Newly sworn-in Environment Minister Mary Polak was less than impressed Tuesday with Enbridge鈥檚 explanation about why it should be allowed to pipe heavy oil across sa国际传媒 and ship it off the coast.
The sa国际传媒 government came down against the current proposal earlier. Enbridge tried to rebut the concerns this week in closing oral arguments before the federal panel reviewing the project.
But if Polak was moved by their answers, she wasn鈥檛 showing it. She said sa国际传媒 isn鈥檛 looking for commitments, it鈥檚 looking for hard facts.
鈥淚t鈥檚 all well and good to make promises,鈥� she said in an interview. 鈥淏ut we are looking for evidence.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 appropriate to approve this as it stands.鈥�
Polak said the government wants to scrutinize all the testimony carefully, but in evaluating Enbridge鈥檚 position, there still isn鈥檛 enough evidence to establish if the company is capable of backing up its positions.
As the government lawyer told the panel this week: 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want to be in a situation where Northern Gateway鈥檚 plans look good on paper but are not effective under real conditions.鈥�
Polak said the company seems to be questioning the seriousness of the risks that various parties have outlined, she said. 鈥淏ut at the same time they are making commitments that they could respond to all of them.
鈥淚鈥檓 not sure how seriously we should take those commitments, when at the same time they are discounting the nature of those risks.鈥�
Enbridge stressed the potential for economic catastrophe if Alberta oil were to get stranded. That would arise if the U.S. turned the taps off for Canadian imports and there was no port access to ship it offshore.
Polak said the economic impact does have to be considered, but 鈥渋t鈥檚 strange to me鈥� they would include that in their final argument, given the purpose of the hearings, which was to hear local concerns about whether it is in the public interest.
鈥淥n the one hand they are willing to analyze economic risk, but they should be willing to engage on concerns about environmental catastrophes. It鈥檚 an interesting contradiction.鈥�
Polak is free and clear at this point to take a hard-line position, as the government 鈥� after being hands-off in the initial going 鈥� has progressively toughened its stance on Northern Gateway as it stands.
But she is still the environment minister in a government that stands for huge job creation based on major resource development and just won a big mandate.
Her letter of instruction from Premier Christy Clark after being sworn in earlier this month tells her to continue working 鈥� independent of the federal review process 鈥� on marine and terrestrial heavy-oil spill-response studies, with regard to the five conditions sa国际传媒 has imposed before it would consider pipelines. (Regulatory approval, best safety practices on land and sea, First Nations buy-in and a fair share of revenue to the province.)
But she is required to be a lot more enthusiastic about liquefied natural gas. Her letter contains the same point all ministers got: 鈥淲e have a generational opportunity to develop liquefied natural gas. This will demand determination and purposeful work.鈥�
She is quick to point out the rest of the letter. It says Polak will play a key role in seizing the opportunity and tells her to work on making LNG facilities 鈥渢he cleanest in the world.鈥�
sa国际传媒 Liberals are now devoted to resource development in general and LNG in particular. The NDP was weak on the topic and it contributed to them blowing the election. So although the sa国际传媒 Liberals are still in a holding pattern on oil pipelines (against the current Northern Gateway, but willing to consider others conditionally), don鈥檛 expect Polak to blow too many whistles when it comes to big projects. Her job is to make sure they鈥檙e as clean as possible, not stop them.
Just So You Know: Another instruction from the premier鈥檚 office has to do with revamping the age-old debate about where the limits are when it comes to heavy industry in sa国际传媒 She is under orders to 鈥渃reate a round table (from community, labour, industry, First Nations and environmentalists) to provide guidance on how to balance environmental protection with economic development.鈥�
That balance point is unlikely to move in the green direction any time soon.
