The coming mining boom in BC’s northwest has critics wondering if
current clean-up and enforcement plans are enough. Special report with
photo essay – from the Tyee’s Christopher Pollon – May 23, 1011.
CoalWatch Comox Valley Society
PO Box 157
Union Bay, BC V0R 3B0
250-335-2246
www.coalwatch.ca
May 17, 2011
The Honourable Terry Lake
Minister of Environment
Province of British Columbia
Parliament Buildings
PO Box 9047
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
Dear Honourable Minister:
I was forwarded the written transcripts of your responses to MLA Scott Fraser’s questions yesterday in the afternoon sitting of the Legislative Assembly. Specifically regarding the current environmental assessment of the proposed Raven Underground Coal Mine Project. Since CoalWatch Comox Valley was mentioned in your response as having been consulted as part of a CEAA/EAO workshop on March 13, 2011, I would like to clarify CoalWatch’s position on the comprehensive review environmental assessment currently being conducted.
On August 17, 2010 the Environmental Law Centre at UVIC , on our behalf, sent a written request to federal Minister of Environment Jim Prentice and provincial Minister of Environment Barry Penner, to refer the environmental assessment of the proposed Raven Underground Coal Mine Project to a joint federal/provincial independent expert Review Panel for full public hearings. Written responses from both Minister Prentice and Minister Penner rejected our request. On January 18, 2011 in a meeting with provincial Minister Murray Coell, Coalwatch reiterated our request for an independent review panel with public hearings. Those in attendance at that meeting included myself, Campbell Connor from CoalWatch, Roberta Stevenson representing the BC Shellfish Growers Association, Minister Coell and several of his staff members. A letter was sent to Minister Coell on January 19, 2010 asking for his written support for an independent review panel with public hearings. The written response from Minister Coell rejected our request and stated that he was satisfied with the comprehensive EA of the proposed Raven Project.
CoalWatch believes that an independent review panel would be more rigorous, more transparent, and be more likely to result in findings of environmental impacts. An independent review panel would also include PUBLIC HEARINGS rather public meetings which are currently scheduled under the comprehensive review. We believe that a review panel is clearly in the public interest based on compelling evidence of:
the potential significant adverse environmental effects of this project: and
the deep and widespread public concerns associated with this project.
CoalWatch, with the support of numerous local governments, community organizations, individuals, and environmental groups representing thousands of British Columbians, will continue to advocate for a more rigorous environmental assessment of the Raven Project. Any implication that by participating in workshops conducted by the CEAA/EAO, CoalWatch now endorses or supports the current comprehensive environmental assessment of the Raven Project would be at best, misleading. CoalWatch does not support the current comprehensive review EA of the Raven Project, and will continue to call for a more rigorous and transparent environmental assessment, the citizens of Vancouver Island and British Columbia deserve nothing less.
I would be glad to meet with you and your staff to discuss the issues around the Raven Coal Mine Project. Please contact me personally if you have questions.
Sincerely,
John Snyder
President, CoalWatch Comox Valley Society
Sent via email and hard copy
Cc to Minister Don McRae and MLA Scott Fraser
On May 10, 2011, the CEAA/EAO (federal and provincial environmental authorities) announced that the 40 day public comment period on the draft AIR/EIS Guidelines document for the proposed Raven Underground Coal Mine Project would commence on May 18, 2011 and end on June 27, 2011. Over the past 17 months, CoalWatch has been identifying and researching issues regarding the proposed Raven Coal Mine Project – located near the community of Fanny Bay on Vancouver Island – and taking part in public town hall meetings across Vancouver Island and Vancouver. The overwhelming consensus in all of these town hall meetings was widespread public concern over this proposed coal mine project, and there was ample evidence of potential adverse environmental impacts from the proposed project.
The proposed Raven Coal Mine Project would include a mine site situated just 5 km from the shoreline of Baynes Sound, home of a world famous shellfish industry. The coal mined from the 3,100 hectare underground mine, would be processed at the mine site, and then trucked by double trailer B-train trucks 80 km to Port Alberni. The proponent, Compliance Energy Corporation(CEC), plans to build a coal storage and loading facility in Port Alberni, and ship the coal product by Panamax freight ships to buyers in the Pacific Rim and Asia.
The proposed Raven Project is currently going through a “harmonized” comprehensive environmental assessment review. CoalWatch, along with numerous local governments and thousands of people across British Columbia, have asked for a more rigorous environmental assessment, a so called independent expert review panel with public hearings. This independent review panel would be at arm’s length from the government, be more transparent, and more likely to result in findings of environmental impacts.
The potential negative environmental impacts from this coal mine project are many. They include impacts to the aquifers in the areas impacted by the coal mine, contaminants flowing into Baynes Sound from the mine operation, transportation issues with trucking the coal to Port Alberni, and the numerous coal port issues for the residents in Port Alberni. Unfortunately, the requests for a referral of the environmental assessment to an independent review panel with public hearings, have been turned down by both federal and provincial Ministers of Environment.
Now that we’re into the next public comment phase of the environmental assessment of the Raven Coal Mine Project, what can you do to help? Inform yourself on the project. The three new documents just released are on the CoalWatch website: www.coalwatch.ca
These documents, the draft AIR document, the Working Group Tracking Table, and the Updated Project Description contain over 550 pages of new material, which would give anyone a headache trying to understand. CoalWatch will be identifying issues with the new draft AIR document and have suggestions and guides for commenting on our website in the next few days.
By far one of the most important ways in which you can help, is to attend the public meetings scheduled in Courtenay, Port Alberni and Union Bay. The format of the public meetings include a display information portion from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and then a break until 6 p.m. The most important portion of the meeting begins at 6 p.m. with presentations by the CEAA/EAO and the proponent (CEC) until 7 p.m. when the formal public question and answer session begins. So, bring your signs and questions or comments, and tell the CEAA/EAO and Compliance Energy what you think of this coal mine project.
Rafe Mair once said, “The current environmental assessment process provides for public consultation, but lacks the most important thing, a PROVISION FOR PUBLIC CONSENT.” He’s absolutely right. Vancouver Island is now faced with a proposal for a coal mine which will be situated only 5 km from a world famous shellfish industry. Compliance Energy has already identified other coal deposits in their 29,000 hectare coal tenure in the Comox Valley for future development. If the Raven Project is given approval, are the residents of the Comox Valley faced with more coal mine developments turning the Comox Valley into a Mini-Appalachia? If it can happen here in Fanny Bay, it can happen anywhere in British Columbia.
Now’s the time to SAY NO TO RAVEN COAL.
John Snyder is the president of Comox Valley CoalWatch – he lives in beautiful Fanny Bay, BC
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE:
Monday May 30, 2011 – Florence Filberg Centre, 411 Anderton Ave, Courtenay, BC
Thursday, June 2, 2011 – Port Alberni Athletic Hall, 3727 Roger St. , Port Alberni, BC
Friday, June 3, 2011 – Union Bay Community Club, 5401 South Island Highway, Union Bay, BC
From the Vancouver Sun – May 9, 2011
by Gordon Hamilton
VANCOUVER – Two B.C. first nations say they’ll join forces to fight a
major power line slated to run through their lands and are warning of
blockades unless BC Hydro changes its negotiating stance.
The move
by the Gitanyow and Lax Kw’alaams first nations comes after the
$404-million Northwest Transmission power line received environmental
approval from the federal government Friday, putting it one step closer
to construction.
They vowed they will not accept Hydro’s one-time cash offer, referring to it as “beads” in exchange for land.
The 344-kilometre line heading north from Terrace is expected to open
up the province’s northwest to mineral exploration and mining, creating
new wealth in the region.
Its route passes through the
territories of at least seven first nations. Four have yet to sign
impact benefit agreements with Hydro.
About one-third of the line
would go through territory belonging to the Gitanyow and Lax Kw’alaams,
who say Hydro has been inflexible in negotiations about their
participation and compensation.
“Based on what we have been
offered and the frustration we are feeling, we have withdrawn from the
process,” Lax Kw’alaams councillor Bob Moraes said Sunday. “We have
talked with the Gitanyow and they are prepared to join forces with us.
“We
are prepared to show BC Hydro that we are now negotiating as a
coalition and we are looking at forming a larger coalition with other
bands that have not negotiated an agreement yet.”
He said the first nation has told Hydro it will never accept ‘beads” from Hydro in exchange for rights to work on the land.
The
287-kilovolt line is to run from an existing substation at Skeena near
Terrace north to a new substation at Bob Quinn Lake near the Iskut
River.
BC Hydro describes the line as a major extension of
the provincial power grid, supplying electricity to support industrial
developments in the area, providing secure interconnection points for
clean generation projects, and enabling communities now relying on
diesel generation to connect to the grid.
It has won the support
of various industry groups, including the mining sector, which describe
it as the start of a new era for mineral exploration and development of
the area.
Glen Williams, chief negotiator for the Gitanyow first
nation, said in an interview Sunday that the first nation was close to
signing until Hydro signed a deal with the neighbouring Nisga’a that
includes lands disputed between the two first nations. The Nisga’a deal
provides Hydro with a less-costly route, he said.
“They gave our
neighbours, the Nisga’a over 60 kilometres of direct award [contracts
for clearing and road-building] smack in the middle of Gitanyow
territory,” Williams said. “It’s a huge problem for Gitanyow.”
He accused Hydro of resurrecting a territorial dispute between the two first nations.
“People
are quite angry and bitter that BC Hydro used the Gitanyow as a
bargaining chip to get as preferred route through Nisga’a territory,” he
said. “They have created a serious problem.
“It could delay the
project; it could jeopardize the whole project. It might even create
some conflict on the ground,” he said, referring to blockades.
One hundred and four kilometres of the line is over Gitanyow territory.
The
first 28 kilometres of the line is over Lax Kw’alaams territory, said
Moraes, who also warned that the Lax Kw’alaams could blockade any
attempt to begin construction if no impact agreement is reached.
The
issue for Lax Kw’alaams is different than for Gitanyow. While the
council is concerned about infringement on aboriginal title and impacts
on fish and wildlife, its primary desire is to take part in long-term
economic opportunities after the transmission line is built.
Lax
Kw’alaams has developed a strong business presence in the Northwest and
the first nation is seeking economic opportunities that go beyond what
administrator Wayne Drury termed Hydro’s “cookie-cutter” approach to
negotiations.
Hydro is offering a one-time cash settlement plus
participation in existing training programs for contractors and workers
for work during the construction phase.
Drury said it’s basically the same deal for the whole line and doesn’t address the different aspirations of each community.
“Resolution of the first nation issues will be critical to the project moving forward – and BC Hydro does not get it,” he said.
Drury
said Lax Kw’alaams businesses generate $100 million a year in revenues
and noted their chief councillor is on a trade trip to China that began
with meetings in Hong Kong with financial services giant Credit Suisse.
Lax Kw’alaams could easily partner with other companies to build the
actual line, not just clear bush, he said. Yet Hydro is treating them as
if they are not capable of participating in the economic benefits
associated with the transmission line.
Nobody from BC Hydro was available for comment on Sunday.
From the Comox Valley Record – April 23, 2011
Should people in Courtenay be dismayed about living in only the
93rd-best city in Canada or glad about being rated above 87 others?
We’re more likely to be OK with being 93rd (up from
100th last year) of 180 cities with at least 10,000 residents than
Campbell River (175th) or Port Alberni (172nd).
Considering Courtenay is rated behind 85th-place Cold
Lake, Alta., and 76th-place Greater Sudbury, maybe we should shrug off
the annual report by MoneySense magazine.
A report like this is only as good as its methodology.
The magazine factored in factors such as weather, air quality and the
percentage of people who walk or bike to work with the more traditional
MoneySense criteria of unemployment, housing costs, household income,
discretionary income and population growth.
Factor in other things like taxes, health professionals, crime, transit, culture and amenities, and out comes the list.
With no disagreement that all these considerations
contribute to quality of life, the survey does not weigh unquantifiable
factors like awe-inspiring vistas of mountains and oceans, clean water,
locally grown food and numerous hiking opportunities not far from any
local town.
What we’re really getting at here is that various values mean different things to different people.
The opportunity to work for a living and to feed our
families is crucial us. While an awesome place to visit and even to
inhabit, the Comox Valley is not a Mecca for high-paying jobs. We have
trouble attracting and keeping young singles and families.
Read original article
The economy of any place is crucial to its health and
desirability, making the largest Costco on Vancouver and a coal mine
overlooking Baynes Sound seen attractive.
The coal mine, especially, has such potential downside,
though, that makes anybody without a jobs-at-all-costs mentality
ambivalent or outright opposed.
We need jobs, and good-paying ones, but not any jobs at any cost.
From the Globe & Mail – March 31, 2011
A Chinese group is making a $1-billion bet on coal in British
Columbia to secure a key raw material for its steel making industry, the
latest in a series of moves this year by international companies to
stake a claim on Canadian resources.
A consortium of Chinese
companies, including Shougang Group, one of the country’s top steel
makers, plans to develop three underground coal mines in northeastern
B.C., a region rich with coal that fell on hard times in the 1990s but
is now booming again.
The goal is to start construction on the first mine late next year,
with the companies “moving forward at a very rapid rate,” said Pat Bell,
B.C.’s jobs minister.
“They have the fiscal resources already in
place to do it,” said Mr. Bell, who met with executives at Shougang and
other consortium partners in Beijing this week on a trade mission to the
country. “It’s a very big deal.”
Shougang’s move to take a direct
position in Canadian mines represents a new chapter in the push among
the world’s steel makers to secure long-term supply of the commodities
that go into making steel. The strategy is to lessen dependence on
mining companies, especially as commodity prices rise.
Metallurical
coal, the type found in the ground in rugged northeastern B.C., is one
ingredient. Iron ore is another, one which has led India’s Tata Steel
Ltd. to proposed mines in Quebec and Labrador, while ArcelorMittal SA of
Europe wants to build a mine in Nunavut, north of the Arctic Circle.
The
Chinese consortium’s domestic arm is Canadian Kailuan Dehua Mines Co.
Ltd., officially formed in early 2010 when Shougang joined. The
investors already included Kailuan, a mining company in China, and Dehua
Group, which opened for business in Canada in 2003 with the aim of
mining coal underground. It began an official process in 2006 but the
global recession delayed the effort.
The backers put $120-million
into Kailuan Dehua. The company wants to use a new regulatory review
system in B.C. that allows proposed mines to obtain necessary permits
and clear environment assessment requirements in one process.
Gething,
the main project, could produce two million tonnes of metallurgical
coal annually for 30 years, according to Kailuan Dehua’s website.
Mr.
Bell said the companies are looking to produce as much as eight million
tonnes a year from three mines. That figure is equal to about
one-quarter of all coal production in B.C., which is one of the leading
producers in the world and generates most of Canada’s coal for export.
To
develop mines to unearth that much coal would take at least $1-billion
in construction costs, based on an industry average development cost of
$125-million to $175-million per annual tonne. The mines would employ
1,200 and generate about 5,000 more indirect jobs.
The first
northeast B.C. coal boom came in the early 1980s, backed by demand from
Japanese steel mills and underpinned by more than $1-billion in
government funding to build the infrastructure necessary for mines in
the region. Not long after, however, the high-cost coal was slammed by
surging supply of cheaper coal from elsewhere in the world. By the early
2000s, every mine was shuttered.
But bolstered by higher coal
prices, there are four operating mines – open-pit surface operations –
in the region right now. China joins a crowded list of proposals for
additional mines, including Teck Resources Ltd.’s plan to resurrect the
Quintette mine, closed in 2000. Quintette could be once more producing
three million tonnes of coal by 2013.
“It’s definitely a boom
time. The northeast is really going great guns right now,” said Pierre
Gratton, chief executive officer of the Mining Association of B.C.
“There’s potential for a lot more.”
But there are potential snags in the Chinese proposal, including questions about labour, safety and export capacity.
On
labour, when Dehua first proposed Gething in 2006, the company said it
would likely bring in experienced underground coal miners from China.
Kailuan Dehua this month posted job notices for the mine and the best
paying jobs – as much as $45 an hour – require underground coal mining
or related experience.
Most of Canada’s coal mines are surface operations, though many other mines in the country are underground.
Kailuan Dehua said it may need workers from overseas.
“We
will keep looking for the workers in Canada. We’ll try our best here,
but we are not sure about the results,” said company administrator Peter
Shao.
Safety is another question, as underground mining in China
has killed several thousand people in each of the past several years.
Mr. Bell said he was assured by the consortium that their safety record
is on par with Western companies.
The last major question is
export capacity, with Ridley Terminals Inc. at Prince Rupert in
northwest B.C. near its limit. Ridley is owned by the federal
government. In the Conservatives’ dead-on-arrival federal budget, an
allowance was made for Ridley to tap capital markets for cash to expand –
and the terminal this week said it has received the official green
light to go ahead.
______________
COAL-FIRED B.C.
The
rising price of coking coal, used to make steel, has made the commodity
the province’s most important raw material for export, buoyed by
continued demand in Japan and new demand in China.
$5.1-billion: Value of B.C. coal exports in 2010 (more than entire wood products industry)
86%: B.C.’s share of Canada’s $6-billion of coal exports in 2010.
106%: Increase in value of B.C.’s exports since 2007 (underpinned by higher prices)
$804-million: B.C. coal exports to mainland China in 2010, (15 times more than $54-million annual average from 2003-07)
B.C. coal exports to China:
2010: $804-million
2009: $560-million
2008: $121-million
2007: $13-million
Read original article
From the Globe & Mail – March 16, 2011
by Ian Bailey & Justine Hunter
Premier Christy Clark has put the Prosperity Mine atop her
federal-provincial agenda, pressing Prime Minister Stephen Harper in
their first meeting to get on with the project previously scuttled by
the federal regulator on environmental grounds.
Ms. Clark
indicated Tuesday she was not backing down in her bullish support for
the open-pit copper and gold mine, although that enthusiasm generated
anger from environmentalists when she laid it out during the campaign to
become leader of the BC Liberals.
Native groups have also expressed concerns about the project, which
is to be located about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake.
Going into her first caucus meeting as Premier, Ms. Clark told reporters that she advocated for the project on economic grounds.
“I
told him I’m interested in making sure we find a way to get that mine
going in British Columbia because it’s important for investment, it’s
important for jobs, for families across the province to make sure our
rural economies are really working,” she said. “So we talked about that
and we are going to continue talking about that.”
Supporters say
the Prosperity project would be a major economic boost for a B.C. region
hard hit by a forest-sector downturn, and also create hundreds of jobs.
Mr. Harper confirmed that he met privately with Ms. Clark on Tuesday morning, but did not comment on the content of the talks.
“I
am very hopeful that we will continue to move forward in a productive
relationship,” he told reporters, following an election-style
announcement in Surrey.
He did not mention Prosperity. But an
official in the PMO later noted the Prime Minister has previously been
clear that the government has rendered a final decision regarding the
original application. But if the proponent proceeds in a manner that
respects the environmental concerns raised by the assessment, the
official said in a statement on Tuesday, Ottawa is open to assessing
that proposal.
Last year, B.C. approved the project, but Ottawa
rejected it over environmental and wildlife concerns, including the
draining of Fish Lake, once featured in a provincial tourism campaign.
Last
month, Taseko, the company that’s developing the project, submitted a
revised proposal. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has said
it is reviewing the submission.
In a statement last month, Ms.
Clark noted that she was committed to bringing the project to an
“environmentally sustainable conclusion.”
Also Tuesday, Mr. Harper
said the Tories will continue to have a strong bench of MPs in British
Columbia despite the announcement last week that cabinet minister
Stockwell Day and Chuck Strahl, as well as veteran MP John Cummins, all
from B.C., will not be running in the next election.
“We have a
great team in British Columbia and, as much as we’ll miss these strong
colleagues, we have a lot of others that are all too anxious to fill
their place, and I’ll cross bridges in terms of election when we get to
them.”
Read original article
From the Chilliwack Progress – March 7, 2011
By Robert Freeman
Gravel removal from the Fraser River is back in the news.
After a period of relative quiet, cancellation of a
gravel removal operation at Tranmer Bar near Chilliwack renewed the
charge by critics that gravel mining in the river is driven by
commercial interests rather than flood protection.
John Werring, a member of the Fraser River Stewardship
Gravel Committee, said he was told by B.C. government officials that the
Tranmer Bar operation was cancelled because no buyer for the gravel
could be found.
“How is it that a provincial government, with all its
resources … is not able to pull together the resources to take care of
that emergency,” said.
“If this is an emergency … call in the army,” he said.
But a spokesman at Emergency Management B.C. said the
reason for the cancellation was a request by federal fisheries for
“additional information,” which pushed the project beyond the “window”
for in-river work.
Without a completed permit, not even the government,
could go ahead and remove the gravel despite market conditions, the
spokesman told The Progress on a background basis.
Chilliwack MLA John Les, who has long pushed for gravel
removal to reduce the risk of flooding, lambasted critics for telling
the public that the government aims to prevent flooding by mining gravel
from one specific site.
He said the idea is to remove gravel from many sites
around the river reach from Hope to Abbotsford to “unplug” the river and
lower water levels.
“Many children understand, if you let (gravel build-up)
to continue, it will plug up the river … and one of these years the
inevitable will happen,” he said.
Les said the Tranmer Bar permit was completed “far too late” to allow the mining to proceed.
He said the bar has been mined before, “but this year, for whatever reason, the permit wasn’t completed by Jan. 22.”
“Everyone is concerned about the fish,” he added, but
despite several years of gravel removal operations in the Fraser, record
returns are being reported.
Werring said the Tranmer Bar is “unique habitat” for
sockeye salmon and other fish species not found in other parts of the
river. It may also be habitat for sturgeon, he said.
If the Fraser River floods next year because gravel was
not removed at Tranmer Bar this year, he said the B.C. government is
going to find itself in an embarrassing position with the “lame excuse”
that no gravel was removed because no contractor could be found.
He said he hoped the real reason for the cancellation
was the influence of the stewardship committee and others on government
officials, and will eventually lead to a long-term, multi-year plan,
agreed upon by everyone.
“We’re not opposed to gravel removal from the Fraser River, if it’s necessary for flood protection,” he said.
Meanwhile, a letter of agreement between federal
fisheries and the B.C. government on gravel removal operations expired
in March, 2009. A one-year extension was approved to March, 2010.
But no B.C. officials were available last week to explain the delay in reaching a new agreement.
Read original article
From the Vancouver Sun – March 3, 2011
by Tex Enemark
In an article in The Sun Feb. 14, (“The Skeetchestn
say enough already”), Rich Deneault, the Skeetchestn Band chief served
notice that the way business and governments ride roughshod over native
rights in British Columbia has to come to an end, or face the
consequences, which may not be pretty.
He says, very bluntly, “In
the days ahead, those companies and agencies that have not acted
honourably will be receiving letters from us, advising them to tell
their customers to expect possible service interruptions regarding their
operations in our traditional lands. We’re writing to the six Liberal
leadership candidates to advise them as well … [to ask if] … a first
nations community should be shredded for the betterment of forest
companies, or railway companies, or energy companies, or tax revenues.”
One
might have thought that such a threatened disruption of B.C.’s economy
might have stirred some debate among the Liberal leadership candidates,
but none was noticeable. And that is too bad because I expect that Chief
Deneault’s impatience might signal broader direct action in the native
community over the next few years.
Why, most B.C. people might
ask, has it come to this? Is there not a Treaty Commission charged with
getting modern treaties arranged with B.C.’s natives? Is not a lot of
money being spent on this by the B.C. and federal governments? Are there
not a lot of negotiators working to resolve matters?
The answer
is, of course the machinery is in place, but it is all jammed up for
lack of political mandates to actually operate, to see progress come out
of the end of the spaghetti machine. One does not have to sit around a
negotiating table for long to realize the elaborate charade taking
place. Able government negotiators stall, fiddle, obfuscate, redirect
discussion, and come up with more questions requiring answers than you
could believe existed all in the name of delay, delay, delay.
The
game is, a day of delay is another day the governments do not have to
pay for anything more than airfare and hotel rooms for negotiators,
another day of the native groups going further into debt to stay in the
game, another day of hopelessness for most on-reserve Indians and
another day B.C. and Canada avoid actually choosing to make difficult
choices. Frankly, what is taking place these days falls far short of
meeting any test of sincerity by either government, protestations to the
contrary.
The negotiators have honed their skills in being
helpfully not helpful for, now, a generation since B.C. consented to
being brought into the modern treaty-making process after 150 years of
shameful behaviour toward its native population.
Can you imagine
how frustrating and angry one becomes, sitting around a “negotiating
table,” literally for 20 and more years and achieving, well, nothing?
All the while, you see members of your community, whom the Supreme Court
of Canada have ruled have aboriginal title to the lands and resources,
suffer Third World levels of unemployment and health outcomes, the
country’s highest suicide, crime, and substance abuse rates? You see
those who take forest and mineral wealth from lands in which you hold
rights being exploited with scant regard for your welfare; sometimes a
penny or two is dropped to claim “accommodation,” but there is no plan
and no commitment to actually address and improve native conditions by
either government.
This is not to deny that
some progress has been made by the Campbell government, because it has
shown a change of attitude and a willingness to at least begin. But for
lack of clear, strong direction from the top to the whole government
that this was a priority, and a regular rotation of ministers, little
real progress was made.
The province’s native communities are very
likely not going to be able to restrain those who would be much more
militant in the near future and it will be up to the new premier to face
this reality.
Through the regulatory processes we have seen
native obstruction doom the . Kemess For all large format and
applications Prosperity mining proj-(newspaper boxes, tents, etc.) ects
over the past six years. We see the . Enbridge Crop off tag line
pipeline if it is too small facing to the same sort be read, or too
small to print of opposition. Any number of governproperly. ment and
private-sector projects over the past few years much less newsworthy
have been ground to a halt as well.
As Chief Deneault has said,
it’s going to get worse, much worse, because r Height”between 20 the
years logo and of other almost graphic elements. no prog-ensure ress
it’s on placement most is land appropriate claims to its relative is
becoming importance. an issue around which to rally for a more militant
next generation that will look to recent events in Cairo and Benghazi
for examples of how to make change.
For premier-designate Christy
Clark, this should indeed be a top of the “in-basket” issue. It simply
has to be. That it was not addressed by any leadership candidate is a
shame. But maybe Clark will recognize this and make addressing it a lead
item in a first Throne Speech, and very clear new marching orders will
be given to officials in the aboriginal affairs, education,
attorney-general and finance ministries. Or maybe the expectations of
the coming political change that now abound in the native community will
be dashed. And if Clark is smart, she will re-assign George Abbott to
the portfolio because he has shown evidence of understanding the issues
and wanting them resolved. Sorry, George. And Premier Clark will have to
tell Ottawa that it, too, had better get serious.
But if real progress on the native file is not a Clark priority, the result could well be what Chief Deneault predicts.
And
what Deneault foresees is more than a few days of inconvenience. It
could well be provincewide. It could be a signal to all sorts of
putative investment in B.C. that maybe somewhere else is better. This is
particularly true of the mining industry, which has not been as engaged
in the issues as it should have been. If B.C. and Canada do not take
seriously the warnings of Chief Deneault and others, the damage done to
our recovering economy could be serious, and our reputation as a fair
and progressive society very much harmed.
The ball is now in the
hands of soonto-be-premier Clark. Every person in B.C. that would like
to see generations of wrongs done to B.C.’s first nations will be
watching. It will be a real test of “change.”
Tex Enemark is a
public policy consultant, a former president of the Mining Association
of BC and an adviser to the Gitxsan Treaty Society.
Read original article
From the Chilliwack Times – Feb 25, 2011
by Otto Langer
Editor:
I found the recent comments from MLA John Les blaming
the federal Department of Fisheries for the cancellation of this year’s
Fraser River gravel bar mining to be misguided and incorrect.
It
is unfortunate that some B.C. politicians often want to blame Ottawa
for their problems. This is nothing more than cheap politics. DFO has
unfortunately gone out of its way to cater to the Fraser River gravel
bar mining program as promoted by Mr. Les and his fellow MLA Barry
Penner under the alleged rationale of flood control.
The facts
indicate that Mr. Les’s old ministry’s office, Emergency Measures B.C.,
put in applications to mine gravel several months later than specified
in a Canada -B.C. gravel removal agreement signed in 2004. Gravel
mining can only occur from the fall into March of each year. This
agreement has been violated by the province on an annual basis and that
is not the fault of DFO. Further, this approach by the province has
almost eliminated the possibility of proper public consultation.
This
year EMBC did not apply for an environmental assessment until November
and for an authorization to destroy fish habitat until late December
2010. Their contractor, Link Construction and Aggregates, did not apply
for a permit to mine Tranmer Bar until Dec. 28, 2010. The province
then gave the public only two days to respond to that application and
that was in the middle of the Christmas break. Applications by the B.C.
government had to be in months ago and the permits were to be in place
by November 2010. Mr. Les should also comment on the low value of the
gravel that made its mining uneconomic and the fact that the government
could not find the equipment to do the job.
For John Les to
blame DFO for holding up the process by not issuing permits on time is
simply misleading. He has to assume responsibility for a misguided
program that will continue to cause great conflict and harm to the
river’s environment. The public in the Chilliwack area must hold their
politicians more accountable for what they stand for and say.
Otto E. Langer
fish biologist and aquatic ecologist
adviser to the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee
Richmond