TERRACE - Many interveners have argued that the Northern Gateway project shouldn't proceed because it's not in the national interest, but B.C. Nature and Nature Canada took that one step further on Monday.
The two naturalist groups made the case in final oral argument that since they don't believe the application put forward by Northern Gateway to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.'s coast is complete, the National Energy Board's Joint Review Panel might not have the power to issue any sort of recommendation.
Chris Tollefson, lawyer for the two groups, said the completeness argument has never been put forward in such a manner at the national level but has been applied provincially in the past. He said if the project doesn't meet the basic criteria of federal legislation, the Joint Review Panel must walk away from the process without offering any recommendations to the federal cabinet.
"They were tasked with convening the hearing, overseeing the hearing and considering the evidence," he said. "I think if they decide it's incomplete, then their job is done and the project would have to go back to the start and be reapplied."
The nature groups made the argument after offering a distinction between sufficiency and completeness. Tollefson that although the project had sufficient information to proceed to the environmental review stage, it still lacks the completeness to move to the next level.
Tollefson was also in the odd position of having to define who his clients were during closing arguments as Northern Gateway had dismissed the nature groups in its written argument.
"I was a bit taken aback when I saw that in their written argument," he said. "They know who we are and maybe that's just a bit of a throwaway argument on their part."
Earlier, the Alberta Federation of Labour took a different tack and challenged the pipeline on economic grounds.
The labour organization would prefer more refinery capacity in Canada and took issue with evidence presented by Northern Gateway and the government of Alberta about the benefits the pipeline would provide.
Leanne Chahley, speaking on behalf of the labour group, said if the pipeline is built it will primarily benefit foreign-owned oilsands companies.
Chahley also challenged the scenario Northern Gateway proposed in the morning, suggesting Canada's economy would suffer if the United States decided to stop oil imports.
"We feel that was unfortunate fear mongering and we feel it was unfortunate it was presented here [Monday]," she said, noting the U.S. is a well-established market for Canadian oilsands products.
The Coastal First Nations were the first intervener to be heard. Executive director Art Sterritt challenged assertions made by Northern Gateway that its consultation with aboriginals has been adequate.
"If Enbridge wanted a truly collaborative project, they wouldn't have developed their project in a non-collaborative way," he told the panel.
He also said the proposed fisheries liaison committee will be ineffective and that more evidence is needed to determine whether diluted bitumen will float or sink if there's a spill in the ocean.
"How can you assess the consequences of an oil spill if you don't even know where the oil is going to end up?" Sterritt asked rhetorically.
Finally, Sterritt took issue with claims made by Northern Gateway earlier that there would be no impact on the environment from routine operations of tankers.
"The Coastal First Nations remain unconvinced that introducing oil tankers into our coastal waters is one we can accept," Sterritt said.
The Alexander First Nation from Alberta provided a very nuanced take on the pipeline. They acknowledged having a business relationship with Northern Gateway, but Chief Herb Arcand said the federal government hurt the band's negotiating position by refusing to acknowledge its treaty rights.
"The Crown's failure to consult has completely compromised our community goals," he said.
