Orcas and Pipelines

The big news this week, or at least the big news for some folks in BC and Alberta was, of course, the announcement that a Federal Court of Appeal had ruled that the approval process for the pipeline was insufficient both in terms of how the government engaged in dialogue with the First Nations communities and in the fact that it had not adequately dealt with the issue of how increased tanker traffic would affect the orcas. Not surprisingly - some of the individuals/organizations involved in this process have declared an absolute victory over the forces of darkness while others have declared an almost end to the world as we know it. The reality is that neither end of this reaction continuum is accurate.

There is no doubt that historically the Canadian government (along with private corporations, provincial governments, municipalities and any other sort of non-native organization or structure) have woefully failed to engage with First Nation communities on issues that affect them. In this particular case the government should have done so much more to create a meaningful dialogue. However, at the risk of sounding like an apologist for the federal government - the courts have continually increased their expectations; the definition of a "meaningful dialogue" has dramatically changed in the last decade or so. None-the- less- the federal government needs to find a better way of doing business and the courts have rightly told them so. On the other hand, everyone needs to understand that sometimes a "meaningful dialogue" does not mean that everyone agrees. In previous court cases it has been decided that the federal government has the right to make decisions on behalf of the country as a whole - even when that decision displeases a relatively small group of people. "Meaningful dialogue" means both sides listening to each other, sharing of ideas and solutions, honestly looking for resolutions to disagreements and ideally coming to a compromise or consensus. It does not means that a small group always wins.

I am less in agreement with the court (like they care what I think!) around the issue of the orcas. To suggest that increased tanker traffic might affect that particular pod strikes me, at best, to be narrow minded. It also panders to the human tendency to anthropomorphize animals we think are cute or noble. While an increase in tanker traffic may be the cause of some of the orcas' distress/inability to thrive, there might be other causes as well including the number of large cruise ships that sail up and down the BC coast line, the number of whale watching boats that continue to motor in areas known to be used by orcas and other large sea mammals, the amount of sewage that is dumped into the sea by Victoria and other municipalities who do not process their waste, the amount of plastics that end up in the world's oceans, the lack of attention to our rivers and streams that produce salmon (orcas mostly eat salmon) and the fact that humans continue to catch salmon for our personal use. To stop the construction of a pipeline because it might have an effect on a small group mammals and to do nothing about resolving all of the other issues affecting those mammals seems like a waste of paper the decision was written on.


A question to all of those who are celebrating. In the wee dark hours of the morning I hope some think about the fact that the most progressive, most environmental aware Albertan government ever - will now lose the next election to be replaced by a right wing, social conservative, pro business government, that 33 First Nation communities who were anticipating receiving significant income from the pipeline, will now not get it, and that, perhaps worst of all, oil will continued to be shipped by the most dangerous and least efficient/effective way - by rail. If the federal government finally learns how to negotiate in good faith then perhaps it will all be worthwhile. But I doubt it that will happen anytime in the near future.