From the Coastal GasLink conflict to the role of the Canadian government, the second part of this investigation examines the political and social impact of LNG projects in British Columbia, focusing on Indigenous opposition, public incentives and sustainability claims.
PARTS
In the first part of this investigation, we examined fossil fuel financing by Canada’s largest banks, with particular attention to LNG projects in British Columbia and the growing gap between ESG rhetoric and actual practices. But the story does not end there. The same infrastructure backed by these investments—Cedar LNG, Woodfibre LNG and Coastal GasLink—is being developed in contested areas, where industrial decisions face strong and persistent opposition.
This part focuses on the political and social implications of these energy projects: at indigenous resistance, the involvement of the Canadian state and the evolving communication strategies used by banks and companies to present LNG as part of the green transition.
Indigenous Resistance
The Coastal GasLink pipeline has not only faced opposition from environmental groups, but from the very beginning it has become a symbol of the broader conflict between large-scale industrial development and indigenous self-determination. Tensions have focused in particular on the traditional territory of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, through which a significant stretch of the pipeline runs.
Although some band councils and local representatives signed agreements with the company behind the project, the nation’s hereditary chiefs have consistently opposed its construction, arguing that the pipeline lacks the free, prior and informed consent required under international law.
Band councils are elected bodies established by Canada’s Indian Act, with authority limited to officially recognised reserves. Hereditary chiefs, on the other hand, exercise authority through the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s traditional governance system, based on ancestral lineages and recognised by Canadian jurisprudence as a legitimate expression of indigenous sovereignty over unceded territory.
This internal fracture within indigenous governance, between elected and traditional authorities, has had concrete consequences on the ground. The agreements signed by the promoting company were not enough to secure true consent, nor to prevent conflict. The decision to move forward with construction despite opposition from hereditary chiefs triggered a response that over the years has become increasingly organised and visible.
Between 2019 and 2023, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted at least four large-scale raids on protest sites, coinciding with key phases of pipeline construction. The interventions focused particularly on blockade and checkpoint areas under the control of the hereditary chiefs, such as Unist’ot’en and Gidimt’en Camp. Around seventy people were arrested in total, including peaceful activists, elders and matriarchs. The police operations, often heavily militarised (with helicopters, dogs and officers in tactical gear), attracted strong criticism from various human rights groups, who described them as clear cases of the criminalisation of indigenous protest.
What has unfolded on the ground is not just a clash between activism and industrial interests, but also the reflection of an institutional framework that, despite constant references to the rights of First Nations, continues to prioritise the development of large-scale infrastructure. To understand how it has been possible to move forward with the construction of these energy projects despite strong and visible opposition, it is necessary to take a closer look at the role played by the Canadian government, both at federal and provincial level.
Public Incentives And Energy Diplomacy
Despite growing public attention and years of protest, both the federal government and the government of British Columbia have continued to support LNG expansion. At the provincial level, this backing has taken the form of fast-track authorisations, tax relief, direct subsidies and public partnerships with the companies involved. The BC government has explicitly identified LNG as central to its green growth strategy, arguing that exports to Asian markets can help reduce global emissions by replacing coal.
At the federal level, attention has mainly focused on diplomatic and commercial aspects. The Canadian government has promoted its national liquefied natural gas offering on the international stage, presenting it as a “reliable” and “clean” alternative to Russian supplies, particularly after Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. Meetings with Japanese and German delegations, public statements by Prime Minister Trudeau and official visits to extraction and processing sites have supported a discourse centred on energy security and supply diversification.
Despite this commitment, doubts remain about the consistency between support for LNG and Canada’s climate goals. The government continues to speak of achieving net zero by 2050, but once again, political choices and public investments appear to be pointing in a different direction.
Words Matter
Alongside the construction of LNG infrastructure, project developers and banks have invested in a communications strategy aimed at presenting gas projects not as part of the climate problem, but as a potential solution. Across press releases, official statements and sustainability reports, several recurring phrases appear: “orderly transition”, “low-emitting facilities” and, more generally, “energy for a clean future”. These expressions are intended to convey responsibility and long-term vision, but often seem disconnected from the real impacts of the projects.
Another common argument is the emphasis on indigenous involvement. Cedar LNG, in particular, is promoted as an “indigenous-led” project thanks to the Haisla Nation’s majority ownership share. This framing has allowed Pembina Pipeline to present the terminal as an example of ethical and inclusive partnership.
However, the repeated emphasis on Cedar LNG being “indigenous-led” can be misleading. While the Haisla Nation does hold a 50.1 per cent ownership share, this model does not reflect the position of all indigenous communities in the area. The Wet’suwet’en Nation, for example, remains opposed to the very pipeline that is set to supply Cedar LNG. Presenting indigenous peoples as a unified or supportive bloc downplays internal divisions and allows for a simplified and selective narrative.
Despite promises of sustainability and frequent references to indigenous involvement, the expansion of the LNG sector in British Columbia remains deeply controversial. Internal fractures within First Nations, the repression of protests by authorities and public support for environmentally damaging projects all reveal a reality that contrasts with official statements. In many respects, the way decisions and dissent are handled echoes patterns from Canada’s colonial past: the exclusion of dissenting indigenous voices, the marginalisation of traditional governance systems and a continued extractive logic driven by profit and territorial control.
The tensions surrounding Coastal GasLink and related infrastructure are not an isolated case, but rather a symptom of a broader model that continues to prioritise industrial development, even at the cost of ignoring the opposition of those who consider these lands their ancestral home.
AUTHORTommaso Bontempi
Journalist
Osservatorio Artico