VANCOUVER—Two B.C. environmental NGOs say the National Energy Board doesn’t have enough time to properly reconsider the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The federal government directed the NEB to reconsider the Trans Mountain expansion on September 20, following a court order that overturned the project approval. The government gave the board until February 22, 2019, to complete it review of potential impacts of increased marine shipping related to the expansion.

Then in mid-October, the board released a timeline for its reconsideration process, initially giving stakeholders just more than a month to make their submissions for review.

Opponents of the pipeline expansion, including those that launched the winning court challenge, raised concerns that the short timeline wouldn’t allow for an adequate examination of the risks.

“This is an impossible timeline to get anything of value for the NEB,” said Peter McCartney, a climate campaigner with Wilderness Committee.

“This whole process is a sham, again. They’re making all the same mistakes they did last time,” he said.

Now, Wilderness Committee has refused $25,000 in participant funding from the NEB after the organization was unable to find an expert to help compile evidence for its submission about the risks the pipeline project poses to three at-risk species in the short timeline.

The government, meanwhile, stands by the timeline.

“We provided a reasonable timeline for the NEB’s review on the impacts of project-related marine shipping, which follows the clear path provided by the Federal Court of Appeal,” said Vanessa Adams, a spokesperson for Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi, in a statement.

Read more:

Federal Court of Appeal quashes Trans Mountain approval, calling it ‘unjustifiable failure,’ in win for First Nations, environmentalists

Ottawa says Indigenous groups hold no veto over Trans Mountain pipeline expansion

New Trans Mountain review process isn’t good enough, says B.C. grand chief

Greens call for new ‘made-in-B.C.’ environmental assessment of Trans Mountain project

Karen Rhyorchuk, a spokesperson for the NEB, said in a statement that the deadlines “reflect the focused and expedited nature of the reconsideration process.”

She noted that the board has given a two-week extension in response to motions it received during the hearing process.

But it’s done little to solve Wilderness Committee’s problem.

The organization was informed it would get funding from the NEB on Oct. 19. After taking about a week to finalize their strategy — to focus on the risks to three species at-risk: the humpback whale, the marbled murrelet (a seabird), and the northern abalone (a marine snail) — they had less than a month to compile evidence for their submission.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Wilderness Committee approached 12 experts on the three at-risk species to see if they could help compile evidence. They heard back from half, but none had the time, McCartney said.

One humpback whale expert said she would have five days available after completing her dissertation, but it wouldn’t be enough time to consider the impact of an oil spill, he said.

“We’re not just going to take $25,000 and give it to someone to scrape together whatever they can,” McCartney said.

Now the organization is putting together their own submission, which will highlight the information that isn’t available, but that the NEB needs to hear to make an informed decision.

Wilderness Committee isn’t the only group facing challenges.

For the Georgia Strait Alliance, which is focusing their submission on oil spill preparedness, the timeline has forced them to pull resources from other areas of the organization to get it done.

“We’re not going to cover the scope and depth of topics that we’d want to,” said Andrew Radzik, an energy campaigner with the organization.

“There’s issues around the toxicology of bitumen and marine species, and the toxicology of chemical dispersants and marine species that we’re hopeful someone else will cover,” he said.

“But we shouldn’t have to be hopeful, there should be enough time to make sure they’re covered.”

Radzik questions why there isn’t more time to fully investigate the risks to the marine environment.

“Why is the federal government rushing if they are serious about doing a thorough consideration here?” he said.

Correction — Nov. 20, 2018: This article was edited from a previous version that incorrectly stated Karen Rhyorchuk noted in a statement that the National Energy Board was given a two-week extension in response to motions it received during the hearing process. In fact, she noted that the board has given a two-week extension in response to motions it received during the hearing process.

Read more about: