Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. It's always amazing to have provincial cabinet ministers join us at a committee. I really appreciate your taking the time.
I think it speaks to the multipartisan agreement that Line 5 is absolutely necessary for Canadian provinces, for our national identity, for jobs in Sarnia and across the country, and also for the economic future of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and our American colleagues. It's only logical. A lot of times politics get in the way—political ideologies and political manoeuvring. I encourage all of us to remember that this is one of the cases where we all agree, so let's keep the issues that we don't agree on—perhaps some other pipelines or climate change or whatever—out of this discussion, and let's all agree on our strategy on Line 5 and how we get Line 5 to stay in place.
My questions are going to revolve around the legal strategy. I'd like to hear from all of the different witnesses. We heard from Enbridge that they would like the federal government to intervene in the court case in Michigan. I can certainly see a rationale for that, for the government to argue that the 1977 treaty and the federal jurisdiction in the United States cover the inability of Michigan to end the easement.
I would like to know, from each of the three governments, this: Have you considered intervening in the court case? Would you only do so if the federal government did? Might you do so anyway? Also, have you had any conversations directly with the executive in Michigan as a state-province relationship?
Whoever would like to can go first—west to east, east to west, whatever you prefer.