Editor’s note: This letter about 'The Woodfibre LNG baby’ editorial was sent to Squamish council and copied to The Squamish Chief, prior to the provincial government issuing WLNG an order to move workers to the floatel.
The requirements for a temporary use permit (TUP) are well established in legislation, including the Local Government Act, the Community Charter, our Official Community Plan (OCP), Zoning Bylaw, and Land Development Procedures Bylaw. When Woodfibre initiated an application for a TUP, the requirements were not hidden from them.
I know from past work experience that companies and their partners often have regulatory specialists on staff to help sort through compliance with different jurisdictional authorities. LNG Canada, the Nisga’a First Nation and Woodfibre LNG all have had people in this role to guide them through the local acts, regulations, codes, standards, bylaws and policies that apply to their projects.
The most recent council meeting, which seemingly raised the ire of The Squamish Chief editorial staff, had a different flavour in that council members and the mayor were demonstrating an increased interest in the safety of the workers. In addition to how this permission will affect the larger community, concerns were expressed on the need to further understand the workers’ risk of exposure to a debris flow hazard, and what will future housing needs for additional workers in the valley mean for Squamish and surrounding communities.
Woodfibre and FortisBC have been aware of the need to work through these issues for 10+ years and have dragged their feet when the project looked less economically viable. This 11th-hour push to capitalize on global energy pricing and the looming expiry of issued permissions is asking the host community to sacrifice worker safety and neglect performing the due diligence needed to ensure that risks/benefits to the community have been identified and addressed.
Let’s make a few things clear. The baby (Woodfibre LNG/FortisBC Pipeline) is not the result of divine intervention. It was not conceived with the full and informed consent of willing parties.
The conception of the baby as absolute mirrors the arguments of the anti-abortion movement. This perpetuates the abuse of power over those who carry the burden of decisions outside of their control, all in pursuit of a dogma that threatens our collective welfare.
How this is deemed acceptable by those who are represented by this editorial is telling. The pro-LNG oil and gas climate change-denying faction are now ready to sacrifice the workers and the health, safety, and resiliency of communities in their pursuits. They can also check the box for a willing mouthpiece masquerading as unbiased media, ignorant that we live in a pro-choice country with Mifepristone.
Spencer Fitschen
Squamish
