Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A giant piece of pipeline is placed in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery in downtown Vancouver on August 31, 2010. The pipeline was brought there by opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline project, which would see a bitumen pipeline built in northern B.C.

Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press

Three environmental groups launched a court challenge Friday to the federal panel ruling that recommended the government approve the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline project in British Columbia.

The suit, filed in federal court, argues the panel report issued last month is based on insufficient evidence and fails to satisfy the legislated requirement of the environmental review process.

The panel "did not have enough evidence to support its conclusions that the Northern Gateway pipeline would not have significant adverse effects on certain aspects of the environment," said Karen Campbell, staff lawyer for EcoJustice, which is representing three groups that participated in the hearings.

Story continues below advertisement

In a statement, Enbridge said it believes the review process was "the most thorough and comprehensive proceeding in Canadian history" and that there is no reason to delay a federal decision while the court challenge – which it expected - is heard.

The panel was a joint effort by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and held an 18-month review of Enbridge Inc.'s proposed $6.3-billion pipeline. The line would ship 520,000 barrels per day of diluted oil sands bitumen to Kitimat, B.C., for export on super tankers.

The joint review panel found that the pipeline's role in opening the Pacific market to Canadian crude exports would benefit the entire country, and that therefore the benefits of the project outweighed the risks and impacts. However, it recommended the government impose 209 safety and environmental conditions to mitigate the risk.

Ms. Campbell said the panel failed to meet the government's own legal requirements, including strategies for protecting humpback whales and caribou, as required under the Species at Risk Act.

As well, the panel commented on the economic benefits of increased oil sands production that would result from construction of the pipeline, but refused to consider the upstream environmental impacts, including increase greenhouse gas emissions.

In an interview Friday, Ms. Campbell said the groups "would not have filed this action if we didn't think we had a fighting chance." The suit asked the federal court to prohibit the government from making a final decision on the project until it has ruled on the challenge.

A spokeswoman for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government would not comment on the merits of the lawsuit.

Story continues below advertisement

"As the minister said before, we will thoroughly review the report, consult with affected First Nations, and then make our decision," said Melissa Lantsman, Mr. Oliver's director of communications. "Our government will continue to take action to improve the transportation safety of energy products across Canada."

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies