Those that want to argue the Husky Oil pipeline spill happened because Premier Brad Wall was just too cozy with the oil companies are missing a couple of very important points.
First, the pipeline that ruptured was installed in 1997 during the days of the former NDP administration and, frankly, before the existence of Wall’s Saskatchewan Party.
Much is being made by conspiratorial Wall critics that his cozy relationship with the oil sector (and supposed interest in oil board appointments post-politics) is somehow directly connected to what happened. This is nonsense.
Lest we forget that one of the first things the great Tommy Douglas did after his career in politics was to accept an appointment to the Husky Oil Board of directors (Yes, for readers too young to remember, the much-vaunted social democrat leader went to the supposedly hated oil companies).
And while it is true that Wall eagerly attended Husky Energy’s opening of its Edam East heavy oil thermal project just a week before the election, a big part of a premier’s job is to promote such economic growth and activity.
It had nothing to do with the spill of 250,000 litres of crude oil into the North Saskatchewan River late last month.
Even if, according to Husky, the spill was triggered during the start-up of the pipeline connection of the company’s heavy oil connection in west central Saskatchewan, let us be clear that the project was repeatedly reviewed by the Ministry of Environment for three years before start-up.
In fact, the ministry conducted reviews in August 2013, July 2014, December 2014 and December 2015.
This takes us to the second, critical point: There is really no evidence that the Wall government has been specifically more lax than the former NDP government.
The Environment Ministry contended that no specific environmental impact assessments were needed for these projects because they were not considered “developments” under the existing act and did not warrant an environmental impact review.
So notwithstanding the fact that Brad Wall is a far greater proponent of pipelines, no laws have changed to benefit the oil companies.
But this, by no means, suggests that no one in Saskatchewan saw potential problems with the existing pipeline safety rules or how they were being enforced.
In fact, the provincial auditor wrote back in 2012 that the then Energy and Resources Ministry “did not have effective processes to ensure full compliance with The Pipelines Act, 1998 and The Pipelines Regulations, 2000. There are requirements under this legislation that are not being acted upon. Failure to regulate pipelines effectivelycould harm people or the environment.”
Among the problems identified by the auditor was the lack of “documented policies and procedures for its staff to use to monitor compliance with the law including the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards for pipelines.”
Moreover, the auditor said “the ministry did not have the required staff” to ensure there was the required documentation to “support its assessment of an application against the Standard.”
It all sounds rather bureaucratic. It is.
But for those who are in love with the notion of cutting all forms of red tape (and the Wall government is certainly in this category), there are consequences, especially in areas involving self-regulation.
So if self-regulation is to work - and it does seem to work in regulating everything from elevators to ultrasound - government still has to be vigilant about ensuring companies are at least adhering to CSA standards set out in its own pipeline law.
According to the auditor five years ago, there was little documented evidence to support pipeline licensing decisions or “sufficient assurances as to whether pipelines are built as planned” or to ensure any “maintenance after construction is carried out.”
Rules don’t work if we really have no idea whether they are being followed.
