Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Newswire

Call For Support - Tsilhqot'in Protest Outside of Taseko Mines Ltd. AGM - Friday, June 1st

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:02:00 -0700

May 28, 2012

Call For Support

Tsilhqot’in Protest Outside of Taseko Mines Ltd. AGM

Friday, June 1st@ 12:00 noon - 2 pm

837 West Hastings Street

Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories

The struggle to stop Taseko Mines Ltd. (TML) from building a gold and copper mine on unceded Tsilhqot’in Territories continues outside of the TML annual general meeting on June 1st. Tsilhqot’in chiefs and community members will be rallying outside of the meeting and have called for support from their allies as they take a stand to protect their territories, the Taseko watershed and Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) from the proposed “New Prosperity Mine”.

In the “new” proposal TML has suggested that they won’t drain Teztan Biny or Fish Lake, however the new tailings pond it is planning to build will destroy two other bodies of water that are vital to the survival Teztan Biny. “Fish Lake will still be on life support and die a slower death” says Chief Marilyn of the TNG. It is unimaginable that a company is allowed threaten Teztan Biny in pursuit of a proposal that both the CEAA and Taseko have acknowledged is more environmentally damaging that the proposal that was already rejected last year.

“The company is on record admitting this new option is worse than the one that was rejected last year, and a CEAA review panel has already agreed with that assessment,” said Chief Joe Alphonse, Chair of the Tsilhqot’in National Government, which represents six First Nations. “To proceed any further will place an unjustified burden on us and on taxpayers and will demonstrate the excessive influence that this company, its lobbyists and hired guns have on government.”

Allowing this application to be heard the government is also setting an unjust precedent for companies to continually drain the time and resources of communities even when projects have been rejected. The suggestion then is that the ecosystem and rights of indigenous communities can never be protected through the environmental assessment process.

Meanwhile, federal and provincial governments continue to completely ignoring the right for self-determination of Tsilhqot’in communities as well as concerns from CEAA federal panel and the public. The Tsilhqot’in and their allies stood up against government and industry to stop this project over a year ago, and we need to do it again.

JOIN US JUNE 1st! BRING NOISE MAKERS, SIGNS, AND YOUR VOICE!

For more information contact hgrewal@canadians.org / 604 340 2455

Mine opposition creates alternatives

Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Williams Lake Tribune - May 23, 2012

Editor:

Re: the letter Mine opposition creates party confusion.

The letter writer suggests that Charlie Wyse should propose some alternative project since he has come out in opposition to the Taseko mine plan.

Wyse is correct in opposing it. The last review panel stated in its report (p. 65) that “the panel agrees with the observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative.” Yet Taseko is now proposing a mine plan based on option 2. The risk to the Taseko River system is too great.

What Wyse does need to propose is that the province stop the mining of the forests of British Columbia. The government needs to assemble a credible inventory of the existing forest resources and to begin actively to address the reality of the thousands of hectares of NSR lands in the province. The province needs to seriously begin to manage the health of the forests that have sustained the B.C. economy for decades, and can continue to do so with some care and attention. The Williams Lake Forest District has four foresters to deal with all of the issues in that vast area. Not so long ago there were 10, and that was inadequate. Other jurisdictions manage to retain a much larger team of managers.

The forests of B.C. are a sacred entity which we are entrusted to look after for our children and grandchildren. They should not be forced to say at some time “they had a wonderful resource, varied and sustainable, and they blew it through shortsightedness and greed.” The mine opposition does not create confusion; it creates alternatives.

John Dressler

Williams Lake

http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/letters/153240725.html

Governments need to operate on educated common sense

Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Williams Lake Tribune - May 23, 2012

Editor:

Socialism begets ultra conservatism. Like a bouncing ball, the populace of Greece has had a government giving into demands, to eventually be replaced by a government that will introduce severe cost cutting measures. There is no way that Greece can avoid the massive economic cutbacks and changes that are heading its way.

Looking to Canada and B.C., what is necessary is a government where neither party has the power to do things, as we have seen here in B.C., like the introduction of HST, or the sale of BC Rail without strong opposition and educated leadership.

Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, the potential next leader of Canada, blames the oil sands as being the primary cause of an increased value of the Loonie for causing the high number of manufacturing jobs heading south. For a leader of a party, a socialist party, where the oil sands production is today primarily financing Canada’s social safety net, Mulcair’s position reflects a lack of knowledge of global affairs.

North America is buying goods from China, China’s currency is pegged to the U.S. dollar, and China is hoarding those dollars to keep the value of China’s currency devalued, so that China can maintain a continued trade advantage.

The process also devalues the U.S. dollar against world currencies including the Loonie. Oil sands not-with-standing, a weak U.S. dollar causes many Canadian-based American manufacturing companies to look back home for a more economical manufacturing environment.

Mr. Mulcair should be aware that the U.S. is further devaluing their currency by printing increasing amounts of their devalued dollar, to pay for a growing deficit, a deficit that has grown by $4.9 trillion in the three years since socialist-leaning Obama became president.

The devaluation of the U.S. dollar is pushing the price of commodities, including oil, to record highs putting Canada in the enviable position of avoiding the financial crunch of countries like Greece and even the U.S.

In B.C. the NDP has taken a position against economic development, and job creation, such as the Enbridge pipeline and the New Prosperity mine.

For the future of Canada and B.C., what is needed in both B.C. and Canada are governments that operate on educated common sense. With attitudes like Mulcair and Dix’s I am skeptical of the future.

Doug Wilson

Williams Lake

http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/letters/153241865.html

FONV Annual General Meeting on June 4, 2012 - Speaker is Jay Nelson

Tue, 22 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Friends of Nemaiah Valley - May 22, 2012

Hello all Friends of Friends of the Nemaiah Valley;

For the 10th year in a row, FONV is pleased to announce a speaker as part of our Annual General Meeting.

When: Monday, June 4th, 8:00 p.m.
Where: Garry Oak Room, Fairfield Community Centre, 1335 Thurlow Road, Victoria, B.C.

This year, we are pleased that Jay Nelson, a lawyer with Woodward and Company since 2002, has agreed to be our speaker. Jay is committed to assisting First Nations in achieving recognition of their Aboriginal rights, through education and awareness, consultation and accommodation, negotiated settlements and, where necessary, litigation.

Jay graduated from the University of Victoria Faculty of Law in 2000, where he received the Law Society Gold Medal. Upon graduation, he served as a law clerk for the Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin. Jay then joined Woodward and Company and has spent the following years as a member of the legal team for the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation and the Tsilhqot’in Nation in their historic Aboriginal title and rights claim, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia.

Jay Nelson (left) at rally outside Vancouver court house, December 2011

With co-counsel Sean Nixon, Jay acted for the Tsilhqot’in Nation in their opposition to the proposed Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine, which was rejected by the Federal Government in November 2010. He appeared as co-counsel on behalf of Tsilhqot’in Nation in the Tsilhqot’in Nation appeals argued before the B.C. Court of Appeal in November 2010.

Last December, while acting as counsel for the Tsilhqot’in National Government, Jay successfully argued that the Tsilhqot’in people were not properly consulted before the B.C. government granted two work permits to Taseko. Subsequently Judge Grauer granted the Tsilhqot’in National Government an injunction against Taseko Mines Ltd. coming onto their territory. Since then, the TNG allowed Taseko to proceed with exploration in order to do work required for their Environmental Impact Statement.

Jay will give us an update of what’s happening with the “New” Prosperity Mine project and the coming CEAA process. This should be of great interest to anyone who has been following this ill-conceived proposal as it goes forward for a second round of hearings.

This talk is free and open to the public. Please share.

Cheers,
FONV
info@fonv.ca

Mine opposition creates party confusion

Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Williams Lake Tribune - May 16, 2012

Editor:

In a recent radio interview, Williams Lake’s provincial NDP candidate Charlie Wyse said that he had sent a note to Minister of Environment Peter Kent in support of First Nations drumming. I find nothing wrong with those who support people of various persuasions in following what they believe to be fair presentations; everyone should have the right to their opinions and Wyse expressed his on this subject.

Wyse followed up his comments, however, regarding the First Nations drumming by expressing the view and the position of the NDP party regarding the development of the New Prosperity mine. Wyse said that the NDP, as expressed by leader Adrian Dix when he was here in Williams Lake last year, was against the development of the New Prosperity mine.

As the forest industry heads into decline, where many jobs in the greater community will be lost, I find that any position against the development of alternate industry that would in the process develop employment opportunities, whether it be the development of a new mine or otherwise, to be an astounding position for any political party to take.

Taking a position against alternate employment sources, in the Williams Lake Area where the NDP is both generally speaking supported by labour and having at the same time a sincere hope of winning an election, unless I am wrong, is in reality shooting themselves in the foot.

Unless the NDP party is supporting something on the horizon that could offer employment opportunities somewhat equal to what the New Prosperity mine is offering to this community, many people in the community are going to be in a quandary as to whom or whom not to vote for in next year’s coming provincial election.

It is good for the NDP to enunciate their position on issues of importance in communities such as Williams Lake. However, to be against something of this nature and to say it out loud at this time seems like very strange politics to me.

I would say that those who speak up against job creation at a time like this and prior to an election will, without alternate development plans, create confusion within their own party. I for one see life as a matter of give and take.

Being against something without offering something in exchange makes no economic sense.

Doug Wilson

Williams Lake

http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/letters/151806195.html

Maximizing our potential

Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Williams Lake Tribune - May 16, 2012

The Cariboo region has an abundance of opportunities to expand mineral exploration and extraction as a means to offset any falldown in economic activity resulting from the mountain pine beetle. Along with the expansion of the Gibraltar and Mount Polley mines, opportunities exist for both new and expanded hard rock and placer operations.

Every mineral opportunity realized will create jobs and bring economic benefits to Cariboo communities. In order to realize this potential, however, mining must adhere to three basic principles: minimal ecological footprint, respect for First Nations rights and title, and maximum economic and social returns to British Columbians, who are the true owners of B.C.’s mineral resources. The evolving relationship between Mount Polley Mine and the Williams Lake Indian Band serves as an example of how companies can have productive relationships with First Nations. Spanish Mountain Gold provides another example.

The government has also recently taken a leadership role in addressing the First Nations referral backlog in the Cariboo region by assigning a specific staff person to this function for placer operations. However, the mining community has informed me that they still have “permitting angst” — that the permitting process is still understaffed and economic opportunities in both mineral exploration and extraction are being lost as a result. The industry also has concerns about a growing skilled labour shortage and fears that without a plan to address this, more temporary foreign workers will need to be used, limiting the social and economic benefits that local communities will receive from mining activity. A concern I’ve also heard is the increasing regulation and fees imposed on mineral exploration and small to medium-placer operations.

As we celebrate Mining Week, my hope is that the government will make sure the issues that may prevent us from realizing the full potential of mining in the Cariboo region are addressed, in partnership with miners, First Nations, and local communities.

Bob Simpson is the Independent MLA for Cariboo North.

http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/151806715.html

Explanation may help others understand

Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Williams Lake Tribune - May 14, 2012

Editor:

The word is out that the CEO of Taseko Mines has asked that during the upcoming New Prosperity hearings that First Nations be somewhat tempered in their drumming.

One problem that I note with spontaneous drumming is that there is no explanation regarding the purpose of the drumming, at the recent New Prosperity presentation, without warning or prior explanation, and unexpectedly and again without warning outside the door of the Gibraltar Room. The drumming very loudly interrupted the presentation. We are told that this drumming is part of First Nations spiritual heritage. This is fair and quite understandable. As with all groups there are differing ways to request that a guiding spirit be present with such a presentation.

Most non-natives are in the dark, however, and do not understand what exactly the drummers are drumming about, or exactly why. If drumming is a spiritual prayer, understandable to First Nations culture, First Nations, prior to such drumming need to have a person share an explanation and enlighten those in attendance exactly the purpose of the drumming.

As a comparison, at any public function should an individual stand up and make a loud boisterous religious preaching scene, spiritual or otherwise, that individual would very likely be ejected from the proceedings. How does unexpected drumming differ?

It seems to me that it be only fair to all who attend public functions where First Nations may be inclined to drum, including the upcoming New Prosperity hearings, that prior to the start of the drumming that someone from the First Nations explain the purpose of the drumming, prior to drumming, so that all in attendance can better understand the spiritual significance of their drumming, and that the drumming prayer not be so long that it overtly stifles or interferes with normal and acceptable democratic proceedings.

In this predominantly Christian world, most people would understand, and if not bow their heads, at least would sit quietly and respectively during the process of a drumming prayer. It behooves the First Nations to make it clear by spoken word prior to spontaneous drumming what exactly they are praying or drumming about, or for.

Doug Wilson

Williams Lake

http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/letters/151464605.html

Songs and prayers part of tradition

Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Williams Lake Tribune - May 14, 2012

Editor:

Russell Hallbauer’s recent letter submitted to the environment minister projects more than caution, but desperation, paranoia, and fear.

It reflects the colonizing efforts made by the company to reduce indigenous people’s participation in the process.

Of the two arguments established, the first focuses on the extent that First Nations are categorically biased and can never be objective; the second implies that the previous panel gave “priority status” to First Nations perspectives, which influenced the decision.

First, Taseko Mines already requested Ms. Nalaine Morin be recused from the former panel for her advocacy role with the Talhtan Heritage Resources Environmental Assessment Team, saying she may be “biased.” An independent law firm reviewed this and the report determined that a bias did not exist with the evidence filed. While Hallbauer’s doubt lingers, it exists also amongst First Nations, who believe that panel members who have benefited financially from mining before may be tainted as biased towards the industry they once profited from. So it’s near impossible to rely on pure objectivity.

Second, Hallbauer raises concerns that the panel may have given special treatment to the Tsilhqot’in and Secwepmec communities. Considering prayers and songs before a meeting has been a long-standing custom.

It seems disrespectful for an outsider, whether the panel members or Taseko Mines executives, to come into a host community and demand unilaterally what the formalities should be. As if Hallbauer knew anything about aboriginal rights, it appears he somehow forgot that the Crown is legally obliged to accommodate the interests of First Nations through every step of the decision-making process.

While this rarely comes to fruition with satisfaction, the accommodation of the host country’s customs should be welcomed.

Hallbauer’s letter reflects his colonizer status, and it appears he hopes to convince the minister that domination and bullying is normal. It appears again that Taseko Mines is not interested in any relationship with the people who belong to the land.

Russell Myers

Williams Lake

http://www.wltribune.com/opinion/letters/151464395.html

JOHN CUMMINS A BIG SUPPORTER OF NEW PROSPERITY MINE PROPOSAL

Sun, 13 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

HQCariboo.com - May 13, 2012

Greg Fry Williams Lake

The leader of the BC Conservative Party shared his views on the New Prosperity mine while on a trip through Quesnel earlier this week.

John Cummins says he supports the mine adding time is of the essence: “we have to really get to work to make sure that we can move ahead more quickly with approvals because in my view we are driving a lot of business out of British Columbia, a lot of good well paying jobs are leaving here because of the tardiness in getting these approvals through.”

Cummins didn’t seem overly concerned about the impact a new mine would have on the environment.

“that’s the case with most of the mining that goes on here in BC, it’s a small (environmental) footprint, but the jobs are big, they pay good money, and that’s what we need here in BC.”

Cummins was in Quesnel speaking to the Cariboo Mining Association.

http://hqcariboo.com/news/news/Local/12/05/13/JOHN-CUMMINS-A-BIG-SUPPORTER-OF-NEW-PROSPERITY-MINE-PROPOSAL

Tsilhqot’in confident that new Panel’s work will result in rejection of “New” Prosperity Mine

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Tsilhqot’in Territory, May 11, 2012: The Tsilhqot’in Nation today reaffirms its position to the newly appointed “New” Prosperity Review Panel that the mine cannot be approved and that the entire credibility of Canada’s environmental assessment process hangs in the balance. This version of the mine was already reviewed and rejected by the previous Panel, then called “Mine Development Plan #2”, because Environment Canada and the company itself testified that it posed a higher environmental risk than the previous plan and would likely contaminate Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) over time. The mine design does not solve any of the significant impacts found by the previous Panel.

“Although the government did not appoint a First Nations member to the Panel, we recognize that three professionals have been appointed. We are confident that upon scrutiny, that the work undertaken by this new panel will completely confirm the previous panel’s findings that this alternative version of the mine poses even greater environmental risk,” said Tsilhqot’in National Government Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse, “And will mean the same devastating impacts for our culture and our Tsilhqot’in way of life”.

“We trust this Panel will undoubtedly come to understand what it would mean for our culture to have a sacred place destroyed,” said Chief Marilyn Baptiste of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation. “Yanah Biny and Nabas – where we have homes and graves – are still threatened. Teztan Biny would be surrounded and contaminated by one of Canada’s biggest open-pit mining operations.”

Chief Alphonse: “The Tsilhqot’in have already proven our Aboriginal rights to this area in one of Canada’s longest court battles. We won’t back down. No government can stop us from reflecting on who we are and the importance that this area has for us – this isn’t residential school.”

Chief Baptiste: “We are fighting for our cultural survival. We see this as a major environmental threat to the headwaters of the Taseko Lake and River systems. At stake is the wellbeing of one of British Columbia’s salmon runs. The Tsilhqot’in have protected our headwaters and salmon for generations and we won’t stop now. Keeping our waters clean and salmon safe is for everybody, not just the Tsilhqot’in.”

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires States to consult and cooperate in good faith with indigenous peoples in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories. We expect nothing less as this proposal is a potential extinguishment of our Aboriginal Rights to hunt, trap and fish in a sensitive area at the headwaters of the Taseko River.

Media Contacts: Chief Marilyn Baptiste: 250-267-1401 or 250-394-7023

Chief Joe Alphonse: 250-305-8282 or 250-394-4212

Attachment: Ten facts that show why Prosperity Mine proposal cannot be approved

TŜILHQOT’IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

253 – 4^th Avenue North s Williams Lake, BC V2G 4T4 s Phone (250) 392-3918 s Fax (250) 398-5798

Ten facts that show why resubmitted Prosperity Mine proposal cannot be approved

1. The CEAA review panel process was very different from the BC EAO rubber-stamp decision. Its report found immitigable, devastating impacts to the local fish stocks and endangered grizzly populations, and to the existing and future rights of the Tsilhqot’in and its youth. Then Environment Minister Jim Prentice described the report’s findings as “scathing” and “probably the most condemning I have ever read.”

2. The company knows its new option is worse than its first plan. TML’s V.P. Corporate Affairs, Brian Battison, was clear in his Mar. 22, 2010, opening presentation to the CEAA hearings, when he stated: “Developing Prosperity means draining Fish Lake. We wish it were otherwise. We searched hard for a different way. A way to retain the lake and have the mine. But there is no viable alternative. The lake and the deposit sit side by side. It is not possible to have one without the loss of the other.”

3. The point was emphasised by TML’s VP of engineering, Scott Jones, who stated: “What happens to the water quality in Fish Lake, if you try and preserve that body of water with the tailings facility right up against it, is that over time the water quality in Fish Lake will become equivalent to the water quality in the pore water of the tailings facility, particularly when it’s close.”

4. This proposal does not address the issues that led to the rejection of the first bid last year. Fish Lake will be affected by the toxic waste and eventually die, and it will be surrounded by a massive open pit mine and related infrastructure for decades. The Tsilhqot’in people will not have access to their spiritual place, and the area will never be returned to the current pristine state.

It is not even new. It is “Mine Development Plan 2.” TML states on page 20 of its project submission: “Option 2 is the basis for the New Prosperity design …The concepts that lead to the configuration of MDP Option 2 have been utilized to develop the project description currently being proposed.”

5. This option was looked at and rejected last year by the company, Environment Canada and the CEAA review panel. For example, page 65 of the review report states: “The Panel agrees with the observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative.”

6. The new $300 million in proposed spending is to cover the costs of relocating mine waste a little further away. There is nothing in the ‘new’ plan to mitigate all the environmental impacts identified in the previous assessment. TML states in its economic statement: “The new development design, predicated on higher long term prices for both copper and gold, would result in a direct increase in capital costs of $200 million to purchase additional mining equipment to relocate the tailings dam and to move the mine waste around Fish Lake to new locations. This redesign also adds $100 million in direct extra operating costs over the 20-year mine life to accomplish that task.” In fact, this new spending is actually $37 million less than the company said last year it would have to spend just to go with the option that it and the review panel agreed would be worse for the environment.

7. The federal government is required under the Constitution to protect First Nations, which have been found to be under serious threat in this case, and is internationally committed to do so under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These duties are every bit as clear regarding this resubmitted proposal.

8. Approving this mine would show the Environmental Assessment process is meaningless, and would demonstrate that governments are ignoring their obligations - as the Assembly of First Nations national chiefs-in-assembly made this crystal clear this summer in their resolution of support for the Tsilhqot’in.

9. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this project since it was first raised in 1995. It soundly rejected it again last year. It has no reason to support it now. Nor does Environment Canada, which, as the CEAA report noted last year, also found option 2 to be worse than the original bid.

10. There are many other more worthy projects to be pursued – the vast majority of which, if not all will require working with aboriginal communities. Natural Resources Canada estimates there is $350 billion-$500 billion worth of such potential projects in Canada. Governments, industry and investors do not need to go backwards by pushing this confrontational proposal and rebuffing efforts by First Nations to find a way to create a better mining system that would benefit everyone in the long run.

JP Laplante, B.Sc., B.I.T.

Mining, Oil and Gas Manager

Tsilhqot’in National Government

253 Fourth Avenue North

Williams Lake BC V2G 4T4

Tel: 250-392-3918 (If Unanswered, Press 3, then 9)

Fax: 250-398-5798

Email: jlaplante@tsilhqotin.ca

www.tsilhqotin.ca

Toll Free: 1-877-512-2674

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38)

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38):

Elizabeth May - Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands - Leader of the Green Party of Canada - May 11, 2012

Prosperity Mine: The More Things Change

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Keeping Watch: Prosperity Mine - May 11, 2012

Helping oppose Taseko Mines’ proposed Prosperity Mine in the Southwest Chilcotin.

**Ten Reasons Why New Prosperity Mine Proposal Is Not Acceptable**

1. CEAA Panel Found Immitigable Impacts on Fish
The CEAA review panel process was very different from the BC EAO rubber-stamp decision. Its report found immitigable, devastating impacts to the local fish stocks and endangered grizzly populations, and to the existing and future rights of the Tsilhqot’in and its youth. Then Environment Minister Jim Prentice described the report’s findings as “scathing” and“probably the most condemning I have ever read.”

2. “New” Option Worse Than Original
The company knows its new option is worse than its first plan. TML’s V.P. Corporate Affairs, Brian Battison, was clear in his Mar. 22, 2010, opening presentation to the CEAA hearings, when he stated:“Developing Prosperity means draining Fish Lake. We wish it were otherwise. We searched hard for a different way. A way to retain the lake and have the mine. But there is no viable alternative. The lake and the deposit sit side by side. It is not possible to have one without the loss of the other.”

3. Water Quality in Fish Lake Will Share With Tailings Pond
The point was emphasised by TML’s VP of engineering, Scott Jones, who stated: “What happens to the water quality in Fish Lake, if you try and preserve that body of water with the tailings facility right up against it, is that over time the water quality in Fish Lake will become equivalent to the water quality in the pore water of the tailings facility, particularly when it’s close.”

4. Toxic Wastes Will Kill Fish Lake
This proposal does not address the issues that led to the rejection of the first bid last year. Fish Lake will be affected by the toxic waste and eventually die, and it will be surrounded by a massive open pit mine and related infrastructure for decades. The Tsilhqot’in people will not have access to their spiritual place, and the area will never be returned to the current pristine state.

It is not even new. It is “Mine Development Plan 2.” TML states on page 20 of its project submission:“Option 2 is the basis for the New Prosperity design…The concepts that lead to the configuration of MDP Option 2 have been utilized to develop the project description currently being proposed.”

5. The Panel Has Already Rejected This Taseko Mines Proposal
This option was looked at and rejected last year by the company, Environment Canada and the CEAA review panel. For example, page 65 of the review report states: “The Panel agrees with the observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative.”

6. Review Panel Agrees New Proposal Worse For Environment
The new $300 million in proposed spending is to cover the costs of relocating mine waste a little further away. There is nothing in the ‘new’ plan to mitigate all the environmental impacts identified in the previous assessment. TML states in its economic statement: “The new development design, predicated on higher long term prices for both copper and gold, would result in a direct increase in capital costs of $200 million to purchase additional mining equipment to relocate the tailings dam and to move the mine waste around Fish Lake to new locations. This redesign also adds $100 million in direct extra operating costs over the 20-year mine life to accomplish that task.” In fact, this new spending is actually $37 million less than the company said last year it would have to spend just to go with the option that it and the review panel agreed would be worse for the environment.

7. Federal Government Would Be Disregarding Constitution
The federal government is required under the Constitution to protect First Nations, which have been found to be under serious threat in this case, and is internationally committed to do so under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These duties are every bit as clear regarding this resubmitted proposal.

8. Taseko Mines Would Be Proving Environmental Assessment Meaningless
Approving this mine would show the Environmental Assessment process is meaningless, and would demonstrate that governments are ignoring their obligations - as the Assembly of First Nations national chiefs-in-assembly made this crystal clear this summer in their resolution of support for the Tsilhqot’in.

9. DFO Has Already Rejected Project Numerous Times
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this project since it was first raised in 1995. It soundly rejected it again last year. It has no reason to support it now. Nor does Environment Canada, which, as the CEAA report noted last year, also found option 2 to be worse than the original bid.

10. Plenty of Non-Fish Mine Proposals In The Stream Already
There are many other more worthy projects to be pursued – the vast majority of which, if not all will require working with aboriginal communities. Natural Resources Canada estimates there is $350 billion-$500 billion worth of such potential projects in Canada. Governments, industry and investors do not need to go backwards by pushing this confrontational proposal and rebuffing efforts by First Nations to find a way to create a better mining system that would benefit everyone in the long run.

http://prosperity-mine-vs-fish-lake.blogspot.ca/2012/05/prosperity-mine-more-things-change.html

Taseko says WCWC defaming again

Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Stockwatch - May 10, 2012

by Mike Caswell

Taseko Mines Ltd. claims that the Western Canada Wilderness Committee has continued to publish defamatory messages about the company even after Taseko launched a defamation suit against the group. In an amended lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Taseko complains about a March 22, 2012, statement on the WCWC’s website in which the group once again falsely accused the company of trying to turn a lake into a tailings pond. The statement also gave readers the impression that Taseko was using the courts to stifle free speech, the company says.

The dispute between the parties stems from Taseko’s proposal to build the Prosperity mine near Williams Lake, B.C. The mine, if built, would cover the seventh-largest known gold-copper deposit in the world. According to Taseko, it would create 71,000 jobs over its 23-year life. The company has secured approval from the B.C. government to build the mine, but has so far been unable to secure approval from the federal government.

One of the more contentious issues surrounding construction of the mine is the fact that it sits adjacent to a small water body called Fish Lake. The federal government initially refused to approve the mine, citing the potential damage to Fish Lake from tailings. In response, the company has since amended the mine plan to move the tailings a considerable distance from the lake.

Environmentalists, however, remain opposed to the mine. They say it will endanger fish and bear populations, and they say it threatens another nearby water body called Little Fish Lake.

One of the groups opposing the mine is the WCWC. Statements that it made in opposition drew the initial lawsuit, which Taseko filed on March 1, 2012. The company complained about messages on the WCWC’s website, in which the group said the most recent plan for Prosperity would still put toxins into Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake. The company complained that its mine plan does not call for turning either lake into a tailings pond or depositing any toxic materials.

Taseko’s amended lawsuit

Taseko’s amended notice of claim, filed at the Vancouver courthouse on April 30, 2012, complains about several more defamatory statements the WCWC has made since the company initially launched the case. The statements, which were mostly issued through the group’s website, repeated the assertion that the Prosperity mine would threaten thousands of fish and would turn Little Fish Lake into a tailings dump site.

The company says that these statements remain false, malicious and defamatory. They give readers the incorrect impression that the company proposes turning a lake into a tailings pond and is indifferent to the deaths of thousands of fish.

Taseko also complains that the statements give readers the impression that it sued the WCWC to stifle criticism. Taseko says this is entirely untrue. It only filed the suit as a “last resort to vindicate its reputation” after the WCWC refused to remove false information from its website. “As long as the defamatory statements remain posted on the Website, they will continue to misinform readers all over the world” and will “have the capacity to cause unjustifiable and irreparable damage to Taseko’s reputation,” the amended suit reads.

The amended suit also adds the allegation that the WCWC acted in malice in knowingly publishing false statements with the intention of injuring Taseko. The company says it has informed the WCWC more than once that the statements on its site were not true. Despite that, the WCWC not only refused to remove some of them, it published the additional statements.

As with the original suit, the amended version seeks an injunction barring further publication, as well as damages and court costs. In addition to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the suit names as a defendant Sven Biggs, who works as the “outreach director” of the group from its head office in Vancouver. The suit was filed on Taseko’s behalf by Vancouver lawyer Joan Young.

WCWC’s response

Although the WCWC and Mr. Biggs have not yet responded to the amended suit, they did deny any wrongdoing in answering the original claim. In a March 23, 2012, response, they maintained that Taseko’s plans for Prosperity will result in toxic material entering Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake.

They relied on a the findings of a federal review panel that first looked at the project in 2010. Included in those findings was a statement by Taseko’s vice-president of engineering, Scott Jones, who said that the water quality of Fish Lake would inevitably degrade. “You might be able to delay that by moving the tailings facility farther away … but eventually the water quality will change,” his statement read.

The WCWC said the allegedly defamatory statements were based on the federal report. As such, they were not capable of being defamatory. Alternatively, they were fair comment based on true facts.

The group also called the suit an abuse of process. It said the true purpose of Taseko’s claim was to “curb the defendants’ exercise of freedom of expression to the extent it is critical of the plaintiff’s project.”

It asked that the suit be dismissed, with special costs. Vancouver lawyer Dan Burnett of Owen Bird filed the response on behalf of the group and Mr. Biggs.

http://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C%3ATKO-1957308&symbol=TKO&news_region=C

Reader claims Prosperity story biased

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

100 Mile Free Press - May 9, 2012

To the editor:

Expecting a piece that would at least acknowledge the wide range of stakeholders and concerns associated with the proposed Prosperity Mine, I instead found the Free Press April 25 cover story, headlined Prosperity meeting packed Valley Room, to read more like a Taseko Mines press junket than an example of competent journalism.

The article amounts to little more than pro-mine propaganda: 10 paragraphs solely devoted to re-enforcing the rhetoric of a mine representative, including suggestions as absurd as that of Taseko Mines caring about the interests of British Columbians over those of its own shareholders.

This was followed by reactions mostly from individuals who, as owners of The Hills Health Ranch or Cedar Crest apartments, presumably hope to make direct financial gains should the mine proceed.

After reading the article again several times, I couldn’t find a single sentence that wasn’t completely aligned with the interests of the Prosperity mine.

The inarguable bottom line is Prosperity’s overarching purpose is to make its shareholders lots of money through the exploitation of B.C.’s natural resources. Local residents seldom factor highly in this sort of capitalism.

The format of the meeting, one that attempted to keep community members, such as Gordon Hoglund, from expressing their concerns publicly, clearly demonstrates that Taseko Mines was not trying to engage in an earnest discourse with meeting attendants, but rather to manipulate them to suit its own goals.

Undoubtedly, other 100 Mile residents, including the ones who prevented Mr. Hoglund from meaningfully participating in the community “meeting,” also hope to cash in through some abstract promise of trickle-down profit sharing.

Though they selfishly ignore the aboriginal, environmental, and long-term socioeconomic implications of the Prosperity proposal, it is their right to so.

However, it is completely unacceptable for the 100 Mile House Free Press to publish articles that stoop to a similar level of bias.

Canadian, non-editorial journalism is based on fundamental guidelines of fairness and impartiality. This article is an example of a blatant violation of these ethical standards in the name of the shortsightedness and greed that is not the solution to the Interior’s economic problems, but rather the root cause of them.

Andrew Packham

100 Mile House

Appointment of Panel and release of final Terms of Reference for the proposed New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

New Prosperity Review (CEAA) - May 9, 2012

Please be advised that the Minister of the Environment has established a three-member review panel for the federal environmental assessment of the proposed New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project in British Columbia. The Minister has also released the Panel Terms of Reference for conducting the environmental assessment.

The News Release can be found at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=55794

The backgrounder related to the panel members can be found at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=55792

The terms of reference can be found at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=55795

Other documents related to the environmental assessment can be found online at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, registry number 11-05-63928 at: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?evaluation=63928.

Sincerely,

Livain Michaud
Panel Manager | Gestionnaire de commission
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency | Agence canadienne d’évaluation environnementale
160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 | 160, rue Elgin, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3
livain.michaud@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Telephone | Téléphone 613-948-1359 | 1-866-582-1884
Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-957-0941
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

Review panel selected for New Prosperity

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Williams Lake Tribune - May 9, 2012

The review panel for the federal environmental assessment of the proposed New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project has been established.

On Wednesday Peter Kent, federal minister of the environment and minister responsible for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, announced the three panel members and the panel’s terms of reference for the environmental assessment.

Kent has appointed Dr. Bill Ross as the panel chair, as well as Dr. George Kupfer and Dr. Ron Smyth as panel members.

Reacting to the announcement, Tsilhqot’in National Government Chair and Tl’etinqox (Anaham) Chief Joe Alphonse says the panel guidelines have scaled back the obligations around aboriginal rights.

“That would initially be a point of concern for myself. I think we have the largest right and title case ever won in B.C. and in Canada and those are issues the federal government has to take very seriously, over and above the scientific-related thing the panel has to do,” Alphonse says, adding the federal government has a duty to protect aboriginal rights.

Aboriginal rights will be something his government will be demanding and pushing for, he insists.

While he’s disappointed a First Nations member with all the right qualifications was not appointed to the panel, Alphonse says he’s confident the panel is legitimate and will arrive at the right decision.

Brian Battison, Taseko Mines Ltd.’s vice-president of corporate affairs, says Kent’s announcements are important steps in a process that’s unfolding.

“The terms of reference look to be consistent with the minister’s commitments. There’s a 12-month process, the review is focused on what has changed in the project, i.e. preserving Fish Lake, and the process is relying on the work done on the previous environmental assessment to the extent possible,” Battison says, adding Taseko does not intend to comment on the make-up of the panel.

According to a news release, Ross is a professor emeritus at the University of Calgary in the Faculty of Environmental Design. He has focused most of his research on the professional practice of environmental assessment and has extensive expertise on cumulative effects assessment.

He has a Bachelor of Science from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford University.

Ross has developed training, taught and advised on many aspects of environmental assessment in Canada and internationally.

In addition to teaching postgraduate students, he has delivered training courses to further the practice of environmental assessment in many countries. In 1994, he headed the Canadian Mission to the Middle East to determine environmental assessment capabilities and needs as part of the Multilateral Peace Process.

He is the founding president of the Western and Northern Canada Affiliate of the International Association for Impact Assessment. He has chaired the Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency for the Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories for five years and has worked with the four aboriginal groups involved for a decade. In 2009, Ross was the winner of the Rose-Hulman Award from the International Association for Impact assessment.

The news release says Ross has considerable experience as a member of environmental assessment review panels in Alberta and British Columbia. He chaired the federal review panel for the Oldman River Dam and he served on the joint review panels for the EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project and the Joslyn North Mine Project. He participated on the federal panels reviewing the twinning of the Trans Canada Highway in Banff National Park and the CP Rail Rogers Pass Project and was a member of the joint federal-provincial review panel established for the Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mill. He was an advisor on cumulative environmental effects to the Cheviot Coal Mine Review Panel in Alberta.

Kupfer is a consultant focusing on community consultation, conflict resolution and mediation related to social and environmental issues and industrial development. He has a B.A. from Seattle Pacific University, as well as a Master’s and Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Washington. He taught at the University of Alberta for 15 years, before establishing his own company, Fresh Start Limited. Dr. Kupfer primarily works in western Canada and lives in Sidney, British Columbia.

Kupfer has facilitated many community consultation and stakeholder engagement initiatives related to industrial projects and their impacts. He has led multi-stakeholder consultations on drilling applications, gas pipeline developments, sour gas issues, transmission line route selection, on the relationship of the environment and the economy, and forest conservation strategies. He facilitated a multi-stakeholder review of the Alberta environmental impact assessment process and on developing agreements between First Nations, Métis and the government in the Wood Buffalo Region.

For a short time he was the public consultation advisor to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board and afterwards assisted in a number of board consultation and mediation projects. He has facilitated Crown consultation processes with First Nations for the federal and Alberta governments and advised the National Energy Board on the development of an internal aboriginal consultation process and on dealing with pipeline emergencies. He has worked with First Nations and Métis, industry, individuals, communities and government departments in Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

Kupfer has served on numerous environmental assessment panels, specifically related to water management issues. He was recently a member of the joint federal-provincial panel reviewing a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project on the Peace River near Dunvegan, Alta. He was also a member of panels reviewing water management projects for the Pine Coulee and Little Bow/Highwood projects in Alberta, and for reviews of the Jackpine and Horizon oil sand developments in northern Alberta. He managed the review panel of the Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mill and served as social impacts advisor to the Oldman River Dam Panel. Until recently he was a member of the Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project Review Panel until the project was withdrawn.

Smyth is a professional geologist and independent consultant. He holds a Ph.D. in geology from Memorial University of Newfoundland. He spent most of his career in government geological survey organizations; first with the Newfoundland Geological Survey where he held senior positions in geological mapping and mineral resource assessments from 1972 to 1982. He joined the British Columbia Geological Survey in 1982 as a mineral land use specialist and prepared regional assessments of mineral and coal potential for land and resource management planning processes.

Smyth was director and chief geologist of the British Columbia Geological Survey from 1984-2002 and was the principal advisor to the B.C. government on geological matters relating to minerals and coal. He has broad experience in the application of geology in the assessment of proposed new mines. He was a scientific advisor to the B.C. Mine Development Review Process in the 1980s and was responsible for a team of geological experts that provided scientific input to assessments of proposed new metal and coal mines. He also held the position of chief science officer for the Offshore Oil and Gas Team, B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources from 2002 to 2008. In this position he was the government’s expert on the geology and resource potential of the Pacific offshore basins and was the Ministry’s chief advisor on science issues related to offshore energy development. He interacted with a range of stakeholders, including First Nations, non-governmental organizations, industry, academia, and the public.

Smyth was an adjunct professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria and was co-chair of the University of Victoria-Ministry of Energy and Mines Research Partnership Committee from 2004 to 2008. He has been a member of numerous scientific advisory boards. He resides in Victoria, B.C.

The terms of reference, the guidelines, as well as additional information on the project, are available in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry on the agency website at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca, under reference # 11-05-63928.

http://www.wltribune.com/news/150819935.html#storyComments

New federal panel appointed to review Taseko's proposed gold-copper mine in B.C.

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

New federal panel appointed to review Taseko's proposed gold-copper mine in B.C.:

The Vancouver Sun - May 9, 2012

Mine may be around longer than one thinks - May 8, 2012

Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Mine may be around longer than one thinks - May 8, 2012

Invitation to Workshop & Potluck Lunch - Tuesday, May 15th, 9:30 a.m.to 1 p.m., Willams Lake - RSVP

Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Tsilhqot’in National Government - May 8, 2012

Attn: First Nations leaders, Community Members and Community,
Conservation & Social Justice Organizations

To Whom it may concern,

Please regard this email as an invitation to attend a workshop & potluck
lunch hosted by the Tsilhqot’in National Government & being facilitated
by Dr. Joan Kuyek, formerly the National Coordinator for MiningWatch
Canada. Joan is an expert on the socioeconomic costs/benefits of mining
in rural communities. She has written several books, some of which
focus on community organizing
(http://www.fernwoodpublishing.ca/community &
http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2011/11/joan-kuyek-community-organizing).
Joan is an instructor at Carleton University & Queens University and is
an inspiring speaker who understands what it means to live and work in
rural Canada (she lived for many years in Sudbury, Ontario - Canada’s
Nickel town).

The purpose of the workshop is to advance a discussion about how to
improve relations and collaborations between communities (First Nations
and non-First Nations, regional and local) in opposition to the
so-called “New” Prosperity mine proposal, and how to organize ahead of
the Public Hearings that will occur later in 2012. This is an ideal
opportunity if you have wondered about the various ways in which you can
help. We hope to end the discussion with some concrete ideas for
follow-up.

You have been invited because of your participation in the last panel
hearings, attendance at previous meetings hosted by TNG, or your
organization’s work on issues of common concern (e.g. First Nations
Governments, conservation, social justice, etc.). Please feel free to
bring a friend or friends who may also be interested in learning more
about Teztan Biny/Fish Lake, its environs and the beautiful Upper Taseko
region, and how it is in all of our interest to protect the pristine
headwaters of the Fraser.

Details:
Location: Central Cariboo Arts and Culture Society (old Firehall) on
Fourth Avenue North, Williams Lake

Date & Time: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, 9:30am-12pm, followed by a
potluck lunch (12pm-1pm).

Food: The potluck lunch is intended as an opportunity to share food and
have more informal discussions. When thinking of what to bring, please
keep in mind that access to refrigeration is limited and that some of
the food will be sitting for several hours. The Tsilhqot’in National
Government will provide coffee and plates/cutlery.

We’d appreciate a RSVP by Thursday May 10th or early on Friday May 11th
(by email or phone: jlaplante@tsilhqotin.ca or 250-392-3918).

Please call if you have any questions. Kids are welcome!

Kind regards,

JP Laplante, B.Sc., B.I.T.
Mining, Oil and Gas Manager
Tsilhqot’in National Government
253 Fourth Avenue North
Williams Lake BC V2G 4T4
Tel: 250-392-3918 (If Unanswered, Press 3, then 9)
Fax: 250-398-5798
Email: jlaplante@tsilhqotin.ca <mailto:jlaplante@tsilhqotin.ca>
www.tsilhqotin.ca <http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/>
Toll Free: 1-877-512-2674

Ottawa elbows regulators in quest for final word on pipeline approvals

Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Ottawa elbows regulators in quest for final word on pipeline approvals:

The Globe & Mail - May 8, 2012

Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Newswire

Call For Support - Tsilhqot'in Protest Outside of Taseko Mines Ltd. AGM - Friday, June 1st

Mine opposition creates alternatives

Governments need to operate on educated common sense

FONV Annual General Meeting on June 4, 2012 - Speaker is Jay Nelson

Mine opposition creates party confusion

Maximizing our potential

Explanation may help others understand

Songs and prayers part of tradition

JOHN CUMMINS A BIG SUPPORTER OF NEW PROSPERITY MINE PROPOSAL

Tsilhqot’in confident that new Panel’s work will result in rejection of “New” Prosperity Mine

Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38)

Prosperity Mine: The More Things Change

Ten Reasons Why *New* Prosperity Mine Proposal Is Not Acceptable

Taseko says WCWC defaming again

Reader claims Prosperity story biased

Appointment of Panel and release of final Terms of Reference for the proposed New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project

Review panel selected for New Prosperity

New federal panel appointed to review Taseko's proposed gold-copper mine in B.C.

Mine may be around longer than one thinks - May 8, 2012

Invitation to Workshop & Potluck Lunch - Tuesday, May 15th, 9:30 a.m.to 1 p.m., Willams Lake - RSVP

Ottawa elbows regulators in quest for final word on pipeline approvals

**Ten Reasons Why New Prosperity Mine Proposal Is Not Acceptable**