Aquatic global change ecologist Mary Jade (MJ) Farruggia found herself studying the impact of wildfires on lakes by accident. She was researching lakes in the mountains of California in the summer of 2020 when, in “a tragic turn of events,” wildfires swept through the area, smoke clouded the sky and her plans quickly changed.

“Wildfires are becoming more intense and more frequent, and so it just became a phenomenon that was getting harder and harder to ignore,” Farruggia, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder, told The Narwhal over the phone. “As lake scientists, we started wondering, ‘what’s the impact of this on the systems that we study?’ ”

Canada is home to two million lakes, more than any other country. And the last three wildfire seasons have been among the worst on record here, making research like Farruggia’s critical.

A record-breaking season in 2023 saw 15 million hectares of forest burned across Canada. The land hasn’t had much reprieve since. This year more than 4,700 fires burned more than four million hectares across the country by the end of August — many in Ontario.

“We as humans feel the impacts of [wildfire smoke],” Farruggia said. “If it’s affecting your own health, how is it also affecting your ecosystems and the nature around you and the systems that you rely on? Is your favourite lake going to be similarly impacted by smoke?”

‘Almost all’ North American lakes are exposed to wildfire smoke: researchers

Some of the direct impacts of wildfires on ecosystems are straightforward; as fires burn near lakes, they increase future flood risk, as plants that stabilize soil and filter runoff go up in smoke. Ash deposits contaminants and excess nutrients into the water, changing the makeup of watersheds.

For each lake and fire, the full impact depends on a slew of variables, including “the number of wildfires, their intensity, their location, the health of the ecosystem before the fire and even how much rain falls following a fire,” Terri-Lee Reid, a freshwater conservation researcher at the Canadian Wildlife Federation, said.

Less clear is how lake ecosystems far away from fires are being impacted as smoke travels, and Reid says there’s still more to learn. But, the science is much newer, and scientists like Farruggia and her colleagues spend their time designing and performing experiments to figure it out.

“Sometimes we get these summers where it feels like much of North America is covered in smoke,” said Steven Sadro, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis. He is also Farruggia’s co-author and former advisor. “This is smoke that’s affecting millions of lakes at continental scales.”

Sadro and Farruggia coined the term “lake-smoke day,” which provides a metric referring to the number of days a lake is exposed to smoke in a fire season. They found wildfire smoke can drift hundreds of miles away from its source, making its impact widespread.

“We found a pretty shocking response … that almost all lakes in North America experience some number of smoke exposure days,” Sadro said, adding that many of them were experiencing a full month or more over the course of a year.

“Smoke in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of sunlight that can reach the lake, and that can impact water temperature. It can impact the growth of algae and aquatic plants, and then that can have further consequences,” Reid said.

Their research suggests that smoke blocks sunlight from reaching lakes, lowering lake temperatures and reducing photosynthesis and respiration in the body of water. 

What happens next is harder to predict. A lake’s depth, clarity, size, location and nutrient levels all influence how it responds to smoke. Larger lakes can be more resilient while smaller, clearer lakes can experience more algae growth due to the new nutrient deposits.

“The jury is really out on the magnitude of the impact. I’m not trying to say that millions of lakes in North America are having very large impacts from wildfire smoke. Some of them certainly may be,” Sadro said. “We don’t know what those numbers are yet.”

‘When the land’s not healthy, the lakes aren’t healthy either’

While researchers work to untangle those relationships, Amy Cardinal Christianson, director of fire stewardship for the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, says Indigenous Knowledge has long recognized the interconnection between fire, water and land.

She pointed to historical examples along the west coast where Indigenous communities have been aware of the cooling effect of smoke on waterways that western science has also recently ventured into. For example in California, when it was too hot for salmon to spawn, Cardinal Christianson said cultural burns would be used to help create a layer of smoke over the water to cool it and help the fish.

But while fire can be used beneficially, it can also cause harm to waterways.

“People often think of [a] lake as its own ecosystem, which it is, but it’s really tied into everything that’s around it,” Cardinal Christianson said. “When the land’s not healthy, the lakes aren’t healthy either.”

She explained that, instead of having separate plans for forest management, watershed management and more, “we need to start looking at things much more holistically.”

“For Indigenous people, our teachings are that everything is interconnected and related. So when these fires are happening, one of the big concerns for us is the impacts on water,” Cardinal Christianson said. “It’s a constant worry in the back of my head, just like, what [are] going to be the long-term effects to the water that we rely on?”

The challenges of studying how wildfires affect lakes

Farruggia is part of a working group of 30 American and Canadian scientists looking for answers. The group includes Scott Higgins, senior research scientist with the International Institute for Sustainable Development Experimental Lakes Area — a natural freshwater laboratory spanning almost 60 lakes in Kenora in northwestern Ontario.

“We work in the field and we certainly notice, especially during those intensive fire years, the smog and the ash clouds that drift over our site,” Higgins said. The boreal forest that spans Canada, including around Kenora, is sometimes referred to as a “fire forest” because its ecosystems are both flammable, and reliant on fire to help remove insects, disease and aged trees, allowing for new life to emerge.

“This is a really lake-intensive part of Canada,” Higgins said. “When the boreal forest burns, undoubtedly lakes are directly impacted.”

But while interest in researching the impacts of wildfires on lakes has been increasing as fire seasons become longer and more intense, he said the science is still in its infancy.

One problem, he said, is that, “it’s tough to do experiments on actual wildfires.”

It is often difficult for researchers to get into an area quickly after a fire to study the immediate impacts. Even if they can, there often isn’t data from before the fire to compare it to. To try to counteract this and build a better understanding, Higgins said, his team is planning to use the extensive, long-term data collected at the Experimental Lakes Area to its benefit, including adding wildfire ash directly into a lake to study the outcome, and to work with Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources to use a prescribed burn for study. 

“We’ll be able to put some pretty good numbers on how important these fires are to nutrient cycles and to metal cycles and to what they mean for biota,” or the animals and plants living in that environment, Higgins said. “I think science is going to be able to provide in the next five to 10 years for sure.”

In the meantime, Farruggia said the early evidence offers reason to be hopeful — even in sensitive, smaller and more remote lakes. 

“Lakes are actually very resilient systems. Even though we see there’s lots of sensitivity, especially in smaller, lower nutrient lakes, we have seen that they recover pretty quickly so far,” Farruggia said. “Lake resilience is something that I think could be celebrated.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

There was a brief, telling moment when Prime Minister Mark Carney was onstage at a Calgary Chamber of Commerce event last year, following the announcement of a memorandum of understanding with the Alberta government for a new “private sector constructed and financed pipeline” to the West Coast. 

Deborah Yedlin, the CEO of the chamber, mentioned the agreement’s stipulation: the project needed a private proponent rather than public funding. Then she said the project required “derisking.”“Are you saying there’s no room for the government to derisk something for a period of time in order to attract private capital that’s needed for a project like that?” she asked Carney. In other words, how far was Carney willing to go to protect industry from losses?Carney listed off moves his government was making, including regulatory clarity, tax incentives and loan guarantees to move the project forward. And then he said: “In essence, the Asian pipeline will be a private sector project …”

That one word, essence, bore considerable weight. 

So too did the timing of the Oct. 1 announcement that the pipeline — now known as Pacific Link — would be the first project of national interest listed under the federal government’s sweeping Building Canada Act. It comes just over two weeks before Alberta holds a referendum on whether to hold an independence referendum, as well as a slew of questions aimed mostly at immigrants. 

From the beginning, the pipeline plan was a political one, based on a calculus that can be hard to understand outside of Alberta, where decades of government and industry messaging has succeeded in tightly weaving oil and gas into the province’s culture. 

Never has that narrative been pushed harder than by the United Conservative Party government, first under former premier Jason Kenney and now amplified even more under Premier Danielle Smith. 

Having directly linked the future of the country with deregulation for the oil and gas sector, Smith now faces the headwinds of that rhetoric in the form of a burgeoning separatist movement. It’s one she has aided to protect herself from an influential secessionist base in her party. 

It’s a situation Carney has recognized and attempted to shape, acquiescing to Alberta’s demands in an effort to shore up a united front as threats from the United States grow more stark. 

The prime minister might have promised Canadians a “private sector constructed and financed pipeline” in last fall’s memorandum. But it was clear from the beginning he was willing to pay a premium to achieve peace. 

How Alberta’s politics of wealth and alienation fuelled the Pacific Link promise

After their first meeting in March of last year, Smith threatened Carney with an “unprecedented national unity crisis” if he did not respond to a list of demands almost entirely focused on boosting the oil and gas sector. 

It was part and parcel of a wider campaign to link Alberta’s political and economic fortunes more tightly with fossil fuels, including moves to designate emissions data as critical infrastructure to prevent the federal government from accessing it and put up regulatory and economic hurdles to block renewable energy development. 

Smith’s actions are part of a long history of resentment that stretches back as far as the creation of the province, when the federal government denied Alberta control over its natural resources, a move that was later reversed. 

There’s an entire mythology of eastern Canadian domination built up around the National Energy Program introduced by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the early 1980s, which still resonates with separatists and mainstream conservatives alike. In this century, the climate actions of his son Justin Trudeau inflamed a new sense of subjugation in the oil patch. 

Those resentments and mythologies have been curated by successive Alberta governments as an easy way to rally Albertans to their cause and help cover up internal failures, particularly when it comes to budget crashes. And now it has reached a fever pitch. 

Carney, a veteran of Brexit and big brain amidst big brain money makers, recognized the weight of Smith’s threat and an especially restless Alberta, particularly as the geopolitical landscape shifted under his feet. He wasted no time in wooing her, and her province. 

He has proven willing to deregulate and slash emissions programs and targets to help industry. Now, he’s opening the federal government’s hefty purse to buy peace. The pipeline will cost billions, without any promise that price will be enough to please Smith’s government and the powers it has unleashed. 

Pacific Link pipeline promise is rushing to meet a very specific moment

Pacific Link is moving fast, because it’s meant to meet this specific moment: oil prices are high, Alberta separation is occupying vital political real estate, and a trade war with the U.S. is both threatening Canadian well-being and galvanizing political will for big risks and fast action. 

In this rush, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that many important details still aren’t finalized — such as the route, financing and oilsands companies meeting requirements for a massive carbon capture and storage project.

All of this makes meeting this specific moment difficult, to say the least. It will be years before the pipeline is online. 

There are also serious questions about investing billions of taxpayer dollars into a project for a sector facing possible reductions in demand and a global shift away from the uncertainty of oil markets. Not to mention concerns over the impacts of increased emissions and the reduced ambitions for carbon capture. 

Despite this announcement, the referendum will still take place. The provincial government is spending millions to tell Albertans to send Ottawa a message and stand up for a more sovereign province. Its list of demands remains, even if Smith is playing nice with Carney for the time being.

The willingness of the Alberta government to act in good faith is also questionable. Only days after it signed last fall’s memorandum with the federal government, it went ahead with changes which undermined its industrial carbon price that it promised to strengthen in the agreement. 

That’s the same memorandum containing the broken promise of a “private sector constructed and financed pipeline.” It all suggests Donald Trump isn’t the only Western leader who signs agreements in pencil. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew says a former Brandon-area campground acquired by the province will help educate future generations about the horrors of residential schools.

“We live in an era where people are trying to deny what happened in residential schools,” Kinew said during a Tuesday afternoon visit to Turtle Crossing Campground, near the former Brandon Indian Residential School. “It’s an important part of our national history, and keeping that truth alive.”

Kinew officially announced the province’s plan Tuesday, in partnership with the City of Brandon, to acquire and protect the site where the bodies of more than 50 Indigenous children are located.

The premier said the property has “huge national significance” for education about residential school history because it is one of the “most documented” in the country. He carried photographs, and some 20th century newspaper clippings from the Brandon Sun around the site Tuesday.

Kinew attended a ceremony Wednesday, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, at the site of the former Brandon Indian Residential School.

The graves of at least 56 children who attended the school are located at the campground, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation First Nation has said, pointing to a geophysical study conducted by an archaeology firm in 2018.

Signs were erected at the former campground Tuesday morning declaring the property is “no longer operated as a campground, RV park, or recreational site.” The sign said that the property is now in a period of transition, care and planning under the guidance of Indigenous communities and partner organizations.

Investigation at the site, which will be spearheaded by Sioux Valley First Nation, will be Indigenous-led, its chief said.

“Technical expertise and community knowledge will guide the work, with respect for the children, their families and this sacred site at every stage,” Sioux Valley Chief Jennifer Bone said in a news release.

Chris Mancuso, principal investigator with the First Nation’s Brandon Indian Residential School Missing Children Investigation, said the first goal is to identify the “true” boundaries of the cemetery, which is currently a fenced space within the former Turtle Crossing Campground.

The researcher expects to discover additional signs of burials outside the cemetery’s limits, leading the cemetery to be expanded.

Technologies such as ground penetrating radar, magnetism and electromagnetics, which are non-invasive, will be used at the site to investigate the boundaries of the cemetery, he said.

Sioux Valley has a two-year budget drawn up for research at the site, spanning all four seasons, and work started Tuesday, he said. An archaeologist walked the property and tagged characteristics, such as fence post holes and utility infrastructure, to prepare for future ground research at the site.

Mancuso said the purchase of the land will improve research by enabling it.

“It allows access,” Mancuso said. “For the technical investigation, we need to be physically on site with our tools. And the investigation is not just a one day search. So, having sustained access gives the chance to protect this cemetery.”

Randell Wasicuna, a councillor with Sioux Valley, called the move a “victory.”

“This has been a long-time coming and it’s been a long battle with the owner and I think it’s great to finally have this move forward, as it has been stalled for almost a decade,” Wasicuna said. “It’s a huge relief.”

He hopes the work in Manitoba, and partnerships between First Nations and government, sets an example — and precedent — for other communities and the federal government.

An interview request with Canada’s Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Rebecca Alty was not accommodated Tuesday.

At the campground site, there have been longstanding concerns from Indigenous leaders and community members that people were camping on the resting place of children victimized by colonialism.

The school, which was located about five kilometres northwest of Brandon, operated from 1895 to 1972. It used a grave site near the Assiniboine River until 1912, with grave markers removed in 1921 so the area could be transformed into a park.

The City of Brandon sold the park privately in 2001, and in 2007, it was acquired by Mark Kovatch and his wife, Joan.

The former owner said he made efforts to raise awareness about the graves at the site over the years and took issue with others saying he was limiting access, noting he installed a fence around the site.

He would not disclose how much the province paid for the campground.

“I wish them well. That’s all I can say,” he said.

Brandon’s mayor, who visited the site Tuesday, said the path towards reconciliation has been a team effort between governments and First Nations.

“I believe that there’s a great opportunity for the region and for the community to build on it now,” said Fawcett. “… I know for a fact being out there with leaders today, there’s a great sense of relief and a great sense of optimism in talking about the past and moving into the future.”

Daryl Hapa, another councillor with Sioux Valley First Nation, said he regularly thinks about students at the school — including his late father.

“It was heartbreaking,” Hapa said of the stories he was told by his father.

He is pleased the territory will be under Indigenous control and hopes families will learn more.

“Hopefully, we’ll get all of these children’s names (and get) them back home to their communities,” he said. “Families will have some piece of mind that all these children who attended these residential schools haven’t been forgotten.”

Bone said the announcement was meaningful to the community as Sioux Valley has been working on its residential school project since 2012.

“This is years of work and advocacy, not even just Sioux Valley, but Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak and the City of Brandon,” Bone said. “The announcement is a huge step towards reconciliation.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

LNG Canada is already the largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in the country. Now, the Shell-led project is set to double its production. 

The consortium of companies behind the massive LNG export facility announced the decision to green-light spending on Sept. 28. Shell, along with its partners Petronas, PetroChina, Mitsubishi and Korea Gas, were originally approved by the provincial and federal governments to build two phases of the Kitimat, B.C., plant in 2015. Operations of the initial phase started last year, with the first shipments leaving Canada in late June.

Prime Minister Mark Carney touted the investment decision in Vancouver this morning. “Canada is building big again,” he said, speaking to a room of company executives, politicians, First Nations elected and hereditary chiefs, municipal leaders and stakeholders. “Today’s investment — as you know, over $30 billion in LNG Canada 2 — will make LNG Canada the second-largest facility of its kind in the world.”

“This is a very big deal indeed,” BC NDP leader David Eby said at the same announcement. “It will change lives, here and around the world.”

The $33 billion investment decision comes as the first phase continues to face problems with its equipment.

As first reported in The Narwhal, an integrity issue with the facility’s flare stack was identified in the early commissioning stage after the company began testing its equipment in late 2024. LNG Canada later reported the problem to the BC Energy Regulator and the facility has been continually in non-compliance with its government-issued permits since. For months, Kitimat community members were subjected to excessive noise, black smoke, a towering flame — at times reaching the height of New York’s Statue of Liberty or London’s Big Ben — and a concoction of unidentified chemical smells and various other emissions as plant operators tried to get things under control. 

LNG Canada and the BC Energy Regulator maintain emissions from the plant are not harmful to human health, but many residents worry the combined output from the new liquefaction facility and Kitimat’s aluminum smelter may impact respiratory conditions and cause other health issues.

Burning excess methane gas, or flaring, is a normal safety procedure at liquefaction facilities. It releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as well as emitting dangerous pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and small particulate matter, which affect human health.

Earlier in September, LNG Canada held community meetings in Kitimat so locals could weigh in on plans for a permit amendment. The consortium wants an increase in allowable emissions levels to account for its need to keep the flare burning 24/7 — until the stack can be redesigned in 2028. 

“There is an operational issue with the flare design where at very low flow rates, the gas being burned moves from the tip of the flare to within the flare tip itself, causing a hot spot in the metal there,” Teresa Waddington, a senior executive at LNG Canada and registered professional engineer, previously told The Narwhal. “To prevent these hot spots, more gas is sent through the flare system … to push the flame back up to the top of the flare tip.”

This “assist gas” amounted to around 10 per cent of all gas that was sent to the coastal plant last year. As The Narwhal and Point Source reported, LNG Canada flared 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, making it one of the highest sources of LNG flaring emissions globally.

What exactly is the LNG Canada Phase 2 expansion?

LNG Canada was approved for two phases: the second adds two processing units, called trains, to increase the liquefaction capacity from 14 to 28 million tonnes of LNG per year. This expansion also means Coastal GasLink, the contentious 670-kilometre pipeline supplying the export plant, needs to double its capacity. That will be done by building five new compressor stations along the route. 

“Thanks to LNG Canada’s decision today, TC Energy is moving forward with its own multi-billion-dollar Phase 2 of the Coastal GasLink pipeline,” Carney said. “That means doubling capacity, creating an additional 2,000 jobs and maximizing the value of … one of the most prolific natural gas basins.”

Coastal GasLink, which was built between 2019 and 2024 by Calgary-based TC Energy, faced widespread opposition in support of Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs, who argued the company did not receive free, prior and informed consent from the Aboriginal title holders to land intersected by the pipeline.

When Indigenous land defenders and their supporters tried to stop construction, a series of infamous RCMP raids led to dozens of arrests and solidarity protests across the country.

In its announcement yesterday, LNG Canada noted the investment decision includes an equity option agreement secured this summer with “a limited partnership of the economic development organizations of five First Nations neighbouring LNG Canada’s operations: Gitga’at Nation, Gitxaała Nation, Haisla Nation, Kitselas First Nation and Kitsumkalum First Nation.” That agreement “represents one of the largest Indigenous ownership positions in major Canadian infrastructure,” according to the company.

LNG Canada also said the expansion has “the potential to generate more than $50 billion in government revenues” over the 40-year life of the project.

“A year ago, the federal government referred LNG Canada Phase 2 to our Major Projects Office. One office. One point of contact. One goal: get to the right decision, rapidly and efficiently,” Carney said. “Working with Shell and LNG Canada, British Columbia, and First Nations, we have accomplished exactly that.”

What comes next?

Construction on the pipeline and at the Kitimat facility will begin immediately, Carney said in his speech. According to the company, around 4,000 workers will be hired to build the expansion at the plant and around 2,000 people will build the pipeline compressor stations.

Community members in Kitimat continue calling for transparency and investment in health facilities and studies. 

“I wish that they could acknowledge [emissions from the plant] could be a problem,” one young resident, who asked not to be named, told The Narwhal. “We’re gonna have to be around the flaring either way.”

LNG Canada said a redesign of the malfunctioning flaring equipment will be implemented in 2028. In the meantime, the company plans to request an amendment to its permits to account for continued higher levels of flaring emissions. 

The BC Energy Regulator said “LNG Canada has reported ongoing instances where flaring from one or more of the facility’s flare systems is not consistent with the requirements of its air discharge permit to the [regulator, but] these instances have not had a measurable impact on local air quality.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As the September sun dips down towards the mountains on the western side of the Kitimat Valley in northwestern B.C., a blueish haze hovers over the coastal community. 

The familiar plume from Rio Tinto’s aluminum smelter, a source of local air pollution for more than seven decades, now mixes with emissions from the LNG Canada gas liquefaction and export facility, which started shipping cargoes overseas last year. At the centre of the sprawling industrial site, an orange flame glows continuously from the top of a red and white tower. That’s the flare stack, which earned the new gas plant the dubious distinction of being among the world’s highest sources of flaring emissions last year. 

LNG Canada, owned and operated by a consortium of five foreign companies led by Shell, maintains its emissions are safe. Some residents aren’t so sure.

At open-house events at the town’s recreation centre over two days in mid-September, company executives, engineers and other employees field questions from members of the public. Moments after walking into the fluorescent-lit room, I’m recognized by a company representative who asks if I plan to interview anyone while I’m there. I laugh, shaking my head incredulously. He grins and says he’s read my reporting. A few minutes later, Teresa Waddington, a senior executive at LNG Canada and registered professional engineer, approaches to shake my hand.

LNG Canada is holding the event so community members can weigh in on plans for a permit amendment. The consortium wants an increase in allowable emissions levels to account for its need to keep the flare burning 24/7 — until the stack can be redesigned in 2028. 

Waddington tells me it’s not a perfect solution to problems that have plagued the flaring system since commissioning began in late 2024, but says the company has made significant progress to reduce flaring levels over the past couple of months. She says the original permit didn’t account for “higher flaring volumes” associated with getting an LNG plant up and running. 

But that’s not the whole story.

Kitimat sits at the end of a 100-kilometre long fjord, hemmed in by mountains. Its geography means the town experiences a specific set of weather conditions: regular high winds, temperature inversions, rollercoaster pressure systems fed by the Pacific Ocean and more. LNG Canada’s flare stack wasn’t built to handle those conditions.

When the liquefaction facility fired up its flare stack, locals and workers alike quickly realized something was wrong. As first reported in The Narwhal, an integrity issue with the main stack was identified and later reported to the BC Energy Regulator. For months, the community was subjected to excessive noise, towering flames lighting the night sky, black smoke and a concoction of unidentified chemical smells and various other emissions as plant operators tried to get things under control. 

“There is an operational issue with the flare design where at very low flow rates, the gas being burned moves from the tip of the flare to within the flare tip itself, causing a hot spot in the metal there,” Waddington tells me later in an email, after I follow up on our conversation. “To prevent these hot spots, more gas is sent through the flare system … to push the flame back up to the top of the flare tip.”

This “assist gas” amounted to around 10 per cent of all gas that was sent to the coastal plant last year. Locals nicknamed the flare, which reached heights of around 90 metres at times, the “Eye of Mordor” after J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.

While LNG Canada is working to amend its permits, the consortium also appears poised to make a final investment decision on an approved expansion, which would double production at the Kitimat plant. As Reuters recently reported, a decision on the project’s second phase could come as early as October. Both the federal and provincial governments have signalled strong support for the expansion.

In the community, vast work camps built to support construction of the LNG plant sit vacant and quiet. Today, the flare burns low, a dull fiery glow at the heart of the haze like the ember of a cigarette seen across a dimly lit room. It’s been calmer and quieter lately — but problems persist, and the gas being burned daily continues to exceed government permits.

Flaring not a danger to human health, LNG Canada says

Kitimat is no stranger to industry. The community was built on Haisla lands in the 1950s as a company town — serving what was then known as the Aluminum Company of Canada, or Alcan. 

The town’s residents, while not accustomed to living alongside a liquefied natural gas plant, are familiar with being an industrial hub. As Kitimat mayor Phil Germuth previously told The Narwhal: “Being a town that was built by industry, people understand that every once in a while you’re going to have to put up with something to get the bigger goal in the end.” 

Kitimat is also a small town, with a population of around 8,000, and a major industry like LNG Canada has extensive connections throughout the community that might make dissenting residents think twice about openly voicing their opinions. 

Several community members The Narwhal spoke to, who asked not to be identified, said they’re grateful for LNG Canada grants they’ve received or sponsored programs they’ve participated in, but worry about how the combined emissions from the two major industrial facilities might be affecting their health. Most who shared their views say they’re not against having a gas plant in town — but they’re skeptical about claims the emissions aren’t harmful.

One resident tells me they avoid strenuous activity outdoors now — just in case. Another, who owns and operates a local business, wonders why Rio Tinto, which produces more hydroelectricity than it uses and sells the balance to BC Hydro, and LNG Canada, which is liquefying natural gas extracted from deposits in the northeast, don’t provide the town with free electricity and gas.

“I’d much rather not pay for hydro and gas,” they shrugged.

According to LNG Canada and the provincial regulator, excess flaring isn’t a problem for human health. Because the gas is burned at the flare stack, it’s mostly converted to carbon dioxide and water vapour, Waddington says. In other words, more gas being flared doesn’t necessarily increase local pollution levels — which have remained below provincial guidelines, according to the BC Energy Regulator. This claim is substantiated by local air quality monitoring, much of which was implemented when Rio Tinto underwent a major expansion between 2011 and 2015.

“There is a long-established air quality monitoring network that monitors ambient air quality in the Kitimat region, on an ongoing basis … to ensure no impact to human health,” Waddington says.

They’ve reduced the flaring volumes significantly since installing a new flare tip in July, Waddington adds, but until the whole system can be redesigned they will still need to burn more gas than originally planned.

The new flare tip has “the same design [with] upgraded metallurgy [that enables it to] operate with a bit more backburn and manage hot spots,” which she explains reduces the amount of extra gas being flared by about 60 per cent. “We are working with the company that designed the flare tip to improve this design further and to ensure it operates as expected in real-world conditions.”

But there are other emissions from the plant, too, including black smoke from the stack, which indicates particulates and unburned gases. As The Narwhal recently reported, LNG Canada predicted black smoke would be emitted between 15 and 60 minutes one to three times per year while it stabilized early operations, but the plant has exceeded that estimate. 

In April, the BC Energy Regulator ordered LNG Canada to identify the root cause and implement a fix by October. On Sept. 21, the regulator posted the first report since implementing these measures, which identified “20 black smoke events that occurred between April 22 and July 31, 2026, including events that LNG Canada self-reported as non-compliances.” The regulator noted LNG Canada also reported “four additional black smoke events during August 2026” and community members told The Narwhal of at least one event in September.

Still more types of emissions, visible only through an optical gas imaging camera, are also being released at the plant. Details of these emissions were published in August by The Narwhal and Point Source after being observed by Tim Doty, a former oil and gas inspector with the state of Texas.

“The emissions that could not be seen with the bare eye were shocking,” he said at the time, after monitoring emissions at the Kitimat facility with a camera earlier in the year.

In Strawberry Meadows, the residential neighbourhood closest to the plant, several homes and serviced lots are listed for sale. They’re nice houses: modern design, tucked in amongst the trees on quiet streets. But while the entire town is adjusting to living with the new industrial project, it’s this area that has experienced the most noise and emissions. 

Around this time last year, one resident of the neighbourhood told The Narwhal he and his family couldn’t sleep for days on end.

“We maybe got two hours’ sleep this whole weekend. I’m just useless now.” 

Because of the imminent provincial election, the regulator was unable to answer questions, noting “government is in a caretaker mode” and communications, including from Crown agencies like the BC Energy Regulator “are limited to critical health and public safety information.” A spokesperson sent links to data — LNG Canada’s daily and monthly flaring amounts, the latest air quality data map and B.C.’s air quality objectives and standards — along with a statement about its ongoing oversight of the liquefaction facility.

Residents ‘more curious than concerned:’ LNG Canada executive

At the open house, community members speak quietly with company reps, asking questions about flaring, emissions, smells and more.

Joanne Spencer, another senior executive with LNG Canada, says most residents who come through are more curious than concerned. Between four sessions over two days, around 120 people stop by.

“This is quite an engaging way to talk to members of the public,” she says, gesturing around the room at clusters of employees speaking with residents. “If you’re looking at somebody in the eyes, it gives the opportunity for you to acknowledge that they’ve understood or [see if they] have another question.”

For her part, Waddington says she’s committed to show up at council meetings and “many other places where people congregate to engage in the conversation on what LNG Canada is doing well and where we need to improve.” 

She tells me she previously worked as a plant manager at a Shell gas facility in Scotland where flaring “attracted community interest and concern.”

“As a result of a prolonged flaring incident, many of the staff from the facility were facing hard questions from concerned community members in their day-to-day lives,” she says, explaining she experienced tension while going about the community. 

“It was important to me then, as it is to both me and LNG Canada now, that the company engages directly with [the] community when they have concerns to provide information, listen for what matters and how we can improve in those areas or better communicate about them.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As other western provinces struggle to address the environmental and economic fallout from thousands of orphan oil and gas wells, only a tiny portion of Manitoba’s petroleum infrastructure is sitting idle and unclaimed. 

But it’s unclear, however, if the province’s small roster of orphan wells is the byproduct of effective regulation — or a historic lack of departmental oversight. Manitoba’s oil and gas industry is relatively small and generally opaque. None of the experts contacted for this story had direct knowledge of the province’s orphan-well landscape.

“My lab has probably measured the most non-producing wells in the country. I don’t think anybody I know is working on it [in Manitoba] who are in the academic realm,” Mary Kang, an associate professor in civil engineering at McGill University, says.

The province’s petroleum branch has only been compiling and sharing orphan-well data for the past five years. Its 2025 inventory lists 31 well sites without a legally or financially responsible owner, which make up less than one per cent of the 4,000 wells currently producing oil in Manitoba.

The reasons for this are many: Manitoba’s oil and gas industry is smaller than other western provinces, allowing for regular inspections of batteries and most producing wells, according to an emailed statement from a provincial spokesperson.

But the intricacies of regulation also differ across the provinces. At the same time, the government body tasked with keeping tabs on the issue has been chronically understaffed. Whether Manitoba offers a lesson for other provinces or if it should be eyeing the rapidly escalating orphan well inventories of its neighbours with caution remains to be seen.

Environmental impacts of old wells can include methane, contamination

Orphan wells are oil or gas drilling sites that have been left to languish without being properly cleaned up, often because the company that owns them has gone bankrupt. Wells are often thousands of metres deep and these sites can leak methane, a potent and volatile greenhouse gas, and contaminate soil, air and groundwater.

A 2025 study co-authored by Kang suggests Canada’s non-producing oil and gas wells emit a combined 230 kilotonnes of methane per year — a figure seven times higher than estimates from Environment and Climate Change Canada. Wells that have been properly sealed with cement and decommissioned are referred to as plugged or “abandoned.” Most orphan wells are not yet plugged.

“In general, plugged wells emit less [methane] and are less of an environmental concern,” Kang says, adding unplugged wells are a bigger concern. “But even among unplugged wells, some emit nothing and some emit a lot.”

Orphan well inventories can grow ‘in leaps and bounds’

Orphan wells are an issue that can expand quickly.

“The concern is that the inventory can grow in leaps and bounds from year to year. We just saw that happen here in Alberta,” Amanda Bryant, manager of the oil and gas program at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank, says. 

Alberta’s orphan-well inventory ballooned to more than 7,300 sites this year after thousands of wells owned by an insolvent Calgary-based oil company were transferred to the province’s Orphan Well Association.

The association — a non-profit funded by industry — is responsible for decommissioning and cleaning up orphan oil and gas sites. Alberta had fewer than 300 orphan wells when the organization was founded in 2002.

That exponential growth is due to poor provincial regulation, Bryant says. 

“The main problem is that there’s nothing stopping companies from deferring the costs of closure and cleanup,” she says. “The other half is the so-called liability-dumping behaviour that a lot of companies engage in.”

The practice of liability dumping cited by Bryant has made insolvency a growing concern as larger companies sell off risky assets to smaller companies, which critics say happens with too little financial vetting from the regulator.

As in Manitoba, oil and gas companies in Alberta are legally required to clean up well sites that are no longer in use. Yet, because the Alberta Energy Regulator provides no concrete timelines for closing unused wells, operators often leave the sites for years or decades to avoid paying clean-up costs. 

If a company files for bankruptcy prior to remediation, that cost is passed on to the Orphan Well Association. Taxpayers can be left footing some of  the bill for closure costs — which carry an estimated $1.66-billion price tag — due the association’s lack of adequate funding, while also covering delinquent oil and gas companies’ unpaid oil and gas land rent and taxes owed to municipalities.

To address the issue, the Pembina Institute has recommended increasing the orphan-well levy, enacting an escalating inactive-well fee and introducing strict timelines for cleanup.

The situation is similar in Saskatchewan, which has nearly 4,500 orphan wells, and British Columbia, which has 998.

Manitoba’s unique regulatory environment

Manitoba’s oil and gas industry is an outlier in several ways. 

For one, it has a comparatively small oil patch, which is concentrated in the southwest corner of the province and dominated by Tundra Oil & Gas — a locally owned subsidiary of James Richardson & Sons. 

It also differs in provincial regulation. Operators have to submit an application to suspend drilling at a well site to the petroleum branch. Suspensions are valid for a maximum of three years, after which the company needs to apply for an extension.

“What it means is that Manitoba has a much lower proportion of its wells that are in a suspended state,” Bryant says. “If [wells] sit there in a state of inactivity for a long time … there’s a risk that they’ll end up orphans, and so that’s a positive policy move that the province has taken.”

Unlike other provinces, where insolvency is a driving force, most of Manitoba’s orphan wells are the result of petroleum branch seizures following non-compliance of shutdown orders or failure to meet regulatory requirements, a provincial spokesperson said. 

If a seized well is capable of producing oil, the province can sell the facility or transfer the licence to a new owner.  

Nearly all of the companies with orphan wells are still actively drilling elsewhere in the oil patch.

Four inspectors are now employed in Manitoba’s petroleum branch, up from one

Manitoba has been addressing orphan wells for many years, according to the province, but only released its first consolidated inventory in 2021, with an update posted publicly last year. 

Of the 23 wells listed on the original inventory, all but six remained orphaned in 2025, according to a Narwhal/Free Press analysis of the publicly available records. The others were removed from the list after their status was updated to abandoned (as in, properly plugged) in 2022.

The 2025 batch of 25 seized wells is largely due to improved staffing capacity, allowing the department to clear a backlog of investigations, the spokesperson said.

Manitoba currently has four provincial petroleum inspectors, up from the single inspector employed in early 2024, when a major Imperial Oil pipeline shutdown prompted the government to address gaps in its monitoring program.

Mya Wheeler, a Winnipeg-based social scientist and researcher whose PhD thesis focused on the local oil and gas industry, found staffing was a perennial problem that undermined departmental efforts to adhere to legislated regulations. 

“As the ramping up of oil wells occurred, there was the same and then less staff, and there was a 600 per cent increase in drilling during the fracking boom,” she says.

“There’s not a lot of ability to make compliance happen because of low staffing.”

Eva Wasney is a reporter covering environmental issues in Manitoba. Her position is part of a partnership between The Narwhal and the Winnipeg Free Press.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

On the eve of B.C.’s 44th general election, FortisBC’s bid to significantly expand its liquefied natural gas (LNG) production was given a key green light by the B.C. government.

Less than 24 hours before David Eby’s snap election call sent cabinet ministers out onto the campaign trail, Environment and Parks Minister Tamara Davidson and Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix announced the project received its environmental assessment certificate. The approval was issued roughly two months after the final public comment period on the project ended.

Environmental groups condemned the government’s speedy approval as a rubber stamp.

“Approving more new fossil fuel infrastructure in a climate crisis is reckless and irresponsible, and yet more evidence that Premier David Eby is happy to break his past promises on fighting climate change,” Isabel Siu-Zmuidzinas, climate campaigner with the Wilderness Committee, said.

The final press release from this version of the Eby government published on Sept. 21 touted the major expansion at Tilbury — a tenfold increase in the facility’s liquefied natural gas production capacity — as “a major economic, clean-energy opportunity for B.C.” But even if the expansion is powered by electricity, as planned, experts worry chemical emissions from the facility could affect the health of people living and working in nearby communities, including Delta, Richmond and New Westminster.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has called for the B.C. government to fully assess the potential health impacts of the LNG industry, from the fracking fields in northern B.C. to LNG production and shipping facilities, like LNG Canada in Kitimat.

“If this industry is safe, the province should be willing to prove it before our families and our healthcare system pay the price,” Dr. Kai Irani, B.C. representative for the doctors’ association, said in the wake of the Tilbury Phase 2 approval.

FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG plant currently produces about 250,000 tonnes of LNG per year, which is used as fuel by some marine vessels and to heat homes and businesses. The Phase 2 expansion could allow the facility to produce up to 3.4 million tonnes each year, with roughly 2.5 million set aside for export. That’s slightly more than the 2.1 million tonnes Woodfibre LNG in Squamish expects to export once it begins operations.

The project’s environmental assessment certificate includes 18 conditions aimed at mitigating its impacts, including air quality monitoring and emission reduction. B.C.’s environmental assessment will inform the federal government’s own assessment of the project and pending decision on whether to approve Tilbury’s expansion.

FortisBC has been working on beefing up its operations at the Tilbury site for about a decade. In July, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix announced the government’s support of an earlier expansion proposal, known as Phase 1B, which will add a marine jetty to the site and increase production capacity to 650,000 tonnes of LNG per year. Once Phase 1B is completed, Tilbury LNG will be able to fuel more marine vessels with LNG, which is a lower-emission fuel than the diesel many ships use for power. 

A July cabinet order signed by Dix exempted Phase 1B from review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That means the expansion will not undergo an independent assessment to examine whether it is necessary and serves the public interest. Last year, the B.C. government also exempted the North Coast transmission line from such a review.

Dix’s order prompted one of his fellow cabinet ministers to take the unusual step of speaking out against a government decision. Kelly Greene, who served as Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Climate Readiness, said she was disappointed with the decision to advance the Tilbury expansion. She has since decided not to seek re-election in the Richmond—Steveston riding she won in 2020.

The order also created the option for First Nations co-ownership of the project, which the Musqueam Indian Band has expressed interest in. 

Tilbury LNG Phase 2 is a separate proposal for the same site in Delta that would see the construction of a new LNG storage tank with a capacity of up to 142,400 cubic metres, about 57 Olympic swimming pools. There would also be new gas liquefaction facilities capable of producing up to 7,700 tonnes of LNG per day, along with other infrastructure needed to support the expanded operations.

B.C. is betting on major projects as Canada looks to open new markets and reduce its reliance on the U.S. Tilbury Phase 2 is among the 41 energy and mining projects the province has identified as a priority. 

Here’s what you need to know.

Why this project?

Tilbury’s Phase 2 expansion will boost the gas system in the Lower Mainland and help meet peak demand for heat during cold weather, according to the provincial government. Building the project will support 1,210 jobs, the province’s major projects site states — though how many people will be employed after the expansion is built is not yet known.

The project description does not mention the LNG export aspect of the expansion.

FortisBC’s website describes the Phase 2 expansion as a way to “continue reliably serving our customers in a lower-carbon energy future while providing economic growth and benefits to local and Indigenous communities.”

Increasing Tilbury’s LNG production capacity will allow the company to “respond to the growing demand for LNG as a lower-carbon fuel,” according to the site.

In an emailed statement, a FortisBC spokesperson highlighted that the Tilbury facility runs on electricity and therefore has “a lower carbon footprint compared to fossil fuel-based power sources commonly used in LNG production elsewhere.”

“The proposed Phase 2 expansion will be required to meet all applicable regulatory, environmental and permitting requirements, including those established by Metro Vancouver.”

What’s different about Tilbury LNG?

While the other LNG facilities operating or under construction in B.C. are located at some distance from nearby communities, Tilbury LNG is an urban facility.

It sits on the banks of the Fraser River, just across the water from Richmond and downstream from New Westminster, making it the only urban LNG facility in the province. Highway 17, one of the Lower Mainland’s major transportation corridors, runs right alongside it.

“It is a 10-minute walk … to the nearest brewery,” Anna Barford, oceans campaigner for Stand.earth, said in an interview. 

Loaded LNG tankers leaving the Tilbury facility will have to transit the south arm of the Fraser River mouth to make their way out into the Salish Sea, a busy shipping corridor that could become much more crowded over the next few years if and when a number of other projects come to fruition.

How does this fit into a bigger conversation about shipping traffic?

At Roberts Bank, just south of where LNG tankers from Tilbury would enter the Salish Sea, the Port of Vancouver is planning to expand its existing container port by 50 per cent. If that $3.5-billion proposed expansion goes ahead, the port location could handle an additional 2.4 million 20-foot (six-metre) shipping containers each year, adding hundreds of container ship transits to the Salish Sea’s waters.

Meanwhile, the completed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is expected to increase tanker traffic in the area by nearly 350 tankers per year.

And then there’s Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the Pacific coast, which would also terminate at Roberts Bank. The tanker terminal would be built to accommodate very large crude oil carriers, massive ships capable of carrying 2.2 million barrels of oil that are longer than three World Cup soccer pitches laid end to end.

“These are enormous vessels that the Tilbury tankers are going to navigate around — they will each need to sort of make way for each other,” Barford said. “This is also critical habitat for southern resident killer whales, who we know vessel traffic is a problem for.”

The Environmental Assessment Office will consider potential impacts on southern resident killer whales and other local species and their habitats as part of its evaluation of the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 proposal. Measures by FortisBC to mitigate those impacts will also be assessed.

What exactly will the expansion look like?

To enable the facility to process more gas, the Phase 2 expansion includes a ground flare — basically, an outlet to burn off excess gas when needed. Instead of a flare stack like the one high above the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, B.C., Tilbury LNG will burn off excess gas at ground level. 

The ground flare option was chosen because it “limits the opportunity for wildlife interactions with flames and greatly reduces noise and flame-related visual effects,” a FortisBC spokesperson said in an email.

The expansion would increase Tilbury LNG’s emissions to one million tonnes per year, according to a report from the Pembina Institute. Most of those emissions — 0.7 million tonnes — would come from so-called upstream emissions, related to the fracked gas and its transportation to Tilbury LNG via pipelines. The other 0.3 million tonnes of emissions would come from the facility’s operations. 

However, the assessment excludes emissions during the start-up phase, a time when LNG facilities often flare more gas than they would once they are established. Flaring involves burning off gas as waste rather than shipping it or using it. LNG Canada, which has been operational for two years now, has been flaring up to 15 times more gas than it was expected to, due at least in part to an issue with the facility’s flare tip. LNG Canada reported flaring 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, according to figures reported to the BC Energy Regulator — 10 per cent of all the gas transported to the plant that year. 

What are the possible health impacts for people living near the project?

Experts say significantly expanding an LNG facility in an urban area raises a range of concerns, including possible impacts on human health.

Emissions from an expanded Tilbury LNG will be entering an airshed already permeated with pollution, Tim Takaro, a physician-scientist in environmental medicine, said. Exhaust from vehicles, including heavy trucks travelling to and from port facilities, mingle with emissions from industrial operations along the Fraser River. 

“There’s just no reason to build a new fossil energy facility in a populated area,” he said.

New Westminster and Richmond had some of the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide of any community in B.C. in 2024, according to a report from the BC Lung Foundation. Nitrogen dioxide is a product of high-temperature fossil fuel combustion and is pushed into the air from vehicle tailpipes and industrial smokestacks. Long-term exposure is linked to impaired lung growth in children and more frequent asthma attacks.

For Takaro, also a member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Tilbury LNG’s impact needs to be considered in the context of existing air quality conditions. 

“What does this facility add to the existing air quality?” he said. “Because that’s what people breathe — they don’t just breathe the new part.”

The Tilbury expansion’s ground flare is also a point of concern for Takaro.

“Their flare is going to be at ground level, which is, of course, where people live,” he said.

B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office is in the final stages of evaluating the Phase 2 expansion. The last public comment period ended in July and the office received 631 completed surveys about the project.One of the survey’s 18 questions asked respondents to select any issues they believed had not been appropriately assessed or that lacked information. A majority of respondents flagged greenhouse gas emissions as an area of concern. Impacts on wildlife, fish and habitat were also selected on a majority of surveys.

Ground flares are often about the height of a single-story building, said Tim Doty, a former employee of Texas’s environmental agency who spent years inspecting oil and gas facilities across the state.

“In theory, that’s going to bring the emissions closer to the community,” he said. 

“I would expect this facility, as it expands, to further impact the community and air quality around Delta and the Vancouver [area].”

Tilbury Phase 2’s environmental assessment takes into account current air quality and modelling of the expansion’s effects, according to an emailed statement from the assessment office.

The federal government’s pending decision can now be informed by B.C.’s environmental assessment. This provincial environmental green light allows the federal process to continue moving, saving Tilbury LNG Phase 2 from lingering in limbo as the snap election unfolds.

Updated, Sept. 24, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. PT: This story incorrectly stated Isabel Siu-Zmuidzinas is a climate campaigner with Stand.earth, in fact she works for the Wilderness Committee. The story has been corrected.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has introduced legislation to expand its “national interest” regime meant to speed up major projects, overhaul federal environmental scrutiny of industrial activity and consolidate Indigenous consultations.

In doing so, the government is largely moving ahead with sweeping proposals it made in May, and making them permanent, despite spending the summer hearing from a public concerned about exactly this: that the Liberals’ plan could sideline scientific expertise and concentrate political power.

Transport Minister and Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, in Parliament on Sept. 21. The nearly 250-page omnibus bill will entrench new powers to bypass normal government approval processes for projects like pipelines, highways and nuclear facilities, by removing a five-year time limit that was built into last year’s Building Canada Act.

The Building Canada Act first introduced a special designation to allow projects to skirt regular rules if the government deems them in the “national interest,” coming in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and threats to annex Canada. 

Asked by reporters on Wednesday to justify why the government was making its temporary powers permanent, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canadians “understand what we’re facing is unprecedented in Canada’s history.” 

“We need to make sure that we have the proper tools in the toolbox to favour economic security in our country,” he said.

The government claims the bill will “bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to infrastructure project reviews” while maintaining “strong environmental safeguards” and upholding Indigenous Rights. 

One of the key changes in the bill is to force all projects subject to federal reviews through a one-year timeframe for approval or rejection, compressing the time to examine things like environmental impacts into a matter of months.

“If you’re going to say no — decide it within a year,” is how Carney put it on Tuesday, addressing criticism of the bill on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

But this shortened timeline is one of many proposals Canadians have been cautioning Ottawa against since it was first made last May, warning that such fast-tracking could create conditions incompatible with the time and space necessary to properly assess big projects. 

The government received more than 26,000 emails and over 40 written submissions on its spring proposals from provinces, territories, Indigenous groups, industry representatives, environmental organizations, academics and think-tanks, according to a summary report published earlier this month.

While much of the feedback was broadly supportive of the effort to speed up approval of major projects and cut down on inefficient government processes, there was also “widespread agreement that reform should not come at the expense of environmental protection or Indigenous Rights,” the report noted.

In particular, Canadians expressed a “recurring concern” around the concentration of decision-making authority in a single minister, or in a small group of powerful people. 

“Many cautioned that increased ministerial or Cabinet discretion could weaken accountability, increase politicization, reduce predictability, and diminish the role of independent scientific, technical, environmental, and Indigenous expertise,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, Indigenous groups worried the changes could undermine reconciliation and limit their ability to assert their constitutional rights within their territories, warning of potential lawsuits.

After tabling its bill, the government received praise from business groups for taking steps to attract investment and boost the economy. 

Business Council of Canada president and CEO Goldy Hyder urged Parliament to “pass the legislation quickly to safeguard the interests of Canadians and rebuild the country’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.” The Western Business Coalition welcomed the one-year timeline for reviews, among other changes.

The changes also come after months of intense lobbying from the oil and gas industry to “simplify” project reviews and commit to much shorter deadlines for approvals.

Starting in 2025, oil and gas executives and lobby groups launched a public campaign pressuring Carney to “unwind the past decade” of environmental and energy policy, complaining that the current system was “impeding” fossil fuel growth.

The bill also follows regulatory changes Carney’s government made early in September to remove certain oilsands facilities and fossil fuel power plants from federal assessments.

Other groups have expressed dismay that the government was moving ahead despite public concerns of overreach. 

The environmental advocacy group Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement said a one-year timeline is “incompatible with the assessment of complex, large-scale projects” that often involve big risks to watersheds, wildlife habitat and communities. 

Such projects generally require long-term studies and analysis of cumulative impacts — not to mention meaningful public input and Indigenous consultations.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak warned Carney against “abusing” his powers to speed the bill through Parliament without adequate debate and consultations. 

The national chief said the government should be open to incorporating amendments to the bill offered by First Nations leaders.

So what else is in Bill C-39? Here’s what you need to know.

Moving pipeline and nuclear reviews away from an environment agency

The legislation takes federal reviews of pipelines, nuclear facilities and power lines out of the hands of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, a federal body that reports to the environment minister and is meant to ensure project designs protect Indigenous Rights and the environment.

Instead, pipeline projects will be reviewed by the Canada Energy Regulator, an agency of the Crown that reports to the energy minister and oversees construction and operation of certain pipelines and power lines.

For nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which also reports to the energy minister, will carry out assessments.

The government said “diverse stakeholders” had expressed support for the move and that environmental, health and Indigenous considerations would continue to be “addressed with rigour.”

Yet making the energy regulator the sole assessor of pipeline projects was one proposal where the public, through “advocacy campaigns distributed through civic engagement platforms and petitions,” had “consistently emphasized concern,” according to the feedback report.

Indigenous representatives also asked the government to hold the energy and nuclear regulators “to the same standard” as the Impact Assessment Agency.

They asked that Indigenous Peoples be involved in updating the laws that govern these agencies, so they’re consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is meant to uphold their “free, prior and informed consent.” 

In 2021 Canada passed a law to embed that declaration at the federal level.

Taking ‘national interest’ projects a step further

Another idea that elicited major unease from the public was the creation of federal “economic zones” where certain projects could be “pre-approved.” 

Carney’s new legislation rebrands these as “regions of national interest.” Once designated, certain projects inside the region would benefit from the ability to bypass normal approval processes, just like “national interest” projects.

The type of “regions” the government is considering are wide-reaching: a telecommunications network, an industrial area or an “energy production” area are all in play, it said. The region doesn’t even have to be currently used — it could be picked for “future development needs.” 

The first step would be to conduct a regional assessment through the Impact Assessment Agency, which the government said would measure the “cumulative effects of current and foreseeable activities in the area” and involve Indigenous consultations over things like impacts, boundaries and “culturally sensitive areas.”

Then a federal minister will recommend whether to list the region as in the “national interest.” If it does, projects will be “considered pre-approved” and be given a list of conditions.

Kerrie Blaise, founder and lawyer at the nonprofit Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence, warned in a statement that the Ring of Fire mining and development region on Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario could be designated as a “region of national interest.”

A group made up of representatives from 15 First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency are in the midst of a regional assessment of development in the Ring of Fire area.

“Effectively ‘pre-approving’ mining projects within the Hudson-James Bay Lowlands — where the Ring of Fire is proposed — risks irreparable harm to pristine rivers, globally significant carbon stores, refuges for wildlife and species at risk and the Indigenous Peoples who call this region home,” Blaise said.

The regional designation follows a similar process for designating individual projects in the “national interest” that was established in last year’s Building Canada Act.

That process allows the government to automatically grant all federal approvals at the same time, following consultations.

Since passing the law, the government has moved to formally designate four projects as in the “national interest” — a new oil pipeline to the west coast, a nuclear waste depot in Ignace, Ont., the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 in Vancouver and the Mackenzie Valley Highway in the Northwest Territories. 

Many more projects are being considered for the designation by the Major Projects Office, a body run out of the central government agency that supports the prime minister and Cabinet.

A streamlined impact assessment process and the option of earlier project starts

Currently, the Impact Assessment Agency produces a project review to be considered by the environment minister, who then issues a decision on whether it should move forward. 

Other ministers who oversee departments with expertise in different fields, such as fisheries, still have to issue permits for the project after that decision is made, as part of separate processes, which the government says has made the overall project approval process take five years or more.

The new bill would empower the environment minister to issue a decision statement that comes with all required permits issued concurrently from different departments — and all of this happening within a year. 

As well, the environment minister can authorize some work to begin on a project before its Impact Assessment Agency review is completed, if this is deemed in the public interest.

Consolidating Indigenous consultations, making climate one consideration among many

The bill mentions “climate” five times, but vaguely: it’s one of many considerations officials must weigh when deciding on projects like pipelines, power lines or regions of “national interest.” 

The project’s effects on the government’s climate change commitments are among them, but there are no specific dealbreakers, such as an amount of heat-trapping emissions that might trigger a rejection, for example.

Others include “the interests and concerns of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada,” Indigenous Knowledge, scientific information, environmental effects, safety and security, health, social and economic effects, “the existence of actual or potential markets” for pipelines and their “economic feasibility,” and the financial resources of the applicant.

The bill also moves to centralize federal consultations with Indigenous groups by establishing a new “Crown Consultation Hub” within the Impact Assessment Agency, though the energy and nuclear regulators will still oversee their own.

Changes to transportation, navigable waters and fisheries laws

The bill would create a new “National Trade Corridors Council” that would monitor the movement of goods and provide advice to the transport minister on “disruptions.” 

It gives the transport minister new powers to authorize exemptions to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act for dumping materials into waterways. Materials that are currently banned from dumping include sawdust, wood scraps and waste.

As well, some companies would be allowed to harm fish and fish habitat by paying a fee to an environmental damages fund to “offset” it.

The bill also allows the labour minister to end a work stoppage if the government believes that to be in the “national interest.” Labour leaders say that infringes upon Canadians’ right to strike.

Greenpeace Canada dubbed Bill C-39 the “Bulldoze Nature Bill.” 

In a statement, nature and biodiversity campaigner Salomé Sané said, “Carney’s government is locking us into a short-sighted strategy in which decisions about workers’ health and rights, living ecosystems — from rivers, forests to grasslands and communities — are subordinated to a logic of speed and profit, not care and protection.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In March 2025, the government of Nova Scotia repealed a ban on uranium exploration and mining that had stood for more than four decades. That May, it opened a request for proposals on three sites known to hold uranium deposits, with a deadline in June. Nobody applied.

But for the people who live near Millet Brook in Hants County, N.S., one of the sites chosen for exploration, the matter is far from settled.

“The lack of applications has provided some immediate relief, but it has not provided the sense of finality that many residents are hoping for,” municipal Councillor Kayla Leary-Pinch said. “For them, the concern was never solely about whether a company would come forward through this particular call for proposals. It is about the fact that the moratorium was removed in the first place and that the door remains open for uranium exploration in Nova Scotia.”

As councillor for Vaughan and Upper Falmouth, N.S., her district in the municipality of West Hants covers the Millet Brook site. 

“Until there is greater certainty about the long-term status of Millet Brook, I think that concern will remain,” she said. 

Those concerns include potential environmental impacts, especially to groundwater, as well as private property rights and what exploration now could mean for mining in the future, Leary-Pinch said.

“There is frustration with how quickly the issue moved forward and a feeling that communities were reacting to decisions rather than being meaningfully involved before those decisions were made,” Leary-Pinch said. 

Like many other governments in Canada, Nova Scotia is passing policy meant to supercharge resource extraction. The uranium moratorium, which dates back to 1981, became a legislated ban in 2009. The province repealed the ban as part of Bill 6, An Act Respecting Agriculture, Energy and Natural Resources, an omnibus bill that also amended the Petroleum Resources Act to allow fracking. 

It’s been more than a year since the ban ended and it’s still on community minds. On Sept. 8, 2026, two petitions were tabled at the provincial legislature with over 2,000 signatures asking for a “permanent legislative ban” on uranium exploration and extraction. These new signatures bring the grand total to 10,652 signatures collected since October 2025, NDP MLA Kendra Coombes said.

Despite half a century of scattershot uranium interest, Nova Scotia has never developed the industry. Now, the federal government, along with dozens of countries worldwide, is pushing for what’s often called a nuclear renaissance. Canada is among at least 38 countries that have pledged to work toward tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. 

Part of uranium’s appeal is energy density. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a single uranium fuel pellet produces as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. But that energy comes with a long-term cost. Canada has long been trying to find a permanent home for decades’ worth of nuclear waste, with a proposed $26 billion underground repository in northwestern Ontario still years from approval.

NS premier says uranium mining is essential to economic growth and clean energy transition

When the request for proposals was live in June 2025, a unanimous council vote made West Hants one of four municipalities, along with Annapolis, Lunenburg and Pictou, to request a pause on exploration. Premier Tim Houston responded with a letter saying the government was committed to moving forward “on all natural resource projects so long as they can be done thoughtfully and safely.”

The world needs uranium for nuclear energy and cancer treatments, Houston’s letter said. 

 “Uranium hasn’t changed but mining has,” it said, echoing the Mining Association of Nova Scotia, an industry group representing mining and quarrying companies. The group’s website says uranium mining today “is very different” from when the ban was put in place: specifically, it says a shift toward solution mining, also known as in-situ leaching, “produces basically no tailings or waste rock.” 

Uranium is essential to Nova Scotia’s economic growth, the premier said, adding that a blanket ban without discussion is lazy public policy.

“The sad reality is that when you look at the [gross domestic product] per capita across all 60 American states and Canadian provinces, Nova Scotia ranks last,” Houston said. “The worst performing economy in North America.”

But so far, uranium mining has not been an economic driver in the province. The June deadline came and went with no bids to pursue exploration.

In an email to The Narwhal, Lynette MacLeod, communications director for the Department of Natural Resources, said the repeal of the ban didn’t approve any uranium mining or exploration projects. 

“It removed a legislative prohibition and allows the province to better understand the occurrence of uranium using modern science and regulatory safeguards,” MacLeod said.

MacLeod said the province is not exploring for uranium but is doing research using existing data and core samples. She was clearer about the province’s broader mining ambitions.

The department’s focus is ensuring “Nova Scotia remains one of the most competitive jurisdictions for mineral exploration investment in Canada,” MacLeod said. The province is “expanding investment attraction efforts with our partners [and] supporting exploration through targeted funding programs.” 

That means implementing the provincial mining strategy; completing NovaMINE, a government website detailing regulatory requirements and listing the status of mining proposals and projects; digitizing the province’s assets and data; and continuing regulatory modernization, she said. 

Uranium has been on the federal critical minerals list since it was released in 2021, but it’s only been on Nova Scotia’s list since May 14, 2025, the same day Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton announced a request for proposals for exploration sites at Millet Brook, East Dalhousie and Louisville.

“We’ve lifted blanket bans and we’re targeting minerals that are in great demand for the clean energy transition in Canada and around the world,” Rushton said in a press release. “We’re also focusing on minerals that will help us grow our economy and create good-paying jobs for Nova Scotians.”

The economic promises of uranium have never been enough to convince Nova Scotians it’s worth the cost, Karen McKendry at Halifax’s Ecology Action Centre said. Exploration by companies such as Shell and Esso in the late 1970s prompted a public inquiry that held 44 meetings across the province. The majority of submissions opposed uranium mining, and the government imposed a moratorium in 1981. In 2009, the NDP government led by Darrell Dexter turned that moratorium into a permanent legislative ban.

“We’ve learned that it very much is a radioactive zombie,” McKendry said. “It’s come back. This is the third time we’ve had a big fight around uranium.”

Even without a proposal on the table last year, people put up signs expressing opposition and began organizing in the areas most promising for exploration, she said. Locals heard there was a company considering a proposal, she said, and so they posted online to make their opposition clear.

“I think it scared them off,” McKendry said. “One thing that’s somewhat real in the mining industry is what they call social licence. Do you have community buy-in for the kinds of things you’re proposing?”

Experts say opposition and low quality make NS uranium unappealing to industry

Exploration is a high-risk economic activity, Erin Adlakha, a professor in the department of earth science at Saint Mary’s University, said.

“Fewer than one per cent of exploration targets ever become mines, so companies must rigorously vet historical data to ensure they are spending capital wisely,” Adlakha said. The province’s request for proposals was only open for four weeks, she said, requiring companies “to digest historical data from the late 1970s and 1980s, evaluate land access constraints, build a technical exploration strategy and allocate capital, on very short notice.”

Mining companies also want political stability, according to Brad Redden, the president of the Society for Safe and Responsible Resource Development, a non-profit dedicated to protecting communities and the environment in Nova Scotia’s resource sectors.

“These guys plan a long way into the future,” Redden said, adding it can sometimes take decades to bring a new mine online. “The Houston government won’t be forever, and when they’re gone, the Liberals or the NDP are going to be in power.”

While some parts of Canada have what companies consider stable mining policies, companies are very careful about volatile situations such as this one, he said.

Redden, who has worked as an exploration geologist and held public office as a municipal councillor and deputy warden in Annapolis County, said he is skeptical of the province’s interest in uranium. 

“I don’t think they genuinely thought there was uranium here,” he said, adding that fracking and uranium were probably bundled together on the same bill as part of a bigger industrial drive. “It’s a political statement to say we’re open for business.”

He said he wouldn’t work on a uranium project in Nova Scotia, because he doesn’t think the deposits here are good enough. Uranium in the province tends to sit in thin, centimetre-wide fractures rather than deep deposits and grades are far lower than in Saskatchewan’s uranium heartland, Redden said.

He offers as an example Cigar Lake in the Prairie province, which at a grade of 15 per cent is “the world’s highest grade uranium mine” according to its owner. Redden said this translates to 150,000 parts of uranium per million parts of rock. By comparison, New Ross, N.S., “has some higher-grade areas …but they are still less than one per cent,” or 10,000 parts per million. 

“Most of the grades reported in Nova Scotia are much lower, in the hundreds of parts per million,” Redden said. The Mining Association of Nova Scotia says the site at Millet Brook “is known to have 1.3 million pounds of 0.2 per cent uranium.”

The more important difference, Redden said, is that in Nova Scotia, uranium deposits tend to be closer to population centres than they are in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin.

Last year, in his response to the West Hants council’s request for a pause, the premier noted provincial investments of more than $227 million in West Hants during his time in office.

“I have no doubt that your council has many more wants and needs,” the Houston letter said. “We would love to be able to meet every ask, but to do that, we need the resources to move forward.”

However things move forward at Millet Brook, Leary-Pinch said the people of West Hants deserve to be consulted about what the province intends to do in their backyard. “Many of the residents I have spoken with want to see the moratorium on uranium exploration and mining reinstated.” She said the absence of bids this time around was never the point. For the people of West Hants, she said it’s about closing  the door on uranium for good.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

British Columbians are heading back to the provincial polls on Oct. 24, just two years after the 2024 election where the BC NDP barely held on to power.

David Eby justified his decision to call a snap election on Tuesday, pointing to threats posed by trade issues with U.S. President Donald Trump and chaos on B.C.’s political right.

Eby said British Columbians can choose between “the chaos, the cuts [and] the cozying up to Trump of the Conservative caucus” or his party’s pledge to “stand shoulder to shoulder across the country with Canadians.”

During his speech, Eby repeatedly used fire imagery, comparing the situation in the United States to a spreading wildfire. “We need to build a firebreak around the things that make British Columbia special, things that matter most to British Columbians,” he said. “A firebreak, yes, against Trump’s economic attack, but a firebreak against our dependence on the United States, and a firebreak against the Trump-style politics that threatens to infect our province.”

Eby’s decision will also cost the province tens of millions of dollars and disrupt the work of government, leaving legislation in limbo and throwing wrenches into all kinds of timelines. Calls for B.C.’s auditor general to investigate the billion-dollar error in the province’s gas royalty calculations will remain unanswered. Legislation to enact a treaty between B.C. and the Kitselas First Nation could be delayed by months. And the future of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act will be uncertain at least a little longer. 

The premier’s choice to call a snap election now has angered many local government representatives. Municipal elections will take place across B.C. on Oct. 17, and the final weeks of those campaigns will now be overshadowed by the looming provincial election.

“It’s two conversations at one dinner table — it’s noisy, it’s hard to understand and only the loudest voices will be heard,” Cori Ramsay, a city councillor from Prince George who served as the president at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, said at the organization’s annual conference last week. “Overlapping elections will lead to less scrutiny, less accountability, and it’s not in the public interest.”

At the conference, delegates endorsed an emergency resolution calling on the B.C. government to keep a provincial election campaign separate from the scheduled municipal elections. 

Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, said Eby is taking a calculated risk calling an election so soon after the last one.

“Will the NDP be able to make a credible case for voters that this economic moment justifies an election compared to the case that their opponents will make that this is premature?” she asked.

This isn’t the first time in recent memory a BC NDP premier has called a snap election during a fraught historical moment. In fall 2020, former Premier John Horgan decided to go to the polls, arguing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic required a majority government to effectively serve British Columbians.

Horgan’s gamble paid off, with the NDP winning 57 of the B.C. legislature’s 87 seats.

“I assume that experience is top of mind for Premier Eby and the NDP this time round,” Harrison said. “Can they make the wartime mandate argument, given that Donald Trump’s threats to Canada — threats to the B.C. economy, especially — were not something that was foreseen?”

Despite the risk, Eby has decided to proceed with a snap election call. Here’s why and what it means for some of the significant policies affecting B.C.’s environment.

Why call a B.C. election now?

If the justifications seem flimsy, it may be because all signs point to a major factor in Eby’s decision being the state of the BC Conservative Party, B.C.’s official opposition.

To briefly recap: John Rustad resigned as the party’s leader in December 2025 after weeks of caucus infighting. The race to replace Rustad resulted in Kerry-Lynne Findlay, a former Conservative Party of Canada MP and cabinet minister, becoming leader of the BC Conservative Party on May 30. Findlay’s victory was narrow; she won 51 per cent of party members’ votes, barely beating out second-place finisher Caroline Elliott.

Findlay’s tenure as party leader was spectacularly brief and chaotic. Multiple members of the BC Conservative caucus publicly criticized her leadership style and staffing choices. Over a six-week span this summer, 10 MLAs left the BC Conservative caucus, citing a lack of confidence in Findlay’s leadership. Three others were removed from the caucus, including Rustad (though he has since been invited to rejoin the BC Conservative caucus).

Findlay resigned as party leader on September 20, leaving the BC Conservatives to appoint Cariboo-Chilcotin MLA Lorne Doerkson as interim leader. Following the snap election call, many of the ousted MLAs rejoined the BC Conservatives and joined Doerkson for an afternoon press conference in Vancouver.

“I think David Eby is going to regret this,” Doerkson said. “Because this election actually offers an opportunity for hope and for real change.”

He rejected Eby’s claim the BC Conservatives support Trump, calling the U.S. president a bully.

B.C. politics is infamous for dramatic developments and unprecedented situations, but the unravelling of the BC Conservatives — a party that came within a handful of votes of driving the NDP out of government in 2024 — over the past two years is truly remarkable. For Eby, leader of an aging government with a tenuous grip on power, the chaos enveloping the BC Conservatives presents an irresistible opportunity to potentially trounce his political opponents.

After a week of mounting speculation about a snap election call at the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference, the B.C. government issued a flurry of announcements in the days before Eby confirmed his decision.

Over the weekend, the BC NDP announced a pair of significant investments into healthcare, and on Monday, published 16 press releases, twice the number of any other day this month. They highlighted millions in government spending, including $27 million from the Clean Industry Fund for 17 emission-reduction and efficiency projects.

Tilbury LNG Phase 2 was promoted twice. First, Environment and Parks Minister Tamara Davidson and Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix announced the project received its environmental assessment certificate, less than two months after the final public comment period ended.

The final government press release of the day touted the major expansion — a 10-fold increase in the facility’s liquefied natural gas production capacity — at Tilbury as “a major economic, clean-energy opportunity for B.C.”

The flood of press releases made it seem the B.C. government was working to clear the decks of government business before an election call prompted a shift into campaign mode. 

B.C. election comes amid criticism of gas royalty framework

The election call also comes amid criticism and controversies facing the BC NDP. Including that fossil fuel companies will pay B.C. hundreds of millions of dollars less than anticipated over the next few years due to an error in the province’s natural gas royalty calculations, as reported by Business in Vancouver last month. The miscalculation means the province will collect $306 million less than projected this fiscal year, according to the Ministry of Finance, though experts told Business in Vancouver B.C. could end up losing out on $500 million per year.

The B.C. government explained the error as a simple calculation mistake which has been rectified, but West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson wants a more detailed explanation.

“I don’t think they know what they’re doing,” Willson said in an interview.

Treaty 8 First Nations, including West Moberly First Nations, flagged the error to the province in the midst of consultations on a new pricing structure for natural gas extracted in B.C. The incoming royalty framework is meant to collect a fair share of profits from companies extracting natural gas from land owned by the province. The new framework is scheduled to take effect in January 2027 and will replace a temporary system that has been in place since 2022, after an independent assessment found the existing system needed a complete overhaul.

In 2022, the B.C. government said the new royalty framework would collect half of company profits from natural gas, but Treaty 8 First Nations have since concluded the new framework may capture just 11 per cent.

Willson wants the new framework paused until a thorough and independent review can be done.

“The auditor general should do a complete review and it should be transparent,” he told The Narwhal. “I think they should make it public because this would affect B.C.’s revenues — the fiscal health of the province — for decades.”

On Sept. 14, Finance Minister Josie Osborne said the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions was communicating with the Office of the Auditor General about the budget error and possibility of a review. The Office of the Auditor General told The Narwhal it does not comment on potential reviews. The Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions did not respond to an email sent Sept. 17, requesting confirmation that an auditor general’s review had been requested.

The legislature was scheduled to convene on Oct. 5 for a five-week sitting. Eby’s snap election call either significantly shortens the amount of time MLAs will spend in the house this fall or eliminates it altogether.

The future of DRIPA

It may seem like a long time ago now but B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, known as DRIPA, was at the centre of major political drama this spring.

Following a December 2025 court ruling, Eby kicked off the spring session vowing to amend the law to shield the provincial government from legal liability over the pace and scope of its reconciliation work. At first, he claimed changing the law was non-negotiable, and something that had to be done before the legislature’s summer break.

Eby went so far as to vow to make his DRIPA amendments a confidence vote, thereby staking the future of his government on its outcome

But First Nations leaders rejected Eby’s plan and told him his “approach was totally unacceptable.” That prompted the then premier to propose suspending DRIPA for up to three years, an approach he soon abandoned in the face of steady opposition from First Nations leaders.

By the time the legislature’s summer break arrived, Eby had settled on continuing discussions about DRIPA’s future with First Nations and tabling unspecified amendments during the fall session.

“We’re still at the table with First Nations leadership and it’s important work and we’re going to continue that work,” Eby said of the DRIPA discussion during a Sept. 8 press conference.

Without a fall session, any changes to DRIPA will wait until the spring, leaving lingering uncertainty about the future of the law.

In the meantime, the BC Conservatives have continued to call for DRIPA’s repeal. In August, Elections BC approved an initiative petition backed by BC Conservative MLA Harman Bhangu that aims to repeal DRIPA. If Bhangu collects signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in each of B.C.’s 93 ridings by Jan. 25, the petition will be submitted to the legislature for a vote.

Kitselas treaty bill

If the fall session doesn’t happen, the legislature may not reconvene until February, shortly before the B.C. government traditionally presents its throne speech and introduces its budget.

Before the throne speech, a process called prorogation wipes the legislative slate clean, giving legislators a fresh start. Any legislation left lingering on the order paper is erased and must be reintroduced before starting the process to become law all over again.

If that happens following this election, three pieces of legislation will be sent back to the drawing board. One is Bill 21, the Kitselas Treaty Act, which received first reading on April 15. If passed, the bill would be the provincial government’s first step to implement the treaty with Kitselas First Nation. 

If the treaty is ratified by both the B.C. and Canadian governments, Kitselas First Nation would no longer be controlled by the federal Indian Act and instead governed by its own constitution. Work on the Kitselas Treaty began in 1993 and Kitselas members voted in favour of the draft treaty in April 2025. 

David Try, senior negotiator with the Kitselas treaty team, expects the election will delay the passage of the bill by up to six months, depending on when the legislature reconvenes.

While the delay is disappointing, Try is hopeful B.C.’s next government would make the Kitselas treaty bill a priority in its first legislative session.

“When you negotiate something for 30 years, there’s a certain implicit commitment to bring it home,” Try said. “We think that the treaty would be back on the legislative agenda, but how do we know? We don’t.”

The Lax Kw’alaams and Nine Allied Tribes dispute the scope of the Kitselas Treaty’s territorial claim and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs called for both treaty bills to be paused until the territorial boundary disputes with neighbouring First Nations were addressed.

Eby’s choice to call an election is predicated on his confidence that they will win back seats lost to the BC Conservatives in 2024. However, this victory is far from guaranteed. After Oct. 24, B.C. might have a new party in power — or it might be the same one, its power weakened or consolidated. None of the possible outcomes guarantees the provincial priorities will stay the same.

Updated Sept. 22, 2026, at 4:53 p.m. PT: This story was updated following a press conference with interim BC Conservative leader Lorne Doerkson

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Coming face to face with the pelt of a now-extinct Salish woolly dog was an emotional experience for Jordan Wilson.

The curator from xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam Indian Band) attended an unveiling at the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver as the ancestor was welcomed back to its home territories earlier this month.

The pelt is on loan from the Smithsonian institution, where it was in storage for more than a century. It will be at Museum of Anthropology until August of 2027. 

Belonging to a dog from Stó:lō territories known as Mutton, it’s the only known Salish woolly dog pelt in existence.

As the pelt was unveiled to its Salish relatives on Sept. 4, Wilson attended along with other Salish community members from Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley.

“For me personally, I was caught off guard at the emotional quality of it,” Wilson told the Narwhal.

“Seeing this pelt in person, seeing its little paws and seeing its little nose, realizing that this was a living being that was alive 160 years ago.”

Renowned Musqueam weaver Debra Sparrow was there with her daughter and grandson.

“You watch as they unveil it, pieces of the wood come off, and then the containers open, and there he is. There’s a sense of welcome you feel instinctively,” she said.

“It’s historical that the woolly dog arrived back home.”

Once ubiquitous among Indigenous communities in the Pacific Northwest, Salish woolly dogs went extinct during the late 1800s, as settlers arrived on the coast. Through storytelling, oral history, literature and artwork, woolly dogs have remained a sacred part of Coast and Interior Salish culture. 

The pelt came to Vancouver from Seattle, where it was on loan from the Smithsonian and temporarily exhibited for the first time.

Indigenous people travelled from up and down the Salish Sea to spend time with the woolly dog pelt at MOA before it was open to be viewed by the public on September 4th.

“They were very important to every village, all through the territory of Salish people,” Sparrow said about the dogs. Their traditional territory spans from southwestern B.C., into Washington state and Oregon.

“People will come to feel connected to it. It’s amazing how one little pelt can bring all the people back together.”

Genetic makeup confirms Salish oral history

This specific dog, with Stó:lō roots from the Chilliwack area, belonged to an American naturalist George Gibbs, who named the dog “Mutton.” 

Because of specific storage requirements, the pelt is being hosted at the Museum of Anthropology on Musqueam territory at the request of Stó:lō leaders.

It’s a caretaking responsibility that museum curator Wilson takes seriously. He began working on the Pacific Northwest and contemporary Indigenous art exhibit, where the pelt is being shown, last year.

“This is the highlight of the work that I do … being able to help facilitate things like this,” he said.

“This specific breed dates back thousands of years,” he added. “That goes to show how important this breed was to our ancestors.”

Sparrow recalled that, as settlers arrived in British Columbia, “the first thing many of the European sailors said was that the people have these little dogs with them in their canoes.” 

Combined with mountain goat wool, Salish woolly dog fur was spun into a weaving fibre, used to make clothes, blankets, regalia and other textiles. 

The woolly relatives were fed a rich salmon and elk diet to keep their coats soft and shiny, and in exchange providing Salish communities with safety, companionship and fluffy white hair. 

But the deep connection between Salish people and the woolly dog was severed as the important animal went extinct.

Kwulasultun, Eliot White-Hill, an artist from Snuneymuxw First Nation, said he never heard about the Salish woolly dog while he was growing up.

Once he became an artist and started asking Elders in his community questions, knowledge and stories about them began resurfacing.

“It’s profoundly meaningful to have that woolly dog come back to this part of the world, to be able to reconnect with the communities that it came from,” he said. 

“These blankets are almost like currency to us. They’d be given away at potlaches and they were robes of nobility and protection, and there’s a very important spiritual aspect to them.”

He curated his own exhibit about Salish woolly dogs at the Field Museum in Chicago. They have one of the largest collections of Coast Salish materials outside of the Pacific Northwest. 

“Woolly dogs are so important to Coast Salish culture. They were at the centre of so many different artistic, cultural and economic systems that our ancestors had in place,” White-Hill said.

“Where I come from on Vancouver Island, we didn’t have sheep prior to contact. Mountain goats, another major source for fibre, were only on the mainland. It was expensive and hard to trade for that, so instead we had the woolly dogs.”

The dogs were often raised on small islands to avoid interbreeding with other dog breeds, and passed down through the matrilineal line in families.

These woolly dogs were genetically distinct from the European dog breeds settlers were familiar with. According to the book The Teachings of Mutton: A Coast Salish Woolly Dog, “very few dog breeds have any precolonial [ancient DNA]. An exception is the Chihuahua, which has two to three per cent precolonial DNA.” 

Mutton’s genetic ancestry has been analyzed by numerous specialists in Canada and the United States. Though he died more than a century ago, techniques exist to analyze ancient DNA, or aDNA, which is drawn from sources that lived long ago. 

“Mutton himself has 16 per cent European ancestry. This means he had one great-grandparent that was a European dog … The rest, or 84 per cent of his [ancient DNA], points to precolonial ancestors from thousands of years ago,” the book reads.

“That little being is not a canine, it’s its own entity,” Sparrow said. “It doesn’t belong to the canine world. People always want to compare European philosophies with ours, and it’s not.”

How the pelt, from a dog named Mutton, was found

The woolly relative’s journey home has been decades in the making. In 2002, historian Candace Wellman was undertaking archival research that would eventually lead her into asking a question with lasting impact for Indigenous nations situated along the Salish Sea.

“I was researching the life of Dr. Caleb Kennerly, who married an important Semiahmoo woman,” Wellman said, whose first book was about inter-marriages in the region.

She went to the Smithsonian Museum, where Kennerly had been a naturalist, and obtained photocopies of all his letters back to the museum.

“One night at 3 o’clock in the morning I woke up and realized that one of the things he had sent in was a woolly dog pelt specimen,” she said.

Aware of how important woolly dogs are to Coast Salish culture, and women in particular, Wellman wrote to the Smithsonian curator of mammals, who later confirmed the pelt was there, intact and in a drawer.

“I wrote and said, this is really important because the Coast Salish women alive today have never been able to see the hair that their great-great-grandmothers used to weave the beautiful white blankets,” she said. 

Wellman asked for a hair sample to show Coast Salish women on the West Coast. The museum took it to a committee and they agreed. 

Now, that sample is housed at the Whatcom Museum in Bellingham, Wash, where Wellman has resided for most of her life. 

Wellman explains the dog hair has never been displayed to the public, but has been used to authenticate items, such as a Coast Salish blanket woven with woolly dog fibre that is on display.

The woolly dog’s return to B.C. for the first time in more than a century is historic but bittersweet.

“I have really complicated feelings about the pelt, the name Mutton, and the whole story behind that dog,” White-Hill shared.“It’s really sad to me.”

It’s a sentiment shared by Sparrow. Reflecting on the woolly dog pelt, she said, “It makes me sad — happy that he’s here, but sad they’re non-existent now.”

While the woolly dog pelt is set to return to the Smithsonian next year, White-Hill hopes that it can eventually make its way back to its homelands permanently.

“We need to return this ancestor to its home so it can rest.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.