Media Release

Media Statement: May 12, 2014
Details Needed on Spill Response, Scientific Data and Consultation from Kinder Morgan
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – The deadline for intervenors to submit initial questions and information requests to the National Energy Board on the proposed Kinder Morgan – Trans Mountain pipeline project passed at noon (pacific time) today. The office of Andrew Weaver has submitted close to 500 questions for this phase of the hearing process, concentrating on the science surrounding the risk and likely impact of an oil spill, Kinder Morgan’s ability to respond and cleanup a spill, and the consultation that was done with affected island coastal communities.

Andrew Weaver is participating as an intervenor in the N.E.B. as the elected representative of the riding of Oak Bay – Gordon Head, a community that will be directly affected should a spill occur on the oil tanker route.

“I am very concerned about the evidence used to justify Kinder Morgan’s assertion that it can deal with a heavy oil spill. As we saw with the Northern Gateway hearings there simply has not been adequate research on how heavy oil behaves in a marine environment, or if it is even possible to clean it up” said Andrew Weaver “We have submitted detailed questions to the company and I trust they will respond with comprehensive answers”

The N.E.B. hearings on the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion continue into 2015 with a final report anticipated next summer. Unlike the Northern Gateway hearings no oral cross examination of the company or experts is provided, only written questions and responses are allowed.

To see the questions submitted to the National Energy Board click here:

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

Media Statement: May 8, 2014

Site C Joint Review Report Shows Major Obstacles for Approval
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – The Joint Review Panel’s report on the proposed Peace River Site C dam published today identifies major obstacles in the path for approval. While the report does not emphatically say yes or no to the project, certain sections highlight the permanent damage to the environment, farmland and wildlife the project would have. These include effects on First Nations rights, and lack of exploration of similar-cost renewable energy alternatives.

Andrew Weaver has pointed out that Site C is the wrong project at the wrong time when alternative energy, including geothermal, wind, tidal and small-scale hydro sources, coupled with existing dams would provide substantially improved firm energy and capacity. This approach would be less damaging to the environment and, distributed around B.C. It would provide future power requirements with better cost and employment outcomes. Geo-thermal, wind, tidal and smaller hydro projects would yield substantial economic benefit to communities, especially First Nations.

“The government should note the major obstacles outlined in the Joint Review Panel report on the Site C dam. The consequences on First Nations traditional fishing and hunting grounds are a barrier that will strain already tense relations, should the project proceed” Said Andrew Weaver – “The entire policy around energy development in British Columbia needs review as the report clearly stated Geo-thermal, and other renewable sources, should be explored”

The Panel concluded:

1: On the environment and wildlife:

• “the Project would cause significant adverse effects on fish and fish habitat”
• “significant adverse effects on wetlands, in particular valley bottom wetlands”
• “the Project would likely cause significant adverse effects to migratory birds relying on valley bottom habitat during their life cycle and these losses would be permanent and cannot be mitigated”

2: On renewables:

“The scale of the Project means that, if built on BC Hydro’s timetable, substantial financial losses would accrue for several years, accentuating the intergenerational pay-now, benefit-later effect. Energy conservation and end-user efficiencies have not been pressed as hard as possible in BC Hydro’s analyses. There are alternative sources of power available at similar or somewhat higher costs, notably geothermal power. These sources, being individually smaller than Site C, would allow supply to better follow demand, obviating most of the early-year losses of Site C. Beyond that, the policy constraints that the B.C. government has imposed on BC Hydro have made some other alternatives unavailable.”

3: Regarding First Nations:

The panel:

• “concludes that the Project would likely cause a significant adverse effect on fishing opportunities and practices for the First Nations represented by Treaty 8 Tribal Association, Saulteau First Nations, and Blueberry River First Nations, and that these effects cannot be mitigated.” –
• “ concludes that the Project would likely cause a significant adverse effect on hunting and non-tenured trapping for the First Nations represented by Treaty 8 Tribal Association and Saulteau First Nations, and that these effects cannot be mitigated.3 –
• “ the Project would likely cause a significant adverse effect on other traditional uses of the land for the First Nations represented by Treaty 8 Tribal Association,and that some of these effects cannot be mitigated.” And
• “concludesthat the Project would likely cause significant adverse cumulative effects on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.”

4: For background information on Andrew Weaver’s position with respect to the value of distributed renewable energy production instead of Site C, please see:

http://www.andrewjweaver.ca/2013/10/17/wind-power-site-dam-cents/

For interview requests:

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

Media Statement, May 8^th 2014
Andrew Weaver calls on government to protect credibility of its 5 conditions for Heavy Oil Pipelines

For immediate release

Victoria, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, calls on the B.C. government to explain its silence on the National Energy Board’s Kinder Morgan – Trans Mountain pipeline hearing process, as local governments and other intervenors raise strong concerns about a defective process.

The government missed an important opportunity to weigh in on a key motion, that called on the National Energy Board to introduce oral cross-examination into the hearing process.

Oral cross-examination played a critical role in the Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. The cross-examination period lasted more than 90 days with the Province itself requesting over 8 hours of that time. It was essential in assessing the extent to which the project met the B.C. Government’s 5 conditions, and helped uncover serious gaps in Enbridge’s evidence ultimately leading the province to conclude that it could not support the project at that time.

However, oral cross-examination has been replaced in the current Trans Mountain hearing process, with only two opportunities to submit written questions. First Nations groups, cities including Victoria, Vancouver and Burnaby, and many other intervenors have raised significant concerns about the ability to adequately assess Trans Mountain’s evidence. This concern is amplified by the short timeline that gives intervenors little more than one month to read the 15,000 page application and submit their first round of questions.

This precedent-setting change comes along with a federally legislated timeline that shortens the length of the Kinder Morgan hearing process and all future hearings. However, the need to ensure fairness must remain paramount and at least one intervenor–Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada–is considering legal action over the removal of oral cross-examination.

“The final argument that the government prepared at the conclusion of the Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline was a substantial and articulate document that relied heavily on oral cross-examination to make the case for why the Province was unable to support that proposal at this time. The fact that the government has remained silent on the absence of oral cross-examination in the Trans Mountain hearings, raises significant concerns, and is putting the credibility of its 5 conditions at risk.” said Andrew Weaver.

Background Documents:

Backgrounder 2 – NEB Ruling Notices of motion to include cross-examination of witnesses – Trans Mountain Project

Backgrounder 1 – Comparison of NGP and TMP

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

The Hansard transcript of the Question Period interaction is reproduced below.

A. Weaver: On April 14 Robyn Allan, one of 400 interveners in the Kinder Morgan hearings, submitted a motion asking the National Energy Board to introduce oral cross-examination into the process.

I joined many other interveners in writing a letter of support for Robyn Allan’s motion, as I felt this was the best way to formally express the importance of such cross-examination.

Madame Speaker, the government had ten days to submit their own letter of support, but they didn’t. A letter from the province would have had a profound influence on the NEB. Yesterday the NEB ruled on Robyn Allan’s motion and a similar motion tabled by MP Elizabeth May, dismissing their requests for oral cross-examination.

My question is to the Minister of Environment: given the government’s own comments that oral cross-examination of Enbridge was an essential part of determining whether or not the project met their five conditions, why did the government not take this opportunity to stand up for British Columbians and formally request oral cross-examination in the NEB hearing process?

Hon. M. Polak: I thank the member for his question and thank you for alerting me to his interest in the matter.

With respect to the National Energy Board hearings, I know the member is aware that they are a body that designs its own standard for how those hearings occur that we as a province do not influence.

Nevertheless, to the member’s question, the oral cross-examination, direct cross-examination, is not the only way in which one can put forward a case. In fact, there are still opportunities for participants to ask questions of Kinder Morgan and present their own information and perspectives to the panel. Interveners have the option to file detailed written information requests that Kinder Morgan is obliged to respond to — and in fact, in writing.

Also, interveners have the ability to address the review panel in person and to make their arguments and file written evidence.

With that knowledge, Madame Speaker, we determined that the opportunities were still sufficient for us to provide as strong an argument for our five conditions around Kinder Morgan as we did in the northern gateway hearings.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister, through you, Madame Speaker, for the response.

Oral cross-examination was essential to assessing the extent to which the project met the government’s five conditions. It uncovered serious gaps in Enbridge’s evidence and led the province to conclude that it could not support the project.

For the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project, oral cross-examination has been removed by the NEB. On April 23, I submitted an open letter to the Premier asking her to consider formally calling on the National Energy Board to introduce oral cross-examination. Two days ago I received a response that stated the following: “The province will use every forum available to ensure that the five conditions are met.”

I respect that response. However, my question to the minister is this: does the government believe that two written requests are sufficient to assess the meeting of the proposal with its five conditions? And if not, what other forums is the government using to ensure that it will receive sufficient information to assess its five conditions?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I thank the member for the question. He will no doubt be aware that the province has not only committed to participating in the process, but we’ve actually been making our preparations to participate for months now as we approach the deadlines for submission.

For us, we still believe that with respect to our ability as interveners to request information in writing from Kinder Morgan…. We believe that we can do that in a detailed way that will provide us the information to evaluate. We also believe that we can provide to the panel, in person, an effective argument on behalf of our five conditions.

But it’s also important to note that the passage through the NEB process successfully is only one condition for us as a province. If we are not provided with sufficient evidence — not just commitments, but sufficient evidence — from the hearings, we certainly will maintain a position that upholds our five conditions.

We have seen that at the end of the northern gateway hearings when we concluded with a submission that, in fact, presented a lack of support from British Columbia. We will take the same approach here, entering neutral if we’re not provided with sufficient evidence, we will take the same approach.

Media Statement: May 5, 2014
Petition Calls on Province to Review CRD Sewage Plan
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Today Andrew Weaver presented three petitions to the House calling on the Provincial Government to pause and review the Capital Regional District proposal for secondary sewage treatment. The petitions totaling over 2600 signatures from residents throughout Greater Victoria were organized by The Prospect Lake Community Association and the Sewage Treatment Action Group.

In light of the rejection of re-zoning McLoughlin Point for a treatment plant by the Township of Esquimalt, following a series of public forums, and community concerns over the proposed plant at Hartland, the CRD plan appears to be on hold. The Minister of Environment has stated she has no intention of intervening on the Esquimalt re-zoning and has indicated the affected municipalities and regional district should come forward with a solution. She has also officially noted the deadline for completion is 2020 allowing time for alternative approaches to be discussed.

“These petitions, town halls, letters to editors and community actions clearly demonstrate that the residents and businesses in Greater Victoria are deeply concerned about the proposed project both in terms of its cost, as well as its appropriateness as a solution” said Andrew Weaver. “The region needs sewage treatment. And we know the province has promised to provide funding even with a 2020 deadline. What’s needed is a firm commitment of 1/3 federal funding so that the CRD will have full confidence that a review of the present plan is the right way to move forward”.

In submitting the petition to Andrew Weaver, Dr. Fred Haynes, Past President, Prospect lake Community Association noted: “ The newer technologies demonstrated at Dockside Green (Victoria), Ladysmith BC, Blaine Washington and Guadalajara Mexico show it is possible with this budget to invest taxpayers money in building a world leading system”.

Andrew Weaver will continue to work with community groups, regional mayors and councils, and community groups to encourage a sewage treatment plan that is affordable, meets current and future needs and is backed by the community.

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

The National Energy Board panel on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearings has extended the deadline on initial questions from intervenors to May 12^th. As the only British Columbia MLA with intervenor status in this process, Andrew Weaver is seeking questions and comments from constituents and people around the province to frame submissions to the hearings.

This is part of public engagement on the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal, and on concerns raised by people around British Columbia on diluted bitumen, pipelines and increased tanker traffic. During the hearing process, which will conclude with a report and recommendations from the NEB panel in July 2015, Andrew Weaver will be providing on going opportunities for public input, along with regular updates. These will include a future town hall, forums, speaking engagements and newsletters.

A dedicated website section has been created on the proposed pipeline with project information, news and a feedback form for public questions and comments.

“Over the coming months I will be offering several ways people can submit questions, comments and concerns. It will start with this website and will continue through town halls and other forums. With the first deadline for questions to Kinder Morgan fast approaching I am inviting everyone to submit feedback by visiting our website. The feedback will be essential and valuable in my submissions to the National Energy Board.” Said Andrew Weaver

For further information please contact

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