Topic
Infuriated landowners rally to regain control of their property. A special report.
The Westie home on Bluenose Mountain.
Bruce Essington lives in a tarp-covered bread truck on the side of Bluenose Mountain. He has been squatting on the same patch of land, not far from Vernon, for longer than any of his neighbours can remember. Sometimes he'd roam about toting a rifle and wearing night vision goggles. Recently he has begun to pay off his land in instalments.
And now Essington, who owns one faded set of clothes and an old leather miner's hat peppered with holes, has bought rights to about 150 acres of his neighbours' land. For $50.
He was able to do that because last year the province created an online staking system that allows anyone with internet access and $25 to acquire a miner's license and then, at $0.17 an acre, buy mineral rights to land. It doesn't matter whether that land belongs to a neighbour, the Crown, or the "miner" himself. Once you own the mineral rights, you are free to "explore" your claims, wander the property, "poke at a few rocks," in the words of MP Tom Christensen. And once you decide to start drilling and digging, even the landowner's dwelling and buildings are at risk. That's the law under the Mineral Tenure Act as of 2002, when the section prohibiting miners from "obstruction or interference" with activities (or buildings) on private land was repealed.
Essington may have the law on his side for now, but his claim has helped spark a grassroots uprising by infuriated landowners on Bluenose Mountain and beyond. They call themselves the B.C. Landowners Rights Group (BCLOR) and say they are determined to fight the government until the balance of power swings back to those who live their lives on land they own, instead of anyone who comes along and wants to grab the minerals resting underground.
Free to traipse
Since Essington bought the mineral rights to his neighbours' property six months ago, he has spent a great deal of time exploring his new claims, sometimes with a spray paint canister to mark his territory on trees and rocks that his neighbours believed they bought when they purchased the land several years ago.
Trespassing, right? Or vandalism? Well, neither the government nor the RCMP was certain. Essington was not charged for repeatedly scrawling 'free miners lic.' in blue paint on private property and removing 'For Sale' signs at the entrance of Kurt Yakelashek's driveway, for snooping around the property at night, or for leaving piles of beer cans around the grounds. Essington owns the mineral rights under much of the property, and he is now legally above trespass laws. The spray painting might be a bit much, but RCMP Constable Tony Clack did not charge him, partly because the Mineral Tenure Act's clauses regarding "corner staking" and altering the property are, to use his word, "ambiguous." The act only specifies that "mechanized" alterations to the property require owner notification -- a paint can is not a machine, and Essington said he had marked the land in good faith.
The vagueness extends beyond Essington's right to traipse and paint -- the very fact of his claim is somewhat fuzzy. The Mineral Tenure Act has a clause forbidding "nuisance staking," preventing people from staking claims to other people's land for the sole purpose of aggravating them. But the onus is on the surface rights owners (the people who paid for the acreage, the house, the barn, the upkeep, the taxes, etc.) to prove a staked claim is just a nuisance. It's not enough to point to the fact that Essington has no mining history, or that he lacks the cash and experience to run a mining company.
For love or mining
Rob Westie, whose land is assessed at "well over $1000 an acre" atop Essington's new claim, is incensed. He and his wife Auralie, with the help of their five children, built their house from the ground up. After months of logging and levelling the land, they gained a spectacular view of the mountains. By careful design, the full moon shines through the centre of the skylight in the master bedroom.
Westie says he cleared the pines by hand to preserve a favourite music. "There's this one tree, right over there," he points, "and it makes just the most amazing sound, like it's singing, when the wind blows through it."
Westie, four times a grandfather, worries that if someone wants to make a gravel pit out of the refuge he built for his family, there is absolutely nothing he can do. The best the law offers is an appeal option, whereby Westie can sue for more compensation for the house rendered invaluable by the time, love and energy that went into its construction.
Constable Clack worries, too. "I've got family, too, and I've told them to check into those laws." The idea that anybody can just "walk around on your property" or build a mine on it was "all news to me," he said.
B.C.'s Chief Gold Commissioner Gerald German is responsible for ensuring that mining is being conducted according to the laws set out for it. Reached by The Tyee, he insisted that "people are generally aware that surface rights and subsurface rights are two separate packages."
But B.C. Minister of Mining Bill Bennett acknowledged that for a "good share" of the general public "it probably comes as a big surprise to them that they don't own the rights under them." He argues, however, that it's up to the landowner to get educated.
"If they're moving up there then they are obligated to know what they're buying and what they're getting into," Bennett told The Tyee. Even if realtors, notaries and the mining industry are silent on the matter? "I can't help it," he continued, "if somebody moves up there with stars in his eyes and doesn't know what he's buying into."
"We spend a lot of your tax dollars on public education," Bennett said. He noted that pertinent texts on mining and sub-surface rights are shelved at the Access Centre in Cranbrook (which is about 550 kilometres from Bluenose Mountain).
Legal dead ends
Even if a mine isn't built, the Westies (and any B.C. landowner in a similar situation) have other concerns. If Essington injures himself while surveying his new mining claims, who is liable for the accident? If he harms the owners of surface rights while exploring his claims, who takes responsibility? Since trespassing laws are trumped by free miner rights, what will keep Essington from sporting his night-vision goggles to peruse his new territory as the Yakelasheks and Westies are eating dinner, or showering, or sleeping? They all live miles from town on plots 80-acres or larger, and when they moved in no one installed curtains.
Upon learning that he couldn't take Essington to court, Westie sought help from his MLA Tom Christensen, asking if the government could pull licenses from miners and bar them from entry on private property.
"We're the government," Westie recalls Christensen saying. "We can do anything that we want."
At their next meeting, Westie requested that the legislation be changed to preserve landowners' rights.
"Well, you can't do that." It takes time and legislative processes, Westie says Christensen told him.
"But you're the government. You can do anything you want," reminded Westie, who said Christensen "looked at me like some kind of a hell coming to ruin his life." Christensen did not respond to The Tyee's numerous requests for an interview.
News only got worse as Westie approached more government officials with questions. Could he sue a miner to reclaim mineral rights under private property? Or for being on private land? Or to deny a miner the right of entry? No, no and no, came the responses.
That left convincing the gold commissioner that Essington is a nuisance staker, which still may come to pass, though it has been five months since the authorities were first notified of the dispute.
Proving that Essington is a nuisance is proving difficult. Yakelashek observed that Essington bought the mineral rights just after Yakelashek put a 20-acre plot of his land up for sale. At one point, Yakelashek asked him why he had bought the mineral rights. "You said you'd never subdivide," Essington allegedly replied. But hearsay does not hold up in court -- no one has had a recorder handy when coming across him in the woods.
'A war brewing here'
So Westie assembled a group of angry landowners and neighbours -- including a teacher, farmer, developer, sawmill manager and retired cowboy – and started a grassroots rebellion. From Westie's perspective, the government has declared war on him, and he's "just ready to start fighting back."
His B.C. Landowners Rights Group has drafted a letter explaining the lack of landowners' rights and the goals of the organization. The members are preparing to draft a faux-amendment, to be voted on at their website, and they're sending their message far and wide.
"We told the federal government 'There's a war brewing here. These are Canadian citizens,'" who are facing "nothing short of an invasion." Westie's talk is direct, earnest and ominous. He has considered the possibility that, if the government does nothing, "the next time we talk to the feds it might be when they're sending the army in."
Both German and Bennett insist that conflicts between landowners and miners are "localized" and "isolated."
But BCLOR's backcountry revolt may have a broader base than first meets the eye. Though the Westies and Yakelasheks have a unique situation with an aggressive bushman neighbour, the number of landowners whose rights have been threatened or obliterated has exploded in recent years, and environmental activists and environmental law groups have taken note. A few examples of B.C. properties recently affected by the Mineral Tenure Act's free entry policy:
Seeking signatures
Environmental lawyer Karen Campbell sees the situation on Bluenose Mountain as a microcosm for British Columbia, a province that still functions on laws dating back to frontier days. "The laws of free entry, which have been in this province for about 150 years, weren't a problem when they were created, but now people are living on these properties, and there's going to be more and more conflicts." Westie's case, she said, is just the "tip of the iceberg."
When Jan Williams of Sechelt learned of Westie's plans to face the government and rally support, she immediately declared, "I want to join them." The Yorstons have already added their name to BCLOR's supporters and are seeking out cases similar to their own, attempting to join forces. Joe Falkoski, who owns surface rights over a Barium deposit, has also joined ranks with Westie, having taken his case to the Gold Commissioner as well as the provincial Mediation and Arbitration Board.
"If we can get half a million signatures on our web site, then the government will have to listen to us," urged Westie.
Money behind mining boom
But that would mean reversing B.C.'s full throttle race to attract more mining to the province, which has included streamlining mining regulations. Mining companies recently have poured big dollars into B.C. Liberal campaigns, giving them $1.3 million in the 2004 election year. Between 2004 and 2005, Teck Cominco gave $870,000 and Fording Coal donated $268,000 to the B.C. Liberals. Placer Dome Canada was close behind, donating $225,000. Most of these donations came in just months before the B.C. government released its 2005 "Mining Plan."
In the past three years, the government has spent over $75 million on mining exploration-related infrastructure to entice the industry. (A previous version of this story misstated that figure as $400 million.) Mining in B.C. is a $5 billion industry whose net income has grown more than six-fold since 2003, according to PricewaterhouseCooper. The industry brought in over $600 million to government this year.
The figure is projected to only grow, given rising prices for commodities like aggregate (gravel) and coal. As the average price of metallurgical coal nearly doubled in 2005, B.C.'s coal sales increased by almost $1 billion. Ministry of Mining's Pat Bell believes this "will be the biggest commodity boom that has ever occurred in the world."
Aggregate, too, has seen a resurgence due to pre-Olympics construction plus a recent increased demand for cement products in California and Japan.
Part of the mine-staking surge is speculative. The process of extracting methane from coal beds is seen by some miners and government officials to be the wave of the future in B.C. Though coal bed methane (CBM) has not yet been commercially produced in the province, the government and mining industry have staked out several areas "with a high potential for CBM" and are already making some PR efforts.
Environmentalists vigorously oppose the mining and producing of coal bed methane, noting the inherent environmental risks in the extraction process, particularly to water sources. But if energy prices continue to rise, so may demand for "natural gas" from coal. About $20 million has already been spent on CBM exploration in B.C. The Yorston property sits atop a coal seam. To Lenore's knowledge, no one has ever drilled it to test for CBM potential, but the mere possibility is "unthinkable" to her. "Once they drill down, your whole water source is ruined," she claimed, referring to the aquifer that sits below her ranch.
Online staking
Since 2002, the government has issued new legislation and eliminated old regulations and requirements, some of which were reported on The Tyee last year, including Bill-54, which exempted some mines from pollution laws.
As of January 2005, for example, anyone with an internet connection can become a 'free miner' according to the Mineral Titles Online system developed by the B.C. government. Beyond the small fee required, there is no background check or certification process. The ease of online staking has helped accelerate B.C.'s mining boom, said Mineral Titles Online spokesman Jake Jacobs. Pat Bell wrote in the 2005 B.C. Mining Plan: "mining exploration in British Columbia has more than tripled since 2001." That tripling is financial, including revenues from prospecting, surveying, mapping, drilling and evaluating the information, said Jacobs.
Jacobs did not specify how much of that exploration had been done on private property, but Lenore Yorston believes it is a substantial amount. She thinks there may be some advantages to mining private rather than crown land. Since there are already roads and electricity, miners have less work to do to start mining the coal on her property, she said.
'Matter of public awareness'
Changing the mining laws to protect landowners "is a matter of public awareness and numbers," said Karen Campbell.
"People aren't going to stand for this," agreed Yakelashek. "A person's home is their greatest investment," he elaborated. "We do not pay for the land and pay taxes for it yearly so that we can have our privacy destroyed by having to share it with a miner."
The law requires that miners must operate at least 75 metres from a dwelling on land for which they own the mineral rights. But that radius hardly protects residents from dust, fumes and sound pollution, says Yakelashek.
Imagine a similar situation in Vancouver or Victoria, he suggested, whereby backyards over a certain size were opened to mining claims. "You can't say that you want to keep your backyard for your kids, garden, etc."
The prospect of such intrusion may be already affecting people's futures on the Sunshine Coast, where Pan Pacific Mining has claimed almost 20,000 hectares of mineral rights. Residents fear that property prices will begin declining, said resident Jan Williams, and Pan Pacific is still taking the core samples that precede a gravel pit that may soon displace some of the community.
Westie wonders whether politicians knew what they were getting into when they created the conditions for fast, cheap online staking and the rush to mine. He said MLA Christensen admitted to him that after setting up the online system, the government was surprised because it "thought the miners would go north," rather than into British Columbia's more populous areas.
Bill Bennett wasn't surprised, though. As he pointed out to The Tyee, "The biggest mines the province has ever had were in the southern half of the province."
Kendyl Salcito is on staff at The Tyee.
Related Tyee stories: Monte Paulsen revealed that a person used the internet to stake Premier Campbell's own house for mineral right; Christopher Pollon investigated salmon kills from mining the Fraser River for gravel; and on the eve of the last provincial election, Scott Deveau toted up donations to the BC Liberals by mining and other resource firms. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
48
Login or register to post comments
bloodnok
6 years ago
Comments on "'War Brewing' over Mining Rights in Rural BC&q
Ah, the Campbell Liberals; evil or stupid? You be the judge.
Here's my advice to homeowners worried about their property: Buy the mineral rights to your own land quick!
Heck, it's easy and cheap, apparently. Why worry about spending another 50 bucks to protect the land you already own? After all, you'd spend more on an alarm system.
realist2
6 years ago
Gee, the degradation of individual rights for the profit of corproate political party donors. What a surprise!! ... EDITED FOR POSSIBLE LIBEL -- TYEE EDITOR ... It doesn't matter, rail lines, peoples homes hospital cleaning safety, it's all for sale regardless of who actually owns the property. B.C's W.o.M.D. continues to destroy British Columbia. "B.C. the best place in the world" if you have money and are willing to use the citizens for your own selfish greed.
BC Mary
6 years ago
It's only the on-line staking of mineral claims that's new, right?
Otherwise, sub-surface rights were always withheld from title transfers.
Bailey
6 years ago
It may not be possible to buy the mineral rights to your own property. I read an article just after this law came into being that said that within less than an hour of the website access coming on line, the greater part of the province was staked.
Including the premier's own Sunshine Coast estate, which is now apparently part of a vast gravel claim.
Gloomy
6 years ago
Why is it that nothing surprises me anymore?
Gordo and his gang will bend over backwards for the people who contribute to their party.
yes, there has always been a disclaimer about underground rights, but now it is apparantly made legal to actually harrass people on their own property and perhaps make it unliveable for them.
Fiat lux
6 years ago
So, where's the usual, "conservative" demand for the inclusion of Property Rights into the Constitution ? What property rights?
Alas, this has always been like this, the Libs have only made it easier.
We had some crews testing on our land years ago and we ordered them off, but, we broke the law, when we did so. And we can bet that most of those claims over BC lands are by foreign multinationals.
This is what they call "borderless trade"
Ed Deak.
xbie
6 years ago
Excellent article, Kendyl.
Here's a potentially easy solution: Go to their website at http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/subwebs/mtonline/
and buy up mineral rights under the homes and businesses of as many BC politicians and corporate executives as possible. Then submit these people to the same kind of treatment described in this story. Could a movement of us, for example, buy up a significant chunk of the wealthiest parts of Victoria, for example? Are the rights under the legislature available? Somebody with a GPS should find out.
neocon
6 years ago
xbie: I agree with you.
Truman Green
6 years ago
Great piece of journalism, Kendyl Salcito.
Yeah, Bailey, I bet the government wouldn't allow you to buy up the rights to your own property if your reason was that you wanted to prevent mining.
Your application might be considered merely frivolous, and you might be considered to be a "nuisance staker."
rvbums2
6 years ago
BC Mary, the online licensing process is new but it was the catalyst which opened the watershed of free miner claims which were issued to anyone who applied without a process of scrutiny or qualifications. The invasive and damaging portions of the Mineral Tenure Act and Mineral Right of Way Act were passed on May 15, 2002 when the Liberal government held a majority of the seats, 75 I believe, to the NDP's 2! The changes were passed quietly under the radar and when the online licensing began, the real effects of the acts were felt.
None of the BCLOR Group is against mining in BC, per se. We are against the licensing and freedom of movement allotted the license holder on privately owned land. The Acts supercede the Trespassing Act, leave very little process for appeal, and definitley serve the mining industry with an unfair advantage over private landowners. Furthermore and more importantly, BC and Ontario are the only 2 provinces which issue free miner licenses without the consent of the private landowner or agent thereof. A middle ground must be found. 92% of this province is Crown Land. Issue the licenses for appropriate areas on Crown Land and leave privately owned land out of the picture.
Fiat lux
6 years ago
As a land owner, I would be interested in learning more and joining this campaign and will look at the website, even donate money, if necessary.
We either own our properties, or not, but I won't see some bunch of multinationals coming here and start digging holes on my land, even if we're sitting on a gold deposit. To hell with it and those who want to dig it up
Ed Deak. Big Lake.
steerpike
6 years ago
Just get a few big vicious dogs on very long leashes.
neocon
6 years ago
Fiat:
Sign me up too.
godsChild
6 years ago
I take full and complete credit for urging the Eagleridge Buff protestors to begin buying mineral rights TODAY.
You can see rather quickly where this might lead....
PS: Betty - you're welcome.
Capitalism
6 years ago
Interesting Story - though I still have a number of questions.
If this is as bad as it seems, we should do something about it.
Clearly this hasn't impacted many as this would be a bigger issue. I would be more worried about lunatics like Bruce Essington roaming around my property - than a mining company coming through.
It is extremely difficult to get a permit to actually mine, and they don't allow mining anywhere near residential activity.
godsChild
6 years ago
Many Tyee readers should understand a bit more about minerology.
Falconite is known for its broad yellow streak, its gypsum hardness (the famously "wet and oily" gypsum), its sulfidious odor, a remarkable ability to bend and cleavage itself anywhere near money and a remarkable density in spite of it's blatant transparency. It is often found near crusty, shallow, fossilized pools of PreCambrian insectoid larvae.
Here's three top down views of a property I hear are rich in Falconite.
That one of these abodes may in fact be an MLA's residence is of little concern, as they have most certainly done their "due diligence".
As one waggish Member recently put it - "the Chinese "don't have the labour or environmental restrictions we do. ... Could you imagine if we could build like that?"
"Speculators" amongst you can only wonder what level of mineral intake besides lead leads to such levels of mental retardation.
Perhaps a land grab is in order.
This seems unlikely...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=+16275+15+Avenue,+Surrey+BC+Canada&ie=UTF8&ll=49.029406,-122.771772&spn=0.001583,0.005407&t=h&om=1
Here's a big old dirt patch already set up...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=+16760+61+Avenue,+Surrey+BC+Canada&ie=UTF8&ll=49.113504,-122.758741&spn=0.00632,0.021629&t=h&om=1
and this one too seems dubious...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=+5668+176a+Street,+Surrey+BC+Canada&ie=UTF8&ll=49.105627,-122.733518&spn=0.00158,0.005407&t=h&om=1
Now go forth and speculate you varmints!
kendylsalcito
6 years ago
Hi Capitalism ~
I'm glad you sent in comments.
While it's not my place to judge whether legislation is 'bad,' I think it's important that BC consider the impacts this legislation has on citizens. Bill Bennett and Gerald German both said they foresaw growing issues as rural BC becomes populated and miners pursue a more diverse (and sometimes lower grade) range of minerals.
More and more people are moving out of cities and retiring in the interior, and there's no reason to suspect they know anything about the Mineral Tenure Act or sub-surface claims. This can only become a bigger problem as mining becomes more lucrative and the quiet, rural lifestyle becomes more enticing.
The idea that mining legislation affects only a few people is complicated. Folks on the Sechelt Peninsula would tend to disagree, and folks on Bluenose mountain would prefer - I imagine - that as Canadians we respect a landowners right (to use his property as he sees fit) over a company's right to confiscate that purchase. Rob Westie has called it "fascist" and "socialist."
What I found in my research is that cases where mining companies enter private land pop up unexpectedly, as long as you're looking. Landowners, however, sometimes lack the means to communicate their problems to others. Many lack computers, some don't even have phones. Rob Westie still doesn't have a computer at his home -- his house runs on solar power and a computer would use too much energy.
The incidents of mining on private land are isolated in some senses, but that I can list a half-dozen off the top of my head leads me to believe there are probably more out there.
"They don't allow mining anywhere near residential activity" is also a dicey claim, as the mining ministry's guideline is just a 75 metre radius around a place of dwelling. What qualifies as 'near'? Who gets to decide?
I appreciate your commentary - it's important that both sides of the mining question are presented.
Cheers!
Skookum1
6 years ago
Food for thought: one way to keep resources "national" is to finally settle Land Claims and give title, with foreign ownership/sale restrictions, to the First Nations; as if they could be trusted any more than the provincial government(s) or feds, but I doubt they'd be eager to sell out to the Americans or anyone overseas once they have the keys to the vault......
rvbums2
6 years ago
For any of you who want more information or wish to sign on to support the BCLOR Group's efforts to bring about amendments to BC's Mineral Tenure Act and the Mineral Right of Way Act, please logon to:
or BCLOR.ca Our strength will be in our numbers. You can help in a variety of ways: 1. Read the Acts which are available on the above website. Persevere as they are rather lengthy but well worth the effort to become informed about their impact.
2. Contact your local MLA and MP to let them know that you disagree with the legislation and want private land removed from licensing and all licenses which have been issued on private land without the consent of the landowner or agent thereof to be revoked.
3. Sign the petition to indicate that you support the BCLOR.
4. Read the discussion paper entitled "Undermining Our Future: How Mining's Privileged Access to Land Harms People and the Environment" It is a very well-prepared and informative piece of work written by Karen Campbell who is Staff Counsel for West Coast Environmental Law.
5. Encourage your friends, neighbours, co-workers and relatives to become informed about these pieces of legislation. Remember: This could happen to you or anyone else in this province.
6. Write Letters to the Editor of your local and provincial newspapers. The more people become aware of this situation, the better, because these Acts are not widely known and people don't usually become aware of them until they or someone they know are directly impacted.
92% of the land in BC is Crown owned. Therefore, the big question is: Why does this government need to take such contol over privately owned land? Why are private landowners being treated so disrespectfully? We must never forget that the resources of this country and this province belong to the citizens of this country and this province, not to a few powerful corporations or a few elected officials who think it is their right to take and use them without consultation or consent from those same citizens. Remember also, that MLA's and MP's work for the citizens of this province and country and it is their responsibilty and duty to serve in the best interests of those same citizens.
sdgreen
6 years ago
The mineral rights issue has always been an inigma in my view. It would be my view that if one is the land owner and a mineral is found on ones property, then the profits from that mineral ought to be that of the landowner.
However, for for decades, this logic has been thwarted by laws developed long ago.
While this is not either a Liberal or NDP created issue, but one of long standing in the law books, it should be changed, certainly in favour of teh land owner.
Of course it is comp,lex, as if teh Land owner has title of what is underneath the ground,; how deep? Does ownership also extend above the ground?
There does need to be clarity.
chilled
6 years ago
Definately another one of those "only in BC " issues.
How about a miner or mining company actually buying the land they want to mine? What a novel concept; free enterprise and fairness rolled into one.
Gloomy
6 years ago
good question? if you get buried six feet down, can a mining company rightfully dig you up?
is any ground sacred?
indeed a novel concept!
SharingIsGood
6 years ago
Thank you, Kendyl Salcito, for this very informative article which seems to have united the tyee's left and right - no mean feat!
RickW
6 years ago
Perhaps it's time:
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060614125642703
RickW
6 years ago
chilled:
But then it would set a precedent. The the railways would have to buy the land they run their tracks on, instead of being subsidized in this regard. Then airline companies might have to actually buy airports so they could takeoff and land. The ships might have to buy docks, etc. etc.
Then where would the state of free enterprise be...........?
RickW
6 years ago
And the oil companies would have to buy the land as well! My God, man! Think of the shareholders bottomline!! Have you no pity?
relayer
6 years ago
Bloodnok- how about evil AND stupid?
Fiat lux
6 years ago
As far I'm concerned, if we own the top of the land to grow our crops, flowers, grass and build our houses with trenched foundations, even if the mineral rights can , or have been claimed, the miners have no right to disturb the surface, which is our property.
E.g. in good topsoil, alfalfa roots have been known to go down 50 feet, so if the plant is our property, so is the soil it grows on. Then there's the question of wells, which can be several hundred feet deep. Are our property, or not?
This question should be taken to the Courts and fought with tooth and nail.
Of course, this is not only a Canadian, or BC problem. I read a story once where, during the South African diamond rush, the miners started to tear down the walls of a school, while the children were still sitting at their desks.
Ed Deak.
XB191A
6 years ago
easiest way i can figure to make the point of the people in this matter is to buy up mineral rights under major cities then stripmine mainstreet, thier homes, their church, the store where they buy their groceries and the very goverment buildings they work in. then and only then will these politicians see just how asinine their actions really are.
RickW
6 years ago
Strange isn't it Ed, that they can have their cake and eat it too..........
http://www.bardweb.net/plays/venice.html
RickW
6 years ago
XB191A:
There will be a law against that.....ruination of people and all they've struggled for throughoout their lives only applies when it is out of sight, and (more to the point) in a sparsely populated area where there aren't many votes. That is why the interior of BC is shutting down.
Bobb999
6 years ago
Stake Politicians Properties!
If the activists lobbying politicians on this important issue decide that politicians are not moving on the issue, here's a strategy some Americans devised for a different, but related US issue, that could work here:
The US Supreme Court made an important ruling re. property rights and "eminent domain". Many folks , conservative and liberal alike, were incensed by the court's decision which allows US municipal governments to take over people's homes and properties on the flimsiest of pretences. The municipality simply needs to claim that greater economic value or revenue generation can
come from using the property for some other purpose: a strip mall, new condos, a restaurant, you name it. It's been rightly viewed in the US as an attack on personal property rights. One response has been for individual states to pass their own laws protecting "eminent domain".
This is the clever strategy to be used against unheeding decision makers:
One of the Supreme court justices who voted against property rights was targeted. A house he owned was singled out. A group of property rights activists
decided to punish the judge by giving him a taste of his own medicine. They gathered funds for a proposal to have the judge's house developed and turned into an inn, which of course would generate new economic activity for the town. The particular town apparently already had a law of its own which required a plebiscite vote on the matter. The activists hoped to gather
town support for the cause of property rights by educating folks on the issue and hoping they too would want to punish the foolish judge. Unfortunately, they didn't get quite enough votes to take over the judge's house.
How this would work in BC would be to assemble documentation of personal properties owned by BC Liberal MLAs. Find out which ones still have mineral rights up for grabs, and stake claims on them. Then start exploring and testing those claims,invading MLA's personal spaces, thus pointing out in as direct a way as possible, the intolerable injustice of the current law!
This should be a last resort tactic if lobbying doesn't work.
But the claims should be staked ASAP, so the strategy will be safely in a back pocket waiting to be utilized if necessary!
Jordan Manley
6 years ago
As per, "How about a miner or mining company actually buying the land they want to mine? What a novel concept; free enterprise and fairness rolled into one....", this is not a viable option. I will outline the problem with this.
A piece of land does not just all of a sudden become a mine. Years and years of geological work must be done before it does, and the chances that any one mining claim will become a mine, are so incredibly small. There is initial surface prospecting, soil sampling, then drilling, and more drilling that has to be done. So when does this land get purchased? Well, many land owners certainly wouldn't be thrilled if all of that geological work had been done prior to a pay out. So the pay out would have to be in the initial stages, the same way a mining claim is purchased before any work begins.
In order for a mine to be created, the amount of land that is necessary to be prospected (to find a economically viable amount of material) is massive. Prospecting companies could never drum up the capital to purchase the necessary amount of land. It would kill the mining industry in BC.
The quoted idea also presents a problem to do with privitization of land. So, are you saying that now anyone can buy designated crown land if they want to mine it? I think its wise to retain as much crown land as possible, for the greater public good. Corporations buying up BC is a much more troubling idea than corporations owning land claims in BC (which is already troubling when you think that many foreign companies own the land claims, but thats another topic).
I do think, however, that if a mining company wants to mine on a persons private property, and the owner is consenting, then the mining company should have to either pay out some sort of royalty, lease the land, or purchase the land. Other than this, I cannot see purchasing of land by mining companies to be any sort of a solution to the problem discussed in the article.
RickW
6 years ago
John Manley:
Let's put this is some perspective more familiar to the hoi polloi.
Your in a chocolate shop, looking for a particular taste, and the only way you know how to describe the taste is to "test" the chocolates being proferred. So the question is: when do the chocolates get purchased, if all you want is a particular kind?
Why should mining companies get a free ride on the coattails of either the direct owner of the land, the "greater" owners (the general public), or both? At the very least, the owners of the land should get some interest in the profit structure of any successful mining venture.
Colin
6 years ago
When I did staking and prospecting, back in the 80’s we technically had the right to survey on private land, but you didn’t enter it without permission from the land owner, only once where we refused, we passed it on and the mining inspector talked to the person and we were allowed to work during a certain period and had to remove everything except for the claim posts.
Keep in mind the term “mining†includes gravel extraction, which is where most conflicts seem to arise. If a company wanted to hardrock mine, they may wish to explore on your property to determine where and how much of a deposit there is. The main adit for the mine might be a couple of miles away, Britianna Mines had over 22 miles of tunnels.
If you are really concerned about property rights, then I suggest that you read the Pipeline Act, a old piece of legislation that allows the pipeline companies to dig through your land, lay pipe and there is not a lot you can do about it.
If a company lays mineral claims to the land beneath your property, then they must maintain that claim by spending money on it. It is also very difficult to stake within a municipality, so this is an issue that is more likely to affect rural people.
Colin
6 years ago
taken from another forum:
Don't believe everything you read in the media.
Quote:
RIGHT OF ENTRY AND SURFACE USE OF LANDS BY A FREE MINER
A free miner has the right under section 11(1) of the Mineral Tenure Act to enter upon all "mineral lands" in order to locate a claim, explore for, develop and produce minerals. "Mineral lands" are defined in section 1 of the Act as those lands where the mineral rights are reserved to the government. As previously noted, the right to the minerals on almost all privately-owned land is reserved to the government. Therefore, most private land is deemed to be "mineral land" and is available under the terms of section 11(1) of the Act.
