Do opponents trust the process, or only the outcome?

Do some people actually believe in the process, or do they only believe in the outcome they want?

Over the past several weeks, I have listened to the reaction surrounding Corb Lund’s anti-coal petition, watched the media coverage and tried to understand exactly what opponents of Grassy Mountain are asking for.

The more I watch, the more I find myself coming back to three questions: Why did so much of the national media coverage focus on Lund while largely ignoring the community most affected by the outcome? Why are people upset that the government appears prepared to follow the very process established under the legislation used to launch the petition? Why do some of the same people who pointed to the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER) rejection of Grassy Mountain in 2021 as proof the system worked now oppose allowing that same system to evaluate a new application?

Those are three different questions, but I believe they all point to the same issue.

Do some people actually believe in the process, or do they only believe in the outcome they want?

Question 1: Why was the community most affected largely ignored?

As part of preparing this editorial, I reviewed as much of the media coverage surrounding Lund’s petition as I could locate and verify.

What I found surprised me.

CityNews published nine petition-focused stories. CTV published eight. CBC published six. Global News published five. The Calgary Herald published six. Rocky Mountain Outlook published five. The Victoria Times Colonist published four. The Edmonton Journal published three. The Globe and Mail published one.

In total, my review identified 47 petition-focused stories across major Canadian media outlets.

By comparison, a review of accessible Crowsnest Pass Herald news coverage identified 14 news stories directly related to coal development and Grassy Mountain.

Of those 14 stories, three were primarily pro-coal, two were primarily anti-coal, seven contained a mix of perspectives and two were largely neutral.

In other words, the Herald’s news coverage was not one-sided. Most stories included multiple perspectives, council questions, regulatory context or opposing viewpoints. It is also important to note that editorials and opinion pieces were excluded from that review because editorials represent opinion, not news reporting.

Most strikingly, despite those 47 stories in other outlets, I was unable to find a single confirmed interview with a named Crowsnest Pass resident or municipal official in the petition-focused coverage I reviewed.

Forty-seven stories and not one confirmed local voice.

The petition is about Grassy Mountain, and while Grassy Mountain sits within the MD of Ranchland, anyone familiar with this region understands the story does not stop at a municipal boundary.

The MD of Ranchland covers more than 2,636 square kilometres and is home to just 110 residents. That works out to roughly one person for every 24 square kilometres of land. Put another way, each resident’s share of land is roughly equivalent to 3,000 CFL football fields.

The reality is that Grassy Mountain may sit within Ranchland’s municipal boundaries, but the economic centre of gravity for any future mine would be the Crowsnest Pass.

Ranchland does not have the housing base, schools, hospital, commercial services, workforce capacity or infrastructure that would support a major industrial development.

The workers would live here, their children would attend school here, the coal load-out would be here, the secondary and tertiary economic activity would happen here, local businesses would expand here and new families would settle here.

That is why so many residents view Grassy Mountain not simply as a Ranchland project, but as a project that would directly shape the future of the Crowsnest Pass.

Yet somehow the community expected to house the workforce, provide the services, generate much of the economic activity and live with the consequences became the community nobody asked.

Instead, Albertans were treated to a steady stream of interviews with Lund. The country singer became the dominant voice in much of the coverage I reviewed. The miner, the welder, the equipment operator, the local business owner, the young family trying to build a future here and the people who will actually live with the consequences of these decisions did not.

As someone who has spent more than two decades in journalism, I find that astonishing.

Because the first question any journalist should ask is simple: Who is most affected?

I would argue the people most affected are not Lund, the activists or the commentators. They are the people who will live with the consequences of that petition.

Question 2: Why are people upset about a process they asked for?

For weeks, Albertans have been hearing that Lund’s petition deserves to become a referendum question.

More recently, we have watched Lund express disappointment after Premier Danielle Smith said the petition would not be added to Alberta’s Oct. 19 referendum ballot.

That reaction has left many people scratching their heads because the petition itself was NEVER submitted as a referendum question. It was filed as a citizen initiative seeking a legislative change, and Smith has said that if Elections Alberta verifies the signatures, government will follow the legislative process established under the same law used to launch it.

A referendum asks voters to decide a question at the ballot box. A citizen initiative seeking a legislative change asks government to consider a proposed law. They are different processes under Alberta legislation.

Lund’s petition seeks legislation prohibiting new coal mining in Alberta’s Eastern Slopes.

If the petition reaches the required threshold, it does not automatically become a referendum question. Instead, it moves into a legislative review process that can include committee consideration and recommendations to government.

In other words, the process now being described by government appears largely consistent with the legislation under which Lund’s petition was launched.

Some supporters are frustrated because government says it intends to follow that process rather than put the issue directly to a provincewide vote. Yet that is not what the petition asked for.

If we are going to have an honest conversation about what happens next, we should start by accurately describing what was submitted. The petition was filed as a legislative proposal, not a referendum ballot question.

If some supporters now wish the initiative had been structured differently, that is a separate discussion. But it is difficult to fault Premier Danielle Smith for following the process attached to the proposal that was actually submitted.

Question 3: Why launch a province-wide campaign before there is even an application to review?

Which brings me back to the question I still cannot answer. Why now?

Northback has yet to submit a new mine application. There is no active hearing, no evidence before a regulator, no project currently under review and no decision pending, yet a province-wide campaign has been launched against a future project before that project has even been evaluated.

The AER has not been asked to review a new mine application. Scientists have not testified, experts have not been cross-examined, environmental evidence has not been presented, Indigenous communities have not had an opportunity to participate in a new hearing and the public has not had an opportunity to submit evidence.

None of the steps that normally accompany a major regulatory review have even begun, yet the campaign is already underway.

The more I think about it, the more it seems this debate is no longer about reviewing a project. It appears to be about ensuring a project never reaches the review stage.

That may be a legitimate position to hold, but it is a very different position from trusting the regulatory process to evaluate the evidence and make a decision.

What exactly changed between 2021 and today?

When the original Grassy Mountain proposal was rejected, opponents pointed to the decision as proof that Alberta’s regulatory system worked.

The AER, federal agencies, scientists, engineers and technical experts spent years reviewing the proposal.

Opponents argued the science had been heard, environmental concerns had been properly examined and the review process had done exactly what it was supposed to do.

Environmental organizations participated. Indigenous communities participated. The project underwent years of scrutiny.

In the end, the project was rejected.

The very regulatory process many opponents praised in 2021 delivered the outcome they were seeking.

If the AER was legitimate when it rejected Grassy Mountain, why is it suddenly not legitimate before a new application has even been filed?

If the answer is that the regulator can no longer be trusted, Albertans deserve to know why.

Because this debate is becoming about something much larger than coal. It is becoming a debate about whether Albertans still have faith in arm’s-length regulatory institutions.

You do not have to support coal development to support the integrity of the review process. You simply have to believe evidence should be examined before conclusions are reached.

At some point we have to trust somebody, evidence has to matter and decisions have to be made by institutions created to evaluate facts rather than by celebrity campaigns amplified through national media.

Lund has every right to his opinion. Environmental organizations have every right to advocate. Citizens have every right to sign a petition.

But so do the people who live here.

The people of the Crowsnest Pass have spoken through public consultations, years of regulatory review and a 2024 plebiscite in which roughly 72 per cent of local voters supported the development and operation of the Grassy Mountain metallurgical coal mine.

You may disagree with that result. You may wish it had been different. But it is difficult to argue the community has not made its views known.

Perhaps it is finally time for the rest of Alberta, and the media organizations covering this story, to start listening.