Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 194

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

Last week Adam Olsen, Interim Leader of the BC Green Party, Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, and I held a press conference where we called on the BC Government and other intervenors in the Kinder Morgan pipeline hearings to join us in demanding oral cross examinations be included in the process. Today I followed up by formally submitting three open letters to Premier Clark, Kinder Morgan Canada and the National Energy Board.

In my letter to the Premier I ask that she consider using her government’s intervenor status to call on the National Energy Board to introduce a full oral cross-examination process into the Trans Mountain hearings. The text of the letter appears below.

An Open Letter to Premier Clark regarding the NEB Trans Mountain Hearing Process

Dear Premier Clark:

I am writing to you with respect to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project application Hearing Order published by the National Energy Board on April 2, 2014.

You and your government have taken the principled position that for any heavy oil pipeline to receive provincial government support, it must satisfy your government’s five conditions. I support the government on taking this principled approach to protect the interests of British Columbians.

As an intervenor in the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, the Province stood up for British Columbians by thoroughly cross-examining Northern Gateway’s proponents and analyzing their evidence. The cross-examination process was an essential part of assessing the extent to which the project met your government’s five conditions. It uncovered 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 province to credibly and transparently assess the available evidence and to come to the conclusion that it was “unable to support the project at this time”. I commend the province and your government for the work it did during the Northern Gateway hearing process.

As an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings on Kinder Morgan’s proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project, the Province will be assessing a pipeline that will affect millions of British Columbians. The Trans Mountain pipeline would terminate in Burnaby with tankers leaving daily through Port Metro Vancouver. An oil spill, in the port or along the coast, would be devastating to the region.

The risks of this project necessitate thorough examination, as was done for the Northern Gateway Pipeline. They also necessitate a public analysis of the extent to which the pipeline meets your government’s five conditions. Oral cross-examination is the only opportunity available in a hearing process to adequately meet both of these needs.

Yet, the National Energy Board has removed oral cross-examination from the hearing process. In doing so, it has removed the best opportunity British Columbians have to get the real facts—and to understand the real risks—associated with this pipeline.

I believe this is a critical moment for the BC Government to assert its right to request a process that ensures that the interests of British Columbians are fully represented. Without oral cross-examination, the government has little ability to credibly and transparently represent the best interests of British Columbians in this process.

I therefore ask that you please consider using your Government’s status as an intervenor in the hearings, to call on the National Energy Board to introduce a full oral cross-examination process into the Trans Mountain hearings.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. I trust you will respond in a timely manner, given the constraints that are placed on the hearing process.

Yours sincerely

The second open letter was directed to the President of Kinder Morgan Canada. In it I appeal to their stated commitment to earning the trust of British Columbians by asking them to call on the National Energy Board to introduce oral cross-examination into the hearing process. I point out that without full and transparent review of all of the evidence, an inherent distrust is injected into the hearing process, and that full and transparent review starts with open and transparent cross-examination. The full text of the letter is detailed below.

An Open Letter to Kinder Morgan Canada regarding the NEB Trans Mountain Hearing Process

Dear Mr. Anderson,

I am writing to you with respect to the Trans Mountain Pipeline application Hearing Order published by the National Energy Board on April 2, 2014.

In submitting your Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion proposal for review by the National Energy Board, you made it clear that Kinder Morgan understands that its success is tied to earning the “trust, respect and cooperation” of British Columbians.

As you know, over 2000 British Columbians applied to the National Energy Board (NEB) to participate in the hearing process. Only about 400 applicants were granted intervenor status, leaving many feeling disenfranchised and left out of the hearing process.

Unfortunately, in its Hearing Order, the NEB has chosen to exclude oral cross-examination from the hearing process. Without oral cross-examination, British Columbians have lost their single most important opportunity to get the information they need to give your project a full and fair consideration.

The fact is, the success of your proposal will obviously remain contingent on British Columbians granting you a social license to proceed. Yet, without oral cross-examination, it is difficult to see how this will ever be possible as it appears the process is overly restrictive from the start.

The Northern Gateway pipeline experience made it clear that ‘trust us’ isn’t good enough to gain a social license. Without full and transparent review of all of the evidence, an inherent distrust is injected into the hearing process. Full and transparent review starts with open and transparent cross-examination.

I recognize that the decision to include, or exclude, oral cross-examination from the hearing process is not ultimately yours to make. Nevertheless, as the proponent of the project, you are a key player. I am therefore asking you, to please consider demonstrating your commitment to earning the trust of British Columbians by calling on the National Energy Board to introduce oral cross-examination into the hearing process.

