More initiative needed
The Northern Gateway project has been transformed from a strategically essential national infrastructure project into one big piñata. It’s being vigorously whacked from all sides by groups and individuals with a broad array of agendas.
Aboriginal groups, claiming lands where the pipe would be laid, are overwhelmingly opposed, threatening everything from civil disobedience to court action.
Environmental groups are scheduled to take yet another whack at the piñata Oct. 22 when, at the invitation of defendourcoast.ca, they plan to stage a mass rally and sit-in at the B.C. legislature to oppose pipelines and tankers on Canada’s West Coast.
Premier Christy Clark, meanwhile, took a whack this week at Alberta Premier Alison Redford over the Northern Gateway project, organizing a meeting with her for the sole purpose of promoting her own politically motivated opposition to the project.
In advertising the no-go option, B.C.’s Liberal premier — facing election next spring — is following public opinion and seeking to nix any electoral advantage B.C.’s NDP would have in opposing the project.
Broadly speaking, what has transpired in the past year is that the energy and enterprise associated with getting the pipeline project off the ground has shifted so that it’s now being expended on blocking the proposal.
Enter the Business Council of B.C. and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, who together recently launched a campaign focusing on “an inability to get to yes” on development issues in the province.
The business groups jointly issued a background paper, reminding: “we are uniquely positioned in North America as the strategic link between the Asia Pacific and our continent.” They want British Columbians to start “saying yes to new ideas, new projects ... and not fixate on negatively challenging policies and proposals that can, done right, enable us to progress, adjust and compete.”
“Done right” obviously is key. And this is where Northern Gateway proponents appear to have dropped the ball in advancing the project.
For starters, Ottawa — a huge backer of the project — never did the necessary legwork in consulting and compromising with aboriginal groups.
Jim Prentice, a lawyer and respected former minister of the Environment, Indian Affairs and Industry, now vicechair of CIBC, has made several speeches pointing out this huge oversight.
“The Crown obligation to engage first nations in a meaningful way has yet to be taken up,” Prentice told a Calgary audience last week.
“There will be no way forward on the West Coast access without the central participation of first nations of British Columbia.”
Those in the know insist the federal review panel process meets the standard for aboriginal consultation.
Further, Enbridge has never provided the public with sufficient environmental assurances to set minds at ease about the project. Until it does — and that will involve putting in place five-star spill response protocols and cleanup insurance coverage — B.C. residents will continue to view the plans with concern and fear.
B.C.’s government has failed to develop a plan to ensure the province gets a fair share of revenues from the project.
It should have negotiated with Enbridge on fees, rents and commissions to guarantee an adequate level of largesse.
These initiatives would at least reflect some earnest efforts to “get to yes.”