Environment

Response to Ministerial Statement on flooding in Boundary Similkameen area

Today in the legislature the premier rose to offer a Ministerial Statement on the flooding in the Boundary Similkameen area. As is normal practice, the leader of the official opposition and I were also granted an opportunity to respond. Below I reproduce the text and video of my response.

Unfortunately, I was cut short by the speaker. And so, I also append the ending of my speech that I never got to say.


Text of Speech


A. Weaver: Like every member in this House, I’ve been following the flood crisis closely and with a heavy heart. I commend the Premier for offering disaster recovery assistance today. Every support possible must be extended to the communities threatened by rising rivers. It’s heartbreaking to see homes submerged and businesses lost. I hope the worst is behind us. Sadly and unfortunately, the forecast for the coming days is not looking so positive.

I’d like to also extend my gratitude to the first responders and emergency support providers who are helping people evacuate safely and making sure that nobody is left behind. The National on CBC last night had footage of firefighters swimming through polluted waters to reach houses in Grand Forks. Our province could not weather these emergencies without their bravery and determination, and I offer my sincere thanks.

It seems cruel and unusual to be facing more devastation after last year’s floods and fires. The 2017 fire season, as we know too well, was the longest in the province’s history. We had a state of emergency in place for ten weeks, and more than 65,000 residents were evacuated. The flood response cost more than $73 million, and direct fire suppression cost more than $568 million.

Incredibly, thanks to the hard work by so many volunteers, there were no fatalities despite the 1,342 fires. The strength, courage and resiliency of British Columbians are unmatched and unrivalled. Those qualities paired with a world-class team of firefighters and first responders is why we made it through last year’s floods and fires without a single life lost in British Columbia — especially those in rural areas who have been fighting the front lines of climate change for so long.

It’s cruel to be facing more flooding after last year’s natural disasters, but sadly, it’s no longer unusual. And there is so much more to come as a consequence of global warming. It’s going to get much, much worse if we, as elected officials, fail to transition to a low-carbon economy.

I had an elderly gentleman in my office last week from a riding hit hard by the 2017 fire season. He talked about staying up all night to watch the fire move across nearby hills, going out to hose down his house with his son, checking on his neighbours to make sure they were okay too.

He talked about having post-traumatic stress disorder, but also he talked about having what he called pre-traumatic stress disorder, as the fire season for 2018 approaches. He doesn’t look forward to summer anymore. He said he’s too worried about fires.

The irony and the illustrative cognitive dissonance is that that afternoon, his MLA stood in this House to speak in support of Kinder Morgan and the LNG development.

We as elected officials cannot let British Columbians fight climate change alone. We need to be there when disaster strikes — like this week in the southern Interior — but we also need to be here with the will to recognize the link between the laws we pass or protect and the climate change impacts felt by our constituents. The world has no time for politicians who show up to help sandbag one day, but work to prevent meaningful climate action the next.

As the B.C. Auditor General wrote…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.


The ending I didn’t get to say


As the BC Auditor General wrote in her February 2018 report, Managing Climate Change Risks, from 1900 to 2013, BC’s average temperature has increased faster than the global average.

Scientists, including myself, projected that the province will face increases in extreme weather, rising sea levels, increasing risk of wildfire and flooding, as well as widespread loss of biodiversity and extinction of species.

Recognizing the linkages between and among these extreme weather events, and the impact of global warming is critical to any real progress going forward.

As early as 2004, a postdoc and I published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters pointing out that we can now detect and attributing the increase area of Canadian Forest fires to global warming. In 2000 a student and I showed the Canadian precipitation record exhibited significant increases in extreme events. More recently these changes have been attributed to global warming. The list goes on.

British Columbians are working tirelessly to fight the effects of climate change. I vow to do the same from this chamber.


Video of Speech


Repositioning British Columbia once more as a leader in climate solutions & the new economy

Today in the legislature the Minister of the Environment introduced important legislation that represents a critical first step in putting British Columbia back on track as a leader in climate solutions & the new economy.

The bill, entitled Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act, 2018, commits British Columbia to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2007 levels by 2030 and 60% below 2007 levels by 2040. It further requires the government to release a report every two years that provides:

  1. a determination of the risks to BC that could reasonably be expected to result from a changing climate,
  2. the progress that has been made toward reducing those risks,
  3. the actions that have been taken to achieve that progress, and
  4. the plans to continue that progress.

Why this is an important first step is that these new targets send a signal to the market that British Columbia is once more serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, it gives a very clear goal to the civil service who will be tasked with putting together a wedge analysis that will allow us to meet the new targets.

