The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) never considered the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of the Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal, according to documents revealed in a federal court this week.

The documents were submitted to a federal court in Vancouver during a hearing to determine whether the information should be considered as part of a forthcoming judicial review of the federal government’s decision to approve the LNG project.  

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust filed for the judicial review of the project’s approval and received 17,000 pages of federal documents under disclosure — the release of information required by law during legal proceedings. SkeenaWild hired two experts to give expert testimony on those documents.

One of those experts Kirsten Zickfeld, a climate scientist and associate professor of geography at Simon Fraser University, testified in a sworn affidavit that CEAA did not provide the federal government with an assessment of cumulative emissions from the project and that these emissions “should be assessed, especially…in terms of their share of a provincial or national ‘carbon budget.’ ”

A second expert, policy and technical analyst from the Pembina Institute Maximilian Kniewasser, testified in a sworn affidavit that Canada considered imposing conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution, such as requiring the project be powered by grid electricity rather than natural gas, but chose not to despite doing so to varying degrees for two other LNG projects, LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG.

The federal government and Pacific NorthWest LNG asked the court to strike the affidavits from consideration as evidence on the basis that they are “inadmissible…extrinsic evidence.”  

Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild, argued the two affidavits should be considered as evidence in the upcoming judicial review, likely to take place this fall.

“We are not trying to bring in new evidence,” Knox told DeSmog Canada, “just evidence to the court to show in black and white that the agency failed to provide the minister and cabinet with the proper information to make an informed decision on the project.”

Pacific NorthWest LNG To Take Up Big Chunk of Canada’s Carbon Budget

Zickfeld, an expert in climate modelling and carbon budgets, served as the lead author of the UN Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the 1.5 degree target.

Under the Paris Agreement, the majority of the world’s governments, Canada included, have agreed to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius with a goal of limiting that increase to 1.5 degrees.

Efforts to work towards that goal, Zickfeld outlines, will require countries to cap their climate pollution through carbon budgets.

Depending on the type of carbon budget Canada selects, Pacific NorthWest LNG could eat up 2.5 to 11 per cent of the country’s total all-time climate pollution allowance.

“Over the lifetime of the project (here assumed to be 30 years), these annual emissions add up to about 360 million metric tons of CO2 cumulative emissions,” Zickfeld wrote.

A large part of what makes liquefied natural gas exports so carbon-intensive is the process of turning natural gas into a liquid. The process requires running massive compressor stations 24/7 to cool gas to -162 degrees Celsius, the point at which gas turns into a liquid that can be loaded onto tankers.

In the second document Kniewasser concludes the carbon emissions from the project could have been significantly reduced had the agency assessed the technical and economic feasibility of powering the LNG terminal with grid electricity, rather than with natural gas.

“I described two alternatives to power LNG projects other than burning natural gas: using grid electricity to power non-compression load, and using grid electricity to power compression load,” he wrote in his affidavit.

These alternatives could have reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project by between six per cent and 44 per cent, or 8 and 57 megatonnes of carbon emissions, every year, Kniewasser stated.

“These potential emissions reductions are especially significant given the project’s long operating life, B.C.’s legislated long-term climate targets, and Canada’s Paris climate commitments.”

Feds Never Considered Cumulative #Climate Impacts Of Pacific Northwest #LNG, Court Docs Reveal https://t.co/CX9llm7KZ2 #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 14, 2017

Much of Pacific Northwest LNG Review Conducted Behind Closed Doors

The fact that cabinet was not apprised of the cumulative climate impacts of Pacific Northwest LNG was not a matter of public knowledge, Knox told DeSmog Canada.

“In the type of environmental assessment process we had for this project, none of that was made available to the public. And it was never provided to the public until we requested it through the legal process,” he said.

Under what is know as a standard environmental assessment process, the Canadian Environmental Assessment agency conducted a review of Pacific NorthWest LNG with no public hearing, no cross examination and no full public disclosure of documents submitted during the duration of the review.

About half of the documents that were used in the assessment process weren’t on the public record, Knox said.

“When we got those documents in the spring, that is when we got some expert witnesses to comment on the complete lack of cumulative effects assessment for climate pollution and an assessment of the viability of using electricity from the grid to reduce emissions.”

“Under CEAA both of those things should have been done and the minister in cabinet should have been given that information. That poses the question: what sort of discussions and deals were done behind the scenes and why wasn’t this proper process done to reduce and assess the climate pollution from this project?”

Knox said the federal government’s decision to approve Pacific NorthWest LNG conflicts with promises to take meaningful action on climate change.

“When the government and industry are teaming up to argue against doing their due diligence on the climate impacts of this project, it’s really disconcerting,” he said.

“I think that government in this case is standing up for the interests of industry. We believe we’re bringing information and evidence forward that is in the public’s interest.”  

Kirsten Zickfeld Affidavit PNW LNG by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Max Kniewasser Affidavit (Apr 27 2017) by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Crown's Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits PNW LNG July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

PNW LNG Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Federal ministers and Premier Christy Clark annouce the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal in September 2017. 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.

This article originally appeared on The Climate Examiner at the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.

British Columbia’s first major liquefied natural gas project is set to go ahead with Woodfibre LNG’s announcement last week of funding to build a $1.6 billion processing and export plant in Squamish.

The project, which promises some 650 construction jobs and 100 permanent operating jobs to the small town with a population of 17,000, aims to begin exporting some 2.1 million tonnes of LNG annually to Asia from 2020.

The plant is much smaller than the highly controversial $11 billion Pacific NorthWest (PNW) LNG terminal planned near Prince Rupert that received conditional approval from the federal Liberal government in September and which would ship some ten times the amount of the Woodfibre project each year.

It is however the first of 20 proposed LNG export projects in British Columbia to be given company approval — a development that will bring much cheer to the provincial government which is facing an election next May and for whom a flourishing LNG industry is the centerpiece of its economic development plans.

The infant sector has been beset with a raft of bad news in the last year. In July Shell announced it was indefinitely postponing its LNG Canada project. And Petronas, the Malaysia-based developer of the PNW project, has delayed its final investment decision.

Atop the raft of negative business development announcements, globally the sector faces a supply glut that has driven prices down below levels sufficient to cover the cost of production in B.C.

B.C.’s natural gas development minister Rich Coleman has said that it is unlikely that another LNG project will enjoy final investment decisions from companies prior to next year’s provincial election, meaning Woodfibre is the provincial Liberals’ last bit of LNG good news before they move into campaign mode.

The company decision is also not very reflective of the mood amongst potential provincial LNG developers, as the decision was largely based on the need of Woodfibre’s Singapore-based parent company, Pacific Oil & Gas Limited, to supply its own gas-fired power plants rather than to sell to other purchasers on the open market.

B.C.'s First LNG Plant Gets Investment Green Light https://t.co/45AngTuhui #bcpoli #WoodfibreLNG #BCLNG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 14, 2016

Noticeable for their absence at the announcement were representatives of the Squamish First Nation. While they are not opposed to the project, it still has yet to clear their own independent environmental assessment, Chief Ian Campbell told the local press.

“We set out 25 conditions that must be met before we sign anything,” he said.

The provincial government is touting the environmental credentials of the project as processing will be powered by clean electricity instead of natural gas. The announcement was welcomed by private-sector clean energy power producers hopeful that they will be able to supply Woodfibre with their wares.

The Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, criticised the development, pointing out that while the Woodfibre project is smaller than other LNG schemes and even with electrification, it will still represent six percent of B.C.’s legislated 2050 emissions target, making the province’s mitigation goals that much harder to achieve.

Image: Christy Clark at the Woodfibre LNG announcement. Photo: Province of B.C. 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.

By Andrew Nikiforuk for The Tyee.

Every day, methane promoters in British Columbia’s government manage to out-trump Donald Trump.

The hoopla over the $1.6-billion Woodfibre LNG terminal, which will industrialize Howe Sound and the city of Squamish, illustrates just how far the Christy Clark-led BC Liberal government will go to subvert the truth.

The government billed the event as maker of economic prosperity and the beginning of a winning fight against climate change.

Both claims read like Trump balderdash with no basis in reality.

In fact, every B.C. citizen should be alarmed by the Woodfibre LNG deal because it will fleece every taxpayer.

Let’s start with the subsidies and a little context.

Back in 2013 Premier Christy Clark promised that LNG would make the province rich, create a $100-billion savings fund, erase all debt and employ tens of thousands of people.

None of the hype materialized, nor will it for the long foreseeable future. Thanks to a global methane glut and a collapse in methane prices by 75 per cent, the LNG industry faces “an extremely challenging business environment.”

According to Forbes, Australia’s LNG industry is now bleeding billions of dollars of cash and earning nothing for the owners of the resource: Australians. It is also noteworthy that Asian markets have contracted four per cent despite the fall in LNG prices.

As a consequence, no company has made a final investment decision on 20 LNG proposals in B.C. — with the single exception of Woodfibre, a company owned by a Singapore tycoon, Sukanto Tanoto.

It is telling that one of Tanoto’s companies, Asian Agri, has been found guilty of tax evasion. (But that hasn’t caused Clark to rethink who she invites to do business in B.C.) 

Taxpayers Subsidize Slim Odds LNG Gamble

Meanwhile, methane from British Columbia — due to the high-cost fracking of shales and their frontier remoteness, is among the world’s most expensive gas. Global markets now offer prices of $7 per million British Thermal Unit (Btu) but B.C. needs at least $10 per million Btu to make a dollar.

To save face on her outrageous LNG promises, Clark has now offered some significant giveaways to Tanoto that every British Columbian will pay for.

The first is a major electrical subsidy. Clark promised Woodfibre and any other LNG developer this month a reduced electrical rate or what’s known as an “eDrive rate.”

Two years ago, the government promised energy-intensive LNG projects electrical rates at $83.02 per megawatt hour.

Now Clark has offered LNG developers a stunning give-it-away “eDrive rate” of $53.60. That is less $30 below the original quote and about half the expected $100-plus cost of a megawatt-hour from the $9-billion Site C dam. That dam will raise electricity prices so Clark can give away money to tax evaders and LNG developers.

According to Eoin Finn, a former high-level consultant for KPMG, the electrical subsidy borders on larceny. “For Woodfibre’s power-hungry 140 Megawatt plant, the annual subsidy represented by the eDrive rate will total some $34 million per annum, or $860 million over its 25-year lifespan.”

But that’s not the only subsidy.

The government has halved the LNG tax rate to 3.5 per cent — among the lowest in the world and locked it in for 25 years. It granted Woodfibre and other LNG projects an 18-month holiday on carbon taxes. It accelerated capital cost write-offs. It lowered natural gas royalties to next to nothing and offers the industry nearly $200 million in drilling credits every year. And there will be no sales tax on methane purchases.

In addition, the province encouraged Woodfibre on Oct. 25 to pitch the District of Squamish a reduced property tax rate of $2 million instead of the normal mill rate of $8 million to $10 million.

‘The hoopla over #WoodfibreLNG illustrates how far the @ChristyClarkBC gov’t will go to subvert the truth’ https://t.co/FpWo9QJj0i #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 11, 2016

Bearing Great Risk for Puny Reward

B.C.’s LNG advocates may argue that it took such incentives in order to jumpstart an industry that will produce revenue for the province and jobs for citizens.

But with so few jobs (just 100 permanent jobs for the Woodfibre plant) and no guarantee of revenue given all the subsidies, and a global LNG glut, the B.C. government has ignored the marketplace and embraced a Soviet model of LNG development.

In this special Clark model, taxpayers pay for everything: from the water given to shale gas frackers for free to the electricity provided to energy-gobbling terminals.

Even $100 million placed into a so-called LNG prosperity fund came out of taxpayers’ wallets via the Medical Services Plan.

Not even Trump has been that brazen in his outrageous business dealings.

Fraudulent Claims that LNG Fixes Climate Change

But there is more unreality.

Clark claimed that the Woodfibre approval “marks the beginning of a tremendous opportunity for British Columbia to play a significant role in the global fight against climate change, using the world’s cleanest LNG to help countries transition away from coal and oil.”

Incredibly, Clark has also claimed that LNG exports will help stop climate change from igniting and feeding wildfires across the west and burning up places like Fort McMurray.

But that’s a pipeline full of falseness.

Last spring, more than 90 scientists wrote a letter to the federal government, which the Trudeau government ignored. It outlined why LNG makes the climate more unstable, and it’s all due to methane leakage.

The scientists explained how the Petronas LNG terminal in particular “would be one of the single largest point source emitters in Canada” at five million tonnes a year and account for nearly 25 per cent of the province’s GHG emissions.

The scientists underscored a host of problems in provincial GHG accounting. Most specifically, the province has never told the truth about methane leakage from fracking, transport, turning the gas into liquid and converting it back into gas.

The B.C. government pretends that methane infrastructure only has a 0.28 percentage leakage rate, but that figure hasn’t been verified by field studies.

In contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an organization that President Elect Donald Trump has proposed to shutter, uses a methane leakage rate of 1.33 per cent. Other research has found some methane shale fields leak as much as nine per cent, which makes the product three times dirtier than coal.

In other words the government has underestimated leakage rates in order to pretend its LNG is “clean.” (There is, for the record, no such thing as clean energy: every form has an environmental cost.)

The scientists also noted that there is no guarantee that LNG from any terminal in B.C. will be used to replace coal-burning plants in Asia. Clark hasn’t signed that non-existent trade deal. (By one rough estimate Woodfibre will emit nearly 22 mega-tonnes of climate changing gases over a 25-year period.)

Secondly, methane just can’t serve as a climate saver or clean bridge fuel due to rising methane emissions from shale gas fracking and mining. Cornell researchers add that methane “is more than 100-times more powerful (than carbon dioxide) for the first decade after emission, 86-times over a 20-year period, and 34-times over 100 years.”

David Hughes, one of the nation’s foremost energy experts, calculates that B.C.’s LNG — if delivered to China — would be actually 27 per cent worse than coal over a 20-year timeframe.

He starkly concludes: “On a full-cycle emissions basis, the planet would be better off if China built state-of-the-art coal plants rather than burning B.C. LNG for at least the next 50 years.” It is true that at the burner tip, gas produces about half the carbon dioxide of coal.

More Wounds to B.C.’s Land and Water

In addition to failing to truly account for methane leakage, the government of B.C. has never assessed the cumulative impacts of LNG on land disturbance, water consumption, groundwater contamination or earthquake hazards, which fracking has greatly aggravated in the province.

But that doesn’t seem to worry the government at all.

Years ago the great conservationist Roderick Haig-Brown lamented the province’s adolescent politics and its abusive obsession with resource booms. He called B.C. a “profligate province.”

The province’s ruinous resource booms left behind crackerbox towns, derelict forests, ravaged acres and scars upon the hillsides.

In the process, lamented Haig-Brown, the province became “a playground for economic imperialists with the spoils going unfailingly to the strong.”

And that’s exactly what Clark has done with her Trump-like promotion of LNG.

She has decimated the truth while making grandiose promises impossible to deliver. She has given away the farm to tax evaders with a Trump-like flourish. 

Image: Christy Clark at the annoucement of a final investment decision for Woodfibre LNG. Photo: Province of B.C. 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.

By Discourse Media with additional reporting from Carol Linnitt.

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

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

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

Biased Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 1, 2016

Misleading Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Left Feeling Confused, Angry

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

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

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

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

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

Against Autonomy

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

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

Image: Ash Kelly

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

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.