You are not logged in.
I thought Democrates were more intelligent than this:
Minnesota demands accounting from Hydro
Minnesota demands accounting from Hydro
A new Minnesota law will force Manitoba Hydro to account to its state legislature every year on the impacts of its hydro electric dams on the environment and First Nations people covered by the Northern Flood Agreement.
How dare they! Relations with aboriginal communities is one of the most stark examples of sovereignty. Sure, managing the resource to prevent flooding is an issue. I have strong criticism for the provincial NDP government for causing Lake Winnipeg water levels to rise so that resort communities along the southern shore were flooded. When they filed for compensation the government built a clay dyke along the beach. Access to the lake is what those communities were built for, the dyke destroys it. Water levels would never have gotten that high if Hydro hadn't horded water. Hydro dams on the Nelson River use the lake as their retention reservoir. Negotiations with aboriginal people regarding land impacted by new dams took years to complete. They have been given first choice for any and all jobs during construction, and anyone whose home will be flooded gets a brand new house built entirely at Hydro expense, no matter the condition of the old home. It's all settled, but most importantly it's an internal political matter within the province of Manitoba. We're in a different country for <expletive>! How dare the Minnesota government demand Manitoba report to them how we work with aboriginal people!
Politicians see this as a trap: if you disagree you are painted as against aboriginal people; if you agree you're against Canadian sovereignty. This is a trap to harm all politicians in Manitoba, if not all of Canada. I don't see it as a trap; you can be against this challenge to Canada's sovereignty without being against aboriginals. I thought Democrats understood democracy. This is the sort of overbearing, domineering, imperialistic crap that the United States has been accused of. During the Cold War the Soviets accused America of pulling this shit, and Al Qaeda claims that interference in Arab affairs is why they did what they did. I don't think violence is justified no matter what, killing thousands of people on 9/11 cannot be justified no matter their excuse. But you don't just take something like this. This action could start a trade war with Canada. Why would they pull this shit now!?
Canada is having a major debate over whether to comply with the Kyoto Accord; Manitoba used to generate power entirely from hydro dams but now has coal and natural gas thermal generating plants. This year the NDP provincial government committed to proceeding with all hydro dams that Manitoba Hydro had planned for years. This is the clean energy alternative, why attempt to harm the initiative? I know Minnesota Power put strong pressure on Manitoba Hydro to build thermal generating plants simply because they don't understand how to manage hydro power. Is this a hissy-fit over Manitoba returning to 100% environmentally friendly power generation?
You have to understand that demanding Manitoba report to an American state legislature over how Manitoba treats its people is way out of line.
Offline
Manitoba is not being asked to report to the Minnesota state legislature, Hydro is. Hydro is to provide an accounting to Manitoba and Minnesota.
They can't compel Hydro to comply, but as the article points out, Minnesota is the largest customer of Hydro, and is using that as leverage to force compliance with its request.
No tears for Hydro or Canada on this one. It's fucking basic consumer capatilism and thems the breaks. Again, Minnesota cannot force compliance, but they are spelling out their requirements to Hydro for continuance of their business relationship.
Or do you hold that customers have no right to demand any accountability from those they purchase from?
Offline
Manitoba Hydro is owned by the provincial government; there isn't much difference there. In fact the current NDP government has been promissing a balanced budget based on profits directed from Manitoba Hydro. Of course they lied, they claim in every provincial budget that it is balanced and they're making payments to the debt, but the debt is growing by $400 million every year. A growing debt means they're running a defict. But the point is there is no separation of Hydro from the provincial government.
I am saying that no government outside Canada has the right to dictate how Canada handles affairs with aboriginal people, or any other group of people. Relations with aboriginal people is a government issue, not corporate. If there's a problem it's up to the provincial government to handle, not any level of government outside Canada. If it was so corporate, why wouldn't Minnesota Power demand the accounting instead of the state legislature? By demanding an accounting to a level of government they have already admitted it's a government issue.
Offline
I thought Democrates were more intelligent than this:
There's your mistake.
Now as for the whole sovereignty issue so what? Just ignore what they said. If Minnesota doesn't like it then they can go without electricity. Don't count this out in a Democratic run state though. California banned nuclear power, stopped building power plants, and then whined and cried when they started having blackouts as a result. I mean this whole thing seems to be too silly to get mad about. Minnesota passed a law they can't hope to enforce. They look bad to have even tried, and they can't enforce it anyways so its not worth getting that mad over.
Offline
Manitoba Hydro is owned by the provincial government; there isn't much difference there.
That's Canada's problem then. State owned enterprises running in the commercial sector should expect to get treated like private sector enterprises. The customer-business relationship doesn't magically change just because you put a "Gov'n ment Owned" stamp on it.
If a consumer demand accountability from a business, then the business can either choose to meet the demands of the consumer, or it and the consumer can dissolve their relationship.
If Hydro, and by extension the provincial Canadian government feel that their toes are being stepped on, they should walk away from their biggest customer.
I am saying that no government outside Canada has the right to dictate how Canada handles affairs with aboriginal people, or any other group of people.
Come now, Canada, as a signatory of the to the UN Human Rights Charter has abdicated a certain degree of autonomy in regards to how it treats "it's aboriginal people". Nice qualifier by the way- as if the aboriginal people in Canada are somehow a special sub-group that have no right to redress or request assistance from the world at large.
Lemme guess, some natives felt like they weren't getting a fair shake with the local Canadian government. Their complaints probably fell on deaf ears in the national government, or the national government was impotent to really address their claims. So, the natives get restless and go down south and complain to some sympathetic ears in the US. The issue gets picked up and now the power brokers will bend Hydro over their knees, extract some money, and throw a bone to the natives to shut them up.
While this issue is, i am sure, fascinating to those who carefully watch the developments of hydro-electric politics in cross Canadian US relations and the socio-economic impact on the local aborigines, I think a legitimate discussion should be limited to the actual issues- not conflating this into some sovereignty rights complaint.
Oh, and Canada has a bunch troops in Afghanistan telling the locals how they should treat the other locals. Except instead of laws and newspapers, they have guns.
Silly leafer.
Offline
How dare they! Relations with aboriginal communities is one of the most stark examples of sovereignty.
Exactly, Robert.
That's why I'm with Clark on this one.
Politicians might be having fun with this, but if it were a deal between two international business firms instead of a state and a province, the way I'd solve it is with this paragraph:
"Manitoba Hydro takes exception to the requirements of customer document Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Omnibus Bill" SF 2096. Manitoba Hydro offers audits and environmental qualifications per our current accepted quality control program according to our existing contract."
I might also include a note about why, if I liked the guy I was deigning to e-mail.
(I don't assign much weight to the alternate view, either.)
[/u]
"We go big, or we don't go." - GCNRevenger
Offline
State owned enterprises running in the commercial sector should expect to get treated like private sector enterprises. The customer-business relationship doesn't magically change just because you put a "Gov'n ment Owned" stamp on it.
Actually it doesn't matter if it's a crown corporation (government owned corporation) or private; either way you can't get involved with how people are treated in Canada.
Lemme guess, some natives felt like they weren't getting a fair shake with the local Canadian government. Their complaints probably fell on deaf ears in the national government, or the national government was impotent to really address their claims. So, the natives get restless and go down south and complain to some sympathetic ears in the US. The issue gets picked up and now the power brokers will bend Hydro over their knees, extract some money, and throw a bone to the natives to shut them up.
I don't know for sure, but probably. They're threatening to block railway lines over land claims that still haven't been resolved, and complaints about living in poverty conditions. However, they aren't working and keep destroying everything they've been given. Most Liberals don't like to talk about this but natives on the reservation tend to burn doors and rip up floorboards for firewood, drive snowmobiles until the gas tank runs out then abandon in place, etc. They complain about lack of fresh vegetables in northern communities but don't grow gardens. I've also heard complaints of failure to respect native ways, but band chiefs and councils squander the reservation's money on conferences just for council members rather than community infrastructure. A former police officer also told me band chiefs send people to beat-up any band member who defies the chief. So poverty conditions are to some extent self-inflicted. It's a complicated issue that you don't want to get involved with. As for land claims, there are some native people who claim the entire country. On the other side of the issue, in the past native people were relocated so white men could take the good land. When native people found a way to make a living on their new land, white men took that land as well and relocated the natives to still worse land. That's one reason why native people gave up, but those offences occured a century ago. Again, it's a mess, any outsider will loose.
Oh, and Canada has a bunch troops in Afghanistan telling the locals how they should treat the other locals. Except instead of laws and newspapers, they have guns.
Don't forget I'm the one who keeps saying Canada can't tell Afghani locals how to treat other locals, or how to run their country. I said we have to arrest Al Qaeda, push the Taliban out of the way since they didn't cooperate but don't target the Taliban, and once Al Qaeda is taken out get out of Afghanistan. We've already been there too long. The fact we've taken sides in the Taliban vs. current regime conflict means we're disqualified as peace keepers. Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative) is the one who chose to target the Taliban. So you see I'm consistent.
Offline
Actually it doesn't matter if it's a crown corporation (government owned corporation) or private; either way you can't get involved with how people are treated in Canada.
Maybe not directly, but what you are seeing in this instance is indirect action through consumer-democracy.
Globalization results in greater economic integration, yet the businesses are largely governed by their national parent government. So I, customer in a distant land, purchase from local business which is headquartered in some distant land. Your point of view would dictate that I have no recourse to demand accountability or changes to business practices that do not meet my own personal ethical or moral standards.
What are my choices?
Request that the business change its practices or compromises with me so I am now satisfied, or, no longer maintain the customer relationship.
The business is not forced to comply, but will choose to do so if complying is in their best interest (bottom line).
What I am describing does not violate any law or treaty, and if it did, I would suggest that perhaps such laws or treaties are actually null and void. This is basic human rights stuff.
I can choose who I do business with, I cannot be forced to do business with someone against my will. I do not have to do business with someone if I disagree with their politics, their religion, their labor practices, or what they like to have for dinner. I can demand that doing business with me, as an individual, that the business in question must be of the same race as me.
It is stupid, but individual rights are about letting people be really stupid.
Where things get confused is that we have government agencies that represent the individual interests of their respective constituents. The Minnesota government is ostensibly in the clear since they are not violating federal statutes related to discrimination by requesting that Hydro provide accountability for their business practices related to treatment of aborigines.
They may have a problem if there is an interpretation by the Supreme Court that this falls into the realm of foreign affairs, which is clearly under the federal Executive branch area of control- then the Minnesota law would be invalidated since it would violating the US Separation of Powers.
However, if a bunch of private citizens in the US got together (basically the voters in Minnesota) and made a petition or political action group centered around this cause, demanding Hydro make a similar account- the US government could do nothing about it, and since there would be votes for the taking, every politician in the state would clamor to represent this group (and get votes) and find another way to get Hydro to do the same thing.
The point being that we can get involved in how people are treated in other parts of the world, and we routinely try to do such things. War, Aid, trade, etc. These are all ways we try to influence others.
Offline
When Premier Gary Doer negotiated hydro rates with Minnesota he gloated: the stupid Americans paid WHAT for our electricity!? Then we discovered Minnesota shut down half the coal burning power plants in the state and used power from Manitoba to replace them. Those coal plants were used to sell power to California at an even higher price. Effectively they resold Manitoba power at an even higher price. Minnesota isn't stupid, they know how to make a profit. So do we get upset? No, we sold our product at a price we thought good at the time, it isn't any of our business what our customer does with it. Actually, there's a very practical reason for this arrangement: Manitoba Hydro requires a long-term (multi-year) commitment for both price and quantity of power while California established an hourly bidding process. Minnesota can turn on and off their coal burning power plants relatively quickly, but hydro dams require years of planning to build and once built manage water levels over the entire season.
The reverse also holds true: while it isn't any business of Manitoba what Minnesota does with the power they bought, it's equally none of Minnesota's business what Manitoba does to produce that power. It's a simple commercial contract: product for price. That's all, it's none of our business that Minnesota resells our power for profit, and equally none of their business how Manitoba deals with aboriginal people affected by dam construction.
Offline
There is one thing I have noted from these threads. Both the USA and Canada has reasonably large "native" populations which often tend to be seperate from the country but also in most ways not appearing to benefit from that countries being advanced.
If we also add Australia in as well which has spent a lot of money trying to get there native populations lives to be better and in short for the most part failed.
There appears to be a collective quilt feeling towards these native populations and countries often throw a lot of money at them to try to make there lives better. It does though appear to often not work and in some cases make things worse.
Some native populations have done well though as an example in the USA where they have used there seperate legal status to open super Casinos or similar buisnesses and made a lot of money. Still for every success there are a lot of failures.
What really can be done to help or is helping just making things worse.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline