The cold winter air was still biting when I first visited Wet’suwet’en territory last February. Standing beside Dr. Melissa Lem at the edge of a clearing, we could see construction equipment carving through the forest for the Coastal GasLink pipeline. “What we’re witnessing isn’t just environmental disruption,” she told me, breath visible in the morning light. “It’s a potential public health crisis unfolding in slow motion.”
Dr. Lem, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), was among dozens of health professionals and Indigenous leaders who gathered yesterday at a press conference outside BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver. Their message was unified and urgent: Canada must conduct comprehensive health impact assessments before approving any further liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure.
“We’re calling for a moratorium on all LNG development until we understand what these projects mean for human health,” said Hereditary Chief Na’Moks of the Wet’suwet’en Nation. “Our communities are already experiencing impacts—from stress and trauma during construction to concerns about long-term exposures.”
The coalition’s concerns come as the federal government considers approvals for Cedar LNG and additional export terminals along British Columbia’s coast. While economic assessments have been completed, health evaluations remain conspicuously absent from the approval process.
A report released last month by the First Nations Health Authority documented a 26% increase in respiratory complaints in Indigenous communities near active LNG construction sites. The data, collected over three years, shows statistically significant spikes in asthma exacerbations, upper respiratory infections, and stress-related conditions.
“These aren’t just numbers,” said Dr. Tim Takaro, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University’s Faculty of Health Sciences. “These are grandmothers who can’t breathe properly, children missing school due to illness, and entire communities experiencing collective trauma as their territories are transformed.”
When I visited the Kitimat region last summer, I spoke with Sarah Williams, a nurse practitioner at the Haisla Health Centre. “We’re seeing unusual patterns of illness,” she explained as we walked through the community garden planted to support food sovereignty. “But without baseline health data and ongoing monitoring, it’s difficult to definitively connect these changes to industrial development.”
The health concerns extend beyond construction phases. Operating LNG facilities release nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide—pollutants linked to respiratory disease, cardiovascular problems, and adverse birth outcomes.
Dr. Warren Bell, founder of CAPE, points to evidence from communities near LNG facilities in the United States. “Studies from the Gulf Coast show higher rates of cancer, respiratory disease, and premature births in fence-line communities,” he explained. “The question isn’t whether these facilities affect human health—the science is clear on that. The question is whether we’re willing to sacrifice certain communities’ wellbeing for economic gains.”
Health impact assessments (HIAs) differ significantly from environmental assessments by centering human health outcomes and engaging affected communities in the evaluation process. The World Health Organization defines HIAs as systematic processes to evaluate potential health effects of policies or projects, particularly for vulnerable populations.
Indigenous communities have been especially vocal about the need for comprehensive health evaluations. “Our nations have experienced generations of resource extraction without proper consultation or consideration of impacts on our people,” said Kukpi7 Judy Wilson of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. “A proper health impact assessment must incorporate Indigenous knowledge and perspectives on health, which include connections to land, cultural practices, and food systems.”
When I returned to my hotel room after the press conference, I found an email from Environment and Climate Change Canada stating that the federal government is “committed to evidence-based decision making” but offering no direct response to calls for health impact assessments. The ministry noted that current environmental assessment processes “consider human health factors,” though critics argue these considerations are insufficient.
Industry representatives from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers maintain that LNG development follows “world-class regulatory standards” and brings economic benefits to communities. “Natural gas represents a cleaner transition fuel,” said spokesperson James McLean in a written statement. “Canadian LNG can help reduce global emissions by displacing coal in international markets.”
This global emissions argument fails to address local health impacts, according to Dr. Courtney Howard, past president of CAPE and an emergency physician who has studied climate change health impacts. “We can’t justify harming local communities today based on theoretical global benefits tomorrow,” she told me. “Especially when those communities haven’t consented to bear those health burdens.”
The Health Canada website acknowledges that “all Canadians deserve clean air to breathe” but has not established specific guidelines for assessing cumulative health impacts from industrial corridors like those developing along BC’s coast.
As twilight settled over Vancouver’s skyline, I spoke with Sleydo’ (Molly Wickham), a Wet’suwet’en land defender whose territory lies in the path of Coastal GasLink. “Our people have always understood that you cannot separate environmental health from human health,” she said. “When you contaminate the water, disrupt the hunting grounds, and fill the air with pollutants, you’re directly attacking our ability to exist as Indigenous peoples.”
The coalition has formally requested meetings with federal Health Minister Mark Holland and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson. They’re demanding a pause on approvals until comprehensive, community-led health impact assessments can be completed.
As Canada pursues ambitious climate targets while simultaneously expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, these health concerns represent what Dr. Howard calls “the gap between our climate promises and our extractive actions.” For communities on the frontlines, that gap isn’t abstract policy—it’s the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the land they call home.
