In Response to Eoin Finn

john weston-mainBy John Weston
Published: Aug. 30, 2014



In response to Eoin Finn’s “Weston vs West Van Council”, published August 16st, I appreciate Mr. Finn’s engagement; among other things, he took advantage of the opportunity I created for concerned citizens to meet with our Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt and our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment Collin Carrie this month in our riding. 

Among others who joined us were hardworking West Vancouver Councillors and other local elected officials. 

These meetings are examples of the work I do in “shrinking the distance” – getting Federal decision-makers to hear directly from the people of our riding. We have underway in Canada an animated conversation about large-scale energy projects. Opinions have ranged from local impacts, in Squamish, Howe Sound, and throughout our riding; to provincial- and national-scale issues.

Among the most engaged people in the country are people in our riding – fellow MP’s and Ministers have grown to expect articulate, well considered opinions from this beautiful riding.

The decisions we make now will shape Canada for generations. Thus, when we make large- scale decisions that affect the environment and the economy of British Columbia, everyone’s point of view is to be considered while applicants undergo the rigorous review process.

Project proponents can expect to respond to exacting questions from the perspective of industry, government, science, and others.  No project will be approved unless it falls within acceptable standards of safety,  for people and the environment. 

Even if a project receives approval, you can bet that conditions may apply, which may be difficult or impossible for the proponent to meet.

The Conservative Government has thus rejected large-scale projects in recent memory, either because the project did not meet the rigorous environmental standards or other aspects of national interest. 

Depending on objective, science-based processes designed to protect people and the environment, most Canadians would support an energy project that delivers jobs and opens markets for Canadian exports and adheres to stringent conditions that will ensure our environment is safe.

I was a British Columbian before being an M.P. and will be long afterwards.  It should therefore not surprise you that I stand for a strong BC and a strong Canada, with a beautiful and protected environment and a vibrant economy.

 ohn Weston, MP, West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country


  1. Jean says:

    Dear Mr Weston,
    You sound very nice and I would like to rain on your parade, so to speak.
    LNG is in the process of being imposed with the Federal Government`s full involvement. Now, with the LNG ER process, having shed their responsibility it appears, by me, John Doe and others, sending the ER process back to BC.
    It is a matter of trust, I believe, and I met you personally; I think you are a good person, but as for the system…I am not so sure.
    As to stating an opinion- even making a joint statement on a Council level- we all know, means nothing if the people in power are not listening.
    Finally, the HST was defeated with all the trickery by the BC Government unable to stop it and one should have thought we would not have to go through the same process with another brain-dead idea like LNG at Woodfibre, as the way it has been proposed. Especially with all the environmental impact and outcry by concerned citizens and people educated enough to form rational opinions, with the financial framework as intended. Instead of royalty having a complicated system of taxes with so many loopholes that an elephant could walk through them and then the ever-so-obvious attempt to increase the domestic gas price threefold carries with it a false hope that it would employ many now idle, as they are not educated enough to fill those jobs. Bringing in qualified people as operators (not as entrepreneurs) to create more jobs continuously, simply would sit in a cushy job and have a secure position much like many bureaucrats that we are now paying dearly for.

    • Jon S. says:

      Another logic lacking rant from Jean.

      Obvious attempt to increase the domestic gas price threefold? Did you just make this up, as I am having a hard time finding a source for this ludicrous claim.

  2. Ecce veratatem says:

    Mr. Weston YOU stand for your Party and your party whips and little else. Please convince us all otherwise! Many of the people you have chastised over their LNG opposition actually voted for you…alas they, apparently, have been disappointed.

  3. Jean says:

    Minimum anticipates sales price of LNG converted to Un-natural Gas ( Fracketd Methane gas) Min 11 $ GJ ( spot price) to break even, Present Mainly Natural Gas as byproduct from Crude pumping (unavoidable) Base price for Household gas ~ 4 $ GJ. Do you think that price would hold, if Fortis can sell it in form of LNG for the higher price?????