Terms of new environmental review of Trans Mountain a concern
Today the Federal government announced its path forward on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project. In response, my office issued the media release reproduced below.
Media Release
Weaver: Terms of new environmental review of Trans Mountain a concern
For immediate release
September 21, 2018
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party, is raising concerns about the federal government’s approach to reviewing the Trans Mountain pipeline project. Earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal government’s approval due to the flawed NEB process.
“This process must be clear from political control and therefore needs to be free from a politically-imposed timeline,” said Weaver.
“Any process that is about getting to ‘yes’ will inevitably fail to protect the public interest. Environmental assessments must be objective and evidence-based. And meaningful consultation with Indigenous people must ensure they are approached as partners, not as barriers to be overcome on the way to a predetermined approval.
“The federal approval of this project was always political. The Prime Minister campaigned to subject all new projects to a revised NEB process, yet pushed Trans Mountain through the old broken one. Meanwhile, additional conditions were imposed on Energy East to ensure the project was assessed through the critical lense of climate change. Why would those same considerations not matter in the case of a pipeline through B.C.? There is no reason for B.C. to shoulder such significant risk simply to fulfill political agendas.
“Both colleague Adam Olsen and I were interveners in the original NEB hearings, focusing on the consequences of a marine spill and on Indigenous rights. We are exploring whether we have rights to intervene in the new hearings.
“We are also sitting down with the provincial government to ensure that they are using all legally available means, including terminating the equivalency agreement signed by the previous administration, to protect our coast from a catastrophic diluted bitumen spill.”
-30-
Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca
Latest Posts
Recent Comments
- on The Paris Agreement is in trouble: UNFCCC needs to ratchet up their climate efforts
- on How can BC’s environmental organizations be more effective?
- on How can BC’s environmental organizations be more effective?
- on How can BC’s environmental organizations be more effective?
- on How can BC’s environmental organizations be more effective?
6 Comments
We have a pipeline to Burnaby.( Tidewater). So why is all the bitumin going to
Washington state for a cheaper price?
I would like someone to respond to Blair King, chemist from Langley.
He is on twitter and debunks all arguements against the pipeline.
He has quite a following. If you read his twitter feed you will see that he considers his conclusions science based.
There is no consideration or even mention of tanker to tanker dilbit oil transfers off BC coast @nebcanada #neb
For dilbit shipped to China to be profitable it has to go across the Pacific Ocean in super tankers. The Americans r already doing this for plain crude from Texas.
Double trouble for Salish Sea #TMX
@3mins in @cbc On the Money
(Click on link to go directly there in video)
(https://youtu.be/mUKwG6VKdvE?t=168)
So Blair Accepts that anthropogenic GHG are warming the planet dangerously.
But he is not convinced of its urgency like the rest of policymakers in NDP n liberals.
However the entrire science community re ALL national academiesstate it’s catastrophic n urgent efforts needed in reducing GHGs. Much more than was promised at Paris.
That means we have to get off fossil fuels asap. We need to step up to what’s possible n CA is leading here we have to commit to net Zero emissions by 2040/45
Export of diluted bitumen is insane.Not only does the price fail to cover the cost.The environmental damage is never factored in?Meanwhile,Canada is importing Saudi Arabian oil?4.5 billion taxpayer dollars to bail out a Texas oil Giant?A refinery would have cost less and made more sense.Anything would have made more sense.Bitumen sells for under $40.Often well under.
Terry – you are so correct! About 85% of Alberta oil revenue is from the tar sands. And the business case for bitumen from the tar sands is getting weaker and weaker. Alberta and the federal government are in panic mode.