HORGAN ‘STANDING UP FOR THE COAST’ ON OIL PASSAGE
After last week’s backdown in the bitumen war, the B.C. New Democrats are moving this week to spell out their still significant intentions to regulate the movement of Alberta oil through B.C. and along the coast.
Environment Minister George Heyman is scheduled Wednesday to propose provincial standards for minimum response times in the event of a spill, the mandatory resources for cleanup on land or at sea, and the necessary compensation for damage done to land, resources and public amenities.
All this will be set out by Heyman in a so-called intentions paper as a prelude to consultations with the public, affected stakeholders and First Nations.
Later this year, the New Democrats will appoint an independent scientific advisory panel to make recommendations on “if and how heavy oils can be safely transported and cleaned up, if spilled.”
Once the feedback loop is completed, the regulations will be finalized later this year or early next.
However, Heyman has already signalled his far-reaching regulatory ambitions on four key areas in a background paper produced by his Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy earlier this year.
One: “Response times are the ■ established time frames within which response resources will be activated and arrive at a spill site. Currently, the ministry does not regulate in this area. Establishing response-time requirements would align with practices of other regulators, and those in neighbouring jurisdictions.”
Two: “Geographic response ■ plans identify sensitive, natural, cultural, or significant economic resources at risk from spills. They outline the response actions that are appropriate for that site to minimize impacts to these resources. GRPs are map-based, and each one has a variety of information that is useful to responders, particularly in the first 48 to 72 hours.
Three: “Loss of public use refers ■ to the requirement that spillers provide some form of restitution for the impacts of spills on the use and/or enjoyment of public spaces and resources. These include the use of beaches, parks and forests, the enjoyment of wildlife, wilderness spaces, food resources, recreation and drinking water, as well as the intrinsic value of archaeological and cultural sites.”
Four: “The province seeks to ■ broaden existing ministry authority to ensure provincial interests are fully addressed in marine spill prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. While the primary responsibility for marine spills lies with federal agencies, a spill of any significance will impact and involve all orders of government. The provincial government has a responsibility to ensure there is a regulatory framework in place that protects its coastal resources.”
Those four would dovetail with some preliminary regulations under the provincial environmental management act, issued last fall over Heyman’s signature.
Together those require pipeline operators to “produce, develop and maintain spill contingency plans” for managing spills up to and including “worst-case scenarios.”
The plan requirements are incredibly detailed, running to some 13 pages and covering every imaginable contingency. Nor is that the end of the process.
Once they are in place — the deadline is April 30 of this year — the pipeline operator must then spend three years testing the plan via drills and exercises “very similar to the way they would be performed in a real emergency.”
The prime target for all this increased regulatory activity is, of course, the proposed twinning of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline through B.C. and the resulting increase in tanker traffic out of the Port of Vancouver if and when it is ever completed. Missing from the above list of four target areas for regulation is a fifth — the now notorious proposal to restrict any increase in shipments of diluted bitumen through the province pending a full-blown review by a scientific advisory panel.
Point five, as it is known, is the one that provoked Alberta Premier Rachel Notley into a retaliatory boycott of B.C. wine. But B.C. Premier John Horgan announced Thursday that point five would be put on hold.
Instead, B.C. will pursue a reference case in the courts, asking the judges a question or questions to clarify its jurisdiction over the movement of heavy oil through a federally regulated interprovincial pipeline and/or federally regulated ports.
The shelving of point five prompted Notley to stand down the wine boycott, warning that it could be revived along with other retaliatory measures if B.C. crossed the jurisdictional line in the future.
Horgan’s switch was rightly reported here and in Alberta as a case of him “blinking” in the standoff, a characterization that had the B.C. premier bristling on Friday.
“If that fits your newscast, that’s fine,” huffed Horgan when CKNW reporter Jeremy Lye put the question to him. “I’m standing up for the coast, man. I’m going to do what I think is right for British Columbia.”
He went on to challenge the suggestions from the Alberta and federal governments that the reference case is an exercise in futility.
“I don’t think the premier of Alberta nor the prime minister should take any comfort in the fact that we have now referred the matter to the courts for jurisdictional review,” argued Horgan.
Still to come from B.C., along with the question(s) for the court, and Heyman’s four-point intentions paper, is the mandate and lineup for the promised independent scientific advisory panel.
“We’re far from out of the woods on this issue,” as Horgan put it Friday. “And I don’t say that with any glee, I say it more out of sorrow.”
Back at you, Premier Notley.
We’re far from out of the woods on this issue. And I don’t say that with any glee (but with) sorrow.