The federal government has approved the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. But what does it mean for Canada? It depends who you ask.

The $9.3-billion expansion would essentially twin the existing 1,150-kilometre pipeline, triple the flow of oil and result in a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic to the terminal in Burrard Inlet. The federal government is expected to make its final decision on the project’s approval by Tuesday.

The Star has rounded up a list of arguments both for and against the government-owned pipeline leading up to Ottawa’s expected announcement. They are offered here. You can decide which are more persuasive.

Five arguments for approving the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion

The argument: A path to tidewater is good for Canada — not just Alberta

The pipeline expansion project would mean more income tax revenue for the federal government because of an economic uptick in an economically robust province, argued Concordia University economist Moshe Lander.

“The oil and gas in Alberta is worth billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and it’s worth thousands and thousands of jobs,” Lander said.

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, using numbers from the Conference Board of Canada, said direct construction jobs from the pipeline’s construction would vary considerably from year to year, but peak year employment would be about 13,500. Long-term benefits would be seen through increased incomes and productivity.

Read more:

Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is approved by Ottawa

Trans Mountain pipeline approved despite B.C. opposition

Alberta oilpatch rejoices as Ottawa delivers long-awaited Trans Mountain pipeline approval

There’s a political advantage for the Liberal federal government as well, said Mount Royal University political science professor Lori Williams, in that they’ve already dug themselves in as proponents of the project. The federal government purchased the project from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion in 2018.

“The balance between the environment and the economy is an important part of this and that’s why the opinion polls have shifted from opposition to support,” Williams said. “It’s almost completely reversed from where it was in January 2018.”

The argument: Alberta oil is relatively clean and ethical

Canadian oil is subject to much higher environmental standards when compared to other parts of the world and the country has a better track record on human rights than OPEC members such as Saudi Arabia, Williams said.

She added that more stringent code requirements for tankers on the coastline have reduced the chances of spills and that the oil industry is continually working to raise its own requirements for production for lower and cleaner emissions.

She said oil companies are constantly working on improving safety and monitoring of spills, stopping them sooner and restricting the environmental damage.

Furthermore, transporting crude or bitumen by rail is more likely to result in derailment and spillage than transporting by pipeline, Williams said.

“If pipeline spills occur, particularly with new technology and monitoring, they tend to be smaller and less dangerous,” she said.

The argument: Increased market competition

If Alberta wants to be competitive in the global energy industry, getting their product to markets in Asia is crucial. According to Lander, having the additional capacity to ship oil to a port in B.C. will do that.

“When we talk about diversifying the economy, the diversification that they’re usually talking about is about moving away from oil — that’s 20, 30, 50 years out. The short-term diversification is diversifying away from one buyer of our product, and that’s traditionally been the Americans,” Lander said.

“By building an expansion of TMX and getting this to the port of Vancouver, that now opens us up to a larger number of markets in Asia that would be willing to pay top dollar for our quality product.”

That will also allow Alberta to sell its oil at more competitive prices, especially as the U.S. shale market expands.

The argument: Satisfying demand as we head into carbon-free future

The reality is that the world is moving away from oil, Lander said. He added that greater concern for the results of climate change mean this is the case, but that just means the value that is in Alberta has to be extracted and exported while there’s still time.

“When the world moves to a carbon free future, whether that’s 2030 or 2100 or whatever it is, the value of Alberta’s resource will fall,” he said. “It’s kind of unfortunate, but it’s sort of a now or never approach.”

The starting point of the debate is the fact that there are so many resources — more than Canada could ever consume on its own — that there has to be a way to ship it, Lander said. People not wanting a pipeline through their backyard are justified in their concerns, but Lander said there could be financial incentives to offset those issues.

“When you’re a landlocked province, the fact is that this resource has to be moved to ports where that resource can be sent to people who actually want it. It’s just a basic supply and demand exercise.”

The argument: Indigenous buy-in

There has been talk of a consortium of First Nations purchasing a majority stake in the pipeline, but even if that doesn’t happen, the pipeline will create meaningful work and investment opportunities for First Nations, Williams said.

“We have a large number of First Nations that support the pipeline or pipelines in general … It’s important to not just have revenue, but to actually be doing work that you can take some pride in,” she said.

She noted that First Nations that have steady revenues tend to be more prosperous and healthy than those that receive windfall lump sum compensations that dry up.

There’s also the possibility of First Nations being more equal partners with the province on economic projects.

“There’s all sorts of problems that could come as well. But the idea that they would be partners as opposed to adversaries, or clients if you like, that does a lot for dignity and could constitute a significant improvement.”

The argument: Political repercussions

The pipeline’s approval could result in political fallout for Alberta’s United Conservative Party government. Williams said the Alberta NDP’s early leadership on the carbon tax file showed the province was serious about balancing the environment and the economy.

“It’s blunted, to some degree, environmental opposition. … Probably Albertans have noticed, that we’re a little bit less the environmental bad guys on the national or international stage than we used to be,” Williams said, adding premier Jason Kenney risks an erosion of pipeline support from across the country if he is perceived to be pushing for the pipeline without adequately weighing environmental concerns.

“There’s a real danger if Jason Kenney pushes too hard, he’s going to get blowback. That’s my biggest concern … he’s really strong on Alberta’s interests, but that’s got to be balanced,” Williams said.

Five arguments against approving the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion

The argument: Risk of oil spills

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Environmentalists say it’s not a matter of if there is an oil spill, but when.

There were 155 spills along National Energy Board-regulated pipelines between January 2016 and July 2018, as Star Vancouver previously reported. Thirteen of those resulted in a total of 1,127 cubic metres of oil being spilled.

