Today in the Legislature I rose to table my second private members’ bill: Bill M220, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2015.

It is clear that British Columbians are concerned about oil pipelines and have lost confidence in the federal review process. The problem is, the tools we have to make our voices heard are too restrictive. If enacted, this bill would give British Columbians a stronger voice on how oil pipeline proposals are evaluated in the province.

Just last month, people in Vancouver saw first hand how unprepared we are for an oil spill. It’s clear from the federal hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline that these concerns aren’t being adequately addressed. My bill would make it easier for British Columbians to require their provincial government to hold a made-in-B.C. hearing process on oil pipelines.

Introductory Remarks on the Bill

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that is designed to empower British Columbians so that their voices can be more effectively heard on environmental reviews of major projects, like oil pipelines.

It’s fitting that I introduce this bill this week as we move to committee stage debates on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act. Too often politicians let themselves believe that the only time they need to listen to voters is at elections, and I disagree.

If we are to re-engage British Columbians in our democracy, we need to actively seek their view on far more of what we debate in the Legislature. We also need to provide them with additional tools to hold their government to account. The Recall and Initiative Amendment Act is one such tool.

As every member of this House will surely agree, we live in the most beautiful part of the world, and British Columbians want to keep it that way. They want to ensure our pristine coastlines, our natural environment and our unique ecosystems are preserved.

Under the existing Recall and Initiative Act an individual can put forward a bill to be either debated in the Legislature or put up for a non-binding referendum. To be successful, the proponent must collect signatures from 10 percent of registered voters in each of 85 electoral districts within 90 days.

The Recall and Initiative Amendment Act would change the electoral district requirement for initiatives that specifically address pulling out of environmental assessment equivalency agreements with the federal government. Successful petitions in these instances would require signatures from 15 percent of registered voters in British Columbia regardless of electoral district, making it easier to meet the requirements.

British Columbians have lost faith in the federal review process, particularly as they pertain to oil pipeline proposals. The province has not listened to their voices, and this bill would offer British Columbians an opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard. If an initiative were to pass under the proposed changes in the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, it would require government to pull out of an existing environmental assessment equivalency agreement for a particular project and hold its own made-in-B.C. review of, for example, a proposed heavy-oil pipeline.

Video of Introductory Remarks

On June 17^th the Federal Government approved Enbridge’s controversial Northern Gateway Pipeline. The pipeline will see 525,000 barrels of the heavy oil transported from the Alberta tar sands to the BC coast each day, for transport by tanker to foreign refineries.

With its decision, the Federal Government is bulldozing this pipeline through the backyards of British Columbians. Time and time again, First Nations along the pipeline route have made it clear that they will not accept the Northern Gateway pipeline on their traditional territory. The District of Kitimat rejected the project in a recent referendum. And poll after poll has shown an overwhelming majority of British Columbians do not believe the project should move forward.

The Federal Government’s failure to respect the will of British Columbians is particularly ironic. In 1980 when Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program, Albertans were outraged. They argued that it was utterly inappropriate for the federal government to interfere with their energy policy as it was deemed to be within provincial jurisdiction. Have we not learned anything from history?

First Nations along the pipeline route are among those who would be most impacted by its construction. Yet they have been largely ignored throughout much of this process. In fact, a Stephen Harper appointed special envoy on aboriginal and energy issues recently issued a report that showed the federal government’s approach to engagement with First Nations was inadequate.

In an address earlier this month to a conference for treaty negotiators, industry and government, the appointee Mr. Doug Eyford stated:

“I was struck that some of the communities that are today threatening judicial proceedings and civil disobedience were at one time requesting meetings with federal officials and making what I believe, in retrospect, were feasible proposals to address the environmental and other issues associated with the project. … Regrettably, there was no uptake.”

We owe our First Nations a debt of gratitude as they commence legal action to have their constitutional rights enforced. First Nations are using their resources — resources that could be used towards the betterment of their communities — to defend the interests of all British Columbians in court. This shouldn’t need to be the case. It is the BC Government that should be stepping up to defend the rights of all British Columbians. The spotlight is now on Premier Clark.

The BC Government has stated it has the power to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline through the 60 required provincial permits. Yet so far Premier Clark and her government have sat largely on the sidelines, neglecting to make any concrete commitments one way or the other.

The BC Government has stated that for any heavy oil pipeline to proceed, it must meet five conditions. Immediately after the Northern Gateway decision, Clark’s government made it very clear that these conditions have not yet been met.

Yet even if their 5 conditions are eventually met, the fact is that on their own, they are not enough. The heavy oil that is to be transported on tankers along our coast is called diluted bitumen, or dilbit. A recent federal study has clearly shown that in the presence of suspended sediments, of which there are no shortage in our coastal waters, dilbit will sink when spilled in the ocean, making recovery difficult, if not impossible, and the damages potentially catastrophic.

We do not have the science or the capacity to deal with a dilbit spill. And none of Premier Clark’s 5 conditions address this. In fact, In its comprehensive 2013 submission to the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel the British Columbia Government was very clear: “the Province is not able to support approval of the project”.

This is why I, together with the BC Green Party, have called for a moratorium on tankers transporting dilbit, adding this as a sixth condition on top of B.C. Liberal’s existing five conditions.

With today’s decision to approve the Enbridge pipeline, the deadline for meeting the 5 BC Liberal conditions has passed. It is time for Premier Clark and her government to stand up and reflect the wishes of British Columbians by unequivocally rejecting the federal decision to proceed with the Northern gateway project.

Media Statement: June 17, 2014

With a federal ‘Yes’ on Northern Gateway, it’s time for the provincial government to say ‘No’

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – The B.C. Green Party is calling the Federal Cabinet decision that approved Enbridge’s
controversial Northern Gateway pipeline deeply troubling for democracy. The majority of British
Columbians have consistently been opposed to the pipeline, as was reiterated with the latest Nanos poll,
showing 67% opposition.

“The Federal Government continues to ignore the will of British Columbians,” says Andrew Weaver, MLA
for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party. “The fact is, Kitimat is opposed to
this project. First Nations are opposed to it. British Columbians are opposed to it. It’s time for the
Provincial Government to draw a line in the sand, and reject the Northern Gateway project.”

With the failure of the Federal Government to represent the will of British Columbians, the spotlight is
now on Premier Clark.

“The Federal Government is steamrolling this pipeline through the backyards of British Columbians.”
says B.C. Green Party leader Adam Olsen. “Premier Clark can stop this pipeline. I am calling on her to
do that today.”

Yesterday, Premier Clark reiterated that any heavy oil pipeline needs to meet her government’s five
conditions, concluding that “Enbridge hasn’t met them yet.”

One of those conditions is a world-leading marine spill response regime. This is complicated by the fact
that the tankers would be carrying diluted bitumen, a heavy oil that has been shown to sink when spilled
in the ocean, making recovery more difficult.

The B.C. Green Party is the only party with a clear stance calling for a moratorium on tankers
transporting this heavy oil, adding this as a sixth condition on top of B.C. Liberal’s existing five conditions.
The BC government has stated that they have the power to stop the Enbridge pipeline through the 60
required provincial government permits. Yet so far the government has largely sat on the sidelines,
neglecting to make any concrete commitments one way or the other.

“This is no time for political dances and electoral calculations. This is our coast they are putting at risk.
British Columbians expect Northern Gateway to be rejected by their provincial government, and we
expect it today,” added Adam Olsen

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

Media Contact – B.C. Green Party / Adam Olsen
Stefan Jonsson – Director of Communications
1 250 514 0288
stefan.jonsson@greenparty.bc.ca

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 April 13th 2014
Kitimat Vote a Clear Message Against Northern Gateway
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Andrew Weaver welcomes the vote by the residents of Kitimat B.C.to reject the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. We also congratulate the Mayor and Council of Kitimat for pursuing a democratic process allowing the people directly affected by the terminal to voice their opinion. The 58% against the project is a clear message, and we urge governments at all levels to respect the people of Kitimat, and the majority of people in British Columbia, who oppose this pipeline, and the increased tanker traffic.

“No means No, not a pathway to yes. I wish to congratulate the Mayor and Council of Kitimat for allowing the plebiscite, and the residents for clearly demonstrating their opposition to Northern Gateway. I also urge all levels of government, especially the Federal Cabinet, to respect the decision.” said Andrew Weaver – MLA, Oak Bay – Gordon Head

Coastal First Nations, and those along the pipeline route, are unanimous in their opposition to Northern Gateway. The B.C. government is opposed to the pipeline and terminal saying Enbridge has failed to address fundamental questions in their submission to the National Energy Board hearings. Provincial wide polls have consistently shown the majority of people in B.C. are against the project, and now the people of Kitimat have expressed their opposition.

“This is another nail in the coffin for Northern Gateway. The people of Kitimat should be congratulated by everyone throughout the province for their determined stance. They weighed the environmental risks to the small economic benefits and made the right choice” said Adam Olsen, interim leader of the B.C. Green Party

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