Skip to main content

TransCanada president and chief executive officer Russ Girling addresses the media after the Annual General Meeting in Calgary on May 2, 2014.

Mike Sturk/Reuters

Two First Nations are seeking a judicial review of a provincial regulator's decision to approve a TransCanada Corp. pipeline project, alleging that they weren't adequately consulted.

The Nadleh Whut'en and Nak'azdli First Nations say the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) rushed its study of the $4.7-billion Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline that would go from northeastern British Columbia to Kitimat.

"Simply put, the EAO carried out an environmental assessment that was deficient from the outset and ignored the Nations' objections in that regard," according to the legal documents filed Thursday in B.C. Supreme Court. "Impacts in relation to aboriginal title, rights and interests were not properly assessed. No meaningful consultation occurred."

Story continues below advertisement

TransCanada's 675-kilometre pipeline project is designed to feed a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for Kitimat. The LNG Canada joint venture is led by Royal Dutch Shell PLC and has three Asian partners.

"We believe that the EAO's process provided a robust consultation process concerning the project. Coastal GasLink remains committed to engagement and consultation with all aboriginal groups across this project," TransCanada spokesman Trevor Halford said in a statement.

Coastal GasLink and EAO executive director Doug Caul are named as two of the four respondents in the case. The other respondents are Environment Minister Mary Polak and Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman. The B.C. government didn't have immediate comment, but pointed out that it has three weeks to respond in court.

Ms. Polak and Mr. Coleman issued a B.C. environmental assessment certificate for the pipeline project in October. The provincial regulator approved the project with 32 conditions, including a requirement for a plan to avoid harm to caribou habitat.

"We need to know how they can go issuing a certificate when we still have concerns on the ground," Chief Martin Louie of the Nadleh said in an interview.

Last month, Ms. Polak and Mr. Coleman issued environmental assessment certificates to Pacific NorthWest LNG and the related $5-billion, 900-kilometre pipeline plan called Prince Rupert Gas Transmission, which is being proposed by TransCanada. Spectra Energy Corp.'s $7.5-billion Westcoast Connector pipeline project, which would feed BG Group PLC's planned Prince Rupert LNG venture, also received a certificate.

Some aboriginal leaders say B.C.'s environmental review process is too fast for LNG projects and related pipeline proposals.

Story continues below advertisement

Chief Fred Sam of the Nak'azdli said Coastal GasLink needs further review to address aboriginal concerns over the pipeline's impact on the environment.

The Nadleh Whut'en and Nak'azdli First Nations say the B.C. government failed to uphold its duty to consult aboriginals properly on Coastal GasLink.

"The Crown devised a long, protracted process to provide the Nations with opportunities to 'blow off steam' before it proceeded to do what it intended all along – issue the certificate. At every turn, the Crown was unwilling to make changes based on new information and concerns that emerged during the consultation process," the court filing said.

Separately, Pacific NorthWest LNG announced Thursday that it has signed an "impact benefit agreement" with the Metlakatla First Nation's governing council, providing aboriginals with access to training and jobs.

"We're committed. We're satisfied with the agreement and we're on side," Chief Harold Leighton of the Metlakatla said in an interview.

Pacific NorthWest LNG, led by Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, filed new documents recently with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The CEAA is the lead regulator in that LNG project, but the provincial EAO held sole responsibility for the environmental review of Coastal GasLink.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter