site created by noosworx.com
Licence Links
Submit
Licence Links
Submit
Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Newswire
Licence Links
Submit
Posts tagged Esketemc First Nation
Taseko Lawsuit Won’t Stop Opposition to “New” Prosperity Mine Project
MiningWatch Canada - March 6, 2012
(Ottawa) MiningWatch Canada regrets that Taseko Mines Ltd. has initiated a lawsuit against the Western Canada Wilderness Committee for allegedly making defamatory and inaccurate comments on Taseko’s proposed “New Prosperity” project. Having been a vocal critic of the project, we would like to assure Taseko, our allies and potential investors that we will continue to research and openly criticize and oppose this project that continues to face stiff opposition from First Nations, environmental, and social justice groups. The reasons for this opposition are many and have been repeated often. We provide a short list below:
- After an extensive review of the original proposed project, including a suite of alternative mine plans, a federal review panel concluded in July of 2010 that the earlier version of the project would have numerous significant adverse effects that could not be mitigated.
- MiningWatch’s review of the latest project description for the “New” Prosperity project leads us to conclude that the currently proposed project is not significantly different from an alternative mine development plan discredited in the previous federal environmental assessment process.*
- Regardless of the specific choice of mine plan it is anticipated that important sensitive natural habitats and cultural areas will be destroyed or degraded by the mine.
- The project continues to be opposed by the potentially affected First Nations, who in turn have the support of regional and national First Nations organizations.
- The proposed mine is in an area where the Tŝilhqot’in Nation has a proven, Constitutionally-protected Aboriginal right to hunt and trap, and where the Tŝilhqot’in Nation claims Aboriginal title in litigation that is still before the courts.
Based on these facts, MiningWatch believes that the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Grand Chief Phillip Stewart put it well when he stated that the proposed mine is “the wrong project in the wrong place owned by the wrong company.”
The lawsuit also comes after a successful campaign led by another environmental group, the Sierra Club of BC, that encouraged people to submit comments on the draft guidelines and review the panel’s terms of reference. Over 1,500 people submitted comments using the Sierra Club’s website.
“Though we regret the actions of Taseko against the Wilderness Committee, it’s honestly not that big a surprise that Taseko would act this way” observed Ramsey Hart, MiningWatch’s Canada Program Coordinator. “Over the course of the environmental assessment we have observed a number of actions that Taseko has taken that, in our view, are not consistent with good practices for building trust and positive relationships with stakeholders.” These actions include:
- Pressuring the BC government to withdraw from a joint review panel process supported by First Nations and environmental groups and “go it alone” in 2008.
- An attempt to have one of the original federal review panel members, Naline Morin, a First Nations woman with a career working in the mining industry, removed on the presumption of bias.
- An attempt to prevent showing of the video Blue Gold during the review panel hearings. The video was created for the Tŝilhqot’in Nation in order to explain their connection to the land where the project is located, to give voice to their concerns and show images of the area to the panel members.
Hart, who participated in the first review process, further comments that, “We remain committed to speaking out about this project. Based on the information we’ve seen to date, we are confident in our analysis and in the many as-yet unresolved problems we and others have identified.” MiningWatch will continue its collaboration with other NGOs and will continue to work in solidarity with the Tŝilhqot’in and Esketemc First Nations in their opposition.
_____________
* Following MiningWatch’s review of the latest project description for the “New” Prosperity mine, we are of the opinion that the revised project was already considered by the first federal review panel (as alternative Mine Development Plan 2). At page 50 of its report, the original panel stated that it “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 original “preferred” alternative (namely, the alternative rejected by the original panel in July 2010 and by the Government of Canada in November 2010).
– 30 –
For more information contact:
Ramsey Hart, Canada Program Coordinator, MiningWatch Canada (613) 298-4745 (cell)
http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/taseko-lawsuit-won-t-stop-opposition-new-prosperity-mine-project
Hearings get underway for another controversial B.C. project: Prosperity mine
Winnipeg Free Press - January 29, 2012
The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION
WILLIAMS LAKE, B.C. - With all eyes on hearings for the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline that would link Alberta’s oil sands to tankers on the B.C. coast, a federal environmental review of another contentious B.C. project is quietly getting underway.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has released guidelines and terms of reference that will form the framework for an environmental review of Taseko Mines Ltd.’s (TSX:TKO) proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine in the B.C. Interior.
The agency is seeking comments on the documents until Feb. 22.
But the approach of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government toward the federal hearings on the Northern Gateway doesn’t give First Nations opponents much faith in the environmental review of the mine.
“We feel the writing’s on the wall,” Chief Joe Alphonse, leader of the Tsilqhot’in National Government, said in an interview.
“Mr. Harper is making statements around the Enbridge project that anyone opposing the project is an enemy of Canada. That’s the same situation.”
Alphonse said he fears that approval of the Prosperity Mine, 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake, B.C., is a foregone conclusion.
The Tsilqhot’in will still take part in the review, however, “as distasteful as that might be,” Alphonse said.
“Our position is that we have to participate to protect our interests… we still have to go through the motions because, at the end of the day, when that political process fails us, we still have to turn to the courts for justice and the moment we walk into a courtroom they’re going to tell us: you had to participate.”
Taseko’s original proposal for the $1.5-billion project was accepted by the province but rejected by a federal environmental panel last year because the company wanted to drain Fish Lake for use as a tailings pond.
The revised proposal would see the company spend $300 million to build its own tailings pond, rather than use the trout-bearing lake, known to local First Nations as Tetzan Biny.
In December, the Tsilqhot’in First Nation was granted a court injunction to stop Taseko from undertaking exploratory work on the mine pending the review.
Although the Tsilqhot’in will participate in the review, the band did not apply for money from a federal fund for aboriginal groups to participate, nor did most other First Nations groups in the area.
The federal agency announced last week that nine groups will split nearly $138,000 in federal funding to participate in the review.
But while more than $200,000 was available to aboriginal groups to allow them to participate, only one group made an application. The Esketemc First Nation asked for and received $27,800.
The Metis Nation of British Columbia, whose application was transferred from a general funding program, will also receive $19,000.
Seven other interest groups will receive a total of $91,000 from the separate, general participant funding program, including Friends of Nemaiah Valley, which will receive $19,000, and the Sierra Club of British Columbia, which will receive $18,600.
MiningWatch Canada, the Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce, Share the Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources Society, and the Environmental Mining Education Foundation will also receive funds, as well as an individual named Federico G. Osorio.
Brian Battison, vice-president of corporate affairs for Taseko, said the company is looking at the guidelines and preparing its response, which is “a tremendous amount of work.”
Battison said much of the original mine proposal was accepted by the first review panel, and those aspects will not have to be reviewed again. What has changed are the two aspects around the use of Fish Lake as a tailings pond.
“It’s a significant difference. It’s a $300-million difference in terms of cost, to save the lake.”
Battison said the project has community support in the Cariboo region, where it will have a significant economic impact.
Agency spokesperson Lucille Jamault said members of the public have until Feb. 22 to submit written comments on the draft guidelines and the terms of reference, then the next step will be for the federal environment minister to name the panel, which was given a year to complete the review when it was announced last November.
A band election in Tsi Del Del, in Alexis Creek, earlier this month served as a referendum of sorts on the issue. Chief Percy Guichon, a vocal critic of the mine development, soundly defeated a challenger who was in favour of the mine in a campaign dominated by the issue.
Taseko says Prosperity - the largest undeveloped gold-copper deposit in Canada and seventh largest in the world - will generate 71,000 jobs over the course of its operation and put $10 billion in government coffers.
Who Owns BC?
Resource Clips Essential Resource News - November 2, 2011
http://resourceclips.com/2011/11/01/who-owns-bc/
Indian Mining Rights are Powerful, Yet Vague
By Greg Klein
Part 1 of the Taseko New Prosperity Mine Story
“We’re sure trying hard to have discussions,” says Brian Battison, VP of Corporate Affairs for Taseko Mines Ltd TSX:TKO. “We’re having discussions with two native bands, the Canoe and the Esketemc. The TNG [Tsilhqot’in National Government, which represents five bands totalling about 3,100 people], however, refuses to talk with us despite repeated offers from us to talk about the project and let us answer questions.”
The discussions, were they to occur, would concern Taseko’s New Prosperity gold-copper project, a $1.1-billion mine proposed for south-central British Columbia. A previous proposal met BC’s environmental review only to be rejected in November 2010 by the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Now a revised proposal has come before the CEAA. The agency will decide by November 7 whether to accept New Prosperity as is or spend up to 12 months on another study. That’s the latest step in a project that began its environmental permitting process in 1993 and has so far cost Taseko over $110 million. If approved, New Prosperity may advance to the permitting needed to begin construction.
Central to the CEAA’s 2010 decision was the 118-hectare Fish Lake, which would have been converted to a tailings pond. But New Prosperity, Battison maintains, addresses that issue. “There’s one significant change that leads to some other changes. Fish Lake, under the previous proposal, would have been drained and eliminated. Under the new proposal, Fish Lake is retained.” The tailings pond will be relocated two kilometres upstream.
TNG chairperson Joe Alphonse says that Taseko had earlier rejected that option as “worse than the first.” Battison disagrees. “There were three alternative options in the previous environmental assessment. But only one option was advanced because the other two were not economic.” Higher metal prices have made the extra $300-million cost viable, he says. “Now the lake is retained and the discussion comes down to, ‘What are the potential effects of having the lake and the mine in the same watershed?’”
Disastrous, according to Alphonse. “We put a lot into our way of life, and we have to continue to do what we can to protect that,” he says. “We have the largest sockeye run in North America, the Chilco Lake run. We may not have the biggest run, but we have probably the most consistent sockeye run. We get over a million fish that return to spawn. This development isn’t very far from that location. It’s above Taseko Lake, which feeds into the Taseko River and the Taseko feeds into the Chilco. So we have big concerns about that.”
His concerns are echoed by Marylin Baptiste, chief of the TNG’s Xeni Gwet’in Band. They’re not, however, borne out by last year’s CEAA report. With Fish Lake converted to a tailings pond, the study did find the project “would have a significant adverse effect on fish and fish habitat in the Teztan Yeqox (Fish Creek) watershed.” But it “would not result in a significant adverse effect on fish health in the Dasiqox (Taseko River).”
Nor did the study find a significant adverse affect on surface water hydrology, surface water quality, water quality in Jidizay Biny (Big Onion Lake), terrain and soils, old growth forest, grassland ecosystems, mule deer and moose and their habitat, the forest industry, meadows in the Fish Creek watershed, ranching and grazing along the transmission corridor, hunting and a list of other items.
Apart from Fish Lake, the study also found a significant adverse effect on the South Chilcotin grizzly population but not other wildlife. Although the study found other drawbacks, few of them were environmental. Instead, it found a significant adverse effect on established Tsilhqot’in rights, potential rights to fish in Fish Lake, potential Tsilhqot’in, Esketemc and Canoe title, and Tsilhqot’in traditional and cultural uses.
The report’s executive summary describes Fish Lake as “a place of spiritual power and healing for the Tsilhqot’in,” a sentiment the CEAA panel says it heard during 30 days of public hearings.
“The review overstepped its boundaries,” claims John Cummins, who represented Delta-Richmond for 18 years in the House of Commons and now leads the fledgling BC Conservative Party. “It wasn’t just an environmental review; it turned into a review of aboriginal rights. It’s beyond their authority and expertise.”
Cummins says that natives want more than hunting and fishing. “They want new pickup trucks, TV sets, nice warm homes with hot water, and you’re not going to get that with subsistence living. You need jobs.”
We put a lot into our way of life, and we have to continue to do what we can to protect that —Joe Alphonse
But Baptiste scorns the economic projections. “Do you really, honestly and seriously think that this project, which is $1.1 billion, will bring 71,000 jobs?” She points out that the federal government projects only 15,000 jobs over 30 years from its $25-billion shipbuilding program in Halifax.
But an even more important issue is one that is hardly even broached. Cummins maintains that aboriginal title doesn’t exist. “The Supreme Court of BC made it clear that aboriginal title had been extinguished when the province exerted control over the territory.” He says the federal Supreme Court’s Delgamuukw decision “gave the test on what constituted aboriginal title. Those tests have never been challenged by a native band from British Columbia, but they were challenged in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Marshall and Bernard made it clear that to establish aboriginal title was very, very difficult, and in fact it would be unlikely that most bands would be able to support aboriginal title to their current village.” The decision did, however, acknowledge rights to hunt and fish, Cummins says.
However, according to Cummins, governments “are acting as if aboriginal title existed. They’re acting as if the aboriginal folks have final say over resource development in this province, and it’s perfectly normal for them to give a payoff to native bands whenever there’s any resource development. These payoffs—and essentially they’re little more than payoffs or protection money—are creating expectations that we can ill afford to keep.”
The only solution, Cummins declares, “is for federal and provincial governments to stand up to the unreal expectations they’ve created.”
Despite his resource-friendly views, Cummins is unlikely to win the support of mining companies since, as his former colleague Preston Manning has pointed out, the BC Conservatives could take enough votes from the ruling BC Liberals to allow a New Democratic Party victory in 2013. NDP policies are often blamed for the near-destruction of BC’s mining industry when the party held office from 1991 to 2001.
Meanwhile the Tsilhqot’in National Government and Taseko remain at loggerheads. Baptiste says the company’s CEO sent letters to the TNG chiefs asking for a meeting. They responded “asking for certain things,” she says. “Those things were ignored, so we did not meet.” She didn’t recall what they were. “I don’t have that in front of me at the very moment.”
Alphonse says, “We’ve been dealing with [Taseko] for the last 20 years. This is the third time they’ve tried to get this mine through.” He compares the company to “a spoiled little kid not accepting a decision” and says the TNG will fight the project in court if necessary.
Last September, an assembly of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs called on the federal government to reject Taseko’s proposal, advising governments that “First Nations across Canada are watching their decisions to see whether there remains any value or integrity in environmental assessments for major projects, or whether First Nations must turn to litigation and other means to assert our rights and protect our cultures.”
In September, Black Press quoted Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs president Stewart Phillip warning the federal government not to approve New Prosperity: “It will trigger a province-wide and nation-wide backlash that will severely jeopardize relationships between First Nations and the mining industry for years to come.”
At press time, Phillip was part of an aboriginal delegation to China, which will speak with companies interested in BC resource development. Another delegate, Grand Chief Edward John of the First Nations Summit, told the Victoria Times Colonist, “We are going to be telling them that they don’t just talk to government, they talk to us.”
Part 1 of the Taseko New Prosperity Mine Story
Related posts:
- Prosperity For Whom?
- Waiting For Feasibility
- Goldrush VP Don Willoughby on Burkina Faso gold assays of 3.62 g/t over 6m
- Goldrush reports Burkina Faso Gold Results including 3.62 g/t over 6m
Tagged with:
british columbia · gold · Taseko Mines (TKO)
3 Responses to “Who Owns BC?”
Perpetuating stereotypes a form of violence
Williams Lake Tribune - By Chief Fred Robbins, Esketemc - October 14, 2010
First Nation will not benefit from Prosperity Mine
Vancouver Sun, Chief Fred Robbins, Esketemc First Nation, B.C. -
November 2nd, 2011 at 9:59 am
It was not a CEAA review panelthat assessed the Prosperity Gold mine project. The review panel is independent from Government and conducts its own independent review of the potential environmental affects.
The CEAA agency did not turn down the project. The review panel reported its findings and made recommendations to the federal Government in a Panel Report that was submitted to the Federal Government. It is the Governor in Council the makes the final decision.
The Federal Review Panel did have the mandate to recieve information provided by Aboriginal groups regarding the manner in which the Project may affect their Aboriginal rights, assested or established.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:04 am
So here we have the heart of the problem here, as always. Politicians. Plain and simple. If politicians had stuck to the letter of the law, and not over-reached the authority GRANTED to them by the citizenry, this issue would have been over a long time ago. Instead, we have officials overstepping their bounds on the environmental committee side, and officials all across Canada overstepping bounds on the aboriginal rights side, whenever they think they can personally get some gain (and “some gain” usually money, under or over the table) from their position.
So we have a company with an agenda on one side, about 3100 people with some full or loose affiliation to 5 different historical tribes remnants on another side, and politicians in the middle pandering to both sides. Now why do I foresee that the the majority of the people with a stake here, (hundreds of thousands of citizens of BC and tens of thousands of shareholders in this company) coming out on the short end of this pointy stick once again? Oh, yeah, right, because politicians are involved….
November 2nd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
The First Nation leadership sound like thugs that threaten all of Canada with their threats of violence to any government proposal that they (FN) don’t agree with.