• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Carrier Sekani logo

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council brings together seven member nations to unify our voices and strengthen our inherent indigenous rights, title, and interests in our territories.

  • Negotiations
  • Services
    • Fisheries
    • Language and Culture
    • Mining
    • Oil & Gas
    • Referrals Officer Training
    • Library and Archives
  • News
  • Events
  • About
    • History of the CSTC
    • Tribal Chief
    • Staff
    • Members
    • Annual General Assemblies

Mining and Energy

Enbridge Pipeline Will Mean Higher Fuel Costs For Canadians Says Robyn Allan

Enbridge Pipeline Will Mean Higher Fuel Costs For Canadians Says Robyn Allan

By 250 News

Wednesday, October 03, 2012 04:02 AM


Prince George- A BC Economist and former head of ICBC, Robyn Allan says Enbridge presented their case to the Canadian people saying the pipeline was an opportunity to get higher oil prices in Asia. This, Enbridge said, would contribute to the economic benefits in Canada.

What they failed to tell you Allan says is that these price increases apply to every barrel produced and sold in Canada every year for 30 years and these price increases will be passed onto consumers and businesses.

That was just one of the messages she delivered to a gathering at  UNBC last night.

Allan also says, the employment figures that Enbridge uses suggest that 3,000 people will be employed, when in fact just over 1,000 people will be employed.
Petro China she added has said they would love to build the pipeline with Chinese workers and invest in it as well.

Speaking about the proposed Kitimat refinery, she says it simply does not make sense. It is the wrong place for a refinery. “Think about it, first you need a condensate pipeline running from Kitimat to Edmonton to break down the Bitumen so it can be sent down another pipeline back to Kitimat for smelting. The whole idea does not make economic sense” she says.

The meeting was attended  by more than 200 people including Carrier Sekani Tribal Chief, Terry Teegee.  He says the pipeline would have to cross about 300 kilometres of his Band's traditional territory “We would not support a pipeline crossing under any circumstances.”

Tomorrow we begin a three part series into the findings of Robyn Allan and her appearance before the review panel.

Allan is in Mackenzie at 8:00pm. tonight.

Prince George- A BC Economist and former head of ICBC, Robyn Allan says Enbridge presented their case to the Canadian people saying the pipeline was an opportunity to get higher oil prices in Asia. This, Enbridge said, would contribute to the economic benefits in Canada.

Show more Show Less

CSTC Supports Lawsuit to Protect Species at Risk

CSTC Supports Lawsuit to Protect Species at Risk

(PDF Version)

Dakelh Territory, Prince George, British Columbia. Canada. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) is supporting the recent legal action taken by environmental groups against the federal government's failure to implement the Species at Risk Act (SARA).  The lawsuit challenges the delays in creating recovery strategies for SARA listed species, including the Nechako white sturgeon, which is critically endangered according to the BC Conservation Centre. 

Tribal Chief Terry Teegee stated, “Our people have been aware of the decline in Nechako white sturgeon for decades.  The CSTC is actively involved in fisheries monitoring and protection.” Teegee added, “The CSTC supports any action taken to protect endangered species.”  The lawsuit covers 188 species recover plans that have been delayed by the federal government, four of which will be directly impacted by the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

“The federal government has been negligent on implementing its own laws to protect species at risk from industrial development, at the same time it has slashed the processes needed to assess environmental impacts from such projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.”  Stated Tribal Chief Teegee.

The recovery initiative for three of the four species impacted by the Enbridge pipeline project are at least three years overdue.  “First Nations must be part of developing these recovery initiatives, as well as be involved in the monitoring and enforcement within their own territories.” Said Tribal Chief Teegee.  He added, “We have a sacred responsibility to ensure that the environment is protected for current and future generation.”

The CSTC is also an active member of the Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative (NWSRI) that is a collaborative effort among government, First Nations, conservationists and industry to understand the decline of Nechako White sturgeon; there are less than 300 left. 

– 30 –
For further information contact:
Tribal Chief Terry Teegee, RPF: 250-562-6279; Cell 250-640-3256

Link to Notice of Application – Nechako White Sturgeon.  http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/notice-of-application-sturgeon-filed-20120925/at_download/file

Youtube Video about Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhrEJUEi-ow&feature=player_embedded#!

Read our latest Fisheries Report. Lho Dustl'us. Vol. 7, Issue 1. March 2012.
http://darac.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/fisheries/2012MarchLhoDustlus.pdf

Dakelh Territory, Prince George, British Columbia. Canada. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) is supporting the recent legal action taken by environmental groups against the federal government's failure to implement the Species at Risk Act (SARA).  The lawsuit challenges the delays in creating recovery strategies for SARA listed species, including the Nechako white sturgeon, which is critically endangered according to the BC Conservation Centre.

Show more Show Less

Final Hearings for Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

News Release      

For immediate release
2 October 2012

Final Hearings for Enbridge Northern Gateway Project
Move to Prince George

CALGARY ― The Joint Review Panel (the Panel) conducting the review of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project will continue with the final hearings in Prince George, British Columbia starting on 9 October 2012 at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time).

The issues that will be subject to questioning in Prince George will be:
•        the environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed pipelines;
•        potential impacts on landowners and land use of the pipelines;
•        routing, design and construction of the pipelines and marine terminal; and
•        operations, safety, accident prevention and emergency preparedness and response related to the pipelines.

The Prince George hearing is scheduled to run from 9 to 19 October and from 29 October to 9 November. Sitting hours, with the exception of the first day, will be Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Saturday from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (Pacific Time) for the 9 to 19 October dates. Please see the Panel’s website at www.gatewaypanel.review.gc.ca for more information on all hearing times and on the joint review process. The hearing will be broadcast live (in English and French) over the Panel’s website.

Final hearings for questioning will also be held in Prince Rupert, British Columbia (scheduled for 22 to 30 November and 10 to18 December). The Panel previously held hearings in Edmonton, Alberta. For the list of issues subject to questioning at each location, please see Appendix A of Procedural Direction #8 on the Panel’s website. The hearing schedule will be reviewed as questioning proceeds and may be modified from time-to-time, as required. 

The Panel anticipates Final Argument to take place from March to April 2013. Further details will be communicated in the future.

Media Procedure for the Final Hearings
Members of the media are welcome to attend the hearings. Filming, recording and photographing will be allowed within pre-established fixed locations in the hearing room while the hearings are underway. Media reporting or interviews will not be allowed in the hearing room. The Panel may modify the media procedure for the hearings at any time.

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project involves the construction of two 1 170-kilometre pipelines running from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia and the construction and operation of the Kitimat Marine Terminal.

About the Joint Review Panel

The Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an independent body, mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board. The Panel will assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the National Energy Board Act.

The Joint Review Panel (the Panel) conducting the review of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project will continue with the final hearings in Prince George, British Columbia starting on 9 October 2012 at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time).

Show more Show Less

B.C. could withhold electricity from proposed pipelines, Premier suggests

B.C. could withhold electricity from proposed pipelines, Premier suggests

Carrie Tait, Nathan VanderKlippe, Justine Hunter
Calgary, Victoria — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Oct. 02 2012, 4:42 PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/bc-could-withhold-electricity-from-proposed-pipelines-premier-suggests/article4582945/

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark has issued a veiled threat to withhold electricity needed to operate controversial oil sands pipelines if the projects do not meet her demands.

Ms. Clark, when asked Tuesday what steps her province could take to block projects like Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway, went beyond pointing to the 60 regulatory permits B.C. could deny.
 

“British Columbia’s power would be required to power up the pipeline, from B.C. Hydro – a Crown corporation,” she said while speaking to students from University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. “There are a whole number of different things the British Columbia government could do.”

B.C. Hydro did not return a call seeking comment.

Ms. Clark is trying to convince Alberta her five demands – three environmental, one tied to First Nations rights, and another linked to economic compensation – must be met if pipelines carrying heavy oil are to snake through B.C.

“You know what, though? To me, all the speculation about how British Columbia would stop it is kind of silly,” she later told reporters. “Because if British Columbia doesn’t give its consent to this, there is no way the federal government or anyone else in the country is going to be able to force it through. It just won’t happen.”
Bruce March, Imperial Oil Ltd.’s chief executive, saluted Ms. Clark’s strategy.

“I think Premier Clark did something really good to set out those five conditions,” he said at a separate conference Tuesday. “Now people have to figure out whether they can be met, should be met, or how they can be met.”

Alison Redford, Alberta’s Premier, has sharply rejected any suggestions that her province would share bitumen royalties or tax revenue with its neighbour. The premiers met Monday for a short minute meeting they both described as “frosty.”

“A 15 minute conversation isn’t going to be enough,”  Mr. March said.  “I think there’s a role for both provinces, the leadership of both provinces, to play and there’s a role for our industry to play, too.”

Ms. Clark also said Tuesday  B.C. is unprepared for marine oil spills even though crude is already being shipped out of a port near Vancouver.
Marine safety is one of the Liberal leader's five concerns. She called B.C.’s current response plans “embarrassing” and will not give her blessing to proposed oil sands pipelines unless spill prevention and response blueprints are beefed up. The current system, she says, is inadequate and dangers would be exacerbated if the Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, B.C., were built.

“We have a lot of oil moving up and down our coasts, a lot of it moving out of Vancouver harbour. We are not ready for any spill right now,” she said. “I think adding to the mix by starting to move heavy oil in large amounts out of the Douglas Channel without being ready, I think it would be lunacy.”

About 48,000 barrels of oil per day are already leave B.C.’s west coast via Kinder Morgan Inc.’s Trans Mountain network. Oil from Alberta’s bitumen deposits have been shipped through the line, some destined for China where energy companies fetch a higher price for their products. Kinder Morgan wants to expand that project in order to move more oil out of northern Alberta.

The federal government, which is strongly in favour of shipping oil to markets in Asia, has “expressed real interest” in helping B.C. develop top-notch spill plans, Ms. Clark said.

She also wants more money for the province in exchange for granting the projects permission. However, she does not know how much cash it would take to satisfy her.

“I can’t tell you that because we haven’t even started a conversation about it,” Ms. Clark said. “This project can’t go ahead unless there’s a conversation. Since July I’ve been saying: ‘Let’s have a conversation about it.”

Adrian Dix, B.C. NDP leader, said Ms. Clark is hurting B.C.'s reputation by threatening to cut off an industry's access to electricity.

“The Premier can turn off your power, if he or she likes it, but it is wrong,” he said in an interview. The NDP leader is opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline but said the law should be followed rather than threatening to smother a project in red tape.

“They are engaging in a desperate attempt to court public opinion, but a better approach would be to make the decision here in B.C.”

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark has issued a veiled threat to withhold electricity needed to operate controversial oil sands pipelines if the projects do not meet her demands.

Show more Show Less

No benefits from Enbridge pipeline for First Nations

Nadleh Whut'en First Nation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 7, 2012

No benefits from Enbridge pipeline for First Nations

Nadleh Whut'en Territory – Fraser Lake, BC, Canada – The Nadleh Whut'en First Nation stands steadfast in its opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.  As the flawed Joint Review Panel enters into final hearings, Enbridge is proclaiming their project is in the 'national interest' and the Christy Clark government is attempting to 'say no to Enbridge' to save her sinking party.  The Nadleh Whut'en is reminding the Crown, British Columbians and Canadians that the Nadleh Whut'en people have never given up our inherent and aboriginal rights to our beautiful lands and resources.

Chief Martin Louie stated, “As Aboriginal people in this land now known as Canada and the province of BC, we have never ceded our lands or rights by agreement or by force.  We have legally protected rights under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, and in domestic and international law.”  Furthermore, Chief Louie added, “The international community is closely watching the Harper government's endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as are we.” In 2010, Canada formally endorsed the UN Declaration, which sets a framework for justice and reconciliation between states and indigenous peoples.  If the Joint Review Panel or the Crown approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, Nadleh Whut'en will view this as a direct violation of our right to say 'no' to a project that is not in our interest, nor the interest of British Columbians and Canadians.

“The Nadleh Whut'en people will continue to stand firm in our position, with other First Nations and concerned Canadians, in the protection of our rights and title from threats like those posed by Enbridge”, said Chief Louie.  He added, “We don't see any benefits from the Enbridge project.  Economists can banter all they want about so-called benefits.  Caruthers and Harper can proclaim 'in the national interest' or 'nation building' all they want.  Canada, BC and Enbridge will NEVER get our consent to build the Northern Gateway pipeline through Nadleh Whut'en territory.”

Chief Martin Louie stated, “WHEN the Enbridge pipeline breaks, or when a tanker crashes on the coast, whether it is in 5 or 50 years, those impacted lands and waterways will be destroyed. This is not acceptable to our people or other Canadians.  We are fighting for all Canadians and indigenous peoples.  Enbridge needs to pack it up and drop the project.”  Chief Louie said, “We will fight Enbridge and the government on ensuring that our lands and waters remain beautiful for present and future generations.  The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline will never benefit our people, First Nations and Canadians.”

– 30 –

For more info contact:
Chief Martin Louie at 4dakelh@nadleh.ca or 1-250-570-7759

www.nadleh.ca

Nadleh Whut'en Territory – Fraser Lake, BC, Canada – The Nadleh Whut'en First Nation stands steadfast in its opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.  As the flawed Joint Review Panel enters into final hearings, Enbridge is proclaiming their project is in the 'national interest' and the Christy Clark government is attempting to 'say no to Enbridge' to save her sinking party.  The Nadleh Whut'en is reminding the Crown, British Columbians and Canadians that the Nadleh Whut'en people have never given up our inherent and aboriginal rights to our beautiful lands and resources.

Show more Show Less

Is a made-in-B.C. review the best option? Environmental pipeline review would restore province’s leg


By Murray Rankin, Vancouver Sun
September 6, 2012 3:02 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/made+review+best+option+Environmental+pipeline+review+would+restore/7198592/story.html
Last week NDP leader Adrian Dix announced his commitment to a “made in B.C.” environmental review of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and that decision was criticized in a recent Sun editorial. As an adviser to Mr. Dix on this issue, I wish to explain the legal considerations behind this decision.

In 2010, the BC Liberals signed an “Equivalency Agreement” with Ottawa which said, in effect, that an environmental assessment of the Enbridge pipeline and tanker proposal carried out by the Harper government's Joint Review Panel would constitute a B.C. assessment as well.

(It is important to note that the word “Joint” in the term “Joint Review Panel” does not refer to a joint review con-ducted by Canada and B.C. It refers, instead, to a joint review by two federal agencies, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.)

Not many people paid attention to the agreement at the time. But it has profound implications for B.C.'s ability to control its own destiny when it comes to major energy projects like the Enbridge pipeline and tanker proposal, which will profoundly affect our economy and our environment. For example, the long-standing moratorium on oil tanker traffic in the north coast is now at stake.
The Equivalency Agreement means that the provincial Liberal government has given up any say in key areas of B.C. jurisdiction, such as air and water quality, fish and wildlife, forests, Crown lands, and lakes, rivers and streams.

In legal terms, Enbridge Northern Gateway now does not need to undergo any assessment under B.C. laws at all: the Liberals agreed to accept the federal process as being “equivalent.”

This is in no way a “joint review” like others in the past where both Ottawa and Victoria appointed members to panels: in the Enbridge case, the three panel members have no connection with B.C. at all.
With recent changes in federal law made by the Conservatives, the agreement gives Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet ultimate control of the Enbridge decision. It puts B.C. on the sidelines, despite the fact that critical B.C. interests are at stake.

The B.C. government fled to the sidelines in order to avoid taking a position on the tankers and the pipeline, abandoning its responsibilities to defend provincial interests. While federal-provincial collaboration is generally to be encouraged, it is unreasonable to expect Prime Minister Harper to represent B.C.'s interests. That is the job of the B.C. government: it has abandoned that role by signing the Equivalency Agreement.

As Adrian Dix stated, “we have a federal process making a critical decision that's essential to British Columbia that includes no British Columbians on the panel, that has no evidence from the Province of British Columbia, and where British Columbia has abdicated its regulatory responsibility.”

That reality is at the heart of the decision made by Mr. Dix and his caucus to terminate the Equivalency Agreement and to commit to a “made in B.C.” process to re-establish B.C.'s powers. A number of objections have been raised to this move and I want to address these, as they simply do not hold constitutional water.

One objection is that since Ottawa has primary jurisdiction over interprovincial pipe-lines, this is entirely a federal issue. If that were the case there would have been no need for an Equivalency Agreement in the first place. The very fact that B.C. signed the agreement demonstrates that it had certain constitutional powers that were given up in favour of a purely federal process.

A key objection within the Sun's editorial is that the pro-cess is a waste because Adrian Dix is opposed to the Enbridge proposal. Any provincial government must follow all requirements for procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice in that process. This is no different than the current federal situation: Mr. Harper has declared his sup-port for Enbridge, yet there is a federal review underway. In the end, both in Ottawa and Victoria cabinets will make final decisions based on the recommendations from the reviews.

Another objection – one that has been offered by Premier Clark and other Liberals – is that B.C. could stop the Northern Gateway Pipeline if it is approved by Ottawa, merely by withholding the necessary provincial permits. This approach is dubious at best. The courts could not be expected to uphold such actions by a government that gave up its jurisdiction through this agreement, only to use indirect means to unilaterally take it back.

A final objection is that a B.C. process would be a costly duplication of Ottawa's process. The fact is, however, that this action would never have been necessary had the B.C. government not agreed to such a one-sided agreement in the first place. True “joint reviews” have been successfully undertaken by provincial and federal governments, including in B.C. The current Enbridge “Joint Review Panel” is a far cry from these harmonized processes.

The legitimate goal of harmonization is one that Adrian Dix and the NDP support. The so-called harmonization for the Enbridge proposal is simply an abdication of B.C.'s interests in critical areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Bluntly put, the Liberals gave up B.C.'s rights in a way that made it difficult to take them back. But taking them back is the right thing to do.

The B.C. Liberal government signed the Equivalency Agreement. They failed to provide any evidence on behalf of B.C. to the federal review. They have done everything in their power to avoid taking a position on the Enbridge pipeline and tankers. And they knowingly put Mr. Harper in the driver's seat to decide on a project with very significant risks to B.C.'s economy and environment and to First Nations' rights and interests.
Given these actions by the B.C. government, the only responsible way that B.C. can now reassert control of our own economic and environmental destiny is to exit the Equivalency Agreement and conduct our own “made in B.C.” review of the Enbridge pipeline proposal. That is what Mr. Dix has committed to do and in my opinion, this action is necessary to enable B.C. to protect vital B.C. interests.

Murray Rankin is a practicing lawyer and a former law professor of public law and environmental law. He is acting as a volunteer adviser to BC NDP leader Adrian Dix on legal issues relating to the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Last week NDP leader Adrian Dix announced his commitment to a “made in B.C.” environmental review of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and that decision was criticized in a recent Sun editorial. As an adviser to Mr. Dix on this issue, I wish to explain the legal considerations behind this decision.

Show more Show Less

Premier Clark Doesn’t Get It: Enbridge Doomed

July 24, 2012

(PDF VERSION)
                                   
Dakelh Territory, Prince George, British Columbia.  Canada. Yesterday the BC government announced minimum requirements for the construction and operation of heavy oil pipelines.  These requirements are directly related to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway twin-pipelines that could be built through unceded Carrier Sekani lands.  The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) is disappointed in Premier Christy Clark's government on several aspects of their announcement, particularly related to the unilateral creation of policies that impact First Nations in BC; it is the first time Carrier Sekani First Nations have heard of BC's heavy oil policy paper.

Newly elected Tribal Chief Terry Teegee announced, “It seems that BC doesn't get it.  The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project is doomed. Our people are joined by over 100 First Nations, environmental organizations and thousands of Canadians opposing the building of tar sands pipelines through our territory and opposing the related tanker traffic.”  The Enbridge pipeline project is not worth the risk to over 700 waterways, coastal ecosystems and to terrestrial wildlife, especially as moose populations are in deep decline due to forestry practices and the mountain pine beetle.  “We're concerned more and more about the cumulative impacts from these types of projects.  First Nations are not against development, but it has to be done right and must be supported by First Nations”, noted Tribal Chief Teegee.

“First Nations seem to be the only responsible government these days,” said Chief Martin Louie of the Yinka Dene Alliance and Nadleh Whut'en First Nation (a CSTC member First Nation). He stated, “Our Yinka Dene peoples have been here since time immemorial and we have inherent rights protected by the Canadian Constitution, as well as supported by the United Nations.  Canada, including BC, is obligated to live up to its support for and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples including the free, prior and informed consent for projects that affect our peoples and our lands.” Chief Louie added, “BC doesn't get it, the Enbridge pipeline will not be allowed to be built in our lands. It is not worth the risks to future generations.”

“We're calling on the Premier and her Ministers to take a stand with us to protect our lands and coastal environments”, stated Tribal Chief Terry Teegee.  He continued, “Enbridge is misrepresenting the First Nations support they say they have for the Northern Gateway pipeline project.  Even if the BC government does not think First Nations have a veto, we are prepared to continue opposing this project along with other First Nations and thousands of Canadians and British Columbians that do not want tar sands oils in tankers or in pipelines in our territories.”

– 30 –
For further information contact:
Tribal Chief Terry Teegee, RPF: 250-562-6279; Cell 250-640-3256
Vice Tribal Chief Dolly Abraham: 250-562-6279
Chief Martin Louie, Nadleh Whut'en First Nation: (250) 570-7759

Show more Show Less

Taseko’s Tactics Demonstrate Why New Prosperity Must Fail

Edna Robbins
Executive Assistant/I.R.A.
ESK'ETEMC
P.O. Box 4479
Williams Lake, BC  V2G 2V5
Ph: (250) 440-5611, Ext. 214 / Fax: (250) 440-5614
Email:  erobbins@esketemc.ca  
Website:  www.esketemc.org  
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
This email, including attachments, it is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify me by reply email or by telephone and destroy this email and any copies.Thank you!

________________________________________
Taseko’s Tactics Demonstrate Why New Prosperity Must Fail
May 1, 2012 – Esk’etemc

Esk’etemc Nation is shocked and disappointed at the Taseko’s call to the government to ban any exercise of Aboriginal spirituality during the New Prosperity Federal Panel Review.  The behaviour of Taseko Mines demonstrates a fundamental lack of willingness to understand First Nation’s concerns about the effects of the New Prosperity project on Aboriginal rights and title, according to Chief Robbins of Esk’etemc. 

“Taseko’s call to the Crown to ban First Nation’s prayers and ceremonies from the Federal Review Panel is not just offensive to First Nations,” says the Chief, “but it is an attempt to belittle the sacred relationship First Nations have with our lands, which provides us with our identity as Aboriginal peoples. It is also another attempt by Taseko to proceed as if we weren’t even here.”

“At the most basic level” says Chief Robbins, “our ability as First Nations people to survive is dependant on the lands and waters providing us with the necessities of life.  How we govern our communities comes from a place of thanksgiving to the Creator for providing us with the lands and resources we need to exercise our rights.” 
The attempted interference by Taseko with First Nation’s participation in the Review, however, is nothing new to the Aboriginal communities involved in the fight to protect their lands and waters from destruction.  For Esk’etemc, the comments made by Taseko simply display the reason that the New Prosperity project is doomed to fail from the Aboriginal perspective: 
Taseko has again designed the Project without talking to First Nations, and is acting as if First Nations don’t exist.  The EIS is soon to be due, but Esk’etemc Nation has yet to be asked by Taseko for its views on how the Project will affect its rights.

Says Chief Robbins, “Taseko’s approach is based on the false presumption that the Project will not devastate our culture, and will not result in significant losses which cannot be accommodated.”   Instead, says Chief Robbins, “Taseko is content to ignore the impacts to our ability as Aboriginal peoples to maintain a spiritual connection to our lands and waters, which is integral to our concepts of ownership and the exercise of our rights. There is no honour in that.”

Esk’etemc Nation is shocked and disappointed at the Taseko’s call to the government to ban any exercise of Aboriginal spirituality during the New Prosperity Federal Panel Review.  The behaviour of Taseko Mines demonstrates a fundamental lack of willingness to understand First Nation’s concerns about the effects of the New Prosperity project on Aboriginal rights and title, according to Chief Robbins of Esk’etemc.

Show more Show Less

Mining company asks government not to consider aboriginal spirituality in environmental probe

Mining company asks government not to consider aboriginal spirituality in environmental probe

BY PETER O'NEIL, POSTMEDIA NEWS
APRIL 30, 2012
HTTP://WWW.OTTAWACITIZEN.COM/TECHNOLOGY/MINING+COMPANY+ASKS+GOVERNMENT+CONSIDER+ABORIGINAL+SPIRITUALITY/6543042/STORY.HTML

Taseko Mines is pushing to federal government to reconsider reconsider a controversial gold-copper mining project in the B.C. Interior.
Photograph by: External, External

OTTAWA — A Vancouver company pushing the Harper government to reconsider a controversial gold-copper mining project in the B.C. Interior has privately urged Ottawa to ignore aboriginal requests to consider native “spirituality” as a factor in their determination, according to a letter the company sent to Environment Minister Peter Kent.

A new federal environmental review panel “does not have any right to attribute significance to the spirituality of a place per se,” wrote Taseko Mines Ltd. president Russell Hallbauer in a letter obtained under the Access to Information Act and provided to the Vancouver Sun by B.C. independent provincial representative Bob Simpson.

Taseko, which failed in its 2010 bid to get federal approval after a “scathing” federal review, also asked Ottawa to not permit aboriginal prayer ceremonies at pending hearings on the revised proposal.
And children's plays should also be banned, Hallbauer told Kent in his November letter.

The panel allowed “a group of kindergarten children to present a play, in which the children wore fish cut-outs on their heads, moved around the floor, and then all fell over simultaneously, symbolizing the death of the fish,” Hallbauer wrote.

Allowing opening prayers wasn't “appropriate” and a “sensational” anti-project film and the children's play also shouldn't have been part of a process that is supposed to be “objective and fact-based.”
The company also complained that one of the three panel members, metallurgist and former environmental mining supervisor Nalaine Morin, was a member of a First Nations organization in the area that was opposed to the project.

One native leader said Taseko's letter is an affront to aboriginal spirituality.

“We are tied to the land and that's a spiritual area,” said Tsilhqot'in National Government (TNG) tribal chair Chief Joe Alphonse of the proposed open-pit mine about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake, B.C.

“To not even have that as part of the review, you may as well not have a review at all. Let's go turn the Vatican into a casino hall.
“This is exactly what we're talking about when a company is allowed to make those kinds of suggestions. It's wrong.”

Another local First Nations leader, Xeni Gwet'in Chief Marilyn Baptiste, likened Taseko's proposal to the former government-sanctioned residential schools that “outlawed our spirituality, our drumming and our language.”

A federal panel appointed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ruled in 2010 against allowing the proposed Prosperity Mine to proceed. Then-environment minister Jim Prentice, now a senior executive at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, called the panel report “scathing,” and the minority Tory government supported the recommendation.

The federal decision came several months after a B.C. government review resulted in the province giving the project a green light, saying the job and wealth creation more than balanced environmental damage.
The federal panel report was filled with comments on the cultural and spiritual importance to local First Nations of Taseko's property and especially Fish Lake, which Taseko planned to drain and turn into a tailings dump.

“The panel has determined that the loss of the Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and Nabas areas for current use activities, ceremonies, teaching, and cultural and spiritual practices would be irreversible, of high magnitude and have a long-term effect on the Tsilhqot'in,” the report stated.

The federal government, which is bringing in sweeping legislative changes to make it easier for companies to get approval for natural resource projects, announced in November it would let the company file a new application based on a plan that doesn't include destroying Fish Lake.

