Despite what many people may think or wish, the battle over the proposed New Prosperity Gold-Copper project appears to be far from a done deal.
First Nations leaders and other anti-New Prosperity groups were absolutely elated when federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced the mining proposal in the Cariboo-Chilcotin was rejected on Feb. 26.
They were celebrating their hard-earned victory and urging the pro-New Prosperity groups to allow the fight to be over. They want the wounds caused by the rift between the two sides to be healed, so they can move forward together.
Chief Roger William of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations government suggested the provincial government and Taseko Mines Ltd. should pack up their tents and go home.
Meanwhile, Taseko and the groups and citizens who supported the project were very disappointed in the environment minister’s decision.
Aglukkaq said the New Prosperity proposal was rejected because the project would likely cause significant environmental effect that cannot be mitigated.
She also noted the federal government’s decision relied heavily on the report of the federal review panel, “which conducted a rigorous review of the New Prosperity proposal,” and agreed with the panel’s recommendations for rejection, which were made public on Oct. 31, 2013.
The panel’s recommendation primarily centred on Taseko’s tailings storage facility and Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) finding that the facility would seep and negatively impact Fish Lake, its fish and fish habitat, and the surrounding wetlands.
However, the company that was going to build the tailings storage facility for New Prosperity went through NRCan’s report and discovered the model it used for tailings storage was different model than the model Taseko provided.
After e-mailing a letter to the environment minister to explain the mistake and suggest another evaluation should be done with the proper engineered liner for the tailings storage facility and not receiving a response from the ministry, Taseko initiated a judicial review in December 2013.
It is currently working its way through the system and will take months before it’s heard in a federal court.
Now, it’s very likely there will be another court case to determine if the “duty of administrative fairness was exercised appropriately by the ministry during the decision-making process.”
Until these issues are resolved, the battle for New Prosperity will likely carry on.
