Skip to main content
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
Get full digital access to globeandmail.com
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
A scary good deal on trusted journalism
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
SAVE OVER $140
OFFER ENDS OCTOBER 31
// //

Lauren Sargent takes part in a protest before the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline public information session in Holt, Mich., on July 6, 2017.

Cory Morse/The Associated Press

Environmental activists in the United States are seizing on Canada’s decision to invoke a 44-year-old treaty with the United States as an “audacious,” misguided and misleading gambit aimed at short-circuiting Michigan’s effort to shut down the Line 5 cross-border pipeline.

Oil & Water Don’t Mix, a coalition of Michigan environmental and Indigenous groups that includes the Sierra Club and the Michigan Climate Action Network, said Tuesday it has a 33,000-signature petition that it plans to circulate among U.S. lawmakers this week.

The petition urges U.S. President Joe Biden to support the state of Michigan and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in their legal effort to shut down Line 5, a 68-year-old pipeline that crosses beneath the Great Lakes to deliver crude oil and natural gas liquids from Canada to the U.S. Midwest.

Story continues below advertisement

The state has revoked the 1953 easement that allows Calgary-based owner Enbridge Inc. to operate Line 5, citing the risk of a catastrophic spill in the Straits of Mackinac, an ecologically sensitive waterway that links Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

The resulting dispute has lawyers for both sides arguing in court about whether a district court in Michigan has the jurisdiction to decide the fate of the pipeline and Enbridge’s efforts to upgrade and fortify the twin lines that run along the lakebed under the straits.

Last week, the federal government filed court documents confirming that it wants formal negotiations with the U.S. under the terms of a 1977 treaty specifically drafted to deal with cross-border pipelines, and asking Judge Janet Neff to hold the case in abeyance.

“We’re calling on the president to stand with Gov. Whitmer in rejecting Enbridge’s delay tactics,” said Sean McBrearty, the co-ordinator for Oil & Water Don’t Mix.

McBrearty called the treaty tactic a “direct attack on our sovereignty” that intentionally misinterprets the treaty itself “to make the audacious claim that we must leave a major risk pumping oil indefinitely through the heart of the Great Lakes.”

He pointed to the oil spill last week off the coast of California, which was likely the result of an underwater anchor strike – precisely the sort of peril that Whitmer and her supporters fear could befall the Great Lakes shoreline if Line 5 continues to operate.

“This fight is not really about Enbridge’s fuel,” he said. “This fight is about Michigan’s water.”

Story continues below advertisement

Andy Buchsbaum, the legal adviser for the National Wildlife Federation, said when it comes to pipeline safety and environmental concerns, Michigan is well within its rights to demand the line be shut down.

“The government of Canada is misrepresenting the terms of the 1977 treaty, which explicitly authorizes Michigan to take exactly the kind of action it did when it issued the order shutting down the pipeline,” Buchsbaum said.

The shutdown order “is actually authorized by the same treaty that Canada claims invalidates the shutdown order.”

Michigan’s attorney general showed similar contempt for Canada’s move, disputing the notion that treaty talks are relevant to the legal matters at hand and that the hearings should be paused to allow those talks to proceed.

“Canada is wrong on both counts,” Dana Nessel wrote in a response filed in court last week.

“Neither the 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty itself nor Canada’s recent invocation of the dispute resolution process ... are relevant to the sole legal issue now before this court: whether it has jurisdiction over the state’s complaint removed by Enbridge.”

Story continues below advertisement

Canada’s letter, she continues, “is devoid of any legal authority or persuasive argument for its assertion that this court should decline to rule” on the matter.

“Staying this case based on some speculative outcome of international treaty negotiations would deprive the state of its ability to protect these core sovereign interests while indefinitely enshrining the status quo that Enbridge desires.”

Proponents of Line 5 say its 540,000 barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids per day are a vital energy source for markets across the Midwest, including Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Canadian refineries that provide jet fuel to some of Canada’s busiest airports.

Enbridge has insisted from the outset that it has no plans to voluntarily shut down the pipeline.

A court-sanctioned voluntary mediation process, which began in April, has failed to yield any agreement and appears to have fallen apart, although the official status of those talks remains unclear.

Court documents show the state has no “desire to continue with the mediation process,” while Enbridge has said publicly that it wants the talks to continue.

Story continues below advertisement

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies