Legally, the Northern Gateway project needs federal government authorization and approval from the courts if any lawsuits are launched but realistically the project also needs social licence to operate.
From B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak to any number of groups who oppose the project, the idea of social licence has been the buzz phrase this week as the interprovincial pipeline project received a positive recommendation during its environmental assessment.
Just how a project like Northern Gateway goes about getting such a licence is less clear. There's no agency that issues it and people on different sides of the issue have different definitions of what exactly it entails.
For Brenda Gouglas of the Fort St. James Sustainability Group, a grassroots group opposed to the pipeline, social licence has already been revoked because of the way Northern Gateway handled itself in its first discussions with communities.
"I think it's got a lot to do with public consultation," she said. "They only have one chance to make a first impression in my mind, and I seriously think they blew it and to me they continue to blow it as far as that social licence piece and consultation goes."
The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has also been a vocal opponent of the project and chief Terry Teegee hinted the report's positive recommendation isn't sufficient to grant social licence because it was "out of touch with society."
"Of the hundreds of people and First Nations that spoke up and provided evidence demonstrating that the Enbridge project was too risky, the panel sided with big oil, and [Prime Minister Stephen Harper's] government in saying yes to Enbridge," Teegee said. "The [panel] has made a mistake in approving the project and the process has become a rubber stamp for the Harper government which is essentially a puppet for big oil."
Prince George-Peace River MP Bob Zimmer doesn't expect the federal cabinet to jump to conclusions about the fate of the project and said they would go over the panel's report "with a fine-toothed comb."
He said it will be up to both Northern Gateway and the federal government to reach out to groups that oppose the project in order to build the social licence that will be required for the pipeline to succeed.
"I think our social licence comes from being able to answer questions of concern," he said. "I think the social licence will come once those questions are answered. That's the proponent's job to do as well as our government, to see if those concerns can be answered."
As the proposed pipeline crosses a large part of Zimmer's riding, he said he plans to be in communication with the decision makers about the important issues raised during the pipeline debate.
"[Natural Resources Minister Joe] Oliver and I have a really good relationship and I'm on the Natural Resources committee as well, so any concerns, any comments, I bring them right to his attention," Zimmer said. "He's been very good about answering questions. We'll just continue that conversation over the next six months and hopefully come to a decision."
Overall, Zimmer praised the panel for the thoroughness of the report. He was particularly interested in the conditions placed on the project surrounding the terminal and tanker traffic as well as some of the pipe specifications.
"I used to work on pipelines as a young guy and things like the types of welds that are going to be used on the pipe and heat-treating of the pipe and coatings that will be on the pipe, to me that speaks to the extensive nature of the review and their attempt to really give it a good science-based look at how safe the project will be," he said.
While Zimmer liked what he saw, Gouglas came away disappointed.
The Fort St. James group was one of the smallest intervener groups in terms of funding, but they packed a big punch during the cross-examination hearings - which began in 2012 and concluded earlier this year.
Gouglas said despite all the time and effort her group put into studying the Northern Gateway proposal, identifying concerns and asking questions, she felt her group's views were left out of the final document. Although the group's evidence was referenced nine times by the panel in the report., it generally sided with Northern Gateway when giving its reasons for its recommendations.
"They might have heard us, but it doesn't appear they actually listened to what we had to say," Gouglas said.
She thanked all of those who helped in the group's efforts to date and was particularly pleased that the mayor and council of the community came out strongly against the project, both to the panel and in the media.
"For all those communities and those regional districts who have chosen not to come out and say whether they're for or against, and say we're just going to wait for the review and see how it unfolds and then we'll talk about it - it's too late," she said.
