That Staff prepare a report with options on zoning amendments to Bylaw 4500 that exclude emissions intense heavy industries such as waste -to-energy incinerators, chemical plants, thermal electrical generators, petroleum refineries and liquefied natural gas export facilities from existing Industrial zones in order to require site specific zoning.
trying to balance those things. And just to reiterate, you know, that the bylaw change wouldn't impact your current operations.
options and the impacts of those options. So I'm hearing that we could get a report. And finesse this in a way that. It would not paint harmack as a nonconforming use. Which is what I would be most interested in. My second question is around the word existing. Does the word existing need to be in this? Because I think what we're talking about is. For all industrial zones because we're in the process of potentially rezoning future areas. To industrial zones, and so having the word existing in there really muddies it for me, so. I think I'd be looking to strike the word existing from this motion in the original motion. Okay. If I could continue my comments, then thank you. So I'm in support of this because I would like to see what staff would come. Back to us with in a report on this. What I find alarming is that we could be without this. We could potentially be leaving the door open to things like chemical plants, petroleum refineries, Lng export facilities, and emissions intensive industries that negatively impact human health. And as councilor Manley pointed out, we won't have the mechanisms to stop those. Things. And so I really think that is the entire point of this, is that we will have to look at each of those. Projects, and they'll have to make the case that it really is good for our community. And when we look at what the province is saying yes to some of these LNG export facilities. They are foreign owned. The money is not going back into the community. It's going to like american stakeholders and investors and so. It's not benefiting the community, and the money is not coming here. This is really in order for us to have the guardrails at the local level. To be able to listen to the community. And hear if it's really something that is going to benefit. our community because we're the ones that need to live with the downstream consequences And frankly, when I see. The decisions being made by the minister of the Environment. I can't believe what they're. Letting happen in this province. When they say that they care about our environment and they're letting us go down the path of LNG expansion and fracked methane gas. That is harmful for not only the environment, but as we heard from a doctor tonight, Seriously harmful to human health. And the people making the decision and saying yes to this aren't having to live in our communities and. Deal with the downstream consequences and look people in the face who are getting really sick because of these industries and aren't able to access the health care because our provincial health care system is letting them down as well. And so at the end of the day, when we're trying to build a community that is livable and sustainable. I think it's really important for us to, yes, be able to support industry, but support industry that has the best interest of our community and our future in mind. And so I really think that this is going to. Give us a mechanism to be able to look at these projects and make sure that we're doing it in a good way, and that. You have local stakeholders, local nations, and the community on board before you say
you. Thank you, Councilor Manley. Thank you. And thank you for your presentation tonight. I'm actually quite aware of what harm act does, and I know that. Big changes have been made since the 50s in terms of emissions and reduction by about 90% or above 90%. And I was a big supporter of harmack when we had the trade war, the initial trade war with Donald Trump and made the trade minister. Connected. Christia Freeland. With levi sampson. And paul sadler, because you guys do make ppe paper that's important for ppe. So this motion is not intended. To affect current operations. I am concerned about the cumulative effect. Of emissions. Can you tell me? The current sulfur dioxide emissions for the mill. Now, what's your target? No, I can't tell you that offend right now. Okay, it's 25 parts. Per million. That's what I found on your website. Do you know what the target is? The canadian ambient air quality standards target is for the canadian government. Yes, I can. It's 70 parts per billion, far less. And that's peaks. And with a maximum annual average of. 5 million or 5 billion. Parts per billion, which is significantly lower. So. My concern. I will explain it. When I get a chance to debate this, but my concerns are really around. What other proponents could bring to industrial land in the NImo and the cumulative effects on our airshed and the air that people breathe. So thank you for Thank you. Councilor Manly, you're going to move that motion. I'd like to move that motion. But staff bear report with options on zoning amendments to bylaw 4500 that exclude emissions intense heavy industries such as waste energy