Mayor and council should vote no on the proposed Woodfibre LNG agreement.
They should do so for two reasons: the agreement does not guarantee the lasting community benefit Squamish should expect from industry, and the timing and process do not allow meaningful public participation.
We are less than six weeks from having a new mayor and council, yet our community is being asked to accept one of the most consequential financial decisions of our generation under duress.
A lasting community benefit
My chief concern with this deal is that Squamish will not have anything to show for it in the long term. I cannot help but see this as Squamish repeating history.
We are a town whose foundations are grounded in industry. The forestry industry for years provided good jobs and a strong tax base, but it did not leave behind enough lasting investment in our community. Without concrete investments in capital projects that met the community’s core needs, many of the benefits of industry disappeared when the mill closed. In its wake, our community was left with environmental degradation, a strained municipal budget, and inadequate infrastructure and amenities.
I am not convinced that an agreement bringing in an average of $14 million a year will make a significant enough contribution to the needs of this town. This is especially concerning when our local government has not demonstrated their ability to deliver capital projects on time and on budget.
The last two capital projects managed by the District exceeded their budgets by more than $20 million. Given that record, it is not hard to imagine this revenue being absorbed by cost overruns without producing a lasting community asset that residents can see and use. My apprehension is that we will lock ourselves into an agreement that, even if competitive, is still insufficient to advance clear community priorities.
Council should vote no so the agreement can be reconsidered in partnership with Squamish residents. Rather than directing this money into general revenues through processes that have not reliably met community needs, we should negotiate an agreement that commits the funds to a community-selected legacy project: a lasting capital asset that serves Squamish residents now and for generations to come.
We need to ensure that the benefits industry brings continue to serve Squamish long after that industry leaves. In my conversations with residents, the need I hear most often is for improved recreational amenities – with a second sheet of ice, updated pool facilities, and improved change rooms.
Furthermore, to protect our natural environment and the health of residents, Woodfibre LNG needs to be accountable for upholding their environmental commitments and any deal should include robust environmental monitoring capabilities.
Concerns about the process
My second concern is how this decision is being made. To justify the urgency, the District of Squamish’s FAQs present the timing as necessary. The District’s information sheet states that the decision must take place before the municipal election for the revenue to be included in the 2027 financial year. This timeline inherently limits how much the public can participate in the process.
The District’s messaging also states that negotiations are complete. But rejecting this agreement could create an opportunity for further negotiations with Woodfibre LNG. Negotiation is a process of parties declining proposals and returning to the table until they achieve mutual benefit. Presenting the current proposal as though there is no room for further discussion is misleading and does not serve the Squamish community.
Making such a consequential decision under duress and without meaningful public engagement is irresponsible. Decisions like this erode trust in our local government. This alone should be enough for mayor and council to vote no on the agreement.
A meaningful say for residents
A no vote would give the next mayor and council an opportunity to lead a more fulsome process with meaningful public engagement. Incorporating the community’s perspectives and needs is the best way to ensure that Squamish gets the agreement it needs.
This possibility begins with the current mayor and council recognizing the value of our resources and respecting community members’ right to participate in decisions that directly affect them. Voting no would show the community that council is listening and is willing to fight for what Squamish needs and deserves. It would also show residents trust in electing a mayor and council capable of continuing negotiations in the community’s best interests.
A councillor told me that comments submitted through the DOS’s engagement link are not shared directly with council. If mayor and council are not seeing residents’ submissions, that raises a serious question about how meaningful this engagement process really is.
(Editor’s note: The District says this statement is incorrect. According to the District, Council will receive all public comments submitted through the Woodfibre LNG proposed financial arrangement webpage. The comments will also become part of the public record and be included in the agenda for the September 22, 2026 Special Business Meeting.)
In the meantime, I encourage Squamish residents to email the mayor and council directly at council@squamish.ca and make their views on the proposed agreement known before the vote.
For these reasons, I am asking the mayor and councillors to vote no on September 22 and give the community a meaningful say in the agreement and in what Squamish will have to show for it long after the industry has left.
Sean Easton is a candidate for mayor in the 2026 Squamish municipal election. The views expressed are his own.
I have no fate in the current counselors to make a last rushed decision on such an important matter,that yes will be setting that decision for years to come.
What is proposed is not very clear on its future affects and seems to me like a drop in the bucket.
Time for some serious investments into our community.
I don’t know what Sean Easton’s line of business is but I guess he knows something about budgeting. I will say that I have more confidence in the LNG proponents and in our local government. Squamish is so lucky to have a major industrial development to help with costs and our Council have obstructed the development the whole way, as far as I can tell. The incumbents should definitely be called to task about their cost overruns, but witness the disastrous situation in Vancouver real estate. Major developers are facing bankruptcy. These are tough times.
Hi David, can you please outline specifically how Council has “obstructed justice”? Are you using that term in the legal sense, and if so, what evidence are you referring to?
Negotiating with Woodfibre LNG on behalf of the municipality, or requiring appropriate health and safety assessments before approving development, seem like reasonable functions of local government. Disagreeing with those decisions doesn’t in itself make them obstruction of justice.
I also don’t recall seeing you at the town halls that took place, either to voice concerns or support for the project. Are you familiar with how these decisions were made, what information Council had before it, and the public consultation that took place?
It’s also worth remembering that discussions about a municipal tax agreement with Woodfibre LNG go back to 2014. This isn’t something Council suddenly decided to pursue recently.
Woodfibre LNG has made legal allegations against the District, and those should obviously be taken seriously. But allegations in litigation are not the same thing as a court finding that councillors committed “obstruction of justice.” If you’re making that accusation, can you explain exactly what Council did, what law you believe they broke, and whether a court has actually made that finding?
Ellen, what are you talking about? Can you read or you are ad-hoc against? He wrote “Council have obstructed the development the whole way” which is more than true statement related to the Woodfibre LNG. We cannot see anywhere the statement “obstructed justice”. What he wrote and what you are alleging are two very different things.
WFLNG is agreat project it will give many great outcomes Christmas’s trees and happy families caring for one another.We also need to develop heavy deep water accessible industries for a beautiful outcome for us all. Working yes actually working we will engage with these companies they need to be successful as we will too let’s attract heavy hands on working trades for the success of our younger generation.
Mr. Easton is particularly concerned that “the local government has not demonstrated the ability to deliver capital projects on time and within budget and the District’s last two capital projects exceeded their budgets by more than $20 million”.
Nevertheless, let’s blame Woodfibre LNG for the Progressive Council’s failures, and use those failures as an excuse to milk the company for additional funding.
The Council is both ridiculous and indeed obstructive. Consider the potential benefits of, say, having Woodfibre LNG built a 300-room hotel in Squamish to accommodate their construction workers, with the property transferred to the District once the project was complete. Such a facility could provide a lasting community asset, support tourism, and help address the town’s long-term accommodation needs. But no, they insisted on a costly and temporary flotel when a permanent hotel could deliver far greater value to Squamish… Rejecting a practical, long-term solution simply because of political stubbornness was the prime example of irresponsible Council, perhaps driven by few irrational residents “concerns”.
Instead of relying on Woodfibre LNG to offset poor financial management, voters should elect fiscally responsible, practical, and community-minded Councillors in the next election. The new Council should rebalance the budget, eliminate unnecessary projects that waste taxpayers’ money, and focus spending on the real needs of Squamish residents.
The $14 million per year steady annual contribution from Woodfibre LNG should be treated as a welcome addition to the budget, not as a substitute for responsible governance…