Front Burner - What will it take to build Trans Mountain? What will it take to stop it?

Episode Date: November 26, 2018

Reconsideration hearings for the proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline continue this week in B.C. This is the same pipeline that the federal government bought for $4.5-billion, only to have a Federal Court of Appeal delay construction because the review didn't consider oil tanker traffic, or consult enough with Indigenous groups. UBC professor Kathryn Harrison lays out what it might take to get the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion through, and what it could take to stop it.

Hey there, I'm Kathleen Goltar and I have a confession to make. I am a true crime fanatic. I devour books and films and most of all true crime podcasts. But sometimes I just want to know more. I want to go deeper. And that's where my podcast Crime Story comes in. Every week I go behind the scenes with the creators of the best in true crime. I chat with the host of Scamanda, Teacher's Pet, Bone Valley, the list goes on. For the insider scoop, find Crime Story in your podcast app. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. I'm Jamie Poisson.

Right now, you, fellow Canadian, are the owner of a pipeline that cannot be built. And today, a series of hearings unfolding in Victoria will help decide whether that's going to change or not. I'm talking, of course, about the Trans Mountain Pipeline, the one that the federal liberals bought for $4.5 billion, only to have a federal court of appeal bring the process to a screeching halt. They did that by deciding that not enough consultation with Indigenous groups had been done on the project, and that the review should consider oil tanker traffic more. Those hearings I just mentioned, they're an attempt to remedy all of that. This project, it's been so divisive.

B.C. politicians have been arrested for protesting it. They did not respect the rights of interveners. They did not respect the rights of Indigenous peoples on this territory. Many in the province, they're worried about oil spills in the ocean and threats to marine life. Meanwhile, in Alberta, last week, thousands staged a pro-pipeline protest. It happened outside a venue where the prime minister was speaking. The backdrop there is that oil prices are really low.

And some experts say a new pipeline or expanding an old pipeline could help turn that around. So, as British Columbians get their say on Trans Mountain, today we're asking, what will it take to get this pipeline expansion through? And what could it take to stop it? The environmental community and First Nations, they don't want a pipeline. For the oil industry, they absolutely have to have a pipeline. For the oil industry, they absolutely have to have a pipeline. And the interesting question in all of this is where everybody else stands. This is From Berner.

Hello, my name is Catherine Harrison. I'm a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia. I teach courses on and conduct research on environmental and climate change policy and also Canadian politics. I know this is a really contentious project in B.C. and there have been protests there since 2014. And I'm hoping that we can start today by recapping who is opposed to this in British Columbia. Well, the opposition comes from environmental groups who have opposed the project, both because of the potential for oil spills on land and on the coast, and also because of its contribution to climate change. Saying no to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain proposal

is saying yes to addressing climate change. It's saying yes to moving to a sustainable economy. It is opposed by a number, but not all, First Nations in British Columbia for those same reasons, but also because the pipeline crosses their unceded traditional ancestral territory without their consent. Any of the people up here that represent the nations could have negotiated for millions. But we can't put a price on the things that we love. though not a majority of British Columbians who are sympathetic to some or all of those concerns that have been raised by environmentalists and First Nations. I know NDP Premier John Horgan is a firm opponent of the Trans Mountain expansion as it currently stands.

I'm doing what I said I would do. I'm defending the interests of British Columbia. What are the main arguments that John Horgan has against the Trans Mountain expansion? I mean, the Premier of British Columbia and the BC government have had to be careful to frame their arguments in terms of areas of legitimate authority for the province. Interprovincial pipelines as a topic in and of itself is clearly federal, but the provincial government having responsibility to protect the environment within British Columbia has indirect areas of authority. So the big question right now is whether the province can regulate the transport of bitumen across the province as a legitimate exercise of its authority to protect the lands and coast. What is John Horgan, what is he worried about will happen if this bitumen is allowed to travel through this pipeline?

If one of those tankers to which the oil will be transferred runs aground and the oil spills in the water. Our marine environment is critically important to our economy. It's important to the very being of British Columbia. And we have said all along that the federal government, the previous government and the current government did not adequately measure the consequences of a diluted bitumen spill. And there's particular concern about what bitumen will do. Will it sink in the ocean, in which case it can't be recovered and could do more lasting damage to ecosystems than if it floated like light crude oil

that could be contained and collected off the top of the water. So on the con side, we have Indigenous groups, environmental groups, politicians in B.C., and they're really concerned about this project expanding for environmental reasons, spills that could happen on the land in B.C. and also off the coast of B.C. I want to talk about the other side of this, because we also have this, the people in Alberta who are protesting to get more pipelines built. So that the province can get the oil that they're creating out of the province. So can you lay out that argument for me? Why do they want this pipeline built? The economy of the province of Alberta is heavily reliant on the oil industry. It's also heavily reliant on exporting the vast majority of the oil that is produced in Alberta

to other jurisdictions. And historically, all of Canada's international exports have gone to the U.S., from Alberta to the United States. That is now threatened by the U.S. dramatically increasing its own production of oil through fracking, so-called shale oil. So we're looking at a situation where the U.S. doesn't need Canada's oil as much as it used to. And the Alberta oil industry has responded by proposing pipelines that would get that oil to other markets. The only one through Canada that's left standing is the Trans Mountain pipeline. So sentiment in Alberta is strongly pro-pipeline.

The Alberta government, led by Premier Rachel Notley, is adamantly fighting for that pipeline and very angry with the various complications that have delayed its being built. Albertans are angry. I am angry. Alberta has done everything right, and we've been let down. Until the federal government gets its act together, Alberta is pulling out of the federal climate plan. And let's be clear, without Alberta, that plan isn't worth the paper it's written on.

And that's being exacerbated right now by a very low price of oil, both internationally and especially for Canadian bitumen in U.S. markets. So the Alberta government and the Alberta oil industry are very much counting on being able to get their oil to Asia, to new markets where there is still greater demand for it and where they anticipate getting a higher price per barrel. The Federal Court of Appeal came back and they concluded that the National Energy Board, which was overseeing this project, did not properly consult with Indigenous people. And also that there wasn't enough done when it came to assessing the environmental impact of this pipeline, particularly the increased amount of tanker traffic. And so now the government has to engage in new hearings. Can you tell me a little bit about how these hearings are going to play out? The reason the NEB has initiated a new review is because they need to fix those two flaws that the federal court of appeal found.

The key one, and the one where there's a lot of uncertainty, I think, is that the court found that the federal government failed to fulfill its obligation to consultation and dialogue. On one hand, the court said First Nations do not have a veto and this should be fixable. And it kind of laid out a path to do that. On the other hand, the First Nations in question, six First Nations that challenged the federal approval of the pipeline, are, of course, arguing that rushing the process to require a report in February 2019 will not allow for meaningful dialogue and that this process will not meet the standards expected of the court. It's so short and it's so flawed.

How can Justin Trudeau call this meaningful? And I think there's a lot of uncertainty because this is an area where there has been evolving jurisprudence. So I think it's inevitable that there will be more court, there will be more litigation about this. The federal government has already said that they support the pipeline. And one of the big questions is, if they're going into these consultations already saying they're supportive of the pipeline, it's going to be built, then can it be a meaningful two-way dialogue with that statement already on the table? I anticipate the federal government will go through this, will then approve the pipeline, and the same First Nations are likely to challenge it again in court.

And is it possible that they have a chance to prevent this pipeline from being built? Absolutely. I mean, they've succeeded so far. So I think it's entirely possible that this next process, the do-over by the NEB, will also be seen as falling short by the courts. But it's also possible that the courts will consider that it has discharged the federal government's responsibility and that they've done what the court has asked of them. And what about the British Columbia government? Is there anything that they can do to try and stop this? Well, what they've done is they've introduced a bill that would give authority to the provincial government to pass regulations to limit the transport of bitumen across the province. Now, when the province introduced that bill, the Alberta government

was furious. In the first round, they directed their liquor control board to stop importing BC wine. I'm also encouraging all Albertans. Next time you're thinking about ordering a glass of wine, think of our energy workers, think of your neighbours, think of our community, think about our province, and maybe choose some terrific Alberta craft beer instead. I remember when this was very controversial. Oh, yeah. It was quite something to watch these two premiers who were friends when they were younger and colleagues.

They're from the same party in such a pitched battle. We will not let the government of B.C. hold Alberta's and Canada's economy hostage. We believe we have jurisdiction to protect the interests of British Columbians. Our neighboring province disagrees with that. The federal government disagrees with that. So Indigenous groups are fighting this on the grounds that they don't want this pipeline running across their lands. And the B.C. government is trying to implement rules around how much bitumen can flow through its province. So this is like being fought on at least two fronts in British Columbia right now. Is that fair?

Yes, it is. And now I want to move to Alberta. So the other side, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, she says that there are tools at her disposal, quote, to make sure the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion goes through. She says right now, though, she's focused on working in good faith with the federal government. What tools is she talking about? says right now, though, she's focused on working in good faith with the federal government. What

tools is she talking about? So during that whole battle between Alberta and BC in the spring of 2018, one of the things that Rachel Notley's government in Alberta did is they introduced legislation that would authorize the provincial government essentially to turn off the taps and to shut off the supply of oil from Alberta to British Columbia through the existing pipeline and other existing routes of transport. Alberta has introduced that legislation. It's also being contested in court. They haven't exercised the authority that that legislation would give them yet, but they're threatening to do so. And that's a serious threat because British Columbia gets a significant share of the oil

that it consumes from Alberta. One of the big questions is how quickly the BC oil industry could pivot and start sourcing its oil from Washington state, for instance. You know, that remains to be seen. But Rachel Notley and her government are certainly fighting for their political life, partly because when they formed government in 2015, they adopted a carbon tax to address Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions. That's been very unpopular. And Rachel Notley was depicted as an enemy of the oil industry. But also her province is struggling economically because of the low price of oil. And as always, voters look to the leader of their

government to fix the problem. So the Notley government has been doing everything in its power to date that's mostly been rhetorical to try to get that Trans Mountain Pipeline built. Lastly, I want to talk about the prime minister and the upcoming federal election campaign. On the one hand, Justin Trudeau has a coalition of pro-pipeline people and oil prices are very low in Alberta right now. There are a lot of people that say a pipeline could fix that. On the other hand, this is a government that has been a huge proponent of the environment and also reconciliation with Indigenous people. So how does Justin Trudeau navigate all of this?

That's a really big question. I think the liberals in the 2015 election essentially promised to be all things to all people. essentially promised to be all things to all people. And in particular, Justin Trudeau has made three commitments that arguably are not consistent with each other. The fact of the matter is that being strong on the environment and strong on the economy go together. And the inconsistencies among those commitments are coming home to roost in 2019, an election year.

Do you think it's an impossible set of circumstances to navigate? Well, I think it's impossible to do everything that everyone wants. These are issues that are genuinely in tension and where governments need to make decisions that arguably say yes to some people and no to others. Canada does not have a plan in place to meet its Paris Agreement target. And the main reason that Canada's plan falls short is anticipated emissions increases from growth and production in the oil sands. So Justin Trudeau's support for the oil industry is not just intention because of the pipeline, but because of the emissions that result from producing the oil. Can we have leadership on climate change and at the same time doubling down on our reliance on production of heavy oil

for export? I don't think so. Can we say that we want that only communities, including First Nations communities, give consent and at the same time do what it takes to get Canada's oil to markets. I don't think so. So, you know, he has promised some things that I think are getting him in trouble now as he approaches an election year. And it becomes clear that he can't be all things to all people. Catherine, thank you so much for this conversation. You're very welcome. The Trans Mountain Reconsideration hearings are in Victoria, BC this week and in Nanaimo the next. There's going to be live audio streams of all the sessions, but limited access to the actual hearings themselves.

The National Energy Board, which is conducting these hearings, needs to hand in the final report to the federal government on a really tight timeline. It's due February 22, 2019. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner. the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was,

please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.