The Syncrude Duck Trial by Avnish Nanda
The Syncrude Duck Trial has turned out to be quite the affair, thanks in large part to Syncrude’s defence strategy. Syncrude lawyer Robert White has put forth a variety of puzzling arguments in an attempt to prevent a guilty verdict. This has led the company to attack the media for bias, accuse the government of complicity in the crime, and threaten the public.
Initially, Syncrude attempted to prevent the statements of its employees from being used, arguing that they were inaccurate and constituted a breach of personal privacy. After they were found admissible and authorized for publication, Syncrude President Tom Katinas criticized the media for unfairly questioning the environmental management credentials of one of the company’s late bird and ecology team leaders due to his “blue collar” background. The media had reported that the team leader had no formal training in dealing with wildlife deterrents nor was he aware of regulations regarding their use (both of which were corroborated by the team leader himself).
Afterwards, Syncrude tried to have the charges thrown out because, as White argued, it wasn’t the company’s hazardous waste material that came into contact with the ducks, but the ducks that came into contact with the hazardous waste material (Graham Thompson has more on Syncrude’s ‘The-Ducks-Committed-Suicide’ theory). Then, White argued that a Syncrude conviction would make the use of tailings ponds illegal, making the government complicit in the crime and leading to the industry’s demise (Suncor’s dry tailings ponds initiatives cast doubt on the latter part of this argument).
Syncrude’s strategy doesn’t help the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and its efforts at selling the oil sands at home and abroad. Neither does it help Premier Ed Stelmach, who has defended his government’s legislative policy as the appropriate balance between economic development and preserving Alberta’s unique environmental heritage. In fact, it doesn’t even help Syncrude, as the company’s strategy, in light of its massive profits, comes off as cheap and petty.
The strategy reflects Syncrude’s hubris and desperation. It cannot provide an adequate explanation as to why it scaled back efforts to deter migratory duck landings in the spring of 2008, despite credible warnings. Rather than recognize the favourable business environment that the Alberta government has provided the industry -- and just pay the fine -- the company has opted to bitterly oppose the public’s right to regulate its environmental practices, threatening the industry’s collapse if the province allows it to be found guilty.
The Syncrude defence is another example where industry is dictating how it will operate in this province in direct opposition to what the Alberta government and public wants. And unlike what happened after industry protested the royalty review's findings, I hope the province remains committed to defending the public’s interest, through enforcing our environmental laws (however underdeveloped they may currently be) and, if found guilty, requiring Syncrude to pay the price for breaking them.
