I'm going to make an assumption that most of you have come to the conclusion that Vancouver city council is opposed to Kinder Morgan's plans to construct another pipeline from Alberta to Burrard Inlet.
I assume you've probably reached that conclusion by the countless number of times Mayor Gregor Robertson has appeared in the media and slammed the project.
If documented proof of council's opposition is what you want, I went back and found the minutes of a Dec. 18, 2013 meeting where council unanimously approved a motion to have city staff apply for intervenor status and participate in the National Energy Board hearings.
The motion, which was moved by Vision Coun. Andrea Reimer, is lengthy, so I'll just quote her first point. It begins:
"The expansion of the pipeline through the Metro Vancouver region and associated increases in tanker traffic pose an unacceptable risk to the City of Vancouver, residents and businesses including, but not limited to, risks to Vancouver and the region's vibrant economy, local environment and parks, infrastructure, financial and legal liability, public health and our international brand as one of the world's most livable cities."
Pretty clear, right.
And, as I mentioned, council was unanimous in moving ahead on Reimer's motion. And when I say unanimous, I include Vision, the NPA and Green Party Coun. Adriane Carr.
So that little bit of history brings me to Tuesday's council meeting, where politicians again had a motion before them on the pipeline proposal.
Here's how it read: "That having heard the expert evidence compiled by staff, and noting the overwhelming public opposition evidenced through public consultation, council reaffirm its position of December 18, 2013 that the City of Vancouver oppose the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain proposal as it poses an extreme risk to the people, businesses and environment of Vancouver, with very little benefit."
Pretty clear, right.
Apparently not.
This time, council wasn't unanimous in moving the motion ahead.
All three NPA councillors — George Affleck, Melissa De Genova and Elizabeth Ball — voted against it. The rationale, as I understood from a "strike and replace" motion from Ball and a later interview with the councillor, was that Vancouver wasn't doing enough to sit down with Kinder Morgan "to have a meaningful say and influence on the safe transport and exportation of oil products through the waters adjacent to the city and its environs."
Ball's motion, which was defeated, also requested the city convene a "tri-level round table" with the provincial and federal governments to agree upon "an appropriate and coordinated spill response strategy" for Vancouver's harbour and surrounding waters.
Ball wasn't done there.
She wanted the city to demand "the best science be brought to bear on all aspects of oil and oil products being shipped through Vancouver waters." She also wanted meetings to discuss what insurance is in place to deal with recovery efforts, in the event of a spill.
Not anywhere in her motion was mention of the Kinder Morgan proposal, or an indication of whether she and her NPA counterparts support or oppose the pipeline expansion project — an answer the NPA also avoided giving during the fall civic election campaign.
But that was a good nine or 10 months ago.
And since then, city staff sought expert opinion and research on Kinder Morgan's proposal, with deputy city manager Sadhu Johnston concluding last month that "after working on this for over a year at your direction, we as staff have determined that the risks and the costs outweigh the benefits of the proposal."
So as Ball left the council chambers, I asked her several times whether she supported the project. Here's a taste of how that went:
Me: What's the NPA's position on this?
Ball: "Our position is we want to protect Vancouver every possible way we can and we're not doing it now."
Me: Does the NPA support Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain proposal, or not?
Ball: "The Trans Mountain proposal doesn't exist, at this point. Oil is being shipped now. We want a response to that now. So regardless of what happens at the National Energy Board and then to the Parliament of Canada, we're prepared. Right now, we're not prepared for anything."
Me: But does the NPA support the Kinder Morgan project, or not?
Ball: "We support a safe harbour and a clean harbour."
Me (laughing): We can keep talking in circles...
Ball: "No, I'm not talking in circles..."
Me: It's a simple question. Do you support the proposal, or not?
Ball: "No, it's not a simple question. That's what I want to make really clear. People try to make it a simple question, but it's not."
Sorry, my mistake.
mhowell@vancourier.com
@Howellings
