Controversial housing plan for workers – including 'Floatel' ship – raised alarm about gender-based violence in B.C. community
The Federal Court has ruled that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada acted reasonably in approving a controversial housing plan for Woodfibre LNG workers, despite concerns over gender-based violence near Squamish, B.C.
The ruling reaffirms that federal environmental reviews can proceed under older, narrower legislative frameworks—even when social risks are raised.
In Citizens for My Sea to Sky v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), Justice Sébastien Grammond dismissed two judicial review applications challenging the federal agency’s 2023 decision not to amend Woodfibre LNG’s environmental authorization.
At the centre of the dispute was a repurposed cruise ship, or “Floatel,” where hundreds of construction workers are being housed during the LNG project’s construction phase.
When the project was first assessed, Woodfibre LNG assumed that workers would be housed in existing accommodations in Squamish or Vancouver and ferried to the site daily. However, the company realized that this would not be feasible so it chose to resort to a Floatel.
However, “it was reasonable for the agency to assess the Floatel proposal in light of the definition of effects under the 2012 [Canadian Environmental Assessment] Act rather than the 2019 [Impact Assessment] Act,” Grammond wrote, rejecting the applicants’ claim that a broader, socio-economic impact analysis was required.
Applicant groups, including environmental organization Citizens for My Sea to Sky and members of the Squamish Nation, argued the agency failed to adequately consider heightened risks of gender-based violence—a well-documented issue linked to resource projects in remote communities. They pointed to rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights obligations.
The court acknowledged the reality of such risks: “The presence of large numbers of construction workers near small or remote communities gives rise to a heightened risk of gender-based violence.”
However, Grammond found that federal authorities were not required to act further, especially given measures imposed by British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). These include a gender and cultural safety plan, a confidential reporting line, and a prohibition on workers accessing Squamish for non-work activities.
“The agency did not end the discussion with a conclusion or a recommendation… but it clearly satisfied itself that any heightened risk of gender-based violence was sufficiently mitigated by the measures taken by the British Columbia EAO,” Grammond noted.
He also emphasized judicial limits in reviewing administrative discretion: “Reasonableness review… must remain focused on the agency’s interpretation and its compatibility with the relevant legal constraints.”
The court further rejected claims that procedural fairness was breached by the lack of a public comment period. Despite participant funding provided to advocacy groups, Grammond held there was no legal requirement for consultation when no amendment to conditions was proposed: “The Agency never made any representation that it would hold a public comment period beyond what is required by the 2019 Act.”
While sympathetic to the applicants’ concerns, Grammond concluded that “the conditions imposed by the British Columbia EAO are sufficient to prevent gender-based violence” and that Canada had not breached its obligations under international conventions such as CEDAW and UNDRIP.
No costs were awarded, with the judge recognizing the applications were brought in the public interest.
