There’s a paradox in the environmental-management bill that tightens up oil-spill response expectations.
It makes all kinds of welcome improvements in the current regime. But as soon as it takes effect, the B.C. government can check off one of the five conditions it set for approval of heavy-oil pipelines from Alberta to the coast. Politically speaking, anyone who sees the pipelines as threats should be more comfortable with the outdated regime B.C. has in place now. Because it acts as a block to provincial approval of the pipelines all by itself.
When the Environmental Management Amendment Act passes — and most of the house supports it at this point — that block will be gone. To the extent B.C. has any say over the pipelines, the government wants a “world-class” response system for marine and terrestrial spills in place before it will say yes. The marine system is a federal responsibility, but the land-based one is provincial, and it’s a long way from world-class.
When the amendments take effect, that will change. “World-class” is a subjective term, but the B.C. government could easily consider the land-based response regime as such. Federal officials are reviewing the marine-based response with an eye to major improvements, as well. B.C. has commissioned studies on what’s needed on the marine side and is consulting with the federal government on meeting world-class standards there also.
If spill responses on land and at sea are beefed up, that would leave three of the original five conditions on the table: regulatory approval, acknowledgment of First Nations’ rights and a “fair share” of revenue for B.C. for the risk incurred.
The provincial rewrite creates a whole new preparedness response-and-recovery regime and puts requirements on specific industries or businesses before any spill occurs. There are thousands of dangerous-goods spills every year. One of the major ones was cited in debate: the Columbia Fuels spill of gasoline into Goldstream River in 2011. The company has worked with government on restoration, but staff have noted under current law, the responsible party could walk away if it so chose.
There are new obligations for cleanup, and the bill clarifies who is responsible for paying all costs when the government is taking response actions.
The government will have the authority to recover costs, not only from the spiller, but from the owner of the spilled substance, if the owner is a different entity.
The new provisions will help reduce the chances of British Columbians having to pay for the costs of responding to spills. Environment Minister Mary Polak said the current system is a patchwork of contingency planning, and the bill will make for uniform standards. It also allows for offsetting mitigation. If full restoration of a spill site isn’t possible, the bill provides for measures elsewhere to compensate for damage done.
The opposition will support the bill, with reservations. NDP Environment critic George Heyman said the bill allows for creation of preparedness-and-response organizations, but allows for too much industry authority over them.
Having industry fund, plan and lead responses is appropriate, he said, but giving it full control of the response organization is a problem. There is no requirement in the bill that public bodies be represented on such organizations’ governing bodies.
Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver said too much is left to regulations yet to be written. And one section of the bill allows the government to void most of the requirements in the law or in the regulations if cabinet approves. He said it is reckless to allow one tanker a week to leave Burnaby with oil from Trans Mountain’s existing pipeline, which has operated for 50 years. The company’s expansion plan would multiply that traffic several times. Weaver said there should be an immediate moratorium on moving diluted bitumen in coastal waters.
The upgraded spill-response regime could be in place by 2017. It’s a slow process and most of the decisions are to be made in Ottawa, but B.C. could be getting somewhere close to yes by then on pipelines, despite the coastal opposition.
