Vancouver to ask federal government for referendum on Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline

Mayor calls for public meetings on controversial proposal

Mayor Gregor Robertson has called for the city to host a series of meetings where residents can express concerns related to the proposed twinning of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

Photos

“The National Energy Board continues to restrict and reduce public input on Kinder Morgan's proposal for a seven-fold increase in oil tanker traffic through Vancouver's local waters,” Robertson said, quoted in a May 14 statement.

“We've heard loud and clear from the residents of Vancouver that they have major concerns about this proposal,” the emailed statement continues. “If the NEB won't allow residents to express those concerns, then the City should provide opportunities for the public to let their voices be heard on this important issue.”

Speaking before city council the same day, Robertson said these meetings should be convened “as soon as possible”.

A twinned Kinder Morgan pipeline would triple the amount of diluted bitumen transported from the Alberta oil sands to the Lower Mainland, increasing the number of oil tankers moving through Burrard Inlet from some 60 ships per year to more than 400.

Robertson’s move coincided with a pair of motions concerning the Trans Mountain pipeline going before city council. One passed in the form it was introduced while the other was also approved, but only after being significantly altered.

The motion immediately approved was introduced by Robertson and calls for an “open and inclusive” National Energy Board (NEB) hearing on the Kinder Morgan project.

That motion states that the NEB’s hearing process for the Trans Mountain pipeline “meets no test of meaningful consultation”. It resolves that city council request the federal government direct the NEB “to allow all applicants to speak, conduct oral hearings, and allow for full cross-examination in the Trans Mountain pipeline hearings”.

Attending the Vancouver council meeting was Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan, who fielded questions for more than 45 minutes. (Burnaby is where an expanded Trans Mountain pipeline would meet the waters of the Burrard Inlet.)

“The magnitude of the [proposed] increase of the movement of this oil and the type of oil that is being moved causes me great concern,” he said. “If you keep doing something that is risky, and you do it more, the risk increases. So the result is, if we do this at a significantly heightened rate—if we’re moving through three-times as much oil and we’re moving through four-times as many tankers, we can expect that the likelihood of an accident will increase.”

Corrigan recalled a relatively minor oil spill that occurred in Burnaby in 2007. “Having seen that and contemplating a major accident, makes me very, very fearful,” he continued. “There is a point where that magnitude takes it outside our ability to be able to respond.”

Kennedy Stewart, member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas, has provided media with a map illustrating the route that an expanded Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline would take through the Lower Mainland.

Kinder Morgan did not respond to a request for an interview. An emailed statement supplied to media by Scott Stoness, vice president of regulatory, emphasizes that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain application was “determined complete” by the NEB.

The second motion concerning the pipeline that went before council was brought forward by Green councillor Adriane Carr and called for a plebiscite on Trans Mountain to be held in conjunction with civic elections scheduled for November.

It failed to get to a vote, and was instead amended by Vision Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer via a strike and replace motion.

The revised motion calls for the city to request the federal government hold a referendum in Vancouver on the Kinder Morgan expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Reimer noted several conditions that would have to be met for that vote to occur.

A referendum would take place after the NEB’s Trans Mountain hearing has concluded, Reimer said. It would be funded by the federal government as opposed to the city. And it would be held under the federal Referendum Act with accompanying rules for campaign financing.

Carr’s motion was expected to fail as councillors aligned with the ruling Vision Vancouver party had said as much in recent days.

Reimer previously told the Straight that she did not support a plebiscite on the Trans Mountain pipeline because of a lack of spending limits.

Her strike and replace received the vocal support of Vision Vancouver councillors Tony Tang and Kerry Jang.

“I think councillor Carr’s motion has the right intention, but I think councillor Reimer’s strike and replace has the better and the correct execution,” Tang said.

Jang described Carr’s original motion as “a bit of a naïve way of looking at the world”.

“The way things are in Vancouver right now, if we were to hold one during the municipal election, oil money—big oil money—would be going in and supporting one side or another,” he said. “If we’re going to have this, let’s do it right, let’s make it fair, and make sure everybody has the same amount of money to spend.”

Carr protested but voted in support of her motion with Reimer’s amendments.

“This is a strike and replace motion,” Carr said. “It is a different motion. It focuses on a very different action, which is to request something of the federal government….I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that they will ever respond positively to this motion.”

Comments (12) Add New Comment
Save Vancouver
Let me get this straight: Mayor Moonbeam vociferously opposes letting citizens vote in a transit referendum but has no problem allowing them to vote on an energy policy issue? What a hypocrite.
38
26
Rating: +12
@Save Vancouver
It is not an "energy policy" issue. It is a "corporate profiteering" issue. It offers zero benefit to Vancouver/BC in terms of "energy." It poses risk to Vancouver and BC in terms of spills. The only reason it is being discussed is because we are run by corporations that don't care about the environment---there is no rational case for Canada exporting oil. Canada has enough humans and materials that it shouldn't need to export _anything_. The only reason it does is because of our rigged-game financial system run by the corporations, for the corporations.
33
31
Rating: +2
Chantal
Reimer's strike & replace motion is a pipe dream. There's no way the feds will agree to allow Vancouver to hold a referendum. Not this government.
Adriane Carr was in the right to ask for a plebiscite question on the November municipal election ballot. That's the only way Vancouverites could have their say and voice their opinion on the enormous increases planned in tanker traffic. Too bad corporate funded Vision and NPA voted against it, they've shown their true colours. Black as in bitumen.
31
29
Rating: +2
TedCamp
No to plebiscites! We elect politicians to make decisions. Right or wrong that's why we chose them and that's what they get paid to do! When they screw up it's a lesson for all of us to pay more attention (oh yeah, and get out at voting time) Plebiscites are the domain of wishy-washy wimpy politicos. Here's my message to those who propose to "let the people decide" get your crap together, do you homework and get on with the job you inferred you were capable of doing BEFORE we elected you.
18
27
Rating: -9
Nicholas Ellan
Andrea Reimer's disdain for the public is in full view here. The people of Kitimat were afforded the opportunity of a public vote on their pipeline proposal, and courageously rejected it. Are Vancouver voters that much cheaper to buy than those in Kitimat? I suppose Vision Vancouver would know best.
28
24
Rating: +4
Bruce
Reimer's stated reasons are dishonest. She knows very well that her modification kills any chance of a referendum.

The truth is that adding a pipeline referendum to the vote this fall would increase voter turnout, and that scares Vision. It would make the election much less predictable.
33
19
Rating: +14
@Nicholas Ellan
Vancouver's demographics are quite different than Kitimat. Kitimat has very few people with one foot left in Communist China, if you know what I mean.
18
28
Rating: -10
Nicholas Ellan
Setting aside the casual racism of your comment, I think the overwhelming concern of Vancouverites is our property value, the environment, and our quality of life. There are no benefits for any Vancouverites offered by the Kinder Morgan expansion, and that includes the Chinese immigrants you caricature. And there are countless risks for all of us.
23
31
Rating: -8
@Nicholas Ellan
There's nothing racist about my comment. It has to do with China as a communist nation, not any features of the "Chinese race" if such a thing exists. Sorry, I think many reasonable people have had enough of these lefty crybaby words. It is possible to critique nations and their nationals without being racist. If Chinese nationals are unable to maintain respect for human rights and the rule of law in their own country, will they make good Canadians? There's nothing to do with "race" in any of that.
15
27
Rating: -12
Nicholas Ellan
"If Chinese nationals are unable to maintain respect for human rights and the rule of law in their own country, will they make good Canadians"

By that standard, yes, they'll fit right in. They might even become Prime Minister.
16
74
Rating: -58
M. Loftus
Quebec does not own the St. Lawrence seaway and guess what, BC does not own the waterways in Vancouver. NIMBY, is a very disrespectful policy that runs rampant in BC. Maybe the oil and gas companies should look at other routes around BC and have those jobs and revenue go outside the province.

If the BC government had more money coming in it could pay for more healthcare, teachers and all the other programs that most NIMBY people scream for but do not have solutions to pay for them.
17
27
Rating: -10
EcoCollectivist
@M. Loftus

Who says we don't own the waters around Vancouver? Some BS legislation that some eastern twit wrote in Ottawa? Laws are only as valid as the willingness for a community to be bound by them. Just look at marijuana laws in Vancouver. If we say we own these waters and back that up with decisive action - then we own the f'in waters. Laws are only meaningful if communities willingly choose to be bound by them, or if the military starts shooting. And let me tell you something, there are enough boats, kayaks, sail boats, canoes, yachts and dingys to shut down this port for a long f'in time. Who owns what now?

Laws from Ottawa can kiss my ***!!!
16
19
Rating: -3
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.