There was nothing wrong with the environmental assessment of the Selwyn Project, several lawyers argued Monday and Tuesday in Yukon Supreme Court.

The lawyers told Justice Ron Veale the assessment was not only thorough, but that the Yukon government went to the wall to ensure the Liard First Nation had ample opportunity to comment on the proposal by Selwyn Chihong Mining.

The government's director of mineral resources provided not one, but two drafts of the final decision for the First Nation to review and comment on before finalizing the document, it was pointed out.

The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board's (YESAB's) assessment, the lawyers insisted, was substantial and detailed, resulting in a 142-page evaluation report containing 54 specific recommendations for the government to consider while preparing its decision document.

Sure, there were matters left for the Yukon Water Board to deal with, YESAB lawyer Joseph Arvay told Veale.

He said, however, that's exactly how it's supposed to work.

The water board is the expert when it comes to issues of science regarding water management, Arvay said.

Leaving room after the environmental assessment for the board to address the final matters of water use is not only appropriate, but the right thing to do, he added.

"This is, in my submission, a model of how environmental assessments should be done in this country,” Arvay told Veale.

"There has been more than adequate consideration by YESAB of everything they were required to do.”

The Liard First Nation is asking Veale to quash the government's approval of the project, arguing YESAB's review was substandard particularly when it came to issues around water, and the Yukon government should have rejected it. (See story above.)

YESAB's Watson Lake office completed its assessment last spring, and issued its recommendation for approval last June.

The government followed with its decision approving the $65-million advanced underground exploration project along Yukon-N.W.T. border. The First Nation applied last November for a judicial review of the project approval.

Selwyn Chihong has also applied for the required water licence, and is currently waiting on a decision from the water board.

Veale spent the last two full days listening to arguments from lawyers representing the government, YESAB and Selwyn Chihong, all in support of the project approval, as well as opposing arguments from the First Nation's lawyer. The judge reserved his decision.

Government lawyer Laurie Henderson told the judge the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled an environmental assessment doesn't mean turning over every rock on Earth to address every single question raised.

An environmental assessment is a process to identify and address issues sufficiently enough to allow a project to proceed to the next phase, she argued.

She said it's part of a living process that doesn't stop when the assessment agency issues its recommendation.

In this case, Henderson told Veale, the details and specific issues related to water and discharge standards were appropriately left to the water board.

It wasn't up to the Yukon's director of mineral resources to sit down and settle every difference between YESAB's recommendation and the position of the Liard First Nation before issuing his decision, she said.

The test, Henderson argued, is whether the steps carried out by the director were reasonable.

She suggested the record shows the assessment undertaken by YESAB and then the director in issuing his decision were entirely reasonable.

Selwyn Chihong lawyer Charles Wilms raised the case of the Taku River Tlingits versus Redfern Resources. In that case, he pointed out, the Supreme Court of Canada found that it was OK to approve the principle of a lengthy access road before the exact route was finalized.

Wilms also suggested caution should be exercised by the court when being asked to throw out the findings of an assessment agency based on arguments there was insufficient science to support the findings.

Four scientists in a room will give you four different scientific opinions, Wilms told Veale.

He suggested courts are not qualified to make a determination of scientific fact.

The court, Wilms said, must rule on whether the director of mineral resources fulfilled his obligations under the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act before issuing the project approval.

The director did meet all of the obligations and there are absolutely no grounds to quash his decision, he argued.

YESAB's lawyer also recommended the First Nation should be careful about what it wishes for, for if the court can throw out an environmental assessment after such an exhaustive review, it could do the same if it was a mining company making the request.

Arvay also reminded Veale of the importance and precedent his decision will have, in that the reasons for his decision will become the standard for future cases.

The YESAB assessment, Arvay argued, is used primarily as a planning tool, and the decision issued by the government based on the assessment quite correctly left the final step in the process to the licensing authority, the water board.