Regina 鈥� Social licence was a hot topic at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference, with two former premiers speaking their mind on the subject.
Brad Wall, former Saskatchewan premier, said on May 28, 鈥淲e should never use that term, social license again.
鈥淭here鈥檚 a whole bunch of things implied by that term. First of all, that you don鈥檛 have it already, as a sector. You need to apply for it from someone. We really don鈥檛 know who is the issuer of the social license.
鈥淲e especially don鈥檛 know who the issuer is after the first Western Canadian foray to earnestly earn social license, was the Alberta carbon tax, which resulted in precisely zero change in the environmental political support for a pipeline project.
鈥淚t is not just a speaking point, to highlight for our fellow Canadians, that social license has long been paid by this industry.
鈥淚t鈥檚 paid in the taxes this industry has provided, to all of Canada. It鈥檚 paid in the direct support to transfer payments, that have quite literally ensured the survival and the viability of social programs. It鈥檚 paid for in the jobs that are created for Canadians. It鈥檚 paid for the taxes we鈥檝e already talked about, both directly and indirectly.
鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 mean, as a sector, that we ought not to be trying to better by the environment. But really, my view is we should separate these two things.鈥�
He went on, 鈥淲e helped, as and industry, and I would say governments are to blame. I share in it. I was around for 10 years as premier of Saskatchewan, the country鈥檚 second largest producer of oil. We have been very flatfooted. We have been not at all effective in telling the story that already exists about the sector, which would have earned whatever social license implies, and maybe avoided some of the challenges they鈥檝e faced recently to get the right public policy and pipelines built in Canada.鈥�
Wall said Canadians are getting there on their own. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not to late, for us as an industry, to demonstrate through action, technological advancements we talked about like pipeline integrity and carbon mitigation, but also to tell the true story.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 not too late for us to build support. We should call it that. It鈥檚 not a license. It鈥檚 support.
鈥淎nd there is a compelling case we have, in Western Canada, to build that support with Canadians, because Canadians, by the way, when given the facts, are very pragmatic.鈥澛�
He said when the rest of the country finds out the significance of the resource, that global demand will continue to increase through 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. 鈥淲hen Canadians do realize that, they do ask the very pragmatic Canadian question, if it鈥檚 not our oil because we can鈥檛 get a pipeline to tidewater, then whose is it? And from the list of competitor countries, Canadians are smart enough to realize that most of the countries we compete with probably aren鈥檛 as responsible, or as interested in the sustainability of the industry as we are.鈥�
Wall said his theory is that when Kinder Morgan鈥檚 Ian Anderson, president of Trans Mountain, gave the federal government a deadline of May 31 last year, 鈥淭he country started paying attention to this issue 鈥� of pipelines, of our oil and gas resource.鈥�
Poll after poll showed increasing support.
鈥淚f we make our case to Canadians, and we if we demonstrate by our actions, we continue to demonstrate by our actions that we don鈥檛 just care about the environment, we have a plan to protect it, and a plan to reinvest in it and we rehabilitate it, I think we won鈥檛 need to ask for a license for anybody. I think we鈥檙e going to see support grow.鈥�
Gary Doer on social license
Gary Doer, former Manitoba premier and Canadian ambassador to the United States, said on May 29, 鈥淪ocial license has almost become a strategy to get a veto, as opposed to get approval.
鈥淐onsultation with people affected, absolutely. It鈥檚 part of the due diligence process. In my way of thinking, it鈥檚 better to be done before you even propose something. You bring in engineers, lawyers, accountants proposing something. Know what the lay of the land ahead of time, through consultations.
鈥淢y view is projects should be approved under the definition of public interest. It鈥檚 public interest which should determine the final outcome of these applications.
鈥淓nergy is a public interest. Reliability, affordability of energy is a public interest. Clean air, clean water, is a public interest. To me the criteria for making decisions should be public interest.
鈥淚鈥檓 not sure what Brad said, but I鈥檓 sure he would be very upset about social licence, because it鈥檚 become a de facto veto for some people, which is unacceptable for the public interest of Canada, and in my view, is unacceptable to the people of Manitoba.鈥�
Doer added, 鈥淚 find it鈥檚 a phoney term. Do you know what my problem with social license is? It鈥檚 all social and no license.鈥�
