There is another pipeline solution

Andrew Coyne mentioned three ways the pipeline can be built, none of which are the ways business should proceed in this country.

There is a fourth way, more akin to how most Canadians prefer to resolve disputes.

If the real issue is safety and the potential environmental impact and not NIMBYism and we want to take into account Indigenous concerns, then that is the path to a resolution of the issue. There is no such thing as zero potential risk in complicated technological environments, except in the short term. There is always risk, whether one is driving a car, flying in an airplane, or walking down the street.

True, in various scenarios the consequences can be dramatically different. Hence the need for transparency in risk mitigation procedures, plans to deal with the “unthinkable” and measures in place to deal with consequence management in the event of a breach.

These are not one-time paper exercises: anyone familiar with military planning or civil emergency planning knows about such matters.

That is the essence of the “fourth way.” All that is needed is for the federal government, whose jurisdiction this is, to commit to a transparent process in which it is agreed that risks will be addressed, and costs shared on a structured basis. Work should not be allowed to stall while such consultations — not zero-sum negotiations — proceed. Leadership is required on this file and, sadly, it has been lacking at the federal level.

As a final point: those opposed should be careful about creating cultural and “national” antagonisms in pursuit of their own goals.

Gordon Vachon, Ottawa