Skip to main content

Fraser Surrey Docks LP, located on the Fraser River in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey, will be the new home of a facility for coal exports destined for Asia.

Fraser Surrey Docks LP

A legal fight to stop the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority from allowing construction of a new coal-exporting facility is building momentum with two municipalities planning to join the court case.

Last month, environmental charity Ecojustice – representing two environmental groups and two concerned Surrey residents – filed an application in Federal Court seeking a judicial review of a port authority decision to permit the Fraser Surrey Docks direct transfer coal facility to proceed. Voters Taking Action on Climate Change and Communities and Coal, together with Christine Dujmovich and Paula Williams, want an order setting aside the port permit.

A few days after that application was filed, the City of New Westminster issued a press release stating it would seek intervenor status in the case. This week, the City of Surrey announced it would do the same.

Story continues below advertisement

"It's incredibly supportive. Our clients are pleased by these decisions," Ecojustice lawyer Karen Campbell said Wednesday.

She said a hearing date has not been set yet for the case and the port authority – which does business as Port Metro Vancouver – has not yet filed a reply to the Ecojustice application.

"We're still seeking to get disclosure of documents," she said.

Kevin Washbrook, a director of Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, said the support from municipalities shows there is broad public objection to the proposed facility, which would see an additional four million metric tonnes of coal shipped through the port.

"So now we have the City of New Westminster and the City of Surrey seeking leave to intervene, and I know other communities are interested as well," he said. "To me, it reinforces that something has seriously gone off the rails with the port authority decision around this particular project if not only citizens and grass-root groups, but now also municipalities, are saying they want the courts to quash it."

Mr. Washbrook said it's likely the courts will allow the municipalities to join the case.

"I can't imagine they wouldn't because, frankly, [the municipal governments] have more of an interest in this issue than we do," he said.

Story continues below advertisement

In its notice of application, Ecojustice says the port authority erred by failing to consider "changes to the environment that will be caused by the combustion of the coal that will be exported outside Canada."

It also says the port authority "failed to observe the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and the rule against bias."

It says Ms. Dujmovich and Ms. Williams, the two Surrey residents who are party to the application, are "directly affected by the environmental and health impacts of the decision."

"New Westminster Council is extremely disappointed with this [permit] approval and the process leading to the decision," Mayor Wayne Wright said in a statement. "Due to New Westminster's close proximity to the proposed facility, we have serious concerns with respect to the environmental, health and safety risks that could result from this project."

In a report to Surrey Council, city solicitor Craig MacFarlane wrote that concerns have been raised about both the local and global environmental impacts of the project.

"These include concerns related to dust from train movements and coal-transfer operations, chemicals used in train cars and barges for dust suppression, soil and water contamination and risks related to fires, explosions, spills and collisions," Mr. MacFarlane said.

Story continues below advertisement

A spokesman for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority could not be reached for immediate comment.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter