In Response to the BC Chamber of Commerce Op-Ed Letter on Pipeline and LNG Project Development
Before I continue, let me be understood: I have no sort of connection whatever with any environmental group, community, First Nation, resource company, or anyone associated with the proposed Pipeline or LNG Project. I am a graduate level trained economic development professional and public policy specialist, especially in Northern development.
The Chamber of Commerce is the advocacy group whose raison d'être is to influence public policy and political decision makers on the benefits of business friendly policy initiatives. It is not surprising that the Chamber of Commerce would come out on the unequivical position supporting the project. This is what's expected. However, like the opponents you brandish in your comments, you, too, are also playing politics. If you really want to limit the debate to the technical, instead of what it is, let's just leave this discussion up to the experts in the technical field to find a resolution. But this is not how decisions are made: they are determined by the political economy; that is, the politics of economics and deciding who gets what and how much.
While the proponents of the pipeline and LNG Project are accountable for the development of the business, the rest of us don't have the financial capital, political machine, or other tools at our disposal to address many of the issues. This has been a strong consideration for First Nations for time immemorial: they don't have the same resources to review issues and impacts with the same details and rigour. Why do you think other avenues have been pursued? At least, in recent memory, there have been strides made in the field of IBAs (Impact and Benefit Agreements) for First Nations. There is also a movement and technical development in the field of Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs). These are the tools that are now being employed by certain components of society in order to address the questions of business development.
More than IBAs and CBAs, the question is not limited to the project development but the political economy of the decision-making. Based on your arguments, you believe in the absolutism of representative democracy: the decision-making powers that rest with an elected representative. Well, guess what, this construct of decision-making is what's changing for many people, especially, First Nation communities. The sooner organizations, business, and the British Parliamentarians of the Provincial and Federal government realize this paradigm shift, the sooner it will be clear that it is not the issue of development but the issue of decision-making.
Insofar as your remarks on sidelining economics versus the environment, let's be clear: the problem is too often it is a competition rather than a collaborative approach. It is assumed one is sacrificed for the other. Successful developments are based on sustainability; that is, the sustainability of the living environment for people, places, and business. There needs to be a shift in approach to the environment and economy. This is the entire foundation of the First Nation cause regarding the economy and environment, especially, who decides and what is acceptable development. The answer to the question is that any business initiative needs to be evaluated on its environmental impacts before it can be considered for it’s economic impact. Why? Because, if the living environment is damaged, there will be no business environment. And, I’m not talking about the eco-system; I am referring to the human, living environment.
In terms of the industrial development, the pipeline and LNG Project reinforces the idea that Canada still remains, in the words of economic history, a "Third World" economy with a "First World" standard of living. That is, we have not advanced to any appreciable degree beyond the staples economy developed by Harold Innis. As the Father of Canadian economic development and political economy, he states that Canada was and, to a great degree, still is an economy of "hewers of wood and drawers of water". Concomitantly, oil, gas, and other resources that Canada possesses will continue to be drivers of the economy. It is not a matter of employing them but how to employ them.
Instead of blindly supporting the continued progress of the status quo, you may want to consider the "value-added" component to this resource development. Unfortunately, politicians and business continue to pursue the direction of least resistance. Instead of demanding innovation and "value-added" development to Canadian resources, it is an accepted practice to continue down the path of a staples economy until, some time in the future, this country no longer possess such natural abundance and will, finally, have to face the limited possibilities. Once again, though, this is in the distant future, beyond the scope and vision of business and, especially, political decision makers.
In the provincial Norths and Northern Canada development it is understood through many channels--economic is only one avenue. Political, economic, and social development are the cornerstones of sustainability for Northern peoples, especially, First Nation communities. The Berger Report of the 1970s taught us this lesson in political economy.
So, before you continue along your path of blind faith in the wisdom of a "super-natural, natural resource" BC, spend some time understanding the dynamics of people, places, and the need to balance the ephemera needs of the present with the sustainability requirements of the future.
