Notley learns hard truth about social licence
Social licence is one of those phrases, like cultural appropriation, or — a while back — civil society, that just seem to pop into lexical existence, almost out of nowhere, and instantly take on the authority of unchallenged and l ong- accepted concepts. They are mouthed in every parliamentary speech, are munched over by the solons of the afternoon panel shows, and crowd the editorial and opinion pieces of all the finest newspapers. Yesterday they were unheard and unseen. Today they are presumed to be the boundary stones of argument and discussion. It is all so fast. One other note on usage: these terms and t heir semantic kin usually emerge from the fertile lexicography of the social justice camp, which is only appropriate since “social justice” is itself a term from the same fertile semantic factory.
Today, I turn to social licence ( I’m saving “cultural appropriation” and its many novelties and self- contradictions for another day). Justin Trudeau is a fan of social licence. Speaking before the high council of the Sanhedrin at the Calgary Petroleum Club, before he was prime minister, Trudeau ( as is his way with nebulous but high sounding concepts) gave the vague, trendy formulation full authority: “Social licence is more important than ever. Governments may be able to issue permits but only communities can grant permission.”
A quick note here on the prime minister’s peculiar play on words. What is a permit? Why, it is an official declaration, in writing, with the force of law, usually from an order of government, that a person or a company has legal permission to do something. It is Permission with a capital P.
But, insofar as Trudeau’s statement can be understood to mean anything at all, the official government permission — the one that counts — under the elastic rules of social licence really has no force at all. Governments “may” issue permits ( permission) he says, but only communities can grant “permission.” A very odd understanding from a prime minister: that “communities” are the final authority, and that government permits function very much like tarted-up suggestion boxes.
No matter. However fugitive the meaning of social l i cence, the good Rachel Notley, premier of Alberta, accepted it as a concept she respected. More, she was going to “earn” it for poor Alberta’s landlocked oil. A difficult call for her — in Alberta. Let me spell out how difficult. She was willing as premier to accept the terms of the social justice-environ- ment crusaders ( against the mood of the majority of Albertans, it is fair to say) and seek to fulfil the conditions of social licence.
In return — having demonstrated all sorts of environmental good i ntentions, the Carbon ( dioxide) Tax being the most numinous — she then expected the crusaders would relent and grant this most touted social l i cence. And so it came to pass that Alberta’s first NDP premier put a levy on the land, and there was much tumult even to the gnashing of teeth in Fort McMurray. The procurators of Suncor, Cenovus and ExxonMobil trembled and were full of woe. And the workers ( among them the tribes of Newfoundland) said “What is this? For are we not laid off ? Or waiting to be laid off ? And now this Rachel is putting levies on our oil, and who can see the end of it.”
The understanding was that Notley’s good work and good faith would earn her province the right to economically function. Poor innocent Premier Notley. Just in the last few days a new regulatory regime has been sketched out by a fulsomely politically correct federal panel, one that would throw out the NEB — and presumably shelve or defer many of its decisions and resolutions to date. Secondly, the same panel identified Alberta — Calgary in particular — as an unworthy headquarters site for future regulatory determinations. Calgary was “seen” as biased.
How could it not be? It has all this cumbersome experience and knowledge of the oil industry, which leaves it dangerously over- i nformed on the subject under review, it is the home of the resource, and the most to work it. Knowledge, experience and proximity to the resource in question: notorious disqualifiers all.
Best to move NEB 2.0 to Ottawa, the very nesting ground of the Owl of Minerva, home seat of all of Canada’s collective wisdom and playpen of lobbyists, party fundraisers, career politicians and every other emblem of judicious disinterest and lack of bias. Ottawa is that tabula rasa spoke of by the philosophers of old, a table naked of every interest and influence. Calgary, by contrast, why Calgary is a bourse, a trading house run by Big Oil, where honour is in exile and fair dealing a forgotten rumour.
At least that’s how they think on this panel.
So for all her good deeds, where is the burdened Notley now? Has she won favour from those opposed to the oilsands? Has she satisfied the onerous conditions of social licence? Of course not. For Premier Notley overlooked the most intrinsic characteristic of social licence. Its application is infinitely flexible. It is an inexhaustible demand. It will expand its conditions wantonly whenever an original set of conditions has been met.
Notley missed the central point of social licence: its preconditions can never be met, and are not meant to be. It is an obstructionist tactic, designed to forestall and delay, till whatever its target has been become so worn down by process and protest and delay that it is simply taken off the policy table.
Notley would have had more success chasing a moonbeam than satisfying social licence. In the meantime, for all her honest efforts on this front, how much public help has she been getting from Trudeau? Precious little, if any. He has conferences to attend, dinners to speak at, democratic reforms to jettison, peacekeeping missions to define, cutouts to distribute, and electoral reforms to forget.
IT WILL EXPAND ITS CONDITIONS WANTONLY.