Our MP, Pam Goldsmith-Jones, needs to be more specific regarding the federal Woodfibre LNG environmental assessment (EA) approval. She provided some vague information for the article, “It is a very, very tough situation for me to be in: Goldsmith-Jones responds to criticism over LNG decision” (March 30). We would appreciate clarification on two points.
She said, “In our case, it was only a three-week window, and I think it is challenging to be the MP who is both in charge of the process, but also responsible for representing the community, so I did what I thought was the right thing to do, which was at least hosting these meetings.”
What does she mean by a “three-week window”? Is this regarding legal time pressure for Minster Catherine McKenna to decide regarding Woodfibre LNG? I wrote Jonathan Wilkinson (Parliamentary secretary to McKenna) about this, and he clearly stated on Jan. 20 there was no fixed timeline for the federal government regarding the Woodfibre EA. Perhaps there was pressure from Minister McKenna or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. If so, the public deserves to know.
Regarding Goldsmith-Jones’s statement, “I know that they went through it all, but in the end, the minister had a very narrow decision to make with regard to signing off on the assessment.” What does she mean by a “very narrow decision”?
She stated at a public meeting in Gibsons that 50 per cent of the public is pro-Woodfibre LNG. On what basis is she saying this? There was 99 per cent recorded opposition sent to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) regarding Woodfibre LNG.
Summary of CEAA website responses (letters, signatures, speakers at her three public meetings): Total responses: 9,890
• 99.1 per cent opposition or 9,799 responses of opposition to Woodfibre LNG
• 0.91 per cent support or 91 responses of support to Woodfibre LNG
Surely, official CEAA website responses are the information Minister McKenna takes seriously. Ninety-nine per cent against Woodfibre LNG is the opposite of a “very narrow decision.”
Goldsmith-Jones’s incorrect statement that 50 per cent of the public are in favour of Woodfibre LNG, when 99 per cent of 9,890 responses CEAA received are opposed, leads us to ask: What was her information source for her 50 per cent support statement? The MP should publicize a list of names of people who held private meetings with her regarding their support of Woodfibre LNG.
To merit public respect, Goldsmith-Jones must be more specific in her statements and provide documentation to verify them.
Laurie Parkinson, Bowyer Island
Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay
