Should the federal government have the right to push major energy projects through without local consent?
That's the question front of mind for many Burnaby and New Westminster residents, given the conflicts over the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the Fraser Surrey Docks coal export facility.
The two cases are very similar.
In Burnaby, the city is adamantly opposed to the pipeline expansion, no matter what form in takes, but the National Energy Board has given Kinder Morgan the authority to survey Burnaby Mountain for a new pipeline route, even though the land is a city-owned conservation area. The overall project has yet to be approved, but it's rare for the NEB to say no to anything.
In New Westminster, the city expressed opposition to the coal facility, citing concerns about air quality and dust, but Port Metro Vancouver approved the project anyway.
In both cases, there has been considerable public opposition, and in both cases, the cities don't stand much of a chance.
Why? Because ports are controlled by the federal government. The NEB, a federal regulatory body, decides if the Kinder Morgan pipeline is in Canada's best interests and should go ahead. (Though we must note, the Conservatives rewrote the rules on that, and elected cabinet members now have the final say. How convenient!)
At the core of the conflict is this: Should a local municipality have the right to block a major energy project? What if that project is in Canada's best interests? And if there's a conflict between city laws and the NEB's authority, as there is in Burnaby, then who should settle the argument?
All levels of government are elected to represent the public, and if one level of government raises local concerns or flat out opposition to a project, only to be trumped by federal interests, there is a serious disconnect there - a disconnect that is ultimately undemocratic.