However, section 11(2) of the Mineral Tenure Act stipulates that the afore-mentioned right of entry on mineral lands does not extend to land which is:
occupied by a building;
the curtilage of a dwelling house;
orchard land;
land under cultivation;
land lawfully occupied for mining purposes, except for the purposes of exploring for and locating of minerals or placer minerals as permitted by the Mineral Tenure Act;
protected heritage property, except as authorized by the local government or minister responsible for the protection of the protected heritage property;
land in a park, except as permitted by section 21; or
land in a recreation area, as defined in section 23, except as permitted by that section.
Jordan Manley
6 years ago
RickW:
I agree with you that land owners (or the public, if we're refering to mining on crown land) should recieve interest based on the profit structure. However, that doesn't mean the land has to be bought. Like I said, I'm sure that policy would kill the mining industry. As well, it could be argued that the public is also recieving a lot of revenue from mining, "The industry brought in over $600 million to government this year." Is it enough? Well, it would be nice if there was further sharing of the pie there.
Which reminds me, "Liberal campaigns, giving them $1.3 million in the 2004 election year. Between 2004 and 2005, Teck Cominco gave $870,000 and Fording Coal donated $268,000 to the B.C. Liberals. Placer Dome Canada was close behind, donating $225,000. Most of these donations came in just months before the B.C. government released its 2005 "Mining Plan.""
-this kind of thing has to stop.
G West
6 years ago
Jordan Manley
You're absolutely right, between the mining industry, the road construction industry and the forestry boys the BC corporate industrial sector and Howe Street gets the best government money can buy.
It's been that way for generations and it won't change until ordinary people get upset enough to force it to change. If that means electing a 'green' government to make the changes - so be it. But it has to start happening with education. It can't start any sooner than right now!
RickW
6 years ago
Jordan Manley:
Or perhaps the cost of production would be a true cost........
Tom Joad
6 years ago
Why are we surprised this is happening here? Mining companies have been taking people's lands for decades. Canada is actually allowing this to happen elsewhere...
In the Chiapas region of Mexico, NAFTA overturned article 27 of the Mexican constitution which guaranteed land to the poor, and instead allowed US, Canadian and Euro Miners to rape this land.
And now it is happening here.
rvbums2
6 years ago
To Colin:
You refer to mining in the '80's. Sorry, that was then, this is now. The rules in BC have changed and the people involved are calm. They are simply fighting for representation and help.
Despite the many interesting views appearing on this blog, I would like to emphasize that, as far as I know, nobody directly affected by this situation is against mining in BC per se. What they are against is:
1. the issuing of mineral claims licenses on privately owned property without the consultation, consent or even the notification by the Ministry responsible. As stated in an erlier blog, license issuing on private land without the consent of the landowner only occurs in BC and Ontario.
2. The interpretation of the Mineral Tenure Act and The Mineral Right of Way Act favours the miner. Many meetings and/or phone calls with both federal and provincial politicians have confirmed that the interpretation can be "worked" to favour the mining industry. For example, "curtilage". It simply allows for no mining activities to occur within 75 meters of a dwelling or building.
3. The Mineral Right of Way Act states:
2.(1)Despite any other Act, a recorded holder who desires to secure a right of way across, over, under or through private land for the purpose of constructio, maintaining and operating facilities necessary for the exploration, development and operation of a mineral title, or for the loading, transportation or shipment of ores, minerals or mineral bearing substances from a mineral title, or for the transportatin of machinery, materials and supplies into or from a mineral title may take and use private land for the right of way without the consent of the owner of the land or of a person having or claiming an estate, right, title or interest in, to,or out of the land.
(2) The power of a recorded holder to take and use land for a right of way under subsection (1) does mot include the power to take and use existing facilities or other improvements in a right of way except that a recorded holder may, subject to section 10, use an existing road.
(3) If private land is taken under subsection (1) without the consent of the owner of the land or of a person having or claiming an estate, right, title or interest in, to or out of the land, The Expropriation Act applies. (Please read section 10 of the Mineral Right of Way Act for more info. re: this clause.)
4. It is our understanding that the Trespassing Act is superseded by the Mineral Tenure Act or Mineral Right of Way Act and that the process whereby any protests or appeals are heard again favours the mineral claim holder.
One other very important point to keep in mind is that the people who have been directly impacted by this legislation have done a lot of research, consulted with many experts, attended many meetings, asked government officials and politicians for clarification and help in this. To my knowledge, the only assistance or offer to review and/or amend the Acts to provide for a "middle ground" on the claims staking of privately owned property in this province has come from people who have little or no power to do so. Our gratitude and appreciation certainly go out to them. But the bottom line is that private landowners in this province are being left with few, if any, rights, freedoms or choices on the utilization of their property. It goes without saying that anyone directly affected by this legislation would be emotionally impacted. After all, in most cases, a great deal of time, money and work has been invested by them in their property and their rights to its use are being stripped away. Furthermore, as citizens of BC and Canada, frankly, we deserve and are entitled to better treatment.
Colin
6 years ago
rvbums2
Thanks, I will read up on the changes, as it seems quite different than what we could do back then.
RickW
6 years ago
TomJoad:
Maybe not:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1018569.ece
Mexico's Manuel Lopez Obrador may follow Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales as the next Latin leftist leader. And if he wins a bitterly contested election next month, this time the revolution will be just across the US border. David Usborne reports from Tizimin
BC Dude
6 years ago
As we sit back & spend too much time (me included) on blogging, instead we should be organizing a major counter resistance against those who would/are striping our Democratic Rights away!
We should be protesting this criminal bunch of thugs that R in Our Sacred Halls of Parliamentary Buildings
So many unanswered ??'s
As for the Green Party
Ms May is a very well bought & paid for neocon in sheep’s clothing!
Green votes in BC R votes for (Hic) Gordo, he should have been thrown out as being unfit to govern.
The latest news June 15 2006 on the BC Legislature raids in Dec 03,
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/
Who is paying for these "Beautiful BC" commercials on the boobtube, TV again/2010 budget?
otesaga
6 years ago
Here in the Cowichan Valley of Vancouver Island, privately-owned land within a certain distance either side of the railway is subject to sub-surface mineral rights already held for several generations by the E & N Railway, originally owned by Lord Dunsmuir, who received this "bonus" from the BC Government of the day in return for agreeing to construct the railway.
Bobb999
6 years ago
The Toronto Star today has a good article on the "free entry" rights for prospectors vs. first nations who claim lands mining cos. want to develop. It's fairly long. Here's part of it:
"...But KI [ Kitchenuymaykoosib Inninuwugfirst first nation]has elevated the case into one with wide implications.
First, it argues, when the Ontario government gave Platinex the go-ahead to drill, it ignored a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling that provinces must "consult with and accommodate" First Nations before approving developments on land that has been claimed.
It also wants the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to declare the provincial Mining Act — which, under "free entry," lets prospectors seek mineral riches almost wherever they please — violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since free entry doesn't apply to reserves, KI would be home free if its land claim was accepted. But claims take years and, by the time this one is resolved, the entire territory might be developed. So the community is trying to erect a different legal barrier.
"The court case is totally crucial ... critical," says Anna Baggio, director of conservation at the Toronto-based Wildlands League, which supports KI.
In part, it's about protecting the boreal forest, the fragile, lake-studded wilderness of pine, spruce, birch and poplar that covers the huge swath between Canada's populated south and treeless Arctic.The southern half of the boreal is dominated by logging roads, massive clear-cuts, mines, dams, power lines and other creatures of the industrial world. The northern half, where KI lies, is almost untouched; one of Earth's last intact forests.
The battle is also about aboriginal rights.
Most development would inevitably be on what First Nations consider traditional lands: Their combined claims cover virtually the entire far north.
Dalton McGuinty promised during the 2003 election campaign to curb development until a land-use plan is negotiated.
Now, though, Queen's Park promises to ensure Ontario remains "one of the most favourable investment climates in the world" for mining companies. It paved the way for the province's first diamond mine — a project by South African conglomerate De Beers, near Attawapiskat, on Hudson Bay.
It rejects the moratorium. And while it proposes to discuss land use and native rights through what it calls a Northern Table, it insists industrial activity must proceed at the same time.
If KI wins, Ontario would have to rethink the current "development first" approach, and a law that "places mining as the highest and best use of land," Baggio says."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150753811270&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
rvbums2
6 years ago
To: BC Dude
We are organized and you can join us! Just go to the website: BCLOR.ca and there is a petition which you can sign to show your support. Support and interest is currently coming in from around the world. Radio interviews, newspaper articles, e-mails, meetings with people from all levels of government and from around the province, phone calls, etc., etc. are taking place every day. Let's work to have the Acts amended in such a way as to give rights and choices back to the private landowners and citizens of this province. Minister Bennett is currently speaking about people having "little to fear" and that "They will feel better when they understand the rules". What he fails to see is that he is dealing with intelligent people who can read, interpret and understand FULLY the legislation. What he is also failing to do is to accept the fact that the people of this province have finally "seen the light" on this legisaltion and they don't like it. The only people who are currently gung-ho about it are Liberal MLA's and people connected with the mining industry. Naturally, the latter likes the Acts because it affords them rights and freedoms at the expense of landowners.
We all understnad that mining is a necessary part of every day living in this world. What we will NOT accept is that it is being accomplished by stripping away the rights and freedoms of people who have paid for their land, not stolen it because of a piece of legisaltion which protects and facilitates that theft. Furthermore, we will not accept that mining is being protected, in some cases, from accountability and restrictions on environmental and health issues. Mr. Bennett has stated that the provincial laws trump municipal law re: mining in watersheds which supply communitiies with their drinking water. Read the article in the Kelowna Courier, Monday, June 19, 2006 - an interview and article done by Scott Neufeld. It's a real eye-opener re: the above issues.
BC Dude
6 years ago
rvbums2 TY for the site as I am totally disgusted the way our Democratic Rights are being stripped away both Fed & Provincially!
Politicians are forgetting who put them in as the Representatives of WE the People
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/