Category Archives: Mining

Federal Hearings Into Revised Prosperity Mine Poroposal Begin

Mining, , , ,
Share

Read this story from CTV.ca on a new round of federal environmental hearings into the proposed Prosperity Mine at Fish Lake. (Jan. 29, 2012)

With all eyes on hearings for the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline that would link Alberta’s oil sands to tankers on the B.C. coast, a federal environmental review of another contentious B.C. project is quietly getting underway.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has released guidelines and terms of reference that will form the framework for an environmental review of Taseko Mines Ltd.’s (TSX:TKO) proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine in the B.C. Interior.

The agency is seeking comments on the documents until Feb. 22.

But the approach of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government toward the federal hearings on the Northern Gateway doesn’t give First Nations opponents much faith in the environmental review of the mine.

“We feel the writing’s on the wall,” Chief Joe Alphonse, leader of the Tsilqhot’in National Government, said in an interview.

“Mr. Harper is making statements around the Enbridge project that anyone opposing the project is an enemy of Canada. That’s the same situation.”

Read more: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120129/bc_prosperity_mine_project_120128/20120129/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Share
Would you put a gravel mine here? McNab Creek in west Howe Sound, north of Vancouver

Local Governments, Citizens Want More Scrutiny of Proposed Howe Sound Gravel Mine

Mining, ,
Share

Regional politicians in jurisdictions along Howe Sound are calling for a bigger role in the review of a major proposed gravel mine at McNab Creek. Several Sunshine Coast regional directors and councilors have recently stepped forward with concerns about the lack of local government involvement in the project’s environmental review – currently being carried out under the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Burnco Rock Products, Ltd. of Calgary wants to build a 77 hectare, 55 metre deep gravel and sand pit in acknowledge fish and wildlife habitat. The company estimates it can extract 1 – 1.6 million tonnes of gravel per year for 20-30 years from the property, rising to as much as 4 million tonnes in some years. The size and potential environmental impact of the proposal have local politicians and citizens raising red flags. A local citizens’ group, The Future of Howe Sound Society, is also concerned the project has slid under the radar thus far and is urging the public to comment on the proposal by the end of the week, when the first public comment phase closes.

Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District expressed surprise at a January 19 meeting that the public comment period for the project was already underway. “We’ve got a huge thing going on, and we find out about it in the newspaper, when we have already registered quite a strong degree of concern,” West Howe Sound director Lee Turnbull told the meeting, according to the Coast Reporter. “The extent of this — this is going to be bigger than Sechelt. I’m not kidding. This is bigger than the [Lehigh] construction aggregate and it’s going to be running out of Howe Sound.”

The Future of Howe Sound Society has been warning the public about the project since last year. In November they issued a media release calling for more public involvement in the federal government’s process:

Howe Sound is only now recovering from the environmental damage and pollution caused by past mining and other industrial activities. Dolphins and whales are returning to Howe Sound for the first time in a generation and fish numbers are increasing. To now allow new industrial projects without a comprehensive land use plan would be short sighted and tragic.

Public participation is necessary to ensure that any review conducted through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency goes beyond that and examines the overall impact on marine life, residents and users of Howe Sound.

The project was first proposed by Burnco in 2009 but faced a series of setbacks when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sent it back to the drawing board with some key unanswered questions. The company says it’s addressed DFO’s concerns about potential impact on nearby fish habitat – which supports coho, chum, Chinook, pink and steelhead salmon and resident and sea-run cutthroat trout – but not everyone is convinced.

Councilor Dan Bouman told the Gibsons council meeting on January 17, “I’ve been aware of this project for about three years. I’m wondering: [DFO] is the key agency that has statutory authority to grant or not grant authority to do habitat damage. They’re saying it’s too much. Why are we going into environmental assessment?”

A report submitted on behalf of the company to the federal review process acknowledges a number of important wildlife values as well – listing 24 different blue and red listed species that may occur in the area of the proposed project. The report suggests about half of these species likely don’t use the specific area of the proposed pit, but acknowledges potential impacts to others:

[Species at Risk] confirmed to occur in the Property include coastal tailed frog (in Harlequin Creek), herons (forage in the spawning channel and McNab Creek mainstem), and barn swallow (nests in abandoned buildings). Other SAR that could potentially occur on the Property include red-legged frog, northern goshawk, band-tailed pigeon, coastal western screech-owl, sooty grouse, olive-sided flycatcher, and pine grosbeak.

The Future of Howe Sound Society is also concerned about the massive mine’s potential impacts on the broader region of the Sound – including whales and dolphins and other community values register its concerns about the project this week, saying on its website, “The aim of the Society is to protect the future of Howe Sound through the development of a comprehensive and holistic land and water use plan,” which the region currently lacks.

The group is urging citizens from the region and beyond to weigh in on the public comment process this week, saying, “If you do not make your views known, please understand this project and it’s predictable destruction in the Sound will take place unchallenged just at a time when the dolphins and whales have returned to the Sound.”



 

Share

Rafe Reflects on Common Sense Canadian – And Why 2012 is Make-or-Break Year for BC

Canada, Energy and Resources, Mining, Oceans, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, WATER, Western Canada, , , , , , , , ,
Share

It’s customary at this time of the year too look back, comment, and look to the New Year. Why should The Common Sense Canadian (CSC) be any different?
 
We’ve been going for about a year and a half so my comments may take us a little earlier than last January but let me start by saying that both Damien Gillis and I are pretty proud of our progress.
 
Neither of us believes in some commonwealth of environmental people and groups. That’s not practical as we all have issues we feel more strongly about than others. We do, however, like to feel that we can bring a vehicle into being that helps all environmentalists and groups find a place to air their feelings. As one would expect, the particular passions of Damien and me will stand out in the work we do but we also support many other groups. Because of the history we bring to the CSC, we tend to look most in four areas, in no particular order: fish farms, private power, pipelines and oil tankers – the latter two being bound together but still two separate issues; but you can’t have one without the other.
 
What we’ve seen happen in the past year or so is a sense of all environmentalists feeling part of the same general battle – and battle it is.
 
Let me expand on that last thought a bit. All of us, whether trying to save forests, or a river, or a coastline or whatever are met with the cry “aren’t they in favour of anything?” If they’re not hugging trees they’re against jobs for the young and prosperity for communities. These and similar questions have been raised since the first day someone declared that there were other issues than just monetary ones. To show you how ridiculous this gets, supporters of the proposed “Prosperity” Mine allege that this mine will give employment to 71,000 people! Why not 710,000 if you’re going to be ridiculous?
 
What we try to do is challenge people to make a value judgment on what is done and place the environmental issues securely on the table. The main reason we do that is that damage to the environment is permanent while the economics diminish as time goes by, leaving only the scars.
 
Let’s look at a so-called “run-of-river” project. We’re told that these are necessary to create jobs yet when the deed is done there are only a bare handful of caretakers left behind while the river, and the ecology that depend upon it, are permanently and seriously impaired.
 
Now we are democrats. If the public, fully informed, wish to create permanent environmental damage, that is their right. What happens, however, is that the public, if they are informed at all, only see the glitzy ads by the company and the smooth assurances of the politicians.
 
Public hearings are, frankly, bullshit. The decision has been made and, like a trial in the old Soviet Union, a “show” trial must take place.
 
Let me give you a recent example: when President Obama refused to authorize the Keystone XL project which would take “gunk” from the Tar Sands to  Texas, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty instantly responded and said that we would have to put the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, BC, on “the front burner”! Before the National Energy Board hearings even get off the ground the Finance Minister is assuming the result! Yet, he’s right to do so because the “fix” is well and truly in.
 
This takes me to the meat of the matter for, in the past couple of years there has been an astonishing cooperation of environmental organizations to fight these things together.
 
I’ve been all around the province making speeches and often the stage has been shared with COPE union spokespersons, the Wilderness Committee, Alexandra Morton and her Raincoast Research Society, the redoubtable Donna Passmore and her work on highways and farmland issues, CoalWatch Comox Valley regarding the proposed Raven coal mine, citizen groups fighting local issues like overhead transmission lines and numerous grassroots organizations in the Kootenays in Northern BC, on the Sunshine Coast – and the list goes on.
 
Of enormous consequence has been the work all the different environmental groups have done with First Nations on the issues I have mentioned. One of the most touching moments in my Roast of November 24 last were the speeches given by Grand Chief Stewart Philip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Marilyn Baptiste; and I tell you truly that I wept when they spoke and sang and considered how far down the road to true understanding of their concerns I had come – something, I might add, Chief Philip commented upon with a twinkle in his eye to match my tears.
 
Let me pause here to note that I have left out many people and organizations that have every right to stand out in front as those I have mentioned and I deeply hope that I haven’t offended any of them.
 
Let me speak out clearly on political matters. The Campbell/Clark government are enemies of the public at large. The destruction they have caused, and which will happen because of their policies, beggars description. Not unnaturally, the NDP have been the beneficiaries, often accidentally, from this public disgust with the government. I can tell you that at my “Roast” were people I knew from my old Socred days – people who a year ago would have preferred to be found in a house of ill repute than be seen with the CSC helping us in our fundraiser.
 
I must say this: the NDP gets no easy ride from us. It’s simple to jump on a bandwagon but we demand commitments from them – not airy, fairy crap that passes for commitment in political jargon.
 
I’m going to end now with this look ahead. 2012 will be the year that decides where we go in BC.
 
Will we have more rivers destroyed for private profit? Will we see our province, my homeland and yours, turned over to the 100% certain destruction by pipelines? And to the 100% certainty of catastrophic oil spills on our coast and in Burrard Inlet? Will we continue to allow fish farmers to annihilate our sacred Pacific Salmon? Will we watch idly as Fish Lake is destroyed to set the precedent of more of the same?
 
Will we do nothing as we lose more and more farmland? Will money promised and jobs pledged suck the wind out of our ability to see what’s really happening to us, our children, our grandchildren and for some of us great-grandchildren?
 
That is the advantage, you see, of old age – right before your eyes are the people we hold BC in trust for. The wisdom of the ages, in the soul of our First Nations, is the wisdom we must listen to and apply if we want to save our province from those who would convert it into cash for private use, leaving us with nothing but the scars to remind us what damned fools we’ve been.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be in this fight in 2012 and in the years to come and, along with those we march alongside, do not intend to lose the battles nor the war.

Share

Shades of Green: Agnotology – The Propagation of Doubt

Mining, , ,
Share

“Agnotology” is a new and useful word coined in 1992 by Dr. Robert Proctor of Stanford University to designate the study of ignorance. We give a huge amount of attention to knowing, to “gnosis”, he contended, but little attention to its opposite, “agnosis” (Guardian Weekly, July 1/11).

At first glance, agnotology seems like an oxymoron. Surely, if we know something about not-knowing then we must have shed some ignorance? Precisely. And this is the interesting twist about agnotology. It is the deliberate and skilful cultivation and dissemination of not-knowing – doubt – for the specific purpose of manufacturing confusion. And one of its most famous practitioners has been the tobacco industry.

When the awful health effects of smoking were first suspected, the tobacco industry went into damage control by using misleading studies to advertise the benefits of smoking. But its more sophisticated strategy was to create doubt about the disadvantages of smoking. This was done with an ingenious deviousness. “It is less well known,” writes Dr. Proctor, “but tobacco companies also spent large amounts subsidizing good quality bio-medical research in fields such as virology, genetics and immunology. They funded the work of several Nobel prize winners. But they only encouraged this research to serve as a distraction.” The strategic objective was not to find the cause of cancer but to generate credible evidence that diseases attributed to smoking could be caused by something else. “In court cases involving the industry, its lawyers always highlighted viral risks, the pre-disposition of certain families, and so on, to play down tobacco-related risks.”

Sound familiar? “In fact,” writes the science historian Peter Galison of Harvard University, “those who seek to produce ignorance on a given topic generally advocate more research. The fact that all the details have not been resolved sustains the illusion of an ongoing debate on the whole subject. A key concern of American neocreationists is to ‘Teach the controversy’.” Or, in a memo from the tobacco company Brown & Williamson that phrases the strategy even more bluntly, “Doubt is our product.” The objective is to create the impression that doubt exists in the scientific community when, in fact, there is none on the basic issue.

While this strategy has been used to defend smoking and creationism, it has also been used to cast doubt on solid scientific evidence concerning acid rain, ozone depletion, species extinction, melting glaciers, ocean acidification and the larger issue of anthropogenic climate change. When Naomi Oreskes, a science historian from the University of California, was trying to understand the basis for criticism of her book, Merchants of Doubt, she found that three scientists were the primary source. They were founders in 1984 of the conservative George C. Marshall Institute, originally funded by the tobacco industry and more recently by fossil-fuel interests. This Institute is solely driven by a political ideology that takes umbrage with any science that interferes with America’s free-market economy and freedom-of-choice philosophy. Controlling global climate change requires constraints that the Institute construes as another form of the communist threat, a threat combatted with a sophisticated pseudo science that looks authoritative but isn’t.

So, how is the lay public to know the difference between real science and pseudo-science? This is the obvious problem created by agnotology and cultivated by those who want to propagate doubt. Some hints are obvious. First, pseudo-science tends to be contrarian, arguing against a momentum of scientific evidence reached by peer-reviewed research and careful empiricism. Second, those who have economic interests usually take a position that favours their profits – so follow the money. Three, use one of Einstein’s “thought experiments” to imaginatively extend the claim to its logical extreme – if the extremity is absurd then the claim is questionable. And four, consider ideologies. Pseudo-science usually supports a belief system. Real science is evidence-based and follows where the data leads, regardless of threats to paradigms of thought or to individual and corporate interests.

Now apply this information to any current, local or global issue. It might be the expansion of the Quinsam Coal facilities in Campbell River, the proposed Raven coal mine in the Comox Valley, the construction of the Northern Gateway oil pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to the West Coast at Kitimat, the threat to wild fish from sea-lice and disease emanating from open net-pen salmon farms. It might be climate change, ocean acidification, genetic engineering or pesticide use. Those with vested financial interests are inclined to construe evidence to support these interests by minimizing calculated risks, providing assurances of safety – however thin and speculative – and contesting scientific evidence by quibbling about details. Ideology can easily override considerations of public health, social benefit and ecological impact. Indeed, ideology can even colour any sense of evidence and perspective. And, as is now becoming obvious, manufactured doubt can cause environmental and social havoc.

Doubt is normal, healthy and useful. But it can also be exploited by ill-will, self interest and blind ideology. At some point in its confrontation with overwhelming evidence, it becomes obstinate, manipulative, dishonest and destructive. An awareness of agnotology may raise our discrimination sufficiently to discern the difference between legitimate assurances and deceit. The task is challenging and requires constant vigilance. But our future depends on it.

Share
Raven Coal Mine meeting in Courtenay, May 30 - Photo by Carolyn Walton

Comox Valley Ready for Civil Disobedience as “Insane” Raven Coal Mine Review Pushed Forward

Mining, , ,
Share

A little over two years ago we held a town hall meeting in Fanny Bay, where a standing room only crowd discussed the proposed Raven Underground Coal Mine Project. It was at this meeting that concerned citizens formed CoalWatch Comox Valley. The events over the past two years have revealed many interesting details.
 
It’s clear that the “harmonized” environmental assessment of the Raven Project is deeply flawed. Numerous local governments, community groups, and thousands of British Columbia citizens have called for a more rigorous environmental assessment, a so called independent review panel with public hearings. Unfortunately, the calls for a more rigorous assessment have been rejected at all federal and provincial levels of government.

The near record amount of comments submitted during the two comment periods thus far indicate widespread public concern and opposition to the proposed massive coal mine. Citizens at three public meetings also voiced overwhelming opposition to the Raven Project. The proposed Project is also contradictory to Official Community Plans and Regional Growth Strategies adopted in both the Comox Valley and Port Alberni. Despite all of this, the environmental assessment of the Raven Project is being pushed forward.

It’s fairly obvious that a coal mine project that calls for a mine to be located only 5 kilometers from Baynes Sound, home to a thriving and economically important shellfish industry, is an insane idea. Couple that with an environmental assessment that doesn’t include any mechanism for public consent, and it’s no wonder that the residents of the Comox Valley, Port Alberni, and Vancouver Island are fed up and disgusted.

This cynicism and disgust has led numerous groups and organizations in the Comox Valley to form a Peaceful Direct Action Coalition, to educate the public on peaceful direct action. Many of us see peaceful direct action and civil disobedience, as another tool to use in the fight against this massive coal mine proposal near Fanny Bay.
 
The year ahead will be a challenging one for those opposed to the Raven Coal Mine Project. But make no mistake, the thousands of people who are opposed to this Project are dedicated, determined, united, and in solidarity, we will be victorious in our fight against this Project.
 
In solidarity,

John Snyder,  Fanny Bay, BC
President, CoalWatch Comox Valley Society

Share
Former Xeni Gwet'in Band Councillor Gilbert Solomon proudly displays a copy of the Vancouver Sun, featuring Chief Marilyn Baptiste, on the day the Tsilhqot'in learned of their victory at the BC Supreme Court

Tsilhqot’in Justice Prevails…For Now

First Nations, Mining
Share

by Elena Edwards

It was a day of polarities to be sure. Whether it was planned or coincidence (though many First Nations will tell you there are no coincidences), December 2nd began with Taseko Mines Ltd. (TML) president and CEO Russell Hallbauer beaming with approval at the pro-mining speech given by Minister of Energy and Mines, Rich Coleman, at a mining forum luncheon. Humble pie was to be served later at the Supreme Court of B.C. as a ruling came down for an injunction against Taseko Mines, preventing them from pursuing work in the Tsilhqot’in territory.

Over 300 people gathered at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Center’s Pro Mining Forum at a cost of $100 per person, with a cult-like aura in the room with money as their god. Among the sponsors and participants were BMO, Teck, Taseko Mines Ltd, HDI, Stantec, Finning, and Accenture, with The Vancouver Sun and the Province as media partners.

As the lunch bell rang, “special” guest speaker Rich Coleman was introduced as one of the “smartest men in the world” and was welcomed by applause from costly suits that included Hallbauer, TML corporate affairs manager Brian Battison, and their legal adviser Keith Clarke – all of whom had been sitting through the injunction case with the Tsilhqot’in in the days prior.

In an ironic twist, part of the mining forum was to address “Calls to action [that] will include the need to review federal and provincial processes and showcasing world-class models of social responsibility, First Nations engagement and political stability, so advantageous in a volatile global market.” There was but one First Nations person in the entire room, that being Annita McPhee, Tribal Chair of the Tahltan Central Council, and with nothing else to go on, Coleman sought to use the Talhtan presence as an example of how other First Nations should be working with and trusting in the mining industry.?

Coleman’s speech was what might be expected from one whose greatest goal is to mine the hell out of everything – complete with high praise for Christy Clarke’s globetrotting to “sell B.C.”

In spite of promises that media would get a chance to ask questions, the floor was instead opened to the elite patrons of the event, leaving no room for questioning the Minister of Mining and Energy on matters that he was no doubt keen to avoid.

As the Province of B.C. has been aggressively bullying its way to expand mining proposals and promoting B.C. as a “place to invest”, the response by First Nations has increasingly been to stand their ground in opposition to the blatant disregard for First Nations rights and the damage that such mining projects can often bring. Front and center in such opposition has been the Tsilhqot’in Nation, who have been battling attempted invasions into their territory for gold since the mid to late?1800’s, with the Tsilhqot’in War of 1864 leaving 6 of their chiefs murdered.

For the past 20 years Taseko Mines has been trying to get approval for what has been called one of the most contested mining projects in Canada. In 2007 a ruling by Justice Vickers was made in the Tsilhqot’in vs. B.C. Aboriginal title case that the Tsilhqot’in have the right to utilize their lands as their ancestors had done before them, for food, ceremonial and spiritual practices.

In spite of the ruling and the Tsilhqot’in’s assertions that the project remains unacceptable, Taseko Mines Ltd. continues to pursue their proposed “New Prosperity Mine”.?On November 2nd, 2010, after the Canadian Government dismissed TML’s “Prosperity Project”, President and CEO Russell Hallbauer stated: “Our next steps will be discussions with both the Federal and Provincial Governments to look at options so that this mining project can move forward and meet the criteria that the Federal Government deem appropriate.'” No mention made of consulting with the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG).

TML was granted permits by the Province of B.C. to begin exploratory drilling, and on Nov. 12, 2011, attempted to begin work. Since the Tsilhqot’in National Government had exhausted every possible avenue to put a stop to the mining proposal, Marilyn Baptiste, Chief of the Xeni Gwet’in band, did the only thing left for her to do: she stood between the convoy of TML employees and informed them that they had no jurisdiction on traditional Tsilhqot’in territories, that their permits were not recognized by the Tsilhqot’in, and that the Province of B.C. did not have authorization to be in Tsilhqot’in territory.

Taseko Mines Ltd., expecting direct opposition to their arrival on Tsilhqot’in land, had cameras in hand to document what they deemed to be a roadblock – which was in reality but Marilyn Baptiste, who stood in the road to advise them of their trespassing. Believing that such evidence would show them in good light, TML applied for an injunction and submitted the footage as evidence. At the same time, the Tsilhqot’in had filed for an injunction against Taseko Mines Ltd. to prevent it from trespassing on Tsilquot’in territory.

At the hearing on Nov. 29th, Chief Marilyn Baptiste, along with Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, watched the footage that Taseko’s lawyer claimed left? Chief Baptiste’s hands “unclean” in entering the court case due to her perceived unlawful behavior. Rather than incriminate her, the footage displayed the courage and conviction of Chief Baptiste as she carried out what she called her sacred duty to protect the lands as her ancestors before her had done.

Supporters of the Tsilhqot’in sat up with pride as the footage played. To the right of the courtroom TML’s president Russell Hallbauer, legal adviser Kieth Clarke and others presumably from TML sat in stark contrast, appearing to realize that their precious evidence did more to make them look the bullies that they are, bandying about a note from the Crown as though it meant more than protecting the lands upon which an entire culture depends.

Upon his ruling on Dec. 2, Justice Christopher Grauer found that Chief Baptiste’s behavior as seen on the video seemed more of a moral blockade than a physical one. The tension in room 54 of the Supreme Court was thick as no one could read how the judge would rule. Sidelong glances came from Taseko’s people, who had only a few hours earlier been dining off their mining profits. As Justice Grauer continued to read his findings, the body language of Keith Clarke and Russell Hallbauer seemed to indicate a sudden onset of indigestion.

When Justice Grauer finally noted that it was with “blood, sweat and tears” that the Tsilhqot’in have tried to get the government to understand the importance of their lands, Mr. Clarke bent over in his seat, as though knowing there’d be more to come. And come it did, as Grauer also noted that it would be the Tsilhqot’in who would suffer irreparable damage should Taseko be allowed to proceed, as well as the financial losses that the Tsilhqot’in would incur, and have incurred in the struggle to see their rights recognized – financial losses that would not be reimbursed as they would for TML.

On the grounds of actual damage, Grauer found that while TML might suffer financial costs for equipment that had been rented, the loss did not go beyond that and costs could be regained, whereas the loss of habitat would be irreparable. “Once disturbed, it is lost” he stated.

Unfortunately, Justice Gruaer did rule the Tsilhqot’in National Government must pay financial losses to Taseko Mines Ltd. for equipment rentals. Full justice would have meant the Province footing the bill for the day and a half of TML’s financial losses; yet after a week of drumming outside the Supreme Court – with simultaneous drumming and prayers in Williams Lake and elsewhere – the people of the Tsilhqot’in have much to smile about as they get a reprieve from Taseko’s threat to their lands, waters, and way of life.

One more battle down, one more victory for the Tsilhqot’in – but the war is ongoing until Aboriginal Rights to protect their lands and way of life are truly realized and the “New Prosperity Mine” proposal put to rest once and for all.

Elena Edwards in a Vancouver-based environmental and social activist who attended the full Tsilqot’in injunction hearings this past week and has also attended and documented much of the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser River sockeye.

Share

BREAKING: Judge sides with Tsilhqot’in – Issues Injunction Against Taseko Mines!

Mining, , , ,
Share

Read this breaking story from CTV News on BC Supreme Court Justice Christopher Grauer’s decision earlier today to grant the Tsilhqot’in First Nations an injunction to prevent Taseko Mines from carrying out any more preliminary construction work on its controversial proposed Prosperity Mine.

“An aboriginal band has been granted an injunction preventing
Taseko Mines from conducting exploration work around its proposed gold
and copper mine in B.C.’s central Interior. In the same court hearing, Taseko failed in its bid for an
injunction forcing the Tsilhqot’in First Nation to stop blocking the
company’s access to the site outside Williams Lake, B.C.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Christopher Grauer ruled Friday the
band wasn’t properly consulted on two permits granted to Taseko by the
provincial government. Grauer said the First Nation will suffer greater harm than Taseko
if the exploration and trail building work for the proposed New
Prosperity mine continues.” (Dec 2, 2011)

Read article: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111202/bc_first_nation_injunction_taseko_mine_111202/20111202/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Share

First Nations Stand Their Ground Against Prosperity Mine at BC Supreme Court

Mining, , , , ,
Share

The Tsilhqot’in First Nations and their supporters have been at the BC Supreme Court this week, fighting for an injunction to keep Taseko Mines from commencing work on the controversial proposed Prosperity Mine – amid Tsilhqot’in traditional territory, southwest of Williams Lake. While the Harper Government recently agreed to examine a new version of the mine it already rejected last year, the BC Government has pushed ahead, granting the company permits to begin work. The result is an accelerating stand-off between First Nations, Taseko and the Clark Government – highlighted at this rally outside the courthouse on Monday.

Share

Mounting Legal Clash Over Prosperity Mine

Mining, , , ,
Share

Read this story from The Globe and Mail on the debate between First Nations and Taseko Mines, now playing out in the BC courts.

“The battle between the Tsilhqot’in Nation and Taseko Mines Ltd. has
heated up after allegations that three members of the first nations
community obstructed workers attempting to access the Prosperity mine
site in northern B.C.

