its executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents; more than 50% of the issuer's assets are located in the United States; or the issuer's business is administered principally in the United States. These tests are found in Securities Act Rule 405 and Exchange Act Rule 3b-4.
If a foreign company determines that 50% or less of its outstanding voting securities are held by U.S. residents, it would qualify as a foreign private issuer and it need not consider the second test relating to business contacts. If a foreign company, however, determines that over 50% of its outstanding voting securities are held by U.S. residents, the foreign company must consider the extent of its U.S. business contacts. The tests are discussed further below.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml#II
And it goes on from there in the link. Merely being incorporated in a foreign country does not make one a foreign private issuer.
I will re-assert my my disagreement with you. Enbridge is demonstrably not an "American pipeline operating company". Rather, this is a lawsuit wherein a large multinational corporation (Enbridge) based in both Canada and the US is being sued in Michigan. End of story.
Beeb, you obviously cannot be convinced by evidence or arguments, so I'm done here. Anybody can look up who the defendants are in this case. I stand by my statement.
BB:
+ I agree it's likely all the defendant entities in the Michigan case are ultimately controlled by the Canadian Inc. It's not clear to me where day-to-day management of those entities is handled; best guess would be Houston based on the filings.
+ The statement "[t]he jurisdiction a public company is registered in has almost nothing to do with anything" goes way too far. The place of registration has very big implications for the law that applies to internal affairs of the company - including big stuff like the scope and nature of fiduciary obligations. In the US, the place of registration of a corp. also confers general jurisdiction, which means that any claim against the corp can be brought in the state even if that state has no other connection to the claim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2021, 10:12:11 AM
BB:
+ I agree it's likely all the defendant entities in the Michigan case are ultimately controlled by the Canadian Inc. It's not clear to me where day-to-day management of those entities is handled; best guess would be Houston based on the filings.
+ The statement "[t]he jurisdiction a public company is registered in has almost nothing to do with anything" goes way too far. The place of registration has very big implications for the law that applies to internal affairs of the company - including big stuff like the scope and nature of fiduciary obligations. In the US, the place of registration of a corp. also confers general jurisdiction, which means that any claim against the corp can be brought in the state even if that state has no other connection to the claim.
Yeah, but we are talking about an international legal dispute here. Not an internal shareholders dispute. The fact that one of the companies within this corporate structure is registered in Delaware is meaningless in the context of this case. Grumbler made a statement that was wrong, could not back down and there is really no way to put lipstick on that pig.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2021, 10:12:11 AM
(snip)
+ The statement "[t]he jurisdiction a public company is registered in has almost nothing to do with anything" goes way too far. The place of registration has very big implications for the law that applies to internal affairs of the company - including big stuff like the scope and nature of fiduciary obligations. In the US, the place of registration of a corp. also confers general jurisdiction, which means that any claim against the corp can be brought in the state even if that state has no other connection to the claim.
Indeed. The SEC itself notes that
Quotea company that is incorporated in a state, territory, or possession of the United States can never qualify as a foreign private issuer, regardless of the location of its shareholders, assets, or management.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml#II (https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml#II)
It seems that the jurisdiction of incorporation does, indeed, impact more than just internal matters. Enbridge Incorporated is incorporated in Canada and is a a foreign private issuer, per their own website. Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Incorporated, and Enbridge Energy Partners LP cannot be foreign private issuers, based on where they were incorporated (a state of the United States).
There is really no way to put lipstick on that pig.
The etnire grumbler-BB dispute is making a mountain out of a molehill that was making a mountain out of a molehill to begin with.
Whether BB is right OR grumbler is right (and I think they are both, essentially, "right" in how they are looking at it) the basic point grumbler was making is still valid, at least insofar as I understand the overall point he was making:
This is not some international dispute between treaty signatories that signals the United States disdain for treaty obligations, and hence the entire point of the OP is, well.....just more bullshit hyperbole whining.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2021, 10:12:11 AM
BB:
+ I agree it's likely all the defendant entities in the Michigan case are ultimately controlled by the Canadian Inc. It's not clear to me where day-to-day management of those entities is handled; best guess would be Houston based on the filings.
This is where I have inside information however. My friend, who works for Enbridge here in Edmonton, who does a lot of work on Line 5.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2021, 10:58:00 AM
This is not some international dispute between treaty signatories that signals the United States disdain for treaty obligations, and hence the entire point of the OP is, well.....just more bullshit hyperbole whining.
Precisely my point. This is not a new dispute, nor an international one (except insofar as the American corporations involved may be wholly or partially owned by a Canadian company). It is an escalation of a long-standing dispute that already has resulted in three legal settlements over the span of almost three-quarters of a century. It certainly affects Canada, and the Canadian government's interest (and appeal to the pipeline treaty) is understandable and practically required.
