INUVIK - In about four months, the National Energy Board will rule on the public interest of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.

In the meantime, Imperial Oil has made it clear that the pipeline will not move ahead and may instead move backwards if the regulatory board sides against the oil company on key factors including timelines, tolls, consultations and future development.

Imperial Oil, represented by Don Davies, had the last word before NEB hearings on the Joint Review Panel's recommendations wrapped up in Inuvik, April 22.

Davies had the opportunity to give a final argument against all those who spoke before him - intervenors and proponents alike - an opportunity he seized to refute environmental groups' views that the project would benefit only private industry and not the public good.

"It's easy to talk about vision when you're not paying for it," Davies said, referencing the Mackenzie Explorer Group's assertion that proponents are trying to limit the legal scope of the board's review so it won't consider possible future environmental factors in its initial ruling.

"We won't apologize at all for insisting that the board make its environmental assessment decision in accordance with the law," Davies added.

Environmental groups maintain that if the board approves the pipeline project, it should implement all 176 of the Joint Review Panel's recommendations.

But future environmental impacts won't be an issue if the pipeline isn't built, which Davies said could be the case if the board decides Imperial has to abide by deadlines sought by some proponents - including the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Gwich'in Tribal Council - who are frustrated that Imperial is asking for an extension to start pipeline construction by the end of 2016, rather than the current deadline of 2013. Representing the territorial government, lawyer Chris Sanderson said the "sunset clause" should keep the 2013 deadline, but that proponents should be able to apply for an extension if they can demonstrate delays are beyond their control or if an extension is within what the board considers the public interest.

"There's already been in this proceeding all sorts of unhelpful finger pointing about who caused what delay when and we fully acknowledge that we're part of it," Davies said, but he added creating provisional extensions would only put the project in jeopardy.

"The proponents are not prepared to spend additional hundreds of millions of dollars based on faith," he said. "Like it or not, a sunset clause date of Dec. 31, 2013 will not work, even with the (provisions) suggested by the GNWT."

The board heard debate from most speakers about the NEB's authority to set the types and amounts of tolls and tariffs associated with the fuel-gathering system for the pipeline. Some intervenors, including the Mackenzie Explorer Group, said tolls should be set at a later date, apart from the board's ruling on the project, while other groups, including the Yukon government, argued the board should mandate the specific implementation of tolls right away. The GNWT agreed the board should make some ruling on tolls.

Davies said the proponents, estimating the 1,200 km pipeline will cost roughly $16.2 billion, need approval of their toll and tariff principles before they can go ahead with the project and secure all finances.

"The proponents will not make a decision to construct the MVP without knowing what its toll and tariff principles will be," Davies told the board. "So if you were to concede to the Mackenzie Explorer Group's request ...we would be moving this project backwards, not forwards."

The pipeline's design for gas capacity proved to be another controversial topic among intervenors and proponents, with different groups arguing for and against future capacity expansion. On behalf of the GNWT, Sanderson said the government supports expansion to the pipeline's full capacity, proposed at 1.8 billion cubic feet. But he said future expansion by "looping" is both financially and environmentally expensive, so "it only makes sense to install a thicker-walled pipe to ensure greater flexibility in the future."

At earlier NEB hearings in Yellowknife, the Dehcho and Liidlii Kue First Nations argued against constructing the pipeline until land claims in their region are settled, and Dehcho Grand Chief Sam Gargan suggested government and proponents' consultations with aboriginal groups have been less than satisfactory. GNWT lawyer Sanderson said the board should consider a similar case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada concerning Alberta's Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation versus Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Sanderson said the court's impending decision in that case could set a legal precedent for the NEB's authority to rule on such consultations, and that it should be of "paramount interest" to the board, because it would be "nothing less than tragic if the board failed to make a decision on a matter which the courts ruled it should have."

Weledeh MLA Bob Bromley is calling for the legislative assembly to debate the Joint Review Panel's 176 recommendations when the new session starts May 11 because he says the assembly did not have any input on the GNWT's final arguments during the hearings.

"We've been declined that opportunity for input," Bromley said.

Not only did MLAs have no say in the GNWT's arguments at the hearing, they were not informed of them prior to the hearings, even though Bromley said he asked Bob McLeod, the minister responsible for NEB hearings, for the government's arguments.

"He sent back a brief e-mail saying it would really depend on what they heard from others so it was difficult to determine the exact nature of their arguments, which I thought was not a responsible position. I thought we should have very clear in our minds what we're going to say."

The government's reliance on legal advisers at the hearings and its refusal to properly involve the assembly in the process, Bromley said, undermines the purpose of consensus government.

Minister Bob McLeod could not be reached for comment before press time.

Bromley said he was told, "there would be an apprehension of bias if they gave the opportunity for MLAs to comment, that if they did that then they would have to go to a public process and give everybody else the same opportunity," the MLA said. "But that's ridiculous because we are the government, in a consensus government, and we are the decision-maker."

Bromley has tabled a summary of the JRP recommendations to be debated during the committee of the whole when the legislative assembly resumes next month.