Ottawa silent on spill compensation
The federal government has a simple message for fishermen, shoreworkers, tour operators and other financial victims of the Nestucca oil spill: "You're on your own."
Within days of the oil fouling west coast beaches, Coast Guard officials had negotiated a deal with Sause Bros. Towing of Oregon to compensate the federal government for clean-up costs, but the agreement excluded individual property owners and the provincial government.
UFAWU officials have demanded that the deal be made public.
"Has the government signed away the right of fishermen and others to recover damages?" asked Arnie Thomlinson, head of the Suzuki Foundation, the union's environmental arm.
Coast Guard spokesman Rod Nelson told the Vancouver Sun Jan. 5 that individual claimants "will have to deal with the Sause Bros, directly."
Federal authorities have refused to open the coffers of a special $143 million fund collected from oil companies to pay for such emergencies. Nor have they advised fishermen of sections of the act which offer them compensation regardless of the source of spilled oil.
And they refuse to do more than offer basic legal advice to working people who suffered losses from the spill.
The UFAWU called Jan. 18 for direct compensation of spill victims from the fund established under the Canada Shipping Act. Under amendments to the act passed in 1985 and scheduled to be proclaimed in April, the money can be used even when the spill originates outside Canada.
But Coast Guard regional director Glen Stewart said Jan. 18 that anyone seeking compensation should go to American courts. "Such losses are much harder to quantify (than cleanup)," he said, "and have only rarely been successfully recovered in such incidents."
That means anyone seeking compensation must undertake the near-impossible task of suing the tow boat operator in an American court, a costly and time-consuming task with slim chances of success.
"We are not really providing any hope or any assurances for any type of claim that anyone may have," Stewart said.
Stewart announced the opening of Claims Assistance Office in Ucluelet (telephone 726-7130) which would help claimants with affidavits and securing evidence.
Claims office director Peter Golden said Jan. 23 that he had interviewed a number of crab fishermen and was forwarding their claims to a Vancouver lawyer retained by the towing firm.
The existence of a Canadian representative of the company "makes the situation more hopeful," Golden said.
Canadian officials also refused to comment on charges that American authorities ordered the barge back to sea in an effort to minimize pollution in Grays Harbour.
Stewart stonewalled questions
• Oil spill clean-up is dirty, manual labour. More than half of the oil has evaporated and about 200 tons has been collected, leaving at least 200 tons unaccounted for.
on what he would do in a similar situation. "We wouldn't ascribe blame in any direction," he said.
Michael M'Gonigle, a SFU professor and lawyer specializing in maritime law, condemned the Coast Guard for its refusal to dip into the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund.
"The idea of a group lawsuit in the U.S. is a joke," M'Gonigle said. "The government should collect all the claims, present them in Washington State, recover all the money possible and
pay the difference out of the fund."
The government should simply tell fishermen "you will be covered," M'Gonigle said.
Fisheries minister Tom Siddon also has refused to pledge compensation, arguing that to do so might "undermine the principle of abuser pay."
Siddon said Jan. 11 "it's not possible to say how far the federal government will go in transmitting claims from the aggrieved party to the offender.
"We gave very serious consideration to the precedent-setting situation it would create. Those who support abuser-pay don't want to see the taxpayer picking up the tab. We're not planning to compensate in any way that offends the polluter pay principle."
Under M'Gonigle's proposal, no tax funds would be used at all.
All three government ministries involved have emphasized that their lawyers are studying every conceivable legal angle in the issue.
Although the towboat operator has acknowledged his company's responsibility for the spill, new debate is emerging over the role of the Washington State official who ordered the barge back to sea, where it spilled oil that ultimately polluted more than 1,000 kilometres of the Pacific seaboard.
NDP environment critic Jim Fulton declared himself "disgusted with Tom Siddon's refusal to stand behind the industry in its fight for compensation.
"People losing their livelihoods should be assured of compensation. The government should begin issuing cheques and insist that the Americans pay all costs."
Fulton said the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund should be made available as soon as all possible costs are recovered from the U.S.
HOW
THE
OIL i
MOVED
January 23
Coast Guard expects oil in Hecate Strait
January 17
Surveillance begins on Queen Charlotte Islands. Slick observed off Nootka. West coast beaches re-oiled by storm.
January 6
Oil spreads north and southeast, fouling beaches toward Sooke and north of Tofino. Government announces it will recover clean-up costs from barge owner, but will not assist fishermen. Two shellfish areas dosed.
January 3
Oil fouls Long Beach. December 31
Carmanah lightkeeper spots oil but Coast Guard crew decides danger is negligible.
December 22
Tug attempting to bring barge Nestucca into Grays Harbour loses towline in storm and rams barge while putting new line on,
Market forces produce oil spill threat
By AL ENGLER
If we are looking for blame for the incalculable damage done to marine life, tourism, and the fishing industry by the recent oil spill, it is easy to point a finger at the tug and barge operators, at U.S. environmental authorities, and at the Canadian Coast Guard.
The owners of the tug and barge will likely be found liable for damages. But Sause Bros., whose tug and barge were involved in the spill, is far from the worst operator.
Its tugs are unionized and carry crews of five or six. It competes with non-union companies who do similar work with crews of three.
Was their equipment up to the job? Were they taking a chance by going out in weather which was too rough? We don't know, but we do know that in an unregulated market, the operators who cut costs get the biggest rewards.
Perhaps the spill will be blamed on human error. The skipper of the tug, who apparently lost the barge in rough seas and then punched a hole in it, may be made the scapegoat.
But he was just trying to do
his job in the way the system demands: in the quickest and cheapest way possible.
Certainly Washington State authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard must be held responsible for ordering a leaking fuel barge towed out to open seas.
But would Canadian authorities have made a different decision? Furthering your own interests at the expense of your neighbour is considered the smart thing to do in our competitive way of life.
The Canadian Coast Guard can be blamed for not alerting the public to the potential danger. But what could they have done even if they had carefully monitored the movement of bunker C oil toward our coast?
The Coast Guard doesn't have the personnel or equipment to prevent disasters. It is the victim of government cutbacks and of the spirit of privatization which puts the environment in the hands of self-seeking private businesses.
We can ask why the fuel barge did not have a double hull? Why did close to 1,000 tons of oil spill from one hole? Why was the tug
using towing gear which could not stand up to heavy seas?
If the fuel barge had been equipped with a double hull, the piercing of the outer skin by the towboat's rudder would not have caused an oil spill. If the barge had been divided into self-contained compartments, a smaller portion of the cargo would have escaped. If the barge had been towed with heavy "west coast" gear, the towboat would not have lost the barge.
If the barge had been equipped with a trailing line, it could have been picked up in rough seas without danger of a collision between tug and barge.
Unfortunately there are no regulations in the United States or Canada making such equipment and towing practices compulsory. Because of the lack of such regulations, a company that did take the time and expense to ensure against environmental disaster would find itself underbid by its competitors.
When apportioning blame for this latest disaster we should assign the lion's share to the politicians and business leaders who extoll the virtues of unregulated market forces.
So long as market forces are allowed to prevail in the transportation of hazardous goods, the cheapest way to do business will be the way it is done.
Governments must immediately hold open public hearings to formulate national and international standards for safe water transportation. But even with the strictest regulations, accidents will happen.
To prevent these from turning into future disasters, the Coast Guard must be given the resources to contain spills. Businesses which profit from the production and transportation of these goods should pay for this environmental protection.
The argument that this would make water transportation uneconomic cannot be accepted. If the livelihood of others, our quality of life, and the environment cannot be protected, the transportation of hazardous good by sea is in fact uneconomic. • Engler is secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers Union Local 400, which represents tug boat workers in B.C.
CAPACI OF BARGE COMPARED TO SIZE OF SPILL
NESTUCCA SPILL A DROP IN OIL BUCKET
• The small black square at lower left shows the relative size of the west coast spill of 860 tons compared to the 10,000-ton capacity of the barge Nestucca, shown in darker gray. The large light gray square shows the capacity of 50,000-ton tankers. There is about one such tanker a week in the Strait of Georgia and 23 tanker movements daily in the under 50,000-ton category. Offshore and in the Strait of San Juan, there are four to six tanker movements daily, more than half over 120,000 tons, equivalent to two full pages of the Fisherman.
THE FISHERMAN / JANUARY 25,1989 • 3