You have to wonder where the Green party鈥檚 interpretation of a major federal research project on the north coast leaves the B.C. Liberals.
One of Premier Christy Clark鈥檚 five conditions for provincial approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline is a world-leading marine oil-spill response capability.
B.C.鈥檚 final submission to the federal panel reviewing the proposal made it clear that officials think Enbridge has fallen far short of provincial expectations about research into spill response.
But MP Elizabeth May and MLA Andrew Weaver of the Green party stepped up Wednesday with a purported revelation that convinces them that various federal departments are doing the research that the company didn鈥檛 do.
They produced leaked documents outlining a major federal research project about tanker traffic related to the Northern Gateway project. More than $100 million has been allocated over two years so four federal ministries can work on two related projects. One is meteorological research and navigation aids on the north coast, specifically related to tanker traffic. The other is the behaviour of diluted bitumen crude oil once it hits seawater.
That is exactly the topic that the government of B.C. landed on in its forceful final submission to the panel a few months ago.
鈥� 鈥楾rust me鈥� is not good enough,鈥� B.C. said then. 鈥淲hat dilbit [diluted bitumen] will do when it enters water remains unclear. Northern Gateway recognizes this lack of clarity itself.鈥�
B.C. also stressed the testimony of one expert witness: 鈥淚t鈥檚 extremely difficult to predict the behaviour of this product.鈥�
Lo and behold, it turns out the federal government has scrambled a team and given them a good chunk of money to answer just that question.
But Weaver and May are overcooking their revelation. They pitched it as an exclusive revelation. May said it was 鈥渉idden from parliamentarians.鈥�
鈥淭his funding went by without anybody being aware it was happening 鈥� Never available publicly.鈥�
In fact, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver stood at a press conference in 91原创 harbour last March and announced it to one and all. It was covered by various media and the clippings outline pretty much what May and Weaver claim to have uncovered.
In a sense, the federal government is just doing its job, researching some of the issues associated with a brand-new industrial venture in sensitive territory. They could be faulted for not doing it as easily as for doing it.
But Greens are opposed to the whole project, no matter what the findings are. So it鈥檚 easy for them to read the situation as a case of a pro-pipeline government stepping in to smooth the way for a pipeline company. They spun it as being done surreptitiously to spice it up a bit.
Leaving aside the over-hyped 鈥渞evelation,鈥� the more pertinent issue is whether B.C. is shifting gears on Northern Gateway.
Environment Minister Mary Polak said no on Wednesday. The final argument to the panel stands, and the government is opposed to the project in its present form.
But B.C. is doing similar work to what the federal government is accused of doing, researching various details about oil-spill response capabilities.
The government hired Nuka Research from Alaska to do a report on the current status of capabilities and outline best practices 鈥渟o that we know what it would take to bring our system up to the standard that we have outlined in the five conditions.鈥�
She said it will apply coast-wide and help improve the response system, no matter what happens with new pipelines.
She couldn鈥檛 speak to the federal research, but it sounds as if both governments are working on the same problem from different angles.
Polak said that 鈥渁s far as taxpayers being on the hook,鈥� B.C. has a polluter-pay regime.
But that鈥檚 only after the spill. It looks as if a good share of government money is going into figuring out how to prevent spills in the first place.
Whether that鈥檚 鈥済reasing the wheels鈥� for Enbridge, as May said, or just a prudent response to a major new venture depends on where you stand on the venture.
