Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Newswire

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

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.

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

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

Williams Lake Tribune - May 7, 2012

Editor:

An open letter to Minister of the Environment Peter Kent, re: Taseko Mines Ltd.’s request to prohibit First Nations drumming at environmental hearings.

As a resident of Williams Lake and a Canadian I am deeply concerned about Taseko’s request to prohibit First Nations drumming at the federal environmental review on the New Prosperity mine.

While in Victoria recently I attended a Truth and Reconciliation session.

It was a powerful gathering as First Nations people told their stories.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is working at rebuilding the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

We know, from their own stories, that First Nations children sent to residential schools were punished for speaking their language.

We also know that important cultural traditions such as Potlatch were forbidden by the governments of the day.

Given the work being done now to repair the damage inflicted by governments and churches in earlier decades we cannot support Taseko’s request.

If First Nations people are not permitted to express their feelings and beliefs in their own traditional ways we are condemning them once more to an oppressive environment in which they are, once more, considered as second-class citizens.

I urge you to reject Taseko Mines Ltd.’s request and allow the environmental review process to unfold with all Canadians able to express their concerns in culturally appropriate ways.

Charlie Wyse

Williams Lake

Williams Lake Tribune - May 2, 2012

Letter to minister from company ‘disrespectful,’ says the TNG, but Taseko says it just wants a fair review process.

Concerns about First Nations participation in the upcoming New Prosperity Mine Project federal environmental assessment, voiced in a letter by Taseko Mines Ltd., contains descriptions that are ignorant and disrespectful, says Xeni Gwet’in (Nemiah Valley) Chief Marilyn Baptiste.

Written by president and CEO Russell Hallbauer to Environment Minister Peter Kent, the Nov. 23 letter raises complaints about the previous panel hearings for the original Prosperity Mine project proposal.

First Nations drumming and singing, school children presenting a play involving “dying fish,” or the showing of a “sensational” video about saving Fish Lake, don’t belong in an environmental review process, Hallbauer writes.

He also protests that issues of spirituality were raised in the panel’s final report, and suggests if the company believes the panel for the new review is biased, it may pursue court action.

Baptiste says if spirituality is not taken into account, then government and industry are still stuck in the 1800s.

She says that drumming and prayers are always done at meetings, gatherings, general assemblies, and elders meetings, so why should the panel hearings be any different?

“Will they go back to outlawing our drumming and our ceremonies?” she asks.

Taseko’s letter surfaced this week, after a freedom of information request was made by the Tsilhqot’in National Government’s lawyer.

While she is disappointed with the letter, Baptiste adds it’s unfortunate because the TNG has asked the government’s agencies to advise them every time they hear from Taseko.

“I’m sure they are advising the company about every time we talk to them. Why aren’t they doing the same for us?” Baptiste says, alleging that some of the changes that have been made to the environmental assessment guidelines have been made in favour of the company.

Kent says he responded to Taseko’s letter, writing that he would forward the company’s letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

He says, however, that he has not given CEAA any instructions to proceed with the changes requested by the proponent.

He also says he has “not instructed CEAA to amend the criteria used in the first panel review.”

Responding to the negative feedback the letter is receiving now that it’s been made public, Taseko’s vice president of corporate affairs Brian Battison says he wonders if people understand the intent of the letter and what the company was trying to accomplish by writing it.

“We want the environmental review process to be fair and balanced, and we want it to be consistent with the law and the requirements of the law. An environmental process has a very specific purpose, described in law, and an assessment of spirituality is not part of that legal requirement.”

Spirituality is a subject that should be discussed and considered by government as part of the Crown’s obligation and duty to consult First Nations. That is where those discussions should take place, Battison suggests.

Taseko isn’t against drumming, praying or discussing spirituality, he adds, but insists those activities don’t belong in the assessment process.

“An environmental assessment doesn’t consider the socio-economic factors, but a decision made by cabinet or the minister can take into consideration other information, besides that gathered during the assessment. I think people think the assessment is the decision-making process, but it is not exclusively. It’s only a component of the decision making process.”

Battison says there’s a limited role for spiritual considerations; however, he says those considerations are not about the spirituality of a place, but rather where a place has cultural heritage significance for various things.

“If a place is described as having cultural heritage significance it may be because it may include spiritual use, but the significance of it is as it relates to cultural heritage. That may be where archeology or signs of habitation have been discovered.”

By saving Fish Lake, with its new mine design and mitigation measures, Taseko is considering the cultural heritage significance of the area, he says.

In the letter, Hallbauer also makes a request that all of the panel members should be seen to be unbiased in respect to all matters before the panel.

“The act says that panel members shall have no bias so we expect that to be the case. That’s a reasonable expectation under the law,” Battison says.

Leaders from the TNG, meanwhile, are hoping members of the previous panel are going to participate in the New Prosperity review because it would give continuity to the process.

“We have been pressing and advising government that they have to have the same panel if they want to only review the changes to this alternative proposal. If it’s not the same panel, it should be at least one or two members to be a sufficient review,” Baptiste says.

Independent MLA Bob Simpson says he’s met with Battison a number of times asking if Taseko can find a different way to relate to the Tsilhqot’in, so he’s surprised that the company wrote the letter, knowing it would be eventually be made public.

“There’s a lack of inherent logical integrity in the letter about spirituality, culture and heritage. If you look at the New Prosperity project overview under the Fish Lake part, where Taseko mentions that the Tsilhqot’in ascribe a strong spiritual relationship with the island on Fish Lake, then why would they ask that spirituality be removed from the environmental assessment process?” Simpson asks.

The First Nations relationship to the land, whether non-First Nations understand it or buy it or not, doesn’t matter, because all of the First Nations cultural heritage and traditional uses are all infused with spirituality, he says.

“That’s why that becomes a critical component and to try and negate that under threat of legal challenge is where I struggle because what they’re signalling is if they get a “no” again, they’re going to challenge it in court,” Simpson says.

http://www.wltribune.com/news/149931185.html