BC must strengthen the rules for Trans Mountain

BC is relying on federal government initiatives too much to protect BC  from the impact of this project. These federal initiatives are a mix of voluntary measures, future-oriented research and working groups, and regulatory reviews whose potential effectiveness is unproven. None of them have set clear, measurable, and enforceable standards for this project now, with only vague ideas of when strong rules might result. The potential impact of a spill is too great to leave rule-setting to the future. This approach results in BC not examining what it can do, but instead highlighting what it can’t, leaving gaps in regulations unaddressed.

In spite of high profile announcements to implement UNDRIP and base all government policies and initiatives on its principles, the BC EAO has issued a report that brushes aside the concerns of participating First Nations, again relying on federal government efforts to directly address them rather than examining what BC can do. Affected nations have withheld their free, prior, and informed consent for this project, and BC must grapple with this fact. For example, the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act provides for the use of frameworks for joint decision-making, and there is no effort to utilize them here. Given the potential impact of this project on Indigenous territories, it is imperative that BC address the promise of aligning provincial rules with Indigenous rights in their conditions.

BC has the legal power and responsibility to protect BC’s coastal shoreline, and is not asserting its jurisdiction strongly enough. This is especially true in the case of spills that could end up on BC’s coastal shoreline. Shorelines are a provincially managed ecosystem, and BC should not be giving away its powers to the federal government. The federal government has not meaningfully addressed shoreline protection throughout this process. Cleaning up oil stranded on a shoreline is labour intensive, and there is no clarity where the labour will come from, what equipment and training they will be given, how long they will be expected to work, and how much oil is expected to be cleaned up. This hole in spill preparedness must be addressed.

The BC EAO has proposed Trans Mountain issue a report on the potential health impacts of a spill. While a good step, such a report must consider mental health and social determinants of health. Past spills, like the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon, have had dramatic impacts on local communities, and reporting and planning for the Trans Mountain project must address these key concerns. BC must make sure that the report is turned into clear rules for preventative action and to ensure that these costs are not paid for by the public.

There are no meaningful plans in place for post-spill remediation and recovery, and BC must address this. A framework must be put into place that respects Indigenous rights and titleholders, and sets clear rules for post-spill damage and loss that address ecological, economic and social damages.The BC EAO says there is a polluter pays system in place, but in the two most recent high profile spills, the Nathan E Stewart and Marathassa incidents, communities were forced to go to court to receive money. In the latter case, the polluter won in court, allowing them to walk away from the costs of cleaning up their spill. Oil tankers are a greater risk to the coast than the vessels that were involved in those two incidents, and a spill would have greater impact on the ecosystems, economy, and communities of the BC coast. There should be no room for polluters to evade their responsibilities in the event of a spill. There must be clear criteria and timelines for recovery in place for this risky project.

BC must include the public in a meaningful way. At present, many oil spill plans are either not available to the public, or are technical and jargon-driven in nature. There is a need for plain language documentation that allows the public to engage with greater understanding. Even in this process, where the BC EAO is advertising broadly for people to participate, the barriers for comment are high: an 85 page report lacking a meaningful summary makes for daunting reading and a high barrier for public participation.