Parliament's Recent Oil Tanker Ban Vote a Wake-up Call

 
On Tuesday December 7th, the House of Commons in Ottawa passed a resolution calling for a ban on oil tanker traffic on the West Coast. The resolution passed by a vote of 143 to 138, with all three opposition parties voting in favour. The tanker-ban vote was an attempt to obstruct the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

Initiatives Prince George (IPG) has a well-defined position on major resource development and infrastructure projects on the provincial land base. Our organization supports development – including the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline – provided that a proponent meets its “social license obligations” to consult and accommodate (and if possible partner with) First Nations interests; that they meet prevailing regulatory requirements for environmental protection, mitigation, and remediation; and, that a defined stream of long-term community benefits is provided.

The tanker-ban vote, while non-binding on the federal government, raises a number of concerns.

First, a vote of this nature should await the work of the Joint National Energy Board / Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Review Panel (JRP) which is reviewing the comprehensive application Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines filed earlier this year.

Second, tanker traffic on the West Coast will continue with Alaska origin crude traveling to refineries in Northern Washington State.  At the same time, there is regular tanker traffic in and out of the Port of Vancouver to a refinery at the head of Burrard Inlet. Given this, the non-binding vote is meaningless in the bigger scheme, but potentially harmful in terms of investor and customer perceptions about Canada as a stable supplier of natural resources.

Third, in the same way that the provincial government has opened Chinese markets to dimension lumber, it is imperative that the vast markets of the Asia Pacific be opened to Alberta hydro-carbons, subject again to Enbridge meeting its social license obligations before the JRP.

To do otherwise, Canada will lose an important opportunity to help provide economic benefits to communities and much needed revenue to governments for health and social programs.
 
While the vote on tanker traffic is ultimately non-binding, it should serve as a wake-up call to those who support the export of our hydro-carbon resources to the Asia Pacific.
 
Enbridge should be reminded that more work needs to be done on-the-ground to earn their social license to operate, including addressing First Nations and broader Northern British Columbia community expectations for more pro-active engagement, communication, and negotiations around direct benefits of the project.

It should also provide Enbridge with the impetus to define a long-term benefit stream for communities in Northern British Columbia. While many of these communities may welcome short-term jobs and project procurement opportunities, they likely regard these as being transitory while seeing lucrative long-term benefits accruing to outside interests.

Enbridge should consider a “triple bottom-line” Trust or other benefit stream mechanism to provide environmental, social, and economic benefits for both First Nations and other communities in Northern British Columbia over the long term.

If Enbridge does so, this will go a long way to answering a frequent question in First Nations and non-Aboriginal communities: What is in it (i.e. the Northern Gateway Pipeline) for us?

In the final analysis, the regulatory process should be allowed to run its course before Parliament passes judgment on any aspect of the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. The recent vote also demonstrates that Enbridge has considerable work to do in convincing Northern British Columbians to support this critically important “national interest” project.

Throughout 2011 the JRP will be holding public hearings throughout Northern British Columbia. We encourage all interested parties to participate.