On Wednesday of this week I rose during budget estimate debates for the Office of the Premier to ask a number of questions concerning demand side measures that affect the price of gas. Prior to me rising, the Leader of the Official Opposition had spent a fair amount of time accusing the Premier of somehow causing the recent rise in the price of gas. I was profoundly disappointed by the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. It appeared to me that he was more interested in trying to score cheap political points and finding gotcha moments than he was in trying to probe the supply and demand side of the price of gas.

When my turn came, I asked a series of questions to understand how the recent increase in the price of gas might have affected transit ridership, active transportation and the purchase or electric vehicles. The answers I received from the Premier were very clear — there has been a great effect.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I’d like to start by saying I think it’s an important anniversary today. I believe it’s the two-year anniversary of the signing of our CASA agreement. With that I would suggest that this has been a rather unique time in the province of British Columbia with a minority government. I would suggest that the Premier would probably agree that the relationship has been fruitful, collaborative, at times challenging, without a doubt, but nevertheless, reaffirming the commitment that we made in CASA to work together.

That doesn’t mean we agree on everything. It means we that have a process to reflect upon our disagreements, and I would just like to canvass a few of the issues here. In particular, I’d like to start off with some of the issues with respect to the gas prices. I was listening with interest to the comments coming from the official opposition. I was somewhat flummoxed by the kind of apparent petro-stumping that I heard, and somewhat concerned that I did not perceive there to be a desire to actually support British Columbia in standing up for British Columbians, as opposed to supporting the gouging that is going on by certain elements.

I noticed that over the last few months, the Premier and this government have come up under fire, frankly, about the rising gas prices, and the official opposition has done what they can to try to distort the issue — frankly, to blame government — appealing to the worst type of populist politics.

I want to start my questioning by asking the Premier: what tools does he have to affect gas prices?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the leader of the Green Party, for his questions and his interventions here today in the budget estimates for the Premier’s office.

Firstly, I’d like to say that we’re trying to find ways to bring down the cost of gasoline by talking to suppliers, finding ways to bring more supply into our region. That means talking…. Again, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, we’re working on a plan that has not come yet to fruition, but I think in the next while, if I give it time, I’ll be held to that. But we’re working hard to try to find a way to increase our ability to affect what’s in the pipeline.

What we’ve been trying to do is work with the federal government, get an acknowledgment from our federal government, who now does own the pipe. Although they can’t dictate what goes into it, they have a bunch of mechanisms at their disposal to help us explain how the price went up so high and what we can do to bring it down in the short term.

But in the long term, the member will know, and he and I are both enthusiastic about this, we’re going to be moving away from gasoline in the first place. We want to see more people in electric vehicles. We’re putting in place, as he knows, incentives to see more people using electric cars. I drive a hybrid. You drive a full electric. We’re building charging stations right across British Columbia. I think we have over 1,500 now, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, right across the province.

We’re putting in place infrastructure to reduce the costs over the long term and also have a better environmental outcome. But that’s not happening today. Sorry, Member. The public expects, rightly so, that we will be doing what we can to do to bring on more supply so that prices can go down, so we can make that transition over a longer period of time.

A. Weaver: I concur. I accept the arguments brought forward by the Premier with respect to the ability to affect what’s in the pipeline. I found compelling the arguments that discuss the fact that in fact, the Trans Mountain was not about enhanced refined capacity. It’s all about increased diluted bitumen.

The Premier has referred to a multitude of things that could happen. One of the things that I have a concern on, and I’m going to frame a question in this regard, is that if we look back historically, virtually every year, as long as I have known, gas prices go up in the spring, and they come back in the fall.

The Premier will remember back in…. I forget. Whenever the Axe the Tax campaign was initiated by a previous government, it was during the summer months, right at the peak price, when there were record prices being set. The kind of rhetoric associated with that campaign kind of fell flat as the fall approached, because the price of gas came down.

My question to the Premier is: does he think it is prudent for a government to have a market intervention along the lines of what the member of the official opposition is stating, in light of the fact that essentially every year, we know that the price of gas goes down as we move out of the summer season, and in fact will fall naturally because of traditional supply and demand arguments and enhanced refining after, basically, the long weekend in September?

Hon. J. Horgan: I agree with the member’s premise, but this year seems to be, without any doubt, anomalous relative to others. That 40 cent increase, when only one penny a litre can be put to the carbon tax that we increased on April 1 — that is unusual. There is always an increase in demand during the travelling season. You and I have talked about that. I agree with you. But it’s never been that large. That’s why, when I asked my deputy minister about the margin question, the refining margin, why it had gone from 2½ cents to 24 cents, what happened there? And we did our best through inquiries to get an answer to that question, but we can’t compel people to testify. The Utilities Commission can, and that’s why we’ve punted the question over to them.

In the meantime, we need to continue to talk about how people can get out of their cars. That means investing in transit, which we’re doing in a big way, not just in the Lower Mainland but right across B.C. It means giving incentives to get off of fossil fuels and on to cleaner energy alternatives for our transportation needs. These are all long-term goals that we have in our plan, that you and I worked on together with the Minister of Environment as part of CleanBC. But for today, when people are looking at their summer season, they’re pretty unhappy about this, and I absolutely feel that and understand it. And we are trying to find ways to have temporary relief through mechanisms that we’ve been working on as well as coordination and cooperation from the federal government.

But you’re absolutely right: these cycles are traditional. And the Leader of the Opposition and his crew are saying that it’s a tax question, among others. That’s not the case. Do we have a significant amount of tax in our gasoline — federal transportation, TransLink and so on? Yes, we do, but that does not explain these wild swings, seasonal swings that you’ve suggested.

A. Weaver: I agree with the Premier. The refining margin in British Columbia seems to be out of whack with the rest of the country. I’m hoping that the B.C. Utilities Commission is able to explore this. I look forward to the results.

But on that note, I noticed that the official opposition was focusing on increasing supply, increasing supply, increasing supply. And at one point, they kind of walked away from that. They started introducing this kind of Marxist logic about introducing a price cap, which was just outrageous coming from a free market party. Unbelievable. I think they’ve walked away from this price cap.

Anyway, my question is on the demand side then. I suspect, knowing that, the last time we had some price hikes and the widespread move towards alternate forms of transportation, which did have a legacy effect…. I’m wondering if the Premier has any statistics about uptakes of electric vehicles, uptakes of transit ridership or uptakes of other modes of active transportation that have arisen as a direct consequence of the rising price of gas, and whether or not this has affected the demand side of the equation and whether or not, in fact, demand is dropping in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m just asking if we can get the uptick in people using transit, because it will be significant. The member is quite right. In times of crisis, people modify their behavior. They do different things. They don’t go, maybe, out to the grocery store every other day. They wait, or they buy larger amounts so they’re not travelling as much.

But I can say, on our incentives to get people into electric vehicles, as you’ll know, we had to increase that budget three times last year, which means that there’s a big demand for people to get out of the lineup for gasoline and a big demand to get into the future, which is electric vehicles. Prices are coming down. They need to come down further so that more people can get into electric vehicles. But people are voting with their feet on this question, taking up the incentives that government is providing. The federal government is now involved as well. This is very good news.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: The transit numbers are coming. Because we’re short of time, perhaps I’ll just make sure that I can get those numbers to you and I can quantify the three increases. I think we had the budget number in February. We increased in September, Minister of Finance? And then again in November.

The money is available, which is unprecedented to have a program that you increase not once but twice during the course of that fiscal year.

A. Weaver: I just want to canvass just a little more on the gas prices. I think it’s important, because we had so much focus on the supply side and, I would argue, not enough focus on the supply side. The numbers I had heard I got from good sources. I’m hoping to confirm. I recognize that it may be a little outside the scope of the Premier’s estimates and be more into Energy and Mines.

I’ve heard that this year, upwards of 10 percent of all new vehicles in British Columbia have been electric, and pushing 15 percent in the last month. Can the Premier confirm these numbers, as to whether I’m in the right ballpark?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is quite right. We’ve seen a continued increase in demand, and supply is now having challenges. Providers are having longer wait times to get vehicles. Actually, the member for Delta North managed to get his electric vehicle ahead of you. That’s because there is so much demand.

That, of course, means that Detroit — I say Detroit as the amorphous auto sector — is changing their production plans because they see a change in the marketplace. We see that with the incentives that I talked about, and we’ll be able to provide those numbers to you in some detail afterwards. But there has been a steady increase in demand for non–fossil fuel transportation mechanisms, and I think that is all good news for us. That, of course, requires industry to recognize that, and they have. But because of these longer wait times, they realized they have got to build more cars faster.

A. Weaver: The Premier mentioned the member for Delta North, and I am very jealous. The member for Delta North and I both ordered Hyundai Konas. I did about three months beforehand. He got his about one month before, and mine isn’t even here yet. He was able to go to a dealer that actually ordered them proactively instead of reactively. The Premier is quite right. The supply for these vehicles is troubling.

I’m wondering, on the issue of demand again, to what extent the Premier has explored or with his office explored the work that was done, the report that was done on mobility pricing in the greater Vancouver area. I’m wondering if he’s had any thoughts about where government is going in terms of the issue of mobility pricing — whether or not they’re thinking of that in Metro Vancouver or not.

Hon. J. Horgan: Just on the previous question, May is not finished yet, as you know. So 15 percent of the vehicles sold in May were light-duty EVs. That is unprecedented, as the member knows, and speaks well for the future. I think gas prices are a part of that, absolutely. People are saying: “Well, this might be the time to make that leap.”

We’ve been reducing costs for people — reducing medical services premiums, eliminating them; eliminating tolls; reducing fees for child care. But then on the toll question, the reason we eliminated the tolls…. It was just one area, one piece of infrastructure. When other pieces of infrastructure were being built, there was no toll ascribed to them. And the federal government, of course, has a policy that they will not fund infrastructure that has tolling on it. That meant that the Massey project, for example, was solely on the back of the provincial government.

TransLink has established a mobility committee, and they’ve been working diligently, I guess, for quite some time now. They were supposed to report back in the summer of 2019. We look forward to hearing from the region, the densest part of the province, with what their plans are. This is going to be largely an issue to be dealt with by residents in the Lower Mainland. Of course, we need to work with TransLink, with the Mayors Council to make sure that any mobility program that comes forward makes sense to the travelling public and that it is not onerous.

A. Weaver: To explore this a little further, the Premier mentioned the issue of the Massey Tunnel replacement, and he’s referred to this recently. As an issue, of course, we support the Premier in this regard. The bridge was…. I just didn’t quite understand it; twinning of the tunnel was more sensible.

My question to the Premier is this. As government is exploring this option — and I understand they’re doing it through consultation — are they considering active modes of transportation in the Massey Tunnel as well? Right now you can’t really get across that south arm of the Fraser with bikes and walking. I’m wondering if that is in the cards for a Massey Tunnel expansion if it happens.

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes, it is, Member. I was excited last week when I learned that the regional mayors have come to a consensus that they need to work together to address the congestion problem at Massey. Both the member and I are Vancouver Island members, so when we enter into the Lower Mainland, our first introduction to the challenges of transportation is the Massey Tunnel. That’s our way off the island. Get off the ferry, go through the tunnel, and you’re on your way into Metro. So we’re very seized of that.

The Minister of Transportation is working on that. We’ve got a study underway that will include multimodal transportation. We don’t want to just have the same old, same old, but we need to find a way to get it done in a cost-effective manner. The federal government will participate provided there’s no tolling infrastructure. Now, how mobility pricing fits into that, I think, is a discussion for, I would expect, after the federal election in October. We’ll see what the outcome is there.

But we’re very much aware that we can’t just keep building infrastructure to move cars and trucks. I will also say that in Metro, transit use is 437 million boardings in 2018, up 7.1 percent from the year before. Again, that speaks to…. We have a population increase, of course, but more and more people are choosing to use public transit. We have a safe, effective means of moving people around in our metro area. It’s cost-effective. People like it. And more success will breed more success.

A. Weaver: Those are impressive numbers. Actually, 7 percent is far and above any population growth for Metro Vancouver, I would suggest. That’s actually quite good news. I thank the Premier for that.

I know that one of the other issues with respect to…. I believe the government campaigned on this. I know we did as well. It was exploring the ways to deal with the affordability issue and somehow to incentivize zoning or taxation policies to incentivize density around transit hubs. I’m wondering if government has any exploration into this area about tools that they might use at their disposal to incentivize the densification in urban areas around transit hubs, whether or not that’s being considered.

Hon. J. Horgan: We don’t believe that incentives are required, but we do know that coordination is. That’s why, when I formed the executive council, I put the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville in charge of Municipal Affairs, TransLink and Housing, so that we could put all three of those critical areas under one roof so that we could coordinate our transportation links with density, ensuring that municipal governments, local governments, were participating and understood our objectives, and we understood their objectives.

But when we designate a transit line, density will come to that. But the challenge then becomes: are neighbourhoods prepared for that? That’s where the municipal activity takes place.

We’re confident that these things will come together, but we are also looking at property taxes and how that’s affecting small businesses. That’s become very topical in the past number of months, and that’s part and parcel of zoning issues that become…. This is what is possible here. All of a sudden, the value of the land goes to the possible rather than the real. That has a negative impact on business and on people.

I will say, also, people are lining up and looking at me. City of Vancouver, 2017 — 52.8 percent of all trips were made by walking, cycling or transit. That’s up from 48 percent the year before. Again, a 4 percent increase in activity.

People are voting on these questions with their feet, literally — walking, cycling. Finding other ways to move around reduces their carbon impact, reduces their costs. I believe government’s role is to work as best as we can — and you agree with this — to put in place a framework that will work to get people where they want to be. It makes for a better society. It makes for better communities.

Today the National Energy Board released its Reconsideration report for Trans Mountain Expansion Project.The report concludes that:

“report concludes that Project-related marine shipping is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on the Southern resident killer whale and on Indigenous cultural use associated with the Southern resident killer whale. The NEB also found that greenhouse gas emissions from Project-related marine vessels would likely be significant. While a credible worst-case spill from the Project or a Project-related marine vessel is not likely, if it were to occur the environmental effects would be significant. While these effects weighed heavily in the NEB’s consideration of Project-related marine shipping, the NEB recommends that the Government of Canada find that they can be justified in the circumstances, in light of the considerable benefits of the Project and measures to minimize the effects.“

As noted in the press release reproduced below, this process was about ‘getting to yes’ from the very beginning – it was set up to fail to protect the public interest. The federal approval of this project was always political. The BC Green Caucus continues to strongly believe that this project is not in the interest of British Columbians.

Media Release

Investing in fossil fuel infrastructure misguided, spells end of Southern Resident Killer Whales
For immediate release
February 22, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party, expressed profound disappointment at the National Energy Board’s report released today, which recommended the Federal Government approve the Transmountain Expansion Project.

“This process was about ‘getting to yes’ from the very beginning – it was set up to fail to protect the public interest. The federal approval of this project was always political. The BC Green caucus has been clear that this project is not in the interests of British Columbians.

“B.C. needs to be in control of our own environmental review process, to make sure it is objective and evidence-based. We cannot rely on the Federal government. The province should terminate the equivalency agreement with the Federal government, and conduct our own environmental assessment for this project. We must do all we can to ensure that our environment is protected from the costs of this project.

“Investing in 20th century technologies that are known to contribute to our 21st century challenges is irresponsible and short-sighted. The negative impacts of this project on BC are unacceptable. BC would shoulder massive environmental costs, while gaining little economic benefit. A spill would be devastating to our environment, our coastal economies and our tourism industry.

“BC’s economic future lies in the innovative, creative industries that are leading global economic growth, not the sunset industries of yesterday. The world is transitioning to the low-carbon economy, with or without us. Innovator super-powers like Germany and China are investing heavily in the economic opportunities that arise from this transition.

“The federal government must prioritize growth sectors instead of wasting billions investing in fossil fuel companies that are quickly becoming obsolete.

“The NEB found that there would be significant impacts on BC’s already endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. Is the federal government ready to justify to Canadians why it is willing to herald the death knell of this iconic species?

The report also found that there would be “significant” greenhouse gas emissions from the expanded marine vessel traffic alone.

“It is unbelievably misguided to build more fossil fuel infrastructure at this critical juncture in our history. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to begin the immediate transition to the low-carbon economy.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Adam Olsen and I today announced that we will both serve as intervenors in the upcoming new National Energy Board hearings on the Transmountain pipeline project.

Below I reproduce our press release outlining our intentions.

We remain profoundly perplexed as to why the BC NDP government has not given the federal government the 30 days notice required to pull out of the equivalency agreement.

As I noted earlier, the BC NDP campaigned on using every tool in the tool box to stop the the Transmountain pipeline project. The recent Federal Court of Appeal ruling demonstrated that politics was put ahead of evidence and reconciliation in the federal cabinet approval of the project. This presented the BC NDP with a very powerful tool.

Given that the provincial cabinet’s approval relied on the same NEB report, and in light of the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling that the report was “impermissibly flawed”, the BC Government has every right to pull out of the Equivalency Agreement and conduct its own, independent environmental assessment.

This is particularly important in light of the “it will be built” rhetoric emanating from the Trudeau government. How can British Columbians trust an environmental assessment process when the final answer has already been prescribed? The answer is simple, it can’t.

We have yet to receive any compelling reason as to why the BC NDP are not withdrawing from the equivalency agreement.

Media Release

B.C. Green MLAs Weaver and Olsen to intervene in new Trans Mountain NEB hearings
For immediate release
October 3, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader, and Adam Olsen, spokesperson for Indigenous relations and reconciliation of the B.C. Green Party have applied to intervene in the new Trans Mountain National Energy Board (NEB) hearings. Weaver and Olsen were both intervenors in the 2014 certificate hearing for the Trans Mountain Expansion project.

“Although we are concerned that this is yet another rushed process engineered to facilitate a political win, unfortunately right now it is the only one we’ve got,” said Weaver.

“The Prime Minister vowed that all new projects would be put through a new NEB process. Three years into his government’s mandate, that promise has still not been kept. The NEB has not even confirmed that marine shipping – one of the key reasons cited in the unanimous federal court decision – will be included in the scope. My previous intervention focused largely on the issue of marine shipping and I was deeply dissatisfied by the lack of answers to my questions. The NEB must do better this time.”

Weaver is a climate scientist with a specialty in ocean physics. His office has spent hundreds of hours on research on the Trans Mountain file ahead of his previous intervention. Olsen, who is a member of the Tsartlip First Nation in Brentwood Bay, will focus his intervention on the issue of consultation, as he did previously. Both have applied for participant funding.

“The federal government promised to advance reconciliation, but the federal court decision shows that their actions on Trans Mountain were in fact a setback,” said Olsen. “I do not see how you can have meaningful consultation and approach Indigenous people as partners when you have a predetermined outcome for a project. Regardless, I will continue to sit at the table because I feel it is my duty to do everything I can to fight for a better future for my province and for my people.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

In the 2017 election the BC NDP campaigned on using every tool in the tool box to stop the the Transmountain pipeline project. Earlier this month I noted that the Federal Court of Appeal presented them with a very powerful tool.

Given that the provincial cabinet’s approval of the Transmountain project relied on the same NEB report as the federal approval, and in light of the recent Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling that the report was “impermissibly flawed”, the BC Government has the opportunity to pull out of the Equivalency Agreement and conduct its own, independent environmental assessment.

Today in Question Period I quizzed the Minister of Environment as to whether or not he will initiate a withdrawal from the equivalency agreement. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: On August 30, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal cabinet approval of the Trans Mountain project. The court cited: “The board’s process and finding were so flawed that the Governor-in-Council could not reasonably rely on the board’s report. Second, the government of Canada failed to fulfil the legal duty to consult Indigenous peoples.” In particular, the court noted: “The board unjustifiably defined the scope of the project under review not to include project-related tanker traffic.”

The B.C. NDP campaigned on using every tool in the toolbox to stop the project from going forward. My question to the Minister of Environment is this. In light of the fact that the court ruled that the NEB process was flawed, my question is: will he use his authority to pull out of the equivalency agreement with Ottawa on the environmental assessment of this project for the next 22 weeks?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I think this is a good opportunity to just take a brief look at history. There was a time when the official opposition, then in government, expressed concern about the impacts of diluted bitumen on our coast, expressed concern about failings that they perceived in the National Energy Board process, but as that process rolled on, the official opposition simply rolled over and accepted the conclusions of the National Energy Board.

But that wasn’t all. First Nations on the coast expressed concern as to their rights, their culture, their traditional economy. Thousands of British Columbians expressed concern about our environment, tens of thousands of jobs that were at risk, and this government stood up with them and expressed the same concerns. And what did the opposition say when we did that? They said that there was a decision, the project was going ahead, and we should simply accept it.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is significant and far-reaching for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is it validated the concerns of First Nations, it validated the concerns of British Columbians about our coast, and it validated the actions of our government in standing up for our coast, and that’s what we will continue to do.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do recall, when I sat in opposition with my colleagues from the B.C. NDP — at a time when I heard them calling on the government of the day to actually withdraw from the equivalency agreement over the same concerns that I share today.

Our Prime Minister has signaled that the NEB has precisely 22 weeks on which to reassess the available information. That’s over Christmas. Interveners have to have given notice within the next couple of days if they want to participate.

It’s clear to me and those who participated as interveners in the prior assessment that the decision has already been made. How is it possible that the British Columbia government can have faith in a process where the decision is clearly made and where a prime minister has reiterated, time and time again, it will be built?

Again, to the Environment Minister: will he stand up for the interests of British Columbians and give the federal government the required 30 days’ notice to withdraw from the equivalency agreement today?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, thank you to the Leader of the Third Party, who raises some very significant points about the process that is underway. The decision of the federal court was complex. It’s far-reaching. We are reviewing it with both internal and external legal advice.

The federal government’s announcement about how they intend to proceed with the NEB now gives us an important context within which to assess our options going forward. We are well aware of the impending deadline. We are preparing our action in response to that deadline. But more importantly, we are preparing a range of options that are thorough, they’re well considered…. But I can assure the Leader of the Third Party this: we will defend our environment. We will defend our coast. And we will defend the tens of thousands of British Columbian jobs that depend on it.

Today the Federal government announced its path forward on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project. In response, my office issued the media release reproduced below.

Media Release

Weaver: Terms of new environmental review of Trans Mountain a concern
For immediate release
September 21, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party, is raising concerns about the federal government’s approach to reviewing the Trans Mountain pipeline project. Earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal government’s approval due to the flawed NEB process.

“This process must be clear from political control and therefore needs to be free from a politically-imposed timeline,” said Weaver.

“Any process that is about getting to ‘yes’ will inevitably fail to protect the public interest. Environmental assessments must be objective and evidence-based. And meaningful consultation with Indigenous people must ensure they are approached as partners, not as barriers to be overcome on the way to a predetermined approval.

“The federal approval of this project was always political. The Prime Minister campaigned to subject all new projects to a revised NEB process, yet pushed Trans Mountain through the old broken one. Meanwhile, additional conditions were imposed on Energy East to ensure the project was assessed through the critical lense of climate change. Why would those same considerations not matter in the case of a pipeline through B.C.? There is no reason for B.C. to shoulder such significant risk simply to fulfill political agendas.

“Both colleague Adam Olsen and I were interveners in the original NEB hearings, focusing on the consequences of a marine spill and on Indigenous rights. We are exploring whether we have rights to intervene in the new hearings.

“We are also sitting down with the provincial government to ensure that they are using all legally available means, including terminating the equivalency agreement signed by the previous administration, to protect our coast from a catastrophic diluted bitumen spill.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca