As much as the speech has drawn criticism for it’s patronizing tone, Harper’s comment is aptly appropriate in context of the Northern Gateway decision on the horizon. The proposed pipeline plan is not without pitfalls, but at its core is an idea with considerable merit: we can leverage the oil sands to keep the economy afloat during a period of widespread financial turmoil. But this potent, and potentially unifying fiscal argument has been lost amid a discussion riddled with red herrings and poor communication on behalf of the federal government.  Alternatively, the government has managed to polarize Canadians on either side of a debate that is becoming increasingly ideological and convoluted.

The transparent and ill-executed “Ethical Oil” campaign, championed by a roster of talking heads conspicuously affiliated with the federal Conservatives, was a debacle from its inception. The effort lost all legitimacy following spokeswoman Kathryn Marshall’s disastrous appearance on CBC’s Powers and Politics, in which she refused to answer relentless questioning about Ethical Oil’s financial backers. The entire campaign only fueled distrust among the public. Compound this with the now infamous list of friends and adversaries in the pipeline battle; revelations about Harper’s long-time commitment to tapping Chinese markets (along with a recently confirmed upcoming trip in February); public statements by the PM himself and Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver employing incendiary language to describe environmental groups and the result is the distinctly un-Canadian paranoid stalemate we are witnessing now.

An especially baffling aspect of the federal governments attempts to garner public support for the NGP is their shortsightedness in addressing First Nations stakes. It is unwise to further alienate a demographic that could hold the key to long-term energy developments and economic stability. This is especially true in British Columbia, a province home to over 200 distinct First Nations, fifty of which are directly involved in the Enbridge negotiations.

These First Nations are preparing to challenge Enbridge in the courts, citing a lack of consultation in the pipeline’s planning process as a breach of their right to early and transparent consultation in developments on traditional territory. As noted in the Vancouver Sun, no such precedent exists to guide the outcome, and thus it is a case that could drastically change the balance of power in resource development should the courts side with BC’s First Nations.

It’s also important to consider that no colonial treaties were ever signed on mainland British Columbia, and thus aboriginal land title is alive and well. This also means that every natural resource in BC is technically on unceded aboriginal land. Hypothetically, the court challenge could lead to the Supreme Court having to more clearly define just what land title really means (a definition that has been elusive to date); if it goes that far, then the Harper government and Enbridge have made a powerful enemy of a potential ally. If it goes all the way to the SCC, the decision would have reverberations across Canada.

If Harper really hopes to reduce regulatory delays on development projects, as he also stated in his WEF address, his government has antagonized a growing coalition of First Nations that could alter the fate of Canada’s energy landscape in the long-term. If the feds are smart, they should be courting First Nations leaders and negotiating how to make sure there is mutual benefits in pipeline and resource development, rather than propagating the defensive posture that led us to this point in the first place. Without a progressive working relationship with First Nations, particularly in BC, there can no certainty in our energy future.

There is no indication that oil sands production is going to slow. The federal government just announced a plan to have increased monitoring and regulation of soil and water quality in place by 2015 (though this project is industry-funded and was initiated by a perceived need to revamp the international image of the oil sands). Kinder Morgan is expected to present a plan to double the capacity of their Trans-Mountain pipeline, taking it to nearly 600,000 barrels per day by 2015. Similarly, Mr. Harper and his ministers have made little secret of their aspirations for exporting Alberta’s black gold to Asia. Quite simply, barring a coup by the NDP in Ottawa, the oil sands are going to be a part of Canada’s energy landscape. And, unfortunately, oil production necessitates pipelines.

There are good reasons for environmental opposition to the NGP: the pristine wilderness the pipeline would traverse; tanker traffic in the dubious waters near Kitimat; and the provocative idea that the NGP heralds our commitment to fossil fuel energy. It’s also important to consider a 2010 declaration by nearly 60 First Nations to uphold a ban on tanker traffic along BC’s northern coast. It’s interesting to note, however, Premier Clarke’s successes in partnering with the Haisla First Nation and several energy giants in a plan to build three liquid natural gas export refineries around Kitimat (begging the question, is tanker traffic really the issue for First Nations, or was it Enbridge’s flagrant disregard for including their interests in the early planning phases that spawned such fierce resistance?).  The LNG refineries also suggest that the people of BC, while direly opposed to pipelines, have taken surprisingly little issue with the controversial fracking process required to access the wealth of shale gas in northern British Columbia.

What, then, are the alternatives to the NGP? It is important to preface this discussion by saying that the Keystone XL project is far from dead- a post-election resurrection would not be surprising- and that could seriously shift focus elsewhere. But assuming it is not built, then the options are few: 1) increase rail capacity to ship bitumen to the Pacific by railcar, or 2) build a different pipeline elsewhere.

Both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have put forth bids to provide a ‘railcar pipeline’ for Alberta crude, which would negate the risks of oil spills along a pipeline. It would be a dedicated system of tanker railcars that shuttle bitumen from the oil sands to coast. However, the infrastructure required to meet supply would be immense and would have considerable environmental impacts itself. Also, the railway alternative does not address the oil tanker problem. A port, such as the one at Kitimat, would need to be expanded, as it’s not logistically feasible to accommodate increased tanker traffic at the Port of Vancouver.

The second alternative, building a pipeline along another route, is not promising. All of the environmental arguments against the NGP would apply to any pipeline proposal from northern Alberta to the Pacific. But one wonders if the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t? It is not impossible to imagine a pipeline that runs north to the Arctic Ocean. Currently this would be too dangerous a route for super tankers to navigate the sea ice that still persists throughout most of the year, but with climate change it is estimated the Northwest Passage could be permanently open within a decade, making access to Canada’s northern shores far more reasonable. Other countries have already started making grand plans for the Northwest Passage, as evidenced by Russia’s proposal for a trans-Arctic canal that could see as much tanker traffic as the Suez and Panama canals. It’s also probable that a pipeline to the Arctic would not illicit as much opposition: i) fewer First Nations groups would be affected, and those that would be are not as financially prosperous as many of their BC counterparts; ii) it would be foolish to underestimate the “out of sight, out of mind” reality of an Arctic pipeline-

It’s also interesting that in the preamble to Mr. Harper’s trip to China, there are reports that the Chinese will be pressing for a stake in the Arctic sovereignty negotiations that will inevitably play out among the Arctic Council nations. It is possible that China’s true interests lie in acquiring as many strategic resources globally as possible while their purchasing power is so strong; but it’s compelling that China has chosen to exploit a growing diplomatic relationship with Canada in obtaining a seat at the Arctic table.

The current federal government is determined to export Canadian crude to Asia. That crude needs a conduit to the coast, whether it is pipelines or railcars. The NGP debate will prove only a  single battle in the war for influence in Canada’s resource policy.