The opportunities for innovation in the transition to the low carbon economy are limitless and British Columbia stands to reap the economic benefits associated with this transition in the years ahead.

Below I reproduce the government new release that was issued when the bill was tabled in the legislature.


Government News Release


New bill updates targets for reducing carbon pollution

The Government of British Columbia has introduced legislation to update the Province’s greenhouse gas reduction targets, setting the stage for a renewed climate action strategy to be released in the fall.

The Climate Change Accountability Act replaces the 2007 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Targets Act. It sets new legislated targets of a 40% reduction in carbon emissions from 2007 levels by 2030, and a 60% reduction from 2007 levels by 2040. The current target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 remains. The legislation will provide a framework to develop detailed climate-change adaptation reports. The Province will work with the broader public sector on these requirements. The legislation also enables the minister to set sectoral GHG emission reduction targets.

“The act is the foundation for a credible and achievable climate action strategy in B.C.,” said George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. “The previous government, after stalling on sustained climate action for several years, admitted they could not meet their 2020 target, and those targets are repealed in this act.

“We aim to remove barriers, and make it attractive and affordable for people, communities and industry to move to lower-carbon alternatives. At the same time, we will grow an economy that’s stronger, cleaner, more diverse and more resilient.”

Climate action is an important component of the Confidence and Supply Agreement with the B.C. Green Party caucus.

“This legislation is another step forward towards making B.C. a leader in climate action once again,” said Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party. “This is a huge opportunity to build a thriving 21st-century economy centred around innovation. I look forward to working in partnership with the government to implement a plan to reclaim this leadership, and keep our commitment to younger generations.”

The Province’s climate action strategy will be released in autumn 2018. Actions to reduce the provincial GHG emissions will include establishing sectoral plans for buildings and communities, industry and transportation sectors.

Introducing legislation to support companies that pursue social and environmental goals

 

Today in Vancouver I met with a group of business leaders in Vancouver to discuss legislation I plan to table next week that would enable us in British Columbia to lead the country in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century.

Over the last few months my legislative staff and I have been working with these and other stakeholders to craft legislation that would enable a new classification of companies in British Columbia — The Benefit Company.

A benefit company is profit driven but gives consideration to the impact it is having on the environment, its workers, the community, suppliers and customers, and can direct profits to the public benefit versus solely to shareholders. This legislation would provide a legal framework for companies that choose to pursue social and environmental goals and operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. By making B.C. the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow businesses to incorporate as benefit companies, we are sending a strong signal about the kind of economy we want for our province. Already, more than 30 states in the US have Benefit Company enabling legislation.

Below I reproduce the press release that we released after the roundtable discussion. I also append my initial speech at the media availability.


Media Release


Andrew Weaver to introduce legislation to support companies that pursue social and environmental goals
For Immediate Release
May 2, 2018

VANCOUVER, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, announced today that he will introduce legislation that would enable B.C. companies to incorporate as benefit companies. The bill, which Weaver announced following a roundtable with business leaders in Vancouver, would amend the Business Corporations Act to allow companies that choose to incorporate as benefit companies to pursue social and environmental goals, rather than just profit.

“This legislation is an opportunity for B.C. to lead the country in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century,” said Weaver.

“The world is experiencing tectonic shifts – from climate change to automation, we need to think differently in order to turn these challenges into opportunities. Government and individuals cannot solve these problems alone. Businesses play a huge role in our society and they are part of the solution. Companies that pursue a triple bottom line are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century. They know that acting in the best interests of people and the planet is the best way to build a thriving economy for the long-term.

“This legislation would provide a legal framework for companies that choose to pursue social and environmental goals and operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. By making B.C. the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow businesses to incorporate as benefit companies, we are sending a strong signal about the kind of economy we want for our province.”

Weaver’s bill is his caucus’ first bill to be put through the official legislative drafting process, making it possible that this could be the first Private Member’s Bill in B.C.’s history to be passed into law.

Quotes:

“With so many diverse and innovative companies doing great work, B.C. is a fantastic place to invest. Companies that incorporate environmental and social considerations into their business models demonstrate that they have a long-term vision for their role in the province. Enacting Benefit Company legislation sends a signal to the business community that government supports companies that want to use their business as a force for good.”

  • Joel Solomon, Chair & Co-Founder, Renewal Funds

“The values of social and environmental responsibility inform everything we do at Keela. Building a company on these values sends a clear signal to our clients about what we stand for and demonstrates that our company is built to last. This legislation will encourage more BC companies to incorporate these values into their own business, empowering them to promote social and environmental change in our province.”

