Citizens raising concerns about the focus of a committee the District of Squamish is forming to look at issues surrounding the proposed Woodfibre liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility are correct in questioning its mandate — not whether the plant should be built, but how to build one that has the the smallest impact. But is a town-wide referendum on the issue — mentioned this week in a couple of letters to the editor — really the way to go?
The makeup and mandate of the committee, of course, are acknowledgement of the fact that while Squamish can provide input into the proposed facility’s design, neither council nor the electorate has the authority to “just say no.” The property, after all, is zoned for industrial use.
Still, many seem to feel a non-binding plebiscite — similar to the one staged last week in Kitimat on the Northern Gateway pipeline project (58.4 per cent voted against) — would at least send a message to federal and provincial leaders about how locals feel about the project. Given the sentiments expressed recently, and the attendance at the recent “Boom or Bust” event, we’d be surprised if such a vote resulted in a clear statement of support. More likely, it would be even more lopsided against than was the Kitimat vote.
Squamish has an interesting history with referenda. In 2000, 57 per cent voted in favour of opening up development around the Squamish Airport, and 61 per cent “no” in a binding vote on water fluoridation. The non-binding airport vote has never been acted on because the province must approve any subdivisions in the Cheekye Fan Terrain Hazard Zone, which include the airport lands.
In 2005, more than 73 per cent of local voters rejected a District of Squamish request to authorize $20 million for upgrades to recreational amenities — a vote seen as a clear repudiation of the “blank cheque” approach being taken by the council of the day.
There’s nothing preventing council from putting the LNG question to a vote. It would certainly bring the issues being raised — safety, environmental impacts and jobs — to the forefront. Given the B.C. government’s stance on LNG, though, such a vote has about as much chance of affecting the outcome as Kitimat’s vote has of stemming the flow of bitumen across B.C.
— David Burke
