B.C. First Nations chiefs call for Senate support of supertanker moratorium

Dec 5, 2018 

A delegation of First Nations chiefs from British Columbia descended on Parliament Hill Tuesday with a message for the Senate: If senators allow supertankers through their territory, reconciliation efforts will be sunk.

They’re urging Ottawa to pass Bill C-48, The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. The government bill received support in the House of Commons in May and is now before the Senate, where it’s running into opposition. 

“If you want reconciliation to continue, especially with the Haida, this tanker ban has to be put in place immediately,” said Peter Lantin, president of the Haida Nation and special adviser to Coastal First Nations.

“We are at a pivotal time in our shared history with Canada,” said Marilyn Slett, chief of the Heiltsuk Nation and president of the Coastal First Nations.

“This Act to prevent oil-tanker traffic on our coast has been at least 40 years in the making. For the First Nations of the northwest coast, its passage into law would mean we have taken another step in building our nation-to-nation relationship with Canada.”

Bill C-48 will prohibit oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tonnes of crude or persistent oil from stopping or unloading their cargo at ports along British Columbia’s north coast — putting into law a voluntary ban that has been in place since 1985. It came in response to the completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system.

Crude and other persistent oils break up and dissipate more slowly in the marine environment and usually require a cleanup operation.

The bill enforces the moratorium with penalties of up to $5 million.

Slett said Coastal First Nations have been working for decades to keep coastal waters free of supertankers and to build a sustainable ocean-based economy.

“We are a salmon people. We are an ocean people,” she said. “Our way of life depends on a healthy ecosystem.

“We’re not anti-development, but we are very pro-sustainable development. The development we’re investing in is something that will carry us into the future in a sustainable fashion.”

Her community has already seen first-hand the damage a “small” spill can cause. In 2016, the Nathan E. Stewart tugboat was pushing an empty fuel barge south from Alaska when it ran aground on British Columbia’s central coast, spilling 29,000 gallons of fuel and lube oil. It happened after a crew member fell asleep at the wheel.

“Today we’re still feeling those after-effects,” Slett said, noting this is the third year their clam fishery has been closed.

“It’s been very hard on us. This was one of our breadbaskets. It was our winter economy. It brought people through the winter season.”

A moratorium wouldn’t have prevented the spill, as the Nathan E. Stewart was a much smaller vessel, with far less oil on board than the ones the bill would ban.

“We lived the experience of a ‘world-class marine response.’ We know it doesn’t exist,” Slett said. “Once that tug sunk, it was a matter of minutes before our beaches were contaminated. We’re not talking about recovering any of the product that spilled into the water; it was more of a recovery effort to remove a barge.”

And because of unco-operative weather, that took more than 30 days, she said.

The Lax Kw’alaams First Nations has the largest fishing fleet on the north coast and the largest fish plant, which employs more than 100 people.

“If we experience a major spill, we would be finished,” said the community’s hereditary chief, Gary Reece.

In all, that part of the province catches more than $100 million worth of fish annually. More than 2,500 residents work in the fishery, while still more work in processing. Tourism is now worth $782 million annually, employing some 26,000 people full-time and roughly 40,000 people in all.

“We have a lot going on in our community,” Reece said. “Our community is a fishing community. Always has been, always will be. We can’t afford to let anything happen, like an oil spill. We’ve seen what can happen.”

Lantin said Haida Gwaii is surrounded by “very volatile bodies of water,” such as the Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait, which have already been threatened by near-misses.

“When we do the analysis of what these ships are carrying now, there’s already an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen,” he said.

“We’re trying to show there are risks today to our territory, and it’s because of these waterways. They’re dangerous bodies of water to navigate. If you open the door to oil and gas, it adds too much risk for us to talk about.”

The coast is home to protected areas like the Great Bear Rainforest — often referred to as Canada’s Amazon and one of the world’s largest remaining intact coastal temperate rainforests — and the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area, which Lantin said are important to Canadians and Indigenous Peoples alike.

Later, in the Senate — while the 25 hereditary chiefs and political leaders who represent 10 nations and 10,000 residents along the ocean region spanning from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska Panhandle looked on — Sen. Peter Harder, the government’s representative in the Senate, said Bill C-48 balances strong environmental protection with opportunities for economic development.

He said the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska underscored the moratorium’s importance, “reminding the world that accidents can always happen.” That disaster covered 2,100 kilometres of coastline and 28,000 sq. kilometres of ocean with crude oil.

Independent Alberta Sen. Doug Black has been a vocal opponent of the bill, calling it an attempt to further restrict the oilsands, and pointing out that cruise and cargo ships carry oil, too.

Harder said he assumed Black made the comparison in an attempt to paint the limit as arbitrary, but countered that cruise and cargo ships carry significantly less oil than the bill’s limit of 12,500 metric tonnes.

He told the Red Chamber that a relatively large cruise ship carries 3,200 to 6,400 metric tonnes of oil for fuel, while an average-sized container ship would carry 4,800 to 6,400 metric tonnes. In contrast, the Exxon Valdez spilled about 37,000 metric tonnes of oil into the ocean — “about three times … the limit.”

“The largest tankers calling at ports in Canada have the capacity to carry 20 times more crude or persistent oil than would be allowed as cargo in northern B.C. under the moratorium,” Harder said.

“The facts confirm what common sense tells us: Oil tankers can carry massive amounts of oil, compared to the limit established by Bill C-48 and, therefore, pose a much greater risk of catastrophic oil spills if allowed in the affected region.”

Harder spoke at length about the ecological importance of the region, and how it provides crucial habitat for rare and vulnerable species. He noted that in the deep waters near Haida Gwaii, scientists discovered 9,000-year-old glass sponge reefs thought to have died out 40 million years ago.

Surprised by the arguments raised during second-reading debate about the ecological importance of the region’s coastal ecosystems, Harder said some have also downplayed the risk of oil spills due to human error as if the possibility were non-existent.

Conservative Sen. David Wells, who served as deputy CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, asked if the voluntary ban has been successful since 1985, and wondered: Given the new technologies that have been introduced since then, such as double-hull tankers, vessel monitoring systems and satellite tracking, why bother putting in a legislative ban at all?

“By your own words, senator, you, on behalf of your party, have said that you oppose the voluntary ban,” Harder said.

“Surely it’s incumbent upon us working with the stakeholder and the community groups to ensure that legislation, as opposed to a voluntary moratorium, is a stronger statement of the will of Canada and is absolutely necessary in the face of your stated position.

“With arguments being made on the floor to move backwards, I think this is all the more reason to move forwards.”