‘As a result of this interference, we,
today, have initiated legal proceedings against these individuals and
we’ll be seeking an order restraining them from unlawfully interfering
with the company’s lawfully approved work,’ said Brian Battison, the
company’s corporate affairs vice president. Taseko has received
government approval to conduct exploratory work.” (Nov. 14, 2011)

Read article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/legal-clash-builds-between-taseko-first-nations-over-prosperity-mine/article2236184/?from=sec431

Share

From Gustafsen Lake to Fish Lake: No Place for Violent Stand-Offs in Era of Youtube and Facebook

Canada, Fisheries, Mining, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Picture this: It’s 2012 and you live half way around the world – let’s say, Sydney, Australia. You open up your Facebook page to find a new viral youtube video out of BC, shared on your wall just moments ago by a friend in Canada. With a click of the mouse you find yourself watching footage of heavily armed mounties in riot gear advancing on a dirt road blockade – made up of indigenous peoples and a varied band of supporters.

The video tells you it’s somewhere in Tsilhqot’in Territory, west of Williams Lake, BC. It might as well be Timbuktu – it’s the people, the situation, the deeply human experience that you, like millions of others around the world, are tuning into.

An iPhone camera documenting the scene pans over to a First Nations elder – a grandmother of the Xeni Gwet’in people of the Tsilhqot’in, firmly planted in her wheelchair, staring down the police and trucks carrying mining equipment parked behind them. Shutters snap thousands of hi-res images of the unfolding drama. One of the policemen bellows orders from a megaphone, something about a final warning, lost in the chants of the protestors – which go something like, “The world is watching!” 

Then, the moment of truth: A gang of jack boot and baton-clad officers emerges through a fog of freshly deployed tear gas, descending on the protestors, who have formed a human chain around this grandmother…

I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.

Within the hour this clip, from one of many cameras documenting the confrontation, has been uploaded to youtube and shared through facebook, twitter, email chains, etc. The footage is so graphic, so viscerally archetypal in nature – a classic David-vs-Goliath scene – so perfectly capturing the injustice of the situation, that it’s hard not to react to it. Activists and independent media in BC forward it furiously to their Canadian and International contacts – including media.

Soon, producers at major international outlets like the BBC are downloading HD quality images and preparing news stories – which are as much about the viral video clip that’s shocking the world as the violence itself over a mine in BC.

The eloquent chief of the First Nation whose territory the mine would invade, Marilyn Baptiste, is fielding calls from everyone from Amy Goodman to Anderson Cooper. Within days, the governments of BC and Canada, the mining company, the already severely embattled RCMP have been indelibly connected by tens of millions of people around the world to the violent oppression of environmental protestors, among them aboriginal grannies in wheelchairs.

And by the time these parties realize what hit them, it’s too late – they have lost all control of the story. It’s now an international spectacle.  And guess what? Forget about that mine. It’s done like dinner.

A little far-fetched, you say? Allow me to explain.

I raise this hypothetical scenario not to shock or scare, and certainly not to incite the type of situation I describe – quite the opposite. I present it because this is exactly where things are headed at this very moment  – based on our present trajectory. My colleague Rafe Mair has been prophesying this unfortunate conclusion for years now – in these pages and before that – and, sadly, I too have come to envisage the same inexorable results from the bad decisions being made by our politicians, on this issue and many others.

As for Fish Lake/Prosperity Mine, it’s mostly the fault of the BC Government, first under Gordon Campbell, now under Christy Clark – who continues  to astonish by out-doing even her predecessor in the contest to be the premier with the worst environmental record in BC, perhaps Canadian, history (she’s probably neck and neck with Ralph Klein at this stage, but Christy’s just getting warmed up). Let’s review the Campbell/Clark Government’s record on the issue with a brief timeline:

  • First, the BC Government quickly and painlessly approved Taseko Mines’ plan to destroy Fish Lake for its “Prosperity Mine”, only to be embarrassed in late 2010 when the Harper Government rejected the same proposal following its far more extensive Federal Panel Review (the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Federal Environment Ministry and dozens of expert interveners and First Nations were all strongly opposed to the project).
  • Then, a full six weeks before the Harper Government decided to grant Taseko a second shot at an environmental review early last week, based on an amended plan that doesn’t directly destroy Fish Lake (but is, nevertheless, as bad or worse ecologically than its predecessor, according to the First Nations), the Clark Government quietly issued work permits to the company to begin building roads and doing heavy-duty exploratory drilling. This was a breathtakingly provocative and inflammatory move  by Premier Clark, amid an already highly charged atmosphere. Unbelievable, really – flouting the Feds, First Nations, and the people of BC in one fell swoop.
  • Upon discovering this, last week, the First Nations filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court to suspend or cancel those permits while the project is still under federal review (a no-brainer, it would seem)
  • This past Saturday, Chief Baptiste personally (and alone, I’m told, by solid sources) confronted Taseko’s trucks that had just moved into the territory to begin work. Having been informed by the chief that they were trespassing, the truck drivers turned around and left.
  • Now this week, Taseko Mines has filed for an injunction against the Tsilhqot’in, seeking to bar the First Nations from preventing the company’s workers from entering their territory! At the same time, The First Nations have filed for a counter-injunction against the company. As you can see, things are escalating at lightning speed – with more hearings scheduled for tomorrow. It remains to be seen how the courts will rule – lord knows they’ve been put in a hell of a spot by the Province.

So it is at the feet of one Premier Christy Clark that the lion’s share of the blame lies – and will lie, if things get even more out of hand. But knowing how vehemently opposed the First Nations are to this project on their territory; knowing the litany of new problems with the alternate proposal  – which has already been presented publicly through the original Federal Panel Review – the Harper Government should never have sent this project back for a second review. So both of these governments are complicit on some level in forcing the all-too-real hypothetical situation I’ve described here.

I say all these things now, knowing that at least some people within the Clark and Harper administrations will read this (and please help ensure they do, by forwarding this article to your MLA and MP). It is to them I’m speaking.

I implore Mr. Harper and Ms. Clark to recognize how the world has changed since the 1990’s-era Gustafsen Lake, Oka, and other relatively recent violent stand-offs between indigenous peoples and the RCMP and Sûreté du Quebec, still seared in our national consciousness.

Today, we live in the post-Dziekanski era – where one false move by law enforcement and governments is instantly on the public record for millions to see. The Surveillance State works both ways, you see; police can bring their cameras to intimidate protestors, but it is they who are really on candid camera now. (Though, I want to be clear: the police are mere pawns in this game – it is the politicians who drive the situation; and yet, the RCMP’s image is at an all-time low, which will likely make the media and public more ready to blame the police if things go sideways here).

Granted, there may be some instances where the public is divided on the rough handling of protestors by police – some instances, even, like Vancouver’s recent Stanley Cup Riot, where they collectively wish law enforcement took a harder line.

But this is a mine, after all – with undeniably severe ecological impacts; a mine which has already been rejected by the federal government; a mine which prompted an RCMP investigation into insider trading when millions of shares were dumped weeks in advance of the federal government’s rejection of it; a mine which First Nations, with very real and powerful legal rights, vehemently oppose; a mine which a significant majority of BC citizens also oppose. So the prevailing sympathy will be with the mine’s opponents if the conflict descends into violence.

If the Tsilhqot’in people and their supporters are smart – and they are, I believe – they will be preparing right now for the aforementioned scenario. They will take donations to purchase some affordable yet highly effective camcorders. They will train their membership in how to film, edit and upload footage to youtube; how to circulate it through email and social media. They will continue developing information trees, local and international media contacts (they’ve been extraordinarily effective at garnering media interest up to this point, party thanks to their impressive chiefs Marilyn Baptiste and Joe Alphonse). If they are smart, they will do the above – and they will wait.

They will wait and pray that our courts do the right thing and force Taseko to stand down – at least until the federal government has completed its environmental review of the company’s amended proposal. They will wait and hope the Clark and Harper governments come to their senses. But they will be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

With words bearing the full force of their conviction, the Tsilhqot’in have repeatedly demonstrated the resolve to stand on that blockade – even give their lives to protect their sacred land and water – and many supporters have already vowed to stand by their side.

But in addition to that, they will have the cameras ready to roll, the iPhones and laptops set to upload to the world the reality of the injustice being perpetrated upon them. And in the era of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the social media-fueled Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Keystone XL and Enbridge protests, the world simply has no stomach for watching cops beat up good people standing up for the right values.

So to our provincial and federal governments – and particularly to Ms. Clark – I say, think long and hard before you venture any further down this road. It can only end badly – not just for the brave souls who will inevitably suffer through the sacrifices they make standing up for what they believe in – but for you, your government and your very legacy…not to mention Canada’s reputation in the eyes of the world.

For all our sakes, let us hope cooler heads prevail.

Share