A bill to restrict the movement of oil off the north coast of British Columbia has been formally tabled by the federal government in the House of Commons, according to a statement released by Transport Canada Friday.

The proposed legislation, which would restrict tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil from entering or exiting north coast ports, must now make its way through Parliament.

“Today is a positive day for us,” Gavin Smith, staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law, said.

“We’re very happy to see the federal government follow through on its promise to introduce a tanker ban.”

Smith said the legislation will prevent megaprojects like the Northern Gateway pipeline from being built in northern B.C. but added he has yet to review the text of the bill in detail.

“It appears to be introduced along similar lines to what the government signaled it was going to do in late 2016.” West Coast Environmental Law released a detailed analysis on the proposed tanker ban legislation in early 2017.

Here are five things you need to know about the newly tabled oil tanker ban from that analysis.

1. Tanker Ban Won’t Ban Supertankers of Refined Oil from the Coast

While the proposed legislation does prevent supertankers of crude oil and similar hydrocarbon products from moving in and out of northern ports in large quantities, it does not prevent refined oil products from doing the same.

This leaves the door open for future major oil refinery projects on B.C.’s north coast.

There are currently two proposed oil refinery projects for Kitimat, B.C. Both Kitimat Clean, which would refine 400,000 barrels of oil per day and the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, which would refine 200,000 barrels of oil per day, are at various stages of review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

2. Tankers Carrying 12,500 Tons or Less of Oil Excluded From Ban

Once passed, the bill will only prevent vessels carrying more than 12,500 tons of crude oil from stopping at coastal ports. This allows northern communities reliant on oil for heating and other purposes to continue to receive supply shipments.

Joyce Henry, Director General of Marine Policy with Transport Canada said “it was never the Government’s intent to prohibit resupply. Shipments below 12,500 metric tons will continue to be allowed.”

In previous iterations the tanker ban would have prevented the shipment of more than 2,000 tons of crude oil but this bar was eventually raised to the current 12,500 ton threshold.

Gavin Smith said in a previous interview that the 12,500 threshold is slightly higher than the highest recorded shipments in the region, “so they’ve tried to cap it at the highest level of shipments that have been occurring there.”

3. Tanker Ban Would Not Prevent Another Nathan E. Stewart From Happening

The tanker ban was first announced by the federal government after Transport Minister Marc Garneau traveled to Heiltsuk territory to witness a diesel spill from the Nathan E. Stewart, a sunken fuel barge.

Despite this fact, the tanker ban would not prevent another similar spill from happening. The ban will not affect current fuel barge traffic.

Jess Housty, tribal councilor with the Heiltsuk First Nation previously said that the tanker ban “changes nothing.”

“I would challenge the federal government to give me a list of vessels that are actually impacted by this legislation,” she said. “I can’t think of one.”

The Nathan E. Stewart and other U.S.-bound fuel barges can pass through B.C.’s internal waters even though a Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone exists to prevent the transport of international oil from approaching B.C.’s coast line. The tanker ban does not change that.

“This tanker ban, not only does it not help us minimize the current risks we face, it gives permission for massive new risks that we don’t fully understand and I don’t think the general public would be comfortable with,” Housty said.

4. South Coast of B.C. Near Vancouver and Victoria Not Protected

The tanker ban does not impact tanker traffic on B.C.’s south coast where the terminus of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline is located. The ban extends from the northern B.C./U.S. border and stops near the tip of Vancouver Island.

Recently the federal government approved a massive expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, a change that will lead to a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the Burrard Inlet.

5. Details of Banned Fuels Subject to Change

The tanker ban will prevent the movement of large amounts of crude oil from traversing coastal waters in B.C.’s north.

But the ban will also cover other heavy hydrocarbons known as persistent oil products in a ‘schedule’ appending the legislation.

According to Smith, the federal government will determine what types of products are listed in that schedule.

“That approach gives the federal government some flexibility to decide what it does and does not want to include in the moratorium,” Smith said.

The federal government has already, for example, said that jet fuel, propane and liquefied natural gas (LNG) will be permanently excluded from the ban.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s November proposal to ban oil tanker traffic from B.C.’s north coast received kind reception on the west coast of Canada where the Heiltusk First Nation was still busy responding to a devastating diesel spill from the Nathan E. Stewart, a sunken fuel barge tug that was leaking fuel into shellfish harvest grounds near Bella Bella.

The tanker ban, however, won’t protect the coast from incidents like the Nathan E. Stewart from happening again, nor from the threat of future refined oil tankers passing through the same waters, according to a new analysis by West Coast Environmental Law.

Reviewing the tanker ban proposal, which has yet to be passed as legislation, West Coast identified numerous loopholes and exclusions that allow for the continued transport of oil on B.C.’s north coast via foreign fuel barges and even, potentially, in supertankers full of refined oil products like jet fuel.

Tanker Ban Leaves Door Wide Open for Refined Fuel Supertankers

“I would describe the bill as sort of a mixed bag,” Gavin smith, staff counsel with West Coast, told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s very positive in that it is strong enough to prevent projects like Northern Gateway from proceeding in the region, but it is not strong enough to prevent oil refinery and refined oil supertanker projects in the region.”

As it stands the proposed legislation does nothing to prevent the movement of supertankers laden with refined oil from traversing north coast waters.

And that’s of significant concern, Smith said, “because those projects are currently proposed and those applications have been submitted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.”

There are currently two major oil refinery projects proposed for the Kitimat area.

Kitimat Clean, which is undergoing review with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (although that review was temporarily suspended in October), would refine 400,000 barrels of oil per day during it’s projected 50-year lifespan.

Kitimat Clean proposes to refine oil into products such as gasoline, jet fuel and propane for export in Very Large Crude Carriers or supertankers.

The Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, proposed for 32 kilometres north of Kitimat, would refine 200,000 barrels of oil per day for a project lifespan of 60 years. The Pacific Future refinery is in the final stages of review with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Tanker Ban Maintains Current Situation, Introduces New Risks

The tanker ban does restrict vessels larger than 12,500 tonnes from carrying crude oil products but not refined oil products.

Smith said Transport Canada was previously considering a 2,000 tonne threshold, but dramatically increased that figure to 12,500 tonnes.

“The 2,000 tonne was raised up in a Transport Canada discussion paper that was made public earlier this summer,” Smith said.

That 2,000 threshold really walks the line because it allows community shipments of fuel products to continue while not being so high as to allow for large-scale shipments of bulk oil products, he said.

West Coast has asked the federal government to provide an explanation for the increase in threshold.

“We recommend they provide a rational because from our perspective it came from nowhere.”

The 12,500 threshold is slightly higher than the highest recorded shipments in the regions, Smith said, “so they’ve tried to cap it at the highest level of shipments that have been occurring there.”

Jess Housty, council member of the Heiltsuk First Nation and responder to the sunken Nathan E. Stewart, said the current tanker ban is “simply inadequate” because it changes nothing.

“I think it’s important to note the tanker ban wouldn’t have prevented the Queen of the North from sinking and that’s still polluting waters. It wouldn’t have prevented the Nathan E. Stewart. It won’t prevent this kind of incident from happening again.”

The tanker ban as proposed is frustrating, Housty said, because Transport Minister Marc Garneau traveled to Heiltsuk territory to witness the diesel spill in November.

Housty said the tanker ban actually doesn’t affect any current vessel traffic on the North Coast, meaning all ongoing fuel barge traffic remains entirely untouched.

“I would challenge the federal government to give me a list of vessels that are actually impacted by this legislation. I can’t think of one.”

Housty concedes the tanker ban is significant in light of the rejected Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

But she added, “I think it’s important to note for the Heiltsuk, we weren’t just fighting Northern Gateway because it was crude oil. There were a million reasons why we had issues with that project.”

And many of those issues will still be relevant if those supertankers were carrying refined projects, Housty said.

“This tanker ban, not only does it not help us minimize the current risks we face, it gives permission for massive new risks that we don’t fully understand and I don’t think the general public would be comfortable with.”

Although a Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone already exists off the coast of British Columbia to prevent international transport of oil from entering internal coastal waters, U.S. shipments of oil have maintained a ‘right of innocent passage.’

That right has been the subject of criticism, which was renewed after the grounding of the Nathan E. Stewart, an American fuel barge tug (which was pushing an empty fuel barge at the time of grounding). 

To avoid provoking international tensions, the tanker ban does not alter this right and limits its cover to only import and export marine facilities.

North Coast Oil Tanker Ban Won’t Actually Ban Tankers Full of Oil Products on B.C.’s North Coast https://t.co/UDhLH6cZ1Y @dogwoodbc #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/wSg3h4sJM9

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 7, 2017

Tanker Ban to Be Locked in But Details Subject to Change

Smith said the federal government did not include a sunset clause in the tanker ban, which means the legislation is not likely to be undone going forward unless by act of Parliament.

However, the types of oil covered in the ban are subject to a definition that has yet to be determined and could change over time.

“The federal government has to answer this question of what do you want covered or encompassed in the oil tanker ban,” Smith said. “In the legislation itself it will say any crude oil cannot be carried in an oil tanker and crude oil will have a definition that will include things that you would expect like bitumen and so on.”

A ‘schedule’ appending the legislation will list other types of products, known as persistent oil products, will also be included in the ban. The types of oil products listed on that schedule can be changed however.

“That approach give the federal government some flexibility to decide what it does and does not want to include in the moratorium,” Smith said.

The federal government has not disclosed what types of fuels will listed on the schedule but did note that products such as jet fuel, propane and LNG will be permanently excluded from the ban.

Tanker Ban Could Still Be Strengthened

The tanker ban feels like another one of Justin Trudeau’s broken promises, Housty said.

“ I think this is a case were they have ticked a box and completely ignored the sprit of what needs to be done,” Housty said.

“I hoped there could have been more trust on this file.”

Smith said the federal government has plans to pass the tanker ban bill by March.

“In terms of what types of improvements, we feel the 2,000 threshold would ensure a good balance between community supply and preventing large-scale bulk shipments,” he said.

“We also think the types of oil kinds should be refined and crude oils writ large. It shouldn’t be quite as narrow as the federal government set out. And we propose the ban cover the entire Hecate Strait, Dixon Exit and Queen Charlotte Sound.”

Smith said ultimately the North Coast Tanker Ban is meant to protect the North Coast from oil tanker spills.

“These are the changes we feel would make the act the strongest legislation possible.”

Image: Sunken Nathan E. Stewart tug near Bella Bella, B.C. Photo: April Bencze/Heiltsuk Tribal Council

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Since the Liberals formed government last November, Enbridge and Northern Gateway Pipeline have lobbied Ottawa an astounding 86 times, federal lobbying reports reveal.

Fifty-one of those meetings have taken place since August — which, funnily enough, is around the same time Prime Minister Justin Trudeau started backtracking on his commitment to ban oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast, a policy that would leave Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline proposal dead in the water.

Since October last year, representatives from Enbridge and Northern Gateway Pipeline met with representatives from the Prime Minister’s Office eight times, Transport Canada 10 times, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 10 times, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 12 times, Natural Resources Canada 31 times, and mostly Liberal Members of Parliament 39 times to name just a few.

During this time Enbridge and Northern Gateway Pipeline lobbyists met with more than 130 top-level chiefs of staff, policy directors, and ministers, records show.

Diesel Spill Off B.C. Coast Creating New Urgency Around Promised Tanker Ban

The issue of oil transport along the B.C. coast has been thrust back into the spotlight in the wake of ongoing diesel spill recovery efforts near Bella Bella.

Coastal residents were in a state of disbelief last night after learning an emergency response vessel, sent to B.C.’s central coast to retrieve the diesel-leaking Nathan E. Stewart, sank beside the sunken tug in windswept waters.

Since October 13, cleanup of the diesel spill in the traditional waters of the Heiltsuk First Nation has been slow and unsuccessful, hampered by a lack of response equipment, relief crews and favourable weather.

This has heightened criticism of the federal government and Trudeau who made a clear commitment to enact an oil tanker ban for the north B.C. coast during his election campaign last year. Trudeau even included formalizing the tanker ban on the list of ‘top priorities’ in Transport Minister Marc Garneau’s mandate letter in early November last year.

When pressed on his promise to ban tanker traffic — a proposal some say is not nearly comprehensive enough to protect the coast from vessels like the Nathan E. Stewart —Trudeau awkwardly dodged the question.

“Over the past year there’s been a lot of underinvestment by the federal government in marine safety and spill response. That’s something we’re absolutely committed to turning around,” Trudeau told Breakfast Television.

“And one of the symbols of that — as someone who knows Vancouver and the Lower Mainland as well as I do — one of the first things we did was reopen the Kits coast guard base because we understand that having responders there if something happens is absolutely essential.”

Jess Housty, tribal councillor for the Heiltsuk, took to Twitter to express her dismay with the Prime Minister’s comments.

“Saw your interview today,” Housty tweeted. “You know Kits is ~650km away from Bella Bella and Seaforth Channel, right?”

Nathan Cullen, MP for the Skeena-Bulkley Valley region in B.C. and environment critic for the NDP, said it is incredibly frustrating for coastal people to have the federal government stall on the tanker ban.

“When we are talking about protecting the coast out here, for the people who live here, that’s life and death,” Cullen told DeSmog Canada.

“The insult is twice because the promise was twofold: one, to bring in a tanker ban. It’s been a year and we’re still waiting. Two, to establish respectful relations with First Nations.”

“This is literally killing two birds with one stone,” Cullen said.

He added Trudeau’s inability to follow through on his promises is indication of a dangerous duplicity.

“We are a year in and one has to wonder if there are two Justin Trudeaus. One that campaigns and does public events and Twitter. The other that meets in the private backrooms in Ottawa with more oil lobbyists — one would imagine by a factor of 10 — than he has with environmental and First Nation leaders.”

Cullen said it isn’t just the diesel spill near Bella Bella that British Columbians have to worry about, but the pending decision on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

“You wonder if the West Coast is being thrown under the bus for nothing other than political calculation.”

John Horgan, leader of the B.C.NDP, said the response to what is unfolding in Bella Bella at both the federal and the provincial level has been “frustrating” and “astounding.”

“It does really speak to an Ottawa-based arrogance to believe that reigniting the much-needed Coast Guard base in Vancouver is somehow a benefit to the coast north of Vancouver Island all the way to Prince Rupert,” Horgan told DeSmog Canada.

When asked about Enbridge and Northern Gateway’s recent lobbying spree, Horgan said “the government should spend more time with the people of B.C. when considering these problems and less with those lobbying government offices.”

Lobbying Records Disclose the Bare Minimum: Watchdog

These high volumes of lobbying are troubling, according to Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, a government accountability watchdog.

“Everybody should be worried about the power of large corporations in terms of lobbying governments,” Conacher told DeSmog Canada.

“They not only have economic power in terms of threatening to sue under trade deals or to take their business elsewhere…but they also usually hire people who have connections to the ruling party to do their lobbying so they have undue and unethical political power as well.”

Conacher said Enbridge and Northern Gateway could be doing a lot more lobbying of the federal government without any disclosure due to vast amounts of lobbying loopholes.

The documented lobbying by Enbridge and Northern Gateway is likely just scratching the surface, he said.

“Only oral pre-arranged meetings are required to be documented in those monthly logs. So you shouldn’t think that’s all the lobbying: that’s just the lobbying they disclosed.”

– With files from James Wilt

Enbridge Northern Gateway Lobbying Aug 2015-Oct 2016 – Sheet1 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Justin Trudeau via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.