The petition alleges that Crown
officials breached their duties to consult and accommodate the
Tsilhqot’in and failed to extend even “the most basic courtesies of
consultation”, such as notice that approvals for drilling and road
construction were granted. Six weeks after the approval for this work,
the Tsilhqot’in are still waiting for a rationale for the decision.
Xeni Gwet’in Chief Marilyn Baptiste said that the Tsilhqot’in consider
the affected area “a cultural school, a place for social gatherings, a
‘grocery store’ for country foods, and a place for ceremony”. Last
November, the Federal Government rejected the original Prosperity Mine
proposal, based on a scathing report by an independent federal panel
highlighting a host of environmental and cultural impacts, including
“high magnitude” and “irreversible” impacts on Tsilhqot’in traditional
use in this area of “unique and special significance to the
Tsilhqot’in”.
“This company went through years of exploration for its failed first
bid,” said Chief Baptiste, “Now they want to go back in there and drill
more holes, dig nearly 60 test pits and clear over 23 kilometres of
road, all for this new mine proposal that the company knows – and has
publicly stated – is worse for the environment that its preferred
option. We are appealing to the court to uphold the principles of
fairness and justice.”
“We’re talking about serious impacts for our rights and our culture,”
said Chief Joe Alphonse, Tribal Chair of the Tsilhqot’in National
Government. “The Province refused to acknowledge these impacts, no
matter what we say; it is more concerned with handing over approvals.
We’ve gone to court before, we’ve stood in front of the federal panel,
we have proven over and over again how important these lands are to our
people and our culture – but the Province never seems to get the
message”.
Their lawyer, Jay Nelson, said: “it’s alarming that the Province didn’t
take basic steps like notifying the Tsilhqot’in when it approved the
drilling and road construction in this area. It handed the company this
approval six weeks ago and the Tsilhqot’in are still waiting for a
rationale for the decision. We all know this is a high conflict
situation, and this kind of disrespect only throws fuel on the fire”.
Media contacts: Jay Nelson (Woodward and Company LLP) 778.678.4699.
Chief Joe Alphonse, TNG Tribal Chair & Chief of Tl’etinqox-t’in (250-305-8282 – Messages Only)
Ten facts that show why resubmitted Prosperity Mine proposal cannot be approved:
1. The CEAA review panel process was very different from the BC EAO
rubber-stamp decision. Its report found immitigable, devastating impacts
to the local fish stocks and endangered grizzly populations, and to the
existing and future rights of the Tsilhqot’in and its youth. Then
Environment Minister Jim Prentice described the report’s findings as
“scathing” and “probably the most condemning I have ever read.”
2. The company knows its new option is worse than its first plan. TML’s
V.P. Corporate Affairs, Brian Battison, was clear in his Mar. 22, 2010,
opening presentation to the CEAA hearings, when he 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.”
3. The point was emphasised by TML’s VP of engineering, Scott Jones, who
stated: “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.”
4. This proposal does not address the issues that led to the rejection
of the first bid last year. Fish Lake will be affected by the toxic
waste and eventually die, and it will be surrounded by a massive open
pit mine and related infrastructure for decades. The Tsilhqot’in people
will not have access to their spiritual place, and the area will never
be returned to the current pristine state.
It is not even new. It is “Mine Development Plan 2.” TML states on page
20 of its project submission: “Option 2 is the basis for the New
Prosperity design …The concepts that lead to the configuration of MDP
Option 2 have been utilized to develop the project description currently
being proposed.”
5. This option was looked at and rejected last year by the company,
Environment Canada and the CEAA review panel. For example, page 65 of
the review report states: “The Panel agrees with the observations made
by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2
would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred
alternative.”
6. The new $300 million in proposed spending is to cover the costs of
relocating mine waste a little further away. There is nothing in the
‘new’ plan to mitigate all the environmental impacts identified in the
previous assessment. TML states in its economic statement: “The new
development design, predicated on higher long term prices for both
copper and gold, would result in a direct increase in capital costs of
$200 million to purchase additional mining equipment to relocate the
tailings dam and to move the mine waste around Fish Lake to new
locations. This redesign also adds $100 million in direct extra
operating costs over the 20-year mine life to accomplish that task.” In
fact, this new spending is actually $37 million less than the company
said last year it would have to spend just to go with the option that it
and the review panel agreed would be worse for the environment.
7. The federal government is required under the Constitution to protect
First Nations, which have been found to be under serious threat in this
case, and is internationally committed to do so under the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These duties
are every bit as clear regarding this resubmitted proposal.
8. Approving this mine would show the Environmental Assessment process
is meaningless, and would demonstrate that governments are ignoring
their obligations - as the Assembly of First Nations national
chiefs-in-assembly made this crystal clear this summer in their
resolution of support for the Tsilhqot’in.
9. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this
project since it was first raised in 1995. It soundly rejected it again
last year. It has no reason to support it now. Nor does Environment
Canada, which, as the CEAA report noted last year, also found option 2
to be worse than the original bid.
10. There are many other more worthy projects to be pursued – the vast
majority of which, if not all will require working with aboriginal
communities. Natural Resources Canada estimates there is $350
billion-$500 billion worth of such potential projects in Canada.
Governments, industry and investors do not need to go backwards by
pushing this confrontational proposal and rebuffing efforts by First
Nations to find a way to create a better mining system that would
benefit everyone in the long run.
FONV
info@fonv.ca
