Yesterday, we wrote about Graham White’s gratuitous comments about our Canadian friend Emily Ferguson in Jessica McDiarmid’s outstanding Toronto Star series “All Along the Pipeline”. As far as we know, he has yet to write to Emily with the apology he obviously owes her, and it might not be coming very soon, since he’s probably quite busy fielding phone calls about the latest Enbridge oil spill. But while we wait, we thought we’d add just a few more comments on the matter, which while seemingly small, illustrates some much larger problems with the way that Enbridge deals with the public. The contempt that White displays toward Emily Ferguson is not just some isolated incident; it’s an attitude that seems to be endemic to Enbridge.

In this follow-up, we’d just like to highlight a couple of points about this matter. Yesterday, we asked a series of rhetorical questions about White’s remark, asking among other things, whether and how Graham White could possibly have known anything about Emily’s demeanor or behavior at the informational meeting in question, which was held in Conservation Halton back in March of last year. The answer to that question, just to be clear, is that he couldn’t. He doesn’t. For one thing, Graham White wasn’t even at the meeting (at least not according to the official minutes from the meeting, which list the Enbridge representatives in attendance). For another thing, Emily never gave her name to any Enbridge representatives at that meeting. There is no way anybody from Enbridge could possibly know whether she was “abrupt and confrontational” at the meeting because there is no way for anybody from Enbridge to have even known she was there in the first place. Therefore, this can only lead to one conclusion:

Graham White is simply making things up.

Or if he’s not, we’d sure like to hear his explanation of how he knows that Emily was at that meeting acting all abrupt and confrontational-like. Perhaps he’s psychic.

Now, that’s pretty bad. What’s so very bizarre about it, however, is that it’s completely unnecessary. That is, we understand that Graham White has to say something when a reporter asks him a question; that’s his job. But he doesn’t have to make things up. And he certainly doesn’t have to try and portray Emily as some sort of unreasonable rabble-rouser. Frankly, we don’t really want to tell Graham White how to do his job, but this doesn’t seem particularly complicated. It’s not hard to imagine any number of other things he could have said in reply to a reporter’s question about Emily Ferguson. For example:

• He could have just been honest. Like this: “I wasn’t at the meeting in question and therefore I am in no position to comment on what happened there.”
• Or if straightforward honesty isn’t his cup of tea (and it appears not to be), he could have just been evasive. Like this: “It is not Enbridge corporate policy to ask for identification at informational meetings. We provide information freely to all members of the public.”
• Or, even better, he could have given an answer in keeping with Enbridge’s corporate values (“Maintain truth in all interactions,” “Do the right thing; do not take the easy way out,” “Take accountability for our actions, without passing blame to others.”) Like this: “We regret that Ms. Ferguson was asked by one of our representatives for identification. That is not our policy and it should not have happened. We regret our mistake and apologize to Ms. Ferguson.”

That last answer– the high road answer– would have cost Graham White and Enbridge nothing. And it would have made them look good (or at least better than they look right now). It would have made them look like they walk the walk, like they really do adhere to the values they profess guide their conduct. It might even have made Emily Ferguson feel slightly better about the whole unfortunate incident. Perhaps it would have opened the door to a more productive, less combative relationship with citizens who have serious concerns about the Line 9 reversal project.

But Enbridge doesn’t seem to want any of that. They don’t seem to want to be guided by those values. They don’t seem to want to walk the walk. They don’t seem to want to cultivate better relations with ordinary citizens and their critics. They don’t seem to want to be less combative. Of course, this is all ground we have covered before (again and again and again). Enbridge’s failure– or more precisely, its apparent inability– to live up to its own stated values runs deep. It’s almost as if those values aren’t there as guides to its employees’ conduct, but as things to be studiously avoided.