In the 2017 election the BC NDP campaigned on using every tool in the tool box to stop the the Transmountain pipeline project. Earlier this month I noted that the Federal Court of Appeal presented them with a very powerful tool.

Given that the provincial cabinet’s approval of the Transmountain project relied on the same NEB report as the federal approval, and in light of the recent Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling that the report was “impermissibly flawed”, the BC Government has the opportunity to pull out of the Equivalency Agreement and conduct its own, independent environmental assessment.

Today in Question Period I quizzed the Minister of Environment as to whether or not he will initiate a withdrawal from the equivalency agreement. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: On August 30, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal cabinet approval of the Trans Mountain project. The court cited: “The board’s process and finding were so flawed that the Governor-in-Council could not reasonably rely on the board’s report. Second, the government of Canada failed to fulfil the legal duty to consult Indigenous peoples.” In particular, the court noted: “The board unjustifiably defined the scope of the project under review not to include project-related tanker traffic.”

The B.C. NDP campaigned on using every tool in the toolbox to stop the project from going forward. My question to the Minister of Environment is this. In light of the fact that the court ruled that the NEB process was flawed, my question is: will he use his authority to pull out of the equivalency agreement with Ottawa on the environmental assessment of this project for the next 22 weeks?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I think this is a good opportunity to just take a brief look at history. There was a time when the official opposition, then in government, expressed concern about the impacts of diluted bitumen on our coast, expressed concern about failings that they perceived in the National Energy Board process, but as that process rolled on, the official opposition simply rolled over and accepted the conclusions of the National Energy Board.

But that wasn’t all. First Nations on the coast expressed concern as to their rights, their culture, their traditional economy. Thousands of British Columbians expressed concern about our environment, tens of thousands of jobs that were at risk, and this government stood up with them and expressed the same concerns. And what did the opposition say when we did that? They said that there was a decision, the project was going ahead, and we should simply accept it.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is significant and far-reaching for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is it validated the concerns of First Nations, it validated the concerns of British Columbians about our coast, and it validated the actions of our government in standing up for our coast, and that’s what we will continue to do.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do recall, when I sat in opposition with my colleagues from the B.C. NDP — at a time when I heard them calling on the government of the day to actually withdraw from the equivalency agreement over the same concerns that I share today.

Our Prime Minister has signaled that the NEB has precisely 22 weeks on which to reassess the available information. That’s over Christmas. Interveners have to have given notice within the next couple of days if they want to participate.

It’s clear to me and those who participated as interveners in the prior assessment that the decision has already been made. How is it possible that the British Columbia government can have faith in a process where the decision is clearly made and where a prime minister has reiterated, time and time again, it will be built?

Again, to the Environment Minister: will he stand up for the interests of British Columbians and give the federal government the required 30 days’ notice to withdraw from the equivalency agreement today?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, thank you to the Leader of the Third Party, who raises some very significant points about the process that is underway. The decision of the federal court was complex. It’s far-reaching. We are reviewing it with both internal and external legal advice.

The federal government’s announcement about how they intend to proceed with the NEB now gives us an important context within which to assess our options going forward. We are well aware of the impending deadline. We are preparing our action in response to that deadline. But more importantly, we are preparing a range of options that are thorough, they’re well considered…. But I can assure the Leader of the Third Party this: we will defend our environment. We will defend our coast. And we will defend the tens of thousands of British Columbian jobs that depend on it.