George Heyman, executive director of Sierra Club B.C., said there are two major changes in the terms of reference compared to the panel that concluded the project shouldn’t go ahead.

 

“The first panel was explicitly mandated to include rationale, conclusions and make recommendations relating to the environmental aspects of the assessment,” he said.

 

“Today the new panel was expressly prohibited from drawing conclusions or making recommendations about whether adverse environmental impacts are justifiable. The government will not only make the decision, it will create the conclusions to support their decision as well, rather than leave it to a science-based panel.”

 

He noted that the original panel was mandated to consider the impact of the mine on first nations rights and title.

 

“Under today’s terms the panel may only review and summarize that information — a change that will cause great concern to first nations determined to protect their rights and title.”

 

The new rules give the three panelists little clout to draw conclusions about the level of environmental risk, leaving that decision to the federal cabinet.

 

“If the panel concludes that taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures, the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, it may include in its report a summary of any information it has received and that may be relevant to a determination by the Government of Canada with respect to the justifiability of any such significant adverse environmental effects,” the new terms of reference state. “However, the panel shall not have a mandate to make any conclusions or recommendations with respect to the justifiability of any significant adverse environmental effects.”

 

The previous panel was also asked to consider the impact of the project on aboriginal rights and title, but the new terms of reference say only that the panel should provide the government with a “summary of information” regarding aboriginal rights issues.

 

In 2010, a federal panel rejected the Vancouver-based firm’s proposal to build the mine 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake.

 

The company’s plan, which included the conversion of Fish Lake into a tailings dump, was rejected in a panel report described by then-environment minister Jim Prentice as scathing.

 

The new proposal, as vehemently opposed by first nations in the region as the previous one, would move the tailings facility two kilometres upstream from Fish Lake.

 

The panel will be established under the Harper government’s accelerated environmental review process, and interveners will have a 30-day window to make presentations during the hearing process.

 

Taseko drew criticism recently after disclosure of the company’s private appeal to Environment Minister Peter Kent to exclude from consideration matters relating to native spirituality. The terms of reference don’t refer to, or exclude, native spirituality, though it does suggest the panel be open-minded when considering first nations presentations.

 

“Community and aboriginal traditional knowledge will be considered in conducting the environmental assessment,” said a news release, noting that such consideration is required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

 

The three-person panel will be chaired by Bill Ross, a University of Calgary professor emeritus in the environmental design faculty and a veteran of environmental reviews in Alberta and B.C. The two other panelists are George Kupfer, a specialist in first nations consultations on resource projects, and Ron Smyth, a former senior B.C. government geologist.

 

Taseko had questioned the credibility of the 2010 panel because one of the three members was a member of an aboriginal community in the region that opposed the project.

 

The New Prosperity project has received considerable media attention because a B.C. government panel approved the original proposal in early 2010, but the federal government rejected it later that year.

 

The Harper government’s omnibus budget implementation bill proposes a revamped review process designed to dramatically speed up hearings, set limits on who can speak at them, and in many cases hand over responsibility for the process to provincial governments. The panel’s deadline is Nov. 7, one year after Kent originally announced a panel would be established. The government will allow extensions to allow the proponent to prepare information sought by the government or the panel.

 

Taseko spokesman Brian Battison said the panel’s appointment is consistent with Kent’s commitment to stick to a one-year time frame, focus on the company’s revised plans, and rely on work already done in the previous assessment.

 

“We don’t intend to comment on the panel members,” he said in an email.