incinerators, chemical plants, thermal electrical generators. Petroleum refineries and liquid natural gas export facilities from existing. Industrial zones in order to require site specific zoning. Councilor Gustelbrock. You care to speak to it? Sure. So this motion ensures that future proposals for a mission as intense industries will have to go through. Site specific zoning. When I add a dot site specific zoning portion, it's actually redundant because we cannot prohibit anything in our zoning. What we can do is ensure that we have a democratic. Process that involves. Staff reports, public hearings, consultations with and support from Sunnamo First Nation, and approval from Nanowa City Council this motion doesn't affect. Harmax current operations, and it doesn't affect an enamel port authority, and it's. Not about blocking industry uses in perpetuity. It's about ensuring that we have a proper democratic process to evaluate project proposals. Currently we have a cart blanche anything goes approach to zoning of industries that could. Add toxins to our airspace. And, for example, we could have a foreign multinational. We could have. A chinese state own corporation, or Dow chemical, buy land at Duke Point and propose to have industrial facility there a waste energy burning garbage from metro Vancouver to fire a petrochemical plant. Like a chromium plant. And Nanaimo residents and city council would not be able to stop them. Without costing canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. And that's under current investor state dispute settlement provisions. Of international trade and investment treaties and other legal requirements. The reason why I'm bringing this motion forward is the health concerns outlined by the doctor. Our democratic authority over local decision making. Zero waste working towards. Proper solutions for zero waste, environmental racism and climate change. So we've talked about, we've had the Doctor talk about. Volatile organic compounds such as benzene, which causes cancer. Nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxides, which cause all kinds of respiratory problems. These are not things we want our citizens to be breathing. We talked about persistent organic pollutants dioxins and furons that. Remain in our environment, go up the food chain and basically poison us. They cause immune problems, nervous and cardiovascular system. Problems and cancers. So the precautionary principle means that we need to be able to make these decisions and look at cumulative effects and be able to get environmental assessments and health assessments. As part of our process to determine what goes into. Our zoning. And under current trade agreements, there's provisions called investor State dispute settlement provisions. If you have open zoning, and then you block. A company from doing something that you don't want it to do because it's going to affect the health of your residents. That is called indirect expropriation. Under these investment treaties and that can be used. As discriminatory practices and. We have to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars for the loss of potential profit. When you stop a corporation from doing something. Canadian government has used canadian taxpayer dollars to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in these investor state dispute settlements. We have 38 foreign investment, promotion and protection agreements with countries around the world, including with China and with the China Canada FIFA, which was signed by the Harper government. In 2012. Both parties need to agree to have the tribunal rulings made public. These tribunals happen behind closed doors with elite lawyers who switch places. Sometimes as a judge, sometimes they work for the corporation. And sometimes they're working for the country and they flip around. And hundreds and millions of dollars have been paid out by the canadian government and billions of dollars have been paid out worldwide. And what they do is they erode democratic processes. So if we had a chinese state own corporation, and chinese state oil corporations like Petrochina are buying. Up assets all over Canada that had a dispute because they wanted to put a chromium plant or some other thing at Duke Point, and we said no, we wouldn't even know. How much money canadian taxpayers paid out on that dispute. That's how bad this situation is. So what I'm asking for is some democratic control in this situation. We have zero waste policy. At the regional district in Nanaimo, so we don't want to be burning garbage from other jurisdictions. If you built a garbage incinerator, we're going to be importing. Garbage to burn garbage here, and that is just not appropriate. We've had three of those incinerators proposed, and I remember the last one a couple of NDP mlas marched in protest against it. I don't know if worship was there, but it definitely dug routely was because people did not want that here. We had a
you. Harmack isn't existing use, so. We can't do anything about existing emissions or existing operations at harmack. That it would be a change. To. The bylaw for future uses. It would be a non conforming use, okay? It's already had a site specific. Stunt, okay?
