Lawyers representing the Haisla Nation had a tough time prying information out of federal government witnesses Monday morning at National Energy Board hearings into the proposed Northern Gateway project.
Questions on everything from the infamous spill of a Enbridge-operated pipeline in Michigan in 2010 to the impact the pipeline could have on B.C.'s grizzly bear population to the impact of rules on the submission of evidence were left unanswered.
Two dozen government witnesses representing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada were available either in person or via video conference to answer questions about Northern Gateway's plan to build a pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat.
Caroline Caza, the lead spokeswoman for her department on the witness panel, used a number of variations of the phrase "Environment Canada didn't file evidence on that topic" when asked about certain aspects of the project including the spill in Michigan and was backed up by Joint Review Panel (JRP) chairwoman Sheila Leggett who reminded Haisla lawyer Jennifer Griffith that only information filed by the government was eligible for cross-examination.
When it came to grizzlies, the federal government said they don't have any expertise in that area and Barry Smith of Environment Canada suggested the Haisla look to the province of B.C. for answers.
"That would be the first place I would go for information on that if I were you," Smith told Haisla lawyer Jesse McCormick.
Since the provincial government decided not to provide evidence to the JRP and therefore will not testify during the process, McCormick's questions about the dangers the bears face could wind up unanswered. In earlier questioning, Northern Gateway witnesses said they believe the primary risk to bears would come from the possibility of increased human hunting or poaching activities due to the creation of the right of way.
Department of Justice lawyer Jim Shaw objected to any line of questioning that would have had government witnesses speculate, including questions from Griffith about the timing of evidence. She wanted to know if Environment Canada would have taken Northern Gateway's ecological and human health risk assessment into consideration had it been available at the time the government was preparing its evidence.
Shaw said any answer speculating about how the government may have reacted wouldn't be useful to the JRP and Leggett agreed.
The one area the Haisla did have some success in getting answers was around forest fires. Natural Resources Canada expert Steve Taylor said that although no specific studies on the dangers fires pose to buried pipelines have been done by the department, research into the amount of "heat flux" transferred into the ground suggest that pipelines aren't at risk.
Although the government witnesses didn't want to speculate on hypothetical situations, they did make one exception at the very end of the questioning from the Haisla. In its filing Northern Gateway has said by using shutoff valves in strategic locations along the route, it will be able to limit even the worst-case spill to a maximum of 2,000 cubic metres of oil. Lawyer Jennifer Griffith asked the government whether a spill of that magnitude would be considered "deleterious" to the aquatic environment.
Environment Canada witness Laura MacLean replied that the government would have to look at each spill on a case-by-case basis but said it would be "hard to argue" that a spill of that magnitude wouldn't constitute adding a deleterious substance to a waterway.
