Environment

At a press conference held today, Andrew Weaver, Elizabeth May and Adam Olsen called on the BC Government and other intervenors in the Kinder Morgan pipeline hearings to join them in demanding oral cross examinations be included in the process. The full statement is below the video.

Media Statement April 17, 2014
Calling on Government to Stand Up for BC on Kinder Morgan Pipeline
For Immediate Release

Andrew Weaver, Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and Adam Olsen, Interim Leader of the BC Green Party, are calling on the BC Government and Kinder Morgan to request that the National Energy Board introduce cross-examination into the hearing process for the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion.

Trans Mountain, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, is applying to triple the capacity of its Trans Mountain Pipeline to 890,000 barrels a day. The pipeline transports heavy oil from Alberta to Burnaby for transport by tanker. The expansion
would see a drastic increase in the number of heavy oil tankers on the BC coast. Andrew Weaver, Elizabeth May and Adam Olsen have successfully been granted intervenor status in the hearing process.

“I applied for intervenor status so I could stand up for my constituents and offer them a voice in the process,” says Andrew Weaver. “Like others, I applied under the expectation that intervenors would have the right to cross-examine the proponent during the oral hearing process.”

Cross-examination was an essential part of uncovering serious gaps in Enbridge’s evidence for the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, including evidence surrounding what would happen in the event of an oil spill. The Province of British Columbia’s final argument on the Northern Gateway pipeline was heavily reliant on evidence that only came out during the oral cross-examination process. This allowed the Government to credibly and transparently assess the available evidence and come to the conclusion that they “were unable to support the project at this time”. In contrast, the Trans Mountain Pipeline hearings currently do not include any oral cross-examination and only offer intervenors two written opportunities to directly ask Trans Mountain for information about its evidence.

“This is a watershed moment for the BC government’s claim that it will stand up for British Columbians,” says Andrew Weaver. “Without oral cross-examination, the government has little ability to credibly and transparently represent the best interests of British Columbians in this process. I am therefore asking the BC Government to call on the National Energy Board to introduce a full oral cross examination into the hearing process.”

“Having appeared as legal counsel before the National Energy Board over the last 30 years, the right to cross-examine before the National Energy Board has been unquestioned,” says Elizabeth May. “The truncated process imposed due to the 2012
omnibus budget bill is bad enough, these additional changes represent a breach of natural justice and if not corrected will end up before the courts.”

“Without oral cross-examination, Kinder Morgan essentially gets to say ‘trust us’,” says Adam Olsen. “British Columbians made it clear with the Northern Gateway pipeline that ‘trust us’ isn’t good enough. We want a full and transparent review of
all of the facts, and that requires oral cross-examination. If Kinder Morgan has nothing to hide, then there should be no problem with them supporting a full oral cross examination in the hearings.”

Media Contact:
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
(1) 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

With a recent Supreme Court decision in place, the year-round ski resort on Jumbo Glacier is one step closer to development. If built, the resort will be the first of its kind in North America. It will also likely be the last of its kind, ever, because at a fundamental level, it simply does not make sense.

If fully completed, the 20-year, billion-dollar development is expected to be the only resort in North America where patrons will be able to ski year-round. The project has been hotly contested since its inception 23 years ago. Throughout this period, it has faced significant local opposition from special interest groups, local communities, and First Nations. Most recently the Ktunaxa First Nations brought the resort before the BC Supreme Court, arguing that its development violated a sacred area for the Ktunaxa Nation. The court has now ruled in favour of the developer, removing one more barrier to the resort’s construction.

But does this development make sense?

Development happens, change happens, and there will always be proponents and opponents of specific projects. Yet, in the case of the Jumbo Glacier Resort, there are a few facts that appear to undermine the viability of the project.

First, the science is clear: The whole concept of a long-term, all-season ski resort is slowly but surely becoming a fantasy. Glaciers across BC are melting and Jumbo Glacier is no exception. It is expected that by 2100, Jumbo Glacier will be largely non-existent. In fact, just looking at the period between 1985 and 2005, the entire Southeastern BC glacial region lost, on average, roughly 15% of its mass. Yet while the science is forecasting increased melting, according to the developer’s own plan it will still take over 20 years to build the proposed resort. This means that by the time the resort is fully operational a further 20 years of melting will have also occurred. The fact is, climate change is eliminating the viability of year-round glacial skiing and as it does so, it is turning Jumbo Resort into an increasingly risky investment.

Second, the Jumbo Resort clearly lacks a social license to continue. Over the last decade, media, governing bodies and special interest groups have conducted several polls and surveys that serve to highlight the significant local opposition to this project. For example, in the 2004 Environmental Assessment over 90% of the thousands of comments received were in opposition to the project. There has been significant local opposition to the idea of the resort from its inception and there continues to be strong opposition from the Ktunaxa First Nation.

