site created by noosworx.com
Licence Links
Submit
Licence Links
Submit
Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) Newswire
Licence Links
Submit
Posts tagged Wilderness Committee
How should we slap back at SLAPPs?
West Coast Environmental Law - April 11, 2012
We were alarmed to hear that Taseko Mines Ltd., the company that wants to develop the controversial Prosperity Mine, is suing the Wilderness Committee and one of its employees. This is a disturbing reminder that the law is sometimes stacked against individuals and groups concerned about the protection of the environment, and that big business can wield a big legal stick.
This development comes hot on the heels of another David vs. Goliath lawsuit. The trial of anti-fish farm activist, Dan Staniford, sued by Mainstream Canada for allegedly defamatory statements against Norwegian-owned fish farming companies, has only just wrapped up (no decision from the court as yet). West Coast Environmental Law provided Mr. Staniford with EDRF Grants totaling about $25,000 towards the cost of his defense.
West Coast Environmental Law has long been concerned about lawsuits by large corporations to silence their critics. Our Anti-SLAPP Handbook explains why:
SLAPPs [or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation] are often threatened or filed with the intent of silencing participation and stifling public debate. SLAPPs function by harassing and intimidating individuals, in essence creating a “chill” in public participation. Defending a SLAPP involves a substantial drain of resources (namely money, energy and time) even if victory on the legal front is assured. The end result is that the suit may not be successful in court, but it has served to delay, silence and harass protestors. Whole communities can often become silenced out of fear of being dragged into a lawsuit.
Since some definitions of SLAPPs suggest that they have no legal merit, let me clarify that I am expressing no view on the legal merits of either Taseko’s (vs Wilderness Committee) or Mainstream’s (vs Staniford) defamation claims. But I do believe that these defamation suits have many of the characteristics of SLAPP suits, including that they are being brought primarily to silence criticism of the company, and only secondarily, if at all, because of any reputational damage.
Defamation law – the right to sue for harm to one’s reputation –as it is currently understood, creates an uneven playing field in relation to public policy, and is particularly effective at silencing critics.
A company can say anything it likes about its mines, pipelines or fish farms, whether it is true or not (for instance, they can say that there is no harm being done to the environment), as long as it furthers the interests of their shareholders. Any untruths that they utter about their projects don’t negatively affect any individual’s reputation; but concerned citizens who dare to criticize the very same projects need to be careful (for instance, saying that a project is causing harm to the environment) – because mistakes or untruths about the project could be taken to harm the reputation of the company, and give rise to a defamation claim.
In addition, defamation is a technical and complicated area of the law, and lawyers who practice in this specialized area are very expensive – giving a big advantage to well-moneyed parties.
Different responses to SLAPPs
In the 1990s West Coast was a strong advocate of Anti-SLAPP legislation, and were delighted to see such legislation enacted in 2001, only to be repealed by a new provincial government later that same year. We much more recently called for similar legislation which would protect the public from the chilling effect of litigation.
But David Sutherland, Don Staniford’s lawyer and a very experienced defamation lawyer, thinks anti-SLAPP legislation is needlessly complicated, and that a single amendment could shut down many SLAPPs before they start. On learning of the Wilderness Committee case, he wrote to us:
I am thinking that a concerted effort is now needed toward a legislative amendment to the Libel and Slander Act as follows:Effective March 2nd 2012 in respect of all publications after that date, Corporations, Societies, trade unions, charities and all other persons that are not natural human beings be and hereby are deprived of recourse to the causes of action in libel or slander and can sue for damage to reputation in the tort of injurious falsehood only.Don’t think that Anti-Slapp legislation works as well as foregoing.
While an Anti-SLAPP law would give courts increased powers to determine whether a lawsuit is a SLAPP and to dismiss such lawsuits, David argues that the government should simply take away the power of corporations to sue critics in defamation. In essence this view says that while real people have a right to have their reputation protected, corporate entities – whether corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. – should not.
BC’s Courts have already restricted the right of municipal corporations to sue to defend their reputation, starting with the 2009 case of BC Civil Liberties Association v. the City of Powell River. The BCCLA and its President, who is a resident of Powell River, took the unusual step of suing the City after it threatened to sue critics of the City’s plans to borrow funds to pay for the expansion of a local marina. The BCCLA argued (on constitutional grounds which would not apply to a private corporation) that a municipal corporation cannot sue to defend its reputation. Madame Justice Garson of the BC Supreme Court agreed:
It is antithetical to the notion of freedom of speech and a citizen’s rights to criticize his or her government concerning its governing functions, that such criticism should be chilled by the threat of a suit in defamation.
This decision has since resulted in the settlement of another SLAPP-like suit brought by the Union Bay Improvement District against a critic of the District’s handling of a local development and blogger, Mary Reynolds.
David’s suggestion that corporations should not be allowed to sue in defamation is actually very similar to changes to Australia’s defamation laws, enacted in 2006, that prevented corporations with more than 10 employees from suing in defamation. Such a ban would shut lawsuits based on defamation before they were even launched, and might be an effective tool in protecting public debate.
The limits of limiting defamation claims
Although David’s proposal is interesting, it may not remove the need for Anti-SLAPP legislation because many SLAPPs have in fact been brought by developers or municipal councilors as individuals, and not just through their respective corporations. While David’s proposal would probably address suits by very large corporations, like Taseko or Mainstream Canada, where individual reputations are often not directly involved, we could still see some fairly unbalanced lawsuits.
In addition, there are SLAPP suits that do not allege defamation, relying instead on other legal claims such as conspiracy or interference with contractual relations. Presumably if David’s amendment to the Libel and Slander Act were passed, some corporations would still find ways to sue: indeed, a review of the changes to Australia’s defamation laws in 2011 found that although the changes had protected public speech, the convoluted legal claims which large corporations ended up bringing instead was an unanticipated consequence of the changes.
There are also legitimate questions to be asked about how to strike a balance between the interest of businesses in not having their brand unfairly tarnished, and the freedom of speech of their critics. Indeed in the Anti-SLAPP Handbook we wrote that: “[t]here are good public policy reasons why corporations have legal recourse against people who have no regard for the truth and wish to slander them.”
West Coast has recent first-hand experience with the sting of defamatory statements, in the form of advertisements and statements directed against us by Ethical Oil, Ezra Levant and others alleging that we are somehow inappropriately influenced by grants from our funders. We have no current plans to launch a defamation suit against such deep pocketed defendants (illustrating again the lack of balance on the playing field), and fortunately their attacks have arguably enhanced our reputation among many people, reinforcing to British Columbians that an organization that is closely tied to the oil and gas industry views us as among the most effective of the organisations concerned about the Enbridge pipeline and tanker proposal in northern BC.
But the fact remains that a charity’s reputation is crucial to its ability to raise funds and to achieve its goals. Similarly, we do recognize that a corporation’s brand (which is not quite the same thing as a reputation, perhaps) is extremely important to its ability to find investors, partners and customers.
David’s proposal wouldn’t leave corporations entirely without a claim in response to outrageous statements: they could still bring a legal claim for injurious falsehood. This type of claim is more limited than a claim in defamation, but it does mean that if at some point a member of the public crosses a line and causes actual damage (other than reputational damage) to a Corporation, the Corporation would have recourse.
We’d like to know what you think. Anti-SLAPP legislation might allow courts to deal with a wider range of litigation intended to silent critics, but changing the law of defamation might prevent SLAPPs from getting off the ground in the first place. Should amendments to defamation law be included in a broader Anti-SLAPP statute, or would it be easier to pass as stand-alone amendments? Does David’s proposed amendment strike the right balance between freedom of speech and corporate brand? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
By Andrew Gage, Staff LawyerComments
Wilderness Committee lawyer files defence papers following Taseko civil claim notice
Williams Lake Tribune - March 22, 2012
Help us defend free speech and Fish Lake!
Wilderness Committee - March 22, 2012
I am writing you today because we urgently need your support! On March 1, the Wilderness Committee was served with a Notice of Civil Claim by Taseko Mines Ltd. Taseko claimed that the Wilderness Committee defamed Taseko in our materials opposing Taseko’s proposed open pit copper and gold mine at Fish Lake.
Clearly we don’t agree. In fact, we think that this court action by Taseko Mines Ltd. aims at silencing us from speaking out in the debate over protecting the Fish Lake area from the company’s proposed New Prosperity Mine. We feel that this is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP.
So why are we just letting you know today about this SLAPP? In the last three weeks, we were busy preparing a response to their claim, and today, our lawyer Dan Burnett, filed defence papers with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
What Dan says in our defence: “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.”
In the company’s Notice of Civil Claim, Taseko alleges that we 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 its New Prosperity Mine that call 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 must 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.
But there is more – much more. Taseko’s proposed New Prosperity Mine threatens the region’s grizzly bear population. The mine proposal is an affront to all those who care about human rights, given the strong stand the Tsilhqot’in First Nation has taken against the proposal.
So what are we going to do about Taseko’s court threat? We are going to speak out and write even more about how the proposed New Prosperity Mine must be stopped in order that the Fish Lake area can be protected and handed down to future generations.
We believe that this court threat of Taseko’s eats away at the very foundations of democracy and free speech that our society is based on. We have a duty to stand up to Taseko’s bullying.
Now, more than ever, we need your support. If you can give a donation towards our save Fish Lake campaign at this time I would very much appreciate it!
Together we can save Fish Lake and the surrounding area from Taseko Mines Ltd.
For the wild,
Joe Foy | National Campaign Director
Wilderness Committee
http://wildernesscommittee.org/blog/help_us_defend_free_speech_and_fish_lake
Wilderness Committee defends against Taseko SLAPP over Fish Lake fight
Wilderness Committee - March 22, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012 (All day)
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.
—30—
Contact:
Joe Foy, National Campaign Director, Wilderness Committee: Cell 604-880-2580 or 604-683-8220 (w)
R.A.V.E.N Newsletter
March 21, 2012
Dear RAVEN friends and supporters,
The ongoing effort to preserve Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) continues in many ways - and there have been a few developments to share. One of the latest efforts is to spread word of this issue to a new, international audience. Water is everyone’s right. And the destruction of a pristine ecosystem and watershed plus the trampling of indigenous rights deserve world-wide attention.
TAKING TEZTAN BINY TO THE WORLD:
Xeni Gwet’in Chief Marilyn Baptiste recently returned from Geneva where she presented the Tsilhqot’in report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UN-CERD) 80th Session. The Tsilhqot’in report focused on the fight to protect Teztan Biny and the surrounding environment and the underlying legal situation which ignores First Nations rights and title.
“The Tsilhqot’in are prepared to go to the international level to protect our Nation’s rights and title,” said Chief Joe Alphonse, Chair of the Tsilhqot’in National Government. “In the case of the rebid Prosperity Mine proposal, we feel that we’ve nearly exhausted every possible avenue to resolve this at the local level, though we will continue to take our fight to the new federal Panel review.”
Also this week, RAVEN is sponsoring Blaine Grinder of Tl’etinqox (one of the six communities of the Tsilhqot’in Nation)to attend and present at the World Water Forum 6, in Marseille France. The conference runs March 12-17, 2012. In an effort to educate and reach out to a new audience, Blaine is “looking to support others in their fight for clean water, get the message out there internationally to keep the Canadian Government accountable for their actions, and we are also requesting to have speakers during our environmental panel hearings on our behalf, letters and emails to CEAA as well. Also the new Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent, the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, please email on our behalf to tell them to protect Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and once again make the right decision to reject the new prosperity proposal.”
Blaine has written an initial blog, and will be adding more soon from his experience at the conference.
SETTLEMENT BETWEEN TNG AND TML 
TNG and TML have settled the two court cases (Taseko’s Civil Claim against Chief Marilyn and others, and Chief Marilyn’s Petition challenging the permits) relating to the exploration program. Taseko will commence a reduced scope of work that will be undertaken for the sole purposes of obtaining information required for the Federal environmental assessment of the proposed New Prosperity Project. On this basis, the parties have agreed not to further pursue existing legal actions.
TNG and the Tsilhqot’in remain 100% committed to opposing and defeating the New Prosperity Project.
TNG issued a news release February 29, 2012 to clarify their position. Stating the nation is determined to fight the “new” Prosperity proposal, the band goes on to say, “However, for the sole purpose of providing information to the federal environmental assessment process, the Tsilhqot’in have agreed to allow TML to carry out a significantly reduced exploration program under strict conditions.”
TNG RESPONSE TO TASEKO DEFAMATION LAWSUIT
You may have read that Taseko has launched a defamation suit against the Wilderness Committee over statements the environmental group made about the New Prosperity Mine on their (Wilderness Committee’s) website and Facebook page.
Many eNGOs consider this claim to be a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit. Friends of the Nemaiah recently reported this suit as indicative of an overly aggressive attitude to those who oppose the New Prosperity project, which has been described as the “wrong mine in the wrong place.”
In response, Joe Foy of the Wilderness Committee stated, “We have a responsibility to be reasonable and work within the law, with respect to Taseko Mines, but we also have a responsibility as a B.C. environmental group to stand up for our values and speak truths and we believe this mine should not proceed…..The high environmental risk and long-term environmental risks, and impact on human rights in respect to the Tsilhqot’in Nation, we strongly and proudly oppose this mine and will do so with all our abilities.”
TNG issued a response in a recent press release, suggesting that Taseko considering suing themselves for similar statements made by them in the first round of Panel hearings:
“Perhaps it intends to sue its own Vice President – Brian Battison – who on March 22, 2010, on the opening day of the review hearings, 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.”
“Or might it sue its VP of Engineering, Scott Jones, who told those hearings: “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. You might be able to delay that by moving the tailings facility farther away to Fish Creek South. You may even be able to minimize that, reduce it by mitigation measures that could be applied. But eventually that water quality will change.”
“These statements are on the public record, and while TML might not wish the public to be reminded of them, it seems unfair to sue an NGO for raising criticisms similar to those from the independent panel and the company itself.”
MiningWatch Canada issued this statement: “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…..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.”
FIRST ANNUAL CREATIVELY UNITED FOR THE PLANET FESTIVAL - April 20 - 22 in Victoria, BC
If you are in or near Victoria for Earth Week, please come to this amazing new festival! RAVEN will be participating/benefitting from the gathering of artists who are donating their talents to help the smaller charities who “do the hero work” in our communities. Brainchild of local award-winning photographer Frances Litman, the festival will start with a Friday night dance party. Several artists including Ann Mortifee, Robert Batemen, the Soul Shakers, Paul Horn, and the Gettin’ Higher Choir will donate their time to raise awareness of the many issues represented by the charities. Funds raised will go to Sierra Club of BC, Western Wilderness Committee, Dogwood Initiative, Ancient Forest Alliance, the Garry Oak Ecosystems Recovery Team, BC Land Conservancy, Wild Arc, RAVEN, Oases Conservation Society, Peace Valley Environment Association, Child and Nature Alliance, Habitat for Humanity Victoria, and YES B.C.
RAVEN will have a booth at the event, and our directors and volunteers will be taking turns so please drop by to visit. This is a great chance for us and all the other worthy groups to “Be seen and be significant!” Many events are free, and tickets are on sale now for those events that have a cost. You can find out more at the festival website.
PREPARING FOR THE UPCOMING FEDERAL REVIEW HEARINGS
The final terms of reference for the CEAA panel are yet to be released. However, preliminary quotes have been obtained by some of the scienctific analysts who will be called to work on this. Please consider donating to cover some of these crucial (and costly) reports. Without them, the Tsilhqot’in will not be able to present the best evidence at the hearing.
Thank you to all those who have recently contributed! 100% of your donations will go toward the costs incurred by the band.
With warm wishes,
Susan Smitten, Executive Director
Susan Smitten, Executive Director
RAVEN (Respecting Aboriginal Values &Environmental Needs)
2nd floor, 844 Courtney Street
Victoria, BC V8W 1C4
t. 250.383.2331
f. 250.380.6560
www.raventrust.com
Twitter: @RAVENtrust
http://sms.vsip.ca/mailings/74/76f69853cf12bf5ec1d9e90cccce3cd4/4f5fa8ef295e6/
Chief Marilyn Baptiste @ UVIC Victoria on March 7, 2012 and Taseko Updates
Friends of Nemaiah Valley - March 7, 2012
Hello All Friends of “Friends of the Nemaiah Valley”;
1. Public Event: On Wednesday March 7, 2012, 3:30pm – 4:30 in Room 158 of the Fraser Bldg. at UVic, Chief Marilyn Baptiste of the Xeni Gwet’in FNG will be giving a presentation on Fish Lake/Teztan Biny, sponsored by the UVic Environmental Law Clinic.
Chief Marilyn has recently returned from Geneva where she presented the Tsilhqot’in report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 80th Session. The Tsilhqot’in report focused on the fight to protect Teztan Biny and the surrounding environment and the underlying legal situation which ignores First Nations rights and title.
“The Tsilhqot’in are prepared to go to the international level to protect our Nation’s rights and title,” said Chief Joe Alphonse, Chair of the Tsilhqot’in National Government. “In the case of the rebid Prosperity Mine proposal, we feel that we’ve nearly exhausted every possible avenue to resolve this at the local level, though we will continue to take our fight to the new federal Panel review.”
The full report of the Tsilhqot’in Report to the UN can be read HERE.
Fish Lake lies between the open pit and the tailings pond - An overview of what the proposed mine site will look like during operation. (TML)
2. The Injunction. Following a number of meetings between representatives of the Tsilhqot’in National Government, Taseko Mines and the province of B.C., the TNG has allowed Taseko to do work that is directly required for the proposed “New Prosperity” Mine. (In December, 2011, the B.C. court had found in favour of the TNG and imposed a 90 day injunction against Taseko Mines.)
The terms of the agreement reached are confidential. Taseko will commence a reduced scope of work that will be undertaken for the sole purposes of obtaining information required for the Federal environmental assessment of the proposed New Prosperity Project. On this basis, the parties have agreed not to further pursue existing legal actions.
TNG and the Tsilhqot’in people remain 100% opposed to this mine.
3. Taseko has launched a defamation suite against the Wilderness Committee over statements the environmental group made about the New Prosperity Mine on their (Wilderness Committee’s) website and Facebook page.
FONV considers this claim to be a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, indicative of an overly aggressive attitude to those who oppose the New Prosperity project, the “wrong mine in the wrong place”.
In response, Joe Foy of the Wilderness Committee stated, “We have a responsibility to be reasonable and work within the law, with respect to Taseko Mines, but we also have a responsibility as a B.C. environmental group to stand up for our values and speak truths and we believe this mine should not proceed…..The high environmental risk and long-term environmental risks, and impact on human rights in respect to the Tsilhqot’in Nation, we strongly and proudly oppose this mine and will do so with all our abilities.”
TNG issued a News Release suggesting that Taseko considering suing themselves for similar statements made by them in the first round of Panel hearings:
“Perhaps it intends to sue its own Vice President – Brian Battison – who on March 22, 2010, on the opening day of the review hearings, 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.”
“Or might it sue its VP of Engineering, Scott Jones, who told those hearings: “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. You might be able to delay that by moving the tailings facility farther away to Fish Creek South. You may even be able to minimize that, reduce it by mitigation measures that could be applied. But eventually that water quality will change.”
“These statements are on the public record, and while TML might not wish the public to be reminded of them, it seems unfair to sue an NGO for raising criticisms similar to those from the independent panel and the company itself.”
In the words of Ramsey Hart, MiningWatch Canada: “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…..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.”
4. Fish Lake/Teztan Biny goes international: Along with Chief Marilyn Baptiste’s trip to the UN, Blaine Grinder of Tl’etinqox (one of the six communities of the Tsilhqot’in Nation) will be going to the Marseille France World Water Forum 6, March 12-17, 2012. Blaine is “looking to support others in their fight for clean water, get the message out there internationally to keep the Canadian Government accountable for their actions, and we are also requesting to have speakers during our environmental panel hearings on our behalf, letters and emails to CEAA as well. Also the new Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent, the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, please email on our behalf to tell them to protect Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and once again make the right decision to reject the new prosperity proposal.”.
To read more about Blaine, see his post HERE.
5. The FONV website is now in the process of being updated with both background and new material. Most of the information in this newsletter is now available online at www.fonv.ca. You may need to refresh your browser when you open the site to see the “new look”. Articles, research and links to media reports will be added on a weekly basis. New research has been added in the past week.
Also, we now have the ability to accept MONTHLY DONATIONS online. This is one of the most effective means of funding our work. Click HERE to see how.
Thanks for your continuing interest and support.
http://sms.vsip.ca/mailings/68/79044786de15d23a57a8bcff20a34136/4f56c0fd4eb83/
Taseko Mines threatens court action, putting a damper on public debate
Wilderness Committee - March 2, 2012
Taseko Mines filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Wilderness Committee yesterday afternoon for what the mining company says is a series of false and defamatory statements concerning Taseko and its proposed gold-copper mine at Little Fish Lake and Fish Lake in the heart of Tsilhqot’in Nation territory.
“We are very disappointed that this mining company has chosen litigation instead of fair and open public debate,” said Joe Foy, National Campaign Director for the Wilderness Committee. “We believe this court action stifles fair comment about Taseko’s environmentally risky mine proposal. People should be able to enjoy full participation in the Federal Environmental Review process, including the right to comment – without fear of time-consuming and costly litigation.”
Foy declared that the Wilderness Committee would continue to vigorously speak out about the severe risks of Taseko’s proposed mine and encouraged people to check out the Wilderness Committee’s website.
“This ill-conceived mine proposal should be turned down once and for all. That’s our view and we’re standing by it,” said Foy.
—30—
Contact:
For more information please contact: Joe Foy (604) 880-2580
Taseko Mines threatens court action, putting a damper on public debate
Wilderness Committee - March 2, 2012
Taseko Mines filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Wilderness Committee yesterday afternoon for what the mining company says is a series of false and defamatory statements concerning Taseko and its proposed gold-copper mine at Little Fish Lake and Fish Lake in the heart of Tsilhqot’in Nation territory.
“We are very disappointed that this mining company has chosen litigation instead of fair and open public debate,” said Joe Foy, National Campaign Director for the Wilderness Committee. “We believe this court action stifles fair comment about Taseko’s environmentally risky mine proposal. People should be able to enjoy full participation in the Federal Environmental Review process, including the right to comment – without fear of time-consuming and costly litigation.”
Foy declared that the Wilderness Committee would continue to vigorously speak out about the severe risks of Taseko’s proposed mine and encouraged people to check out the Wilderness Committee’s website.
“This ill-conceived mine proposal should be turned down once and for all. That’s our view and we’re standing by it,” said Foy.
—30—
Contact:
For more information please contact: Joe Foy (604) 880-2580
Save Fish Lake (again!)
Wilderness Committee - January 26, 2012
On Monday, the federal government announced that they were accepting public comments for an Environmental Assessment for Taseko Mines Ltd’s New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine project. If that sounds familiar to you it is because just over a year ago Taseko’s first Prosperity Mine proposal was turned down by the same government process.
Taseko’s original proposal was to use Fish Lake as their tailings pond, where they would store toxic waste rock produced by mining operations. During the first assessment, the company was told they needed to find an alternative to this, because it would destroy Fish Lake. Taseko’s engineers offered Little Fish Lake as an alternate site for the tailings pond. However, eventually the toxins from the Little Fish Lake site would make their way downstream to Fish Lake. In fact, the review panel concluded that this “would result in greater long-term environmental risk.”
Despite this history, the new mine plan that Taseko is seeking approval for proposes turning Little Fish Lake in to a toxic tailings pond.
If you are confused as to why the company would return with a proposal that has already been deemed worse than the one that was just rejected, you are not alone. In fact the whole idea of turning a lake, especially a lake called Fish Lake, in to a dump site for toxic tailings probably seems like a crazy idea.
It’s not just that this proposal has already been rejected once; or that it will threaten tens of thousands of fish and pollute the headwaters of a river network that supports the world’s largest run of wild salmon; or that the locally blue-listed population of grizzly bears would be threatened by this project; or even that the Tsilhqot’in Nation, the area’s First Nations people, are strongly opposed to the project. The craziest thing about this project is that – if people like you and I don’t take this opportunity to speak up – there is a good chance that this mine will get built.
Together, we can save Fish Lake. Again.
Sven Biggs | Outreach Director
Wilderness Committee
New Prosperity Mine review meets opposition
Williams Lake Tribune - November 10, 2011
The decision to review a revised Prosperity Mine project is a first for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Although the agency has never received a revised project, Annie Roy, communications manager for CEAA, said the Prosperity proposal is considered a new project because it is “another option.”
However, Tsilqot’in National Government tribal chair Chief Joe Alphonse has taken no pleasure in any distinction.
Alphonse called the CEAA’s decision to proceed with a panel review - as it did with the previous proposal - “mindboggling.”
He noted it was within Taseko’s rights to reapply, but said the government’s acceptance of the proposal for review is not something a “credible government” would do.
Alphonse said there should not be a panel review but that First Nations will participate in the process.
“As distasteful as that is for us that’s one of the only options we are subject to,” he said.
“I think there’s a lot of frustration within our communities right now. We have to continue to do what’s best for our nation and that’s protect our interests.”
In a prepared release, Russell Hallbauer, Taseko president and CEO, said of the decision, “While we need to develop a better understanding of the specifics of the panel review, the timeline evidences a significant commitment by CEAA to work effectively with us in this process.
“It is our sincere desire that New Prosperity moves through the panel review process in this time frame and that the benefits of the project begin to be realized by the country, the province, the local communities and aboriginals in the coming years.”
In an interview conducted earlier this month, a Taseko representative indicated there was an expectation the CEAA would proceed with a comprehensive study.
Roy said a review panel was chosen by the federal Minister of Environment on the basis that the project could create “significant environmental effects.”
The timeline for the review is 12 months. The release issued by the CEAA indicated the review would utilize information obtained during the previous environmental assessment “to the extent possible to ensure a timely decision.
Roy said the federal and provincial assessment processes will occur separately.
B.C.’s Environment Minister Terry Lake said Taseko is applying for an amendment to its current environment certificate that was issued by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment office last year.
Lake said although the provincial and federal assessment processes are separate he wanted to ensure some coordination.
He added it would be helpful if the two processes finish their work at the same time. Under the provincial environmental assessment model, Lake explained it is common for projects that submitted changes after receiving an environmental certificate to proceed with an amendment.
“They have an EA so as far as the provincial decision making was concerned they had that process. Now they have to apply for an amendment to it to reflect the differences between the certificate that was issued and the proposed plan.”
Lake said a decision regarding the provincial environmental assessment will be made by himself or the executive director of the B.C. Environmental Assessment office.
To date, the First Nations Summit, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Committee have come out in opposition of the review.
Simplified anti-slapp