Coal mine proponents a no-show for panel discussion
By Lethbridge Herald on March 6, 2025.
Audience members line up at the microphone as a panel, including Blood Tribe councillor Elliot Fox, environmental lawyer Gavin Fitch, toxicologist Mandy Olsgard and Water for Food spokesman Chris Spearman, answer questions during a discussion on coal mining in the Oldman watershed, Wednesday evening at Southminster United Church.
Herald photo by Ian MartensAlexandra Noad – LETHBRIDGE HERALD – Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
People from a variety of backgrounds are concerned about the Grassy Mountain Coal Mine, including those from the agriculture sector, those who study toxicology, lawyers and Indigenous groups.
These voices were heard on a panel held by the Southern Alberta Council on Public Affairs at Southminster United Church on Wednesday evening by an audience of approximately 200 people, according to organizers.
Representatives from the Australian company Northback, which is proposing mine development for Grassy Mountain, and the Crowsnest Pass community were invited to participate in the panel discussion. They declined the offer.
Mandy Olsgard, a toxicologist and health assessor for a consulting firm, says she is disappointed that stakeholders of the coal industry chose not to be on the panel.
“I was disappointed when I hear the Coal Association of Canada and Northback didn’t accept the invitations to be here,” said Olsgard. “I though it would really be helpful for the audience to hear responses from people who work directly in the industry, independent scientists (and) maybe people who have involvement with the government.”
She added that she finds it shocking, with their big presence in the Crowsnest Pass, that they wouldn’t want the same presence in Lethbridge.
“I think it does speak to Northback, the level of effort they’re putting in to inform Albertans because they do feel like they’ve convinced the Crowsnest Pass that there’s more benefits from a coal mine.
Chris Spearman, spokesman for Water For Food, said he isn’t surprised Northback declined the offer.
“These coal companies cannot be trusted, in my opinion,” he said. “We interviewed a different coal company four years ago as Lethbridge City Council, they couldn’t answer our questions, either. It was clear they didn’t have laboratories working on the selenium issue.”
He added that he has attempted to contact Northback, Brian Jean, Minister of Energy Minerals, and Premier Danielle Smith, and has yet to receive an answer from anyone.
“I have yet to get an answer, so no one is answering, but Albertans value transparency and they value openness, but none of that is being provided,” said Spearman.
Gavin Fitch, an environmental lawyer from Calgary, said while he is not involved with the court case against the Alberta Government from coal companies, he has read both the state of claim and defense. He explained that the Alberta government is being sued for the absolute highest dollar amount these companies could have made if the moratorium on coal exploration and development were not put in place.
He added that while the trial date is set for April 25, he doubts it will actually end up in court.
Spearman said he believes Albertans should be concerned if the Alberta government settles without a trial.
“You should be very concerned if the Alberta government settles, just to keep themselves from testifying,” said Spearman. “If they pay out tax dollar money without explaining why, they settle.”
Eliott Fox, from the Blood Tribe Chief and Council, said he has been working in land management and natural resource conservation. He has spent the past six years on an intertribal project for the Blackfoot Confederacy, where they are assessing trout populations.
Through this project they have found two new trout populations. He said trout are an indicator species that are already endangered.
“They’re still there, but their population has declined in the past 50 years or longer,” said Fox. “Although they are very resilient, they’re an indicator species, so if they’re still there it indicates we have pretty clean water because that’s what they need to survive.”
Both Olsgard and Fitch said they believe educating the public about the effects of the coal mine will help everyone form an opinion based on facts.
Fitch said a proper debate can’t happen unless all of the facts, from reliable sources, are laid on the table.
“We can’t have a proper debate unless all the facts are out on the table and honestly discussed and that includes both legal and scientific (as well as) policy aspects, I think people need to understand them all.”
23-22
These billionaire coal mining barons are very chummy with Danielle Smith and the UCP. The environment is obviously no concern to the UCP. Their wealthy corporate buddies matters more. Peter Lougheed enacted the 1976 Coal Policy for good reasons. That was to protect the mountains, the water and the environment from harm from these open pit coal mining operations. Nowhere did the UCP campaign on open pit coal mining in the Rockies of Alberta. Danielle Smith and the UCP must go.
That our representatives in the Government of Alberta won’t participate in a public forum to explain their decisions is appalling. In particular, it would be interesting to learn about the secret Memorandum of Understanding with Australian coal mining companies, and any collusion in the bogus lawsuit designed to coerce public opinion. There’s a lot to answer for, yet they are absent.
pardon my naivety here, but from what i read the coal cos get to sue us for many billions if do not permit them to mine our coal? just as a parallel example, should a corporate water mining company wish to mine away alberta water, would one be able to sue us for saying no?
i guess what i am hoping to have clarified here is how is it corporations, foreign or not, would have a legal right to our resources when we choose to say no.
The problem was that “we” said yes, let them into the process, and then reversed and said no. The “yes” came from UCP rescinding the ban when no one was looking, and then turned it back to “no” when they saw the public opposition.
I’m not a lawyer but I think that is the reason why there is any case at all. It is completely self inflicted of course. So if they do have a legal right to damage, it is yet another thing the UCP has wasted money on just to make their friends richer.
You are likely correct. Shows the value of public consultation processes (that the UCP seems allergic to)
thank you for the info. i wonder, then, is it at all possible, of course if there is at all a will by the ucp, that if needed environmental/conservation/pollution control standards are put in place, thus forcing the cos involved to mine accordingly, might that prove too costly for ventures and undermine litigation.
moreover, given the cultural impacts on first nations due to the fall outs from open pit mining, might that also undermine litigation.
indeed, this must have been some fine back door deal to line pockets if the ucp put us on the hook for mining or pay out of pocket to the max for not allowing mining. what actual costs did these mining cos incur to date should be the basis of any compensation, and not at all the max potential from the mining.
I am certain that the Alberta government under the auspices of Nenshi will have a legal houdini-escape route from this tomfoolery of Danielle Smith.
I wonder who will show up in Okotoks tonight. Not Brian Jean you can bet. These fools are planning on selling off some of our Hospitals starting April 1 to their Private for Profit pals with the intention of renting them back from them at a huge cost to taxpayers. It will give them complete control and they can charge whatever they want to Albertans. Reformers are famous for looking after themselves and their pals and who cares about anyone else, aren’t they?