Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 160, Number 18: ORDERS IN COUNCIL

May 2, 2026

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CANADIAN ENERGY REGULATOR ACT

Order directing the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Westcoast Energy Inc.

P.C. 2026-378 April 22, 2026

Whereas, on May 30, 2024, Westcoast Energy GP Inc. (“Westcoast”) applied to the Canadian Energy Regulator (“Regulator”), in accordance with Part 3 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (“Act”), for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of the Sunrise Expansion Program (“Project”), which extends from a point near Chetwynd, British Columbia, to the Canada–United States Abbotsford-Huntingdon border crossing and includes expanding Westcoast’s existing T-South natural gas pipeline system by constructing and operating 11 natural gas pipeline loops with a total length of approximately 139 km, contiguous to the existing pipeline, and other related units and facilities, including new electric-driven and gas-driven compressor units, two new overhead power lines with a total length of approximately 10 km to power the new compressor units, by constructing and using temporary infrastructure and decommissioning, by removal, a segment of deactivated pipeline of approximately 350 m in length within Westcoast’s existing pipeline right-of-way;

Whereas, on May 30, 2024, in accordance with Canada’s commitment to reconciliation under the Act and obligations regarding the duty to consult and accommodate recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Regulator’s Crown Consultation Coordinator initiated a Crown consultation process, which was complementary to the hearing process of the Commission of the Canadian Energy Regulator (“Commission”), and both processes were designed to ensure the participation of potentially impacted Indigenous groups in decision making, respect the principle of free, prior and informed consent and allow them to raise their concerns with Westcoast, the Commission or the Crown Consultation Coordinator;

Whereas, on January 30, 2026, having held a public hearing to review Westcoast’s application and conducted an environmental assessment of the Project, the Commission submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources under section 183 of the Act its report on the Project entitled Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator Report – Westcoast Energy GP Inc. on behalf of Westcoast Energy Limited Partnership GH-001-2024 (“Report”), which includes recommended conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the Report;

Whereas the Governor in Council, having considered the concerns and interests of Indigenous groups raised in the Crown Consultation and Accommodation Report – Regarding the Sunrise Expansion Program of April 2, 2026, independent submissions from certain Indigenous groups and other evidence on the hearing record as well as the relevant articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples set out in the Commission’s Report as interpretive context, is satisfied that the consultation process upholds the honour of the Crown and that the concerns and interests will be reasonably accommodated by the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the Report;

Whereas the Governor in Council, in making a decision, has taken into account the adverse effects referred to in subsection 56(1) of the Act and all the considerations referred to in subsection 183(2) of that Act and is of the opinion that those considerations set out in the Report are those that appeared to be relevant and directly related to the Project;

Whereas the Governor in Council accepts the Commission’s recommendation that a certificate of public convenience and necessity be issued given that the Project, if implemented in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the Report, is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity and will provide significant economic benefits;

And whereas the Governor in Council considers that the Project would support energy security and price stability in natural gas markets, generate strong economic growth and employment opportunities and mitigate the risk of a supply shortfall, now and into the future, by providing necessary transportation capacity for reliable natural gas service to British Columbia and the United States Pacific Northwest;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources, under subsection 186(1) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, directs the Commission of the Canadian Energy Regulator to issue certificate of public convenience and necessity GC-135 to Westcoast Energy GP Inc. in respect of the proposed construction and operation of the Sunrise Expansion Program, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the Commission of the Canadian Energy Regulator’s report of January 30, 2026 entitled Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator Report – Westcoast Energy GP Inc. on behalf of Westcoast Energy Limited Partnership GH-001-2024.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order.)

Proposal

This Order in Council (OiC), pursuant to subparagraph 186(1)(a)(ii) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CER Act), directs the Commission of the Canadian Energy Regulator (the Commission; CER) to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to Westcoast Energy Inc. (Westcoast; the proponent) for the Sunrise Expansion Program (the Project) subject to 47 conditions.

Objective

The objective of this Order is to enable the expansion of Westcoast’s Transmission South (T-South) pipeline system primarily to ensure there is sufficient natural gas transportation capacity to meet growing demand in key markets, particularly as Westcoast begins providing firm service to the Woodfibre LNG Limited (Woodfibre LNG) liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility, which is expected to come into service in 2027.

Summary

Pursuant to the CER Act, the Governor in Council (GiC) has 90 days from the submission of the Commission’s Recommendation Report (Report) to make a decision, which could include to approve or reject the Commission’s recommendation, refer the recommendation or any of the conditions back to the Commission for reconsideration, or extend the timeline for a decision, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources (the Minister). As per the 90-day requirement, a GiC decision is required by April 30, 2026.

The Project, valued at nearly $4 billion (2024 dollars), is an expansion of Westcoast’s existing T-South natural gas pipeline system in central and southern British Columbia, which transports natural gas to markets in British Columbia and Alberta, and the United States (U.S.) via interconnected pipelines. The Project consists of constructing 11 natural gas pipeline looping segments totalling approximately 139 kilometres (km) of pipe contiguous to the existing pipeline, other related facility upgrades, modifications and related activities, and the decommissioning of 350 metres of deactivated pipe within Westcoast’s existing right-of-way (RoW).

The Project responds to requests from shippers for additional transportation capacity, driven by an anticipated shortfall in capacity to deliver gas to the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest once deliveries to Woodfibre LNG begin in 2027.

The Commission found that the Project is in the present and future public convenience and necessity and will provide necessary additional natural gas transportation capacity of up to 300 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) to meet existing demand and anticipated increases, supporting supply and price stability in natural gas markets. Both supply and demand are projected to be sufficient to support the Project over its economic life. The Project is economically feasible and expected to contribute approximately $3.4 billion to Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), along with employment, business, and other economic opportunities for Indigenous Peoples, Canadians and Canadian businesses.

Background

Westcoast, a subsidiary of Enbridge Inc., owns the existing Westcoast Transmission System that extends from Alberta and northern British Columbia to the Canada/U.S. border near Huntingdon/Sumas, and serves four key markets, including northwest and central British Columbia, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Vancouver Island and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Westcoast has firm-service contracts to transport natural gas to Woodfibre LNG when the facility comes into service and is expected to add approximately 300 MMcf/d of incremental demand for transportation to the T-South system’s Huntingdon Delivery Area, which is already operating at full capacity.

On May 30, 2024, Westcoast filed an application with the CER for a Certificate for the Project under the CER Act. The CER Act requires the Commission to make a recommendation to the GiC regarding whether to issue such a certificate.

The Project

The Project consists of constructing 11 pipeline looping segments, totalling approximately 139 km, contiguous with the existing pipeline, and other related units and facilities, including new compressor units, two new power lines totalling 10 km, temporary construction infrastructure, and the decommissioning of 350 metres of deactivated pipe within Westcoast’s existing RoW.

The T-South system extends from northern British Columbia to the Huntingdon/Sumas meter station near the Canada/U.S. border, and is a highly utilized, fully contracted natural gas pipeline system. The system currently lacks adequate capacity to accommodate existing and anticipated natural gas demand in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, the U.S. Pacific Northwest and from the future Woodfibre LNG terminal. Since 2015, British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest have experienced sustained economic and population growth, resulting in increasing natural gas demand. T-South has experienced a sizeable rise in demand, with 99 of its top 100 peak flow days being recorded since November 2022. The system continues to face seasonal capacity constraints and risks falling short of demand in the future, as forecasts indicate strong short- and long-term growth across all sectors in British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

With an estimated capital cost of approximately $4 billion (2024 dollars), the Project will add up to 300 MMcf/d of natural gas transportation capacity to the T-South system’s existing 1 800 MMcf/d winter capacity, helping to avoid a potential capacity shortfall and supporting supply stability, particularly during peak winter events. If approved, construction is anticipated to begin in 2026, with a target in-service date of November 1, 2028, and an operating life of at least 30 years. The Project route predominantly (96%) parallels Westcoast’s existing RoW or other linear disturbances, with approximately 5% on reserve land, 32% on private land and 63% on Crown land.

Consultation

Canada has a common law duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate, when it contemplates conduct that might adversely impact Indigenous and Treaty rights, such as the approval of the Project. The CER is an agent of the Crown, and Crown consultation is required when the Commission makes decisions and recommendations under the CER Act.

Crown consultation for this Project was carried out through the Commission’s hearing process and supplementary consultation by the CER. The Project area intersects with the traditional territories and areas of interest of 73 Indigenous groups for whom the Crown had a duty to consult, including Treaty 8 Nations, a Treaty 6 Nation, MĂ©tis communities, and other groups with recognized or asserted section 35 rights.

The Commission and the CER’s evaluation of the fulfillment of the duty to consult during the hearing process and supplementary consultation was informed by the principles of case law, including Kebaowek First Nation v Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (Kebaowek). Kebaowek held that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) is a contextual factor to the duty to consult and that administrative tribunals must consider it as an interpretive lens when assessing consultation adequacy.

Commission of the CER hearing process

The CER Act requires that the Commission hold a public hearing for a certificate application, as it is a prerequisite for a GiC decision. The hearing process was the primary venue through which consultation with Indigenous groups was undertaken. Through its hearing process, the Commission ensures procedural fairness while maintaining the flexibility required to create opportunities for meaningful gathering of information.

The Commission issued Hearing Order GH-001-2024 on December 6, 2024. Participants included Westcoast, 63 intervenors, including 41 Indigenous groups or organizations, along with the commercial sector, industry, individual, federal, provincial and municipal parties and the CER. Two Indigenous groups also participated as commenters. Indigenous participants could file written evidence, including Indigenous-led assessments or studies, provide oral Indigenous knowledge, file motions and provide comments on motions, participate in a workshop about conditions and file comments on potential conditions, and provide written and oral arguments. Non-participants in the Hearing could also file letters of comment. Prior to the Hearing, participants were given structured opportunities to influence how the assessment would proceed.

The hearing process allowed for deep consultation with Indigenous groups, reflecting a number of key objectives of the UN Declaration, including ensuring participation in decision-making; tailoring hearing steps in consideration of Indigenous Peoples’ laws, knowledge, and practice; and consulting and cooperating in good faith to work towards finding mutual agreement.

The Commission’s evaluation included an examination of potential impacts on the rights of Indigenous groups, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the interests and concerns of Indigenous groups, including concerns regarding current land and resource use for traditional purposes, as required by the CER Act. The Commission thoroughly assessed cumulative effects in relation to the Project and tailored the hearing process, supplementary consultation, and the Report to be responsive to concerns raised by Indigenous groups. The Commission concluded that the hearing process met the requirements of procedural fairness and that the duty to consult and accommodate was met.

Crown consultation with Indigenous Peoples

The CER, as an agent of the Crown, has conducted consultation with Indigenous groups in a manner that was concurrent with and complementary to the Commission’s hearing process, including supplementary consultation following the release of the Commission’s Report to understand and address any outstanding project-specific impacts or concerns not fully addressed during the hearing process.

CER Crown consultation activities took place from May 30, 2024, until April 1, 2026. The CER informed Indigenous groups that it was relying upon the Commission’s process with respect to the assessment of the Project’s potential effects, including the assessment of the Project’s potential impacts on Indigenous and Treaty rights and environmental and socio-economic effects, including cumulative effects.

Outside the hearing process, the CER consulted with 73 Indigenous groups on the Crown list through virtual and in-person meetings and workshops. This process was designed to reflect article 32 of the UN Declaration, including the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The CER filed summary reports of its consultations, which were developed collaboratively with Indigenous groups. The CER, as an agent of the Crown, was satisfied that the Crown consultation process sufficiently fulfilled the duty to consult and accommodate.

Commission’s Recommendation Report

Following the Hearing, on January 30, 2026, the Commission submitted its Report (Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator Report GH-001-2024 – Westcoast Sunrise Expansion Program [PDF]) to the Minister, outlining its recommendation that the GiC direct the Commission to issue a certificate under the CER Act authorizing the construction and operation of the Project, subject to 47 conditions and supporting findings. The recommended conditions cover, among other things, construction activities, safety measures and standards, environmental monitoring, and matters related to Indigenous groups and rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Per the CER Act, the Commission’s assessment must consider, but is not limited to, environmental effects, including any cumulative effects, the interests and concerns of Indigenous groups, as well as the effects on the rights recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the existence of actual or potential markets, the economic feasibility of the pipeline, and any public interest the Commission considers may be affected by the decision on the application.

Implications

When assessing a project, the Commission must consider and weigh relevant and material evidence on the record and take into account all considerations that appear to be relevant and directly related to the Project. In its assessment, the Commission was cognizant that the public interest is both regionally and nationally based and is, therefore, understood to be inclusive of all Canadians. It is through this lens that the Commission came to its findings and recommended conditions and the determination that the Project is in the Canadian public interest, having assessed the overall public interest the Project may create and its potential adverse aspects and balancing its relative benefits and burdens.

Legal framework

The Commission assessed the Project in accordance with the CER Act and relevant provisions of the Impact Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and the Fisheries Act.

The Commission was also guided by its obligations to Indigenous Peoples. It considered the adverse effects that its recommendation could have on Indigenous rights pursuant to section 56 of the CER Act, and conducted Crown consultations in respect of Indigenous rights under subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, informed by the principles of the UN Declaration as an interpretive lens used to evaluate the adequacy of consultation and accommodation for the Project. While the Yahey v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287 (Yahey) ruling only binds the provincial government, the Commission considered participants’ submissions with respect to the British Columbia cumulative effects framework resulting from Yahey. Through Yahey, the British Columbia Supreme Court found that cumulative impacts of industrial development had significantly diminished Treaty 8 First Nations’ ability to exercise their Treaty rights. The Commission’s assessment also considered participants’ submissions with respect to the parallel regulatory processes being undertaken by Indigenous governing bodies [e.g. Matsqui First Nation’s Environmental Assessment Law (2014), S’ólh TĂ©mĂ©xw Stewardship Alliance’s (STSA) Integrated Cultural Assessment (ICA)].

Findings

Resource availability, economic feasibility, and financial matters

As outlined above, demand for natural gas in British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest has grown, with this growth expected to continue in these markets in the short- and long-term. This growth is expected to continue to place demand pressures on the T-South system.

Westcoast has firm-service contracts to supply Woodfibre LNG and anticipates that, once it comes into service, demand for natural gas on the T-South system will increase and, due to insufficient capacity, result in a shortfall of 300 MMcf/d. Without the Project, the shortfall could affect service reliability, impact energy security, and cause price volatility in natural gas markets, particularly during peak winter events.

In 2022, Westcoast initiated an “open season,” a formal process to solicit binding commitments for transportation capacity on T-South to scope a potential expansion and confirm that existing levels of demand will continue. The open season was oversubscribed and resulted in multi-decade firm-service contracts for an aggregate of 300 MMcf/d, with no requests from existing shippers to relinquish service, suggesting that demand for natural gas in T-South’s service areas will continue and that additional capacity is needed.

The Commission evaluated the availability of resource supplies and the ability for these supplies to sustain the Project over its economic lifetime, and found that existing, low-cost natural gas resources in the Montney Region of northeastern British Columbia are expected to be sufficient to support the Project, and that the supply is unlikely to be significantly limited by provincial restrictions on land disturbances, climate laws, regulations, or policies. Additionally, the Commission found that, as natural gas resources in the U.S. Rockies become further depleted and Canadian production becomes more cost competitive, the region is expected to become a larger supplier for the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

The Project is expected to generate significant employment and economic benefits during construction and operations. Total contributions (direct, indirect, and induced) to GDP are estimated at $3.4 billion and are expected to be greatest in British Columbia. The Project is expected to generate more than $1.88 billion in labour income across Canada (direct, indirect, and induced impacts), with nearly $1.4 billion in British Columbia, and will generate 20 700 full-time equivalent person-years of employment across Canada, with 72% located in British Columbia. During construction, the Project will support a workforce of up to 2 500 at its peak, with operations expected to sustain approximately five new full-time equivalent positions.

The Project is expected to generate up to $305 million in federal tax revenues and approximately $394 million in provincial tax revenues in British Columbia, in addition to municipal property tax revenues for local communities. Overall, construction activities will increase demand for goods, services and labour, supporting local, regional and Indigenous economies.

As required by the CER Act, the Commission evaluated Westcoast’s financial resources, financial responsibility, and financial structure, including how the Project will be financed and opportunities for Canadians’ participation in the financing, engineering, and construction of the pipeline. The Project will be financed through a combination of internal cash flows, Enbridge senior debt, subordinated capital, and potential asset sales. Indigenous groups party to Enbridge’s equity ownership agreement with Stonlasec8 Indigenous Alliance Limited Partnership may have an opportunity to financially participate in the Project and the T-South system.footnote 1 The Commission is satisfied that Westcoast, through Enbridge, can finance the Project’s construction, operations, and respond to any pipeline incidents, as well as set aside the required funds to address the Project’s future abandonment.

Having reviewed the Commission’s findings, the GiC is satisfied that the economic feasibility and resource availability of the Project, and Westcoast’s ability to meet its Project-related financial obligations, have been adequately considered.

Environmental and cumulative effects
Environmental effects

The Commission assessed the Project’s environmental effects and considered Westcoast’s commitments to mitigation and monitoring. It determined that the Project is likely to result in effects on the environment, including cumulative effects, and imposed several overarching conditions for the protection of the environment: Condition 9 (Updated Environmental Protection Plans [EPPs]), Condition 41 (Post-construction environmental monitoring reports), and Conditions 11 and 28 (Plans for Indigenous Peoples’ participation in construction and post-construction monitoring). The Commission concluded that these effects will be reduced through the implementation of Westcoast’s mitigation measures and commitments, and the imposed conditions, though residual effects remain.

The Commission determined that residual adverse effects on soil and soil productivity would be localized and of low magnitude (adverse), enduring over the short to medium term, and that implementation of Westcoast’s mitigation measures, commitments, and monitoring programs as well as condition compliance would reduce the extent and magnitude of the effects. It also determined that residual adverse effects on vegetation would be localized over the medium to long term and of medium (adverse) magnitude and that aspects of Westcoast’s Project design, including paralleling existing linear disturbances along with its proposed mitigation measures, would help to reduce overall effects on the loss or alteration of native vegetation. Westcoast has also committed to preparing and implementing a reclamation plan that integrates vegetation species of cultural and traditional importance, where appropriate, to support returning the Project footprint to an equivalent land capability. Additionally, the Commission considers it necessary to require Westcoast to detail plans for operational clearings and treatment of culturally important vegetation (Condition 29) and develop and submit a Forest Management and Old Growth Mitigation Plan (Condition 8). Regarding Project effects on wetlands, the Commission found that residual effects are expected to be of low to medium (adverse) magnitude, localized, with a short- to long-term duration, pending implementation of Westcoast’s commitments, mitigation measures, and compliance with Commission conditions, including development of a Wetland Offset Measures Plan (Condition 39) and requirements for Westcoast to file site-specific information for fish-bearing wetlands, where the proposed primary crossing method is not feasible and a contingency crossing is required (Condition 21).

Under the CER Act, the Commission must evaluate the extent to which the Project may hinder or contribute to Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and climate change commitments. Westcoast estimates total construction-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at approximately 108.9 kt CO2e (kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), primarily from fuel combustion and land clearing. While Westcoast’s mitigation measures were found to be reasonable and consistent with industry best practices, the Commission found it necessary to impose Condition 40 (Quantification of construction-related greenhouse gas emissions) to enhance transparency and regulatory oversight.

Westcoast also projects operational GHG emissions of approximately 113.85 kt CO2e per year, which would be offset by the retirement of three gas-fuelled compressor units, avoiding an estimated 228.43 kt CO2e, annually. As a result, Westcoast asserts that the Project will achieve net negative GHG emissions, reaching about −114 kt CO2e annually from year three onward. Estimated upstream emissions for full operating years range from 487 to 575 kt CO2e per year. Although these upstream emissions exceed the Project’s net negative emissions from operations, the Commission recognized that upstream gas producers are subject to provincial regulatory frameworks and net-zero standards.

Based on its assessment and Westcoast’s assertions about the Project’s reduction and avoidance measures, the Commission was satisfied that there is a clear and transparent path for the Project to align with Canada’s net-zero targets, and found that residual effects from Project-related GHGs are expected to be global in extent, of low (positive) magnitude, long term, and not expected to materially hinder Canada’s climate commitments.

Requirements under SARA

The Project is expected to impact several species at risk and their critical habitats on federal and non-federal lands, including the Southern Mountain Caribou (listed as threatened) and the Spotted Owl (listed as endangered). Following consultation with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Commission found that, as per SARA requirements, all reasonable alternatives that would reduce the Project’s effects on the species’ critical habitat were considered and that all feasible mitigation measures would be put in place. While Westcoast has committed to caribou habitat restoration and offsets, the Commission imposed conditions to further support caribou habitat restoration and monitoring: Condition 6 (Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan), Condition 7 (Preliminary Caribou Habitat Offset Measures Plan), Condition 44 (Final Caribou Habitat Offset Measures Plan), Condition 45 (Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Program), and Condition 47 (Caribou Habitat Restoration and Offset Measures Monitoring Reports). Westcoast will work with British Columbia, the jurisdiction responsible for management of terrestrial species at risk on non-federal land, on restoration efforts.

The Commission found that overall residual effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat would be localized over the short to long term and of low to medium magnitude (adverse) and medium (adverse) significance, depending on the species and nature of the interaction. It determined that apart from special considerations for the Southern Mountain Caribou, potential Project effects on species at risk and critical habitat would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated appropriately through Westcoast’s routing, surveys, site-specific mitigation, and commitments to ongoing engagement. Given the Project footprint intersects with multiple SARA Schedule 1-listed species and critical habitats, the Commission found it necessary to impose Condition 10 (Wildlife Species and Risk Mitigation Plans) and Condition 26 (Construction progress reports), with the latter requiring Westcoast to identify any circumstances where species-specific setbacks and timing restrictions could not be met and the alternative mitigations applied as a result.

Based on the Commission’s assessment, the GiC is satisfied that the environmental effects of the Project, including cumulative environmental effects and effects on species at risk and their critical habitat, have been adequately considered. The GiC is also satisfied with the Commission’s findings that the statutory requirements under SARA have been met and is further satisfied that the mitigation measures and conditions imposed would appropriately manage and mitigate adverse environmental effects.

Cumulative effects

The Commission concluded that the Project is likely to result in cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat, and vegetation and wetlands, amongst other areas. Condition compliance combined with Westcoast’s commitments and mitigations would limit or avoid the Project’s contributions to these cumulative effects.

Further, the Commission found that total cumulative effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples would be medium (adverse), finding it necessary to impose various conditions aimed at directly and indirectly reducing the effects of the Project on Indigenous rights. These conditions included Condition 5 (Plan for notifying Indigenous Peoples of condition filings), Condition 9 (Updated EPPs), Conditions 11 and 28 (Plans for Indigenous Peoples’ participation in construction and post-construction monitoring), Condition 12 (Update on employment, contracting, procurement, and training for Indigenous Peoples), Condition 15 (Outstanding Indigenous-led assessments or studies), Condition 16 (Support for Indigenous Peoples to review Westcoast’s condition filings), and Conditions 19 and 38 (Socio-economic Effects Monitoring Plan and Final Report). However, in considering the standard mitigation hierarchy, which considers avoidance and mitigation before offsets, and where cumulative effects on Indigenous and Treaty rights were assessed as medium rather than high, the Commission concluded offsets for impacts to rights were not required. While Westcoast’s mitigation measures, commitments, and condition compliance would reduce impacts on Indigenous rights, the Commission found that residual Project effects would remain on Indigenous and Treaty rights and combine with residual effects of past and reasonably foreseeable projects.

With respect to cumulative effects, the GiC is satisfied, based on the Commission’s assessment, that the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative environmental effects has been appropriately considered and is acceptable considering the mitigation measures and conditions imposed. Further, the GiC is satisfied with the Commission’s findings regarding cumulative impacts on Indigenous and Treaty rights, which are addressed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this note.

Project safety during construction and operations

Under the CER Act, the Commission is required to consider the safety and security of persons and the protection of property and the environment. The Commission found that Westcoast can design, construct, and operate the Project, including the related electrical infrastructure and facilities, in a safe and secure manner that protects people and the environment in compliance with applicable regulations, standards, and industry codes, and consistent with relevant CER guidance and best practices, including the Canadian Energy Regulator Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) and the standard CSA Z662:23 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems.

To further support Project safety and transparency during construction and operations, the Commission imposed a number of conditions, including a filed safety manual (Condition 17), filed emergency response plans (Condition 18), quality assurance and compliance for the electrical facilities (Condition 14), filed construction progress reports (Conditions 20 and 26), high-potential near miss reports (Condition 25), technical specification updates (Condition 33), details of electrical power system design for each compressor station, substation, and power line (Condition 30), filed system impact studies prior to energization (Condition 32), and electrical reliability standards (Condition 31).

The GiC is of the opinion that the regulatory and oversight functions of the CER throughout the life cycle of the Project are capable of protecting the safety and security of persons and the protection of property and the environment, and is satisfied that these matters were adequately considered in the Commission’s assessment of the Project application.

Health and socio-economic effects

As set out in the CER Act, the Commission considered the Project’s health, social, and economic effects, including any cumulative effects, including with respect to the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors, and any such effects on Indigenous Peoples.

The Commission recommended certain conditions relating to the health, social, and economic effects of the Project, including, Condition 12 (Update on employment, contracting, procurement, and training for Indigenous Peoples), Conditions 19 and 38 (Socio-Economic Effects Monitoring Plan and Final Report), and Conditions 11 and 28 (Plan for Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in construction and post-construction monitoring). The Commission is of the view that these conditions, combined with the CER’s life cycle regulatory oversight, would contribute to reducing the Project’s socio-economic effects.

The Commission found that following implementation of Westcoast’s proposed mitigation measures and commitments and the applicable conditions, including those relating to EPPs and the socio-economic monitoring plan, that residual impacts on human health and social and cultural well-being would be of low to medium (adverse) significance, and that residual impacts on employment and the economy would be of low (positive) significance.

The GiC is satisfied that the Commission has adequately considered the health and socio-economic effects of the Project in its assessment and that the conditions it would impose would appropriately address adverse impacts.

Commissioner Grimoldby’s view and the Commission’s final recommendation

The Commission’s Report outlines a separate opinion shared by Commissioner Grimoldby, who had a differing view of the principal opinion on the specific issue of whether the duty to consult was fulfilled up until the stage of the Report’s issuance.

Commissioner Grimoldby stated that distinctions between reserve lands, Treaty 8 lands, and unceded lands were not accounted for in determining and satisfying the required depth of consultation and that further efforts by Westcoast would be necessary to ensure specific impacts from the Project on Indigenous rights are consistently addressed and that the duty to consult is met. Commissioner Grimoldby also noted that there should be additional clarity regarding how proposed measures respond to specific concerns raised by Indigenous groups, and, where necessary, provide meaningful accommodation.

Additionally, Commissioner Grimoldby was of the view that certain conditions be strengthened or amended, and new conditions be added to address impacts to rights and adequately discharge the duty to consult, including an offset measures plan and stronger requirements for co-development of outstanding plans.

In response to some of Commissioner Grimoldby’s concerns, the Commission determined that certain conditions (13 of 47) should be adjusted and that condition filings should more clearly explain how Indigenous groups were engaged and how their input was considered, and require additional reporting requirements from Westcoast.

Overall, Commissioner Grimoldby concurred with the principal findings, and the recommendation of the Commission was unanimous and unaffected by this separate view.

The GiC considered Commissioner Grimoldby’s perspective and is satisfied with the actions taken by the Commission to modify the recommended conditions to better respond to the concerns raised. Based on its findings, as outlined in the Report’s principal opinion, the Commission’s final recommendation is for the GiC to approve the Project and direct the Commission, by order, to issue a Certificate authorizing the Project’s construction and operations subject to 47 binding conditions.

Interests and concerns of Indigenous groups and effects on the rights recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

Indigenous groups raised a number of interests and concerns relating to the Project during early engagement, the Commission’s Hearing, and the CER’s supplementary consultations following the submission of the Commission’s Recommendation Report prior to the GIC decision (GiC phase). These included concerns about the Project’s potential impacts on the exercise of section 35 rights and cultural traditions, cumulative effects and cumulative impacts on rights, Indigenous monitoring, tracking and relying on proponent commitments, consent for reserve crossings and temporary workspaces, as well as concerns regarding the Crown consultation process and the Commission’s assessment methodology.

Potential impacts to section 35 rights, cumulative effects, cumulative impacts to rights

Indigenous groups expressed concerns regarding potential changes to the quality, quantity, and distribution of resources; changes in access to resources used or required to exercise rights; change to, or disruption of timing and seasonality of exercising rights; change to locations or areas of cultural importance where rights are exercised; and change to exercise of groups’ cultural traditions.

In response, Westcoast committed to a suite of mitigation measures through its EPP, like tailored mitigation measures for caribou and other SARA-listed species and critical habitats, including restoration and monitoring. Additionally, Westcoast proactively addressed concerns, as demonstrated by route refinements to prioritize co-location of the Project along existing RoWs, community-specific route adjustments on reserve lands to respond to the concerns of Indigenous groups, incorporating Indigenous knowledge into plans, and supporting Indigenous participation in the Project at all stages.

As detailed above, the Commission found that total cumulative effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples would be of medium (adverse) severity. Therefore, the Commission felt it necessary to recommend various conditions, as outlined in preceding sections (e.g. Conditions 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 41, 44, 45, and 47). The Commission found that its conditions, combined with Westcoat’s mitigation measures and commitments, would be effective in reducing Project impacts on the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples.

As previously noted, some Indigenous groups expressed that offsets were needed to address impacts on rights, including unresolved issues with the existing T-South pipeline. The Commission determined that an Offset Measures Plan was not necessary in this case to further reduce the Project’s effects due to the expected efficacy of Westcoat’s mitigation measures and the imposed conditions, including specific offsets for wetlands, caribou, and potentially old growth forests. However, the Commission established that while implementation of these measures and conditions would reduce impacts on Indigenous rights, some residual Project effects would combine with the residual effects of past and reasonably foreseeable projects, resulting in residual cumulative effects that will result in changes to Indigenous land and resources, including hunting, trapping, fishing, plant and medicine harvesting, and cultural and spiritual practices, mostly during the Project’s construction (approximately two years).

The nature of the Project, which relies on pipeline loops to help limit overall impacts through breaks in development, and the route selection, which parallels existing right-of-way, also minimized contributions to cumulative effects. Westcoast opted to pursue an alternative, shorter route for the CS-8A power line, shortening it from approximately 21 km to approximately 3 km. Westcoast conducted extensive engagement activities before revising the route and filing the update. Changes to the route reduced the Project’s land area requirements and were made to avoid effects on environmental features and cultural sites of significance, and to be responsive to concerns heard during engagement with Indigenous Peoples. During the hearing process, Indigenous groups raised outstanding concerns about the power line route. In response, the Commission decided to reject Westcoast’s plan, profile, and book of reference (PPBoR) exemption request in relation to the power line route, preserving the opportunity for Indigenous groups to participate in the detailed route process.

Additionally, some Indigenous groups expressed concerns that certain key documents and plans (e.g. EPPs, Indigenous monitoring plans, ongoing Indigenous-led studies) would only be finalized post-Project approval. The Commission chose to impose Condition 9 (Updated EPPs) and Condition 15 (Outstanding Indigenous-led assessments or studies), amongst other conditions requiring Westcoast to submit finalized plans prior to key Project milestones. Further, to ensure that Westcoast continues to meaningfully engage with interested Indigenous groups following approval of the Project, the Commission included provisions in 19 of the 47 binding conditions to this effect.

The Commission did not identify evidence that specific sites of cultural importance would be permanently altered or damaged following implementation of Westcoast’s commitments and mitigation measures and compliance with the Commission’s conditions, including requirements for construction and post-construction Indigenous monitoring.

Based on the Commission’s assessment and the CER’s supplemental consultations, the Project would result in medium (adverse) cumulative impacts on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and residual cumulative effects on the exercise of Indigenous and Treaty rights would remain, notwithstanding mitigation measures, route refinements, and conditions.

Commission’s assessment methodology and adequacy of Crown consultation

Several Indigenous groups raised concerns with the Commission’s methodology for assessing Project effects on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, noting it was outdated. The Commission applied a seven-step methodology based on guidance provided in the CER’s Filing Manual.

Indigenous groups were informed of the methodology proposed by the Commission via a letter in December 2024 and were provided opportunities throughout the hearing process to inform, discuss, and raise concerns regarding the approach. No alternate framework was proposed. The Commission used its existing methodology and worked to ensure input from Indigenous groups was considered and informed the design of the consultation process. In undertaking its assessment, the Commission considered direct and indirect evidence shared by Indigenous groups through the Hearing record and the CER regarding their communities, the nature of their rights and how they are exercised or practised, and how the Project may affect them.

Some Indigenous groups raised concerns regarding the Commission’s conclusions and interpretation of the duty to consult and FPIC. Concerns were also raised regarding the short timelines for the final consultation phase following submission of the Commission’s Report in advance of the GiC’s decision, noting the strong reliance on the Commission’s assessment for responding to concerns and a lack of meaningful discussion on finding solutions to outstanding concerns and interests.

Crown consultation was conducted at the deep end of the Haida spectrum for all Indigenous groups on the Crown List. The Commission also applied the UN Declaration as an interpretive lens in its assessment of the Project and tailored the consultation process to achieve FPIC. Further, consultation and engagement took place over approximately two years, during which there were multiple opportunities with flexible formats for iterative dialogue and consideration of and response to concerns. Therefore, the Commission felt that, for the purposes of issuing the report, the duty to consult was sufficiently met. During the GiC phase, the CER also worked with other federal departments and Westcoast, as required, to find solutions to outstanding concerns.

Not all Indigenous groups had equal opportunities to be heard during the consultation process due to being added at different points. To help address this, the CER co-developed consultation plans with Indigenous groups to ensure any potential impacts to rights were addressed.

The GiC considered the concerns raised by Indigenous groups regarding the Commission’s assessment methodology, the consultation process, and the interpretation and application of FPIC. The GiC is satisfied with the Commission’s approach and the Crown consultation efforts described above, including the application of the UN Declaration as an interpretive framework and the tailoring of consultation processes with the intent of achieving the substantive objectives of FPIC.

Tracking and relying on Westcoast commitments

Throughout supplemental consultations following the release of the Commission’s Report, some Indigenous groups expressed concerns regarding the lack of a transparent mechanism for tracking Westcoast’s commitments and related reliability concerns.

While the Crown considered the addition of a new condition to address these concerns, it ultimately found that these conditions would not result in additional regulatory oversight by the CER. Rather, it found that Condition 2 (design, location, construction, and operations) and Condition 3 (Environmental Protection) make Westcoast’s commitments on the Hearing record binding, and that compliance would be verified by the CER as the life cycle regulator and could be additionally flagged through the complaints resolution process.

The GiC is satisfied with the Commission’s view that Conditions 2 and 3 make Westcoast’s commitments on the Hearing record binding and enforceable, and that the CER’s life cycle regulatory oversight, including compliance verification and complaints resolution processes, provides mechanisms to monitor and address Westcoast’s delivery on its commitments.

Consent for reserve crossings and temporary workspaces

The Project route crosses Sq’éwqel and Cheam First Nation’s reserve land. The proponent also requires a temporary workspace on McLeod Lake Indian Band reserve land. Prior to use and occupation of these reserve lands, Westcoast requires consent from the band councils of these Indigenous groups, per section 317 of the CER Act.

To date, Westcoast has received conditional consent from Sq’éwqel, subject to the finalization of, and in accordance with, the terms of a RoW agreement. As of March 2, 2026, Cheam First Nation had provided Westcoast with conditional consent contingent on bilateral work, including negotiation and ratification of a RoW agreement, and further environmental and archaeological studies. Negotiations and related work between Westcoast and the Cheam First Nation are ongoing. It is also understood that, while discussions are ongoing with McLeod Lake Indian Band to obtain consent, the Nation provided a letter of support for the Project on March 18, 2026.

As a result of these reserve crossings, three section 82 assessments under the Impact Assessment Act were required. The Commission determined that, considering the Project’s potential effects, the implementation of Westcoast’s mitigation measures and compliance with conditions, the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on federal lands.

While some Indigenous groups expressed concerns about the GiC’s ability to issue a certificate for the Project without the proponent having received consent for on-reserve work, the Commission found that it can recommend, and that the GiC can direct, the issuance of a certificate for the Project without Westcoast having first obtained consent from all required band councils. The Commission has recommended imposing Condition 23 (subsection 317(1) consents), requiring Westcoast to file confirmation, at least 14 days prior to the use of the reserve lands, that it has obtained the requisite consents from the band councils or, where such consent has not been obtained, to provide details of the process it will undertake, including timelines, to address the lack of consent. Notwithstanding concerns raised by some Indigenous groups regarding the issuance of a certificate in advance of finalized consents for on-reserve work, the GiC is satisfied with the Commission’s interpretation of subsection 317(1) of the CER Act, and Condition 23 and the requirements placed on Westcoast.

Indigenous monitoring and involvement of Indigenous Peoples throughout the Project life cycle

Several Indigenous groups raised concerns with Indigenous oversight over the Project, including concerns related to Westcoast’s Indigenous monitoring plans, and the fact that Indigenous monitors are advisory roles without regulatory authority.

Based on interests and concerns raised by Indigenous groups, the Commission found it necessary to impose several conditions focused on Indigenous monitoring, amongst other areas, to ensure Westcoast continues to engage with Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous groups will have the following opportunities with respect to the life cycle regulation of the Project:

Westcoast has committed to including Indigenous construction monitors to support environmental and cultural oversight during Project construction and to provide environmental monitoring post-construction. Indigenous monitors will observe construction activities, identify concerns, and support the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into monitoring and mitigation practices, with participation tailored to the interests and capacity of individual Indigenous groups.

Other CER activities

In addition to Westcoast’s Indigenous monitoring commitments, Indigenous monitors may also participate alongside CER inspection officers in compliance verification activities whenever possible, through the CER’s Indigenous Monitoring Program. This approach allows Indigenous knowledge and perspectives to directly inform the CER’s inspection activities, observations, and assessment of a proponent’s condition compliance.

As a life cycle regulator, the CER is also committed to transforming the way it works with Indigenous Peoples by enhancing their involvement in how it fulfills its mandate. This includes a commitment to develop a systemic model to enhance Indigenous Peoples’ involvement in compliance and oversight through the life cycle of CER-regulated infrastructure. The CER systemic model will include broader involvement of Indigenous Peoples in post-construction activities of a broader range of CER-regulated infrastructure.

The CER will continue to work with Indigenous groups following the GiC’s decision to enhance Indigenous Peoples’ involvement in compliance and oversight activities over the life cycle of CER-regulated infrastructure, including the T-South system.

Continued adjudicative function and life cycle regulator role

The Commission continues to exercise its adjudicative functions after a certificate is issued. Upon reviewing a condition filing, the Commission may issue information requests to the proponent to gather necessary information, and may refuse approval, or issue directions and orders. Indigenous groups may provide comments on Westcoast’s condition filings by submitting letters directly to the Commission, which may then determine whether compliance or enforcement action is necessary. The CER, as a life cycle regulator, monitors and enforces a company’s compliance with all conditions imposed and other regulatory requirements, throughout the Project’s life cycle, regardless of whether compliance with a condition is subject to Commission approval. It may take compliance and enforcement action when a failure to comply with a condition or other contravention under the CER Act occurs.

While some Indigenous groups expressed concerns regarding lack of decision-making authority for Indigenous monitors, the Crown notes that the CER, as the life cycle regulator, retains statutory responsibility for regulatory oversight, compliance verification, and enforcement under the CER Act. These authorities cannot be delegated to external parties, including Indigenous Monitors.

The Crown acknowledges STSA’s position that its ICA and associated conditions should be incorporated as a regulatory framework governing the Project. The Commission found that “there is no basis under the CER Act, or otherwise at law or through other instruments such as the STSA-Canada Protocol, for it to formally recognize the STSA’s ICA, inclusive of any conditions, as enforceable, coequal conditions to which the certificate would be subject if the Project is approved.”footnote 2 Nevertheless, the Commission is satisfied that the ICA’s recommendations could be applied and incorporated into Westcoast’s Project design, construction, operations, and mitigations. The GiC considered the STSA’s independent submission of the ICA and the Commission’s Report, and has not identified any requirement to incorporate the ICA conditions into the Project’s conditions.

The GiC considered the concerns raised by Indigenous groups regarding monitoring and oversight and is satisfied with the approach to Indigenous involvement described above, including the imposed conditions and the CER’s Indigenous Monitoring Program and development of a broader systemic model for Indigenous participation in life cycle oversight for CER-regulated projects.

Conclusion

Based on the Commission’s Report, supplemental consultations, and independent submissions from Indigenous groups, the GiC has considered whether the Project is required by the present and future public convenience and necessity and whether it is in the public interest to direct the issuance of a Certificate for its construction and operation.

Having considered the Commission’s assessment of the Project’s need, economic feasibility, environmental and cumulative effects, safety, and health and socioeconomic effects, as well as the interests and concerns of Indigenous Peoples and the Project’s potential impacts on Indigenous and Treaty rights, the GiC is satisfied with the Commission’s recommendation that the Project be approved subject to 47 binding conditions.

Having regard to the depth and duration of consultation, the opportunities provided to Indigenous groups to understand the Project and raise concerns; the Commission’s hearing process, including the assessment methodology and consideration of evidence put forward by Indigenous groups; the supplementary Crown consultation carried out following the release of the Commission’s Report prior to the GiC’s decision; and the conditions imposed to address Project-related impacts and ensure ongoing Indigenous involvement and oversight, the GiC is satisfied that the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate has been fulfilled for the purposes of a GiC decision on the Project. In reaching this conclusion, the GiC has considered the separate view expressed by Commissioner Grimoldby and the Commission’s actions to refine and strengthen certain conditions in response, as well as the addition of some Indigenous groups to the Crown List at later stages of the process, and remains of the view that the Crown consultation carried out was sufficient.

Accordingly, the GiC directs the Commission to issue a Certificate for the Project, subject to the conditions set out in the Commission’s Report, is in the public interest.

Contact

For more information, please contact Jim Delaney, Director General, Regulatory Coordination, Consultation, and Economic Inclusion, Nòkwewashk, Natural Resources Canada, at 343‑543‑7832 or jim.delaney@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca.