Pacific Northwest LNG gains support from First Nations

Pacific Northwest LNG, one of the leading liquefied natural gas proposed export projects in British Columbia, is increasingly gaining support from First Nations.

The aboriginal support is instrumental for the project — led by Malaysian state-controlled Petronas — as it awaits a final decision from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and, ultimately, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government.

First Nation support is critical because mounting court victories — including a 2014 landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision that granted the Tsilqhot’ in title to 1,740 square kilometres of traditional territory in the Interior — have pushed the consultation and accommodation obligations for governments to a higher threshold.

A federal government decision on the project — valued at $36 billion for the terminal, pipeline and development to extract gas in northeast B.C. — could come by the summer.

Pacific Northwest LNG has signed impact- benefit agreements or term sheets with four of five First Nations it has to consult over the LNG terminal near Prince Rupert.

The fifth, the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, recently offered conditional support for the project in a letter from its mayor, John Helin, to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It was a major aboutface, after the community voted in 2015 to unanimously reject a $1.14-billion benefit deal from the company and the B.C. government.

“While we are pleased with the agreements signed to date, there is always more work to do as we move toward building a world-class LNG facility,” Pacific Northwest LNG spokesman Spencer Sproule said in a written statement.

The B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Relations said it is also working on other benefit agreements with coastal First Nations and expects to make an announcement soon.

According to the province, 16 of 19 First Nations that must be consulted along the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project route have benefit agreements. The province says it is in discussions with the three remaining First Nations.

Of the 11 agreements made public so far, one-time payments to First Nations would total $22 million. Another $10 million a year in ongoing payments would be shared.

TransCanada, the company that would build the pipeline that would feed the LNG plant, says it now has 11 impact-benefit agreements with First Nations.

Values of those agreements have not been made public.

“While not necessary for regulatory approval, these agreements provide greater certainty with respect to economic benefits, information sharing, community investment and co-operation,” TransCanada spokesman Matthew John said in a written response.

One of the First Nations yet to sign a pipeline agreement is the Nak’azdli in the Northern Interior.

Chief Fred Sam says they are in the midst of community discussions, but there is not universal opposition to a natural gas pipeline, as there was to Enbridge’s $7.9-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline proposal.

“I think a lot of people are looking to the future where we need more funding than just (federal government) funding,” said Sam.

Other leading major projects — including Shell’s LNG Canada and Chevron’s Kitimat LNG — also enjoy widespread First Nation support.

For example, both LNG Canada and Kitimat LNG have the support of the Haisla Nation, whose traditional territory LNG terminals would be built on. The pipelines that would supply each also have support.

In a written statement, B.C. Ab- original Relations and Reconciliation Minister John Rustad said there’s a high level of support because First Nations believe the sector can be developed in an environmentally sustainable manner and contribute positively to their communities.

University of Calgary professor Nigel Bankes, chair of natural resources law, said he doesn’t believe unanimous support of First Nations is needed for a project to move ahead. He noted that even under the Tsilhqot’in decision that infringement of aboriginal rights can be justified.

That might be more difficult if a First Nation is going to suffer harms from a liquefaction gas facility, for example, but likely less so if the affect is from a pipeline right of way, said Bankes.

However, Thompson Rivers University law professor Nicole Schabus said she does not see how governments can ignore any one First Nation’s land and title rights, particularly from an international human rights perspective.

I think a lot of people are looking to the future where we need more funding than just (federal government) funding.