Hearing Order MH-052-2018 Board File: OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 59 NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7, as amended (“NEB Act”) and the Regulations made thereunder and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52 (“CEAA 2012”); AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC as General Partner of Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. (collectively “Trans Mountain”) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) and other related approvals pursuant to Part III of the NEB Act for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“Project”); AND IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board’s reconsideration of aspects of its Recommendation Report (“Report”) as directed by the Governor in Council through Order in Council P.C. 2018-1177 (the “Reconsideration”). ARGUMENT-IN-CHIEF OF THE SQUAMISH NATION January 22, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 – Overview........................................................................................................................ 1 PART 2 – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE ............................................................. 4 A. Squamish Nation ................................................................................................................. 4 B. Squamish Nation Reserves and Village Sites ..................................................................... 5 C. Significance of the Project-related marine shipping to Squamish ...................................... 7 D. Squamish Seasonal Round .................................................................................................. 9 E. Squamish Nation Aboriginal rights and interests ............................................................. 10 1. Squamish self-government rights ............................................................................... 10 2. Squamish harvesting rights ......................................................................................... 12 3. Squamish’s right to fish is essential to their culture ................................................... 14 4. Squamish’s right to navigate their Territory............................................................... 15 5. Squamish cultural and spiritual practices ................................................................... 16 F. Squamish Marine Dependent Economic Interests ............................................................ 19 G. Squamish Oral Evidence on the Impacts of Project-Related Marine Shipping ............... 19 H. Squamish Expert Evidence on the Impacts of Project-related Marine Shipping 21 1. Spilled diluted bitumen will submerge in Burrard Inlet within one to two days and cause irreversible environmental effects ................................................................ 22 2. Trans Mountain’s ecological risk assessment does not provide an acceptable basis for evaluating the ecological risks of an oil spill from Project-related tankers .......................... 24 3. Environmental effects of a diluted bitumen spill in the Fraser River estuary would be catastrophic ...................................................................................................................... 26 4. Oil Spills from the Project-related marine shipping will happen ............................... 27 5. Gaps in oil spill response in the Nation’s Territory mean spills cannot be cleaned-up 30 6. The need for the Project must be re-evaluated ........................................................... 34 I. Canada’s Approach to Reinitiating Phase III Consultation .............................................. 36 1 J. Correspondence with the Crown ....................................................................................... 37 K. Legal Framework for the Reconsideration ....................................................................... 40 1. Regulatory Scheme ..................................................................................................... 40 2. Scope of the Reconsideration ..................................................................................... 41 3. Limited List of Issues and Constrained Timeline ....................................................... 43 4. Constitutional Obligations of the Board ..................................................................... 45 L. The Board Should recommend that the Project is likely to cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be justified ........................................................................ 46 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 46 2. Oil Spills from the Project are likely to happen ......................................................... 47 3. Oil Spills from the Project will likely cause significant adverse environmental effects 50 (a) Diluted Bitumen will submerge in the Fraser River Estuary in one or two days ... 50 (b) Environmental effects of spills will be high magnitude and of long duration ........ 51 4. Marine Shipping will likely cause significant adverse environmental effects ....... 56 M. Failure to Assess the Alternative Means of Carrying out Project-related Marine Shipping 59 N. The Significant Adverse Environmental Effects that the Project is likely to cause Cannot be Justified ................................................................................................................................ 62 O. Implications of Adverse Effects and Public Interest ......................................................... 63 P. The Board cannot Recommend that the Project is in the Public Interest as Canada has not Fulfilled its Obligations to Consult the Nation ......................................................................... 63 1. Decision of the Federal Court of Appeal .................................................................... 63 2. Substantive Consultation with the Nation on the Project has not begun .................... 65 3. The Reconsideration hearing has not provided for Meaningful Engagement ............ 68 (a) Failure to consult on the Scope of the Reconsideration and to provide the Nation with all necessary information .......................................................................................... 68 (b) Failure to provide Strength of Claim Information .................................................. 71 2 (c) Failure to provide an Impact Assessment specific to the Nation’s Rights ............. 73 (d) Failure of Accommodation ..................................................................................... 75 (e) The Board cannot rely on Trans Mountain to Satisfy the Crown’s Duty to Consult 76 4. Consequences of Canada’s Failure to Fulfill the Duty to Consult and Accommodate 77 Q. Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 78 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 79 3 PART 1 – OVERVIEW 1. The Squamish Nation’s “home” on the southwest coast of what is now British Columbia is the proposed marine terminus for the Project. The Nation’s people, and the lands, waters, and resources upon which they depend, will be directly and significantly adversely impacted by the Project. 2. Extensive Project infrastructure, including the new three-berth Westridge Marine Terminal, is proposed to be located in the heart of Squamish territory. The substantial increase in tanker traffic to a minimum of 34 tankers per month would result in tankers transiting Burrard Inlet, laden with diluted bitumen in close proximity to three Squamish reserves through to the Salish Sea, increasing the risks of spills or other accidents that would be catastrophic for the Squamish and the continued meaningful practice of their rights. 3. Squamish was one of the applicants that challenged the original approval of the Project before the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”). The FCA agreed with the applicants in Tsleil- Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney-General), 2018 FCA 153 that the Board unjustifiably excluded Project-related shipping from the Project’s definition, which undermined the central finding of the Report that the Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, and that Canada’s consultation for the Project fell well below the standard required by the Supreme Court of Canada. 4. In the Reconsideration, the Board is required to reconsider the environmental assessment of the Project in light of the inclusion of Project-related marine shipping in the Project’s definition, and provide updated recommendations to the Governor in Council on whether the significant adverse environmental effects that the Project-related marine shipping is likely to cause can be justified and whether the Project is in the public interest. In order for this new panel to provide the Governor in Council with the information necessary to make a valid decision on the Project, the panel must necessarily reweigh the benefits and burdens of the Project against the new and updated evidence tendered by all parties and intervenors in this Reconsideration. 5. In the Reconsideration, the Board must further reconsider whether the Government of Canada (“Canada”) has discharged its constitutional obligations to the Nation. The Project 1 cannot be in the public interest if Canada’s consultation obligations are outstanding.