Funny how politicians can just make up their own definitions for things.
Take James Carr, the natural resources minister, and his interpretation of the term “social licence.” It’s like he took a page straight out of the Orwellian Manual for Doublespeak.
Social licence, as we all know, refers to whether a community grants permission for something, typically a major resource project, such as a mine or a pipeline.
If the community is OK with the project, the proponent has social licence. If community members are throwing themselves in front of bulldozers and chaining themselves to trees in protest, the proponent does not have social licence.
You may recall Justin Trudeau’s oft-repeated line: Governments may grant permits, but only communities can grant permission. He used this ad nauseam in the run-up to the federal election when talking about Kinder Morgan, and he’s still using it now while talking about Energy East.
We asked Trudeau, when he was campaigning in Burnaby, where, exactly, he stood on the pipeline, and it was clear his position was on the fence.
We asked him how he planned to deal with the fact the pipeline’s terminus is in Burnaby, a city rife with opposition to the project. What we heard was a lot of vague rhetoric about how a new Liberal government was going to fix the National Energy Board review process and how important it was for projects to have social licence. That last part was likely reassuring for local Burnaby residents.
That’s why Carr’s definition of the term social licence is absolutely mind-boggling.
Here’s what he said when queried by local MP Kennedy Stewart on the government’s definition: “‘Social licence’ is about ensuring public confidence in the decision-making for major resource projects. The government is working to ensure that environmental assessments are fair and robust so that it can protect the environment while getting resources to market responsibly.” (See page 3 for the story.)
That’s right, social licence is no longer about the willingness of a community, like Burnaby, to allow a project literally through our backyards. It’s about building trust in the government’s decision-making process, to know they’ve made the right decision for us, even when local residents have said no.
