Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Premier about his recent meeting in Ottawa with Rachel Notley, Premier of Alberta and Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister. I rose third in Question Period between internally inconsistent questions that the BC Liberals also posed to the Premier. It seemed to me that the BC Liberals were more concerned about the interests of Albertans than they were about the protection of the BC economy and environment.
Below I reproduce the video and text of my exchange with the Premier. I was very pleased with his clear responses to my two questions.
A. Weaver: I must admit, it’s galling for me to hear members of the Liberal Party of Alberta opposite wax eloquently about ocean protection — an area that I actually served as an intervenor on. I can assure you that when there’s an ocean protection plan that’s predicated on the existence of 20 hours of sunlight, nobody’s safety is being protected here in the province of British Columbia.
Yesterday the Premier met with the Prime Minister and the Alberta Premier to discuss the manufactured conflict over the Trans Mountain expansion that has the side opposite, the Liberal members from Alberta, all in a tizzy these days.
After the meeting, the Premier stated that he and the Prime Minister agreed to protect our coasts by working together to close gaps in the ocean protection plan. The federal ocean protection plan — let’s be clear, that’s Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific; it’s all three of them — doesn’t address the fundamental and unchanged fact that we cannot protect our coast. We can’t clean up the diluted bitumen if there we’re a spill. You don’t have to believe me, you can believe the Royal Society of Canada or the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. expert panel reports.
Will the Premier confirm that B.C.’s position is unchanged today and that he will use every tool available to him to stand up for our coast, for science and for our economy in the face of the proposed reckless federal intervention in the Trans Mountain expansion.
Mr. Speaker: Premier, before you answer the question….
Member, if I may ask you to retract your comment about the Liberals from Alberta.
A. Weaver: Sorry, I retract the comment about the Liberals from Alberta. I was trying to suggest that the members opposite are not putting the interests of British Columbians first, and are representing external interests.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, the Leader of the Third Party, for his question and, particularly, the reference to the Royal Society of Canada and the gaps there are in the science, which, again, brings me back, also, to the question from the previous member.
The government of British Columbia has been meeting regularly with the federal government on the ocean protection plan and discussing the gaps in knowledge, the gaps in science that have been acknowledged by the Royal Society. In fact, that was the foundation of our intervention to go to the public and talk about these issues in January.
I reaffirmed those points, hon. Member, to the Prime Minister and to the leader of the government of Alberta. I said very clearly and without reservation that the province of British Columbia is extremely concerned about the consequences of a catastrophic bitumen spill.
And I’ll remind the member for Skeena, who’s been silent in this House but active outside, of when he said, back in 2013: “There’s no real way to pick this product up out of the marine environment. If they can prove that, then they should show us where it’s being practised around the world. I’m just not willing to actually allow the Haisla people to take a position on that.”
So even some members on that side, hon. Member, agree with us that there is inexact science. We need to do more work on the subject.
A. Weaver: There’s growing evidence to suggest that Kinder Morgan set their outrageous ultimatum as either part of an exit strategy or in order to hand over the financial risk to Canadian taxpayers.
During the NEB hearings on Trans Mountain — I get that the people opposite don’t understand the economics of this — the company brought forward projections that the price of oil in the base-case scenario — if any of them had read the NEB process, they would understand this — would be $100 a barrel. Its best-case scenario saw prices reach $150 a barrel by 2040.
Since then, the development and discovery of new shale oil deposits, as well as OPEC policy changes, mean that oil has been trading at between $40 and $60 a barrel. Even the most optimistic forecast for 2020 is out around $70 a barrel. Despite this new reality, the federal and Alberta governments seem committed to transfer the economic risks onto Canadian taxpayers.
My question is to the Premier. Did he bring up with the Prime Minister the notion that subsidizing this project exposes B.C. taxpayers and Canadian taxpayers to massive risk at a time when there is growing uncertainty about Trans Mountain’s economic benefits, if any, and that it is not in line with the type of economic development needed to position Canada as a leader in the new economy?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. We did raise, with the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada, where the economics were in having the government of Canada intervene on behalf of an offshore company to invest B.C. and Canadian tax dollars in a pipeline, when there were other more constructive investments that they could make in the new economy, in the green economy. Or, at a minimum, even if they wanted to invest in diluted bitumen, to work with all parties…. I’m sure members on that side of the House would agree that if we could create more jobs in Canada by adding more value to our raw materials, whether it be diluted bitumen or logs, we should do that.
That was rejected by the government. They chose the course that I believe they’ll be laying out for the people of Canada in the days and weeks ahead, and it’ll be up to the Members of Parliament to debate those mechanisms, those tools, as they come forward. But it will be up to British Columbians and all Canadians to ask themselves if this is an appropriate investment of tax dollars.
Today I released a media statement in response to the meeting in Ottawa between Rachel Notley, Justin Trudeau and John Horgan concerning the future of the Transmountain pipeline project. It is reproduced below.
Weaver: Prime Minister’s willingness to put federal dollars on the line in response to ultimatums should alarm all Canadians
For immediate release
April 15, 2018
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following statement following the meeting between Premiers John Horgan and Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Trudeau regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline.
“I am encouraged to see Premier Horgan continue to stand up for B.C.’s right to protect our economy, our environment and our people,” said Weaver.
“It is deeply troubling that the Prime Minister is considering using public funds to absorb investor risk in this project. The message this sends to investors is that if they issue ultimatums for projects based on fundamentally faulty economic rationale, the Prime Minister will put taxpayer dollars on the line to bail them out. Since Kinder Morgan made its case to the NEB predicated on oil prices being at least $100 per barrel, markets have shifted dramatically and oil price projections are between $40-70 per barrel.
“This should concern all Canadians who took the Prime Minister at his word when he said he would build a clean, forward-looking economy. That means providing targeted incentives and support programs for industries who are embracing low-carbon solutions. Instead, the Prime Minister is doubling down on a sunset industry whose expansion puts our climate targets out of reach. We need to be investing in our shared future, not subsidizing the wealth of Texas oil companies.
“Three years into his mandate, it appears the Trudeau Liberals have no actual plan for transitioning to the low-carbon economy. This is a massive missed opportunity to make Canada a global leader in climate solutions. Worse, his insistence in pushing this project through despite significant Indigenous and community opposition risks everything that makes Canada great – our commitment to human rights, our beautiful natural environment and our international reputation as a peaceful nation of hard workers unafraid to tackle the challenges before us.
“B.C.’s world-leading climate policies introduced by Premier Gordon Campbell showed the world that climate action and a thriving economy are compatible. My caucus is working closely with Premier Horgan’s to develop a climate plan that will make B.C. a world leader once again. We will continue to provide this leadership in B.C. because we know it is the only way to secure a bright economic future for our province and for our country.”
-30-
Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca
Today we issued a press release (reproduced below) calling out the political rhetoric surrounding the ongoing debate about the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Earlier in the day I did an interview with Stephen Quinn on CBC Radio’s Early Edition show. In that I expand upon some of the rhetoric emanating from Ottawa.
I also participated on CTV’s Powerplay with Don Martin and was interviewed by well as CBC’s Power and Politics (below).
Truth and facts must prevail in Trans Mountain discussion: Weaver
For immediate release
April 10, 2018
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, is calling for politicians to hold themselves to a higher standard of facts and evidence in discussions around the Trans Mountain pipeline.
“There is an inordinate amount of fear-mongering going on in the political climate surrounding Trans Mountain,” said Weaver.
“In 2018 in this country, our commitment to facts and the truth is more important than ever.
“Today in the House, the MLAs for Abbotsford West and Chilliwack-Hope implied that their communities are at risk due to bitumen shipments by rail, stoking fears that a Lac-Mégantic-style disaster could befall them if the Trans Mountain pipeline does not go through. This is patently false – the truth is that the train in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy was loaded with highly combustible Bakken crude, not heated bitumen or undiluted heavy crude.
“The risk of Trans Mountain lies in the way diluted bitumen behaves in an ocean spill. Studies using suspended particulate matter, which characterizes the water off B.C.’s coast, suggest that bitumen would in fact either form tar balls or sink. There is not sufficient scientific evidence on whether such a spill could be cleaned up.
“In Alberta, Ms. Notley is engaging in her own fear-mongering by alleging this amounts to a ‘constitutional crisis’. It is irresponsible to be throwing such inflammatory terms around when B.C. is simply trying to consult with British Columbians and to seek scientific evidence about a substance that poses a significant risk to our communities and to our economy.
“The Prime Minister acknowledged that the NEB process that led to this project’s approval was flawed, and promised to subject it to a revised environmental assessment process. As an intervener in those NEB hearings, I know that they were woefully inadequate in terms of facts and evidence. For instance, the spill response was predicated on calm conditions and 20 hours’ worth of sunlight in a single day. This is unacceptable and ample evidence suggests that Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Notley’s attempt to strong arm B.C. into rolling over for this project is because of politics, not evidence.”
-30-
Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca
After a three week break, the 3rd session of the 41st parliament resumed today. In question period I quizzed the Premier as to how he could argue that British Columbia would meet its legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets while at the same time developing an LNG industry.
In late February I wrote an extended essay detailing the desperate, fiscally-irresponsible steps that the BC Liberals and subsequently the BC NDP have taken in an attempt to entice major LNG players to BC.
Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.
A. Weaver: Government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 2007 levels by 2030 and 80 percent from 2007 levels by 2050. This is why the government’s continued desperate push for LNG is so problematic.
LNG Canada’s proposed four-train LNG facility would add eight to ten megatonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent. That’s more than 50 percent of all of British Columbia’s present industrial emissions. And they’d add that to B.C.’s total emissions.
Our targets are such that by 2050, British Columbia can emit only 12.9 megatonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent. And at about 9.6 megatonnes, LNG Canada would yield the single largest source of those emissions. That’s three-quarters of all of British Columbia’s allowable emissions in just one LNG facility.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. How is it possible for British Columbia to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets in light of these numbers?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for his question. I know his passion for climate action and his reason for being in this House is that very issue.
I’m committed, as I said during the election campaign and as I’ve said since forming the government…. We are going to put in place targets by 2030 to see our emissions go down by the 40 percent from what they were in 2007. I’m committed to doing that.
But at the same time, when investors come calling with proposals, it’s appropriate that we talk to them. It’s appropriate that we look at the fiscal framework and we put in place the terms of engagement.
That’s why I’ve said to the LNG community: “If you’re going to employ British Columbians, there’s going to be a fair return to B.C. for access to our resource. You’re going to work with Indigenous people in partnership” — and the member for Skeena can talk to us about that — “And if you’re going to ensure that you assist us in getting to our greenhouse gas objectives, we welcome that investment.”
A. Weaver: I do appreciate the response from the Premier. Nevertheless, it seems to me that rhetoric here in B.C. is not dissimilar from what we’re hearing nationally. On the one hand, Prime Minister Trudeau claims we need to build new pipelines and increase oils sands production multifold in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our government thinks we need to increase industrial emissions by 50 percent in order to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Look, LNG Canada would not build a new LNG facility today just to tear it down tomorrow. A facility will be built to be around for decades to come. That means that for all other aspects of the British Columbia economy, emissions would have to drop by 52 percent by 2030 and — get this — 95 percent by 2050. Government is essentially saying that this one LNG plant and these 200 jobs are more important than everything else in our economy.
My question to the Premier is this. Is he prepared to tell Rio Tinto Alcan, Teck, Lafarge, Canfor, Catalyst and even the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District that they all have to shut down because British Columbia’s emission budget is all but used up by that one LNG Canada facility?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well we have no final investment decision by anyone when it comes to developing liquefied natural gas, and the members on that side will know that full well, because they promised dozens and dozens of them and none of them materialised.
I don’t want to be glib with the member’s question, because he’s absolutely correct. If we’re going to meet the targets that we have set as a Legislature — or will be codified by the Legislature in the days, weeks and months ahead — we’re going to have to have the hard discussion with all members of society, not just the industrial sector but our families, our communities. Everyone’s going to have to weigh in and do their part to reduce emissions.
This is the challenge of our generation. I’m not telling the member anything he doesn’t already know. I’m committed, as the leader of this government, to realize those objectives, and I’m going to continue to fight for that.
Today the BC Government announced its second phase of regulations to improve preparedness, response and recovery from potential spills. As part of this announcement, restrictions have been put in place to ensure that there will be no increased transport of diluted bitumen (dilbit) in British Columbia until the fate and behaviour of a dilbit spill is better understood scientifically and there is adequate ability to clean up such a spill.
My colleagues and I are very pleased with this announcement. Those who have been following developments on this file will know that I spent an enormous amount of time serving as an intervenor as part of the National Energy Board hearings on the Transmountain pipeline expansion. In fact, in December 2013, we called on the then BC Liberal government to impose a moratorium on dilbit transport on our coast due to the inadequacy of British Coumbia’s spill response and uncertainty in the scientific understanding of fate and behaviour of a dilbit spill. This was further emphasized in my final argument, oral testimony and open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau.
Below I reproduce the press release that we issued in support of the government’s announcement.
Weaver responds to government spill response measures
For immediate release
January 30, 2018
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, responded today to Minister George Heyman’s announcement that the government is proposing additional measures to protect our environment and coastal waters from heavy oil spills.
“I am pleased to see Minister Heyman putting evidence and science front and centre in government decision-making where it belongs,” said Weaver.
“In particular, I welcome the independent scientific advisory panel that will be established to assess whether regulations can mitigate the impact of heavy oil spills in our precious coastal waters. Our coastal waters provide significant economic activity for our province and the entire country, be it from tourism, fishing or real estate, and are of great cultural significance to First Nations. It is essential that they be adequately protected.
“For several years my office participated extensively in the NEB hearing process for the TransMountain pipeline. We presented evidence from two independent expert assessments that validated our evidence by making it abundantly clear that we simply to not know enough to properly assess the risk and potential damages associated with a diluted bitumen spill in the Salish Sea.
“I look forward to the new panel providing complete, robust and accurate information on this matter to the Minister that reinforces what which we already know – that there is no way currently to adequately respond to a spill of diluted bitumen.
“Furthermore, I am pleased that the government will examine important issues like response times, geographically-specific response needs for our diverse province and compensation for loss of public and cultural use of land, resources or public amenities. B.C. has a rich history of sustainable natural resource development, but it must be done in a way that benefits British Columbians. We must ensure that we are not putting our economy and our communities at risk.”
Weaver was the only MLA to intervene as an individual in the National Energy Board hearings on the TransMountain pipeline expansion. His office was an active participant in the NEB hearing process and submitted a comprehensive report outlining major issues with the spill response regime. Adam Olsen, now Green Party MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, also intervened as a member of the Tsartlip First Nation.
-30-
Background:
The reports referenced above are:
Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca