Editor:
Why the Prosperity Mine proposal should be left for dead:
According to an editorial in theVancouver Sun on Oct. 27, the Prosperity mine project resubmission by Taseko Mines should be “fast-tracked.”
The editorial blames the federal government and “outside agitators” for the rejection of the original mine proposal.
I can understand frustration at the slowness of the federal environmental review process, and perhaps there are ways to streamline aspects of it, but “fast-tracking” is short-term thinking.
The federal review rejected the mine based not only on solid biological and environmental research, but because of the hundreds of people from both the community of Williams Lake and the residents of the Chilcotin, where the mine itself would be located, who stood up and said why this mine is a terrible idea.
These are not people opposed to mining, but these are people opposed to this project.
How then can an editorial from a clearly outsider’s perspective tell us the mine was rejected due to campaigns by “outside” agitators?
The strongest and most vocal opponents to the project were those living nearest the proposed mine. If the Sun takes issue with environmental organizations and the well-respected Council of Canadians helping the local groups campaign against something in their backyard, then they must also have an issue with a large corporation coming in from outside such as Taseko Mines and spreading its money around campaigning for the mine then?
Groups opposed to the mine held silent auctions and other fundraisers, raising money from within the community as well.
While any major project will always have its opponents and supporters, the review process is meant to balance the pros and the cons thoroughly and take on the great responsibility of making a decision based on all of the information placed before them. Deciding something is or isn’t worth the risk is no easy task.
If the Vancouver Sun thinks this should be sped up or done over if the large corporate interests don’t get the result they like, what might this mean for future review processes?
Ruth Lloyd
Fort St. James
Editor,
Caledonia Courier