High Stakes: The Fight over Red Chris Mine
Fate of big project, and public input, argued in court.
Kuyek of MiningWatch: 'atrocious non-respect'
The battle over an open pit gold and copper mine in northern B.C. reached a new level this week in Federal Court. The case is the latest chapter in the fight over Red Chris mine, a large proposed project amidst a mining boom gathering speed in the province.
Sierra Legal Defence Fund, on behalf of MiningWatch Canada, is seeking an order from the federal court to stop the Red Chris mine project and involve the public in the environmental assessment process.
Their case is also a test for Section 21 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), which outlines projects that require public consultations. Sierra Legal argues that under the legislation, the Red Chris mine had to be considered as a major project and therefore public consultations should have been allowed.
"We are fighting for the fundamental right of Canadians to be consulted before the construction of large mines, with such irreversible environmental consequences, can take place," said Joan Kuyek, MiningWatch national coordinator.
Public right to consult?
In October 2003, the federal government amended the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) to facilitate public participation in the environmental assessment of projects to be carried out by or with the approval or assistance of the Government of Canada.
Under the act, a metal mine development producing 3,000 tons of ore per day must undergo a comprehensive assessment, which includes public participation. The proposed Red Chris Mine could produce 10 times the targeted number. Yet the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Natural Resources Canada (NrCan) undertook a simple screening assessment that did not include public participation, Sierra Legal alleges.
"This case is just an atrocious example of non-respect of the public. If we lose, it's going to be awful for a lot of people," said Kuyek.
Long controversy
The proposed Red Chris Mine is a large open-pit copper-gold mine and milling operation which will process over 30,000 tons of ore per day over a mill life of at least 25 years. The site is located in the Stikine watershed in northwestern B.C., 18 kilometres southeast of the town of Iskut, on a reserve of the Tahltan First Nation.
The Red Chris Mine has long been controversial in the North, where critics say it threatens wildlife and the Tahltan nation's sacred lands. In 2005, Red Chris Mine went through a provincial environmental assessment where the public -- among them the Tahltan nation -- expressed their concerns.
About a year ago, First Nations women from Iskut also raised a blockade against BCMetals, arguing that the company should not be allowed to degrade fish spawning grounds without the consent of the nearby community.
MiningWatch believes the mine will destroy sustainable fishing, trapping and hunting territory. It could leave behind 183 million tons of toxic tailings and 307 million tons of waste rock, which will likely need to be treated for acid mine drainage for over 200 years.
Caught by surprise
In 2004, DFO had announced it would conduct a comprehensive study of the Red Chris Mine project, including public consultations. Later that year, DFO advised the CEA agency that a comprehensive study of the Red Chris Mine was no longer required.
DFO acknowledged that the proposed capacity of the Red Chris mill exceeded the threshold for a comprehensive study but advised that because it would exclude the mill from the scope of the project, a comprehensive study was no longer required.
At that point, Kuyek says, MiningWatch expected there would be a consultation at the federal level regarding the Red Chris Mine.
"When the news came up, I wasn't too much worried. We had assumed we would be involved. Three months after, we realized it was a final decision," said Kuyek.
In May 2006, Natural Resources Canada and the DFO finally made public their opinion that the Red Chris Mine would not pose a significant threat to the environment.
Who has the power?
In court this week, Sierra Legal's Lara Tessaro, on behalf of MiningWatch, asked for a judicial review of the actions of DFO and NrCan in the environmental assessment of the Red Chris mine.
"We're here to present the ongoing failure of responsible authorities at the DFO and NrCan to perform what the applicants say is their mandatory duty to express," said Tessaro in her opening statement.
They argue that the federal government and the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office did not undertake one singular, harmonized environmental assessment of the Red Chris Mine. The environmental assessment is implemented to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they occur and incorporate environmental factors into decision-making.
According to MiningWatch, there's no room for interpretation under the new act. But the owners of Red Chris Mine, BCMetals, argue that federal authorities have discretionary power to greenlight projects.
The TrueNorth case
BCMetals bases its defense on TrueNorth, a case with striking similarities. On August 30, 2000, Alberta-based TrueNorth Energy had announced its plans for an oil sands mine north of Fort McMurray. TrueNorth's proposal entailed taking water from Fort Creek and seemed likely to damage the fish habitat.
The scope of the DFO environmental assessment did not satisfy critics of the project, and included no public consultation. The Pembina institute brought the case to court, where the judge dismissed the application, ruling the DFO had properly exercised its discretionary power.
According to MiningWatch, the 2004 decision had direct consequences on further projects. Since then, Kuyek told the Tyee, 20 mining projects across Canada have gone through the DFO with minimal environmental assessments and without public consultation.
Federal attorney Ward Bansley dismissed what he called "absurdities" in arguments presented by Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
The attorney wondered why two levels of governments should duplicate the environmental reviews. He also told the court it would be a waste of time to conduct public consultations if authorities don't yet know a project is likely to go forward. He also noted that mining firms might manipulate its submissions to please the public and change it once the assessment is done.
Sierra Legal is slated to resume its arguments today, the last day of the hearing.
The Tyee will update this story when a decision is reached in the case, likely in early July.
Related Tyee stories:
- Tahltan Resistance to Mining, Drilling Grows
Iskut band joins Telegraph Creek protest and rebuffs Shell execs. - The Seizure at Telegraph Creek
TYEE SPECIAL REPORT: PART 1 Tahltan elders decry 'sell out,' oppose successful chief, call for slower development.



9
Login or register to post comments
Gary
4 years ago
After my outrage...
..at what appears to be another case of government not looking after the interests of the people my thoughts turned to "why are these decisions being made in this manner? What insanity is causing these decisions to be made?" The only answer that I can conclude is that some people in government are being pieced off. And that thought came to me as I remembered that governent employees in the BC Rail case were alledgely bribed.
Now my question is to what extent in government is this alledged bribery taking place. My conclusion is that on the surface it must be occurring in almost every department.
G West
4 years ago
"Absurdities"
Be interested to hear what else he said.
On the other hand, it may well be the Tahltan people who will have to find the courage to stop this. If it will harm their traditional territories and endanger their way of life it may be necessary for them to use their Charter Rights to force a comprehensive environmental assessment.
Thanks Francis, I'll be looking for your update.
dorothy
4 years ago
Eh, what?
"The site is located in the Stikine watershed in northwestern B.C., 18 kilometres southeast of the town of Iskut, on a reserve of the Tahltan First Nation. "
Will someone please enlighten me as to why this is even happening? Is reserve land not 'reserved' in the sense that it belongs to the first nation who inhabit it? Then why is this problem even arising? If any mining was to be going on, would it not be the first nations people, who would either carry it out or at least have sole rights to decide if, and on what conditions, it could happen. It has been my naive belief as an immigrant up till now, that reserves were under the jurisdiction of the first nations people. If that is not even the cae, the rest of us ought to send them a hefty annual tribute, to make sure we can lie peacefully in our beds at night.
Is there really no end to the insanity, which will be condoned without blinking in this fair land? Please tell me now, so I may consider where to next take my yurt, before I get too old...
G West
4 years ago
You too dorothy?
I can't quite wrestle this story to the ground either. I’m not sure if Francis is being cute but I hope all the loose ends will be braided together in the next installment.
I went back and read the other two articles from Tyee - the links are at the bottom of this piece.
The situation has layers.
I suspect, when all is said and done, that it’s simply another part of the big Campbell push to use resources, development and government money to drive wedges into native solidarity. All of this for the eventual purpose of permitting the usual exploiters in the mining and resource industry to continue to practice business as usual in the BC hinterlands. Now you won’t read that in the press releases from Victoria – the 185 (may be as many as 200 now of course) spinners in the public affairs bureau see Premier Campbell as the Saul of Tarsus on native issues these days and that’s the image they’re working hard to project.
I think the facts on the ground represent something quite different.
Unfortunately, as has also happened in a number of other cases, there is a significant split within the First Nations Clans and families themselves in many cases.
There's an interesting perspective from a member of the Cowichan band on Vancouver Island here:
http://somenamedia.blogspot.com/
I don't think Meaghan will mind my posting it here as an illustration of how fractured things have become intra-tribe on some of these issues.
I noticed another home went up in flames in Duncan this week as well.
Can't say I can add much about what the 'whole picture' is relative to the Tahltan but I'd be willing to wager there is a strong element of misogyny and a lot of greed involved.
Gary
4 years ago
Tahltan Elders
If you google Tahltan Elders the first four or five hits pretty much gives you an idea what is going on with the Tahltan Nation.
Investor
4 years ago
Progress
Why can't Sierra suggest what changes the potential mine needs to make? And why can't the mine owners and the native band cut a deal to share in the bounty? There is no conspiracy here. At some point decisions have to be made. The DFO simply thought enough analysis was conducted and it was time to get on with things. Again..if Sierra is unhappy with things, they should make suggestions as to how to get this mine into production in a much more sustainable fashion. Not try and shut it down. As for the Natives..they are negotiating. Throughout time, for the right deal they will use the earths resources..and not always in a sustainable fashion.
G West
4 years ago
This is Native Land
There is a dispute concerning governance of the band.
Some native groups are negotiating - others aren't. Some are protesting and boycotting
The mine should not be even considered until the First Nations issues are settled.
The only reason the Campbell government ever entered into treaty negotiations was because of pressure from their enablers in the forest, mining and development industries.
Their policy guides admit as much. The mine should not go ahead - certainly not now.
Native groups don't necessarily see 'progress' in the same way 'investors' and the 185 do.
A quick look at what 'progress' can do for native relations would perhaps be informative for you. Check out the Cowichan Band on Vancouver Island....
snert
4 years ago
You may wish to rephrase that.
G West
It should be prefaced with the word some.
G West
4 years ago
Not at all snert.
The conditionality of the statement is clear from the terminology used - i.e. 'don't necessarily see'. To add an additional ‘some’ to the statement is unnecessary.
My remark, further, was directed to someone called ‘investor’, which was also obvious from the context, the content and the propinquity of my statement to 'investor's' own offering.