Concerns over Coal Export Rally

Yesterday, I posted about how there are plans to expand coal exports out of Port Metro Vancouver and how there is a growing group of citizens that have concerns about this proposed expansion. One group, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, is hosting an event coming up this weekend along one of the coal train routes.

Let's get the black rock out of White Rock!
Starts at Noon
Sunday, March 17
White Rock Waterfront, at the white rock

Description: A gathering to celebrate strong leadership by local governments that have shown concern about increased coal exports, and a chance to talk to people on the promenade about coal export plans and Port Metro Vancouver’s decisions making process. They will have lawn signs and posters, and cake will be served.

Local and global impact of Port Metro Vancouver

Last week, I received an email from Port Metro Vancouver on their land-use plan update process. The Canada Marine Act requires that the Port has a land-use plan which “contains objectives and policies for the physical development of the property it manages.”

The Port recently released the results of phase two of its four phase process of updating the land-use plan. While the Canada Marine Act only requires nominal public input on the land-use plan, the Port has decided to do a full consultation process similar to the Terminal Two process that I’ve posted about previously.

The guiding objectives for the Port’s land-use plan are:
1.) The Port facilitates expected growth in Canada’s trade while preparing for anticipated transitions in the global economy.
2.) The Port is a leader in ensuring the safe and efficient movement of port-related trade and passengers throughout the region.
3.) The Port is a global leader among ports in the environmental stewardship of the lands and waters it manages.
4.) Port activity and development provides benefits and addresses impacts to local communities and First Nations.

I suggest that you read the full 16-page summary as it contains a lot more detail and people's thoughts about these broad objectives. I want to focus on objective 3.

On Monday, I was at an event put on by concerned Surrey citizen’s about two proposed plans by the Port to almost double the amount of coal it can export. From a local level, there are concerns about the environmental and health impacts of coal dust. There are also concerns about the impact of more rail traffic in our communities. Will it be the Port and its customers that pay for these external costs, or will it be the citizens of our region? I mention this because while the Port has been engaging the community with some of its plans, apparently the proposed coal export expansion planning has been done on the hush-hush will little community involvement. While the Port can claim in some projects that it is going beyond the call of duty, it doesn’t surprise me that something like coal export expansion would be done with only the minimum legal requirement.

The problem seems to be that the Port is a federal organization with little legal accountability to the communities where it operates. It seems to me that the Canada Marine Act needs to be updated to ensure that communities are consulted and their concerns addressed on all matter that could impact the region.

Of course the larger question is can we call Port Metro Vancouver a good stewards of the environment, even if they do everything right in Metro Vancouver, but become the largest exporter of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet?

The Business Vote in BC Local Government

I was looking over yesterday afternoon’s Township of Langley council agenda, and I noticed there was a presentation by the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce about reinstating the business vote in British Columbia for municipal elections. I did a quick search and found that this is one of the priorities of the BC Chamber of Commerce which is an umbrella organization for chambers of commerce throughout the province.

The BC Chamber of Commerce believes that businesses should have a vote because they pay local taxes. The Chamber feels that because business don’t have a vote, they are being unfairly taxed compared to people who actually live in a community. The Chamber believes that if a business meets the following criteria, it should be allowed to vote:

-The business must have a business number issued by Canada Revenue Agency
-The business must have a non-residential real property address
-The business must be paying a business class property tax
-The business must appoint a designated proxy to vote on its behalf
-A registered business voter may only be registered to vote for one business in a given municipality

When I think about a small business owner that lives in Surrey and has a shop in Langley, I understand the rationale behind the BC Chamber's thinking. But what about larger businesses? Should national or multi-national corporations have the right to vote at local government elections? I don’t believe they should and think that they are represented enough already and are effective in getting policy that benefit them passed. The Union of British Columbian Municipalities (which represents local government) agrees with my view against reinstating a business vote.

The business vote was suspended in BC due to the complexities of administration and the potential for abuse in 1993. In fact the City of London, England with a population of 7,000 (not to be confused with the region) is the only local government in the world that allows businesses the ability to vote. The Province launched a local government election task force that in 2010 recommended against allowing a business vote.

While I understand the reasoning behind the Langley Chamber's request for a business vote, I believe that with Business Improvement Areas and local chambers, businesses already have a strong voice. A local vote should be reserved for real people that live in BC.

Township's Agricultural Viability Strategy

The Township of Langley is truly the supermarket to Metro Vancouver. With 75% of the community within the Agricultural Land Reserve and with over 50% of the farms in the region, the Township is one of the few places where you can get every item for every meal grown or raised locally (and that even includes the wine.) Agricultural in the Township of Langley generates $277 million annually in farm gate sales. With the economic importance and ecological imperative of local agricultural production, the Township of Langley started talking about developing an agricultural strategy in 2004 with work starting in 2008. Almost a decade later, the Township has a draft Agricultural Viability Strategy that, if council approves, will be open to public comment before the strategy is adopted.

The strategy contains 34 initiatives in the following broad categories:

Providing a welcoming business environment
This area emphasizes the need to nurture a supportive attitude for agricultural expansion. Specific actions are recommended for Council, the AAC, staff and organizations external to the Township. The initiatives address pertinent issues such as promotion of agriculture, agri-tourism, intensive agriculture, training and education, labour supply, mentoring and succession planning, and crises and disasters planning.

Providing the required services and infrastructure
This area focuses on the provision of the required services and infrastructure for the continual expansion of agri-business. Examples of services and infrastructure include water, drainage, roads, dyking, farmers’ markets and agri-industrial hubs for value-added processing.

Providing a secure agricultural land base
With Sustainability Objectives to strengthen the agricultural economy and to preserve the agricultural land base for food production, Langley farmers are encouraged to increase investment and production in the Township. This area of emphasis serves to increase certainty and security for Langley farmers by addressing issues such as protection of agricultural land, urban-rural edge planning to manage potential conflicts and the Salmon River watershed.

Ensuring farmer use of best farm management practices
This area identifies farming practices that may have an impact on other (non‐farm) citizens and provides guidelines for ensuring these farming practices do not erode the positive support for agriculture. This area of emphasis addresses key issues such as open air burning, chemical use, wildlife habitat, nutrient management, environ mental farm planning and land stewardship.

The strategy is a $2.7 million, 20-year plan. This means that implementing its recommendations will only cost $135,000 per year which to me is a great deal to grow and protect agriculture in Langley.

One of the interesting sections of the strategy speaks to the Salmon River watershed. I’ve talked about Salmon River uplands in the past as this area is not in the Agricultural Land Reserve. There will be continuing pressure to develop this area for population growth which not only impacts the viability of farming in the uplands area, but may also led to increased flooding and threaten the viability of farming in the Salmon River lowlands area.

Beside the Salmon River watershed, the strategy recommends that the Township update its Rural Plan to make sure that rural zoning becomes more supportive of farming, and to encourage population growth within existing urban areas and not within rural areas.

A draft copy of the Agricultural Viability Strategy is available in this afternoon’s council agenda.