After several months of discussion and debate, council passed a resolution in a 5-3 vote last week opposing the multi-million dollar project, saying the environmental concerns far outweigh the potential economic benefits of the proposed pipeline.
Councillor Bill Evans, who brought the resolution forward, said the impacts of global climate change can no longer continue to be ignored.
“The facts are that global climate change is real, it’s caused by human activity, it’s bad for us and we have to do something about it to avoid catastrophe,” said Evans.
Taking action means reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use, he said, something that won’t happen if the pipeline project is approved.
After several months of discussion and debate, council passed a resolution in a 5-3 vote last week opposing the multi-million dollar project, saying the environmental concerns far outweigh the potential economic benefits of the proposed pipeline.
Councillor Bill Evans, who brought the resolution forward, said the impacts of global climate change can no longer continue to be ignored.
“The facts are that global climate change is real, it’s caused by human activity, it’s bad for us and we have to do something about it to avoid catastrophe,” said Evans.
Taking action means reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use, he said, something that won’t happen if the pipeline project is approved.
“We’ve been adding greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere for too long . . . and we can’t afford to keep ignoring the long term.”
Councillor Megan Mitton agreed with Evans, saying the pipeline proposed by TransCanada will only increase our dependence on oil. She said scientists have been warning for years that the use of fossil fuels needs to be reduced dramatically in order to slow down the effects of global climate change.
“We still have a chance to have a liveable climate but we are running out of time,” she said. “If it gets built, it will get used and we will burn more fossil fuels . . . and we will miss our chance.”
Sackville is the first municipality in New Brunswick to officially voice opposition to the project, although the resolution is purely a “symbolic” one since the pipeline project is under federal and provincial jurisdiction.
Evans initially introduced the resolution on this issue back in November, after council heard a presentation from a Mount Allison University environmental activism class. The students, who are members of the group Sackville, No Energy East, made their case against the pipeline and called on council to oppose the project.
Energy East is a 4,500-kilometre pipeline that would transport about 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada and a marine terminal in New Brunswick.
Council also had the opportunity to hear from TransCanada officials earlier this month at their February discussion meeting, who insisted that safety and environmental protection are key priorities of this project – with their 28,000-page application currently being reviewed “in detail” by the National Energy Board. They also touted the economic benefits of such a project, saying it would bring more than 3,700 jobs to New Brunswick during the construction phase and about 260 jobs once it is built and in operation.
Councillor Andrew Black said although the promise of jobs is enticing, it wasn’t enough to sway him in favour when he took the long-term implications into consideration.
“The environmental concerns are too much for me to pass on even though I think that it could benefit the province economically, especially since the province of New Brunswick is mostly bankrupt. The money coming in would be quite nice. But I will support this motion because of its potential environmental impact on this province.”
Councillor Allison Butcher said she also isn’t convinced there would be enough economic spinoffs to outweigh the potential risks.
“I do want to support business but I don’t think it will help our businesses or our people,” said Butcher. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse. It will cause irreparable damage to everything that’s important to us.”
The three councillors who opposed Evans’ motion said they did not think Sackville had any business voting on an issue that was not under municipal jurisdiction.
“It’s not the role of this council to be making motions to the federal government on these issues,” said councillor Ron Aiken.
Aiken, who pointed out that while he doesn’t like pipelines or “our dependence on fossil fuels” either, said Sackville shouldn’t be getting involved in issues that aren’t its direct responsibility.
Deputy Mayor Joyce O’Neil concurred, saying the town should not be concerning itself with provincial and federal matters and worried that it may impact relations with those levels of government. She also believes the pipeline could be “a nation-building opportunity to create jobs and energy for the entire country.”
Councillor Mike Tower said he believes that getting involved in the pipeline debate is only perpetuating the misconception that the town is not business friendly. He said the town does not have the power to regulate and approve pipelines; that authority rests with other levels of government. Instead, the town could use its time on urging the governments to take further action towards other renewable sources of energy.
But Evans argued that council is not usurping its authority by lobbying other levels of government on issues of concern.
“Global climate change affects us all,” he said. “And I think we are simply calling attention to something that impacts all of us.”
Mark D’Arcy, New Brunswick Energy East campaigner with the Council of Canadians, applauded Sackville town council’s decision last week.
“Given the proactive and progressive decisions this council has made on climate change and other issues, I was thrilled it stayed the course to oppose this fossil fuel infrastructure project,” said D’Arcy.
