Where the candidates stand on climate and the Woodfibre LNG plant
Woodfibre LNG is building a gas export plant on Howe Sound, about 7 km from downtown. Senior governments and the Squamish Nation approved it — council did not, and cannot stop it. What council does control is local: permits for worker housing (the ‘floatel’ and workers’ lodges), rules on traffic, noise and safety, and how hard it presses the Province to enforce the plant’s conditions. In April 2024 council refused the floatel permit 4–3; the Province overrode it, and in July 2025 council approved a two-year permit 5–2. How the plant is taxed is a separate question — see Taxes & spending.
The background
Woodfibre LNG is building a liquefied natural gas export plant on Howe Sound about 7 km from downtown, fed by a new FortisBC pipeline; it was approved by senior governments and the Squamish Nation, not by council, and remains divisive locally. Council's real levers are land-use permits (such as the '' worker housing) and how the plant is taxed. The biggest live decision is a proposed 10-year deal under which Woodfibre would pay the District at least $142 million from 2027 in exchange for a fixed, much lower municipal tax bill, and would drop its lawsuits over 2025 and 2026 taxes; on Sept. 22, 2026 council rejected it 5–2, so the question for the next council is whether to go back for a new deal.
This is really two separate arguments. One is about the plant itself and the climate. The other is about money: supporters of the deal value predictable revenue and an end to litigation, while critics — including several candidates who support the plant — say the District may be giving up revenue and that the decision is rushed. Separately, the District has a goal of cutting community greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030.
The Woodfibre tax deal: what each choice means
Update, Sept. 22: council said no, 5–2 (Stoner, Hamilton and Pettingill against; Andersen and French for). A future council could still negotiate a new deal, so where candidates stand still matters. Squamish Reporter
This is a question about money. It is not a vote for or against the plant, which is already being built, and candidates who support the plant are on both sides of it.
If council says yes
- At least $142 million over 10 years, fixed in advance — about $14.2 million a year on average, with the biggest payments in the first five years.
- The court cases end. Woodfibre drops its three legal actions over the 2025 and 2026 tax rates, with no refunds.
- No risk from the Province or appeals. The amount holds even if the Province caps tax rates or the plant’s assessed value drops.
- But it can’t go up. Most of the money doesn’t rise with inflation, it can only be spent on building projects, and it stays the same if the plant expands.
If council says no
- Squamish still gets paid. Woodfibre keeps paying normal property tax every year. It paid $7.7 million in 2026 with the plant only part-built.
- How much is unknown. Staff estimate $9 million to $29 million a year once the plant is finished, depending on the tax rate council sets. Today’s rate is about four times the B.C. average, and the District says keeping it that high for 10 years “would be unusual”.
- The court cases go ahead, and the Province could cap the tax rate (as it does for ports and utilities) or change how LNG plants are valued.
- A new council could try for a better deal. Nothing guarantees a new offer, and one could not start before 2028.
District staff say normal taxes “could be either higher or lower” than the deal and make no recommendation. District of Squamish: questions and answers on the deal.
Key facts
- Result: on Sept. 22, 2026 council voted 5–2 to reject the proposed 10-year agreement. Against: Mayor Armand Hurford and Couns. Jenna Stoner (who moved the motion), Lauren Greenlaw, Andrew Hamilton and Chris Pettingill. For: Couns. Eric Andersen and John French. A future council could still consider another agreement. [source]
- The plant will produce 2.1 million tonnes of LNG per year, is expected to operate about 40 years, and the District lists completion as expected in 2027. [source]
- Proposed agreement: $117 million in fixed Community Enhancement Payments over 10 years ($10M in 2027; $16M/yr 2028-2030; $15M in 2031; $10M/yr 2032-2033; $8M/yr 2034-2036; not inflation-indexed; capital projects only) plus municipal property tax fixed at $2.5 million in 2027 with CPI adjustments via a Revitalization Tax Exemption bylaw, for a total of at least $142 million. [source]
- District staff say revenue under regular taxation 'could be either higher or lower' than the agreement; the documents can be accepted or rejected but not amended; WLNG's 2025 and 2026 legal proceedings would be dismissed by consent if approved. [source]
- Under normal taxation, the District says Woodfibre LNG paid $7.7 million in municipal property tax in 2026 while still under construction, at a major-industry rate of 125 — about four times the B.C. average for that class. The District itself says keeping that rate for 10 years “would be unusual”. [source]
- Mayoral candidate Sean Easton has said council should vote no on the proposed agreement (attributed campaign position). [source]
- Floatel: the first floating worker camp has housed workers since June 2024 (about 650 workers); on July 29, 2025 council approved a two-year Temporary Use Permit covering the existing vessel and a proposed second vessel. Workers are ferried to and from the Lower Mainland and have no recreational access to the community. [source]
- FortisBC's Eagle Mountain-Woodfibre Gas Pipeline adds about 50 km of pipeline from Coquitlam to the site, including a roughly 9 km tunnel under the Skwelwil'em Squamish Estuary; in-town work includes 2 km of pipe along Finch Drive and Industrial Way in 2026. [source]
- In the Chief's reader survey, 'attitude toward industry and LNG' ranked low on average (6.17 of 9) but was polarizing: nearly 14% put it in their top three and more than half in their bottom three. [source]
- Council's 2023-2026 Strategic Plan sets a goal of reducing community GHG emissions 45% by 2030 through the Community Climate Action Plan. [source]
- Would normal taxes bring in more? Nobody knows. District staff estimate that without the deal, the finished plant would pay between $9 million and $29 million a year depending on the tax rate council could sustain, compared with an average of $14.2 million a year under the deal. Staff say regular taxation “could be either higher or lower” and make no recommendation. [source]
- Why not far more? Staff assume the finished plant will be assessed at only $400–600 million, not its $5-billion-plus construction cost, because the Province sets how heavy industry is valued and depreciated. [source]
- What critics of the deal point to: the $117 million in payments never rises with inflation, is front-loaded (about $18.5 million a year in 2028–30, falling to about $10.5 million by 2034–36), can only be spent on capital projects, does not increase if the plant expands, and must be partly repaid if Woodfibre’s tax bill ever rises above the agreed amount — so $142 million works as a ceiling as well as a floor. [source]
- What supporters of the deal point to: the Province could change how LNG plants are valued or cap the tax rate (it already caps port and utility rates in Squamish), Woodfibre could win assessment appeals, and three court actions over the 2025 and 2026 tax rates would be dropped with no refunds. [source]
- Process: council could only accept or reject the deal, not amend it. With the deal rejected, normal taxation continues in 2027 (not zero revenue), and a future council could still consider another agreement. [source]
- Among candidates who have taken a side, opposition to the deal is about money and timing, not the environment: Daniel Deal, Sean Easton, Janice DesJardins and Laura Prosko all want it rejected or delayed for a better one, and none of them opposes the plant itself. Sean Goodwin supports signing. At the Sept. 22 vote, sitting councillors Stoner, Hamilton and Pettingill voted to reject it; Andersen and French voted for it. [source]
Agree or disagree?
Where each candidate lands on these 3 statements, from their own questionnaire answers or their public record. Tap a name for the detail.
“The District should use its permit powers to press Woodfibre LNG on local impacts, even if that means delays or legal fights.”
What does this mean?
What council can actually do: It cannot stop the Woodfibre LNG plant — senior governments approved it and it is being built. Council controls local permits, such as the floating worker housing (the “floatel”) and workers’ lodges, plus local rules on traffic, noise and safety, and it can press the Province to enforce the plant’s conditions.
In 2024 council refused the permit for Woodfibre’s floating worker housing 4–3; the Province overrode it, and Woodfibre is now suing over the delay. The other view: approve permits promptly and work with the company. The tax deal is a separate question.
A. John Lowe
Chris Pettingill
Chris Ryan
Shaun Veltkamp
Sean Easton 
Jenna Stoner 
Kieran Brownie
Sarah Ellis
Anders Ourom
Laura Prosko
Daniel Deal 
Ian Brown
Eric Andersen
John French
Sean Goodwin
Luc Perreault2 candidates haven’t said — show names
Janice DesJardins
Andrew Hamilton- Sean Easton (for mayor) Somewhat agrees
“Woodfibre is here to stay - we need to use every tool available to ensure we protect our people's health, our air and water quality, and leave a meaningful legacy to Squamish.”
- Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat agrees
“Permits are one of the few real levers we have to ensure this project is adhering to the expectations of our community. For example, ongoing noise violations are having real impacts on Finch Drive and Cherry Drive residents, and we continue to work with the proponent and our bylaw enforcement team to ensure those impacts are being mitigated and accounted for. Permit levers have limits, but I'd rather use the authority we have to protect our community and hold this project to account than pretend we have none.”
- Sarah Ellis In the middle
“My expectation is that WLNG is accountable to all levels of government with regular reporting and responsiveness to concerns. I expect WLNG to help pay for the District’s 10-year capital plan either through taxation or a fair tax deal, and have not seen enough analysis to be convinced that the current tax deal in front of Council achieves this.”
- Andrew Hamilton Didn’t pick an answer
“Given the current legal actions against the District and the current members of Council, I will not respond to this question.”
- A. John Lowe Strongly agrees
“We have to live in the area after all is said and done. To that end we must press for all the information regarding permit requests. We want a clean safe environment for our children and children's children. . Permits must be clear upheld and sanctions must be put in place to ensure they are upheld. Penalties must be strong enough and enforceable enough to deter any deviation from the rules.”
- Luc Perreault Strongly disagrees
“I would have supported the agreement because I want the District to have a strong, workable relationship with Woodfibre LNG. That relationship should be respectful, accountable, and built on clear expectations from both sides. Whether people support the project or not, the reality is that if the facility operates successfully, it will be part of our community for decades. I believe we can often achieve more through constructive engagement and partnership than through constant conflict and litigation. A stable relationship creates opportunities for ongoing dialogue about community benefits, infrastructure investments, local employment, environmental accountability, and other issues that matter to residents. That doesn't mean giving anyone a free pass. It means holding partners accountable while working together toward outcomes that benefit Squamish. My preference is to build relationships that are firm but respectful, because I believe that approach is more likely to deliver long-term benefits for our community than continued uncertainty and legal disputes.”
- Laura Prosko Didn’t pick an answer
“The question does not make sense without addressing Council’s relationship with Woodfibre LNG and the need to renegotiate an agreement that delivers greater long-term financial benefits to Squamish.”
- Chris Ryan Strongly agrees
“We fight over floatels for housing, they could have builthousing in town and leave to the community, spend their big pay checks in town helping local buisness and the tax base. Instead we do nothing about the floating encampment in town dumping raw sewage, fuel, garbage, but the floatels are a problem?”
- Shaun Veltkamp Strongly agrees
“Without question we need to meet Woodfibre LNG with a strong business tone. They are slated to make 8+ BILLION over 15 years after they pay down their capital costs, and are now trying to push back against our heavy industry mill rate. We will then be sucking back their emissions with the strong inflow we have daily in Squamish. We need a FAIR deal in Squamish and that will be informed by data based on all comparables. It's very easy for them to dangle a large number in front of everyone and expect people to be blinded by that... it's a smart business move on their part. We need to have a smart business move in return and push for strong value in return, not leave millions on the table.”
Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.
“Climate action should be a top council priority, even when it adds cost.”
What does this mean?
This covers things like building rules, electric vehicle charging, and flood and wildfire protection.
2 candidates haven’t said — show names
- Sean Easton (for mayor) Somewhat agrees
“Climate action is a crucial long-term priority: but environmental measures shouldn't make life harder or more expensive for residents in the short-term.”
- Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Strongly agrees
“Future-proofing this community against flood, fire and rising energy costs isn't separate from affordability - it is affordability. It means our community and our assets remain insurable and that we can reduce the degree of devastation when a disaster does hit.”
- Andrew Hamilton In the middle
“I don't believe it should be a top priority. Delivering core municipal services efficiently should always be our top priority. The question doesn't specify who bears the cost or how much it is. Energy efficiency in buildings costs more up front, but can save money in the long run. Beyond partnering with folks like BC Hydro, electric vehicle charging should be left in the private sector. Flood and wildfire protection are no longer "climate action", they are simply the reality of keeping our community safe(r) from the impacts of climate change.”
- A. John Lowe In the middle
“This statement cover a lot of ground in a mixed way so to respond i would first separate the individual issues . Building rules have standard practices and requirements from all parts of govt.. The municipality can adopt further requirements to ensure uniformity suitable to cover any costs to the district. These should be made explicit to any prospective builders. Electric vehicle charging stations are a relatively new development in most municipalities and I would suggest the district liaise with the council of municipalities to establish a universal permit process and requirements. Flood and wildfire and high priorities in my mind and without Provincial involvement we as a community would be hard pressed to take on any meaningful work in this regard. I think there is room for Forest Companies to liaise with the District on what we can control within our means but this is a much bigger picture than we can take responsibility for by ourselves”
- Luc Perreault Somewhat disagrees
“For me, taking care of basic needs comes first. People need safe drinking water, reliable roads, effective sewer and storm systems, flood protection, and affordable services. That's the foundation of a healthy community. I believe climate change is real, and we are already seeing its impacts through extreme weather, wildfire risk, and flooding. We need to do our part, but we also need to be realistic about costs and priorities. My approach is to focus on climate actions that deliver practical benefits to residents and strengthen our community. Investments in flood protection, wildfire preparedness, resilient infrastructure, and energy efficiency help protect people and property while preparing us for the future. At the same time, I don't believe every climate initiative should take priority over core infrastructure or essential services. Council has a responsibility to manage taxpayer dollars carefully and make sure we're getting value for our investments. I would support setting clear priorities, establishing realistic budgets, and focusing on projects that provide measurable benefits to residents. If we can't provide reliable water, sewer, roads, and public safety, then we've missed the mark. My priority will always be protecting the infrastructure and services that keep our community safe. Climate action is important, but it needs to be balanced with affordability and the basic needs of the residents who call Squamish home.”
- Laura Prosko Strongly agrees
“Climate action is a top priority.”
- Chris Ryan Strongly agrees
“100%,lets talk the talk. It can be a investment into our carbon footprint, and products like solar and new low profile eco wind generators pay for themself in 8 years. I see no solar on any of or municipal buildings, schools or new builds. Some are pre-wired for solar. They have BC hydro rebates, and a federal 30% tax credit. We can complain about someone else if we are no doing anything.”
- Shaun Veltkamp Strongly agrees
“Climate change is real... we need to meet it head on, make solid realistic decisions and strengthen our economy and community for the future. Climate change needs to be a primary filter in all decisions in our community.”
Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.
“New buildings should have to meet higher energy standards, even if that raises the cost of building.”
What does this mean?
Tighter standards cut emissions and bills later, but add to the upfront price of a home.
5 candidates haven’t said — show names
- Sean Easton (for mayor) In the middle
“This is a real trade-off between upfront cost and long-term savings that deserves thoughtful consideration for each project, not a blanket rule.”
- Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat agrees
“Building it right the first time costs less than retrofitting later, and the savings show up on the occupant's bill every month. The standards still have to be set at a pace that builders can meet.”
- Sarah Ellis Somewhat agrees
“Supporting green building technology in our building code - as long as they aren't excessively costly - will help these systems scale and become more affordable over time, and also support Canadian-based manufacturers.”
- Andrew Hamilton In the middle
“Higher than what? We already require Level 4 Zero-Carbon step code.”
- A. John Lowe Strongly disagrees
“The systems we have in place are adequate compared to thirty years ago. New construction meets current energy requirements and adding a further possible future scenario just adds cost that doesn't solve our housing needs”
- Laura Prosko In the middle
“This is also for a discussion in the OCP review and for a vision in the community.”
- Chris Ryan Strongly agrees
“Embrace renewable energy solutions, solar panels generate electricity as well it cools the roof in the summer. There solar tiles, cladding and window films. Battery storage enebles the day energy created for the evenings.”
- Shaun Veltkamp Strongly agrees
“This is a no brainer due to climate change.”
Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.
What each candidate has said
Mayor candidates first, then council, in alphabetical order. Our summary of the public record; tap [source] to check it.
Daniel Deal (running for mayor)
Against the 10-year Woodfibre tax deal; against pressing the plant through permits
Urges council to vote no on the proposed 10-year WLNG agreement, arguing the payment is too small relative to the company's revenue, inflation will erode it, it limits future councils' ability to tax industry, and the vote is rushed before the election. He says he is not against the plant itself and wants to work with the company. No stated positions on climate action, the estuary or wildfire; he works in the carbon capture industry. [source]
“Squamish should not sell our long term financial leverage for short term gains. ... A no today isn't a no forever.”
Sean Easton (running for mayor)
Use every tool to protect health, air and water from Woodfibre LNG; climate a priority, but not at residents’ short-term cost
In a Sept 14, 2026 op-ed he asked council to reject the proposed 10-year WLNG agreement, saying about $14M a year is not enough to leave a lasting asset, the money should be committed to a community-selected legacy project, and the pre-election timeline shuts out the public. He wants robust environmental monitoring of WLNG. He has not said he opposes the plant itself; no specific positions found on climate policy, the estuary or wildfire. [source]
“Making such a consequential decision under duress and without meaningful public engagement is irresponsible.”
Jenna Stoner (running for mayor) · current councillor
Moved the motion to reject the Woodfibre tax deal; leans toward pressing the plant through permits; climate action a top priority
Says she does not support the Woodfibre LNG project because fossil fuel expansion conflicts with climate commitments, but as a 'pragmatist' focuses on securing benefits for Squamish. She was one of four councillors who voted down the first floatel permit in April 2024, saying there was not enough information, and publicly criticized the province's override; in July 2025 she voted with the 5-2 majority to approve a two-year permit for two after adding a shore-power condition. She also voted in favour of FortisBC's workers' lodge in 2024, which council rejected 4-3. She cites getting a climate emergency resolution passed unanimously in her first term (source: 2022 re-election release), made 15 of 16 climate commitments in the 2022 candidate survey run by My Sea to Sky, an advocacy group opposed to Woodfibre LNG, and lists the climate crisis among her advocacy priorities. On Sept 22, 2026 she moved the motion to reject the proposed 10-year WLNG tax agreement, which council passed 5–2, saying the payments would not rise with inflation. [source]
“I don't support the project as a whole. I think the continued development of fossil fuels goes against our local, provincial and federal commitments, and international commitments on climate. I'm also a pragmatist and a realist.”
Eric Andersen · current councillor
Pro-permit on Woodfibre LNG; climate action via local jobs, wood construction and adaptation
... In 2022 he framed forestry and wood products as 'green tech' and climate action. In the same 2022 My Sea to Sky survey that records his support for Cheema Lands and North Crumpit, he also committed to 14 of the group's 16 climate actions - including advocating that the province let local governments ban new gas hookups, protecting natural assets, a biodiversity conservation strategy and adopting the doughnut-economics model - declining only the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and Sue Big Oil. [source]
“I support natural gas as a 'bridging fuel', and I support WLNG's ongoing efforts to protect (and enhance, through extensive site remediation investments) the local marine environment. (2022)”
Ian Brown
Leans against the Woodfibre tax deal and against pressing the plant through permits; in the middle on climate action; leans toward higher energy standards
Says the natural environment must be protected and accessible to all, and that wildfire and flood preparedness and the evacuation plan need serious attention and better communication. [source]
“I believe it is past time to review and effectively communicate our Squamish Evacuation Plan, in case we need it.”
Kieran Brownie
In the middle on the Woodfibre tax deal, on pressing the plant through permits, on climate action as a top priority and on higher energy standards
Declined to take a firm position on the proposed Woodfibre LNG-District tax agreement, noting it will not come to the next council unless it collapses, but offered that it protects the District if WLNG does poorly and protects the company if it does very well. At the April 2024 public hearing he raised concern about herring spawning habitat near the ship. No climate-policy statement found. [source]
“The current tax deal is protecting the District if WLNG does poorly. But if WLNG does amazingly... it protects the company.”
Janice DesJardins
Renegotiate the WLNG tax deal for more money; sees WLNG as the town's only economic engine
Does not support the Woodfibre LNG 10-Year Agreement in Principle, saying more money could be negotiated and a new council should reset the relationship, while describing WLNG as currently Squamish's one and only economic engine that the town has to work with. Past volunteer on the Squamish Estuary Management Plan. No climate-policy statement found. [source]
“This should be done with a new council who does a reset on the relationship with WLNG.”
Sarah Ellis
Climate a priority; in the middle on Woodfibre LNG, wants a fair tax deal
Sarah had said little in public about this before answering our questionnaire. Sarah’s own answers are below. [source]
John French · current councillor
Pro-permit on Woodfibre LNG; environment protected through and transit
In a 2022 candidate survey run by My Sea to Sky (an advocacy group opposed to the project) he answered that he was 'supportive' of Woodfibre LNG, the FortisBC pipeline, the workcamp and the , writing that 'Canadian energy is ethically produced' and that Canada should 'share its energy wealth.' On council he voted for the WLNG floatel permit in April 2024 (one of three in a 3-4 defeat), saying 'Denying this permit is not going to stop the project that's currently under construction'; moved the July 2025 two-year approval and voted against Coun. Stoner's successful shore-power amendment to it; and voted for the FortisBC workers' lodge permit. Counter-signal: he voted in favour of joining Sue Big Oil at the Oct 24, 2023 committee vote. His platform calls the environment one of Squamish's best assets, protected by smart planning and . [source]
Sean Goodwin
Backed taking the Woodfibre tax deal, with pros and cons; against pressing the plant through permits
Thinks the current proposal between the District and Woodfibre LNG should be approved, while saying he cannot tell whether it is a good or bad deal and that getting more would be ideal. [source]
“I can't tell if it's a good deal or a bad deal. I don't know if there's a scenario where we can get more out of it, which would be ideal, obviously. But I also think we're at the juncture now that we've been starving for 10 years.”
Andrew Hamilton · current councillor
Leans against the Woodfibre tax deal; won’t answer on Woodfibre permits, citing legal actions; core services before climate action
The only member to vote against both denying and approving the in April 2024 (he wanted a security deposit nearer $10M), then voted to reconsider and voted for the two-floatel permit in 2025; voted against the FortisBC lodge permit and against joining Sue Big Oil. Says climate change is human-caused and council's role is infrastructure that lets people choose lower-carbon options. On WLNG money, says the town has many capital needs to prioritise. [source]
“There is no question in my mind that the Earth's climate is changing due to the carbon that humans are emitting into our atmosphere.”
A. John Lowe
Strongly against signing the proposed Woodfibre tax deal, but open to a better-negotiated one; strongly for pressing the plant through permits; in the middle on climate action
John had said little in public about this before answering our questionnaire. John’s own answers are below. [source]
Anders Ourom
Questions the 10-year Woodfibre tax deal; in the middle on pressing the plant through permits; leans toward climate action
Says the District has handled Woodfibre LNG poorly. He questions the proposed 10-year agreement (inflation, LNG prices, volumes, review) and wants a longer term with review and renewal. The District should monitor air and water impacts from the start, publish the results, and lobby senior governments and the regulator on enforcement. On climate he lists regional transit, truly green buildings, holding all developers to agreed standards, and more in-town trips without a car. A long-time parks advocate (Stawamus Chief, Smoke Bluffs, Skaha Bluffs). [source]
“The developer agreed to various standards after a lot of informed discussion, and should be held to them.”
Luc Perreault
Strongly for the Woodfibre tax deal and against pressing the plant through permits; core infrastructure before climate action
Luc had said little in public about this before answering our questionnaire. Luc’s own answers are below. [source]
Chris Pettingill · current councillor
Council's most consistent Woodfibre LNG and fossil-gas critic; climate action central
Seconded the 2024 motion to deny the , voted against approval in 2024 and 2025 (seeking a dam assessment and a shorter permit), voted against the FortisBC lodge and for Sue Big Oil. He says his climate objections are separate from the proposed WLNG tax agreement, which should be judged on fairness to other taxpayers. Platform stresses FireSmart, diking and flood management. [source]
“Taxation isn't a tool at the municipal level to deal with the climate impacts of a business.”
Laura Prosko
Climate action a top priority; wants the Woodfibre deal renegotiated for more money
A former Woodfibre LNG stakeholder/Indigenous/government relations lead (2020-May 2025). Wants a stronger 10-year financial agreement, a 40-year operations-long MOU, legacy projects, a Squamish Nation-held liaison role, and says the current tax/community contribution agreement should wait until after the election. Says economic growth and environmental stewardship 'must go hand in hand' with 'strong environmental oversight and accountability'; also pledges stronger emergency and flood preparedness. No specific climate-action or position found. [source]
“I believe it needs to be reviewed with fresh perspectives, and we need to hold off and make sure that we have the best deal for Squamish.”
Chris Ryan
Take the Woodfibre tax deal, but press the plant on local impacts; climate a top priority — solar on public buildings
A renewable-energy advocate who nonetheless says Squamish should work with the LNG company to help fund community projects, and criticises council for complaining about LNG while doing little itself. Wants renewable energy on municipal buildings, schools and new construction. [source]
“Contrary to my beliefs as a renewable energy advocate, we need to work with the LNG company, which can help financially support various projects in our community.”
Shaun Veltkamp
Wants a harder bargain with Woodfibre LNG (“not leave millions on the table”); climate a top priority
Says responsible development must protect the natural environment and maintain public access to the outdoors. [source]
“Our mountains, rivers, and trails are what make Squamish home.”