More harm than good likely from north coast tanker ban
Trudeau should rethink costly gesture before putting Canada in sticky situation
Aplan by Justin Trudeau to “formalize” a tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast would prevent Canada from fully capitalizing on crude exports to Asian markets and could damage Canada-U.S. relations.
In other words, it’s “a damaging and ill-advised plan,” says the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
The independent think-tank opposes a move by Canada’s prime minister to have his transport minister, Marc Garneau, implement a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s north coast. The moratorium presumably would apply to the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.
It’s not hard to figure out the motives behind Trudeau’s instruction. After all, environmentalists are part of the Liberals’ natural constituency. Liberal supporters also may favourably interpret the gesture as respecting the concerns of aboriginals living along the coast.
But such a ban may cause more problems than it addresses.
Significant opportunities will exist in coming decades for Canada to help meet the growing energy needs of developing countries. Like it or not, the International Energy Agency is forecasting such countries will still be using plenty of crude in the decades to come.
Canada can either help supply them or leave the task to less green-minded countries, such as Nigeria or Venezuela.
While legitimate concerns have been expressed about tankers travelling from a marine terminal situated inland in Kitimat, more appropriate locations might be found along the north coast for tanker port infrastructure.
A report prepared in 2012 for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute by former National Energy Board chair Roland Priddle, former diplomat Robert Hage and marine engineer Philip John recommends against a tanker ban.
A ban “would cost Canada entry into the North Asian crude oil market, hundreds of billions in lost revenue and tens of thousands of jobs.” This, at a time when tanker traffic safety systems have vastly improved. The authors note not a single tanker oil spill by a Canadian vessel has occurred since 2000.
Then there are the legal implications. Enbridge insisted this week it wants to proceed with its Northern Gateway project, which could prompt the company to sue Ottawa for effectively killing a proposal that was previously approved (with conditions) after a lengthy federal review.
Some non-coastal aboriginal groups, anticipating jobs and other economic benefits from Northern Gateway, also could sue.
And there could be international implications. A ban “would deny the U.S. oil tanker access to provision its own (Alaska Panhandle) communities while Canada has an exception to provision its own,” says the Macdonald-Laurier report, calling this “a recipe for confrontation.”
The move also seems arbitrary. What about other areas of pristine coastline on the east coast, or even further south in B.C.? Why not ban tankers there?
Proponents of the ban, including several B.C. Liberal and NDP MPs who previously have advanced motions and bills to try to bar oil tanker traffic, draw on history to justify their actions. They claim a tanker ban has long been in place along B.C.’s northern coastline. But in fact, a legislated ban has never existed.
In 1972, Pierre Trudeau’s government was concerned about oil tanker traffic moving from Alaska to Puget Sound, and passed a parliamentary motion barring tankers from traversing waters along B.C.’s coastline.
Then, in 1988, the federal and B.C. governments introduced the notion of a Tanker Exclusion Zone, a voluntary measure accepted by the U.S. requiring tankers from Alaska to remain at least 50 nautical miles from the B.C. coastline.
Justin Trudeau’s latest gesture is aimed at legislatively banning north coast tanker traffic. This was not an election promise, although during the campaign Trudeau did reiterate his opposition to Northern Gateway.
It would be bad policy to introduce a legal ban to thwart one specific project.
Given Trudeau’s pledge to make decisions based on science and evidence, he might wish to revisit this issue before Garneau brings an implementation plan to cabinet.