But there's no "Trumpism" involved here, and I think that the chances that the Whitmer administration prevails here is tiny (and, I suspect, it knew that before it filed the suit). I lack the information to tell for sure whether this is political grandstanding (which would be my guess) or merely staking a position prior to negotiation or arbitration (which I think is JR's guess).
That's as close as you're gonna get to an admission beebs. I'd take it and run.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2021, 10:51:47 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2021, 10:12:11 AM
(snip)
+ The statement "[t]he jurisdiction a public company is registered in has almost nothing to do with anything" goes way too far. The place of registration has very big implications for the law that applies to internal affairs of the company - including big stuff like the scope and nature of fiduciary obligations. In the US, the place of registration of a corp. also confers general jurisdiction, which means that any claim against the corp can be brought in the state even if that state has no other connection to the claim.
Indeed. The SEC itself notes thatQuotea company that is incorporated in a state, territory, or possession of the United States can never qualify as a foreign private issuer, regardless of the location of its shareholders, assets, or management.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml#II (https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/internatl/foreign-private-issuers-overview.shtml#II)
It seems that the jurisdiction of incorporation does, indeed, impact more than just internal matters. Enbridge Incorporated is incorporated in Canada and is a a foreign private issuer, per their own website. Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Incorporated, and Enbridge Energy Partners LP cannot be foreign private issuers, based on where they were incorporated (a state of the United States).
There is really no way to put lipstick on that pig.
"Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Incorporated, and Enbridge Energy Partners LP" can not be foreign private issuers for a far more fundamental reason - they are not public companies.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 13, 2021, 11:51:58 AM
That's as close as you're gonna get to an admission beebs. I'd take it and run.
May 13th. Mark it down in your calendars.
It is really hopeless BB, an American Governor takes an action which is a violation of a Treaty between the US and Canada and the usual American suspects disjoint themselves into silly looking knots trying to make it something else.
There is definitely something hopeless here.
Bigotry is always sad to see.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2021, 01:13:26 PM
There is definitely something hopeless here.
Bigotry is always sad to see.
I don't know why we give him so much oxygen.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2021, 01:13:26 PM
There is definitely something hopeless here.
Bigotry is always sad to see.
Indeed. But what is even more sad is when Americans rally around a clear violation of international law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2021, 01:13:26 PM
There is definitely something hopeless here.
Bigotry is always sad to see.
Indeed. But what is even more sad is when Americans rally around a clear violation of international law.
Right. So clear. Everything is always so clear to you. Funny...that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
Indeed. But what is even more sad is when Americans rally around a clear violation of international law.
It's a bilateral commercial treaty not the Hague Convention. Of all possible issues of principle, the sacred right to pump hydrocarbons through a metal tube is not the one I would stake my stand on but YMMV.
This is about an agreement between two countries and there is a dispute about the meaning and scope that agreement. It's a contract dispute. And it is being treated by all sides in the normal and accepted manner of such disputes, in accordance with the law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2021, 01:54:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2021, 01:13:26 PM
There is definitely something hopeless here.
Bigotry is always sad to see.
Indeed. But what is even more sad is when Americans rally around a clear violation of international law.
Canadians are rallying around that "clear violation of international law" as well, so your smug bigotry is misplaced.
QuoteANISHINABEK NATION HEAD OFFICE, ON, May 6, 2021 /CNW/ - Anishinabek Nation leadership are disappointed with the federal government's opposition to the closure of Line 5 in Michigan noting that this ignores the long-standing cross-border commitment to protect the Great Lakes via the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
"It is upsetting to see that the Government of Canada will pick and choose which treaties to uphold based on convenience and profit, rather than in good faith for the health, safety, and well-being of all inhabitants of these lands," states Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Glen Hare. "The Government of Canada is not upholding the treaties made with the First Nations, but will uphold the 1977 treaty for Pipelines...
As First Nations people, we have direct responsibility to protect water and a deep spiritual connection with water. Should anything that's being transported in these 67-year-old pipelines get into the Great Lakes, it would have devastating effects and irreparable consequences," says Grand Council Chief Hare. "We stand in solidarity with our relatives on the other side of the Medicine Line who are working relentlessly to protect our Great Lakes. Those in positions of power who can put an end to this environmental threat need to step up and help us in our efforts to protect our water sources."
QuoteThe Anishinabek Nation is a political advocate for 39 member First Nations across Ontario, representing approximately 65,000 citizens. The Anishinabek Nation is the oldest political organization in Ontario and can trace its roots back to the Confederacy of Three Fires, which existed long before European contact.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/anishinabek-nation-leadership-supports-shut-down-of-line-5-pipeline-841152299.html (https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/anishinabek-nation-leadership-supports-shut-down-of-line-5-pipeline-841152299.html)
Are they getting uppity and snobbish again.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2021, 12:55:16 AM
Are they getting uppity and snobbish again.
Not "they" but "he."
Not "again," but "still."
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2021, 12:55:16 AM
Are they getting uppity and snobbish again.
The Anishinabek? No, not really. Why?