In May 2018, 4,800 litres of a medium crude blend spilled at the Darfield Pump Station near Barriere, B.C. — about 60 kilometres north of Kamloops — along the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.

A 2018 report by the group Raincoast Conservation Foundation found that a spill in the Lower Fraser River or one of its many tributaries could be “catastrophic” and destroy critical spawning habitat. The report notes a third of the salmon populations in the Fraser are considered at-risk of extinction, including Chinook salmon, a species that the critically endangered southern resident killer whales rely on for their survival.

The pipeline expansion would also increase tanker traffic along B.C.’s coast sevenfold, increasing the chances of a spill, the effects of which are long lasting in any marine environment. The repercussions of a 110,000 litres of fuel spill in 2016 on B.C.’s central coast are still being felt today. The Heiltsuk First Nation has not been able to reopen many of its fisheries, including its commercial clam harvest.

The argument: Climate change

Climate scientists say it will be nearly impossible for Canada to meet its climate commitments and greenhouse-gas-emission goals if the Trans Mountain pipeline project goes ahead.

Kirsten Zickfeld, an expert in climate science at Simon Fraser University, told Star Vancouver the pipeline would make it “very difficult, if not impossible” for Canada to fulfil its Paris Agreement commitments.

While government modelling from December 2017 shows Canada was not on track to meet its 2030 commitments based on the initiatives in place as of September 2017, the federal government has committed to meeting its targets and said the pipeline won’t prevent that.

In 2016, Canada emitted 704 megatonnes of greenhouse gasses. Oil and gas accounted for 26 per cent of those emissions. Under the Paris Agreement, the government committed to reduce overall emissions to 517 megatons, or 30 per cent below 2005 levels.

As part of its review of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency found the project could result in 13 to 15 megatons of greenhouse gasses from new oil production. That’s equal to two per cent of Canada’s overall emissions in 2016, or between 21 and 25 per cent of B.C.’s total reported emissions for the same year.

Climate scientist Simon Donner at the University of British Columbia said the numbers don’t add up and Canada won’t be able to meet its climate commitments.

“All I’m saying, as somebody who studies this stuff for a living, is the actual math doesn’t work,” he said. “If you put this to a climate test, it would fail.”

The argument: Indigenous opposition

Some First Nation communities, including the Coast Salish nations of Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh, say they will not allow the pipeline expansion through their lands, and have launched multiple legal challenges to fight the project.

Squamish Nation councillor Khelsilem, who goes by his traditional name, said in an earlier interview that his community felt their rights as Indigenous people were not being respected in relation to the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

“Burrard Inlet is a home to Squamish people … and we will continue to fight to protect that home,” he said.

Indigenous concerns with the Trans Mountain project range from the protection of cultural sites to preserving wild fish habitat.

Minister of Natural Resources Amarjeet Sohi told Star Vancouver in May the government is committed to consulting with Indigenous groups in a meaningful way. He said he has personally met with 60 leaders of various Indigenous communities living on the route of the expansion project.

The argument: Endangered orcas

Conservationists say any increased tanker traffic would threaten the small but iconic population of southern resident killer whales that frequent the waters of coastal B.C.

If the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion goes ahead, tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet could increase sevenfold, dialing up the volume of vessel noise. Whale scientists say that would make life even more difficult for the orcas, which rely on echolocation to hunt for their preferred prey, Chinook salmon.

The whales cannot afford anymore blows if they are to avoid extinction, say conservationists. In 2018 alone, four out of the 78 orcas counted in 2017 were declared dead.

The critically endangered group of 75 orcas has not had a successful birth — meaning a birth where a calf lived more than a few months — since 2016. One calf was born in recent weeks and conservationists are nervously following its progress. At least one whale, matriarch J17, is currently showing signs of malnutrition and starvation.

According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the southern resident orcas are genetically and culturally distinct from their mammal-eating cousins. They communicate in a language specific to their population and they hold their own culture, which whale scientists say would be lost if the population went extinct.

The fate of the southern resident orcas was cited as a major factor in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to suspend the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project in August 2018.

Dyna Tuytel, staff lawyer with Ecojustice, said she could not recall another example where one group of animals made such a dramatic impact on a large federal project.

“Governments won’t be able to ignore that something drastic has to change and now the world is in love with this population,” said Deborah Giles, conservation biologists with the University of Washington. “The world won’t let these whales perish.”

The argument: Political repercussions

Giving the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion the green light could also hurt the federal government’s chances in B.C. during the upcoming election, according to political observers and strategists.

“The Liberals … in the course of governing and trying to keep the country together, have probably alienated some of those folks in B.C. who wanted the prime minister and the Liberals to be more environmentally committed,” said David Coletto, head of Abacus Data, a group of political consultants and strategists.

“It’s hard to do when you’re trying to look out for the interest of both B.C. and Alberta as a national government.”

The party currently holds 17 seats in B.C., but observers say provincial disenchantment with Trudeau is on the rise because he has “failed” on many files, including proportional representation, reconciliation, and the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

“(All that has) dramatically reduced his party’s fortunes in Greater Vancouver on progressive, environmentally conscious voters,” said former BC Liberal Martyn Brown. “On so many files, he’s proven himself to be the opposite of what he purports to be.”

Polls conducted this spring show Trudeau’s popularity is declining in B.C. A March survey revealed half of British Columbians want to see a change in leadership in Ottawa, while an April survey showed the Conservatives were ahead in the polls overall and that 71 per cent of B.C. residents disapprove of “the job Justin Trudeau is doing as prime minister.”

With files from Ainslie Cruickshank, Melanie Green and David P. Ball

Read more about: