Less than two months after receiving approvals from the provincial and federal government, Prime Minister Mark Carney has referred the Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility to the Major Projects Office for review.

“Ksi Lisims will become Canada’s second-largest LNG facility with the capacity to export 12 million tonnes of LNG per year to new markets in Asia,” Carney said on Thursday, adding that the project is expected to yield $4 billion per year in gross domestic product.The North Coast transmission line was also on the latest list of projects picked for the Major Projects Office to review. Carney also announced BC Hydro will get a $139.5-million loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to support initial work on the transmission line.

The Major Projects Office was created to oversee the Liberal government’s effort to speed up approvals for major infrastructure projects deemed to be of national interest. In September, Carney’s government referred an initial list of candidate projects — including Phase two of the LNG Canada export terminal and the Red Chris Mine expansion in northern B.C. — to the office for consideration.

Ksi Lisims LNG is a joint venture involving the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government, U.S.-based LNG project developer Western LNG and Canadian natural gas consortium Rockies LNG.

While the B.C. and Canadian governments have emphasized the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government’s stake in the Ksi Lisims project, documents filed with the B.C. government show the primary owner and operator of Ksi Lisims is Texas-based Western LNG. Employees of Western LNG, which has offices in Houston, Texas and Vancouver, met with senior provincial government officials 69 times since the beginning of 2024, according to B.C. lobbying records.

Both Ksi Lisims and the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline — which will supply fracked gas to Ksi Lisims and LNG Canada, a larger export terminal in Kitimat, B.C. — are backed by Blackstone Inc., a U.S. investment company.

In March 2024, the Nisg̱a’a Nation and Western LNG announced a deal to buy TC Energy’s proposed Prince Rupert gas pipeline project. The project has also finalized two agreements to sell its product. The agreements commit Shell Canada and TotalEnergies to buying two million tonnes of LNG per year from the plant — totalling roughly one-third of Ksi Lisims’ expected annual production.

Four of the eleven projects referred to the Major Projects Office are in B.C., a fact Premier David Eby highlighted at his own press conference on Thursday.“British Columbia is going to be the economic engine of this new economy that we’re building going forward, and it is great to see some recognition from Ottawa that this is going to be the case,” he said.

The Nisg̱a’a Nation is backing Ksi Lisims but other First Nations oppose it

Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government president Eva Clayton has described Ksi Lisims as an economic opportunity that will benefit the nation and the world.

“Ksi Lisims LNG represents a transformational opportunity for all participating B.C. nations, and it will be developed in line with our nation’s high environmental standards,” Clayton said in a statement emailed to The Narwhal following the approval of Ksi Lisims.

But other First Nations oppose the project. The Lax Kw’alaams Band, for example, is southwest of the newly approved LNG facility and tankers filled with the liquefied gas will pass by the village’s coast regularly. Lax Kw’alaams says the LNG facility would negatively affect its traditional territory and has expressed concerns about the project’s potential impact on B.C.’s ability to meet its climate targets.

In September, B.C.’s environmental assessment office concluded dispute resolution processes initiated by Lax Kw’alaams and the Metlakatla First Nation as part of Ksi Lisims’ environmental assessment. The resolution failed to address the First Nations’ concerns about the project’s potential impacts on their communities, according to the environmental assessment office.

In October 2024, the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, whose traditional territory includes parts of the Nass and Skeena watersheds, filed an application for judicial review with the provincial court. The Hereditary Chiefs alleged the environmental assessment office failed in its duty to consult and to adequately protect fish species was rejected by the court in early September.Simogyet Watakhayetsxw (Hereditary Chief) Deborah Good said Ksi Lisims could destroy habitat essential to local salmon populations.

“We’ve had to go to court to fight for our way of life and especially the continuing health of our salmon stocks,” Good said in a statement. “We won’t give up because for us, this is a fight for our way of life — for the salmon that have sustained our economy, culture, people and way of life since time immemorial.”In October, Lax Kw’alaams and the Metlakatla First Nation each filed requests for judicial review with the Federal Court, alleging the minister of environment and climate change ignored their concerns about the adverse impacts of the massive LNG project.Eby said he expects the Major Projects Office will help the province work toward resolving the “complexity” created by projects that span multiple First Nations’ territories and often involve issues of federal jurisdiction.“That’s very helpful to us to resolve long-standing issues, to win support for the project or to help do things faster,” he said. 

Ksi Lisims may eventually connect to B.C.’s grid, but first it will run on gas

Ksi Lisims is located near the Nass estuary at the north end of Pearse Island, an area that is home to salmon, oolichan and many other fish, as well as shellfish and mammal species important to local First Nations. The floating facility would be capable of producing up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually. 

Like the second phase of the LNG Canada facility, which was among the first crop of projects earmarked for potential federal fast-tracking in September, Ksi Lisims has been approved by the provincial and federal governments. But it has yet to receive a final investment decision — the definitive commitment to investing in and proceeding with a project — from its backers.

Carney said the Major Projects Office will offer support on financing and “help coordinate timely approvals” of the main aspects of the Ksi Lisims project. That includes the pipeline to supply Ksi Lisims with fracked gas, a new electricity transmission line and the floating LNG export facility, as well as “related transmission infrastructure” — namely, the North Coast transmission line.Ksi Lisims will be “one of the world’s cleanest LNG operations,” according to Carney, who said the facility has “the potential to reach net zero by 2030.” To achieve that goal, Ksi Lisims will need to access clean electricity via the North Coast transmission line.

But the transmission line — which the government has exempted from environmental assessment and plans to block the B.C. Utilities Commission from reviewing — isn’t expected to be operational until 2032, while Ksi Lisims hopes to begin operations in 2028. That would have left the facility out of compliance with a 2023 provincial regulation requiring all LNG facilities to be net zero by 2030. However, B.C. Energy Minister Adrian Dix issued “a clarification” of the 2023 net-zero policy in March, advising the environmental assessment agency that new LNG facilities need to be ready to become net zero by 2030 but can use natural gas if clean electricity is not available “due to circumstances beyond the control of the proponent.”

The provincial approval allows Ksi Lisims to use natural gas-fired barges to power its operations until access to BC Hydro’s grid is available. A 2024 briefing note prepared for Eby shows Ksi Lisims requested 600 megawatts from BC Hydro, making it one of the most energy-intensive projects the province has ever seen.

With files from Matt Simmons

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 truck slowly pulled alongside as I idled at the side of a remote dirt road in northern B.C. No cell service, the nearest town half an hour away. I’d pulled off to let industrial traffic heading the other direction pass. It was 2022 and I was on my way to meet with Indigenous land defenders embroiled in a years-long fight against a major pipeline being built through Wet’suwet’en lands and waters without the permission of Hereditary Chiefs. 

The driver of the truck rolled down his window. 

“Need any help?” he said.

I knew from markings on the truck that he worked for Forsythe, a private security company contracted by Calgary-based pipeline giant TC Energy. Security companies were hired to protect the construction of Coastal GasLink, a 670-kilometre natural gas pipeline. For years, Coastal GasLink had been a focal point for conflict, including dozens of arrests and extensive surveillance operations by private security and RCMP. What I didn’t know at the time was information about me, collected on behalf of the pipeline company, could have been shared with Canada’s national spy agency.

The Narwhal and the Investigative Journalism Foundation recently reported TC Energy apparently leveraged a close relationship with former Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) director David Vigneault to expand information-sharing between CSIS and major Canadian companies. In 2024 emails to Vigneault, TC Energy said the proposed arrangement was necessary due to “security threats facing Canadian industry” which the company said included “acute risks from foreign adversaries,” according to documents obtained through freedom of information legislation. Vigneault left CSIS in 2024 and now works for an American intelligence company. 

This year, Canada passed legislation delivering many of TC Energy’s requests. Critics warn the flow of information could be going both ways — that companies like TC Energy could be feeding information to CSIS. They worry this could influence how and when the spy agency and federal law enforcement conduct surveillance of individuals and groups.

It also means third-party security services like Forsythe, which employs ex-paramilitary soldiers and former RCMP officers, could be passing on information to CSIS and police about Indigenous and non-Indigenous land defenders and activists.

Tia Dafnos, an associate professor of sociology at the University of New Brunswick, said the level of access gives industry an opportunity to shape a criminal justice narrative aligned with its interests. 

“One of the key concerns here is the lack of transparency and therefore accountability, when you have these discussions happening in spaces that are outside of public access,” she said.

As the federal government pushes resource extraction in response to a barrage of economic sanctions from the current Trump administration, several major industrial developments — including an expansion of Coastal GasLink — could become new sources of conflict. Now, companies being scrutinized by environmental advocates and Indigenous land defenders have direct and secretive channels of communication to Canada’s spy agency. 

“When you have something deemed to be in the national interest, a threat to that national interest would move it into the realm of a national security issue,” Dafnos said. Protecting critical infrastructure can then become a justification to monitor and criminalize project opponents, she explained.

Eric Balsam, a spokesperson with CSIS, said “the nature and severity of the threat” is what determines whether it’s a matter of national security, not the designation of a project.

“CSIS uses a variety of collection methods to monitor activities that threaten national security,” Balsam wrote in an emailed statement, adding the CSIS Act “specifically excludes investigating lawful protest and dissent.”

Balsam said CSIS could, in some circumstances, investigate “individuals and/or groups involved in protest or other forms of opposition to projects if there was reasonable suspicion that they were planning activities that pose a threat to the security of Canada,” as defined by the legislation.

Formal and informal relationships between industry executives and senior CSIS officials offer the private sector an avenue for “framing a threat or influencing the perception of threat,” Dafnos said. The secretive nature of those relationships also risks criminalizing or intimidating journalists.

Back in 2022, I told the security guard I didn’t need his help and rolled up my window. After the heavy trucks rumbled past, I drove on. He followed. 

For more than 20 kilometres, winding through deep forest beside the Wedzin Kwa (Morice River), the truck stayed close behind, a spectre in my rear view mirror. At my destination, I parked and got out, shouldering my camera and grabbing my notebook. I could see him in his truck watching my movements from a distance. I turned and went inside the land defenders’ compound.

What goes on in ‘private, high-level’ discussions between TC Energy and CSIS? No one knows

The documents obtained by The Narwhal and the Investigative Journalism Foundation this fall detail email communications between TC Energy executives, the Business Council of Canada, which represents the country’s wealthiest companies, and Vigneault, who signalled his support for the industry-led initiative. It was a paper trail that confirmed what was discussed in internal company calls leaked to the media in mid-2024. 

On those calls, detailed by The Narwhal in a series of investigative reports, former staffers from the first Trump administration — including foreign service operatives and ex-military hackers — talked about the extensive intelligence-gathering operations they conducted on behalf of the pipeline company. They also said TC Energy executives were attempting to persuade CSIS to share information with corporations more freely. 

Those efforts were ultimately successful.

Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, warned the powers given to CSIS are “ripe for further abuse.”   

“This intelligence sharing blurs the line between public security and corporate interests and risks putting Indigenous land defenders and climate activists under increasingly invasive surveillance for peacefully opposing fossil fuel expansion,” he said in a statement.

Secrecy is intrinsically part of CSIS operations, which means much of what goes on in its meetings with corporations like TC Energy remains unknown. Unlike lobbying activities, which give the public a glimpse into how and when fossil fuel companies and other private sector entities interact with government officials, the “private, high-level discussions” requested by TC Energy remain a black box.

As Dafnos put it, an absence of any details about what kind of information is being shared means the public doesn’t know whether or not it should be concerned.

“It’s kind of a conundrum,” she said, adding it’s also likely information is being shared in less formal ways. 

As The Narwhal and the Investigative Journalism Foundation reported, Business Council of Canada president Goldy Hyder called Vigneault a “dear friend” and said he texts him regularly.

“Are they sharing information about threats, like political opposition or grassroots opposition to energy projects?” Dafnos asked. “How do we get access to the phone calls that people are making to each other?”

‘Our democratic right’

Nikki Skuce has first-hand experience with her environmental activism attracting the attention of the federal spy agency.

While working for environmental advocacy group ForestEthics in the early 2010s, she found herself unexpectedly entangled with CSIS. At the time, she was involved in organizing opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline, an Enbridge proposal to transport bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to marine shipping routes on the northwest coast. 

Skuce said opposition to Northern Gateway drew the ire of former minister of natural resources Joe Oliver. In 2012, Oliver accused those who opposed projects like the pipeline of having a “radical ideological agenda.” He alleged they were trying to “exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects.” Others took it a step further, labelling Skuce and her peers as “eco-terrorists” or “extremists” after then-prime minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet lumped environmental advocates in with white supremacists and anti-capitalists in a controversial anti-terrorism bill. 

“It was frightening, frankly,” she said. 

She told The Narwhal she first became aware she was being spied on after a small community meeting on Nadleh Whut’en territory, about 150 kilometres west of Prince George, B.C.

“It wasn’t a meeting that stood out or anything,” she said, explaining the point was for attendees to come together in solidarity and strategize opportunities for outreach.

After the surveillance operation came to light, when records were unearthed in 2013, land defenders and environmental organizations in B.C. feared they were under constant surveillance and some felt they could no longer safely voice dissent over Northern Gateway.

“It was rattling and just a feeling in the pit of your stomach, like, what has become of this country, what’s become of Canada, that they’re spying on activists?” Skuce said.

Skuce and others targeted in the surveillance operation later testified as part of a case brought forward by the BC Civil Liberties Association, which alleged CSIS had illegally spied on citizens, groups and First Nations, and was sharing that information with fossil fuel companies. At the time, they were subject to a “gag order” prohibiting witnesses from talking about their testimonies, even to each other, Skuce said. Eventually, after lawyers with the civil liberties group fought in the courts for five years, the so-called “protest papers” were released, though heavily redacted, and the gag order was lifted. In 2024, the federal courts denied an application to release all the documents unredacted. The civil liberties association appealed that decision. 

“It was just shocking and kind of hard to believe,” Skuce said. “Since then, I think it’s gotten worse, seeing how things played out here in Wet’suwet’en territory with Coastal GasLink and the level of oppression and the weaponizing and use of injunctions.”

She said it feels like an erosion of democracy, where dissent is directly targeted and dissuaded, if not criminalized. 

“It’s just depressing, really.”

“Legitimate protest and activism is our democratic right here in Canada and I think everyone should be concerned if we’re having our police force and spy agencies sharing that information with corporations,” she said.

— With files from Zak Vescera

Updated Nov. 13, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. PT: This article was updated to include comment from CSIS.

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.

Editor’s note: This story is a collaboration between the Investigative Journalism Foundation and The Narwhal. A Canadian oil and gas firm successfully pressed Canada’s spy agency to start sharing government intelligence with the country’s wealthiest companies, something advocates say will protect critical infrastructure but that critics worry could infringe on civil rights. 

TC Energy, a major North American pipeline company, asked the former head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to set up regular “information-sharing” meetings between the agency, RCMP and representatives of major Canadian companies, according to internal government documents. TC Energy said the meetings would allow for “private, high-level discussions about security threats facing Canadian industry.”

The Canadian government has since passed legislation allowing CSIS to more easily share intelligence with outside organizations, including other governments and private companies. 

TC Energy’s proposal, detailed in documents the Investigative Journalism Foundation and The Narwhal obtained via access to information legislation, argued the creation of a “Canadian Security Alliance Council” would let CSIS share “unclassified but sensitive” intelligence it collects on behalf of the government with select major corporations. The company proposed the council would include corporations with annual revenues of $500 million or more.

In a February 2024 email, TC Energy argued it needed access to this kind of information because of unspecified “acute risks from foreign adversaries” seeking to sabotage critical infrastructure. 

“[G]iven the severity of the present threat, we support immediate action as current law permits,” the company’s proposal noted. 

That pitch was seemingly well received by then-CSIS director David Vigneault, who told an executive assistant of TC Energy’s CEO, François Poirier, that he would help “advance our shared interests.” The names of TC Energy employees in those emails are redacted but their titles are not.TC Energy did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story.“While the implementation of a formal program like this is a project involving multiple private and Government of Canada stakeholders, we’re seized with the issue and we appreciate your support,” Vigneault wrote to TC Energy in May 2024.

Nicole Giles, a senior assistant deputy minister at CSIS, told attendees at the Vancouver International Security Summit on Oct. 16 that the agency has given such briefings to members of the Business Council of Canada, which was involved in TC Energy’s proposal to Vigneault. Poirier is on the council’s board of directors.The result is that large Canadian corporations have unprecedented access to intelligence collected by Canada’s spy agency. 

Magali Hébert, a spokesperson with CSIS, said the agency and the business council, which represents the country’s wealthiest and most powerful companies, “have enjoyed a productive relationship that has advanced the interests of Canadians and of Canada’s economic security” since 2022.

“CSIS is considering formal mechanisms for enhancing information sharing with those outside government to help increase their resiliency to national security threats, such as foreign interference,” Hébert wrote in an emailed statement, adding the Canada Security Alliance Council is “conceptual.”Hébert said CSIS made 28 disclosures in 2024 to governments, “ethnic, cultural and religious communities” and businesses, but would not say which ones. 

Sharing intelligence the spy agency gathers with industry “can serve to protect Canada’s research ecosystem and economic prosperity from foreign interference, espionage and unwanted knowledge transfer that could pose a threat to Canada and Canada’s national security interests,” Hébert said.

‘A chilling effect’

The Business Council of Canada says information sharing is crucial to foil increasingly frequent cyberattacks from criminal networks and hostile states which aim to steal Canadian data and intellectual property, hamstring the country’s economy and even disrupt public utilities. Some hackers have even targeted smaller government entities like cities and hospitals. 

Council president Goldy Hyder told the audience at the same Vancouver summit on Oct. 16 that Canadian companies “can’t be boy scouts” in a world where such attacks are routine.“We’re being honest with people that businesses are under attack. Our economy is under attack. Our way of life is under attack,” Hyder said. 

Hyder added he considers Vigneault, who now works in the private security intelligence sector, a “dear friend,” and said they communicate regularly.The Investigative Journalism Foundation and The Narwhal approached Vigneault in person to ask about his relationship with the council and the friendly language in his emails.He referred reporters to his employer Strider, an American private intelligence company, which declined to comment.Business Council of Canada spokesperson Michèle-Jamali Paquette said the flow of information from CSIS to businesses was “tightly limited” and that it could only be used to “strengthen resilience against security threats.”But some critics and observers worry information sharing between CSIS and private companies could chill legitimate political protest, particularly demonstrations against oil and gas projects led by companies like TC Energy.

CSIS said its legislation prohibits investigating lawful protest and dissent. Hébert said the spy agency “would only investigate individuals if there was reasonable suspicion that said they were planning activities that fit within the scope of our mandate (threats to the security of Canada), such as violent extremism.”

But Vibert Jack, the litigation director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, argues the existence of such an information-sharing agreement could still discourage people from expressing their views.

“I think the overall prospect it raises is a chilling effect on overall dissent and protest,” Jack said. 

“The more data is being collected about people who are voicing dissent and the more that data gets shared between different parties, the more consequences can flow for all those people.”

TC Energy, Business Council of Canada said spy intelligence needed to ward off threats

TC Energy has long sought to increase corporate access to CSIS intelligence, which historically has rarely been shared even with other governments.

The Calgary-based energy company retained former staffers from the office of U.S. President Donald Trump to lobby CSIS for such changes, including at an October 2023 security summit in Palo Alto, Calif. 

The Narwhal previously obtained recordings of internal TC Energy meetings including one where Michael Evanoff, a former assistant secretary of state in the Trump administration who went on to work for TC Energy, said he had directly approached Vigneault about making it easier to share classified intelligence with companies. 

TC Energy, in its February 2024 proposal, described the agency’s information-sharing rules as “archaic.”

The pipeline company pitched the security working group as an “interim” solution, saying it could be used to distribute intelligence that was unclassified but still sensitive. The proposal suggested the group would be composed of CSIS, RCMP, the federal Ministry of Public Safety and representatives from a select group of Canadian companies.

TC Energy suggested the “convenor” of those meetings could be the Business Council of Canada, which represents banks, telecommunications firms, automakers, energy companies and accounting offices. 

But TC Energy and the Business Council of Canada also appear to have lobbied to loosen CSIS rules around sharing more sensitive information, which may have helped ultimately change Canada’s legislation. 

In November 2023, a month after the Palo Alto conference, Vigneault wrote an email to a TC Energy representative, saying its participation was “widely recognized by our partners as an important sign of Canada’s commitment to broadening and deepening relationships and cooperation with governments and private sector partners on national security matters.”

Vigneault later wrote in May 2024, encouraging TC Energy and the business council to bring its concerns about CSIS information sharing to Parliament.

The business council went on to support legislation — Bill C-70 — which included amendments to the CSIS Act allowing the agency to share classified information outside of government with the permission of the minister of public safety. 

The bill also created new criminal offences for sabotaging critical infrastructure and made it a criminal offence to distribute material that can be used to sabotage such infrastructure.Paquette, the council’s spokesperson, said CSIS previously “lacked the legal authority to proactively share threat intelligence with the private sector for the purpose of building economy-wide resilience.” She contrasted that to the United States and the United Kingdom, which have long had programs allowing intelligence agencies to more easily share information with private businesses.

“This gap left Canadian companies often fending for themselves despite CSIS possessing the knowledge and expertise to help them withstand such threats,” Paquette wrote in an email to the Investigative Journalism Foundation and The Narwhal. “By limiting CSIS’s ability to meaningfully engage with businesses, it also left CSIS, and the broader Canadian government, without a more complete understanding of the national security threats facing the Canadian economy.”

Paquette did not explain the nature of security threats the council is concerned its members face. 

Experts warn corporate access to government intelligence could be used to quash protests, advance projects

Many in the intelligence community see such partnerships as universally beneficial. 

Nitin Natarajan, a consultant who previously served as the deputy director for the American Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said sharing intelligence with private partners and local governments can help spur needed spending on things like cybersecurity.“We’re asking state-level jurisdictions and small cities to use taxpayer dollars to increase their cyber defences. We’re asking water utilities that have no money … we need to be able to do a good job of saying why,” Natarajan said.Natarajan, who helped start up multiple intelligence-sharing programs in his prior role, said such collaborations are “more critical today than [they’ve] ever been because hackers are targeting organizations like public utilities, municipalities and even small and medium-sized businesses.”

Natarajan said the goal of those attacks is to “disrupt the day-to day-lives” of citizens. “That’s a very different tactic,” he added.

Other observers, though, see risks in spy agencies partnering with the private sector.

Tia Dafnos, an associate professor of sociology at the University of New Brunswick, said the informal relationships between corporate executives and intelligence agencies add a layer of secrecy the public should be concerned about.

“One of the key concerns here is around the lack of transparency — and therefore accountability — when you have these discussions happening in spaces that are outside of public access.”

Dafnos said formalizing a group where powerful companies can discuss security issues with the likes of CSIS and the RCMP opens opportunities for corporations to advance their interests. 

“Creating these venues is sort of creating space for the blurring of interests.”

Companies like TC Energy employ extensive in-house security personnel and also contract out to third parties, which “engage proactively in forms of information collection and monitoring related to threats, which includes protests and opposition, the political climate surrounding their company and proposed projects and so forth,” Dafnos said.

“Those informal kinds of relationships are also significant, whether or not it’s having an impact in sort of directing the gaze or focus, or leading the RCMP, for example, to spend more time looking at a certain group or certain issue,” she explained, noting it is uncertain to what degree this takes place. “But those resources are there and they can be capitalized on.” 

The BC Civil Liberties Association previously filed complaints against CSIS, alleging the agency spied on environmental groups opposed to a pipeline project in northern B.C. 

Jack, who works for the organization, worries allowing CSIS to share such intelligence with companies — even unclassified information — could be used to quash similar protests in the future. 

“I think it’s fair to assume that part of the goal here for TC Energy is to find ways to prevent protest or lessen their impact at least on their operations,” Jack said. 

He is also perturbed by the tone of the emails between Vigneault and TC Energy. 

“It really seems as though CSIS views oil and gas companies as their partners, and when we see what they say about protestors and Indigenous land defenders, it’s clear they don’t see them as having shared interests,” Jack said.

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 Ontario government pushed forward TC Energy’s proposal to build a large pumped storage project on Georgian Bay, despite early expert advice it would be costly and not meet the province’s current energy needs. 

That advice was shared by the provincial Crown corporation responsible for the supply and demand of energy, the Independent Electricity System Operator, in an August 2021 memo obtained via freedom of information laws and shared with The Narwhal. 

In it, the operator provides a preliminary review of TC Energy’s proposal to build a 30-metre-deep, nearly 152-hectare reservoir at the top of the Niagara Escarpment in Meaford, Ont. The reservoir would hold water pumped up from Georgian Bay and then release it back through a pipe with turbines to store and generate electricity.

The system operator’s 2021 preliminary review is the first step in a three-stage screening process established by Ontario’s Ministry of Energy. If an energy project makes it past this stage, it is reviewed again by the ministry and the system operator, and then receives final approval by the government.

In its review, the system operator considers the potential for the project to supply energy to the grid when it’s needed and the cost for ratepayers — that is, anyone who pays an electricity bill. In the memo, the operator told the government that, given TC Energy’s “long development timeline” that would see operations start in 2028, the project “is not expected to contribute to meeting Ontario’s short- or medium-term system needs,” which are immense.

TC Energy has repeatedly said the project will not be built before it meets all provincial and federal requirements, based on its environmental, social and economic impact. As has been the case since June 2024, the Ontario Ministry of Energy did not respond to emailed questions from The Narwhal.

With Ontario staring down a massive energy supply crunch due to electrification, the rise of data centres and the temporary shutdown of major nuclear facilities for repairs, the government instructed the operator in February 2021 to develop a screening process for unsolicited energy projects that could help bridge that gap. 

That meant anyone could pitch a “unique or innovative” energy project to increase the supply of energy. To make it through the process, a project had to be “sufficiently developed, able to demonstrate community support and reduce electricity system and ratepayer costs.” 

TC Energy’s proposal was considered in this new bucket. But in the August 2021 memo, the system operator seemed wary. It noted that while there are value-added benefits for “long-lived capital intensive projects” like this one, it felt that these should be considered in a competitive procurement process designed “to acquire these types of resources” — meaning the Georgian Bay proposal should be evaluated among other projects of similar scale and output.

The operator also noted the project carries several significant risks, including “cost overruns and delays,” as well as the need for “significant permitting and approvals” from the federal and provincial governments. 

TC Energy’s proposed project requires major construction on the protected escarpment, as well as installing the water pipeline in the bay. Most of the project will be built on Department of National Defence lands, which are covered in an unknown amount of unexploded ammunition that has collected over the last seven decades; the company has previously said it will clean up the area before proceeding. 

Details about these risks are redacted in the memo as they are deemed advice to government, third party information and sensitive economic information.

The province was expected to greenlight the Meaford project, along with another pumped storage proposal in Marmora, Ont., in late 2023 as part of the government’s broad support for energy storage solutions. Instead, in January 2024, then-energy minister Todd Smith delayed his response to the operator and urged TC Energy to seek federal funding to mitigate its cost projections, recognizing concerns flagged by the Independent Electricity System Operator.

The province also committed up to $285 million of taxpayer money for TC Energy to conduct pre-development studies, including an offshore drilling program that is currently in progress. 

In its press release about the funding, the province said this money would help the company “complete a detailed cost estimate and environmental assessments to determine the feasibility of the proposed project.”“The province will make a final decision on the project once a detailed cost estimate is complete, ensuring the project is built only when it is in the best interest of Ontario ratepayers,” the press release said.

Sara Beasley, a spokesperson for TC Energy, told The Narwhal this investment would help the company “provide a more accurate estimate of the cost of the project.” 

“The project will need to demonstrate that it is cost-effective and is in the best interest of Ontarians before it moves forward,” Beasley said.

In an email, Michael Dodsworth, a spokesperson for the operator (who was recently a spokesperson for the Ontario Energy Ministry), told The Narwhal it has entered a contract “that enables Trans Canada Energy to recover eligible, prudently incurred expenses associated with pre-development work on the proposed Ontario Pumped Storage Project in Meaford.”

“The purpose of this pre-development work is to evaluate future project potential,” he said.

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

In late June, TC Energy representatives went door-to-door in Meaford, Ont., with flyers informing residents their view of Georgian Bay would look a little different this summer.

The flyers said the company would be bringing a large barge into the bay to conduct an offshore drilling program in what would be the fourth largest lake in Canada, if it wasn’t just a bay of the second-largest Great Lake: Huron.

The floating vessel would be positioned just off the shore of the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre, a military base on top of the protected Niagara Escarpment. Pending the test results of its exploratory drilling into the lakebed, TC Energy is proposing to build a 30-metre-deep, 375-acre-wide reservoir at the top of the escarpment that would hold water, pumped up from the bay and then released back through a pipe with turbines to store and generate energy. 

TC Energy has dubbed the pumped storage proposal “one of Canada’s largest climate change initiatives:” a $4.5-billion energy storage project that could power one million homes for 11 hours at a time.

TC Energy pitched the project to the Department of National Defence in 2019, in hopes of using its land. Since then, the company has set up shop in Meaford to engage with residents, city council and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation — representing the Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation — to garner support. 

In recent months, the provincial government has committed up to $285 million to the company to conduct pre-development studies, including the offshore drilling program.

The barge is a part of TC Energy’s environmental studies, led by engineering company WSP Canada. 

“The offshore geotechnical program is one of many important studies we are undertaking to ensure [the Ontario pumped storage project] is designed and delivered to the highest environmental and technical standards,” Sara Beasley, a TC Energy spokesperson, told The Narwhal in an email. “The project will only proceed after successfully advancing through the regulatory process, and will be evaluated on its environmental, social and economic impact.”

Here’s what we learned about the barge on Georgian Bay, and the next steps for a controversial renewable energy project.

What’s with the barge on Georgian Bay?

The barge is a floating vessel used in shallow water bodies, typically up to around 120 metres deep. Where it’s sitting in Georgian Bay is around 100 metres deep. 

It was towed into the bay in the last week of July and will stay there until mid-October, according to the company, assuming the weather permits uninterrupted testing.

It is being used to drill boreholes — narrow, deep holes in the ground — below the lakebed “to better understand the soil and rock composition,” Beasley said. She added that WSP has done similar offshore drilling in other areas of the Great Lakes.

Why is TC Energy conducting tests in Georgian Bay?

Beasley told The Narwhal the testing is a direct result of “feedback received from Saugeen Ojibway Nation and Meaford residents to move facilities into deeper water and reduce near-shore impacts” in 2022. 

The company had initially proposed that the reservoir would be linked to the bay by a large pipe that would open near the shoreline, close to homes and cottages. The testing is an effort to see whether pushing that pipe farther into the bay and away from residents can be done safely.

Who permitted TC Energy to conduct this testing?

Beasley told The Narwhal the company received authorization from both the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, also known as DFO, to undergo testing. 

“We have also engaged on this with the Department of National Defence and Navigation Canada,” Beasley said.

The Narwhal emailed all four government departments for comment. None responded by the time of publication.

TC Energy said it also engaged with Saugeen Ojibway Nation members to support the geotechnical program. Chief Conrad Ritchie of the Saugeen Nation said the company informed them that they would be conducting tests in the bay. “You have to be able to gather all the right information to assess any project,” Ritchie said. 

He added that TC Energy had committed to sharing the results of the testing from the rig.

Will TC Energy’s testing of Georgian Bay have any harmful impacts on the environment?

Beasley said Fisheries and Oceans Canada has issued advice and guidance to the company “to avoid impacts to fish and fisheries,” which includes adhering to a strict timeline and a planned program. 

“Protecting Georgian Bay is a key priority for us throughout all phases of project development,” Beasley said. As one example, she said WSP is using a dual-casing system to ensure the drilling process doesn’t impact the waters. That means a smaller steel pipe, which does the drilling, is inserted into the lakebed encased in a larger steel pipe so that any sediment or fluids released during the process are fully contained and removed from the bay.

“Once drilling and testing are complete, each borehole is filled with cement to seal it permanently and prevent any future water ingress,” Beasley said.

But some residents remain concerned. Georgian Bay has never been disrupted by this sheer magnitude of human activity. Several scientists have previously told The Narwhal it’s a delicately balanced ecosystem with a highly sensitive food web. The bay has so far remained relatively safe from pollution or excess algae, and also testing like the kind TC Energy is doing now. 

“I take this barge as a harbinger of what may come with construction on a huge scale in Georgian Bay and on its shores,” Tom Buck, the head of Save Georgian Bay, a residents’ group opposing TC Energy’s pumped storage project, told The Narwhal. “To me, it is a horrible sign of bad things to come.” 

“The rig has made the project seem more real,” he added. “When you see a large machine sitting out in the bay from a long way away, it feels like a big deal.”

How will the results of TC Energy’s testing be used?

TC Energy will begin an official environmental assessment later this year, as mandated by federal law. The results of the current testing will be incorporated into an updated design proposal and shared for public review and feedback as part of the regulatory process.

What happens next — and why does this matter?

Ontario is facing an energy supply crunch as it prepares for a future of data centres and industrial electrification. Energy storage, including the project proposed by TC Energy, is being strongly considered by the province as an effective way to bridge the supply and demand gap.

There is increasing concern about how Ontario is addressing its energy problems and who it is listening to. In recent months, the provincial government has adopted an “all of the above” approach to energy generation, encompassing both nuclear and renewable energy sources, as well as the fossil fuel natural gas. However, it has also made it easier for projects like this one to be approved by weakening environmental assessment rules through Bill 5. 

While Meaford city council has already declared its willingness to host the project, TC Energy’s pumped storage facility cannot be built without the approval of the company’s board of directors, as well as the federal and provincial governments and Saugeen Ojibway Nation. The results of this testing will likely be part of those conversations. 

TC Energy has previously told The Narwhal it will not proceed if the nation isn’t on board. “We’re not doing this project without them,” John Mikkelsen, the director of power and energy solutions, said in 2023. “We’ve put it in writing: we will not do this project if we don’t have the support of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. We will walk away.”

Ritchie said Saugeen Ojibway Nation continues to consult its community about its partnership with the company on this project.

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.

We’re excited to share that an investigation by The Narwhal is a finalist for the Canadian Journalism Foundation’s Jackman Award for excellence in journalism. 

The nominated series revealed the inner workings of fossil fuel company TC Energy and was written by northwest B.C. reporter Matt Simmons, former director of investigations and enterprise Mike De Souza and Ontario reporter Fatima Syed. Over a five-part series and months of following up, the team revealed the tactics the company purportedly uses to influence public opinion, media coverage and government decisions. 

The reporting was based on slow, steady on-the-ground work, time spent cultivating relationships with sources and whistleblowers in the oil and gas industry and the local communities in which the industry operates. 

It’s a terrific example of the kind of reporting the Jackman Award recognizes — exemplary journalism that has a profound positive impact on the communities most affected.  

Matt’s reputation as a fair, trustworthy journalist is why The Narwhal was able to review leaked recordings involving lobbyists and a number of TC Energy executives. During those calls, company executives and lobbyists discussed their success influencing Canadian politicians, saying they had been able to get their messages on government letterhead in briefing notes for ministers and to persuade politicians to back away from climate action. The executives also discussed the campaigns they had run to build public support for major projects in local communities.

“We often talk about backroom deals and decision-making, but this story actually revealed corporate influence can happen beside the strawberries in a Costco cooler,” executive director and editor-in-chief Carol Linnitt said. “This investigation brought the way power is brokered to life in such a personal way. It’s a reminder why journalists can’t grow complacent, even as the influence of industry seems more unwieldy than ever.”“This nomination is an incredible honour and I hope the thousands of individuals who give to The Narwhal each month to make this kind of reporting possible feel a surge of pride alongside our team,” Linnitt added.

It’s a rare peek behind the curtain of one of the biggest fossil fuel companies in the country — one that Matt’s stories have shown has executive ties to the Donald Trump administration in the U.S. 

“So many decisions that affect the lives of everyday people are made behind closed doors,” Matt said. “I think this is especially true with fossil fuel companies and their attempts to influence government decisions, which ultimately impact every single one of us on this planet. This series gave readers some insight into how one powerful corporation appears to approach its dealings with bureaucrats and politicians, and what that means for communities.” 

And the stories have had real impact. At least one company executive resigned and government officials say they immediately began an internal investigation to examine the allegations brought to light by The Narwhal. The company also issued a public apology to government officials and local communities — communities in both B.C. and Ontario whose points of view our reporters were careful to include, to show the real-world effects of big resource projects. 

“While it’s hard to know the full extent of how this series had an impact, it definitely shook some people in positions of power,” Matt says. “It’s a huge honour to receive this nomination and I’m so grateful I get to work on these kinds of stories, shedding light on the inner workings of the systems that affect us all.”

Also nominated in the small media category are investigations by CBC Manitoba, the Investigative Journalism Bureau, the Investigative Journalism Foundation and The Local. 

The Jackman Award winners will be announced at a ceremony in Toronto on June 12. 

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.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline has received a warning letter from the BC Environmental Assessment Office for “failing to properly mark environmentally sensitive areas” and failing to fully survey potential bat hibernation sites and roosts before clearing land last fall. 

The warning letter was sent to the pipeline’s owners, U.S.-based Western LNG and Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government, on March 3 and published on March 14. It’s for apparent violations first noted during an inspection on Oct. 2, 2024, when a compliance and enforcement office with the assessment office visited pipeline construction sites on Nisg̱a’a territory, northwest of Terrace, B.C. 

The provincial officer cited inconsistencies between required surveys for the presence of bats and the timing of clearing the pipeline right of way, noting workers cleared land before they “identified the presence of big brown or silver-haired bats emerging and in the vicinity” and concluding “these findings provide evidence of non-compliance.” Silver-haired bats are listed as endangered in Canada, due to dramatic population declines in recent years.

In its warning letter, the province noted the maximum penalty for failing to comply with an environmental assessment certificate is $1 million and, on subsequent convictions, up to $2 million for each violation. 

Construction of the 800-kilometre PRGT natural gas pipeline was paused when its environmental assessment certificate expired last November. B.C.’s new Environment and Parks Minister Tamara Davidson will decide this spring whether or not to grant the project a “substantial start” decision, which would lock in its environmental approval indefinitely and allow construction to resume.

If built, the PRGT line would connect natural gas reserves in B.C.’s northeast — largely extracted by fracking, a water-intensive process that has been linked to earthquakes and human health issues — to a proposed gas liquefaction and export facility, Ksi Lisims LNG, near the mouth of the Nass River close to the Alaska border. Its name comes from its original route, which was slated to terminate in Prince Rupert.

The pipeline project, which was previously owned by TC Energy, the Calgary-based company that built the contentious Coastal GasLink pipeline, was originally approved in 2014. TC Energy sold the pipeline to Nisga’a Lisims Government and Texas-based Western LNG last year. The Nisg̱a’a government and Western LNG, along with Calgary-based Rockies LNG, are also partners in the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG facility. 

As pipeline construction began last fall, Hereditary Chiefs from neighbouring Gitanyow Nation burned a benefits agreement they signed with TC Energy and closed their territories to all traffic related to the new pipeline. A few days later, Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups launched legal action against the project, alleging the BC Energy Regulator broke its own rules to green light construction. That was followed shortly by legal action against the proposed liquefaction plant.

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

In the recent turmoil over U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and threats, discussions of energy have centred on Canada’s role as a supplier of oilsands fuels and electricity. Lost amid the trade war talk is the right-of-way Canada is helping to secure for powerful gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) corporations through the continent.

The role of firms like TC Energy, formerly TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., is only beginning to receive the attention it warrants. Through financing from Export Development Canada dating back over a decade, TC Energy has received significant backing from the Canadian government for its pipelines stretching from Canada, through the U.S. and down to Mexico.

Some of these pipelines and proposals have been controversial across the continent. The best known is Keystone XL, which was cancelled twice by U.S. Democrats due to climate considerations (the company has since split off its oil pipeline assets, including Keystone, into a spinoff company called South Bow.) But there have also been TC Energy’s alleged violations of Indigenous territorial rights through the Coastal GasLink project on Wet’suwet’en territory, which kicked off a national movement of blockaded infrastructure in solidarity with the nation. Various TC Energy pipelines in Mexico, have been criticized by Indigenous groups, including Regional Council of Indigenous Peoples in Defense of the Territory of Puebla and Hidalgo opposing the route of the Tula pipeline project, and groups near the Veracruz coast opposing the Southeast Gateway project. 

In October 2023, land defenders met in Toronto and Ottawa to declare themselves “United Against TC Energy” and draw attention to a collective continental struggle against construction of billions of dollars worth in pipelines, infrastructure that would tie three countries’ shared energy grid to the ongoing exploitation of fossil fuels for decades to come.

TC Energy has sought in recent years to remake itself as a continental firm, dropping Canada from its name and moving into larger U.S. headquarters at the former Bank of America building in Houston. Texas is not only important for the U.S. and global oil economies; it also shares a border with Mexico which, through agreements signed by previous Mexican governments, has become a customer for American gas production as its shale revolution makes it a fracking superpower.

While Trump has made no secret of his dislike for the U.S. trade deficit in energy with Canada, this is not the case for its southern neighbour. Mexico was formerly a net exporter of hydrocarbon energy to the United States, but between 2015 and 2017, it became a net importer of U.S. hydrocarbons and fracked gas. TC Energy pipelines are now the largest conduit of U.S. fracked gas to the Mexican energy grid. TC Energy/TransCanada’s role in both Canadian and U.S. policy concerning Mexico’s energy sector is notable: at one point its corporate affairs director in Mexico served as co-chair of the energy subcommittee of the bilateral Mexico-Canada partnership.

Even prior to its name change, TC Energy described itself as the largest Canadian investor in Mexico. And despite its Canadian roots, TC Energy today appears to be close to the Trump administration. In a series of stories on the company last year, The Narwhal uncovered TC Energy’s links to Trump, connections that have since been reported on by others: Trump’s national security advisor Mike Waltz is married to current TC Energy vice-president Julia Nesheiwat, who was homeland security advisor to Trump in his first presidency. 

Trump followed through on steel and aluminum tariffs this week and it remains unclear how far he will go. But the threats they represent have materialized in other ways. The tariff threats put pressure on both northern and southern neighbors to secure controversial infrastructure that the oil and gas sector and the Trump administration support. In British Columbia, the NDP provincial government immediately signalled it would expedite LNG projects to Asian and non-American markets in the wake of U.S. threats. As author Seth Klein recently noted in the National Observer, this is the same foolhardy argument that siphoned billions from the public purse to build the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion when the vast majority of this oil is refined on the U.S. west coast. Kai Nagata of Dogwood points out the vast majority of LNG and pipeline investment is driven by people connected to Trump’s White House: for example, multi-million dollar mega-donor Steve Schwarzman, “who is betting big on a continent-wide expansion of LNG exports.”

TC Energy is increasingly cautious in B.C. given its experience with costly delays and reputational damage while building Coastal GasLink. It offloaded its Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line last year. But as the province’s liquefied natural gas sector explodes, the company’s continental role looms large and its reach extends across the Pacific. Gas piped through Coastal GasLink will be refined at a Kitimat, B.C., facility and exported to foreign markets in 2025, likely Japan and South Korea. Southeast Gateway is expected to start operating this year, connecting natural gas operations from Canada, through the U.S., into Mexico. 

However worried the Canadian government might be about Trump’s tariffs, it’s still brokering access for a pipeline company linked to the interests of his administration — one working hard to lock all of North America into natural gas. 

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.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

TC Energy and the Canadian government lobbied Mexico to accept natural gas as an environmental solution, much to the dismay of climate and energy experts who say the position is illogical.

The lobbying will financially benefit TC Energy — a fossil fuel giant based in Calgary, known for its network of domestic and U.S. pipelines, including Coastal GasLink in British Columbia.

The company is building a US$3.9-billion, 715-kilometre long pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico called Southeast Gateway, jointly with Mexico’s state-owned electric utility, the Comisión Federal de Electricidad.

The pipeline will carry natural gas down the Mexican coast to the country’s southeast. The company expects it to be finished later this year, and it will add to a network of seven existing Mexican pipelines that the company had a hand in building, with two more still in progress.

Southeast Gateway came together over two years ago when the utility struck a deal with the company to hold an equity interest in the pipeline, putting an end to years of commercial disputes in Mexico.

Natural gas is mostly methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas extracted from deep underground using drilling or fracking. Methane is often intentionally released by the oil and gas industry and it can also accidentally leak from equipment. It’s concentrating in the atmosphere, driving climate change, that in turn is making costly and deadly weather events like wildfires worse and more frequent.

But Natural Resources Canada has touted the supposed environmental benefits of Southeast Gateway and its natural gas cargo internally, in meetings with TC Energy, and to Mexican officials, according to departmental briefing notes.

Southeast Gateway would “enable more affordable, cleaner natural gas to displace coal and fuel oil for power generation,” reads one briefing note crafted for the department’s top official at the time, for a 2022 meeting with TC Energy CEO François Poirier where they discussed pipeline “approval challenges.”

The new pipeline is “making a positive contribution to Mexico’s climate change commitments,” continued the briefing note, which was released under access to information law. Some of the access to information documents were obtained by researcher Ken Rubin, who shared them with The Narwhal.

The comments from the department reflect what TC Energy’s Mexican subsidiary, TC Energía, told the Canadian government, records show.

On a branded “TC Energía Fact Sheet” circulated to government officials, the company said Southeast Gateway is “designed” to “allow Mexico’s energy transition” by freeing industrial and petrochemical facilities like power plants and an oil refinery in Mexico from having to rely on other high-polluting energy sources, like coal and fuel oil.

The upshot, the company wrote, is this fossil fuel pipeline would actually be “lowering emissions” along with bringing “industrial growth to some of Mexico’s poorest states.”

Long lifespan of natural gas pipelines could stunt clean energy growth in Mexico

The documents call into question whether public servants are providing the government with accurate advice about how to mitigate climate change.

London-based non-profit InfluenceMap, which tracks corporate influence on climate policies, says the idea that natural gas is a clean energy source is an “industry narrative” used to promote the use of gas and disconnect it in the public eye from methane.

Program manager Vivek Parekh said the group’s research found examples of companies deploying “regionally focussed narratives” to convince the public of the benefits of a related fuel, liquefied natural gas (LNG).

In response to The Narwhal’s questions about the department’s environmental claims, a spokesperson responded that “in the context of the pipeline in Mexico referenced in the briefing note, natural gas is ‘cleaner’ than coal,” while natural gas “generates fewer emissions than oil and diesel fuels.”

Asked if the briefing note demonstrates Canada’s support for the pipeline, a spokesperson said the government “supports Canadian businesses abroad.”

Natural Resources Canada also told The Narwhal it considers Southeast Gateway “an interim step that can be taken as we move towards net zero by 2050, and expand non-emitting energy production in Canada and globally.”

Both Canada and Mexico have given themselves a goal of achieving “net-zero emissions” by 2050 — meaning that, 25 years from now, all carbon pollution will have to either be eliminated or somehow balanced out by the use of technology or protected natural areas that pull carbon from the atmosphere.

But pipelines can have lifespans longer than 25 years. Anna Zalik, a York University professor who has researched the Mexican oil industry for two decades, told The Narwhal that locking Mexico’s energy grid into natural gas could stunt clean energy development. Meanwhile, the costs of inaction to combat climate change — including the effects of extreme weather — largely fall on the poor, and far outweigh the price of acting now.

Canada’s claim that “U.S. fracked gas piped to Mexico is ‘cleaner’ than Mexico using its own heavy oil” is “dubious,” Zalik, who focuses on global geography and environmental and urban change, said.

Proving it would require examining all the greenhouse gas pollution from the production, transport and use of the gas, Zalik said, plus the ecological impact of the pipeline, the pollution made from building it, from building and maintaining the other pipelines that feed it, and from the U.S. fracking industry supplying it with fuel.

It’s true that natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit of energy, compared with coal, diesel or fuel oil, and burning those fuels also throws off air pollutants like soot, which can lead to poor air quality.

But the gas system also has problems: methane from the energy sector is about 70 per cent higher than official counts, according to the International Energy Agency. Satellite data from the region expected to supply gas to TC Energy’s pipelines in Mexico show huge methane leaks.

Cornell University biogeochemist and ecosystem scientist Robert Howarth, who has studied methane leaks in the U.S. gas system, told The Narwhal that Southeast Gateway doesn’t make sense as a climate solution.

“If we are to seriously address climate disruption, the world’s leading climate scientists are in near unanimous agreement that we need to be free of almost all fossil fuel use by 2050, and we need to cut the use of fossil fuels globally in half within the next 10 years,” said Howarth.

“In that context, a new gas pipeline makes zero sense. Instead, Mexico should be building renewable energy sources — wind, solar, hydro — with some appropriate storage.”

Natural Resources Canada ‘excited’ about TC Energy fossil fuel investment in Mexico

Asked whether Canada considered the probability of the pipeline locking Mexico into fossil fuel use, a departmental spokesperson said it would “not be appropriate for the Government of Canada to comment on Mexico’s energy policy.”

However the briefing notes obtained by The Narwhal, which were prepared for four meetings planned over 2022 and 2023 that centered on the Mexican business of TC Energy, show the government did weigh in on Mexico’s energy policy — in favour of a new pipeline.

They include suggested messaging for civil servants, such as telling one senior official they could inform a Mexican governor they were “pleased” to see “co-operation” between TC Energy and the utility to build the Southeast Gateway pipeline.

“I was excited to see the new investment being made by TC Energy into Mexico’s southeast, which will bring natural gas to the region, helping lower emissions and being a catalyst for industrial development,” read one of the suggested lines in the briefing note.

A departmental spokesperson confirmed that, at the meeting, the civil servant “expressed satisfaction” with the dialogue between Mexican authorities and Canadian energy firms.

But they said the government was “not a party to the negotiations” that resulted in the deal between TC Energy and the utility, and so could not comment.

The meetings were not just about pipeline access; they also included plenty of discussion about proposed changes to Mexico’s domestic electricity market. The department insisted the two issues were “distinct.”

Mexico has committed to cutting its carbon pollution by 35 per cent, black carbon or soot by 51 per cent, and deforestation to net zero by 2030. The Mexican government has also portrayed its move to buy a Texas refinery and open another one among a list of actions it is taking “in the fight against climate change,” along with modernizing hydroelectric plants, installing solar and wind energy, cutting oil and gas methane emissions and producing more electric cars.

The Mexican Embassy acknowledged receipt of questions Jan. 17, but could not provide a response before publication. TC Energy did not respond to two sets of questions sent Dec. 20 and Jan. 14 about the briefing notes and the company’s role in Mexico, or to a voicemail message left on Jan. 30.

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.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

Backpacks full of chemical herbicides or goats and wildflowers? As TC Energy prepares its plans to manage invasive species, weeds and other vegetation along the 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline right of way, the focus is on herbicides. 

In a recent notice, the Calgary-based pipeline company informed northern B.C. communities of its plans to use herbicides, which could be deployed through special backpacks filled with the chemicals or sprayed from the backs of all-terrain vehicles, to “control invasive and noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation” and “to ensure pipeline or facility site security.” The notice said the plan, currently in development, will apply to all components of the pipeline, including the right of way and access roads. 

The vegetation management program will be in place from 2025 to 2030 and include areas near the B.C. communities of Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Groundbirch, Chetwynd, Prince George, Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake, Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers, Kitimat and Terrace.

TC Energy’s draft plan outlines potential alternatives to herbicides, including targeted grazing using goats or sheep, weed whacking and planting native species to choke out invasive plants. But while the draft plan notes Coastal GasLink will consider “a variety of treatment options,” the public notice only mentions herbicides.

Among the two dozen herbicides TC Energy says it may use are several known to be toxic to birds, fish and bees, according to data compiled by the U.S.-based advocacy group Beyond Pesticides. The list includes glyphosate, 2,4-D and picloram. At least one chemical on the list is considered a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance, or PFAS — a group of substances more commonly known as “forever chemicals.”

Allie Golt, a botanist and ecologist based in Prince George, B.C., who studies glyphosate and other herbicides, said there are more questions than answers when it comes to the ecological impacts of spraying areas like a pipeline right of way.

“I found that the residues of glyphosate remain in flower tissues, so in the entire flowers of prickly rose and fireweed, for at least two years post-application,” she said in an interview. “The implications of how that impacts, for example, bumblebees or other foraging critters hasn’t really been explored.”

James Steidle, who leads a forest advocacy group called Stop the Spray B.C., said he takes issue with the notification process. The notice was published in a Burns Lake newspaper, including on its website, but he said public awareness of the plan and its potential impacts is minimal.    

“I don’t think these notices are getting out to the public adequately,” he said. “I pay attention to this stuff and I didn’t see anything about this pest management plan getting developed. They should have advertisements on Facebook, on social media. A lot of these communities don’t have newspapers.”

According to TC Energy’s notice, the public has until Friday to provide comments on the proposed plan.

Use of herbicides listed as ‘huge concern’ for First Nations living along Coastal GasLink route

When Coastal GasLink received its environmental assessment certificate in 2014, the B.C. government included a condition requiring the pipeline company to “use alternative methods of vegetation control” on Indigenous lands where the communities “requested that pesticides or herbicides not be used.” 

The Narwhal reviewed consultation documents from the project’s assessment and found at least 13 First Nations along the pipeline route officially registered concerns around the use of herbicides. 

In 2014, a group of Treaty 8 nations in the province’s northeast, for example, flagged their concerns with the company’s plans, noting, “We do not, in fact, support use of any chemical herbicides as the water and fish in Treaty 8 territory are already highly stressed.” The group added, “wildlife can ingest treated weeds, which creates adverse effects on wildlife and indirectly, an exposure pathway on traditional land users.”

Similarly, Nadleh Whut’en First Nation, in a joint statement with the Nak’azdli Band Council, said in 2014 “any application of chemicals at or near wetlands is a huge concern for First Nations living along the pipeline route. Coastal GasLink must prohibit use of such chemicals and look for alternatives that will not impact water quality and traditional use species.” Nadleh and Nak’azdli territories are northwest of Prince George, near Fraser Lake. Monica Buchanan, a Nadleh Whut’en member, confirmed to The Narwhal the nation remains against spraying on its territories.

TC Energy did not directly answer The Narwhal’s questions about whether it intends to spray herbicides on the 13 First Nations territories.

“Coastal GasLink’s approach to weed management is developed in consultation with communities and done in accordance with applicable regulation and conditions of permits,” a company spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement. “We have consulted with Indigenous groups, landowners, regional districts, local plant councils and the public about the proposed integrated vegetation management plan (IVMP) and feedback has been incorporated, where appropriate, to shape it.”

Shannon McPhail, executive director of Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, said she’s concerned about the discrepancy between the public notice, which suggests herbicides will be used over the full length of the pipeline, and the government requirement. 

“The fact that more than half of the First Nations who responded had serious and emphatic concerns about this and it’s even in their plan still … is a slap in the face to the people who live here, to the people who fish here, who hunt here, to our kids who swim in the rivers,” she said.

The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office did not respond to questions by publication time.

TC Energy has ‘no shortage of options,’ critic says

In addition to spraying, TC Energy could incorporate alternative methods of managing invasive plant species, according to the draft plan, made public this fall. 

As well as potentially using animals to graze invasive species, the company lists hand pulling, manual brushing (weed whacking) and planting native species, including flowers and grasses, as ways it could offset or replace the use of herbicides. TC Energy wouldn’t be the first company to use animals — last year, Enbridge Gas piloted a program using goats to clear invasive plants from a small section of its natural gas pipeline network north of Prince George.

For McPhail, choosing alternative methods to control invasive species and other vegetation is a no-brainer. She noted construction of Coastal GasLink was “riddled with issues of non-compliance” which cost TC Energy more than $800,000 in fines and damaged sensitive ecosystems.

“It comes down to them choosing whether they want their legacy to be more toxic or do they want to actually finish this project on a better note,” she said. “Here’s an opportunity to do something beneficial for that land and for communities. Why not put locals to work, give them the brushing jobs? Why not turn part of the right of way into a pollinator haven and plant friendly plants that will support bee populations? Why not use the right of way to do some agriculture, for example, and feed communities? There’s no shortage of options.”

TC Energy did not say whether it has any specific plans in development for using alternative methods, but noted “Coastal GasLink prioritizes the use of qualified and competitive local Indigenous and local businesses” when hiring for jobs, including vegetation management.  

Long-term effects of herbicides are unknown

Golt said she’s looked at how spraying can impact “off-target” species — nearby plants that get an accidental dose of the chemicals. 

“There’s always going to be some sort of herbicide drift,” she said. “There may be accidental application to a species that is not a targeted species. There’s also the potential for a herbicide spill.”

 Steidle said that could have unintentional effects on human health.

“People might be picking berries on the pipeline right of way and there might be levels of contaminants in these berries years after they’ve been sprayed,” he said. “So even if they put a sign up, it doesn’t mean the public’s being notified about potential contamination of these areas.”

When plants receive a smaller dose of herbicide, they often absorb the chemical but don’t die. Golt explained how her research found those smaller doses reduced prickly rose and fireweed pollen production. 

“Bees are going to come and then they’re not going to be able to effectively pollinate other rose or fireweeds,” she said.  

Steidle said there are other ways chemical treatments could have long-lasting impacts. 

“They call them pyridine herbicides and they’re used to control broadleaf vegetation,” he explained, referring to chemicals that target leafy trees and plants such as aspen, dandelion and chickweed. He said “if you spray your fields with it and grow hay,” then feed that hay to horses or cattle and use their manure to make compost, “your tomatoes won’t grow years later.” 

“So for instance, moose are in here eating this stuff and then they take a dump somewhere else, it spreads these chemicals around and that could have impacts on the ecosystem,” he said. “It’s probably pretty minimal but still you’re introducing all these chemicals into the environment just to keep this pipeline right of way clear.” 

Golt said the lack of data is the most concerning.

“More research needs to be done into the long-term effects of herbicides on our environment,” she said. “Overall herbicide use may have greater implications on ecological roles of reproducing plants and the overall availability of food for animals — and we are not too sure what those are yet. I think it’s potentially better to use other solutions in the meantime, until we have a better understanding of the environmental impacts of these herbicides.”

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.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

As construction of B.C.’s newest pipeline got underway in late August, with route clearing in the northwest, Indigenous leaders burned a pipeline agreement and set up an on-going blockade.

The 800-kilometre Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline would ship natural gas from northeast B.C. to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on the northwest coast. Conflict over the pipeline is growing as Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders in the region oppose the project on the ground and in the courts.

Neither the pipeline project nor the roots of the conflict are new. Both have complicated histories that span more than a decade and thread through multiple governments.

John Rustad, current leader of the BC Conservatives, was Minister of Aboriginal Relations in the early 2010s when the province set plans in motion for a proposed massive expansion to B.C.’s natural gas sector. Tasked with getting First Nations to agree to pipelines to enable that expansion, Rustad set out to negotiate agreements with Indigenous leaders across the north — agreements now lighting the fires of conflict under the pipeline project. 

As a key decision about the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline looms, the party that forms government following the Oct. 19 B.C. election will face a quagmire of conflict and tough decisions about how to navigate the unfolding situation. 

The Narwhal dug into the complicated history behind the conflict, connecting the dots between political parties, industry and government deals. Here are five key takeaways.

How is the PRGT conflict related to Coastal GasLink?    

The agreements and approvals for the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline happened around the same time as those for the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Until recently, both projects were owned by the same company, multinational pipeline giant TC Energy. 

When construction on Coastal GasLink got underway in 2019, B.C. quickly became a focal point for conflict between industrial development and Indigenous Rights. The B.C. government and TC Energy had signed deals with five of six elected Wet’suwet’en band councils but did not receive free, prior and informed consent from Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs, who opposed the pipeline. 

In early 2020, the world watched as Wet’suwet’en opposition to Coastal GasLink led to Indigenous-led solidarity protests that shut down railways and ports across the country. It was a flashpoint that signalled growing frustration with carbon-intensive resource extraction proceeding without consent from Indigenous leaders, held in stark contrast against political commitments to reconciliation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Conflict over the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project is a bit different, because agreements were signed with a mix of elected band councils and some Hereditary Chiefs across the north. But it’s been 10 years since the ink dried and some Indigenous leaders believe the pipeline should be subject to a new environmental assessment — or scrapped entirely. 

Making things more complicated, TC Energy sold the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line to the Nisg̱a’a government and its industry partners earlier this year. The Nisga’a government says the pipeline — along with the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG project it co-owns that the pipeline will supply — will help build economic prosperity. 

In late August, as construction began on Nisga’a territory, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs burned agreements and set up an on-going blockade to stop traffic related to the project from crossing their territory. Indigenous leaders have said they plan to take whatever action is necessary to stop the project.

“​​I think everyone has the Coastal GasLink scenario in mind in the context of what is developing around PRGT,” Gavin Smith, lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, told The Narwhal. He said if the project proceeds, he anticipates “very pronounced opposition.”

Where do B.C.’s political parties stand on LNG?

It’s a two-party race to form government between the Conservatives and NDP. Both support expanding the LNG sector. 

Rustad is vying for the premier’s office on a platform promising to accelerate development of fossil fuel infrastructure in the province. The BC Conservatives have promised to “dramatically expand” B.C.’s natural gas production and LNG export facilities, touting the oft-repeated narrative that natural gas will displace more carbon intensive coal-fired electricity in other countries.

That narrative is widely disputed by critics, who point to how countries like China, frequently cited for its reliance on coal for energy production, are outpacing most in developing renewable energy projects.

While the BC NDP doesn’t use the same language as the BC Conservatives, it offers much the same narrative. 

In an interview with Bloomberg this summer, BC NDP Leader David Eby said it’s possible to double initial production at the country’s first LNG export project, LNG Canada, while still meeting the province’s climate goals. LNG Canada, which will be supplied by the Coastal GasLink pipeline, is slated to commence export operations next year in Kitimat, B.C.

How will the B.C. election affect how the conflict unfolds?

David Tindall, a professor in the University of British Columbia’s sociology department, said the new pipeline being co-owned by the Nisga’a government will influence the B.C. government’s response to potential conflict, no matter which party wins the election.

He said he’s seen a trend where the NDP “is partly trying to do certain types of extractive development,” typically subject to opposition from environmental activists, “by facilitating these kinds of projects when they’re owned or run by First Nations communities.”

The response would look similar if the BC Conservatives form government, he added.

“If the Conservatives win the election, I would see them being a little bit more inclined to pick winners and losers and back the pipeline owners and basically oppose any groups that are opposed to the pipeline.”

Earlier this year, the BC Conservatives pledged to hold “activists who impede the activity of resource development through illegal blockades” accountable — a promise later quietly scrubbed from the party’s website.

What are the climate impacts of the PRGT pipeline?

The brewing conflict is a distraction from the real issue, according to Naxginkw Tara Marsden, a Gitanyow member from Wilp Gamlakyeltxw who works with the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

“We’re stuck in this cycle of people only paying attention when it’s that really heated, race-based conflict and the fact that this is nation to nation is even juicier,” she told The Narwhal. “But that’s not the story — the story is the climate is going to kill us all.”

Natural gas is mostly composed of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide for its short-term warming impact on the planet. Methane is invisible and odorless, which means leaks are notoriously hard to detect. And every step of the process of extracting the fossil fuel for energy production — including the wellhead, pipeline, liquefaction, shipping, regasification and combustion — adds more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, intensifying the effects of climate change.

A recent study in the journal Energy Science and Engineering calculated the climatic impacts of the full lifecycle of getting gas out of the ground and shipped overseas to be burned for energy production. The study, authored by Robert Howarth, a Cornell University environmental scientist, concluded natural gas exported from the United States produces 33 per cent more greenhouse gases than coal.

“To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong,” Howarth told the Guardian.

What’s next for the PRGT pipeline?

The new provincial government must decide whether or not to require a new environmental assessment for the pipeline project. It will consider work done on the pipeline until Nov. 25 in its decision about whether to lock in the project’s original environmental assessment certificate indefinitely — by granting what’s called a “substantially started” designation or require a new assessment.

When the pipeline received government approval in 2014, B.C. gave a green light to a route ending in Prince Rupert. But the route was changed in an amendment application filed with the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office in June. 

Instead of going to Prince Rupert, the pipeline’s proposed final destination is now the as-yet-unapproved Ksi Lisims LNG project on B.C.’s north coast, near Alaska. Smith, with West Coast Environmental Law, said the destination change calls into question whether the pipeline is the same project that was approved. 

“Now we’re seeing, effectively, a different project being proposed that is going to an entirely different place,” Smith said. He said pipeline construction started this summer based on what appears to be an attempt to “portray and advance this through existing permits that were made for a project that was going to Prince Rupert.”

“If the provincial government were to approve and advance, or enable the advancement of, the PRGT project in those pretty suspect legal circumstances, in my view, I think that is going to deeply aggravate and increase the likelihood of the types of conflicts on the land that everyone wants to see avoided,” he said.

The decision about whether to proceed with a new environmental assessment will be made by B.C.’s new environment minister following the election.

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.