Gusabrock and councilor. Armstrong. Thank you, worship. I did misspeak. When I mentioned it would be non conforming because I don't know. That is not my intent. My motion specifically does not. Mention anything about the forest industry. And my conversations with Paul Sadler about. The use of the land that they want to rezone as heavy industry is. For adjacent. Forest industry projects like mass timber, CMT, like other sawmills, so that. There are feedstocks to feed harm, and that is something that I support. I support the forest industry. I think that. We need to be utilizing the wood that we have. On this island and not be exporting it. We export 2.7 million m³ as councilor. Brown has stated, zoning is in our lane. We have four different industrial zones, and they all highlight. What is permissible in those zones. We do not have data centers anywhere in our zoning, so. It has to be site specific, and I would prefer to have. Industries. That are known to be highly polluting. Creating emissions that are toxic for human health. To have to go through a site specific process so that we can have a democratic and public process about that so that we can have public hearings to discuss that, so that we can hear from professionals. I do not. See the provincial government looking at cumulative effects when they're doing their environmental reviews. Otherwise we would not see Elcan. An aluminum smelter right beside. Eurocan, which is a pulp mill right beside LNG Canada and then LNG phase two. And cedar LNG all proposed in what is becoming a sacrifice zone, and I don't. Want to see Nanaimo become a sacrifice soon. There are limits to what humans can absorb, to what the environment can absorb. And so we should be able to have a discussion and hear from experts on each of these individual kinds of proposals that would affect human health. I don't trust the provincial government or the federal government to do that for us. They are not looking at cumulative effects. And that is clear in Dawson Creek, and that is clear.
and councilor brown and councilor gustelbrook thank you i struggle with this because i actually do believe in waste energy incineration and i noticed that slaywatooth nation in vancouver is partnering with the firm to bring that to the nation so many nations are using these and it's heavily used in scandinavia I have a problem with when we're starting to, in my opinion, into provincial territory, because emissions are environmental, which belongs to the federal and provincial government. So I'm also very concerned about. The loss of jobs. Site specific zoning is very time consuming, and already we struggle to get businesses to come to this. Community. We have a huge child poverty issue, and I think by a lot of this would make that issue even stronger. Like as Mr. Gates has said, 500,000 died from heat, but millions died from poverty and not food. So at this time, I'm not prepared to support that because. That it's excluded if it would have been impact. Fine. I also believe that consultation should have been done previously with the First nations, who have a big interest in possibly moving forward on some of these projects, which wasn't done. So for those reasons, I can't support the motion at this
Brown? Yeah. I think ultimately. I think this is an interesting conversation because we had the data center, and that's gained some attention, and that was a various site specific use and. People have been saying, no, that's not a good use for Nanaimo. And now we're talking about a different industry, more legacy industry. And I think there would be a lot of people that say, oh, we don't want this use in an Imo either. So I think it's very valid comments when we start to ask. Does industry even have a place in Nimo? That seems to be the conversation. And ultimately that can be problematic because. You do need industry. I think I'll support getting a report. But ultimately I know what it's going to come back. Then the options are really. You remove these from the particular zone? Yeah, I'm not sure. I think ultimately it's just to decide of, are we going to make every industry a site specific question in front of council or not, and that's kind of the matter in front
This motion. And the reasons for me is simple. i think the council table would benefit from the staff report as this discussion goes on with all due respect To counselors here, zoning very much is land use very much is in our lane. That's. Why we have it. That's why the power has been given to us. So, yes, in all sorts of things. There's provincial and federal regulations, but land use is in our lane, and that's a decision we can make. So I think to say that it's not. Our decision to make is simply not true. I also have heard lots around. It's not just that, but. Around foreign investors and communities. Fundamentally, zoning is about the use, not the user, so that's not a consideration when it comes to decisions. And also there is a way to structure this, very much so it would not impact harmack. That's the reality. I don't think the motion reads entirely that way, but I think council could. Provide that direction if they were furnished with proper information. So I think I'm going to support this because. I don't want this conversation to carry on uninformed. That's as simple.
then councilor Thorpe. Thanks, mayor. How I see this is like it provides some guardrails over the type of industry that we want to see. Invested in the community and not. We're looking to open up a huge swath of industrial land that we greatly need. There's a huge demand for it, and I'm not concerned that we're going to have industries coming to fill it up. And. Produce jobs and good paying jobs for the community. But there are certain industries that may have a big payoff initially. Or that could be considered. And waste energy. And garbage incinerators are one of those, and we've gone through as a community. This Rigamarole in 2014 when Metro Vancouver had a bunch of money and wanted to go with a private company and put a big incinerator in and. Yeah, people in Cedar don't. Want to see that people in Gabriella, it's like nobody wants to have that particular. Coming down. And despite the technologies that are available, there is quite a lot of particulate still. In it, and it is a consideration, and technology could get better, and that's great, and. We should always be open to it. And that's why having something like this, it can. Still be a site specific use if it's good for the community. And this is a very narrow range of industries. I'm very excited. Like, for example, GRT resources out Duke point. That's taking contaminated soils and basically turning into clean aggregate and reducing about 97% of the waste that goes. To landfill while cleaning soils, and there's a lot of different options. So waste energy incinerators. Yes. Petroleum refineries, we could probably safely say that we don't really want a petroleum refinery in Duke point. And so maybe there's a good case for it and it can come to the community. And have a discussion on it. I think harmack is a pride jewel for the community. I think having a worker owned industrial outfit like that is something that we can be extremely proud of, and I would like to see it diversify and expand and don't want to anyway, limit that possibility. But I think we do have to. Do it in a way that's mindful of where things are going. We are having to limit the mountain that we burn. Into the atmosphere like we are hitting critical limits and there's no way around that. And so I think we just have to accept that reality and. Be mindful and considerate how we proceed, and I don't think this would overly narrow the choices of diversification that we can have. It doesn't close the door. To bioenergy. At the very minimum, having a staff report on it. I think we give a lot of people peace of mind and especially there is a lot of people. Concerned about just opening up industrial land in general out there, and I think having something like this can really strongly make the cases like, folks, don't worry, we need the industrial land and we've clearly stated that there are some uses that we are going to have an additional step. Of community. Supervision on that will come. And there'll be a democratic debate around it before we proceed. And there's a very narrow window. So I support the staff report and curious
Armstrong again, and councilor Hemmens. Thank you. I do think it's really important to very clearly reiterate. That choosing where things go. Is very much in council's lane. We choose where industrial land is going to be, where residential land is going to be. That's. Our whole official community plan process is that the different categories. Of industrial land. I two, I three, I four all clearly have a description of what can go in there and what can't go in there. So banging the drum about staying in our lane is nonsensical, and I think it's a convenient argument to detract what our job actually is. The incinerator that was proposed out at Duke point for Metro Vancouver's garbage. Was approved through provincial and federal regulatory bodies. so it does make a big difference and we need to have a public dialogue around these things and i think We're moving. Getting a staff report so people clearly understand what is possible and what isn't. Would really bring a lot
Thank you, your worship. I won't be supporting this motion. Mostly because. Although respectfully, it does ask staff to prepare a report, but. I wouldn't be voting for it at that stage either. And the reason is that, and I asked Mr. Prantak the question. Do you follow? Federal and provincial mandates as far as Ministry of Environment and everything that is required to operate a company. Like harmack as safely as possible. And the answer is yes. We are outside once again. Of our lane. We are a municipality. We do not take care of these issues. These kinds of industrial companies and businesses, they need to get federal and provincial endorsement. Not us. They're the experts. They have the people to ensure that the work is done. And a company like harmack who continually tries to make sure that they're operating the very best that they can. The best possible environmental assessments are done to make sure that whatever they're doing. It's for the betterment of their community. I mean, every one of the people in this room. Everyone who works at harmack, they have families, too. They want what is best. This is not our lane. We need to work on municipal work, not provincial or federal. This is. A perfect bylaw. For provincial. Let them deal with it. When it gets to us, then we can decide whether or not. We want the companies here. But if I know that the federal level has assessed a business as a good, solid, safe business, and the provincial level has assessed the business as a good, solid, safe business. Who am I to sit here and decide whether or not it's right it's? Not appropriate. This is not our work. And I just feel like, once again, We are just stepping into the provincial side and trying to do their work for them, and I don't think it's appropriate, so I won't be supporting it. Thank you. Appreciate
to thank councilor Manley for pivoting and asking for a staff report. Because as written on the agenda tonight, there was no way I could support it because. I don't have the know how or the knowledge to judge waste energy incinerators. Or thermal electrical generators. You clearly. Have information there that. i don't that said Given. That we heard that this would kick harmack into a nonconforming use, I find. Really alarming. The piece that I find compelling on the other side of the argument actually came from Dr. Ricker and that's that. Yes, these are provincially and federally regulated, and I agree. That regulation appropriately rests with those levels of government. But what I don't understand is whether the province or the feds. Look at the cumulative aspect of these industries in a community. So I find that compelling. Given all of that, I'm inclined to not support tonight. Simply because. I think. Pushing harmack into a nonconforming youth. Is counter to what we're trying to do in terms of economic development, in terms of technology in terms of how we support businesses locally. So if someone can convince me that getting a staff report and having a broader debate on this, is appropriate. I think I could probably go there. But I'm leaning towards
you, councilor Hinds. Thank you, worship. I agree with Councilor Brown. Getting staff information is never a bad idea. I'm hearing complexity around whether it's conforming or non conforming provincial regulation. Versus municipal zoning. So I'm going to support just to get the staff report, but I will say. That I have reservations. And I would like to request that the nanimal prosperity corporation be, if this passes, that. They be one of the groups that gets consulted and the impact. Of. A rezoning amendment like this. Or zoning amendment.
Councilor Thorpe. Trouble is, once you're off, this stupid electronic thing disappeared. Oh, you wish I'd disappeared. Thank you very much, your worship. Yes, I would like to chime in on this and quite. Often I would be prepared to accept a motion asking for a staff report, because information is always good, but I look at the original motion. Which called for preparing a zoning amendment to prohibit certain industrial scale uses, and the revised motion, which to my mind is almost the same. It asks for a. Let me read it. Staff, prepare a report with options on zoning amendments to exclude emissions from certain. Industries. So we're asking for a report that's already biased in one way. It's asking for options to disallow. These certain industries. So for that reason, among others, I'm not prepared to support this. And I find it. Really alarming that more than once at this council table. With all due respect, I've heard statements to the effect that, oh, well, we support tarmac, we support the forest industry, we support industry, but then, through our actions, We do exactly the opposite. I'm not interested in. Banning with a blanket ban all industrial uses on industrial land. I'm sure some people would. Prefer not to have any industry. Around Nanaimo. But the reality is, we need it, as I think other councilors have acknowledged. And quite frankly, I find what we're talking about here today. Borders on fear mongering. I think if something really horrible was proposed, as councilor Gezzelbrock mentioned back, in 2014, there would be public outcry and it would be dealt with. So I don't see the need for this. Councilor manly referred to ensuring proper. Democratic process. I don't see how this is doing that. In fact, I think it's, the opposite. It's a blanket denial of industrial usages. So the message that I think we're sending through this, whether intentionally or not, Is a message of anti business, anti industry. I don't think it takes into account new technologies doesn't take into effect. The fact the province is openly interested in LNG and biomass. And we have heard, quite frankly, And definitely from the delegation that this will affect operations of a very respected and important local business. So I'm sorry. I can't accept this. I can't support it even to the effect of getting a report, because I think the report. As I said, is already leaning to a certain outcome which I'm not interested in. Thank
can see this way. Motion is going to go potentially, let me say I will not support this motion. The motion says that staff prepare report with options on zoning amendment to file a 4500 that exclude emissions from intense heavy industries. I am told, in response to Dr. Ricker's health concerns, that this thing will give me brain cancer. Over time, potentially. I suspect everyone here tonight drove here in a vehicle that contains. Some amount of steel from somewhere. So the concept that we won't allow anything in our community that might be deleterious to our health when we continue to use the products that. Are prepared and created in other jurisdictions, to me, is somewhat hypocritical. Oh, I'm not prepared to welcome a steel plan here tomorrow or a fair chromium plant. I get the point in the discussion around that, but there is a level of hypocrisy in which I will simply not engage. And this happens to be one of them. We well know what the intent of this is with the origin. Original motion and now so much better. Intense, heavy industries. That phrase covers pretty much anything that involves any heavy manufacturing whatsoever. Let's not kid ourselves. It says intense heavy industries such as. Doesn't say anything about. The specifics of heavy industries, so it's a pretty broad thing we're asking. Staff to report on, they will expect to come back to us and give us some meaningful report. Councilor Hemos has raised the issue of consulting the prosperity corporation. Oh, well, what about the. Unions that represent the workers. What about the Chamber of Commerce? What about the industries in this community? What about scientific experts? What about people who understand? Or purport to understand trade negotiation trade agreements as well as councilor Manley, where does this all lead in terms of preparing something that might be useful for council to make a decision about whether or not we want to limit and put guardrails around something that at this point doesn't even exist. We should be so lucky that people would be fight. Fighting to bring industries to our community that we might not support. At this point, we're not anywhere near that. Let us recognize after Covid and breakdowns. In supply chains. How desperately we rely on the entire world. Just as people relied on what harmack produced producing masks. At the. Products, as I recall, that were used for mass that everybody wore during Covid. I suspect that maybe someone wouldn't want a pulp mill in their community, but the pulp mill in our community helped save canadian lives and protect canadian health. So let us remember we are all in this together and what this motion basically says. To anyone who wants to invest in this community, don't bother going to denimo don't. Bother worrying about whether the land is zoned for heavy industry because Nanaima wants to limit everything that might actually create some real jobs. As councilor Armstrong has explained, that might provide some real wages either. We are going to build and do things in this country. In a democratic nation with generally, hopefully, union, family supporting jobs or we're going to continue to export the ugly side of our life that we don't want to face. I bet. You. There's not a person here tonight that isn't wearing some piece of clothing. That has petroleum products in it. Let's be blunt about that. So again, I come back. To my point around hypocrisy, this will not. Advance the case of the community. We will not get back a report that is terribly useful. We will get back a report that will tell us what we can do to exclude industry that might be somewhat more specific and less frightening to anyone who might wish to invest in it, but that's all we're going to get. So I will not support this motion. I would not have supported the previous motion, and I won't support
Of clarity to this table. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Armstrong, question through you to staff. My question is. I know this is his own thing, but it's based actually on an environmental reason being. The emissions. Would that then require environmental ministry approval? Because it is, in my opinion,
weighing into the environment. Mr. Lindsey. Your worship, I think that's a very good question, but I think it's. Something we have to bring back to you. Clearly, as council has the ability to regulate land, use. You have limited ability to regulate emissions. And I can think of things like wood burning stoves. Vehicle idling, for example. I know is in the legislation, but you do have to be cautious. And careful not to go outside the sphere of authority and interferential authority whenever considering a bylaw so I think it's generally as long as you state of land use you're. Fine, but it's certainly. Something to be mindful
of. With any change. Just one thing. I just wanted to reply to councilor Eastman. When she did the jobs, the jobs are here. So the money you stayed in our community? Yes. A lot of the profit may not be. But people out here are all working here, making good cash. They're supporting their families here. They're supporting the businesses. And if we don't have resources, where are we going to get the money to even do any of the things you guys want to do because our whole province and country is based on resources. Thank you. Thank