Finally, the fact that the provincial government has used $250,000 to create a municipality that has no residents and no infrastructure is troublesome, given the real needs that exist in our province. How this is a good use of taxpayer money or a sound investment decision are both good questions.

Until this week, Jumbo Resort had a deadline to begin construction by this fall, or it would have to undergo a new environmental assessment. Unfortunately, the provincial cabinet passed an order in council this week that may exempt Jumbo Resort from undergoing this assessment. This change is particularly troublesome given the advancements in climate science and in our knowledge of glacier melting, both of which have evolved significantly since Jumbo underwent its last environmental assessment in 2004.

The fact is, the more we learn about glacier science, the less a resort like Jumbo makes sense. Given this, it’s hard to understand why the provincial government is subsidizing and promoting the development of a project that faces significant local opposition and flies in the face of our best scientific understanding of climatic trends.

Twenty years ago we may have thought this project had a promising future. Now we know that future is bleak.

It may seem odd that I would rise today to speak in favour of The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act which resides in the riding of Chilliwack-Hope (MLA Laurie Throness), but I was contacted by a number of constituents who had summer homes in the area. This is what prompted me to examine this legislation more deeply. Below is the text of my speech.

While the member for Chilliwack-Hope is probably wondering what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is doing standing up to speak in favour of the Cultus Lake act, I will add that I had a number of constituents who e-mailed me specifically about this act because they have summer homes in Cultus Lake. They pleaded with me to support this act. I’d like to read one of the e-mails that I received from the constituents. It said as follows:

“We are two of your constituents who have a summer home at Cultus Lake. Currently the residents of Cultus Lake Park do not have a democratic election process. Residents can only vote for two of seven politicians who represent them. By you voting yes for this bill, it will make a considerable improvement in democracy and accountability for the Cultus Lake Park, thus improving the future sustainability for this wonderful area, which is enjoyed by thousands of B.C. residents every year.”

Now, of course, as soon as an e-mail mentions the word “sustainability,” my ears perk up, so I took some time to explore this bill further.

The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act takes an important step forward in the lead-up to the 2014 municipal elections to ensure that the residents of Cultus Lake are adequately represented in their government. The act would change the number and composition of representatives from the current structure of seven representatives, two of whom are Cultus Lake residents, to the new structure of five representatives, three of whom are Cultus Lake residents.

By increasing the representation of local residents, this bill will further empower those residents to sustainably manage a park that is enjoyed by so many British Columbians, including residents from the Oak Bay–Gordon Head riding here on southern Vancouver Island.

I, too, would like to thank the government and the member for Chilliwack-Hope for his work to bring and introduce this bill forward, and I very much look forward to supporting its adaptation at second and third readings and committee stage.

On Friday April 4, I had the honour and great pleasure of attending and speaking at the Abbotsford Water Show.

As noted on the website for the event “The Water Show is a unique and original event bringing Trades and Technologies from Water Reclamation, Wells Irrigation, Ponds and Pools, Micro Energy all the way to Onsite septic together for the first time.”

For me, it was also a great opportunity to hear first-hand from a number of BC small businesses. I had the opportunity to fly direct from Victoria to Abbotsford on Abbotsford-basedIsland Express Air. Owner and Captain, Gerry Visser, started the company in 2009 and personally provides first-class customer service. The 20-minute trip on a Piper Navajo provides the passenger with an incredibly scenic trip which even includes a fly-over of the Cherry Point refinery in the  US. Hope TV’s program P3: People, Places, Perspectives, hosted by Randall Mark provides a detailed history of Island Express and provides further information.

The Abbotsford Water Shaw featured a number of talks, although I was only able to sit through those between 09:30 and 14:30. David Mellis, president and owner of Langley-based EDS Pumps and Water Treatment Ltd., spoke about recent advances in water well remediation. Patrick Lucey, president of Victoria-Based Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd., located on the boundary of the riding of Oak Bay Gordon Head (#201-3690 Shelbourne St.), explored the potential benefits of integrating waste water an energy systems in the design of cities, towns and municipalities. Kamloops-based Terry Ormod, Western Canada Sales manager for The Toro Company, highlighted the numerous simple, cost-effective ways of improving irrigation systems to conserve water and provide higher-quality irrigation.

But the highlight of the event, without a doubt, was the extensive conversations I had with representatives from Pinnacle Environmental Technologies Inc, whose President Frank Hey, is pictured above with a BioBarrier^®, residential Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR) tertiary treatment system. Imagine having your own tertiary-based sewage treatment system in your back yard supplying you with water for irrigation and use in toilets!

It was inspiring to see so many people committed to developing prosperity through the use and installation of sustainable and innovative cleantech — the basis of tomorrow’s economy.

Bill 18 – 2014:  The Water Sustainability Act is now entering third reading. This is an historic piece of legislation that completely overhauls the 1909 Water Act and now includes groundwater regulation. This is a welcome piece of legislation that I am pleased to support. Below is the text of my address at second reading.

I would like to start my speech the exact same way that the member left off her previous speech, which is offering my congratulations to the minister for tabling what I believe is a historic bill for the province of British Columbia.

We’ve been blessed here in British Columbia with some of the best access to fresh water compared to any other jurisdiction in the world. Our abundance of clean, fresh water has meant that the pressures to monitor and regulate its usage have taken much longer to manifest themselves. We’ve not felt the immediate pressures that some jurisdictions have, in which failure to regulate water usage meant the difference between life and death.

Yet what is clear is that from an economic, social, environmental and cultural perspective, how we manage our water will have significant impacts on the current generation as well as future generations, particularly in light of the climate change as outlined in the recently released Working Group II report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To quote the West Coast Environmental Law: “Water and how we treat our water is one of those fundamental issues that touches on so much of who we are, what we do and how we build our economy.” Our failure to better regulate our water usage today will have ripple effects and potentially significant consequences for future generations — if not across our province, certainly in specific regions.

After more than 100 years I think we can all agree in this House that updated legislation is long overdue. The original Water Act from 1909 was written for a different time with different issues facing our water resources. It is ill-suited for the current area of climate change pressures, rising competition over usage and increasing importance of managing our water supplies in such a way that ensures opportunity and sustainability for future generations.

The new Water Sustainability Act represents an important step forward to meet many of these challenges, and I’m pleased to say that I find much to support in the many innovative environmental measures proposed to manage our water resources.

In particular, the incorporation of the long-promised regulation of groundwater is an important addition. The inclusion of a system for licensing and regulating groundwater users helps to fill a glaring policy gap that was allowing a number of industries to profit from our Crown resources, with no system to ensure the sustainability of their use. In addition, British Columbia did not receive adequate compensation for the use of this resource.

I’m also encouraged that the government chose to include a number of ecological considerations in the decision-making process about water use. Specifically, innovative components that include the water sustainability plans, water objectives, the protection of sensitive streams, environmental flow needs and mitigation measures are all very positive.

I look forward to examining exactly how these provisions will operate in greater detail at the committee stage. Here I want to note my support for the fact that they were not only considered but included in the bill.

I also think the government’s decision to sever the water pricing discussion from this act is a very good one. As the ministry has no doubt seen, there are a great variety of positions on water pricing, and a separate engagement process will allow all interested stakeholders to provide the ministry and the minister with their perspective.

My own view is that the province should seriously look at differential pricing for water based, in part, on how that water is being used. Some guidance could be taken from the bill before us today, particularly in regards to ensuring the beneficial use and aligning the differential pricing with the “water objectives” of a given region. In general I’m supportive of the process the government has initiated to solicit feedback on water pricing, and I look forward to discussing this aspect at a later day.

As population grows and the direct impact of climate change on local weather is felt with increasing frequency and intensity, the sustainable management of our water resources will become more important.

Without a doubt, there are many positive aspects in this bill pertaining to the determination of “critical environmental flow thresholds.” However, it remains unclear to me whether government possesses the level of in-house scientific understanding required to properly manage our water resources, particularly our groundwater supplies.

As we’ve seen recently in California, climate change can have massive impacts on water supply. For example, we can expect precipitation to increasingly fall in the form of rain instead of snow, leading to changes in snowpack and water availability throughout the year. This is not an issue of water availability but of water storage for our surface water access. This, in turn, could have significant impacts on groundwater recharge and needs to be accounted for in the regulations that will govern groundwater withdrawal.

I’m also uncertain about the merits of continuing with the first-in-time, first-in-right priority for waters rights, as mentioned by the member for Stikine. My view is that this system is also outdated and needs updating and is potentially contradictory to many of the sustainability provisions that this bill puts in place. I look forward to unpacking the reasoning behind the continuing use of this system further at committee stage.

Finally, my main concern with regards to this bill concerns the government’s ability to effectively implement it. I’m left wondering if the government currently possesses and will continue to possess the necessary resources and internal capacity to enforce many of the provisions in this bill.

The overall downsizing of the public service is starting to cause alarm bells to go off in certain areas, especially with regards to available scientific expertise and enforcement. Cuts in the scientific capacity of government will have a negative effect on its ability to manage its natural resources. This comes at a time when the stresses that are placed on our resources have never been more diverse and more complicated. I hope that we can include a discussion on this important topic as the bill moves through committee stage.

In summary, Bill 18 provides a broad framework for a new water management system in British Columbia. However, many of the details are left to regulations that have yet to be written, and so, ultimately, the overall success of this bill will be judged once these regulations become public. I believe it’s essential for the government to continue to offer British Columbians an opportunity to provide feedback as the regulations are developed.

Finally, as I began, I’d like to finish by congratulating the minister for tabling this historic bill. I very much look forward to working with her going forward to make sure that this bill lives up to its full potential.