Coun. Chris Pettingill wants to know where WLNG workers will stay—during their time off

If Coun. Chris Pettingill has his way, he would find a way to determine if Woodfibre LNG workers stayed away from Squamish during their time off.

According to the EAO certificate, Woodfibre LNG workers who live on the floatel won’t be allowed to come to Squamish. Still, at a June 4 council meeting, Pettingill also brought forward a motion to seek ‘clarity’ on where the workers would be during their off-hours.

Pettingill said his understanding is that there are no restrictions on where employees reside during their time off and wanted to seek “clarity on where workers are permitted to stay during their time off.”

“So my reading of the certificate is that there are no restrictions on where employees reside during their time off. The whole premise or principle or justification for this flotel is that it keeps workers out of the community, and whether you think that’s a good or bad idea, that is the supposed benefit and that it saves our housing stock, but as I read it doesn’t stop them on their week off or two weeks off from being in the community taking up housing,” he said. “If this isn’t actually solving the problems it’s meant to solve because it only addresses them during their two-week stint, then I think that’s important for us to know. Hopefully, this is very simple to clarify, and I would just appreciate that clarification.”

Except Coun. Greenlaw, his fellow councillors rejected the idea. Mayor Hurford said he ‘appreciated the intent,’ but he won’t support the motion.

“I think that the regulation that we are looking at here is about is about workforce, and (to know)where folks go on their time off is incredibly problematic. I don’t know how we could regulate that, so I’m not supportive of this direction, although I understand and do appreciate the intent, but I don’t think it’s appropriate.

Coun. Andrew Hamilton said he wouldn’t support the motion and questioned whether it is appropriate to regulate employees’ activities when they are not working. Councillor Greenlaw first expressed opposition but then supported the motion after Pettingill added more to his original comments.

Pettingill added: “I’m not saying that we should regulate this. What I’m saying is that again, the whole supposed benefit of this flotel is that workers aren’t taking up any community housing and that they’re staying out of the community. If that’s not what this flotel is achieving, then you know, that sheds a whole different context on the value proposition for this flotel, and so if it’s not doing that, why are we entertaining it?”

He continued: “Whether or not we should try and regulate that is a whole other question and I’m not even going there. I want to understand this is proposing to do that or not. I don’t have that understanding. It’s been presented as if it is meant to keep all these workers always out of the community, and that none of them will take up housing stock. That is how it’s presented if that’s not actually what is being proposed I want to just understand that and then I’ll make my own decision from there.”

The motion was defeated with Mayor Hurford and Couns. Andrew Hamilton, John French and Eric Andersen opposed.