British Columbia Liberals have prided themselves for the past while about how judicious they have been in not leaping to conclusions about the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.
And they have been quick to point out what a bad example the NDP opposition has set with its knee-jerk decision to make the popular play and come out against the oil pipeline well before all the evidence about the project is in.
As Premier Christy Clark put it yet again on Monday: "You can play politics with it and decide to heck with the process, the facts don't matter - or you can take the responsible course on this, which is I think what we've done -. We want to make sure we know what the potential risks and benefits are and then we'll be able to take a position on it."
But it's starting to look like the two different approaches to decision-making are going to take the two parties near to the same place - a position that is either outright opposed or very skeptical about the proposal's future.
The multibillion-dollar project involves an oil pipeline from Alberta across the breadth of B.C. to a new oil port at Kitimat, with a twin line bringing condensate in the opposite direction. It starts so many arguments, it's hard to know where to begin. Oilsands. Tanker traffic. Salmon-stream crossings. Native land claims. Interprovincial co-operation. Benefit-sharing. National interest.
That's why the Liberals have stayed neutral on the project since Christy Clark became premier last year.
But Clark told reporters Monday that B.C. is readying to exercise its rights as an intervener in the review hearings now underway. There will be news in the next few days about details of B.C.'s participation.
Clark said the move flows naturally from the due process that is being followed. But she acknowledged that last week's devastating findings by a U.S. agency about an Enbridge pipeline rupture into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan are also in play.
The National Transportation Safety Board flayed the company for every aspect of the spill. Poor maintenance caused the spill and a mystifying level of ignorance or stupidity by trained technicians made it worse. The rupture spurted oil into local waters for 17 hours while the Canadian controlroom staff - who sent two new surges into the breach - tried to figure out what all the alarm indicators meant. They never did - it was a Michigan utility worker who finally phoned them and told them they were pumping oil into a marsh.
Clark joined in the condemnation last week and on Monday said: "We're also going to be asking some of the questions that arise out of the NTSB review. Everybody is more concerned now.
"If they hope to operate in B.C., they're going to do it in a responsible way and I don't think that NTSB report gives anybody a great deal of comfort that Enbridge was operating in a responsible way in Kalamazoo. We're going to be putting some tough questions to the company as we get into these hearings."
The environment ministry will be taking the lead in intervening and Environment Minister Terry Lake concurred that the Michigan spill "brings up a whole new set of questions."
Whatever the government of B.C. comes up with, the neutral stance the Liberals have clung to means they missed an opportunity to submit evidence.
The deadline to make submissions was at the end of last year and B.C. stayed mute. Whatever they do now will be in the form of cross-examining the proponents or asking questions of others, rather than submitting evidence.
Just So You Know: The argument over B.C.'s status as an "intervener" rather than a "government participant" continues.
Lake said Monday he initially opted for the latter status. That's what Alberta and several federal departments did. But he said the NDP suggested intervener status and he realized that would provide more flexibility.
A line-by-line comparison of the rules for the two designations shows one of the big differences isn't about the questions to be asked.
It's about the answers. Government participants have to answer any and all questions during final hearings.
Interveners only have to respond to requests about the evidence they submit. And B.C. submitted none.
If you're looking for government participants from B.C, try Masset, Kitimat, Chetwynd or Fort St. James. They all registered as such.