Yours sincerely,

The final letter was sent to the National Energy Board. In it I formally provide my support for two motions that have been brought forward. The first was submitted by Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation asking for an extension of the timeline for Intervenor Round 1 information requests by 45 days to June 16, 2014. The second  was submitted by Robyn Allan asking that  oral cross-examination be included in the hearing process. The full text of my letter is also provided below.

Attention: Ms. Sheri Young, Board Secretary

Dear Ms. Young:

I am writing as an intervenor in the National Energy Board Hearings on the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Application to express my support for the following two Notices of Motion:

1. The Notice of Motion submitted by Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation dated April 17, 2014, specifically as it pertains to extending the timeline for Intervenor Round 1 information requests by 45 days to June 16, 2014.
2. The Notice of Motion submitted by Robyn Allan dated April 14, 2014, to include an oral cross-examination phase in the hearing process.

Extending the timeline for Intervenor Round 1 Information Requests

As the MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I applied to participate as an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain Expansion Project because I believe my constituents—and, indeed, all British Columbians—deserve a voice in the hearing process. I am deeply concerned that the restrictive timeline offered by the NEB on intervenor participation will severely impede my ability to effectively represent my constituents in this process. In particular, I have two specific concerns:

Firstly, as an elected representative, I have a duty to engage with my constituents so that I can effectively represent them. At 15,000 pages, Trans Mountain’s application is highly complex and intricate. Like me, my constituents need time to fully review the application prior to offering their feedback to me through an active engagement process. Many of my constituents own land along the coast, while others frequent public beaches or rely on coastal industries. All would be affected in the event of an oil spill and hence their participation and their voices are important as we move through this process.

Secondly, as an intervenor, and in the absence of an oral cross-examination process, I effectively only have two opportunities to ask written questions of the proponent. In the Hearing Order, the National Energy Board notes that it is in intervenors’ best interests to submit the full scope of their information requests in the first round, so the second round can be used for clarification and supplemental questions. This recommendation is made, of course, because there is no further opportunity for direct clarification or supplemental questions on Information Requests submitted during the second round. In other words, I cannot directly ask follow-up questions of the proponent on any key points that I miss during the first round due to the rushed process.

Effective participation in the hearing process therefore requires that I review the entire application in detail, such that I can submit the full scope of my information requests in the first round. I submit that one month is not a sufficient amount of time for me to fully and thoroughly review the proponent’s application and prepare my information requests. Add to this the importance of consulting with my constituents, and I submit that my ability to effectively participate in the hearing process is severely constrained under the current timeline.

With this in mind, and with full appreciation of the 15-month timeline for the hearing process, I strongly support the motion to postpone the deadline for Intervenor Round 1 information requests by 45 days to June 16, 2014.

Oral Cross Examination

I would also like to take this opportunity to voice my complete support of the motion tabled by Robyn Allan, which called for the Hearing Order to include an oral cross-examination phase available to all intervenors.

I applied as an intervenor twice, once in my capacity as an MLA to represent the citizens in my region who would be affected by this pipeline, and a second time as a scientist with applicable knowledge in the area of physical oceanography. I understood it was my right, were I to be accepted as an intervenor, to orally cross-examine witnesses, to inquire into areas of concern for members of my community, and to adjudicate the scientific evidence that was put before the panel. This belief was shared by many, if not most, who applied as intervenors for this process.

There is considerable public interest in this hearing, as is reflected by the quantity and diversity of people and groups who applied to participate in the process. British Columbians are watching this process closely, looking for any bias to show itself. Failing to include oral cross-examination will be interpreted as a clear sign that this process is designed to limit the influence that citizens can have on its outcome. The issue of citizen involvement is of particular concern given that intervenors in the Trans Mountain Expansion Toll Application, who primarily came from the oil industry, were granted the opportunity to orally cross-examine witnesses.

There is a great risk here that people will ultimately determine that this hearing process itself cannot be supported, and that any decision reached by the panel was done so contrary to established democratic practice. This will negatively affect the prospects of the Trans Mountain project and will preclude the proponent from developing the required social license to proceed.

As with most major industrial projects currently being debated in British Columbia, achieving a social license is what will ultimately allow a project to advance. This requires a demonstration of good faith consultation, and a process that allows an open and transparent analysis of the evidence on which a project is based. Without an oral cross examination component, the Trans Mountain Expansion Project will fail to meet this standard.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I submit that I support both of the abovementioned motions and respectfully request that the Board amend the Hearing Order to:

1. Extend the deadline for Intervenor Round 1 information requests by 45 days, to June 16, 2014.
2. Include a significant oral cross-examination component, open to all intervenors, in the hearing process.

Best wishes,

Andrew Weaver
MLA, Oak Bay-Gordon Head

British Columbia is presently revising its K-9 education curriculum and assessment. Such revisions form an important and continual process in updating and making the curriculum better reflect modern society as well as more recent teaching and learning strategies. The Ministry of Education has made available draft curricula since the fall and has sought feedback on it from teachers and the general public. The proposed science curriculum created a significant amount of controversy when it appeared to largely eliminate environmental science from the curriculum and place some subject matter at age-inappropriate levels (such as atoms or molecules as particles of matter in Grade 4).

I received numerous letters from constituents (including teachers) within the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head as well as from elsewhere across British Columbia. This prompted me to write the letter below to the Minister of Education outlining the concerns with respect to the draft science curriculum.

Dear Minister Fassbender,

I am writing to you with regards to a concern that has been raised by a number of my constituents regarding an apparent watering down of the environmental education component in the draft K-7 science curriculum. In addition, I have received letters from teachers regarding the proposed changes. I am sure your office has also received a fair number of letters on this topic.

I recognize that it is important to continually revise the education curriculum to reflect both societal changes and advancements in scientific understanding. However, after examining the curriculum myself, I concur that in its current draft form, the new student curriculum for BC schools appears to omit key scientific concepts regarding environmental issues, or has shifted them to an inappropriate grade level. Given a Ministry spokesperson’s comments that this is merely a draft open to revision and overhaul after feedback, I thought I would take the opportunity to provide you with some feedback.

As I am sure you are aware, my background is in atmospheric and oceanic sciences. I have worked extensively with teachers throughout lower Vancouver Island in the development of age-appropriate curriculum resources to assist them deliver the Grade 4 weather PLO of the current curriculum. In particular, my assistant and I have installed at no cost more than 150 weather stations on schools from Campbell River to Victoria (with more planned in the months ahead). These are visible at: www.victoriaweather.ca; www.nanaimoweather.ca; www.islandweather.ca. As such, I believe I have some direct experience with the current curriculum.

Across Canada, weather is covered in the Grade 5 curriculum in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI, NWT and the Grade 4 curriculum in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, as well as the Grade 6 curriculum in Nunavut. In Québec, weather and climate are pervasive throughout the 2^nd and 3^rd cycles (Grades 3-6). Weather is not covered effectively in the Ontario K-8 science curriculum.

One of the reasons that it is important to study weather at the Grade 4 or 5 levels is that it is perhaps the most easily observable application of basic physics and chemistry (forces, energy etc.). In addition, students can build instruments that allow them to collect data that vary with time and place and affect their daily activities. These data can be plotted and examined using a variety of techniques in mathematics and statistics (see: Weaver and Wiebe, 2006 available at http://www.victoriaweather.ca/resources/info/2006CMOSBulletin.pdf; and Weaver and Mueller, 2009 for more details). Children at the Kindergarten level (where weather is proposed to be covered in the revised science curriculum) do not have the abilities to benefit from this integrated approach.

Students often perceive science and mathematics to hard and irrelevant (Williams et al., 2003). King and Kennett (2002) further note that teaching physics (and by extension mathematics) in the context of Earth sciences, which include weather and climate, is one of the best means of making it relevant to students. By corollary, topics in the environmental sciences would also provide applications of biology and chemistry that are relevant to students.

I hope that you will consider pausing and reflecting upon the myriad comments that I am sure you have received concerning the proposed revisions to the environmental science component of the curriculum. Are the changes to the handling of the environmental sciences really in the best interests of student learning and retention of mathematics and science?

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your further correspondence.

Yours sincerely

References

On March 27 I received a long, thoughtful two-page response to my letter from the Minister of Education. His letter was very reassuring and indicated that there is no intention of removing environmental science from the BC K-9 science curriculum. In fact, the good news is that the ministry will take into account the feedback and a “more explicit focus on the environment and the natural world” will be included in the revised science curriculum to be released in the near future.

Below I reproduce the two key paragraphs that highlight this.

“Regarding your comments on the environmental education component within the curriculum, environmental education was seen as important by the members of many of the curriculum development teams and there was no intention to minimize content on environmental issues. This is evident in science, for example, within the rationale and goals which highlight the importance of a place-based approach to science and encourages supporting students to develop a connection to the natural world and the ecosystems in their community. However, it is apparent from the feedback that we have received thus far on science drafts that more explicit focus on the environment and the natural world is important and we plan to act upon this feedback. We hope to be able to better address this important area both through revisions to the current drafts and by adding further elaborations/clarifications and inquiry questions to the concepts/content or big ideas.

I appreciate your feedback and comments very much and have shared them with program staff to ensure they are captured within the feedback process currently underway”

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.