Indigenous leaders from northern British Columbia are calling on the UN to investigate whether ongoing industrial development of Indigenous lands and waters constitutes a violation of UN conventions this week.

Canada is up for review by the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In a submission, tribes from B.C.’s northwest said Canada’s environmental assessment laws continue to measure money instead of impact.

One of the signatories is Deneza Na’Moks (John Ridsdale), a hereditary chief of the Wet’suwet’en. He travelled to the UN on the heels of the recent approval and then cancellation of Petronas’ plans to build a pipeline and the Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in the Skeena River estuary.

The project and its approval point squarely back to failures in Canada’s environmental assessment process and a lack of recognition of Indigenous nationhood, the committee heard.

“We asked [the Committee] to use any force that they can to get Canada to uphold support and use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),” Ridsdale told DeSmog Canada.

The project was approved, despite concerns from scientists about it being sited in critical juvenile salmon habitat and about the plant’s enormous greenhouse gas footprint (if built, the plant would have been the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada).

ICYMI: The 40-Year-Old Federal Salmon Study That Should Have Killed Pacific Northwest LNG

Petronas announced the cancellation of the project in late July, citing “market conditions.”

“The cancellation of one project because of poor gas prices does nothing to address the underlying legal issues that will plague any project that threatens the wild salmon,” said Kirby Muldoe, a member of the delegation of Tsimsian and Gitxsan descent.

Site C Dam Puts Canadian Government in Hot Seat

Much of the committee’s attention was paid to the issue of the controversial Site C dam under construction in northeast B.C.

The committee saw the issue of Site C as “emblematic of a deeply disturbing disrespect for the rights of Indigenous peoples,” Craig Benjamin from Amnesty International told DeSmog Canada. “The attention that the committee gave to Site C was in my mind unprecedented.”

Robyn Fuller, councillor for West Moberly First Nation, made an especially fiery presentation to the committee.

“We will no longer allow our people to be poisoned, starved, and pushed aside as if we do not matter,” she said. “We do not only fight for ourselves, we fight for our future generations to continue our way of life long after we have left this world.”

Benjamin said members of the committee spoke at “incredible lengths” on the rights violations associated with the project, including impacts on cultural heritage, failure to respect “free, prior and informed consent,” violations of Treaty 8 and barriers to accessing justice.

However, the delegation representing the Government of Canada — made up of civil servants from a variety of departments — didn’t include a single mention of Site C in their initial response.

When Government of Canada delegates were asked by the UN Committee about the omission, it was chalked up as an “oversight.”

Benjamin said that when they did provide a response, it was fundamentally wrong, contradicting what the Government of Canada’s lawyers told the courts.

“At what point does the Trudeau government have to admit that their movement on implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not match up with their actions?” Candace Batycki, program director at Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, told DeSmog Canada.

Canada in Hot Seat for Resource Policies at #UN Racial Discrimination Hearing https://t.co/XioUOuvVRQ #cdnpoli #LNG #SiteC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 16, 2017

Environmental Process Marred By Failure to Seriously Involve Indigenous Peoples

What Pacific NorthWest LNG and the Site C dam have in common is that they both come to a head with the environmental assessment process.

It’s really why presenters identified Article 2 of the United Nations Committee on Ending Racial Discrimination as a key leverage point. It reads:

“Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists.”

Currently, the environmental assessment process for resource extraction projects in Canada effectively presupposes Indigenous consent, insofar as consent is understood as the legal “duty to consult.”

That’s vastly different from the expectation of “free, prior and informed consent” as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

An April 2017 report written by a federally appointed panel on modernizing Canada’s environmental assessment process recommended a series of changes, including moving to “reflect the principles of UNDRIP within [impact assessment] legislation, processes and procedures,” providing Indigenous peoples the “right to say no” if “exercised reasonably” and creating long-term funding to help with specifically including Indigenous peoples.

Those recommendations have yet to be implemented by the federal government.

ICYMI: Canada On Precipice of ‘Huge Step Forward’ For Environmental Assessments

A joint statement signed by 11 organizations including the Assembly of First Nations, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Amnesty International Canada explicitly recommended the UN Committee “urge Canada to ensure that the right of free, prior and informed consent is upheld in all decisions pertaining to resource development and to reform pertinent legislation accordingly.”

“It’s crystal clear that there’s a problem with the implementation of UNDRIP and the way that the federal government talks about its relationship with First Nations and how they actually act,” said Galen Armstrong of Sierra Club BC.

UN Committee Report Expected Soon

The committee’s formal report is expected in late August.

Batycki said she hopes Site C will figured prominently in the report, especially given how well the testimony was received.

But as Ridsdale noted, for a fundamental change to come about “industry has to stop leading the government.”

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and recognition of Article 2 of the Committee on Ending Racial Discrimination would likely require an overhaul of the relationship between Indigenous nations and the Canadian government.

At the very least, the UN committee recognized that there are fundamental problems in the way that Canada approaches resource development projects.

The next clear step for the federal government is following the recommendations of its own expert panel and modernizing the environmental assessment process to recognize Indigenous nationhood.

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.

Malaysia’s Petronas has cancelled plans to build the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert, B.C., in a move seen as a major setback for B.C.’s LNG dreams and as a major win for those concerned about climate change and salmon habitat.

The project would have involved increased natural gas production in B.C.’s Montney Basin, a new 900-kilometre pipeline and the export terminal itself.

Here’s what you need to know about Tuesday’s announcement.

1) Why did Petronas decide to cancel the project?

In a press statement about the investment decision, Petronas cited “changes in market conditions.”

“We are disappointed that the extremely challenging environment brought about by the prolonged depressed prices and shifts in the energy industry have led us to this decision,” said Anuar Taib, chairman of the Pacific NorthWest LNG board.

Just a few years ago, B.C. was banking its future on the fate of about 20 proposed LNG facilities — based on the idea that our natural gas would be super-cooled into liquid and exported by ship to lucrative Asian markets. But it’s widely acknowledged that B.C. came late to the party, with the U.S. and Australia beating Canada to the punch.

The B.C. projects were predicated on exporting low-cost gas to Asia where prices were as much as five times higher than in North America in 2013. But by 2016, prices had plunged and have shown little sign of increasing.

Former premier Christy Clark had promised three LNG plants by 2020, 100,000 jobs in the LNG industry and a $100 billion Prosperity Fund. As it stands, it looks like only one small plant, Woodfibre LNG in Squamish, may go ahead.

The B.C. NDP, now in power, has opposed the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal but supports the LNG industry generally speaking, provided it meets certain conditions.

2) Why is exporting liquefied natural gas bad for the environment?

The key concerns about Pacific NorthWest LNG have been salmon and climate change.

On the salmon front, the project was sited in a location the federal government had studied decades ago and found to be unsuitable for industrial development due to its importance to juvenile salmon.

“Out of all the places that you could imagine in the area, it is the worst possible place in terms of risks to fish,” Jonathan Moore, Liber Ero chair of Coastal Science and Management at Simon Fraser University, told DeSmog Canada last year.

About 300 million juvenile salmon rear in the Skeena estuary every year at the critical moment when they graduate from fresh to salt water. The Skeena salmon run is worth more than $110 million annually.

On the climate change front, the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant would have been the single largest source of emissions in the country, emitting as much carbon dioxide equivalent as 1.9 million cars? How on earth would it have been that belchy?

Well, turning natural gas into a liquid is a hugely energy intensive process that consumes the equivalent of about 20 per cent of the gas along the way. To turn gas into a liquid it must be cooled to -160°C, which involves running giant compressor stations 24/7. That reduces the volume of the gas by more than 600 times. It then gets “regasified” (that’s really a word in the LNG world) on the other end.

Pacific NorthWest LNG was going to use natural gas to power that whole crazy process, making it a particularly egregious polluter. If built, Pacific Northwest would have accounted for between 75 and 80 per cent of total allowable emissions under B.C.’s 2050 climate target.

Despite all this pesky science, it has been a favourite BC Liberal talking point that exporting LNG will reduce emissions in other parts of the world — an argument that has been thoroughly debunked.

3) What does this all have to do with the Site C hydro dam?

Nothing. And everything.

Let us explain. It was the subject of much debate, but Pacific NorthWest LNG ultimately was going to rely on its own gas, not electricity, to run its compressors, so it wasn’t going to be a huge electricity consumer.

But at least three new transmission lines have been built in B.C.’s northeast to service the natural gas industry.

“In the name of making ‘dirty’ natural gas companies marginally less so, BC Hydro at the behest of the provincial government is aggressively pursuing a policy of providing ‘clean’ hydroelectricity to the gas industry so that its greenhouse gas emissions are lowered here in B.C.,” wrote Ben Parfitt of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives last year.

“It is this policy that provides the only credible explanation for why the Crown corporation is rushing to build the controversial dam at this time.”

Which is all to say: the entire narrative around the need for the Site C dam has relied heavily on the development of B.C.’s natural gas industry. Now the future for an LNG industry in B.C. looks bleaker than ever, it further calls into question the demand for the $8.8 billion publicly funded dam.

4) What does this announcement mean for B.C.’s natural gas industry?

That’s unclear right now, but the Petronas press release stated that the company and its North Montney Joint Venture partners “remain committed to developing their significant natural gas assets in Canada and will continue to explore all options as part of its long-term investment strategy moving forward.”

But how without a West Coast export facility? Well, TransCanada announced in June that the company would spend $2 billion to expand its NOVA Gas (NGTL) system to connect northern B.C. and Alberta natural gas producers to “premium intra-basin and export markets.”

That’s code for: our gas is going to go east, not west.

The North Montney Joint Venture is operated by Progress Energy Canada Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Petronas) — the company responsible for building at least 16 unauthorized dams in northern B.C. to trap hundreds of millions of gallons of water used in its controversial fracking operations.

Other partners in the joint venture? Japan Petroleum Export Corporation (JAPEX), PetroleumBRUNEI, IndianOil Corporation (IOC) and Sinopec-China Huadian.

Their goal? To develop the resources in the North Montney formation located along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in northeast British Columbia.

They own approximately 800,000 acres mineral rights in the North Montney with more than 52 trillion cubic feet of reserves and contingent resources, and more than 15,000 identified drilling locations. This is all “unconventional” gas, which means it’ll be accessed via fracking.

5) Wasn’t the project already approved?

Pacific NorthWest LNG was approved by the federal government in a controversial decision last September.

The company — wholly owned by the Malaysian government and boasting a questionable human rights record — had lobbied the federal government 22 times between February 1 and April 21, 2016, including meetings with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and her chief of staff Marlo Raynolds.

It recently came to light in court documents that the feds hadn’t even considered the cumulative climate impacts of the project while approving it and had actively decided not to impose conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution.

The approval was condemned by environmentalists as a licence for Canada to break its climate commitments. It was also broadly regarded as a horse trade, wherein the provincial government got the approval it wanted in return for the federal government getting the approval it wanted (B.C.’s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline — which the new NDP government says it will fight with “every tool available.”).

Pacific Northwest LNG donated more than $18,000 to the BC Liberals between 2014 and 2017, while negotiating a reduced tax rate and reduced hydro fees.

Indigenous nations had wrestled with internal divisions over whether or not to support the project, but Lax Kw’alaams had rejected a $1 billion pay-off from Petronas. In Gitxsan territory, the Madii Lii protest camp had strategically blocked the path of the proposed pipeline, the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline

The pipeline had received provincial approval, but hit a roadblock last week when a federal court ruled the National Energy Board had made a legal mistake in not considering whether the pipeline was under federal jurisdiction since it was explicitly for an export project.

— With files from Christopher Pollon and James Wilt

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.

A subsidiary of Petronas, the Malaysian state-owned petro giant courted by the B.C. government, has built at least 16 unauthorized dams in northern B.C. to trap hundreds of millions of gallons of water used in its controversial fracking operations.

The 16 dams are among “dozens” that have been built by Petronas and other companies without proper authorizations, a senior dam safety official with the provincial government told the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which began investigating the problem in late March after receiving a tip from someone with knowledge of how widespread the problem is.

Two of the dams built by Progress Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Petronas, are towering earthen structures that exceed the height of five-storey apartment buildings. Petronas has proposed building a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Prince Rupert, which if built would result in dramatic increases in fracking and industrial water use throughout northeast B.C.

The two dams are so large that they should have been subject to review by B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). Only if a review concluded that the projects could proceed would the EAO have issued a certificate, and only then could the company have moved on to get the necessary authorizations from other provincial agencies.

But nothing close to that happened because the company never submitted its plans to the EAO before the dams were built.

Now, five years after construction on the two dams began, the CCPA has learned that B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office has belatedly launched an investigation. Other agencies are also scrambling to figure out what to do as evidence emerges of extensive unauthorized dam-building on their watch.

Another 13 Progress Energy dams are being retroactively reviewed by the Oil and Gas Commission (OGC).

That’s because on December 23 of last year, the company applied simultaneously to the province for 13 water licences to impound water behind dams that it had already built.

The huge challenge now before the OGC, which has authority to grant water licences to Progress Energy and other natural gas companies operating in the region, is that under BC’s old Water Act as well as the new Water Sustainability Act, companies are not allowed to build dams that impound freshwater without first obtaining authorizations.

It now falls to the OGC well after the fact to decide whether the water licences will be granted. Because engineering plans for the dams were not submitted to provincial dam safety officials before the structures were built, the OGC must also retroactively determine whether the dams are structurally sound, and if they are not, whether they should be ordered shut down.

The latter is a distinct possibility. During its investigation the CCPA uncovered evidence that one of the dams built by Progress/Petronas showed signs of failure last year, which would have sent a wall of water and mud rushing toward a gas-processing plant not far downstream. The OGC subsequently ordered the company to dewater the dam.

Complicating matters considerably, the dams are located close to natural gas industry drilling and fracking sites. Fracking involves pumping immense amounts of water under extreme pressure belowground to “liberate” gas trapped in dense rock formations. Throughout northeast B.C., the intensity of that pressure-pumping has triggered numerous earthquakes, including a 4.6 magnitude tremor at a Progress/Petronas fracking operation in August 2015 that was felt 180 kilometres away.

That means in addition to assessing the general engineering integrity of dozens of unauthorized dams, the OGC must also consider how seismically sound they are as well.

A Dam Big Problem: #Fracking Companies Build Dozens of Unauthorized Dams in B.C.'s Northeast https://t.co/RO9FW9Oi4P #bcpoli #BCelxn17 pic.twitter.com/ofeVSt0z87

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 3, 2017

Progress/Petronas Dams Just The Beginning

Progress/Petronas is not alone. Details on many more unpermitted dams are expected to emerge in the coming months as other natural gas companies apply retroactively for water licences.

The full extent of the unauthorized dam building is not yet publicly known. But according to Jim Mattison, a former comptroller of water rights for the provincial government, the extensive network of energy industry dams and other water impoundment structures is vast. And, to date, largely unregulated.

During a phone interview on April 20, Mattison said there are “certainly more” than 100 large dams that have been built by or for energy companies operating in the region. At the end of the day, he says, additional fieldwork may reveal that there are “200 or more” such facilities.

Mattison has reached that conclusion after researching the problem under contract to B.C.’s Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO). The research includes analysis of satellite imagery and remote sensing data.

Mattison said that work shows that there are literally “thousands” of artificial water bodies across northeast B.C. The list includes everything from small dams and dugouts built by landowners to capture and divert water on private farmlands that is subsequently sold to fracking companies; borrow pits used to excavate earth for roadbeds and other oil and gas company infrastructure; and, at the top of the pyramid, massive earthen dams built on crown lands by Progress/Petronas and others.

This vast and dispersed network of water impoundment structures is likely to have extensive effects on everything from aquifers, to ecologically unique and sensitive muskeg systems, to water levels in fish-bearing streams and rivers, to beaver ponds and wetlands, and to fish, animal and plant communities of importance to numerous First Nations.

Problem Known – Public Not Notified

Records obtained by the CCPA indicate that the Oil and Gas Commission, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office are all aware of numerous unauthorized dams, and that they may contravene key provincial laws and regulations including the Water Sustainability Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and provincial dam safety regulations.

Even though some of the dams may pose significant environmental, public health and safety risks, the CCPA has found no documentation that a single provincial government agency or ministry has issued a press release or safety advisory about the problem. Nor has it found any evidence that the government has charged or fined any companies for the unauthorized dams that they’ve built.

Evidence that Progress Energy and other companies had built numerous unauthorized dams began to surface last spring, but without fanfare. In a rarely read quarterly report, the OGC published a 24-word “summary” of an order it had issued to Progress Energy.

The summary said:

“Remove excess water from storage structure, and submit engineering assessment and certification of structural integrity in accordance with the Dam Safety Regulation.”

It ended with two words: “Compliance ongoing.”

The offending dam’s location was vaguely listed as “Town.”

In mid-April the CCPA requested a copy of the full order from Graham Currie, the OGC’s director of corporate affairs. Currie was also asked to comment on Progress’s water licence applications and the EAO investigation. On April 21, he refused to provide any information, saying in an e-mail that the OGC had to “remain impartial as a government agency” during the writ period or interregnum. He recommended applying for a copy of the full order by submitting a formal Freedom of Information request, a process that typically takes months. Typically, government rules restrict the release of information during the election period, but the rules usually apply only to Cabinet documents.

In response to questions sent by e-mail, Progress Energy communications advisor, Eryn Rizzoli, acknowledged that the company had been ordered to de-water the dam.

“Progress Energy has complied with all conditions as detailed in Order 2016-003 49(1)(b). Dewatering of this facility was completed in May 2016. The facility is not in use at this time,” Rizzoli wrote.

 “Progress actively assesses and monitors the company’s entire water impoundment inventory,” Rizzoli added. “This includes conducting engineering and geotechnical assessments and submission to relevant government and regulatory agencies, where required.”

Contacted by phone on April 5, Scott Morgan, head of FLNRO’s Dam Safety Section, recounted learning more about the scope of unauthorized dam building by Progress and other companies during a conference call last summer. On the call were several OGC officials, one of whom said at one point: “By the way, we have a problem.”

As the call progressed, Morgan recounted hearing that there were “dozens” of dams that had been built without proper authorizations, including at least nine that were “over nine metres high.” Two of the larger dams were more than 15 metres high, which meant they should have been reviewed by the Environmental Assessment Office before being built.

Fracking Operations Drive Corporate Rush For Freshwater

Petronas and other companies drilling and fracking for natural gas in the Montney shale gas play in B.C.’s Peace River region now pressure-pump up to 160,000 cubic metres of water underground at individual gas wells.

The largest of the Progress/Petronas dams holds almost enough water to complete one major frack job, meaning it holds considerably more water than that which spilled from the Testalinden dam, a 10-metre high structure that failed near the community of Oliver in 2010, triggering a mudslide that destroyed five homes but miraculously took no lives.

In the event Petronas decides to invest in its proposed Prince Rupert LNG facility, it will need access to considerably more freshwater.

Collectively, the 13 water licence applications filed by Progress Energy on December 23 amount to a significant water grab, an attempt to corral up to 683,000 cubic metres of freshwater for use in the company’s fracking operations.

Only the most basic information on the applications is publicly available. But what is clear is that Progress/Petronas intends to store stream water at each location. In many cases, the water source is unnamed. But in other cases, streams are listed including Caribou, Barker, Apsassin and Grewatch creeks. The database records say nothing to indicate that in all 13 cases, Progress Energy was applying for permission to store water behind dams that it had already built.

Field Visit Confirms: Dam First, Water Application Second

The information is contained in a searchable database maintained by FLNRO’s Water Allocation Section. The Ministry retains powers to issue water licences to all applicants except fossil fuel companies, which apply to the OGC for such authorizations. B.C.’s oil and gas industry is the only entity in the province that has its own dedicated regulator when it comes to water authorizations.

The CCPA asked the Water Allocation Section for the precise geographical coordinates for Progress Energy’s new water licence applications. The coordinates were then used to locate one of the sites, about a half-hour helicopter’s journey to the northwest of Charlie Lake, near Fort St. John.

Eventually, after flying over brown stubbly hayfields, ranging cattle and remote farms, dusty grey aspen forests, dark spruce trees and myriad natural gas company operations, a distinct rectangular structure with large earthen berms was spotted in the distance.

An unauthorized Progress Energy dam where millions of gallons of freshwater was found impounded in early April. It is among “dozens" of unpermitted dams spread across northern B.C. Photo © Garth Lenz, all rights reserved.

Closing in on the site, it was clear that massive amounts of earth had been excavated to make walls that topped out at about nine metres in height. The sloped walls or berms had trapped an enormous amount of freshwater that was coated in a thin sheet of ice on a cool mid-April afternoon. Water could be seen trickling into the reservoir along a dark brown muddy industrial road down which a large yellow excavator was making its way.

The dam had been strategically built to create a new reservoir that would capture freshwater flowing downhill. Clearly as far as Progress Energy’s “application” for Water Licence 9000226 was concerned, the dam was already built and the water already impounded.

According to the scant information available on the government’s website on water licence applications, the dam at the site is capable of supplying 135,475 cubic metres of freshwater. It is the single-largest application for water storage of the 13 Progress Energy has retroactively applied to have approved.

Following the field visit, Progress confirmed in an e-mail to the CCPA that there are “existing fresh water storage structures” at the 13 locations and that last year’s passage of the new Water Sustainability Act “necessitated” that the company now apply for water licences at those locations.

Progress did not elaborate on why it felt that under the old Water Act it was unnecessary for the company to apply to the government before building its dams.

First Nations Consultation?

Almost all of B.C.’s natural gas deposits are located in the northeast of the province, where local First Nations are signatories to the historic Treaty 8. Signatories to the treaty include the Blueberry River First Nation. The Nation is currently before the courts in a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit in which it is seeking compensation for the “cumulative” environmental damages to its traditional lands and waters from a host of industrial developments including natural gas drilling and fracking operations, hydroelectric dams, mines and logging activities.

Given that so many dams were built without proper oversight, First Nations including Blueberry River are unlikely to have been properly notified or consulted about what the companies intended to do on their traditional lands. For example, had proper protocols been followed, water licence applications would have been turned over to First Nations for review and consultation well in advance of such licences being granted, let alone dams being built.

Conflicting Accounts

During a short telephone conversation in early April, EAO project assessment manager Teresa Morris confirmed the two massive Progress Energy dams are being investigated, that Progress is aware that the unauthorized dams are under scrutiny, and that the company had indicated to the EAO that it would apply to have the projects “exempt” from the EAO process.

At present, there is nothing publicly available on the EAO website indicating that the unpermitted dams are being looked into by the agency.

Morris said the Progress dams would be listed on an EAO registry of projects if and when Progress Energy applies to have them retroactively exempted from EAO review.

Asked if the EAO had received such an exemption request, Morris said in early April and reconfirmed on April 18: “No we have not. When we do, a public webpage will be established.” She referred all further questions to David Karn, a senior communications officer in government communications and public engagement with the Ministry of Environment. Contacted on April 28, Karn said that the interregnum period prevented him from commenting.

A listing by the EAO would be the first indication that a provincial environmental agency was reviewing dams built by one of the biggest LNG proponents in the province.

According to Progress Energy, however, the company has already filed its exemption applications. In response to questions from the CCPA, Progress Energy’s Eryn Rizzoli wrote:

“The British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office is reviewing two project descriptions submitted by Progress in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act and Reviewable Projects Regulation.

 “Progress Energy has requested an exemption from the full review process for two existing fresh water storage structures that have been in service for several years without any incident or failure.”

The CCPA has yet to receive a response from the province explaining why the EAO’s office is saying one thing and Progress is saying another.

OGC to Decide Safety of Gas Industry Dams

Until recently, responsibility for the safety of all dams in the province, including any built by fracking companies, rested with dam safety officials in FLNRO. Proper procedure required the companies to first apply to the OGC for a water licence, and then for dam-design and building plans to be submitted to FLNRO for review and approval.

But that has recently changed. Last year, former provincial water comptroller, Glen Davidson, granted an OGC request for one of its staff to be designated a dam safety officer.

The only two dams that may fall outside the OGC’s purview are the two massive structures currently under investigation by the EAO.

Three years ago, Davidson appeared before the Joint Review Panel, which had been convened to review the Site C hydroelectric project. During his presentation, Davidson noted that all dams “are inherently dangerous structures” but that risks “can be minimized and managed.”

“I think surprisingly to most folks, on average, we get about one dam failure a year in B.C., but most of these are very, very low consequence and they probably don't even make the papers, so most people are not aware of them,” Davidson said.

One tool to minimize risks that higher consequence dams could fail, Davidson said, is for dam safety officials to review engineering specifications on dams before they are built. Davidson noted that provincial dam safety officials have internal capacity to do that, but that there is also precedent when dam safety officials feel it is warranted to hire independent engineers to do more rigorous assessments.

Davidson noted that when his office had to deal with many independent power producers and their plans to build run-of-river dams, the office hired “an independent engineer that reported to the Province. And we asked that independent engineer to review the designs, the design drawings and give the Province advice on subsequent approvals.”

The precedent is there, then, for the OGC to insist that independent engineers be brought in to advise on the quality and the safety of the dozens of dams built by Progress/Petronas and others.

Implications

As investigations continue on at least three fronts, provincial government officials must now decide just how many companies may have broken rules and what the consequences of breaking those rules should be, but also how government regulation of the industry could have broken down as badly as it did. 

Under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act, a company breaks the law when it builds anything that is a “reviewable project” under the Act, without first obtaining permits to do so. A first offence can trigger a $100,000 fine. All subsequent offences can trigger fines of up to $200,000.

Penalties for companies found guilty of “general offences” of the provincial Water Sustainability Act can be far more severe. If a company “without lawful authority . . . diverts water from a stream or aquifer” or if it “constructs, maintains, operates or uses works” that have not been authorized, it can be fined up to $200,000 and personnel can be jailed for up to six months. If the company is found guilty of an “ongoing offence” the penalty may be a $200,000 fine per day.

The consequences for “high penalty offences” under the act are even more severe. If a company “constructs, places, maintains or makes use of an obstruction in the channel of a stream without authority to do so”, the penalty can be up to a $1 million fine and one-year prison sentence. The fine for a continuing high penalty offence can be as much as $1 million per day.

The province’s Dam Safety Regulation also itemizes numerous requirements for companies building dams to ensure their safe operation following construction, the violation of which can result in fines of up to $200,000 for general offences and up to $1 million for major offences.

“The problem here goes way beyond whether or not one company broke the law,” Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre says. “The problem is that vast swathes of the landscape – of entire ecosystems, of entire hydrological systems – are disrupted, likely permanently.”

“The province still doesn’t have a handle on the scope of the risks.  And they are making feeble attempts to deal with this region-wide disaster,” Sandborn added.

Knowledge that so many dams have been built across northeast B.C. raises many questions. In the coming weeks, the CCPA will strive to obtain answers to those questions.

 How widespread is the construction of unauthorized dams by energy companies?

Which companies are engaged in building unauthorized dams?

Where are these dams, and how large are they?

Which dams are now under retroactive review by the Environmental Assessment Office and/or Oil and Gas Commission?

Why have these reviews and investigations not been made more public? (Only following a tip by a person with inside knowledge did the CCPA begin this investigation and gain information needed to complete this report.)

Why do no fines or penalties appear to have been levied to date?

How many dams have been decommissioned and where are they?

Does it make sense for the OGC to both issue permits to oil and gas companies allowing them to drill and frack for natural gas and to be the public’s environmental and public health and safety watchdog as well?

Or has the time come to turn that important monitoring and enforcement role over to an arms length agency?

With at least dozens of unpermitted dams already built in the province’s northeast fracking fields, the time has come for answers to such questions and a whole host more.

Photo: ©Garth Lenz

Ben Parfitt is a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. This investigation was undertaken as part of the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP). The CMP is a six-year research and public engagement initiative jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ B.C. and Saskatchewan Offices, and the Alberta-based Parkland Institute. This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

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.

Gaps in basic knowledge about salmon in the estuary near Flora Bank call into question the review — and approval — of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal proposed for the mouth of the Skeena River, according to new research from fisheries biologist Jonathan Moore.

Data published Wednesday in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series shows salmon species don’t merely transit through the Skeena River estuary, as advanced by Pacific Northwest LNG in its environmental assessment, but can linger in the unique estuary environment for much longer periods of time than previously thought.

“The young salmon in the Flora Bank estuary are rearing from days to weeks and some individuals for months,” Moore told DeSmog Canada.

“In its environmental assessment Pacific Northwest LNG stated young salmon were moving through the estuary. Our data states that’s not true; the salmon are residing in the area.”

Moore said the new research, conducted by Simon Fraser University, Lax Kw’alaams Fisheries and the Skeena Fisheries Commission, calls into question some of the fundamental assumptions about the risks associated with building a major LNG export terminal on Lelu Island near Flora Bank.

Pacific Northwest LNG, a subsidiary of Malaysian gas giant Petronas, stated salmon species merely transited through the estuary, a rich intertidal zone home to rare eelgrass beds.

“That was the scientific foundation used to assess the risk to salmon populations in an area that is the base of a watershed the size of Switzerland,” Moore said.

Moore said far from being a simple point of passage, the area provides a critical point of transition to young salmon during their journey from river to sea.

“When young salmon are migrating from fresh water to ocean they have to go through this awkward transition.”

“It’s kind of like a puberty transition,” Moore laughed.

“To move from fresh water to salt water in the ocean can be very hard physiologically. They’re moving from breathing and living in fresh water to salt water.”

“They have to alter their systems so they don’t, basically, blow up in the ocean,” he said.

In monitoring wait times in the estuary, Moore and his fellow researchers found salmon were using the area as a waiting ground to reside, feed, grow and transition before continuing on their migratory route.

“This transition determines whether they do well out there or not,” he said.

“Their estuary period can be important for determining the trajectory of the population of salmon.”

Moore said there are some aspects of the salmon lifecycle that remain a mystery.

“There’s so much we don’t know.”

For example, previous research indicates young salmon move through estuaries very quickly.

“But everything we’ve found shows they’re not,” Moore said.

His research found 25 per cent of Chinook salmon spent at least 33 days in the estuary while Pink, Coho and Sockeye spent at least 30, 22 and five days respectively.

“The bottom line is [residency] depends on the estuary, on the species and on the population of salmon.”

Moore said in its assessment of the project, Pacific Northwest LNG concluded there would be no effects on fish.

“The concern is if you don’t properly assess the risks, you might come to the wrong conclusions,” Moore said.

The federal government’s approval of the LNG export terminal in September was met with significant criticism by the scientific and environmental community.

The scientific community asked the federal government to reject the project’s environmental assessment in March because of flawed science that represented an “insufficient base for a decision.”

Many project opponents have pointed out the review relied heavily on scientific information provided by the project proponent while excluding the research of peer-reviewed scientists.

Others have pointed to a federal study from the 1970s that found the mouth of the Skeena River was inappropriate for industrial development due to its importance for salmon species.

Last month a conservation group, SkeenaWild, launched a legal challenge against the project, saying the federal government based its approval on faulty and incomplete scientific information. Two additional legal challenges by First Nations have also been brought against the project on the basis of flawed consultation and respect of indigenous rights.

Moore said sound science is critical for the environmental assessment process.

“My scientific assessment is that there are major problems with the environmental assessment,” Moore said. “Pacific Northwest’s environmental assessment has a shaky scientific foundation and this is an example of where a claim was made without adequate information.”

“What that means is that the basis for the decision makers might not be based on reality, and might not be based on best scientific evidence.”

“More generally I think it speaks to the need to take a hard look at how Canada makes evidence-based decisions.”

An expert panel is currently conducting a review of the environmental assessment process to fulfill a promise made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to restore scientific integrity to the decision-making process around major industrial projects.

Image: Young salmon in the eelgrass of the Skeena River 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.

The federal government’s approval of the $36-billion Pacific Northwest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal proposed for Flora Bank near Prince Rupert, B.C. violates First Nations rights and was based on flawed information, according to three separate legal challenges filed Thursday at the Federal Court of Canada in Vancouver.

Representatives from the Gitwilgyoots and Gitanyow First Nations as well as SkeenaWild Conservation Trust filed court actions requesting judicial reviews of the project’s approval which granted majority Malaysian-owned Petronas permission to build an industrial export facility atop sensitive eelgrass beds at the mouth of the Skeena River in a region scientists have identified as a ‘salmon superhighway.’

“It’s important to bring this forward in a court of law so that a spotlight can be shone on not only the deficiencies in the law, but deficiencies in the way the law was applied here,” Chris Tollefson, legal counsel for SkeenaWild, told DeSmog Canada.

Tollefson said the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s assessment of the LNG project did not properly consider the impacts of the facility on fish and fish habitat.

Flora Banks provides a unique resting ground for millions of juvenile salmon transiting from the Skeena River, one of the largest salmon rivers in North America, to the Pacific Ocean.

In its project application Petronas proposed to compensate for destroyed salmon habitat by recreating similar habitat in another location.

Tollefson said such there is no certainty this offset plan will work.

“Where offsets are being relied upon in that kind of setting, there has to be a high level of confidence that they can replace what they are destroying. We say the evidence simply doesn’t meet that requirement.”

Tollefson said the agency designed conditions for Petronas should the offsets fail to adequately compensate for destroyed fish habitat.

“SkeenaWild says that is going be too late. Once we realize they didn’t work, it may be too late. There may be irreversible harm.”

“These stocks, their fate hangs in the balance.”

The project was approved subject to 190 conditions last month by cabinet. Catherine McKenna, minister of environment and climate change, told Postmedia the federal government stands "behind the science in this decision.” 

“If legal action is taken we’ll certainly consider what next steps need to be taken," she said.

Gitwilgyoots Chief Yahann, also known as Donnie Wesley, said Ottawa’s approval of the LNG plant gave him no alternative to legal action.

“Once again, we are forced to ask courts to do what our politicians seem unable to do — to honour Canada’s obligations to its Indigenous communities, and to protect our environment from catastrophic harm,” he said.

The Pacific Northwest LNG project approval disappointed many environmental and Indigenous rights advocates who hoped Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s promise to restore nation-to-nation relations with Canada’s Indigenous peoples as well as evidence-based decision making would prevent a industrial project of this nature from going forward.

“Despite repeated requests, the federal government has failed to properly consult with our people,” Chief Malii, Chief Negotiator for the Gitanyow said. “Justin Trudeau promised a new relationship with Indigenous communities. Instead, he added insult to injury by ignoring us, and giving the green light to a project that will destroy our way of life,” Malii, also known as Glen Williams, said.

Chief Yahann pointed to a recent federal court decision that found the federal government failed to adequately consult with First Nations in regards to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.

“As with Enbridge, and despite repeated requests that they consult with us, Petronas and the federal government failed in their duty to listen to the ancestral owners of Lelu Island,” Yahaan said. “We have never been opposed to development. But we have always opposed industrial development on top of the most important salmon habitat we have on our coast.”

Federal Government Hit With Multiple Legal Challenges Against Pacific Northwest LNG Project https://t.co/53FS4uBq1D #PNWLNG #cdnpoli #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 27, 2016

In addition to causing irreparable harm to unique salmon habitat, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency acknowledged the LNG terminal will be one of Canada’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

“It will be one of the very largest single point source emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the country if it goes ahead for the forseeable future, potentially for as long as 30 years, which is the life of the project,” Tollefson said.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency did not conduct a cumulative assessment of those emissions in light of Canada’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.

That larger, cumulative picture was never presented to cabinet, Tollefson said.

“We say that cabinet couldn’t therefore properly conclude that this project was justified under the circumstances,” Tollefson said.

“The outcome of this case will speak volumes about how our environmental laws respond to scientific uncertainty and the spectre of irreversible harm — and, more directly, how much our laws value one of the world’s most magnificent and abundant remaining salmon watersheds, and the livelihoods of the people who depend on it. “ 

Image: Federal ministers and Premier Christy Clark annouce the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal in September. Photo: B.C. Government via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

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.

Christy Clark doesn’t like Victoria. At least, she said as much in an interview with the National Post: “I try never to go over there. Because it’s sick. It’s a sick culture. All they can think about is government…”

Maybe that’s why Clark pulled the plug on this fall’s legislative session. As a bonus, that means her political opponents won’t get the opportunity to ask her any questions … well, not in the legislature at least.

Unfortunately for the powers that be, we rang up a few folks. Here are their top five questions for Clark.

1) What the @#$& is B.C. actually doing on climate change?

“We can start with what’s in the news right now: the national carbon pricing issue,” says Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

“What is B.C.’s climate plan? We can’t discuss it.”

Weaver said the BC Liberals have used climate leadership as a political slogan but have utterly failed to implement meaningful climate action.

Any success held by this government on the climate file is due to “riding the coattails of the former government under Gordon Campbell,” he said.

The B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer is investigating B.C.’s record on climate leadership but recently said she will not release her findings until after the provincial election.

“We don’t have a climate plan and we can’t challenge government on that in the house,” Weaver said.

George Heyman, NDP MLA for Vancouver-Fairview and opposition critic for environment, green economy and technology, said Clark ignored the recommendations of her own climate leadership team.

“Christy Clark ignored their recommendations after asking them to show us a path forward for climate action,” he said.

“What the premier ended up releasing was a climate procrastination plan.”

2) LNG Industry. What LNG Industry?

Although Petronas’ Pacific Northwest LNG project got federal approval last week, many onlookers think it’s unlikely to go ahead due to market conditions.

“I’ve been saying for four years now that an LNG industry in B.C. is nothing but a pipe dream,” Weaver said.

“And here we have the last potential sitting before election campaign season and we cannot challenge government as to what their backup plan is. The B.C. government needs to be challenged on the utter failure of LNG.”

3) What’s the Province’s Stance on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline?

“All the rumors we’ve heard from Ottawa are that Trudeau is getting ready to approve this massive oil pipeline and tanker project before Christmas,” said Kai Nagata, communications director for Dogwood, a B.C. democracy group.

“So there are going to be massive conversations with the provincial government happening right now about what it’s going to take to get Christy Clark on board.”

“We deserve clarity and we’re not going to get it without ministers answering for it in the legislature.”

The province of B.C. officially opposed Trans Mountain in its final filing to the National Energy Board, but indicated it could approve the project if its five conditions are met.

Weaver said when it comes to major projects “we don’t see the Premier standing up for British Columbians in this province.”

“For Kinder Morgan, the B.C. government put in its politically populist five conditions, but they are utterly meaningless when you consider the horse-trading going on,” he said. “They are more concerned about political tradeoffs than anything else.”  

Top 5 Q's @ChristyClarkBC is Dodging by Cancelling the Fall Sitting https://t.co/7LKV5GGrcX #bcpoli #BCLNG #SiteC #KinderMorgan #BanBigMoney

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 6, 2016

4) What the Heck is Happening with the Site C Dam?

As the fall hits, construction of the contentious Site C dam is in full force in the Peace River valley. Families and farmers facing expropriation of their land are counting the days they have left on their properties.

“The Site C dam is a waste of money on every account,” Heyman said, adding if he were in the legislature he would ask the BC Liberals what they’re doing to promote the green tech sector.

Christy Clark’s emphasis on the Site C dam project has led to alternative energy developers — like the Canadian Wind Energy Association — to leave the province for better prospects elsewhere.

“We would ask them why they are supporting the Site C dam without any [B.C. Utilities Commission] review when it’s going to drive up prices for ratepayers,” Heyman said.

“We would also ask them why they won’t allow B.C.’s innovative people in the clean tech sector to take advantage of the opportunities presented by a carbon tax to grow B.C.’s green economy.”

5) When Will B.C. Ban Corporate Donations?

The issue of major fossil fuel infrastructure projects intersects with another political juggernaut that’s come to a head under the Christy Clark government’s leadership: the affordable housing crisis.

“The overarching issue that ties into both the housing crisis and massive fossil fuel infrastructure is corporate donations,” Nagata said.

The BC Liberals have come under fire for accepting generous donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, often from outside the country. This practice persists in B.C. — called the wild west of campaign finance — despite being banned in all other major provinces in Canada. Clark conveniently delayed implementing election-spending limits (that’s right, there are none in B.C.) until after 2018.

The BC Green Party recently announced it will no longer accept any corporate or union donations. Heyman said the NDP has promised to ban corporate and union donations if the party takes power.

Since 2005 the BC Liberals have accepted $70.2 million from corporate donors, according to data from Elections B.C.

“That absolutely affects their choices on a range of issues,” Nagata said. “And now they won’t be held accountable for that.”

The BC Liberals have come under increased scrutiny for allowing a controversial grizzly bear trophy hunt to continue in B.C., despite overwhelming opposition from the majority of British Columbians, First Nations and conservation groups. As Dogwood has pointed out, the Guide Outfitters Association is a major donor to the party.

“Christy Clark was right when she said there’s a sick culture in the political beltway of Victoria,” Nagata said. “It was one that her party played a large role in creating by allowing big money donors and friends of her party to dictate policy on everything from wildlife issues to major infrastructure projects to the housing market.”

The absence of a fall sitting creates a vacuum, Nagata said.

“That’s a dangerous long-term trend for democracy and a sad way to head in to the next election.”

Image: Christy Clark, one time when she was in Victoria. Photo: Christy Clark via Flickr

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.

Canadians could be forgiven for being a bit confused about how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is doing on climate change these days.

Last week he approved one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the country — the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal in B.C.

The week before that his government announced it would stick with Harper-era emissions targets.

Now Trudeau has announced the creation of a pan-Canadian carbon-pricing framework, which means our country will have a carbon tax nation-wide for the first time ever.

So are we hurtling toward overshooting our climate targets or are we finally getting on track?

Let’s look first at the carbon price announcement.

The carbon price will begin at $10 in 2018 and will scale up $10 per year until 2022.

The announcement “sends a clear signal that we’re all in this together and that we need a federal approach to regulate carbon pollution,” said Amin Asadollahi, lead for climate change mitigation at the International Institute of Sustainable Development.

The timing seems right as well, with a new Nanos poll showing 77 per cent of Canadians support or somewhat support Canada pursuing a national plan to meet international climate commitments. Additionally, 62 per cent of Canadians support or somewhat support a national carbon price.

Under the new framework, provinces will have the autonomy to choose a carbon pricing mechanism that works for them, whether carbon tax or cap and trade, and all revenues generated in province will stay in province.

Having a pan-Canadian framework for pricing carbon creates incentive for businesses, Assadollahi said, and “harmonizes the approach rather than having patchwork policies across the country.”

However, critics have already come out against the price as too weak to be useful.

“I was very disappointed we were starting with $10 per tonne,” said Elizabeth May, leader of the federal Green Party, “which is so low under British Columbia’s carbon tax of $30 per tonne. It was an obvious political calculation.”

And bringing the provinces together may be harder than Trudeau bargained for.

Already Premier Rachel Notley has announced Alberta will only support the plan in exchange for pipeline access to tidewater. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who has been a vocal opponent of carbon pricing for years, used the announcement to reiterate his position, saying the announcement wasn’t worth the carbon emissions it took to fly environment ministers to Ottawa.

May told DeSmog Canada the “recalcitrance of the provinces is very disconcerting.”

May said the environment ministers of Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, who were visiting a meeting of the ministers this morning, made a statement by walking out in response to Trudeau’s carbon price announcement.

“Ministers of provinces storming out of meetings is just childish,” May said, especially given the flexibility of the carbon price plan to suit individual provinces and territories.

Canada’s New Carbon Price: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly #carbontax #cdnpoli #climate https://t.co/g9nBo5m8d2

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 4, 2016

Matt Horne, senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, said the Prime Minister made a smart political move in considering differences among provinces in the plan.

“The feds were wise not to be too prescriptive here,” Horne told DeSmog Canada.

“The decision they made on the flexibility of the mechanism and revenue generated is interesting,” Horne said. “You have got to achieve this level of ambition but how you do it and how you use the revenue is up to you.”

“That gives maximum space to someone like Brad Wall to make this work in Saskatchewan.”

Province by province regulations will be necessary to meaningfully reduce emissions where they start.

A recent report by Mark Jaccard, climate policy analyst and professor at Simon Fraser University, found a carbon tax of $200 per tonne would be necessary to catalyze significant climate action and a transition to renewable energy systems.

Jaccard said an overreliance on carbon pricing can mask a suite of alternative options like sector-by-sector performance standards, renewable portfolio standards, mandatory market shares and zero-emission vehicles.

“Ninety per cent of the reductions in the last eight or nine years…in California are occurring because of the flexible regs, not because of that very low floor price in their cap-and-trade,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada in a recent interview.

Whether or not this federal government will be a strong actor on climate change remains to be determined.

For Kai Nagata, communications director at the Dogwood Institute, Trudeau’s carbon price announcement should be viewed within the context of last week’s approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal.

“If you set a weak carbon pricing target, that means to hit your pollution reductions targets you have to reduce actual carbon infrastructure. Are we doing that? Not at all, in fact, quite the opposite.”

“This is the dilemma,” Nagata said, “no one believes carbon pricing alone, through whatever form, is going to reduce pollution enough to get at base pollution levels.”

“The only thing that would really take a bite out of Canada’s carbon pie is to stop adding fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Nagata added if Trudeau fails to put pressure on the energy sector to reduce emissions, that pressure will be placed on other less-polluting sectors and individual citizens.

“It’s fundamentally unfair and it will have the effect, if they continue to approve extraction and production, of subsidizing the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the ordinary citizen.”

Alex Doukas, senior campaigner at Oil Change International, also pointed to the issue of subsidies.

“Setting a strong national carbon price is potentially a very important step forward for Canadian climate action,” Doukas said. “But there’s a multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room: Canada still gives $3.3 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies each year.”

Doukas said the Trudeau government needs to complement its carbon price with an “ambitious timeline for phasing out all of its fossil fuel subsidies.”

“Otherwise, the Trudeau government’s incentives to polluters risks cancelling out the newly announced carbon price.”

So while some Canadians are celebrating the announcement of a national carbon tax as a victory, it will remain pyrrhic until Trudeau implements the types of regulation that will actually bring significant emissions reductions and starts to make the tough calls on building new fossil fuel infrastructure. Until then, we’re going to hold the applause.

Update: October 4, 2016. The provincial environment ministers walked out of a meeting of ministers in Montreal, not out of the House of Commons as was previously stated. Kai Nagata’s title has been updated from energy and democracy director to communications director. 

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.

The Trudeau government’s rushed approval of the Petronas-led Pacific Northwest LNG project Tuesday — during sunset at a gated Coast Guard station near the Vancouver airport — struck some opposition MPs, and the Vancouver press corp, as oddly rushed.  

Now comes word, in a bombshell Reuters news report Friday morning, that Petronas may be looking to sell the Pacific Northwest LNG project, according to "three people familiar with the matter.” The B.C. government tried to throw water on the speculation Friday afternoon, saying it sought assurances from Petronas and that the proponent doesn't have plans to sell the LNG project.

However, the revelations have led some to speculate the Trudeau government knew about Petronas’ plans to sell and raced out west in a hurried attempt to save the project from collapse. Others have questioned if the provincial and federal governments knowingly approved a project destined for failure, and if so, why?

“It’s incredibly cynical if Trudeau’s government had advance knowledge this wasn’t going ahead,” Nathan Cullen, NDP MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, told DeSmog Canada.

Hasty LNG Approval Signaled Trouble

The timing of the announcement was peculiar since Trudeau’s ministers were in a cabinet meeting earlier that morning in Ottawa. One of them, Fisheries Minister Romeo LeBlanc, was scheduled to meet in Ottawa with five B.C. hereditary chiefs opposed to the LNG project.  

But that meeting was abruptly cancelled, and ministers Catherine McKenna, Jim Carr and LeBlanc jetted across the country to the airport-area press briefing, where they announced their approval of the controversial LNG project.

Cullen said the timing of the Trudeau government’s announcement was highly suspicious.

“I’ve been trying to understand why they announced the way they did,” he said. “It was disorganized, it was panicked and they had already flown out hereditary chiefs to Ottawa. This was a huge announcement, a big deal for Trudeau. Why the panic?”

“I think because Petronas was about to say, ‘we’re thinking of selling.’ They wanted to milk one last good news story out of it before reality hit and people realized Christy Clark’s [LNG] fantasy was nothing more than an attempt to get reelected.”

Canada’s climate change minister Catherine McKenna stands beside B.C. Premier Christy Clark during the Trudeau government’s announcement approving the Petronas-led Pacific Northwest LNG plant on Tuesday evening near the Vancouver airport. Photo: Mychaylo Prystupa.

When asked to confirm the news of Petronas’ intentions, Caitlin Workman, McKenna’s media officer, provided this statement via e-mail: “As far as I have seen there are only speculation and unnamed sources out there on that matter. The project was approved by the government based on a lengthy and thorough process that took about three years from beginning to end.” A media inquiry to Petronas, via its Pacific Northwest LNG office, was not responded to Friday afternoon.

Shannon McPhail, executive director of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, told DeSmog Canada the news reveals a dizzying level of political posturing on behalf of both the province and the federal government.

“Clearly they knew this was going to happen. What other reason was there for their hasty press conference in Vancouver?” McPhail told DeSmog Canada. “They didn’t plan that. They had meetings scheduled with hereditary chiefs in Ottawa. That was a last-minute, hasty decision.”

While McPhail said she was frustrated by the federal government’s decision to approve the project earlier this week, the news of Petronas’ potential exit from the B.C. LNG market puts it all into perspective.

As for B.C. Premier Christy Clark, McPhail sees it cutting two ways.

“Did the feds play her?” McPhail mused. “At the press conference Christy Clark couldn’t get that smile off her face — she looked like the cat that had caught the canary.”

“Then I started thinking — she didn’t know. They used her has a pawn to get what they wanted: a carbon tax across Canada.”

Did Christy Clark ‘Get Played’ or is She a Player?

Earlier this week Clark reversed a long-standing election promise that her government would not increase the provincial carbon tax. This was the result of an explicit political condition placed on federal approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG project.  

Clark sure as heck wanted this Pacific Northwest LNG approved. She set ambitious LNG targets for herself, promising to have three LNG facilities up and running by 2020 and committing much of her cabinet to LNG project approvals.

So far, none of the other already approved LNG projects — Squamish's small-scale Woodfibre LNG plant, and the two giant Kitimat LNG projects by Shell and Chevron — have moved ahead with final investment decisions.

But that doesn’t mean Clark wasn’t willing to leverage the federal approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG project for some political advantage.  

It’s entirely possible Clark’s cheshire grin at Tuesday’s rushed press conference was due to the fact that she could say “we did everything we could,” McPhail said.

“Maybe the cat that ate the canary face was just for show to demonstrate to media, ‘hey look I was right all along, we’re the jobs people and look how hard we worked.’ ”

But the approval of the Pacific Northwest project may just be setting the stage for the main B.C. event: the federal approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

That’s what it comes down to for Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

“We suspect that in part the tradeoff between the federal government and the Clark government here in B.C. is that the premier agreed to sign on to the federal carbon tax proposal,” Phillip told DeSmog Canada.

“Furthermore we believe in exchange the federal government has agreed to complete the hat trick of betrayal of the promises and commitments made to the First Nations people during the course of the last federal election will be the approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposal.”

The Vancouver Sun’s Editorial Board has yet another take on the connection between the LNG approval and the pending pipeline decision, stating that Trudeau’s LNG approval will win “applause from resource sector” while giving the Prime Minister the credibility to impose the moratorium on oil tankers on the northern coast, thereby killing Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and “winning the admiration of the environmental movement.”

“Having earned his green spurs, he can [then] approve the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain” pipeline….having deftly played both sides of the street.”

The federal government is expected to make a final decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline by December.

For Project Opponents, Approval Still Represents Betrayal

Phillip is among many of the project’s opponents that consider the federal government’s approval of the project — even if a political charade — a deep betrayal.

“Let me begin by saying that to see the deception inherent in the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG project proposal flies in the face of any notion of genuine reconciliation between the government of Canada or the province of B.C. and First Nations.”

Lax Kw'alaams woman Christine Smith-Martin crashed the Trudeau government’s Tuesday night Petronas LNG decision announcement in protest while holding a jar of salmon.  Photo: Mychaylo Prystupa.

“Clearly there has been a great deal of backroom dealing going on.”

Cullen, who spent Friday in Haida Gwaii for the royal visit, said many people in Northern B.C. are furious.

“Trudeau wasn’t invited here, the Premier wasn’t invited here for a reason. People are feeling very betrayed right now,” he said, adding Prince William and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, were canoed by members of the Haida nation wearing “no LNG” t-shirts.

“Haida elders expressed their real sadness and anger,” he said.

David Moscrop, a political scientist and PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia, said that kind of betrayal comes with high political costs.

“You don’t get to shake the betrayal because the approval didn’t work out — the betrayal sticks to you,” he told DeSmog Canada.

Moscrop, who studies democratic governance, said if the Pacific Northwest deal goes south it will be a lose-lose for the federal government.

“On the right and left they’re going to be accused of having sold out,” he said. “This doesn’t benefit anyone participating in this process.”

‘Cui Bono?’

Moscrop said ultimately, it may have been both the provincial and federal governments who got played.

“I like to ask the old question: ‘cui bono?’” he said, referring to the ancient question, meaning simply, who benefits?

“People think industry and government are friendly, but only to the extent that they can get something out of one another.”

“If industry thinks it can gain significant advantage by sticking it to the government, they will.”

Throughout the project review process Petronas, a company with a poor human rights record, leveraged poor market conditions as a way to gain an ever-sweetening deal for the project from the provincial government. Petronas successfully negotiated for enormous income tax breaks and weakening of carbon tax rules that could cost B.C. taxpayers millions of dollars.

“I don’t blame them — either get out or leverage this moment to get every nickel and dime out while the getting is good,” Moscrop said, adding if Petronas was eyeing a sale of its Pacific Northwest LNG project it will be easier now with a conditional approval under their belt.

McPhail said the idea Petronas is threatening to pull out of the project for leverage might be what worries her most of all.

“My biggest fear is this is a negotiation tactic from Petronas,” she said.

“This is smart business accounting, smart corporate accounting. That’s what these guys are doing. If they’re threatening now, people are going to say 'give them whatever they want, please don’t go.' ”

Image: Premier Christy Clark and the ministers gather in Richmond for the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

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.

The federal government has issued an approval for the $36-billion Pacific Northwest liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminal on Lelu Island on the B.C. coast, undermining its commitments to take action on climate change.

Tuesday’s decision — announced an hour behind schedule in Richmond, B.C., by a trio of ministers including Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna — means it will be virtually impossible for B.C. to meet its climate targets.

The announcement was seen as the litmus test on whether the Liberals would live up to its climate promises.

“With today’s decision on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, Minister McKenna made it much more difficult for Canada to meet its climate targets and signaled that it’s OK for provinces to miss their own emissions targets," said Matt Horne of the Pembina Institute.

"If built, Pacific NorthWest LNG will be one of the largest carbon polluters in the country and a serious obstacle to Canada living up to its climate commitments."

Pacific Northwest LNG — wholly owned by the Malaysian government and boasting a questionable human rights record — lobbied the federal government 22 times between February 1 and April 21 this year, including meetings with McKenna and her chief of staff Marlo Raynolds.

The project will involve scaling up fracking in northeastern B.C., building a pipeline to the West Coast and constructing an export terminal on Lelu Island, near a crucial area for juvenile salmon.

The Pacific Northwest LNG project is expected to emit 9.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually — equal to 1.9 million cars.

By 2050, the entire province of B.C. is supposed to emit 13 million tonnes of carbon pollution. With this approval, meeting the climate target becomes an impossibility.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark had already torpedoed any credibility she had on climate change when she announced her widely criticized “climate action plan” this summer.

On Tuesday she trotted out her go-to myth that exporting LNG will reduce emissions in other parts of the world — which was quickly shot down. 

“Despite claims to the contrary, the production and export of LNG from B.C. has not been demonstrated to help reduce global emissions. Stronger climate policies — not increased fossil fuel production — are what we need to position the British Columbian and Canadian economies to thrive in a low-carbon future," Horne said.

Honeymoon Over for Liberals

The federal Liberals were riding on the coattails of their election promises and climate commitments made in Paris

Now the honeymoon is over.

“For British Columbians and all Canadians concerned about salmon habitat, climate change and reconciliation with First Nations, today’s decision is profoundly troubling,” said Christina Smethurst of Dogwood, B.C.’s largest citizen group. 

“It does not restore public trust in the federal environmental review process.”

The announcement comes on the heels of the Liberals pledging to repair relations between Canada and First Nations, but then approving permits for the Site C Dam against their wishes (the dam has been pushed by Clark in part to power the fracking fields in northeastern B.C. that will feed the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal).

Adding to the heap of broken promises, the Liberals are also expected to approve the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver sometime before Christmas.

“Nation-to-nation” rhetoric is awfully convenient until you have to live up to it.

It’s also one thing to care about climate change as a concept and quite another to have the guts to turn down a project when you’re being barraged by lobbyists.

A refusal of Pacific Northwest LNG would have proven the federal government is one willing to make tough decisions to live up to its promises  — one that would refuse a project if it put climate targets out of reach. One that would invest in renewables, energy efficiency and public transit infrastructure.

Perhaps, one day, we’ll see some real change.

On the bright side, there are doubts Pacific NorthWest LNG will even be built.

“As the cost of renewable energy continues to fall, it is increasingly uncertain that LNG exports can compete in Asian markets,” Merran Smith of Clean Energy Canada said.

A new world is coming. Question is: will Canada compete in it?

Photo: Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, Premier Christy Clark and Fisheries Minister Dominic Leblanc. Photo by Province of British Columbia.

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.

The federal Liberals are under fire on a number of environment fronts, most notably over the Site C dam and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

And rightfully so.

But sometime in the next few weeks, the federal Liberals will announce their verdict on whether the massive Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal can go ahead or not.

(In fact, given that the environment assessment has been wrapped up and submitted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, cabinet may already have met and made their decision.)

And this verdict will be a very real window into how seriously the federal government is going to take climate change, its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets and Paris Agreement obligations. It’s a very big deal.

Here are a few things you need to know about liquified natural gas and the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal to give the announcement some context.

What the heck is LNG?

So you happen to have a bunch of natural gas. As the name suggests, it’s fairly gaseous and thus difficult to transport.

To get around that problem, you “liquify” it by removing pollutants, water and mercury, and cool it to a chilly -160°C. That reduces the volume of the gas by over 600 times. It’s then “regasified” on the other end.

The whole process is very complex and energy-intensive, consuming the equivalent of about 20 per cent of the gas along the way.

What You Need To Know About the Impending Pacific Northwest LNG Decision https://t.co/EnQleM63qF #bcpoli #Skeena #PNWLNG via @james_m_wilt

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 23, 2016

What are the economics of LNG?

David Hughes — a geoscientist and expert on unconventional fuels — estimates the liquefaction, shipping, storage and regasification process costs between $5 and $6 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas (also known as Mcf).

Actual production of the shale gas from northeast British Columbia costs between $3 and $4 per Mcf.

But there’s a global oversupply of natural gas given the massive scale-up of shale gas production in the United States, Russia and Australia over the past few years. The price of LNG in China is now in the neighbourhood of $8 per Mcf, meaning Canadian exporters would be taking a loss of around $2 per Mcf.

As a result, not a single LNG company has made a final investment decision in B.C. AltaGas permanently shelved its project. LNG Canada has put its project on hold. Chevron’s Kitimat LNG project has been repeatedly pushed back.

How has the government responded?

Despite that, since 2013 B.C. Premier Christy Clark has repeatedly pledged to facilitate the construction of a massive LNG export sector, mythically leading to 100,000 jobs and a $100 billion prosperity fund.

Prices and demand have continued to plummet since then.

To help the shoddy investment climate, the government created a controversial 25-year deal in the summer of 2015 that locked in low tax rates, carbon tax and the legislation controlling LNG-related emissions; if the province broke that agreement it would have to compensate affected companies.

This legislation followed a 2012 decision to omit LNG facilities and associated emissions from the province’s Clean Energy Act’s energy requirements, and federal tax breaks announced by Stephen Harper in early 2015.  

A pledge was also made in the province’s recently released Climate Leadership Plan to help subsidize the electrification of upstream natural gas facilities, presumably to help reduce emissions from increased LNG exports.

Where would the gas come from?

Largely from fracking in the Montney and Horn River shale gas plays of northeast British Columbia, with the other 15 or so per cent coming from conventional sources.

Why care about Pacific Northwest LNG specifically?

Good question.

After all, Woodfibre LNG received a federal approval in March, and the proposed LNG Canada facility near Kitimat is fully permitted. Another 17 export terminals of various sizes are currently proposed.

Ultimately, the $36-billion project matters because of its potential climate impacts and catastrophic impacts on wild salmon populations in the watershed of the Skeena River.

It’s such a hot-button issue that the federal government delayed a decision for three months in order to obtain more info.

Plus, due to Pacific Northwest LNG being owned by Petronas — which itself is wholly owned by the government of Malaysia and has a questionable human rights record  — the actual motivations may be slightly different, possibly pertaining to energy security and diversifying supplies as well as potential profit.

This could mean that Pacific Northwest LNG has a greater chance of being built than privately owned companies, like LNG Canada (a joint venture led by Shell).

What would be the climate impacts of Pacific Northwest LNG?

Just enormous. As in one of the largest single sources of emissions in the country.

If built, Pacific Northwest would account for between 75 and 80 per cent of total allowable emissions under B.C.’s 2050 climate target of reducing emissions 80 per cent below 2007 levels.

In late May, dozens of climate scientists signed an open letter to the federal government petitioning for the rejection of the project.

“We have to conclude that if built, PNW LNG will make it essentially impossible for B.C. to achieve its climate targets and that there’s an inherent disconnect between trying to build this project and being sincere about achieving our climate targets,” Pembina Institute analyst Maximilian Kniewasser said in a recent webinar on the subject.

The export terminal alone would emit about 4.9 million tonnes of emissions due to using natural gas for every operation (including liquefaction, processors, lighting and computers).

In contrast, Woodfibre would use electricity to run the plant and liquefy the gas, while the proposed LNG Canada project would use gas for liquefaction and renewable electricity for all other auxiliary demands.

The province’s Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act set an emissions intensity of 0.16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne of LNG produced. Both Woodfibre LNG and LNG Canada fall below the benchmark due to the aforementioned plans (0.05 and 0.15, respectively).

But Pacific Northwest LNG would feature an emissions intensity of 0.26 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG, well above the benchmark (Kniewasser acknowledged that Woodfibre-like intensities would be difficult given the location and timeframe of Pacific Northwest LNG, but that significant reductions could certainly be made).

And that doesn’t even include related upstream pollution, which will account for around 60 per cent of new emissions — between 6.5 and 8.7 megatonnes per year — due to vented methane and the burning of natural gas to run compressors to move gas through the system (which, as mentioned, the province tried to sneakily address in the new climate plan).

All up, Pacific Northwest LNG would annually emit between 11.5 and 14 megatonnes, requiring every other sector in British Columbia — transportation, electricity, buildings — to emit no more than three megatonnes a year by 2050 to meet the emissions target.

In other words, a complete impossibility.

And that doesn’t even factor in the likelihood that methane leakages are likely being underestimated: while the U.S. EPA assumes a rate of 1.33 per cent, B.C. assumes between 0.24 and 0.27 per cent. Pembina has calculated that this fact alone could almost double annual emissions from 11.5 to 21.3 megatonnes.

But wouldn’t LNG exports help other jurisdictions get off coal?

That’s certainly a popular talking point from the B.C. government; developing an LNG export industry was described in its 2014 throne speech as “the greatest single step we can take to fight climate change.”

That notion was forwarded again by a recent C.D. Howe report that suggested emissions could be reduced in China and India by displacing generation by older coal plants.

It’s a proposal that Matt Horne, Pembina’s associate regional director for British Columbia, doesn’t outright reject; he notes that if the methane is properly managed and terminals use electric drives rather than gas, total emissions could be less than coal-fired power plants.

But he emphasizes the government is incorrectly propagating the premise that any LNG exports will replace coal.

“We know that’s not the case,” he says.

“You can look at many cases where it’s competing with other gas supplies, in which case you’re sort of looking at a wash. You can also look at examples where it’s competing with renewables and in those cases you’ve got an increase in emissions. It’s that overall mix that’s going to be more important than one example of a competing fuel supply.”

David Hughes has also noted that given the rise of ultra-supercritical coal plants in China, burning LNG would actually produce 27 per cent more emissions over a 20-year period and only seven per cent fewer over the course of a century (his estimation is that LNG would likely be used in addition to coal, rather than replacing it).

So, yes. There may be some instances which allow for jurisdictions to replace coal-fired power plants. But the question is if that chance is worth British Columbia plowing through its climate targets, undermining the development of renewables and energy efficiency measures and locking in LNG use for another half-century.

So what can the federal government do?

Reject the project. Or approve with strict conditions of heavily reduced emissions. It’s clear at this point that an unconditional approval would undermine any and all promises the Liberals have made about taking climate change seriously, as well as commitments to repair the country’s broken environmental assessment processes.

Photo: Province of British Columbia via Flickr

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 Ash Kelly and Brielle Morgan for Discourse Media. For a full, interactive version of this investigative piece, visit Discourse Media.

For more than 5,000 years, First Nations people have collected plants and harvested red cedar on Lelu Island, which sits where the Skeena River meets the Pacific Ocean near Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia. Adjacent to some of the most critical salmon habitat on the West Coast, Lelu Island is considered so valuable that, according to local Indigenous oral histories, Indigenous tribes have long battled to control it.

Not much has changed today — except that the battleground has shifted to Victoria and Ottawa. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is set to make a decision about Pacific NorthWest LNG (PNW LNG)’s proposed $36-billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, which is majority-owned by the Malaysian energy company Petronas. That decision could come at any time, although deliberations are likely to stretch into the fall. If built, the project will link a pipeline that weaves through traditional First Nations territories with a conversion plant and shipping terminal on Lelu Island.

The stakes are high for B.C. Premier Christy Clark, who, already campaigning for re-election in May 2017, has promised big on jobs and tax revenue she says LNG development will generate. She claims PNW LNG has wide backing among B.C. First Nations, whose support is critical. At a press conference on June 3, Clark said, “It’s important that people in Vancouver and across the country see how much support there is for LNG in these communities.”

Last year, members of the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, whose traditional territory includes Lelu Island, overwhelmingly rejected the proposed development on the island — and almost $1.2 billion in promised benefits. Clark claims a breakthrough with Lax Kw’alaams occurred earlier this spring. “The Lax Kw’alaams voted massively in favour of supporting LNG, with some conditions,” she stated at the June 3 press conference.

But locals in the tiny town of Lax Kw’alaams, many too afraid to put their view on the record, say no such vote occurred. The only vote on the proposed project that Discourse Media was able to substantiate is the vote that occurred at a series of meetings in May 2015, when a majority of community members voted against the benefit agreement proposed by PNW LNG.

The political pressure on Lax Kw’alaams since then has been immense. Locals describe a community deeply divided over its future, desperate not to miss out on the economic opportunity LNG could provide, but with a majority opposed to developing Lelu Island. “Everybody’s bickering and fighting. It is tearing the whole village apart,” says Corinne Dudoward, who has lived in Lax Kw’alaams all her life save for a few years off reserve to attend school.

With sparring between elected and traditional power brokers, death threats and alleged vandalism, a culture of fear has left community members feeling they haven’t been heard by provincial or federal politicians. Pledges by both governments to meaningfully consult with the Lax Kw’alaams people have been broken, according to many community members.

Flora Bank, an eelgrass habitat in the Skeena River estuary, is adjacent to Lelu Island. Research found that Flora Bank contains higher abundances of juvenile salmon than other locations in the estuary. Photo: Tavish Campbell

While Trudeau has a relationship to foster with Clark, he has also promised a renewed “nation-to-nation” relationship with Indigenous peoples based on “recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership,” as stated in his mandate letters to ministers in November. He reiterated this when Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Carolyn Bennett committed to the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in May.

Central to UNDRIP is Indigenous peoples’ right to “free, prior and informed consent” when it comes to proposals like PNW LNG. “Especially in cases of large-scale development or investment projects that may have a major, severe or adverse impact on Indigenous Peoples’ territories, consent is necessary,” wrote Indigenous legal scholar Dalee Sambo Dorough in Northern Public Affairs. “The state must provide all relevant information well in advance of the decision making.”

“It means developing and maintaining a more balanced and respectful relationship,” says Senator Murray Sinclair, former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. “It’s more than simply saying, ‘We’re going to stop taking your land away from you unless it’s really important.’” He says projects like PNW LNG are an opportunity for Trudeau to demonstrate his commitment to reconciliation.

In May, just two days after Bennett drew a standing ovation at the U.N. for committing to UNDRIP, a group of First Nations people from the Skeena region also stood before the U.N.’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. “Right now, in our ancestral lands, everything the Trudeau government has pledged to get right with Canada’s Indigenous peoples is in danger of going very, very wrong,” said John Ridsdale, a Hereditary Chief of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. “It is 2016, and Petronas is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

The one thing everyone seems to agree on? That, had the consultation process been handled differently, free, prior and informed consent could have been achieved, PNW LNG could have been a success story for the Lax Kw’alaams, Petronas, Clark and Trudeau — and Lelu Island could have been protected for the use of future generations of Lax Kw’alaams people. Instead, it descended into one of the most polarized and contentious resource development battles that Canada has witnessed in years.

“Energy projects can proceed in a way that does achieve the purposes of reconciliation,” says Sinclair, “but not the way that we’re currently doing them.”

The Battle for Lelu Island Lands in Ottawa

PNW LNG has become one of the most contentious resource development battles that Canada has witnessed in years, and the battlefront has shifted to Ottawa.

Earlier this year, Premier Clark, four cabinet ministers and a delegation of over 80 people including industry representatives and First Nations travelled to Ottawa for what was dubbed a “trade mission.” PNW LNG has registered seven new lobbyists since the Liberals’ November election. First Nations groups opposing the development have also made multiple trips to Ottawa and the U.N., supported in part by conservation groups.

In addition to their conflicting demands, Trudeau’s government must weigh climate commitments made at the Paris Climate Conference at the end of 2015. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has concluded that PNW LNG is “likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects … as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.” In fact, in late May, nearly 100 scientists said in a group letter to Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna that PNW LNG “would add between 18.5 per cent and 22.5 per cent to [B.C.’s] total GHG emissions,” making it “virtually impossible for B.C. to meet its GHG emission reduction targets.”

Divide and Conquer: The Threatened Community at the Heart of the PNW #LNG Project https://t.co/yLdU5i06F9 @CFNGBI pic.twitter.com/TyITpjqwv7

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 7, 2016

Not Prior, Not Informed — Not Free

It’s unclear whether First Nations were consulted before key decisions were made concerning PNW LNG. Shaun Stevenson, Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA)’s vice president of trade development, says the PRPA acknowledges that the port exists on traditional territory and expects developers to engage with First Nations as “early as possible.” A 2014 report by PNW LNG suggests initial contact with Lax Kw’alaams occurred in December 2012. But at least six months prior, Petronas had already earmarked Lelu Island for its plant and signed a feasibility agreement with the PRPA.

Community members in Lax Kw’alaams were open to development that would bring economic opportunity to the region, but they were concerned about how developing Lelu Island would impact salmon. Three years after being initially contacted, plans to locate the LNG plant on Lelu Island seemed set in stone, even though band members had received little response to their concerns about environmental impacts. And so, in spring 2015, some of them occupied the island in protest.

Ken Lawson and his wife, Patty Dudoward, are on the frontline of this occupation. A trucker and a fisherman by trade, Lawson never imagined he and Dudoward would spend the better part of a year shuffling between their home in Prince Rupert and the camp on Lelu Island, organizing food and fuel and assisting other activists at the occupation. As a house leader in the Gitwilgyoots tribe, one of the Nine Allied Tribes of Lax Kw’alaams, Lawson is often called upon by his hereditary chief to speak for the community.

Lawson isn’t against resource development in the region. His opposition hinges on the project’s impact on salmon — a staple for First Nations, tourism and the fishing industry. The Skeena River watershed is “one of the largest salmon watersheds in the world, second only to the Fraser River in its capacity to produce sockeye salmon,” according to theCanadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA).

In April 2015, PNW LNG presented Lax Kw’alaams with a benefits proposal totalling nearly $1.2 billion in payments and land transfers that would be delivered over 40 years. The mayor of Lax Kw’alaams at the time was Garry Reece. Wanting to better understand the impacts on salmon and dissatisfied by information provided by PNW LNG, Reece’s band council commissioned consultant and geologist Patrick McLaren and Simon Fraser University biologist Jonathan Moore. Their research found that Lelu Island’s proximity to Flora Bank, a sandbar where juvenile salmon spend time transitioning between the river and the ocean, meant that development on the island posed significant threats to the salmon run.

The CEAA’s draft report to the federal government ran counter to McLaren’s and Moore’s findings, arguing that “taking into consideration mitigation measures … the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish and fish habitat.” Experts have called into question the CEAA’s findings. On March 11, a group of 134 scientists submitted a letter calling on Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna to reject the CEAA’s draft report; they said the government report is “scientifically flawed and represents an insufficient base for decision-making.”

In May 2015, Lax Kw’alaams-commissioned scientists and PNW LNG representatives presented their contrasting views at a series of public meetings called by Mayor Reece to consider PNW LNG’s benefits proposal. The meetings occurred in Lax Kw’alaams, Prince Rupert and Vancouver (the vast majority of band members live outside of Lax Kw’alaams).

In all three locations, large majorities of attendees rejected the deal. Two days after the final vote in Vancouver, the band council released a statement: the band would not support LNG on Lelu Island, but was open to collaborating to find an alternative plan. “Lax Kw’alaams is open to business, to development, and to LNG (including PNW). It is not open to development proximate to Flora Bank,” the statement reads.

Those occupying Lelu Island felt bolstered by the vote, confident that they represented the view of their community. “What it’s all about for Christy Clark is the jobs, and I get that. There aren’t a whole lot of jobs around,” says Ken Lawson from his vantage point on Lelu Island. “They just simply can’t put it on Flora Bank, Lelu Island. Put it somewhere else.”

“If they had asked where to put this in the first place, [the community’s] answer would probably be different,” says Lawson. “There would have been proper consultation — which there wasn’t.”

PNW LNG didn’t take up Lax Kw’alaams on its offer to find another location. But that didn’t mean the deal was off.

Grant Wesley, son of Malcolm Sampson, says he and his family are leaving Lax Kw’alaams because they don’t know who they can trust anymore. They’ll decide where to go once his girlfriend knows where she’ll be attending school to become a teacher. Wesley’s father says he’s been targeted for his anti-LNG views. Photo: Ash Kelly

The Premier Doubles Down

Premier Clark’s confidence in the venture was not lessened by Lax Kw’alaams’ rejection, according to reports by APTN and CBC. She reportedly said it was “only a matter of time” until a deal was reached with Lax Kw’alaams and the rejection was nothing more than “a bump in the road.”

At the Western Premiers’ Conference in May 2016, Discourse Media asked Clark what responsibility her government has to Lax Kw’alaams. She responded: “Do we want to create jobs for First Nations people and others in the country or do we want to have no change at all?”

Her comments echoed the message the B.C. government has been sending for months: it’s either the Petronas plant on Lelu Island or no economic progress at all. That kind of ultimatum has left people living in the region fearful of missing out on a limited-time offer, yet at the same time feeling that their concerns about the project’s location have been ignored.

Four of the five First Nations that the CEAA and the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office required PNW LNG to consult with — Metlakatla, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum and Gitxaala — have signed either impact benefit agreements (securing payouts for their communities along with environmental commitments from PNW LNG) or term sheets, which are often a precursor to impact benefit agreements.

With Lax Kw’alaams emerging as the sole holdout among those five First Nations (some upriver tribes that harvest Skeena salmon, including the Wet’suwet’en and Gitanyow, are also opposed), Lawson and Dudoward found themselves under increasing pressure from locals who felt they and their fellow occupiers were standing in the way of jobs and prosperity. “It feels like Ken’s and [my] heads are on the chopping block,” Dudoward says. They also acknowledge a lack of visible public support for their position, which they find understandable, but frustrating. “People are afraid of what could happen to them if they helped us out,” said Lawson. “They have to protect themselves and their jobs. I don’t hold that against anybody.”

Lawson himself is paying a toll for standing up. “I’ve logged all my life and I’ve run trucks for the last 12 years,” says Lawson. “The business has suffered… big time.”

In a smoke-filled teepee on Lelu Island, where the occupiers often debrief, Lawson talks about the recent breakdown of one of the trucks in his commercial fleet. Under the hood, he found a hole in a component behind the engine, one he believes was an act of sabotage. After inspecting the damaged part, his insurance company agreed it didn’t appear to be a wear hole. An investigation is underway.

Malcolm Sampson, a Lax Kw’alaams fisherman for more than 40 years and an outspoken activist against PNW LNG, also became a target for those in the community who disagreed with him. He recalls one phone call that made this particularly clear.

“You see that big hotel sitting there?” he asks, pointing to a modest, weathered building he owns. “I was threatened they were gonna burn it down. A man threatened to come up to my house and he was gonna shoot me and all my children,” he says. “My heart fell to my knees; I almost cried.”

Police in Prince Rupert say they have seen an increase in calls resulting from the controversial nature of these large-scale LNG projects. Sgt. Jagdev Uppal of the Prince Rupert RCMP adds: “This has included marine-based offences such as dangerous operation of motor vessels and uttering threats (complaints).”

James Anaya, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, could have been describing the situation playing out in Lax Kw’alaams when he criticized Canada’s relationship with Indigenous people in a 2014 report. When consultation does not take place in a consistent and timely manner, he wrote, the result is “an atmosphere of contentiousness and mistrust that is conducive neither to beneficial economic development nor social peace.”

Murray Smith, a house leader from the Gitwilgyoots Tribe, believes PNW LNG proponents are stoking divisions in his community by taking advantage of internal governance challenges. “They look for the weak link, people that are hungry for money,” he says. “They see that they’re poor and say, ‘Sign your name here.’”

A Sudden Flip-flop

Despite this mounting pressure, elected and hereditary leaders remained relatively united in their opposition to LNG development on Lelu Island — until a new mayor and council were elected in November 2015.

At first, the newly elected leaders maintained the community’s position. Mayor John Helin even submitted a letter to the CEAA reiterating the band’s rejection of the benefit deal on March 7, 2016.

But eight days later, in a move that hereditary leaders call a betrayal, Helin submitted a second letter to the CEAA that contradicted his earlier letter and offered conditional support for a project. The letter was dated March 15, when several elected councillors were away on an annual kelp-gathering trip on Digby Island.

Community members in Lax Kw’alaams were shocked. According to Smith, “the last time we had a band meeting was in a previous administration,” before Helin’s November election. Many Lax Kw’alaams community members corroborated this.

The band council is not required under lawto make financial or governance documentation available to the public. But, according to former mayor Reece, a band member can request meeting minutes at the band council office. So on April 8, after a prolonged silence from the elected council, fisherman Malcolm Sampson went to the band office and requested any relevant minutes from meetings concerning the letter.

Instead of providing the requested documentation, according to Sampson, the band council shut down the office and an impromptu protest ensued that resulted in someone calling the RCMP. By the time police arrived, there was little action. Const. Monte Webb describes the protest as “three cops and thirty people standing around just talking.”

Mayor Helin declined to comment in response to multiple interview requests made by phone, email and text message. When approached by Discourse Media reporters in person, he held his hand up and said “no.”

Discourse Media also reached out to each band councillor with publicly listed contact information. Only councillor Stan Dennis responded. Dennis says he is not at liberty to provide details on how the council operates, but stated for the record: “I am still standing against this development on Lelu.”

Political Talking Points

Helin’s contentious letter became a speaking point for Premier Clark. At the Western Premiers’ Conference in early May, she said Lax Kw’alaams leadership “voted overwhelmingly in favour of moving forward into the next stage of this agreement on LNG.”

In multiple interview requests, Discourse Media asked Clark to elaborate. In an emailed response, the premier’s office stated, “First Nation officials carried out their own internal engagement processes prior to their vote and letter of support to the federal government.”

Then, in a follow-up phone call, a spokesperson for the premier who spoke on background explained that Clark may have misspoken when she referred to a “leadership” vote and that it was in fact a public meeting where the community voted 244 to three in favour of developing Lelu Island.

In written statements, the province has maintained that “Lax Kw’alaams First Nation conducted its own community engagement process and vote, prior to its letter being submitted,” but how many people voted and whether they were leadership or band members remain unclear. At the June 3 press conference, Clark said, “There will always be some people who disagree and that’s the nature of a democratic society. But in the Lax Kw’alaams, when they took that vote amongst the chiefs and the vast majority — I think over 150 people voted in favour of it and three voted against — at some point you have to say the people have spoken.”

But have they? Neither the premier’s office nor the band council provided any documentation of either a band council or community vote in response to multiple requests. Discourse Media has been unable to identify a single community member who attended or was aware of a public meeting that was supposedly attended by between 150 and 247 people.

PNW LNG declined multiple interview requests and provided a written statement: “PNW LNG is working collaboratively and constructively with local First Nations. To date, PNW LNG has received conditional support from all local First Nations within the project area. We do not comment on band governance issues.”

Malcolm Sampson hasn’t shied away from pressing council to explain what happened in those eight days between letters to the CEAA; he is circulating a petition demanding answers and organizes occasional protests outside the band office. But he’s not sure how long he can keep it up; he no longer feels safe in the community.

“I’m going to try and sell what I can here and then maybe move on. We don’t feel liked here,” says Sampson. “It’s sad. It hurts to leave because I’ve lived here all my life.”

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.