Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insists he has always been "crystal clear" about pipelines.
Every Canadian government, he explains, has understood its obligation to get products to foreign markets – products such as grain, minerals, lumber and, yes, energy.
But, the Prime Minister argues, in today's world, pipelines (and presumably other large projects) just can't be approved by regulatory bodies and then approved automatically by cabinet. Projects need acceptance by communities. They need to be environmentally safe. They need buy-in from aboriginal people.
Call the Prime Minister's line of thinking a bet. It consists of believing that more discussion, more "inclusion" of interested parties in review of projects, more time, more criteria considered – all of this additional scrutiny will enhance, not obstruct, pipelines (and other large projects) into becoming socially acceptable so that the government can give them the green light.
Maybe the Prime Minister will be proven correct. Maybe this greater "inclusion" of communities, aboriginals and environmentalists will persuade them, or many of them, of the need for this or that pipeline – or mine, road, hydro transmission line, dam, or other large-scale energy-related project.
We can't know yet whether the Prime Minister's bet will be won or lost. Thus far, the omens are not encouraging. Nothing suggests that opponents of developments are much impressed by this new approach of "inclusion" and additional consultation, because their objections to process were really arguments to cloak their deeper opposition to the projects per se.
The plethora of environmental groups dug in against any exploitation or transportation of fossil fuels remains as determined in their opposition as ever. A few of them have accepted that Alberta's new climate-change policy and the federal government's new interest in climate change leaves them somewhat more open for discussion. But the environmental groups remain hostile to any pipeline project and many other natural-resource projects, too.
Ditto for some aboriginal groups. Groups favourable to projects get little media attention, perhaps because the media prefers conflict to agreement. But every pipeline project, and other major project, is accompanied by vocal aboriginal opponents whose attitudes are not likely to change with the Trudeau approach.
Those who want their communities to remain centred on hunting, fishing and gathering, as the Cree chief who signed the far-left Leap Manifesto recently explained, don't want any commercial development, period.
As for communities, hostility in and around Vancouver to the twinning of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline to British Columbia's Lower Mainland remains formidable. As does opposition from some communities in Quebec to the Energy East pipeline.
What remains completely vague about the Prime Minister's "crystal clarity" is what level of support (or opposition) his government would require from environmentalists, aboriginals and communities. After all, what does "social licence" mean, a phrase used by opponents to projects? Who defines it? How does it get measured?
Does achieving "social licence" mean the government must await the approval of opponents before a project can proceed? Does it mean that regulators such as the National Energy Board that hold lengthy hearings and possess considerable technical expertise are really not that important because they do not reflect and cannot evaluate "social licence"?
Is the Prime Minister saying, at least implicitly, that at the end of any process, cabinet will decide based not on the regulators' judgment but on the ministers' sense of what's politically acceptable? That judgment, if you think about it, will be highly subjective, a trading off of factors pro and con, and therefore hardly something defined by "crystal" clarity.
Thus far, ministerial statements about injecting more environmental and aboriginal perspectives into decisions about pipelines have raised more questions than they have answered. Eventually, the government will have to make a decision about pipelines (and other big projects) and the criteria they will use remain today rather less than "crystal clear."
Somebody is going to be disappointed, even outraged, regardless of what processes were used in judging projects. It's been rather easy for the government to this point to speak often on the general subject of big projects without actually having had to make a decision.
Decisions will eventually have to be made – at which point what is asserted to be "crystal clear," but which manifestly is not, might be better understood.