Business
Enbridge to pay Bad River band $5.1M in Line 5 profits, move pipeline by 2026: judge
This June 29, 2018 photo shows tanks at the Enbridge Energy terminal in Superior, Wisc. A U.S. judge in that state has ordered the Calgary-based energy giant to pay an Indigenous band US$5.1 million and to remove the Line 5 pipeline from the band’s property within three years. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP-Jim Mone
By James McCarten in Washington
Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. must pay an Indigenous band in Wisconsin more than US$5 million in Line 5 profits and relocate the controversial cross-border pipeline within the next three years, a U.S. judge says.
A rupture on territory that belongs to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa would constitute a clear public nuisance under federal law, district court Judge William Conley said in a decision late Friday.
But while the order affirms that Enbridge has been trespassing on Bad River land since 2013, when certain permits for the 70-year-old pipeline were allowed to lapse, it stops short of causing “economic havoc” with an immediate shutdown.
“The use of trespass on a few parcels to drive the effective closure of all of Line 5 has always been about a tail wagging a much larger dog,” Conley writes in his opinion.
In other words, there are “much larger public policy issues” surrounding cross-border pipelines like Line 5 that the band’s arguments, while valid, lack the power to overcome, he said.
Those issues “involve not only the sovereign rights of the band, but the rights of multiple states and international relations between the United States and Canada.”
Enbridge has already agreed to reroute the line, an essential energy conduit for much of the U.S. Midwest as well as Ontario and Quebec. But Conley wants that project completed more quickly than currently planned.
“Considering all the evidence, the court cannot countenance an infinite delay or even justify what would amount to a five-year forced easement with little realistic prospect of a reroute proceeding even then,” he wrote.
“The court will give Enbridge an additional three years to complete a reroute. If Enbridge fails to do so, the three years will at least give the public and other affected market players time to adjust to a permanent closure of Line 5.”
Enbridge’s lawyers continue to dispute the finding that the company is trespassing on Indigenous territory and intend to appeal the decision, and may also request a stay pending its outcome, said spokesperson Juli Kellner.
“Enbridge’s position has long been that a 1992 contract between Enbridge and the band provides legal permission for the line to remain in its current location,” Kellner said.
“Timely government permit approvals” would be necessary to complete the reroute within three years, while relocating the pipe currently on Bad River territory would take about a year, she added.
Any shutdown before then “would jeopardize the delivery of reliable and affordable energy to U.S. and Canadian families and businesses, disrupt local and regional economies, and violate the Transit Pipeline Treaty.”
Talks between the two countries have been ongoing for months under the terms of that treaty, a 1977 agreement that effectively prohibits either side from unilaterally closing off the flow of hydrocarbons.
In prior court documents, Enbridge has accused the band of being focused on a single outcome: the permanent closure of the pipeline on their territory “while refusing much less extreme alternative measures.”
The band argues that several weeks of spring flooding along the Bad River has washed away so much of the riverbank and supporting terrain that a breach is “imminent” and a shutdown order more than justified.
Enbridge insists the dangers are being overstated — and even if they were real, the company’s court-ordered contingency plan, which spells out the steps it would take, would be a far more rational solution.
Conley’s order Friday included tweaks to that plan to establish a more “conservative” threshold for the conditions that would trigger it, such as lower water levels and flow rates on the river.
“The court is particularly concerned that Enbridge’s plan does not account for inevitable delays that could occur due to weather conditions, supply and equipment problems and human error.”
Enbridge has also been rebuffed repeatedly in its efforts to perform remedial work on the site, which would include using sandbags and trees to fortify the riverbanks —decisions the band has defended as its sovereign right.
Heavy flooding that began in early April washed away significant portions of the riverbank where Line 5 intersects the Bad River, a meandering, 120-kilometre course that feeds Lake Superior and a complex network of ecologically delicate wetlands.
The band has been in court with Enbridge since 2019 in an effort to compel the pipeline’s owner and operator to reroute Line 5 around its traditional territory — something the company has already agreed to do.
But the flooding has turned a theoretical risk into a very real one, the band argued, and time is now of the essence.
Line 5 meets the river just past a location the court has come to know as the “meander,” where the riverbed snakes back and forth multiple times, separated from itself only by several metres of forest and the pipeline itself.
But it was clear both from Friday’s order and an in-person hearing last month, when Conley openly questioned the band’s motives, that he faults the band for rejecting Enbridge’s proposed plans to mitigate the danger.
“The band has refused to approve any of Enbridge’s remediation and prevention proposals, much less proposed even one project of its own to prevent or at least slow further erosion at the meander,” he wrote.
The neighbouring state of Michigan, led by Attorney General Dana Nessel, has been waging its own war against Line 5, fearing a leak in the Straits of Mackinac, the ecologically delicate waterway where the pipeline crosses the Great Lakes.
The economic arguments against shutting down the pipeline, which carries 540,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids daily across Wisconsin and Michigan to refineries in Sarnia, Ont., are by now well-known.
Line 5’s defenders, which include the federal government, say a shutdown would cause major economic disruption across the Prairies and the U.S. Midwest, where it provides feedstock to refineries in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
It also supplies key refining facilities in Ontario and Quebec, and is vital to the production of jet fuel for major airports on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border, including Detroit Metropolitan and Pearson International in Toronto.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 17, 2023.
From the Fraser Institute
By Grady Munro, Milagros Palacios and Jason Clemens
The sudden resignation of federal finance minister (and deputy prime minister) Chrystia Freeland, hours before the government was scheduled to release its fall economic update has thrown an already badly underperforming government into crisis. In her letter of resignation, Freeland criticized the government, and indirectly the prime minister, for “costly political gimmicks” and irresponsible handling of the country’s finances and economy during a period of great uncertainty.
But while Freeland’s criticism of recent poorly-designed federal policies is valid, her resignation, in some ways, tries to reshape her history into that of a more responsible finance minister. That is, however, ultimately an empirical question. If we contrast the performance of the last four long-serving (more than three years) federal finance ministers—Paul Martin (Liberal), Jim Flaherty (Conservative), Bill Morneau (Liberal) and Freeland (Liberal)—it’s clear that neither Freeland nor her predecessor (Morneau) were successful finance ministers in terms of imposing fiscal discipline or overseeing a strong Canadian economy.
Let’s first consider the most basic measure of economic performance, growth in per-person gross domestic product (GDP), adjusted for inflation. This is a broad measure of living standards that gauges the value of all goods and services produced in the economy adjusted for the population and inflation. The chart below shows the average annual growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP over the course of each finance minister’s term. (Adjustments are made to reflect the effects of temporary recessions or unique aspects of each minister’s tenure to make it easier to compare the performances of each finance minister.)
Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0222-01; 2024 Fall Economic Statement
By far Paul Martin oversaw the strongest growth in per-person GDP, with an average annual increase of 2.4 per cent. Over his entire tenure spanning a decade, living standards rose more than 25 per cent.
The average annual increase in per-person GDP under Flaherty was 0.6 per cent, although that includes the financial recession of 2008-09. If we adjust the data for the recession, average annual growth in per-person GDP was 1.4 per cent, still below Martin but more than double the rate if the effects of the recession are included.
During Bill Morneau’s term, average annual growth in per-person GDP was -0.5 per cent, although this includes the effects of the COVID recession. If we adjust to exclude 2020, Morneau averaged a 0.7 per cent annual increase—half the adjusted average annual growth rate under Flaherty.
Finally, Chrystia Freeland averaged annual growth in per-person GDP of -0.3 per cent during her tenure. And while the first 18 or so months of her time as finance minister, from the summer of 2020 through 2021, were affected by the COVID recession and the subsequent rebound, the average annual rate of per-person GDP growth was -0.2 per cent during her final three years. Consequently, at the time of her resignation from cabinet in 2024, Canadian living standards are projected to be 1.8 per cent lower than they were in 2019.
Let’s now consider some basic fiscal measures.
Martin is by far the strongest performing finance minister across almost every metric. Faced with a looming fiscal crisis brought about by decades of deficits and debt accumulation, he reduced spending both in nominal terms and as a share of the economy. For example, after adjusting for inflation, per-person spending on federal programs dropped by 5.9 per cent during his tenure as finance minister (see chart below). As a result, the federal government balanced the budget and lowered the national debt, ultimately freeing up resources via lower interest costs for personal and business tax relief that made the country more competitive and improved incentives for entrepreneurs, businessowners, investors and workers.
*Note: Freeland’s term began in 2020, but given the influence of COVID, 2019 is utilized as the baseline for the overall change in spending. Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0130-01; Fiscal Reference Tables 2024; 2024 Fall Economic Statement
Flaherty’s record as finance minister is mixed, in part due to the recession of 2008-09. Per-person program spending (inflation adjusted) increased by 11.6 per cent, and there was a slight (0.6 percentage point) increase in spending as a share of the economy. Debt also increased as a share of the economy, although again, much of the borrowing during Flaherty’s tenure was linked with the 2008-09 recession. Flaherty did implement tax relief, including extending the business income tax cuts started under Martin, which made Canada more competitive in attracting investment and fostering entrepreneurship.
Both Morneau and Freeland recorded much worse financial performances than Flaherty and Martin. Morneau increased per-person spending on programs (inflation adjusted) by 37.1 per cent after removing 2020 COVID-related expenditures. Even if a more generous assessment is used, specifically comparing spending in 2019 (prior to the effects of the pandemic and recession) per-person spending still increased by 18.1 per cent compared to the beginning of his tenure.
In his five years, Morneau oversaw an increase in total federal debt of more than $575 billion, some of which was linked with COVID spending in 2020. However, as multiple analyses have concluded, the Trudeau government spent more and accumulated more debt during COVID than most comparable industrialized countries, with little or nothing to show for it in terms of economic growth or better health performance. Simply put, had Morneau exercised more restraint, Canada would have accumulated less debt and likely performed better economically.
Freeland’s tenure as finance minister is the shortest of the four ministers examined. It’s nonetheless equally as unimpressive as that of her Trudeau government predecessor (Morneau). If we use baseline spending from 2019 to adjust for the spike in spending in 2020 when she was appointed finance minister, per-person spending on programs by the federal government (inflation adjusted) during Freeland’s term increased by 4.1 per cent. Total federal debt is expected to increase from $1.68 trillion when Freeland took over to an estimated $2.2 trillion this year, despite the absence of a recession or any other event that would impair federal finances since the end of COVID in 2021. For some perspective, the $470.8 billion in debt accumulated under Freeland is more than double the $220.3 billion accumulated under Morneau prior to COVID. And there’s an immediate cost to that debt in the form of $53.7 billion in expected federal debt interest costs this year. These are taxpayer resources unavailable for actual services such as health care.
Freeland’s resignation from cabinet sent shock waves throughout the country, perhaps relieving her of responsibility for the Trudeau government’s latest poorly-designed fiscal policies. However, cabinet ministers bear responsibility for the performance of their ministries—meaning Freeland must be held accountable for her previous budgets and the fiscal and economic performance of the government during her tenure. Compared to previous long-serving finances ministers, it’s clear that Chrystia Freeland, and her Trudeau predecessor Bill Morneau, failed to shepherd a strong economy or maintain responsible and prudent finances.
Business
DOGE already on the job: How Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy caused the looming government shutdown
Legislators had 24 hours to read through 1,547 pages. Ramaswamy read them. Musk presented an alternative. The process collapsed.
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are flexing their muscles even before President Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, spiking a bipartisan spending bill. The bill was introduced on Tuesday with voting scheduled for Wednesday. Legislators were under massive pressure to approve of the spending bill or risk a government shut down. Problem is, the bill was over 1,500 pages long!
Chances are, the bill would have passed and in the ensuing weeks as details became known the public would have been outraged by all the extra plans to spend / waste taxpayer dollars. Legislators would have apologized by saying they simply had no time to read everything and they were desperate to avoid a shut down.
That’s where the new DOGE comes in. First Ramaswamy somehow read the bill and posted a video to TikTok and X to inform voters what they were going to be paying for in this new bill.
@vivekramaswamy Congress wants to waste your money without telling you, make sure that doesn’t happen
From MXMNews
The newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, successfully campaigned to halt the bipartisan continuing resolution (CR) in Congress. Musk and Ramaswamy took to X, rallying conservatives against the 1,547-page stopgap funding measure they argue is riddled with wasteful spending and unnecessary policy provisions.
Musk, a billionaire entrepreneur and vocal advocate for government reform, characterized the bill as a “pork-barrel” monstrosity. “Unless @DOGE ends the careers of deceitful, pork-barrel politicians, the waste and corruption will never stop,” Musk posted on X, adding that lawmakers who support the bill should be “voted out in two years.”
Meanwhile, Ramaswamy, a former Republican presidential candidate and DOGE co-chair, proposed an alternative to the bulky spending bill. Sharing a draft of his one-page resolution, he described it as a minimalist approach that avoids exacerbating historical spending excesses. “This is what a clean CR looks like,” he wrote, emphasizing the need for fiscal restraint.
Musk and Ramaswamy posted this to X.
Shorter = better. This bill is only 116 pages, instead of 1,500+ pages. Took a LOT less time to read. Glad to see the following garbage from yesterday’s bill removed in the current version: – Congressional pay raise/health benefits – 17 miscellaneous commerce bills – Random new pandemic policies, like funding for “biocontainment research laboratories” – Renewal of the “Global Engagement Center,” a key player in the federal censorship state
In record time, the public was informed, politicians were influenced by outraged taxpayers, and politicians blamed each other for a faulty bill and were forced to go back to the drawing board.
It’s all explained very well in this video presentation from Kaizen Asiedu, a Harvard graduate in philosophy who makes videos informing Americans about complicated political matters.
Friday’s deadline to avoid a government shutdown looms. Musk posted on X that a shutdown would be “infinitely better than passing a horrible bill.” His DOGE partner Vivek Ramaswamy urged Americans to contact their representatives to “stop the steal of your tax dollars.”
And President-elect Donald Trump posted this: “If Democrats threaten to shut down the government unless we give them everything they want, then CALL THEIR BLUFF,”.
Should the spending bill fail, it will mark a significant victory for DOGE and a potential turning point in efforts to reform Washington’s spending habits.
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
Proposed $70 billion AI data centre in MD of Greenview could launch an incredible new chapter for western Canadian energy
The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)
Delusional Rumour Driving Some Migrants in Mexico to Reach US Border
Paul Wells, Jen Gerson, and Justin Ling on Freeland and the Liberals’ future, if any
Freeland Resignation Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Speaks to Reporters in Ottawa
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigns from Trudeau Cabinet
-
Business2 days agoSenator Introduces Bill To Send One-Third Of Federal Workforce Packing Out Of DC
-
National2 days agoWhen is the election!? Singh finally commits and Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
COVID-192 days agoFormer Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
-
Alberta2 days agoFree Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
-
Daily Caller1 day ago‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
Business1 day ago
DOGE already on the job: How Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy caused the looming government shutdown
-
National1 day agoCanadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy13 hours agoChristmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup