Northeast governors invite Canadian leaders to summit on cross-border relationship
Maine Gov. Janet Mills' office says a meeting in Boston with Canadian leaders could happen in 'the near future,' according to a news release. (Photo by Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star)
The leaders of six Northeast states extended an invitation to Canadian leaders Monday to discuss the importance of cross-border relationships amid actions from the Trump administration that have threatened them.
While additional details regarding the time and date of the meeting were not available, the leaders proposed to meet in Boston in 'the near future,' according to a news release from Maine Gov. Janet Mills' office.
'Our economies and our cultures have enjoyed strong relationships for generations, which is now strained by the president's haphazard tariffs and harmful rhetoric targeting our northern neighbors,' Mills said.
She added that she looks forward to telling her Eastern Canada counterparts that Maine values their partnerships and 'will work to ensure our historic friendship and deeply intertwined economies endure for generations to come.'
The invite came from Mills, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, Rhode Island Gov. Daniel McKee, and Vermont Gov. Phil Scott — the only Republican in the group. It was sent to the premiers of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Québec.
As President Donald Trump has gone back and forth on imposing tariffs, some as high as 25%, on Maine's northern neighbor, Mills, along with Maine's business community, has warned that any new tax would have a significant negative impact on the state.
In radio addresses and other statements, she has also underscored how vital Canada is to the state's economy, especially as a trade partner. Every year, Maine exports $1.4 billion in goods to Canada and in turn imports more than $5 billion worth of goods.
Mills specifically said that any new tax could increase costs for daily essentials such as gasoline and food. The most heating oil dependent state in the nation, Maine imports more than 80% of its heating fuel and gasoline from Canada, the release said.
Similarly, the agriculture sector said in early April that the tariffs could incite a trade war that would increase costs for consumers and eat away at already thin profit margins.
Mills is also concerned that Trump rhetoric about Canada could harm Maine's summer tourism season. Last year, Canadian visitors spent nearly half a billion dollars in Maine, but Mills' office said estimates show that the state could see Canadian tourists drop by about 25%.
'Whether Canadians decide to visit this summer (and we truly hope they do) or at a later time, they will always find a warm welcome in Maine,' said Carolann Ouellette, director of the Maine Office of Tourism.
While it's not clear whether or how much the tariffs will directly impact electricity, the Maine Office of Public Advocate has raised concern about the potential impact on customers, especially 58,000 ratepayers in Aroostook and Washington counties who live along the border and have little choice but to rely on Canadian energy to keep their lights on.
Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
40 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Major projects will be slowed by court challenges if rights are violated: B.C. chief
OTTAWA - The regional chief for British Columbia said Wednesday that governments should not speed up major projects at the expense of First Nations rights — and warned that projects will be slowed down by court challenges if First Nations are not consulted from the start. 'We're asking the government to follow your own laws,' Terry Teegee said, citing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the federal government adopted. The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney introduced major economic legislation last week. The bill has two parts — one to break down federal barriers to internal trade and the other to fast-track major projects. It sets out five criteria to determine whether a project is in the 'national interest.' Those criteria include the project's likelihood of success, whether it would strengthen the country's resiliency and advance the interests of Indigenous Peoples, and whether it would contribute to economic growth in an environmentally responsible way. But First Nations leaders say their interests weren't considered when the legislation was being drafted and they were given just one week to review and bring comments forward on a briefing document on the bill. 'It's probably going to take a lot longer to get approval for some of these projects because we're going to end up in court,' Teegee said. 'This is where we end up.' The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations agreed. 'It's not about the bill itself. It's about the process. And I think that ramming something through when you should be hearing from Canadians, from industry, from First Nations … is the wrong way to go,' Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said. 'You don't want to end back up in court. You don't want to have civil unrest. Why not just invite us to the table?' First Nations leaders have warned that widespread protests and blockades are possible if governments don't obtain affected Indigenous communities' free, prior and informed consent, as required by the UN declaration. The federal government has said that declaration doesn't amount to a veto — a statement Justice Minister Sean Fraser walked back last week following criticism from Woodhouse Nepinak. Teegee said 'no government has a veto, meaning that when we come to a decision, all governments come into the room to make a decision together.' 'First Nations, certainly as a part of this, need to be part of the decision-making process,' he added. Even groups that generally support development are raising concerns about the federal government's plan. Mark Podlasly, CEO of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, said he was 'surprised' First Nations were only given seven days to review parts of the legislation before it was introduced. 'The answer will not automatically be 'no' from First Nations when a project comes along. It's just that Indigenous rights and involvement has to not only be included, but respected. That hasn't happened a lot in the Canadian past,' he said. 'There's also a question on the environment, and there's a question about who bears the impact of these projects if they're rushed through. It's going to be Indigenous Peoples, especially in parts of the country where there's mining or energy sources (on lands) that are integral to our lifestyle, our cultural practices.' Podlasly said that while the federal legislation 'seems to have Indigenous participation at its core,' it's not clear what that participation will look like, especially under the tight two-year approval timeline the government seeks. He said First Nations can support projects and many do — but they don't want to be 'caught at the back end' of decisions made without their knowledge or consent. 'We're all operating with seven days' notice. That's what we're operating with. And time will tell,' he said. The Assembly of First Nations is holding an emergency chiefs meeting on Monday to discuss what to do next. Woodhouse Nepinak vowed to follow their direction and said a legal review of the legislation is ongoing. 'We need time,' Woodhouse Nepinak said. 'And we're not being given that time.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US regulators push through last-minute delay to new private fund reporting rules
By Chris Prentice NEW YORK (Reuters) -U.S. regulators scrambled on Wednesday to extend a deadline for new data reporting requirements for investment advisers to private funds, just one day before they were due to take effect. The rules, adopted by two U.S. markets regulators in February 2024, will require advisers to disclose more information to regulators in a bid to boost the government's ability to spot risks from private markets that have swelled in size in recent years. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission extended the deadline for compliance to later this year in a 3-1 vote on Wednesday, less than 24 hours before firms had to comply. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also voted in favor of an extension, marking the second time the regulators decided to push back the deadline after previously postponing it in January. "Additional time is required for dialogue with filers, review of the reasonableness of the data demands, and review of the actual utility of the information collected," SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said during Wednesday's open meeting. Private funds have pressed the SEC to review this rule, among others, and have warned the new requirements are unnecessary and costly. The firms now have until October 1, 2025 to comply. The new data, which includes disclosure of events pointing to significant stress within 72 hours, would be accessible to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which gathers top financial regulators across the U.S. government to monitor systemic risks. Regulators have cautioned for years that growing private markets could pose increasing risks, particularly as they are more opaque and less vigorously regulated than traditional markets. Federal agencies have begun a push to loosen regulations as part of Republican President Donald Trump's agenda since he took office in late January. "The SEC and other regulators, including FSOC, depend on these detailed data to better comprehend when the private markets may be experiencing turbulence that could affect our entire financial system, because these entities generally operate outside our regulatory purview," said Caroline Crenshaw, the lone Democratic SEC commissioner.
