The provincial government took its strongest stand yet against the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline on Friday.
In its final argument to the National Energy Board's Joint Review Panel, lawyers for the government outlined in blunt terms why the project in its current form doesn't meet its standards.
Northern Gateway is seeking environmental approval to build a pipeline from northern Alberta to Kitimat, linking the oilsands to Asian markets.
The government argued the evidence Northern Gateway supplied to date has been inadequate and in some cases possibly even inaccurate. It said the company can't be trusted to learn from past mistakes such at the 2010 spill in Michigan on a pipeline owned by its parent company Enbridge.
"In the province's submission, Enbridge has not demonstrated an ability to learn from its mistakes in order to avoid spills," the province wrote. "While [Northern Gateway] witnesses provided lengthy statements in cross-examination about the changes Enbridge has made to its corporate culture in an effort to reduce the potential for spills in the future, given its pattern of making similar commitments in the past, there are serious reasons for concern that the commitments it has made in this proceeding will be hollow."
The province has been skeptical of Northern Gateway's plans for months.
Last summer Premier Christy Clark unveiled five conditions she said any heavy oil pipeline proponent must meet before the government would consider a project: a successful recommendation by the Joint Review Panel; world-class land-based spill response; world-class marine spill response; adequate consultation with First Nations and an appropriate economic benefit to B.C.
Throughout the cross-examination phase during the fall and winter, Environment Minister Terry Lake said the answers the company supplied were inadequate and during the recent election campaign Clark said Northern Gateway had not come close to meeting those conditions. Friday's document puts the government's concerns in writing, but Lake said the tough words in the final argument don't close the door completely on the project.
"What we're saying is that everything we've seen to date simply doesn't make the grade at this point in terms of assuring British Columbians that the environment would be well-protected," Lake told the Canadian Press. "These are questions that are left hanging and we feel those need to be answered before we would support a certificate being issued."
Among the chief concerns the province raised in its final argument was that the evidence Northern Gateway presented didn't provide adequate detail, especially around spill response plans.
"'Trust me' is not good enough in this case," the province wrote.
However, Enbridge vice-president for western access Janet Holder said it's too soon to produce the detailed plans the province is seeking.
"We admit that we haven't done detailed emergency response plans because a detailed emergency response plan would go down to a level of detail of actually having phone numbers," she said. "There's a lot of things you don't do until you know that you have a project."
Holder believes Northern Gateway can address all of the concerns the province has raised in due course and said the strong language B.C. used in its final argument shouldn't been seen as a sign the hurdles are too big to overcome.
"The process is the process. We're at a stage in the process where you're preparing arguments and arguments are always very strong, clear statements," Holder said. "At this stage in the process - the process that we Canadians take great pride in - we've done more to date than any other pipeline application has ever done."
When asked if she was surprised by any of the objections the province raised, Holder said it was a difficult question to answer before simply replying: "I don't think there was anything there we hadn't heard."
The province also expressed doubts about the reliability of the data Northern Gateway provided around the chances of certain types of spills occurring.
"The province is concerned that the evidence before the JRP with respect to spills other than full-bore ruptures underplays their potential frequency, and therefore the risk they pose to British Columbia," the province wrote.
Despite the province's objections, it doesn't have the authority to block the federal government from issuing a certificate to proceed to the next phase of the design. The Joint Review Panel will issue a recommendation in December and the federal cabinet will make the final ruling on a certificate, likely in early 2014.
