B.C. Court of Appeal rules province cannot restrict oil shipments

B.C. Court of Appeal rules province cannot restrict oil shipments
B.C. Court of Appeal rules province cannot restrict oil shipments
We’Re taking you to Vancouver where BC’s attorney-general is reacting to today’s, that we would stand up for British Columbia’s, environment or economy and our coasts, thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity would be put at risk by a diluted, bitumen spill. While we’re disappointed. Well, we’re disappointed with the decision. We strongly believe the court has an important role to play in upholding rule of law. That’S why we were for this case to the court system in the first place. Our government always said this case before The Supreme Court. We asked the federal government to join us in a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. We continue to believe that we have the authority and the responsibility to protect her environment and economy, and so we will be exercising our right to appeal to the Supreme Court. I’Ll be happy to take any questions you may have., so the proposals around it are aimed at protecting British Columbia’s coast and our environments from the catastrophic effects of a diluted, bitumen spill leave the we have the right and the authority constitutionally, except where the federal Parliament Says we don’t to regulate harmful substances that are brought into British Columbia? However, they get here how the court of appeal has said that it is their opinion that are regulations specifically impact products brought in through an intervention pipeline that that proposition is not the case that we think this is something that could be clarified by the Supreme Court Of Canada, there many steps that our environment Ministry, taking a relation to ensuring that British Columbians are protected from diluted, bitumen spills, including from Railways, and this is just one piece of what the province has done to ensure were protected. But we do think it’s very important piece. I just want to follow up, so your government still opposes the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. I know that you say this legislation is about protecting the coast, but you know what are you going to do to stop the pipeline expansion at this point? Pacifically Elation is to protect our host and local jobs and Wildlife from the catastrophic effects of the diluted, bitumen spill, and that is what it is that we believe that we have the right and authority to regulate substance they’re brought in including through interprovincial pipeline, which is Where the court and our position party company in this decision, we would like clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada on that question and we think it’s critically important, as elected officials in British Columbia and elected to protect British Columbians interest, especially economic interest, to ensure that We have the Protections in place to prevent a catastrophic spill, unanimous decision by the court of appeal and the many of the Constitution lawyers expert and said that there was no chance. His Garment is going to win other than yourself believing it so how much money we have Spanish? Where is a stop to using taxpayers money to, through a Goliath, David vs Goliath that I disagree with weather, certainly Authority for the proposition we were arguing in front of the court, which is the British Columbia? Has the ability to regulate harmful substances are brought into our Province, including through Railways or in pipelines? The court disagreed with us, but I don’t agree with your suggestion that the only people saying that we had this Authority with the BC government assert not the case. Simply not true, but what I would like to say is that, in terms of the cost, I’m going to court to clarify this question to clarify the extent of our jurisdiction, it is a fraction of a fraction of the cost of a catastrophic diluted, bitumen spill. In terms of the impacts on economy jobs, I think it’s worthwhile in terms of clarifying our ability to protect British Columbia from this catastrophic outcome. While we’re waiting to go to CBC Tanya questions, the court found that, because the first question on jurisdiction with a yes, it was basically they didn’t need to rule on the following two questions. And what do you have to say about that process? Or how will that look, a three separate reference questions that were sent to the court of appeal for them to provide an opinion. And they found it because the core of the law and their finding was directed at product coming in for an interview until pipeline, and Specifically, diluted bitumen, which is a product that comes in through the pipeline and then exit or by Rail and then exits for export 50c couldn’t regulate, and so they didn’t need to provide any opinion on the other where they find. On one of the first questions and answer, that means they don’t have to provide an opinion on the other questions that they limit their decision to a to a single question. In terms of the ability to appeal the right of British Columbia to appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada has the ability to consider all three questions. Again. Is the attorney general of British Columbia confirming the province is going to appeal the DC court of appeals decision to the Supreme Court of Canada? What are the peel ruled against the province in terms of having jurisdiction or in terms of being able to block the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline project on environmental grounds and pepper Smith? Is a staff lawyer with ecojustice? The environment client is disappointed with the ruling Authority and in this particular case I feel as though that the court has says that the province has no jurisdiction to enact legislation that would restrict the contents of the pipeline. So does this make this a purely Federal, pro-ject? Provincial boundaries, so we’re still digesting the decision. Of course it just recently came out, but I would say that it doesn’t go that far after our initial readings, it seems to us, for the court was really careful to compliance. As your viewers will know, the initial approval had numerous provincial conditions, including permits that attached to that government and Alberta argue, the law was nothing but a delay or prevent the construction of the find to prohibit the Trans Mountain expansion from being developed. The attorney general and in recognition of potentially catastrophic oil spills, and so we won’t engage, I think it’s more just about protecting us from potentially what would you say best appeal, given that this court of appeal unanimously against the British Columbia government? Is there a lieutenant general in Council has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, which I believe? Okay, yes, and I just want to make that clear – that the ABC Attorney General David EBY does confirm that the province is going to appeal to the Supreme Court. So you think that that is the right decision, but do you think, based on Asian similar decisions Advantage when we’re facing a climate and ecological crisis, when you have legislation directed towards protecting communities and the environment from further exposure to potential crisis? I think that this for the Constitutional authority of the federal government – and this is a case that strikes I’ve been made. While you know a lot of money that is being spent up healing what appears to be, at least in the decision of this of this court and others, arguably Federal jurisdiction yeah again, I think that’s doesn’t really appreciate that the potential catastrophic impacts it may cost the Government so into appeal to the Supreme Court in to see if it does have the authority to protect the environment in communities. But that pales in comparison to what would happen if we had an inefficient and insufficient regulatory regime, and so I think it’s worth every penny.. What the federal government has done in terms of some of their legislation around trying to protect coast and dealing with potential spills and preventing part of this government was in place with respect to oil spill prevention. Oil spill insufficiently protect British Columbia’s environment and its communities, and so it has the authority to supplement that from the Supreme Court on Keegan in Vancouver.
The B.C. Court of Appeal has ruled that the province cannot restrict oil shipments through its borders, as it would conflict with federal jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines.
To read more: http://cbc.ca/1.5148368

»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos: http://bit.ly/1RreYWS

Connect with CBC News Online:

For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage: http://bit.ly/1Z0m6iX
Find CBC News on Facebook: http://bit.ly/1WjG36m
Follow CBC News on Twitter: http://bit.ly/1sA5P9H
For breaking news on Twitter: http://bit.ly/1WjDyks
Follow CBC News on Instagram: http://bit.ly/1Z0iE7O

Download the CBC News app for iOS: http://apple.co/25mpsUz
Download the CBC News app for Android: http://bit.ly/1XxuozZ

»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
For more than 75 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio, CBCNews.ca, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *