Union of BC Indian Chiefs - April 19, 2012

Honourable Joe Oliver
Ministry of Natural Resources Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6 

Sent via facsimile: 613-943-1562 

OPEN LETTER: Federal Announcement of the Responsible Resource Development Plan (April 17th, 2012)

Dear Minister Oliver:

We are writing with respect to your government’s shocking announcement to completely gut the environmental assessment process. We are gravely concerned with this announcement to eviscerate the process for environmental review on resource development projects after the changes lay waste to the credibility of the process. These environmental laws and the associated processes do not replace the judicially-recognized and constitutionally-protected Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights but there are vital parts of the Crown’s relationship with First Nations. Fundamental changes to the environmental assessment process and other environmental protection laws can only be undertaken with meaningful consultation with First Nations. We urge the federal governmental to work with First Nations to improve environmental protections rather then weaken them with the reduction of assessment timelines and the reduction of required organizations responsible for such reviews.

First Nations have legal and constitutionally protected rights and responsibilities to protect their traditional territories and all that this encompasses, and are not merely stakeholders in resource development projects. Both domestic and international law recognize the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ relationship to resources and all activities that take place on our traditional territories. A recent report by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination emphasized the need for Canada to include Indigenous peoples in decision making, recommending that Canada “Implement in good faith the right to consultation and to free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples whenever their rights may be affected by projects carried out on their lands, as set forth in international standards and the State party’s legislation.” Further, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out in Article 26(1) that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.” We fully expect Canada to uphold its commitment to this important international doctrine.

We remind you that the Crown cannot legislate itself out of its duties to consult and accommodate First Nations. With upcoming projects that require further review such as Taseko Mines Ltd’s Prosperity Mine, expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project as well as other resource development projects, the Federal government must engage in good faith and meaningfully consult with First Nations. Removing or weakening environmental reviews for projects will only result in greater uncertainty and heightened conflict on the land.

We are keenly aware that the British Columbia government is simultaneously working to create regulations to exempt some so-called “low-risk activities” from the requirement to hold a Mines Act permit. The regulatory changes to the Mines Act were set out in Bill 19, which was introduced on November 14th and rushed through the House to receive Royal Assent on November 24th, the last day that the Legislative Assembly sat in 2011. We wish to put you on notice that we are monitoring the dovetailing approaches taken by both the provincial and federal governments to categorically erode the approval process for environmental projects in favour of industry and in complete disrespect for Aboriginal Title and Rights and Treaty Rights.

Again, we are deeply disturbed by these developments and we urgently request a meeting with the First Nations Leadership Council to further discuss how these proposed changes to the environmental assessment process and other environmental protection laws will impact on the Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights of First Nations in BC.


FIRST NATIONS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

On behalf of the FIRST NATIONS SUMMIT:

Grand Chief Edward John
Chief Douglas White III Kwulasultun
Dan Smith

On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS:

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
Chief Bob Chamberlin
Chief Marilyn Baptiste

On behalf of the BC ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS:

Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould

CC: BC First Nations

PDF copy of the letter:
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/files/PDF/2012April19_FNLCtoOliver_EAchanges.pdf

The Tyee - April 17, 2012

Click on link to see comments

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2012/04/17/Lake_Life_Support/index.html

Wilderness Committee - March 22, 2012

VANCOUVER – Dan Burnett, the Wilderness Committee’s lawyer, today filed defence papers with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Wilderness Committee’s defence answers Taseko Mines Ltd.’s Notice of Civil Claim that had been served on the Wilderness Committee March 1, 2012. Taseko has claimed that the Wilderness Committee has defamed Taseko in an Internet alert in early 2012 about saving the Fish Lake area from a proposed open pit mine.

“What the Wilderness Committee is asking the courts to do in its filed Response to the Claim is uphold the Wilderness Committee’s right to free speech on this important environmental issue, dismiss the action and impose extra court costs upon Taseko for attempting to use the litigation process to silence critics,” said Burnett.

“We are saying that this threat of court action by Taseko Mines Ltd. is aimed at silencing critics such as the Wilderness Committee from speaking out in the debate over protecting the Fish Lake area from the company’s proposed New Prosperity Mine,” said Joe Foy, National Campaign Director for the Wilderness Committee. “This court threat eats away at the very foundations of democracy and free speech that our society is based on,” said Foy.

In the company’s Notice of Civil Claim, Taseko alleged that the Wilderness Committee had made a number of defamatory statements – including a claim that the company planned to use Little Fish Lake as a toxic tailings pond.

“In fact, Taseko has published plans for it’s New Prosperity Mine that calls for inundating Little Fish Lake under a massive toxic tailings pond that will wipe out a great deal of fish habitat and pollute a great deal of water. That’s a plain fact that people should be allowed to write about and speak about without fear that court papers will arrive in the mail from some corporation that doesn’t want public debate threatening profits,” said Foy.

Contact:

Joe Foy, National Campaign Director, Wilderness Committee: Cell 604-880-2580 or 604-683-8220 (w)

http://wildernesscommittee.org/press_release/wilderness_committee_defends_against_taseko_slapp_over_fish_lake_fight

Welcome to Williams Lake - March 2, 2012

Yesterday Taseko Mines Limited filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and Sven Biggs, the Outreach Director of that organization for a series of false and defamatory statements concerning Taseko and its proposed New Prosperity Gold-Copper Project.

Russell Hallbauer, CEO of Taseko issued the following statement:

“Taseko welcomes a full, thorough and open process to evaluate the merits of New Prosperity project, which we believe will be a big win for British Columbia, First Nations and Canada. We cannot, however, stand idly by when certain parties such as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee mislead the public about the project. The facts do matter. All parties benefit from an open and fair discussion of the facts, not false, misleading and harmful inaccuracies.

We have not taken this course of action lightly; we have filed this notice of civil claim only after repeated requests to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee to correct the record were not satisfactorily addressed.

Taseko has expended considerable resources and effort to minimize the environmental impact of New Prosperity and we remain committed to developing an efficient, sustainable and responsible mine.”

The full New Prosperity project description - which contains extensive information on environmental impact mitigation measures - has been made available for public review at newprosperityproject.ca.

See link for comments.

http://welcometowilliamslake.ca/index.php/the-news/local-news/5096-taseko-sues-for-defamation.html

Journal of Commerce - December 7, 2011 (Today’s date is December 5, 2011

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ruled in favour of the Tsilhqot’in First nation in a legal battle with Taseko Mines Ltd over a revived proposal for a billion dollar gold mine in central British Columbia.

“Much good will has been wasted with this attempt to bring this terrible project back from the dead, but some of that might be restored if the province were to end its efforts to help the company bulldoze more than 20 kilometres of new roads and drill dozens of new holes in pursuit of an option everyone knows is worse than the plan we defeated last year,” said Xeni Gwet’in Chief Marilyn Baptiste.

“The government and company need to prove, not only to the Tsilhqot’in, but to the public, that this destruction is even necessary for the EA (environmental assessment) process.”

Justice Christopher Grauer granted an injunction on Dec. 2 to prohibit Taseko Mines Ltd from performing exploration work on the site of the new proposed Prosperity Mine near Williams Lake, B.C.

The judge ruled the Tsilhqot’in were not properly consulted on two permits the B.C. government granted Taseko for extensive exploratory work, including roadbuilding, drilling, excavation of test pits and timber clearing.

The B.C. government issued the first of these permits about five weeks before it was known that there would be a second federal environmental assessment of Taseko’s new proposal.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) ruled in early November that the New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine project will undergo a new environmental assessment, only three months after the original proposal was rejected due to significant environmental impacts.

“We have already soundly defeated this mine proposal once and the option now being pursued has already been declared worse than the original plan,” said Tsilhqot’in Tribal Chair Joe Alphonse. “We are frustrated to be faced with an Environmental Assessment again, but we need to be adequately engaged to assist with the determination of what is exactly necessary with the least amount of disturbance for this process.”

Taseko was seeking an injunction and restraining order against Baptiste and other individuals, who stopped the company from entering the project site on Nov. 12.

The Tsilhqot’in Nation filed an injunction against Taseko on Nov. 14.

The injunction will be in force until a judicial review investigates the provincial permits.

The Tsilhqot’in filed an application to suspend work on the grounds that they were not properly consulted and their serious concerns were ignored. They want the court to keep Taseko out of their traditional territory until the B.C. Appeals Court rules on the band’s case involving Aboriginal title.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice David Vickers ruled in November 2007 that the Tsilhqot’in have proven Aboriginal title to about 200,000 square hectares around Williams Lake.

However, the Tsilhqot’in are appealing the judge’s decision to deny Aboriginal title to an area, which includes the proposed mine site.

In late 2010, the court reserved its decision and set no time frame for releasing its ruling.

Taseko argues the mine site is on Crown Land and the company holds a valid, long-term mineral lease. The company has 12 months to complete the necessary work at the site needed for a second federal government environmental process.

http://www.joconl.com/article/id47894

Intercontinental Cry - December 3, 2011

The Tsilhqot’in people are celebrating a B.C. Supreme Court judge’s decision to grant an injunction against Taseko Mines Ltd, prohibiting the company from carrying out any more exploration work on Tsilhqot’in traditional lands for the next 90 days.

Chief Marilyn Baptiste speaking outside the B.C. Supreme Court on the first day of hearings into the renewed Prosperity Mine proposal. Photo Credit, Vancouver Sun

Taseko had been seeking its own injunction and enforcement order to prevent anyone from blocking a road to the company’s Prosperity mine project. The Supreme Court judge overruled the company’s application.

Below, a formal statement on the decision from The Tsilhqot’in National Government

Tsilhqot’in Welcome Injunction Against Taseko Mines Ltd

Williams Lake BC, Fri. Dec. 2, 2011: The Tsilhqot’in rejoices with the decision by Justice Grauer to grant an injunction to prohibit Taseko Mines Ltd from performing exploration work on Tsilhqot’in traditional lands. This is another victory in the fight to preserve these pristine and sacred lands and waters.

A judicial review will commence scrutinizing the work permits granted to the company by the Province.

“Today’s decision signifies the assertion of our request for deep and meaningful consultation. This is an important judgement that sets the tone for industry and the B.C. Government when dealing with other First Nations,” said Tsilhqot’in Tribal Chair Joe Alphonse.

“We have already soundly defeated this mine proposal once, and the option now being pursued has already been declared worse than the original plan. We are frustrated to be faced with an Environmental Assessment again but we need to be adequately engaged to assist with the determination of what is exactly necessary with the least amount of disturbance for this process.”

Xeni Gwet’in Chief Marilyn Baptiste called on the Provincial Government to save taxpayer’s and the Tsilhqot’in from further legal expenses by withdrawing the exploration permits and beginning a new consultation process that is accountable and ensures deep and meaningful consultation.

“Much good will has been wasted with this attempt to bring this terrible project back from the dead, but some of that might be restored if the Province were to end its efforts to help the company bulldoze more than 20 kilometres of new roads and drill dozens of new holes in pursuit of an option everyone knows it worse than the plan we defeated last year. The government and company need to prove, not only to the Tsilhqot’in, but to the public, that this destruction is even necessary for the EA process. In this regard we’ll continue to stand strong and united.”

Chief Alphonse added: “It would clearly be better for everyone – for our Nation, for the mining industry and for governments, for investors – if Taseko Mines were to withdraw this highly confrontational and clearly doomed resubmission and allow us all to focus on more productive ideas and talks.

“First Nations across the country have a reason to be concerned. If this can happen to us, in an area where an Aboriginal Title decision is being awaited, then what can we expect elsewhere?”

Media contact: Chief Marilyn Baptiste 250-267-1401
Chief Joe Alphonse 250-305-8282

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
Fax: 250-398-5798
Email: jlaplante@tsilhqotin.ca
www.tsilhqotin.ca
Toll Free: 1-877-512-2674

http://intercontinentalcry.org/tsilhqotin-rejoice-over-decision-to-block-taseko-mining-exploration/

Williams Lake BC, Fri. Dec. 2, 2011:  The Tsilhqot’in rejoices with the decision by Justice Grauer to grant an injunction to prohibit Taseko Mines Ltd from performing exploration work on Tsilhqot’in traditional lands. This is another victory in the fight to preserve these pristine and sacred lands and waters.

A judicial review will commence scrutinizing the work permits granted to the company by the Province.

“Much good will has been wasted with this attempt to bring this terrible project back from the dead, but some of that might be restored if the Province were to end its efforts to help the company bulldoze more than 20 kilometres of new roads and drill dozens of new holes in pursuit of an option everyone knows it worse than the plan we defeated last year.  The government and company need to prove, not only to the Tsilhqot’in, but to the public, that this destruction is even necessary for the EA process.  In this regard we’ll continue to stand strong and united.”

Chief Alphonse added: “It would clearly be better for everyone – for our Nation, for the mining industry and for governments, for investors – if Taseko Mines were to withdraw this highly confrontational and clearly doomed resubmission and allow us all to focus on more productive ideas and talks.

“First Nations across the country have a reason to be concerned.  If this can happen to us, in an area where an Aboriginal Title decision is being awaited, then what can we expect elsewhere?”

Media contact:    Chief Marilyn Baptiste 250-267-1401          Chief Joe Alphonse 250-305-8282

Aug 30th, 2011 by salmon guy

Salmon Guy

Figure this one out… (is this not exhausting?… and expensive for taxpayers…?)

.

you heard the one about a pig in lipstick…?

.

The controversial proposed Prosperity Gold project west of Williams Lake in BC is back into the federal Environmental Assessment process.

Last November, the federal government denied approval for this flawed open-pit mining proposal following a “scathing” (Jim Prentice — Conservative Environment Minister’s words) federal Environmental Assessment report. The report concluded that the project as proposed would have “signficiant environmental effects” and therefore should not be approved. The federal government (then a Conservative minority) agreed.

Environment Canada Nov. 2, 2010  press release:

the significant adverse environmental effects of the Prosperity project cannot be justified as it is currently proposed.”

“as it is currently proposed” is the big phrase to pay attention to here…

In short… one of the central concerns of the proposed project was turning Fish Lake (aptly named) into a mining waste and tailings facility. Taseko Mines Ltd. the Vancouver-based mining company swore up and down that without the lake for a tailings facility the project was not economically feasible. They put a $300 million price tag on the lake — as in it would cost an extra $300 million to undertake the project without having access to destroying the lake.

And this made the project economically infeasible.

Despite fierce opposition from First Nations and many others — including the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans for many, many years — Taseko insisted on pushing ahead with the ‘kill-Fish Lake’ option.

_ _ _ _ _

For those not entirely familiar with this project… Taseko Mines Ltd. has been trying to push this proposed open-pit copper and gold mine for many years. A few years ago, in my own conversations with senior staff at the organization, they suggested Taseko had over $90 million invested in bringing this project to development.

Now that it has gone through two environmental assessment process — British Columbia and Canada — those costs are sure to have risen significantly.

Taseko Mines lobbied British Columbia and Canada to ensure that they were not subjected to a Joint Review Panel. The purpose of a Joint Review process is to harmonize the process and save the costs of having to do two separate Environmental Assessments.

Now why would a company not want a harmonized process? Why enter two separate processes with the added cost?

That appears to be clear when through a fast-tracked British Columbia Environmental Assessment (EA) the proposed project was approved.

This despite several important studies still not being completed. And the fact that the BC EA process still suggested that the project would have significant environmental impacts…

‘But these would be outweighed by the apparent economic benefits.’

_ _ _ _ _

Curious, that, as it is called an: “environmental” assessment”…

However, the BC EA website does suggest that the Office and process considers:

… thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects that may occur during the lifecycle of these projects

_ _ _ _ _

Yet, if one reviews the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) website there is a much more comprehensive discussion of the benefits of “sustainable development” and there are lengthy reports describing what this means and how Canada will uphold its international commitments on this front.

To provide Canadians with high-quality federal environmental assessments that contribute to informed decision making in support of sustainable development.

The classic internationally-recognized definition of sustainable development being upheld here: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In the mid-1990s, every Canadian federal government ministry was bound by this definition and provided strategies, actions plans, and other bureaucratic drivel to meet this definition. (you know… benchmarks, accountability measures, best practices, etc.)

And so what option was the federal government left with last November when the “scathing” federal EA assessment report was tabled and not only laid out the ‘significant environmental impacts’ of killing Fish Lake and turning it into a tailings pond for mining waste but also more, as outlined in their final report:

The Panel concludes that the [Prosperity] Project would result in significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, on navigation, on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations and on cultural heritage, and on certain potential or established Aboriginal rights or title.

The Panel also concludes that the Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a significant adverse cumulative effect on grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin region and on fish and fish habitat.

Yeah, that does seem a bit scathing… and straight forward.

Sorry folks, Rejected. (with rubber stamp)

_ _ _ _ _ _

Now through the federal EA process many questions were asked about alternative proposals for the project. Against Taseko’s desires, they did start to rumble about other options, as opposed to killing Fish Lake — especially as commodity prices such as gold and copper started to recover from the global recession.

However, some of those options may very well have bigger impacts then the initial proposal.

And now, folks, we have “New Prosperity“.

Taseko Mines has created a fancy new PR website touting all the economic advantages of their “New” project. One can also read the “new” project summary, which includes:

…While the New Prosperity proposal does result in the loss of the 6 hectare Little Fish Lake, Little Fish Lake provides only low overwintering values (i.e., it is subject to winterkill)…

Hmmm.

I’m guessing there’s no connection between Little Fish Lake and Fish Lake…?

And, yup, i’m sure that Little fish “provides only low wintering values”…

I’m attaching a couple of images that most folks learn in elementary school:

example food web in a lake

example of mountain lake food chain

And here’s another:

Fascinating stuff, that ecology thing…

_ _ _ _ _ _

Now, I’m sure there’s no connection between the incredible run on commodity prices such as Gold and Copper over this past year? Gold now sits at record prices, copper not far off.

And somehow Taseko’s “long-term” forecasts for these metals looks so much better now, then they did two years ago.

How does that happen?

How does the “forecast” change that dramatically?

Oh wait, because its based a helluva lot more on current prices then it has anything to do with what computer models pump out. Because really, we know that economic forecasting is less accurate than weather forecasting, and even less accurate then things like modelling natural ecosystems (e.g. wild salmon returns).

So let ask the experts this… what happens when a project such as this ramps into development and commodity prices crash?

Then no lake (even Little Fish Lake), and ‘no economic benefits’.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Now, it is important to notice that the federal government (aka Conservatives) left the door wide open for Taseko to return to the consultants… er… drawing table to draft up more reports and more plans to revise their development plans…

However, even the alternatives discussed through the previous EA process will most likely still have significant environmental impacts. The new proposal (e.g. “New Prosperity”) reminds me of the old saying of putting lipstick on a pig…

And this apparent “New Prosperity” is largely based on commodity bubble prices that won’t last in a very, very fragile world economy — and still doesn’t change the fact that the ‘new prosperity’ represented in the project still poses significant adverse environmental impacts and effects.

It may be a “new” prosperity — but that’s still to the same people as before, not the local First Nations and others that still oppose the project in its “new” form.

And it’s still the “old” environmental impacts, and still the “old” economy vs. environment debate.

And most of all… it still makes a mockery of an Environmental Assessment process in BC that is still simply a BC Liberal-government kangaroo court, rubber stamping facility.

http://www.salmonguy.org/?p=4343