  • Nejeed Kassam, CEO, Keela

“The proposed legislation will surely be welcomed by the growing community of impact investors in British Columbia. Benefit corporation status will give these investors additional confidence that social and environmental outcomes will be an integral and protected part of business decision-making.”

  • Norm Tasevski, Co-founder, Purpose Capital

-30-

Media contact

Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca


Backgrounder


  • A benefit company is profit driven but is committed to environmental sustainability and social responsibility in addition to profit
  • Corporations are able to incorporate as a benefit company in over 30 US states
    • According to the non-profit B Lab, more than 5,000 companies have chosen to become benefit companies where legislation exists, and they’ve raised nearly $2 billion in capital
    • Notable benefit companies include Patagonia, Method Home Products, Plum Organics, Kickstarter, and Laureate Education
  • The choice to become a benefit company is voluntary and there are no tax benefits or impacts on other companies
  • The proposed amendment to the Business Corporations Act will create a new part that enables companies to become benefit companies under the Act. These companies will have to meet certain requirements, including:
    • Committing to operate in a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable manner, and to promote specific public benefits
    • Reporting publicly against a 3rd party standard
  • If this legislation passes, BC would be the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow companies to incorporate as benefit companies

Jillian Oliver | Press Secretary
Room 028 Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Phone: (250) 882-6187 | Fax: (250) 387-833


Initial Statement to the Media


Introduction

Thank you all for coming. And thank you Bernie for the introduction.

I’ve just had a roundtable with a group of inspiring business leaders. These people have chosen to use their business as a force for good.

They are running successful companies, creating jobs and contributing to our strong economy. But what sets these businesses apart is their commitment to not only seeking profits, not only creating financial value for their shareholders, but also their commitment to pursuing social and environmental benefits as part of their work.

I think that government should do more to support and empower companies like these ones that pursue a triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit.

Announcing legislation

That’s why I am happy to announce today that I will be introducing legislation this session to support sustainable and responsible businesses. This bill would amend the Business Corporations Act.

It would add a new Part to the Act, giving companies an option to incorporate as “benefit companies”.

It would allow companies that choose to become benefit companies to pursue social and environmental goals, rather than just profit.

The bill will include some requirements that benefit companies would need to adhere to. These include putting their public benefit commitments in their articles, and meeting standards of transparency and reporting by reporting progress against an independent third party standard.

This bill will also protect companies that choose to prioritize social and environmental purpose as part of their mandate. It will provide clarity and certainty for companies and their shareholders about the company’s goals and mandate. And companies will need a shareholder majority to become or stop being a benefit company.

Why this legislation

This legislation is an opportunity for BC to lead the country in supporting businesses that want to be a bigger part of developing innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century.

This legislation is common elsewhere. In the US, over 30 states have this type of legislation. And successful companies of all sizes have signed on.

I believe that becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to champion benefit corporations is a huge opportunity to position the province as a leader.

We are struggling to adjust and respond to massive technological, social, and environmental shifts. From climate change to automation, we need to think differently in order to turn these challenges into opportunities. Government and the non-profit sector cannot respond to these changes alone.

Nor should we have to.

Businesses play a huge role in our society and they are part of the solution. Companies that pursue a triple bottom line are on the cutting edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century. They know that acting in the best interests of people and the planet is the best way to build a thriving economy for the long-term.

Conclusion/opportunity

In drafting this bill, we have taken government up on their decision to make legislative drafters available to all private members. We have been working with a legislative drafter to ensure that this legislation is legally correct, and that it works with other pieces of legislation in BC.

I’m committed to seeing this bill will be called for debate in the house.

Ultimately, I believe it’s a bill that both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals can support.

Our hope is that, if government passes this bill, that we can encourage more BC companies to incorporate social and environmental values into their own business, empowering them to promote social and environmental change in our province.

Thank you.

Statement on Trans Mountain court reference case

As promised, the BC Government today submitted a reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal seeking a decision on whether of not it has the right to regulate heavy oil transportation across our province. In particular, it has asked the B.C. Court of Appeal three questions:

  1. Is it within the legislative authority of the Legislature of British Columbia to enact legislation substantially in the form set out in the attached Appendix?
  2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would the attached legislation be applicable to hazardous substances brought into British Columbia by means of interprovincial undertakings?
  3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, would existing federal legislation render all or part of the attached legislation inoperative?

As part of the submission, the province appended a potential amendment to the Environment Management Act (reproduced in the Appendix below) which it has asked the court to rule on.

The BC Green Caucus supports the government’s efforts in this regard and I append my media statement below.


Media Statement


Weaver statement on Kinder Morgan court reference case
For immediate release
April 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following response to the government’s court reference case.

“I am pleased to see the government is continuing to stand up for British Columbia,” said Weaver.

“Earlier this week, media reports uncovered further evidence that the approval process for this project was deeply flawed. It’s clear that the federal approval of this project was based on political calculation, not on evidence or the best interests of the public.

“There are significant gaps in scientific knowledge regarding the effects of a diluted bitumen spill. British Columbians are rightly concerned that a dilbit spill could significantly harm their health and safety, their local economy and their environment. Our caucus supports the government’s efforts to ensure these concerns are addressed and that our province is protected from hazardous materials that flow within its borders.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca


Appendix


The following Part is added to the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53:

PART 2.1 – HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE PERMITS

Purposes

22.1 The purposes of this Part are

(a) to protect, from the adverse effects of releases of hazardous substances,

(i) British Columbia’s environment, including the terrestrial, freshwater, marine and atmospheric environment,
(ii) human health and well-being in British Columbia, and
(iii) the economic, social and cultural vitality of communities in British Columbia, and

(b) to implement the polluter pays principle.

Interpretation

22.2 The definition of “permit” in section 1 (1) does not apply to this Part.

Requirement for hazardous substance permits

22.3

(1) In the course of operating an industry, trade or business, a person must not, during a calendar year, have possession, charge or control of a substance listed in Column 1 of the Schedule, and defined in Column 2 of the Schedule, in a total amount equal to or greater than the minimum amount set out in Column 3 of the Schedule unless a director has issued a hazardous substance permit to the person to do so.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance on a ship.

Issuance of hazardous substance permits

22.4

(1) Subject to subsection (2), on application by a person, a director may issue to the applicant a hazardous substance permit referred to in section 22.3 (1).

(2) Before issuing the hazardous substance permit, the director may require the applicant to do one or more of the following:

(a) provide information documenting, to the satisfaction of the director,

(i) the risks to human health or the environment that are posed by a release of the substance, and

(ii) the types of impacts that may be caused by a release of the substance and an estimate of the monetary value of those impacts;

(b) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant

(i) has appropriate measures in place to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) has appropriate measures in place to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) has sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(c) post security to the satisfaction of the director, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant has access to financial resources including insurance, in order to ensure that the applicant has the capacity

(i) to respond to or mitigate any adverse environmental or health effects resulting from a release of the substance, and

(ii) to provide compensation that may be required by a condition attached to the permit under section 22.5 (b) (ii);

(d) establish a fund for, or make payments to, a local government or a first nation government in order to ensure that the local government or the first nation government has the capacity to respond to a release of the substance;

(e) agree to compensate any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages resulting from a release of the substance, including damages for any costs incurred in responding to the release, any costs related to ecological recovery and restoration, any economic loss and any loss of non-use value.

Conditions attached to hazardous substance permits

22.5 A director may, at any time, attach one or more of the following conditions to a hazardous substance permit:

(a) conditions respecting the protection of human health or the environment, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) to maintain sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(b) conditions respecting the impacts of a release of the substance, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to respond to a release of a substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director, and

(ii) to compensate, without proof of fault or negligence, any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages referred to in section 22.4 (2) (e).

Suspension or cancellation of hazardous substance permits

22.6

(1) Subject to this section, a director, by notice served on the holder of a hazardous substance permit, may suspend the permit for any period or cancel the permit.

(2) A notice served under subsection (1) must state the time at which the suspension or cancellation takes effect.

(3) A director may exercise the authority under subsection (1) if a holder of a hazardous substance permit fails to comply with the conditions attached to the permit.

Restraining orders

22.7

(1) If a person, by carrying on an activity or operation, contravenes section 22.3 (1), the activity or operation may be restrained in a proceeding brought by the minister in the Supreme Court.

(2) The making of an order by the court under subsection (1) in relation to a matter does not interfere with the imposition of a penalty in respect of an offence in relation to the same contravention.

Offence and penalty

22.8 A person who contravenes section 22.3 (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $400 000 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

Power to amend Schedule

22.9 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, add substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts to the Schedule and delete substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts from the Schedule.

2 The following Schedule is added:

SCHEDULE [section 22.3 (1)]

Substance: Heavy Oil

Definition of Substance:

a) a crude petroleum product that has an American Petroleum Institute gravity of 22 or less, or

b) a crude petroleum product blend containing at least one component that constitutes 30% or more of the volume of the blend and that has either or both of the following:

Minimum Amount of Substance:  

The largest annual amount of the annual amounts of the substance that the person had possession, charge or control of during each of 2013 to 2017.

Question Period: More on the dodgy economic case for the Trans Mountain pipeline

Today in the legislature I had the opportunity to rise once more in Question Period to question government further about the dubious economic justifications underpinning Alberta and Federal rhetoric supporting the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my exchange with the Minister of the Environment.


Video of Exchange



Question


A. Weaver: Yesterday, I asked the government whether they share the concerns being raised by many experts about the economics of the Trans Mountain pipeline. I’d like to pick up on that here.

Earlier this year and for the very first time, a new class of tanker — a very large crude carrier, or VLCC — left the newly refurbished Louisiana Offshore Oil Port destined for Asia. These tankers can load over two million barrels of oil, and the LOOP facility can fill them at a whopping rate of 100,000 barrels an hour.

The Aframax-class tankers that would leave the terminus at the end of the Trans Mountain pipeline can only take 555,000 barrels of diluted bitumen out of Burrard Inlet. That means that any Asian buyer would need to contract four Aframax tankers from the Trans Mountain terminus versus only one VLCC from the LOOP facility.

Based on this obvious economic reality that any Asian buyers would be serviced by the VLCCs out of the U.S. and not out of the terminus of Trans Mountain, my question is this, to the either the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance or the Premier, if he’s here: is her government or his government and her ministry or the Premier’s office taking a hard look at the financial case for the Kinder Morgan pipeline?


Answer


Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I and other members of the government are certainly aware of the controversy around the economics, the different studies, the changes in conditions and different alternatives. I thank the Leader of the Third Party for reading these into the record.

But with respect to the Leader of the Third Party, it is the job of proponents to determine the economics. It is the job of other governments backing the project to determine the merits of the economics. I think all Canadian taxpayers would want other governments to take a long, hard look at the economics of a project in which they’re considering investing billions of dollars.

But our job, as the government of British Columbia, is to look at the interests of our environment and our economy, and that’s what we’re doing. That’s why we are considering every measure, every inch of our constitutional jurisdiction — to protect against a catastrophe that’s possible, that could have significant and awful economic interests on British Columbia. Tourism alone — 19,000 tourism businesses in British Columbia, employing 133,000 people in every corner of this province, in every constituency represented by members in this chamber.

It’s our duty, it’s our responsibility, to look out for those people. It’s not our responsibility to ignore them because a large project comes along. Our job is to ensure that if there are large projects, they don’t impact and take away the livelihood of those people or the $17 billion in revenue that the tourism industry generates every year in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.


Supplementary Question


A. Weaver: I do thank the minister for his answer and his commitment to protecting British Columbia. But I respectfully disagree, because I believe it is the government’s responsibility to inform British Columbians about the economics of this proposal.

Why? Because the previous government claimed that the economic benefits for British Columbia were very large and, in fact, claimed that the government’s fifth condition was apparently met. Now unfortunately, the fifth condition was based on assertions that were put towards the 2012 National Energy Board in the submission. It’s now six years old, and many of the fundamental assumptions of that submission, of that economic case, on which the government claimed its fifth condition was met, are no longer valid.

Keystone XL and line 3 have been approved. That means that we have more than a million barrels a day of export capacity, which was unaccounted for. We’ve got North America now having the ability to ship through VCCs — that was never able. And we know that you can’t get bigger ships in Burrard Inlet. This government, I would argue, has a responsibility to review those numbers, so that British Columbians are given correct, accurate and up-to-date information about the economics of this project.

My question, Hon. Speaker, is to the Minister of Environment — through you and then through the Minister of Finance, who still has laryngitis. The previous provincial government made claims about the economic benefits to B.C. from this pipeline, that have been cast into serious doubt. Why isn’t this government examining the economic case more closely?


Answer


Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I thank the Leader of The Third Party. As he respectfully disagrees with me about the role of our government in this regard, I respectfully assert again to him that this is not a project that this government thinks is good for British Columbia. We’ve made that clear. We think the risk is so great, and far outweighs the reward.

What we are doing is ensuring that within our jurisdiction, within our ability to regulate and place conditions on a project that is federally decided upon — subject to an appeal to the federal court — we ensure that conditions and regulations are in place to protect our economy.

It’s important up and down our coast. We have a fisheries and seafood industry that contributes more than $660 million every year to our gross domestic product, and it employs 14,000 people, paying almost $400 million in wages.

Just yesterday, 450 businesses understood why we were taking this position; 450 B.C. businesses signed a joint letter calling on the government to continue to stand up for our coast and the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on protecting our coastline and our environment from a spill.