B.C. gives green light to LNG pipeline, with no need for new environmental assessment
The Environmental Assessment Office says it has determined the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline has 'substantially started,' fulfilling a requirement of the 2014 certificate and allowing the project to proceed without a new assessment.
The original approval was for a roughly 900-kilometre pipeline between Hudson's Hope in northeastern B.C. and Lelu Island near Prince Rupert, the site of a liquefied natural gas processing facility that has since been cancelled.
The pipeline was purchased by the Nisga'a Nation and Texas-based Western LNG last year to supply natural gas to the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG facility, a project the province says is still undergoing environmental assessment.
The province says the office is also reviewing requests by the proponent to change the pipeline route, including shifting its end point to the Ksi Lisims facility and rerouting the eastern portion of the pipeline.
The BC Greens say in a statement that upholding the original certificate is 'reckless,' prioritizing the project's American financial backers over Indigenous rights, environmental protection and community well-being.
'It's outrageous that the government is allowing construction to proceed with no approved terminus, using an outdated plan, and threatening one of the province's most sensitive salmon habitats, all to serve the interests of foreign-owned fossil fuel companies,' the Greens' interim leader, Jeremy Valeriote, says in the statement.
'This is a betrayal of environmental stewardship, Indigenous rights, and a threat to sustained climate action in this province,' Valeriote says.
The pipeline is partly financed by the U.S. private equity firm Blackstone, which the Greens described as a major Republican donor with ties to U.S. President Donald Trump.
The Greens' statement also noted that the U.S. engineering and construction company Bechtel had been selected to construct the pipeline.
Western LNG called the substantially started ruling 'a significant milestone in the path toward delivering responsible, Indigenous-led energy infrastructure' in B.C.
Eva Clayton, president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government, says in a statement released by Western LNG that the ruling was 'an important step — not just for (the pipeline), but for the Nisga'a Nation's vision of self-determination and long-term prosperity.'
The project is opposed by the nearby Lax Kw'alaams Band and Ts'msyen hereditary chiefs, who the Greens say claim jurisdiction over Pearse Island, the site of the proposed Ksi Lisims terminal. Gitanyow hereditary chiefs have also opposed the project based on concerns over Nass River salmon, the Greens add.
Thursday's statement from the province says the Environmental Assessment Office began its review last November in order to make a determination of whether the project had been 'substantially started' within the 10-year deadline.
It says the office looked at construction and other activities by the proponent up to the deadline of Nov. 25, 2024, and found the condition was met.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
The review included a field assessment of the project, documentation from the pipeline proponent and 'information from First Nations, Gitanyow hereditary chiefs, Gitxsan Wilps and members of the public,' the statement says.
The Greens' statement says construction activities moved ahead last summer on a portion of the pipeline's right-of-way in order to avoid expiry of the original permit.
The environmental group Stand.earth also issued a statement calling the decision to uphold the decade-old certificate as a 'slap in the face' of B.C.'s climate plan.
The decision follows the release of B.C.'s climate accountability report, which showed the province is already set to miss its climate targets, the group says.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 5, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
41 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. lawmakers from both parties are urging the Trump administration to maintain a three-way security partnership designed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — a plea that comes as the Pentagon reviews the agreement and considers the questions it has raised about the American industrial infrastructure's shipbuilding capabilities. Two weeks ago, the Defense Department announced it would review AUKUS, the 4-year-old pact signed by the Biden administration with Australia and the United Kingdom. The announcement means the Republican administration is looking closely at a partnership that many believe is critical to the U.S. strategy to push back China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The review is expected to be completed in the fall.
Winnipeg Free Press
41 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. lawmakers from both parties are urging the Trump administration to maintain a three-way security partnership designed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — a plea that comes as the Pentagon reviews the agreement and considers the questions it has raised about the American industrial infrastructure's shipbuilding capabilities. Two weeks ago, the Defense Department announced it would review AUKUS, the 4-year-old pact signed by the Biden administration with Australia and the United Kingdom. The announcement means the Republican administration is looking closely at a partnership that many believe is critical to the U.S. strategy to push back China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The review is expected to be completed in the fall. 'AUKUS is essential to strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and advancing the undersea capabilities that will be central to ensuring peace and stability,' Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois wrote in a July 22 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Moolenaar chairs the House panel on China and Krishnamoorthi is its top Democrat. The review comes as the Trump administration works to rebalance its global security concerns while struggling with a hollowed-out industrial base that has hamstrung U.S. capabilities to build enough warships. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 Pentagon official, who has expressed skepticism about the partnership. 'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem,' Colby said during his confirmation hearing in March. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies.' US cannot build enough ships As part of the $269 billion AUKUS partnership, the United States will sell three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, with the first delivery scheduled as soon as 2032. The U.S. and the U.K. would help Australia design and build another three to five attack submarines to form an eight-boat force for Australia. A March report by the Congressional Research Service warned that the lack of U.S. shipbuilding capacities, including workforce shortage and insufficient supply chains, is jeopardizing the much-celebrated partnership. If the U.S. should sell the vessels to Australia, the U.S. Navy would have a shortage of attack submarines for two decades, the report said. The Navy has been ordering two boats per year in the last decade, but U.S. shipyards have been only producing 1.2 Virginia-class subs a year since 2022, the report said. 'The delivery pace is not where it needs to be' to make good on the first pillar of AUKUS, Admiral Daryl Caudle, nominee for the Chief of Naval Operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. Australia has invested $1 billion in the U.S. submarine industrial base, with another $1 billion to be paid before the end of this year. It has agreed to contribute a total of $3 billion to uplift the U.S. submarine base, and it has sent both industry personnel to train at U.S. shipyards and naval personnel for submarine training in the United States. 'Australia was clear that we would make a proportionate contribution to the United States industrial base,' an Australian defense spokesperson said in July. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating U.S. production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia-class submarines.' The three nations have also jointly tested communication capabilities with underwater autonomous systems, Australia's defense ministry said on July 23. Per the partnership, the countries will co-develop other advanced technologies, from undersea to hypersonic capabilities. At the recent Aspen Security Forum, Kevin Rudd, the Australian ambassador to the United States, said his country is committed to increasing defense spending to support its first nuclear-powered sub program, which would also provide 'massively expensive full maintenance repair facilities' for the U.S. Indo-Pacific fleet based in Western Australia. Rudd expressed confidence that the two governments 'will work our way through this stuff.' AUKUS called 'crucial to American deterrence' Bruce Jones, senior fellow with the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy and Technology, told The Associated Press that the partnership, by positioning subs in Western Australia, is helping arm the undersea space that is 'really crucial to American deterrence and defense options in the Western Pacific.' 'The right answer is not to be content with the current pace of submarine building. It's to increase the pace,' Jones said. Jennifer Parker, who has served more than 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy and founded Barrier Strategic Advisory, said it should not be a zero-sum game. 'You might sell one submarine to Australia, so you have one less submarine on paper. But in terms of the access, you have the theater of choice from operating from Australia, from being able to maintain your submarines from Australia,' Parker said. 'This is not a deal that just benefits Australia.' Defense policy is one of the few areas where Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the Trump administration, but their resolve is being tested with the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. So far, they have joined their Democratic colleagues in voicing support for the partnership. They said the U.S. submarine industry is rebounding with congressional appropriations totaling $10 billion since 2018 to ensure the U.S. will have enough ships to allow for sales to Australia. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told the AP that support for AUKUS is strong and bipartisan, 'certainly on the Armed Services Committee.' 'There is a little bit of mystification about the analysis done at the Pentagon,' Kaine said, adding that 'maybe (what) the analysis will say is: We believe this is a good thing.'
Toronto Sun
2 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
CHARLEBOIS: How quiet staple became Canada's biggest food price shock
Rice has quietly become the single fastest-rising food product in Canadian grocery stores -- up 48.9% since January, according to Statistics Canada. Photo by Getty Images When Canadians think of food price hikes, they tend to picture meat, coffee, produce, or even chocolate. Rice rarely comes to mind. Yet in 2025, rice has quietly become the single fastest-rising food product in Canadian grocery stores — up 48.9% since January, according to Statistics Canada. That's not a rounding error. A standard 2-kg bag of white rice now sits close to $10, a hefty increase for one of the most affordable global staples. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The reasons are layered. While Statistics Canada's price index paints a broad picture of 'white rice,' much of the pressure comes from specific market dynamics. For several months, Canadian tariffs on U.S. rice imports squeezed processor margins. Dainty — the 143-year-old Montreal-based company that remains Canada's only rice milling facility — imports rice from multiple countries and cleans, mills and packages it domestically. Since no rice is commercially grown here, all Canadian supply chains are exposed to global shocks. Basmati rice, Canada's top-selling variety by volume, is a key driver. Pre-packaged imports from India are highly sensitive to international commodity swings, and India's temporary export restrictions last year sent global prices upward. By March, the average retail price of a 2-kg bag in Canada had pushed well past $10 under tariff pressure, marking a peak in the white rice category. Since tariffs were lifted, prices have eased slightly, but not enough to offset the year's cumulative rise — and it remains unclear whether they will drop further in the months ahead. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Rice is not a marginal food in this country. Roughly one in 10 Canadian adults — about 2.2 million people — consume rice as their primary grain, driven largely by cultural and dietary traditions. The market's scale depends on how it's measured: Bonafide Research estimates more than $600 million in annual retail sales, while broader industry figures that include food service, processing, and imports put the figure above $16 billion. The gap highlights an important point for policymakers — rice may seem like a niche product in household terms, but economically, it carries weight. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Immigration and shifting consumption patterns will likely push demand higher in coming years. Nutritionally, however, the picture is mixed. White rice — by far the dominant variety on Canadian shelves — is primarily a carbohydrate source and, unless enriched, offers little in the way of fibre or micronutrients. Brown, red, and black rice varieties, which retain their bran and germ, deliver higher fiber, B-vitamins, and antioxidants. Wild rice, while not botanically rice, offers even greater protein density. Rice is naturally gluten-free and, when paired with legumes, forms a complete protein, but over-reliance on unenriched white rice can displace more nutrient-dense grains from the diet. For Canadian consumers, the takeaway is clear: Variety matters — for both nutrition and long-term health outcomes. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Could Canada ever grow its own rice? While far from becoming a rice powerhouse, niche production is not inconceivable. Controlled-environment agriculture and greenhouse production could make small-scale cultivation possible in water-abundant regions such as British Columbia or southern Ontario. Still, the economics are challenging: Canada would be competing against low-cost giants like the U.S., India, and Vietnam, and rice is notoriously water-intensive. Climate change may eventually reshape growing seasons, and technology could lower barriers, enabling boutique production for specialty markets — much as Canada has done with wine grapes, wasabi, and even bananas. The real question for Canada is not whether rice can be grown domestically, but whether doing so would make economic and environmental sense. Until then, rice will remain a barometer of global trade shifts, climate shocks, and policy decisions — reminding us that even an overlooked staple can tell a big story about our food economy. — Charlebois is director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and visiting scholar at McGill University. Read More Opinion Columnists Columnists Celebrity Toronto & GTA
