By Trevor Jang for Discourse Media.

Opponents of a massive liquefied natural gas project proposed for the north coast of B.C. have dug up a scientific report that band members were never shown.

In January of this year the Lax Kw’alaams Band signed an impact benefit agreement worth approximately $1 billion over 40 years in exchange for support for the $36 billion Pacific Northwest LNG project. But documents filed in federal court last month show the band council suppressed scientific research it had commissioned when the research report did not support the band’s position on the project. Members of the Gitwilgyoots Tribe, who filed the documents, are also arguing the band has no authority to approve the project.

“I don’t believe that they’re very ethical with the way that they’re doing things,” Murray Smith, a spokesperson for the Gitwilgyoots, tells me. “Why won’t [they] show us [the report]? Because it would work against them.”

The Gitwilgyoots launched their court challenge last October to have the federal government’s approval of the LNG facility overturned. Then in March, the Lax Kw’alaams Band filed a response to have the tribe’s challenge overturned.

Pacific Northwest LNG has been controversial because of its proposed location on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert. The island sits next to a sandbar called Flora Bank, which contains tall eelgrass that protects juvenile salmon as they adjust from the fresh water of the Skeena River to the salt water of the Pacific Ocean. Opponents of the project fear it will cause devastating impacts to the nursing grounds of millions of salmon and other species.

The report suppressed by the Lax Kw’alaams Band says the location of the project is a key concern. It was written by Asit Mazumder, a professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Victoria. According to court documents, Mazumder was contracted by the band in the spring of last year to conduct an independent review of the project’s risk to fish and fish habitat in the Skeena River estuary.

Mazumder has not responded to requests for comment. But his report concluded that the research paid for by Pacific Northwest LNG, which informed the federal government leading up to Ottawa’s approval of the project, was “inconsistent.” It said the company’s modelling assumptions and lack of baseline data “make it difficult to conclude the project is at a low risk of significantly impacting Flora Bank.”

Mazumder wrote that the purpose of his report was to help Lax Kw’alaams band members “come to an informed judgement as to the likely safety of the project.” Lax Kw’alaams Mayor John Helin did not respond to requests for comment, but on April 21st he testified in a cross-examination that he didn’t share Mazumder’s report with the community. “I felt the road that he was going down was not an objective or independent review of all the necessary information that was out there,” Helin testified.  

"An Extremely Sad Experience for the Scientists"

Professor Mazumder’s was not the only science to be suppressed in the months leading up to the approval of the project. Geologist Patrick McLaren is President of SedTrend, an independent consulting firm specializing in sediment trend analysis. McLaren was hired by the Lax Kw’alaams Band in 2015 to evaluate the environmental effects of terminal development over Flora Bank.

His research concluded plans for development would have a disruptive effect on Flora Bank, and that the sediments there are ancient and irreplaceable. Then last September, just weeks before the federal government approved Pacific Northwest LNG, McLaren was served a cease and desist letter from the band warning him to stop “making references to any research, information, or other matters relating to our about your work with the Lax Kw’alaams Band.

“All of a sudden Dr. McLaren’s analysis disappeared. They never showed it again,” Smith recalls.

The letter came after McLaren wrote a memo to band members last July summarizing his concerns. This memo was read out at a community meeting in which members accused the band of spreading misinformation. McLaren says he was asked by concerned band members to write the memo, and that he was not allowed to attend the community meeting himself.

“It was an extremely sad experience for the scientists. I think we were all very distressed,” McLaren tells me in a recent interview.

The band’s letter called McLaren’s memo to band members “egregious” because it “appears to be clearly aimed at swaying the membership’s opinion.” The letter also accused McLaren of breaching his confidentiality provision in his contract with the band by writing the memo. McLaren argues he could speak out because his research was made public when it was submitted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

“All the science that had been done had been published in international literature with people that have got nothing to do with Lax Kw’alaams, nothing to do with Flora Bank, only to do with assessing whether the scientific method and the results were reasonable. And if they weren’t, there wouldn’t have been [any] hope of having that published,” says McLaren.

The letter warned McLaren not to share or refer to any of his previous work done for the band publicly, adding that if he did, the band would take steps against him.

Suppressed Science Report Questioned Location of #PNWLNG Plant https://t.co/Cwr84uUGHR #cdnpoli #bcpoli @SkeenaWild @SkeenaWatershed pic.twitter.com/eMbWjmzf7r

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 8, 2017

Battle over Lelu Island continues

Mazumder’s report and the letter to McLaren were submitted as evidence in the ongoing legal battle to stop Pacific Northwest LNG. The submissions on behalf of the hereditary leaders of the Gitwilgyoots Tribe accuse the Lax Kwa’laams Band of “producing decision-based evidence rather than evidence-based decisions.”

The Gitwilgyoots are attempting to have the federal government’s approval of the project overturned, on the claim that the tribe and its hereditary leaders were not adequately consulted. The tribe claims Lelu Island and the surrounding area as its traditional territory.

But the Lax Kw’alaams Band also claims jurisdiction over Lelu Island and is attempting to have the tribe’s court challenge dismissed. The band is arguing that the tribe, which represents the hereditary governance system of the Lax Kw’alaams and broader Coast Tsimshian people, is not a legal entity and therefore did not need to be consulted.

The outcome of the case could have broad implications for the question of who can speak for First Nations: hereditary chiefs or the elected council of federally administered Indian Act bands.

The two sides return to federal court June 7 and 8 in Vancouver.

Image: Juvenile salmon in the Skeena estuary. Photo: Tavish Campbell

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.

By Discourse Media with additional reporting from Carol Linnitt.

Members of the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation in northwest B.C. were given an extremely short amount of time to respond to an opinion poll that asked if they support energy development in their territory.

The polling followed a series of four information sessions held by the band council in June, focused on plans for liquified natural gas (LNG) development. At the information sessions, band members were presented with a proposed package of benefits that hinge on them voicing their support for the contentious Pacific NorthWest LNG (PNW LNG) project at the mouth of the Skeena River.

Community members are concerned because the polling question did not explicitly reference the PNW LNG proposal, which includes plans to develop the company’s LNG terminal on Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert. Other concerns about the poll that have been flagged by band members include missing forms in packages mailed to them and misinformation included in the proposed agreements package.

Biased Process

The poll question was framed and composed in a way that was likely to push respondents toward answering a particular way, says David Moscrop, a political scientist and PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia. “The implication is, ‘Don’t worry about the environmental impact; assume it will be fine . . . Are you okay with [development]?”

Moscrop says the structure of the question makes him suspicious of the intent behind the poll. “If you’re not going to do it properly, why are you doing it? Is it because you want to legitimize something you intend to do either way?” he asks.

The question itself, the timeline of the poll and location of the polling stations were all decided by the band council, according to Lawrence Lewis, an independent electoral officer hired by the Lax Kw’alaams band to oversee the process.

Ballots were mailed to all community members both within Lax Kw’alaams and living outside of the village, says Lewis. Members also had the chance to vote in person at polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams and Prince Rupert.

On August 25, The Lax Kw’alaams band council said they received 812 responses (1 spoiled) with 65.5 per cent (or 532 people) voting YES and 279 voting NO.

The mayor of Lax Kw’alaams, John Helin, wrote a message that said: “This is just another step in a process that could lead to the proposed Petronas project becoming a reality. We will have meetings with the appropriate parties (Petronas, Province, Federal Government) to see what the next steps are for this proposed project.”

Helin’s comments have led some to wonder if the poll, which didn’t mention PNW LNG by name, may be used as a de facto referendum for the project despite not being presented to the community as a binding vote.

Which may be how the B.C. government views the poll’s results.

The province released a statement thanking the community for the “positive vote” and Rich Coleman, B.C.’s Minister of Natural Gas Development, congratulated the community for voting to continue talks with government.  

Lax Kw’alaams Pacific Northwest #LNG Poll Raises Questions About #FirstNations Consultation https://t.co/Io16H27zAT #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 1, 2016

Misleading Information

Discourse Media obtained the proposed benefits package that was presented at four community information sessions in June. It includes misinformation about the nature of an infrastructure project granted to the community last year, as previously reported.

The $22-million paving of Tuck Inlet Road, the only road into Lax Kw’alaams, is presented as an incentive for the community to support LNG on Lelu Island. But the project was negotiated by the band’s previous mayor, Garry Reece, who says paving Tuck Inlet Road was never tied to any LNG proposal. In the proposed benefits package it is referred to as “work started by Provincial Government as an inducement for good faith negotiations on LNG.”

While Moscrop calls into question the intent of the poll, community member and activist Christine Smith-Martin says the question is too vague and should simply ask members to say yes or no to development on Lelu Island. “It’s like writing a blank cheque. They want us to sign a blank cheque that allows them to do whatever it is they want to do,” she said.

Smith-Martin also raised concerns about the execution of the poll. She said members of her family received their ballots without the necessary First Nation Declaration Form.

In order for a ballot to be counted, they had to be  returned with a signed First Nation Declaration Form which stated: “I solemnly affirm that I am an eligible Elector of the Lax Kw’alaams Nation at the address listed below and that I am at least 18 years of age.”

Lewis acknowledges the initial mistake but says all members have now received the declaration form. When asked about concerns regarding the short timeframe of the poll, the framing of the question and the lack of polling stations in Vancouver or Terrace — where many Lax Kw’alaams members reside — Lewis deferred to the band council, saying he could only speak to the process, not how these decisions were made by the Lax Kw’alaams band.

Community Left Feeling Confused, Angry

Other concerns include the information sessions that preceded the polling. The main point of contention relayed by people who attended those meetings was the highly technical nature of the presentation, which many saw as one-sided and biased in favour of supporting Pacific Northwest LNG.

Community member Sandra Dudoward says the current poll was not handled as well as a previous canvassing of community views about the project. Dudoward was referring to a series of votes that drew international headlines in May 2015. Lax Kw’alaams voted against supporting PNW LNG in exchange for a $1.2-billion benefits agreement offered by Petronas, the Malaysian-based energy company behind the project.

Dudoward says she was given a month’s notice to prepare for that vote. This time around, she was given about a week. She found out about the vote on Aug. 16, and had to call to request an emailed ballot. The poll required that all ballots be received by mail before Aug. 24 or delivered in person at one of the polling stations in Lax Kw’alaams or Prince Rupert.

Dudoward worries that the timeframe of the poll was too short and might have affected voter turnout. She also wondered why the band hired an electoral officer to oversee the process given that the polling seemed informal and the question vague.

Despite the question not being explicitly about PNW LNG, the local Prince Rupert newspaper, The Northern View,  seemed to confirm suspicions that the poll be seen as just that. “Lax Kw'alaams members vote 'Yes' to ongoing talks with PNW LNG,” said The Northern View’s August 25 on-line headline.

Against Autonomy

For political scientist David Moscrop, the issue is bigger than just the poll and its outcome. He sees it as a larger affront to the democratic process that works against the movement towards Indigenous autonomy.

“If we’re saying that there is a legacy of colonialism and exploitation and stripping people of their power and their right to self-determination, then we should be even more sensitive that there are groups that might be doing that again,” he said.

Image: Ash Kelly

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.