Calgary Herald

Time has come to put the term ‘social licence’ out to pasture

With Alberta needing to win pipeline allies, hackneyed phrase is needlessly distractin­g

- ROB BREAKENRID­GE Afternoons with Rob Breakenrid­ge airs weekdays on 770 CHQR. rob. breakenrid­ge@corusent.com

Since boycotts are suddenly fashionabl­e, perhaps now would be an ideal time to suggest we collective­ly abandon the phrase social licence.

The phrase social licence is confusing, cringe worthy, politicall­y loaded and needlessly distractin­g. Both sides need to retire it.

In this instance, both sides, refers to the current Alberta government and its approach to energy projects and environmen­tal regulation­s, and the opposition, who have been, and remain, skeptical of the government’s approach.

Most everyone agrees that the amount of opposition to a proposed pipeline is directly correlated to the difficulty in seeing that project through to completion. Therefore, it would logically follow that we need to do as much as we can to overcome that opposition. One could call that social licence, perhaps, but the phrase has already lost most of whatever meaning it had.

The concept of social licence was not invented in Alberta, but it would appear as though the government of former premier Alison Redford was the first to use it. A June 2012 statement of cabinet and caucus priorities, for example, notes the importance of “maintain(ing) the social licence to develop resources.”

Rachel Notley’s government has used it, too, albeit sparingly. The premier’s preface to the 2016 budget speaks of the need to “strengthen Alberta’s social licence.”

Otherwise, though, you’d be hard-pressed to find many example of the premier or other members of her government using the phrase.

To some, the concept invokes almost a literal licence of sorts — as though Notley is capable of establishi­ng such rock solid progressiv­e bona fides that she can wave her “social licence” around like a sheriff ’s badge and immediatel­y command the respect of pipeline opponents.

While Notley can certainly be faulted for pandering to environmen­tal groups — and giving activists such as Tzeporah Berman positions of power and influence — she has never claimed to be capable of vanquishin­g all opposition to the oilsands or pipelines.

She deliberate­ly sought to try and reassure environmen­talists that her government wouldn’t ignore their concerns, but it’s unclear how much she has to show for that.

Hence, the new argument that Notley’s social licence has clearly failed. This is evidenced, it’s argued, by the fact that opponents of the Trans Mountain pipeline have not backed down and now B.C. Premier John Horgan is angling to make trouble for the project.

What exactly has failed, though? Notley’s government sold their climate leadership plan (i.e., their carbon tax) on the notion it would make it easier for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to approve pipeline projects.

Given that Trudeau did indeed say yes to Trans Mountain — and even credited Notley’s approach — it’s hard to argue that approach has failed.

It may yet. Notley is going to have to sell the carbon tax in the next election, and if she doesn’t have an answer to the question, “what do we have to show for it?” then she could be in big trouble.

Since the premier has explicitly linked her carbon tax to new pipelines, the demise of Trans Mountain would indeed be a failure for her. We’ll have to wait and see.

There’s also the argument that social licence is a myth, which of course, depends on how you define it in the first place. That it quickly becomes impossible to confirm or discredit such a vague assertion is yet another reason to retire the phrase altogether.

It is not a myth to assert that Alberta needs to make the case for its energy industry and the needed capacity to get our product to market. It is not a myth to argue we need to win over as many allies as possible.

People can disagree on how best to accomplish that or how to define success. Either way, we’ll be better off if we never hear the phrase social licence ever again.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada