Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The Grassy Mountain mine was to be operated by Riversdale subsidiary Benga Mining Ltd. It was forecast to produce around 93 million tonnes of metallurgical coal (which is used in making steel) over its 23-year life.

Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press

Two Southern Alberta First Nations have filed for a judicial review of a federal decision rejecting a new open-pit coal mine in the Rocky Mountains, arguing that the government failed in its duty to consult them about the project.

Riversdale Resources Ltd., a subsidiary of Australian mining giant Hancock Prospecting, wanted to build its Grassy Mountain project in Alberta’s Crowsnest Pass. But a joint federal-provincial regulatory panel rejected the proposal in June, followed by the federal government last month. Both said it would likely result in significant adverse effects to the environment and on some First Nations.

In separate filings this week, however, the Piikani Nation and Stoney Nakoda Nations countered that the federal government ignored the economic benefits the mine would bring to their communities. The Stoney Nakoda is comprised of the Bearspaw, Chiniki and Wesley First Nations.

Story continues below advertisement

Stoney Nakoda said in its filing that Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson and the federal cabinet’s rejection of the mine was “incorrect, unreasonable and unlawful.”

It added that Mr. Wilkinson “improperly relied on a fundamentally flawed” federal-provincial review panel report to reach his decision. That report, it said, did not include the positive effect the project would have on the socioeconomic conditions of the Stoney Nakoda people. Instead, it “incorrectly or unreasonably” found that the mine would have an adverse effect on the community.

Piikani Nation also took issue with Mr. Wilkinson’s decision, saying he “substituted his judgment for what is in the best interests” of the community, rather than respect and rely on its elected leadership.

The federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada said in an e-mail that Mr. Wilkinson’s decision took into account the panel’s report “and other available and relevant information.” It said the government is aware that the First Nations have filed for a judicial review, and is in the process of reviewing those applications.

The Grassy Mountain mine was to be operated by Riversdale subsidiary Benga Mining Ltd. It was forecast to produce around 93 million tonnes of metallurgical coal (which is used in making steel) over its 23-year life. Benga said it would create hundreds of jobs.

Both Piikani and Stoney Nakoda have confidential impact benefit agreements with Benga. As a result, they say, the mine would bring significant economic, educational and employment advantages to their communities.

In its application for a review, the Piikani Nation said elected leadership signed a benefit agreement with Benga in 2016.

Story continues below advertisement

“These benefits are particularly important to the Piikani Nation as its reserve is not located in an area that has typically resulted in these types of opportunities,” it wrote.

“This was the first significant economic opportunity of this kind available to Piikani Nation.”

The panel charged with assessing Grassy Mountain was told about that agreement in a 2019 letter of support for the project. But Piikani Nation said the panel never followed up to seek more information about the agreement, nor did it undertake any analysis on the economic effect on the community were it to deny the mine application.

Stoney Nakoda also argued that the panel ignored economic benefits the mine would bring to the community – despite being well aware of the agreement, given the Stoney Nakoda’s participation in a public hearing, and its multiple written and oral submissions.

Piikani acknowledged that it didn’t take part in public hearings, but said it understood its written submissions would be considered. It asserted that that didn’t happen.

In its August decision to reject the Grassy Mountain mine, the federal government said the project would likely cause “significant adverse environmental effects” to water quality, the westslope cutthroat trout and whitebark pine populations, and the physical and cultural heritage of local first nations.

Story continues below advertisement

It also said it had constructive dialogue with Indigenous communities throughout the assessment process, which “was invaluable and allowed the Government of Canada to make well-informed decisions.”

In July, Benga appealed the joint-review panel’s initial decision to reject the project.

Benga argued that regulators had denied the company procedural fairness, and ignored or misconstrued relevant evidence. It also said the panel “improperly relied on layperson, non-expert and unfounded opinion evidence lacking any science-based support to unjustifiably dismiss or disregard Benga’s expert evidence.”

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies