Murray Wood: It's not the dog breeds, it's the owners
Regina is asking people to complete a survey on pet control that includes a question about banning breeds of dogs. Murra...
VANCOUVER — Two legal challenges filed in British Columbia claim a liquefied natural gas pipeline hasn’t been “substantially started,” contrary to a decision made by the provincial government back in June.
Petitions filed in B.C. Supreme Court last week allege the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission natural gas pipeline project has been given the green-light by the B.C. Environment Ministry to go ahead without requiring a new environmental assessment certificate, which was first granted in 2014.
One of the petitions was filed by hereditary Chief Charles Wright with the Gitxsan Nation, who claims the decision to allow the pipeline project to proceed through its “untouched” territory was made without proper consultation.
The ministry announced in June that pipeline project has been “substantially started,” meaning the environmental assessment certificate approving its construction issued in 2014 remains valid.
The 900 kilometre pipeline is to supply the Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas facility off the B.C. coast was given an environmental certificate from the B.C. government two weeks ago and federal approval quickly followed under a one-project, one-review system.
Wright’s petition says the decision on the pipeline was unreasonable because it failed to consult about the project’s impacts on Aboriginal rights and title.
It says the pipeline route is through his clan’s territory, including “important cultural areas,” and there is concern the land will be “irrevocably altered,” rather than protected.
Wright said in a statement that the legal action isn’t about stopping the pipeline altogether, but that the project is relying on an “outdated” assessment and the province’s decision has “set the stage for inevitable conflict in the region.”
Environmental lawyers at Ecojustice said in a statement last week that the project is also facing a legal challenge by a coalition of community groups opposed to the pipeline.
The petitioners in that case, Kispiox Valley Community Centre Association, Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and local resident Kathy Larson, claim the pipeline, which will carry fracked natural gas, hasn’t been substantially started, and the original environmental assessment certificate was set to expire last November.
Ecojustice said the project was inactive for nearly 10 years, and “the pipeline company only partially cleared trees from about five per cent of the pipeline route and built some limited supporting infrastructure.”
“The substantial start decision means that the … project could proceed without taking into account the many changes to the project and the region that have occurred since the project was assessed over 10 years ago,” it said.
Ecojustice lawyer Matt Hulse said the province should “follow its own rules” by requiring a new assessment because “if construction on a project has not been significantly started by the deadline set by the government, it needs a new environmental assessment in order to proceed.”
The province’s Environment Assessment Office said in its reasons for decision in June that the company behind the project, Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Ltd., had spent $584 million between 2013 and 2024 to “advance the project.”
The office’s reasons said the majority of public feedback about the project contended it had not been substantially started, and concerns raised by the Gitxsan included greenhouse gas emissions, whether all permits were in place and about whether the facility poised to receive gas from the pipeline would be approved.
“Though there was feedback received expressing opposition to the project, this is not the issue before me,” Chief Executive Assessment Officer Alex MacLennan wrote. “Similarly, the determination at hand is not whether the project is in the public interest; that decision was made when the certificate was granted.”
Ministry of Environment and Parks spokesman David Karn said the province is “not able to comment on matters before the courts.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 29, 2025.
Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press