Brian Battison, Taseko's vice-president of corporate affairs, stressed that spirituality isn't part of federal legislation and shouldn't be considered.

He said the company is objecting to children's plays, films and prayers because such events bring too much emotion into the hearings.

“The whole process moves so far beyond the true facts that it makes it very, very difficult for everybody I think, including the panel, to not try to consciously or unconsciously reflect all of that in their findings,” Battison said.

“And what happens is the science and the facts get lost, and if they don't get lost they get overwhelmed by these circumstances.”
Battison also said the company would consider a Federal Court challenge if the government appointed a panellist who obviously had a bias in favour of aboriginal opponents.
Simpson, the provincial politician who obtained the document, said the company is displaying hypocrisy given that its August proposal for the New Prosperity mine made repeated references to Fish Lake's spiritual importance to First Nations.

That proposal calls for the tailings facility to be located two kilometres upstream from Fish Lake.
Simpson said it's “condescending” to suggest that a panel of professionals couldn't properly weigh the relative weight of scientific evidence against emotional displays.

“And it's another affront to any possible relationship they could have with the TNG, which quite frankly they will need. There is no way you proceed with this project without a strong relationship with the company and the First Nations.”

poneil@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/poneilinottawa

A Vancouver company pushing the Harper government to reconsider a controversial gold-copper mining project in the B.C. Interior has privately urged Ottawa to ignore aboriginal requests to consider native “spirituality” as a factor in their determination, according to a letter the company sent to Environment Minister Peter Kent.

Show more Show Less

TML slammed for offensive attack on Aboriginal participation in Prosperity Mine review

TML slammed for offensive attack on Aboriginal participation in Prosperity Mine review

Tsilhqot’in Territory, May 1, 2012: A deeply offensive letter from Taseko Mines Ltd (TML) to the Harper government, urging Environment Minister Kent to impose new limits on First Nations participation and remove key Aboriginal concerns from the review of its rebid Prosperity Mine proposal, raises fears that the company’s lobbying could reduce the federal review to a version of British Columbia’s weak “rubberstamp” process that approved TML’s first, discredited bid.

In a recently obtained Nov. 23, 2011 letter to Minister Kent, TML President and CEO Russell Hallbauer urges Minister Kent to:

• Prohibit Aboriginal prayers or ceremonies at the start of Panel hearings – even though this is a matter of basic respect by governments and tribunals when engaging with First Nations;

• Impose new limits on our communities’ ability to expressing their views, including those of our youth, whose future is at stake, and by banning videos and other commentaries; and

• Prevent the Panel from considering the spiritual importance of the area to the Tsilhqot’in people, even though this is central to our culture.

The profound spiritual importance of this area to the Tsilhqot’in people was a significant factor in the decision of the federal panel that reviewed the original Prosperity Mine proposal.  That proposal was soundly rejected by the Federal Government in November 2010, in part based on permanent, high magnitude impacts on Tsilhqot’in culture and cultural heritage.

“This is a black eye to the mining industry and we hope it is not one it would endorse, but we are not surprised that Mr. Hallbauer would write such an offensive letter,” said Chief Alphonse. “We have warned over and over again that this company does not understand or respect First Nations or our issues.  This letter proves, once again, that this is the wrong project, in the wrong place, by the wrong company.”

Mr. Hallbauer’s letter underscores concerns raised earlier by TML’s campaign to prevent the new Panel from deciding the significance of impacts on Aboriginal rights.  The previous Panel concluded that the original Project would have significant impacts on Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal rights.

First Nations are alarmed that the draft Terms of Reference for the new Panel, which are expected to be finalized any day, would drastically reduce or even remove the new Panel’s mandate to consider impacts on Aboriginal rights.   

Chief Alphonse added: “What concerns us is this letter is part of a major lobbying campaign by TML, which had three lobbyists registered in Ottawa on this file. The failure of CEAA or the government to assure us the rules of the game are not going to be changed for this second review – which should never have been granted in the first place – obviously makes us wonder if we should be worried that the fix is in.”

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, stated “First Nations were deeply alarmed by the Harper Government's recent announcement to eviscerate the federal Environmental Assessment process as part of their Responsible Resource Development Plan. If the draft Terms of Reference for the new Panel, which are expected to be finalized any day, drastically reduce or even remove the new Panel’s mandate to consider impacts on Aboriginal rights, it will result in greater uncertainty and intensified conflict on the land.”

Chief Baptiste said: “Mr. Harper’s government lived up to its responsibility to the environment  and its constitutional duty to protect First Nations rights by rejecting the first bid in 2010 and it surely has no choice but to do so again. However, it did take the unprecedented step of allowing this second kick at the can for TML, even though the new option was described by the first review panel, TML itself, and Environment Canada as posing even greater environmental risk than the original plan.

“Add to this the fact that the government is pushing through sweeping changes to the EA process in general, to the Fisheries Act, and now we have this letter from TML, and yes, we are concerned,” said Chief Baptiste, “But this letter shows what we are up against.  We will not be silenced and we will not back down.  This government endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we know that all of Canada is watching what happens here”.

Link to Letter from Taseko Mines Ltd. to Minister Peter Kent: 
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/files/20111123_Hallbauer_Kent_AboriginalParticipation.pdf

Media contacts:
Chief Joe Alphonse – 250-305-8282 or 250-394-4212
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip – 250-490-5314
Chief Marilyn Baptiste – 250-267-1401 (after 12 noon, Pacific)

A deeply offensive letter from Taseko Mines Ltd (TML) to the Harper government, urging Environment Minister Kent to impose new limits on First Nations participation and remove key Aboriginal concerns from the review of its rebid Prosperity Mine proposal, raises fears that the company’s lobbying could reduce the federal review to a version of British Columbia’s weak “rubberstamp” process that approved TML’s first, discredited bid.

Show more Show Less

Poisoned Relationships

New blog post

Poisoned Relationships

This weekend I was provided with a letter that Taseko Mines President Russ Hallbauer sent to Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent last November. The letter was sent in advance of the new panel hearings into Taseko’s proposed Prosperity Project. Unfortunately, the letter clearly illustrates why the Tsilhqot’in (TNG) will fight, with every means available to them, Taseko’s right to the “Prosperity” ore body on their traditional territory. It also illustrates why some First Nations’ leaders are saying Prosperity is not only the wrong project, but the wrong company.

The letter asks Minister Kent, under threat of legal action by Taseko, to ensure that no First Nations person is put on the new review panel, to disallow any ceremonial activities during the panel hearings (drumming and prayers), to not allow children to demonstrate their concerns through plays, and to reject spirituality as a consideration in the mine proposal. The letter argues that emotional displays like drumming and children’s plays will, consciously or unconsciously, sway the panel in favour of the First Nations and against the “science” of Taseko’s case.

Taseko’s New Prosperity project overview, a public document, states: “the Tsilhqot'in have expressed the importance of the island in Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) as a place of spiritual power and healing.” Meanwhile, the private letter to Minister Kent states that the review panel “does not have any right to attribute significance to the spirituality of a place per se.” The company president’s letter does, however, acknowledge that the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes “custom, practice and tradition” that are “distinctive [to] aboriginal culture” as rights under the law.

Suggesting that spirituality can be divorced from “customs, practices and traditions” reflects a narrow view of First Nations’ culture. Anyone who has spent any time with First Nations elders or in a First Nations community knows that spirituality infuses their “customs, practices and traditions.” The drumming that Taseko would like the panel to disallow is a spiritual custom and practice; it’s not done for entertainment.

The Tsilhqot’in’s relationship with the land and its resources is spiritual, and according to Taseko’s public documents, it supposedly understands this fact. To suggest that this spiritual relationship with the land should be stripped from any presentations made by First Nations to the Prosperity Review Panel reveals either a deep ignorance of First Nations culture on the part of Taseko’s president or a deliberate attempt to undermine the TNG’s claim. One of the most compelling findings of the first panel was the TNG’s spiritual relationship with Fish Lake and its environs, and this was a major consideration in the conclusion to reject Taseko’s initial proposal.

I’ve warned Taseko on a number of occasions that they need to rethink their relationship with the TNG. I’ve even asked that they appoint new people to the project who will take a totally different approach to the TNG, one that is more respectful and more productive. Taseko’s provincial Environmental Assessment Certificate is predicated on maintaining “early, open, and full communication with First Nations,” recognizing and taking “into consideration the value and significance First Nations place on traditional, cultural and heritage knowledge and interest,” and developing “mutually beneficial partnerships with our First Nations neighbours.” I’m no lawyer, but if Taseko persists in poisoning their relationship with the TNG, then they may make themselves susceptible to a legal challenge against their provincial approvals.

Even in the highly politicized and deeply emotional debate surrounding the Gateway pipeline hearings, Enbridge has not challenged the First Nations’ right to incorporate their cultural practices into the hearing process. The pipeline hearings open with drumming and prayers, children are allowed to participate, and elders speak freely of their spiritual connection to the landbase that the pipeline will cross. Privately arguing that the Prosperity Panel should negate the TNG’s ability to freely express their deep and spiritual connection to the Fish Lake area will not help Taseko reach its ultimate goal – in fact, it will do the exact opposite.

The TNG have publicly stated they are not opposed to mining in their traditional territory. Other mining companies have been able to develop productive relationships with the TNG and other First Nations in the area. In particular, the Williams Lake Indian Band is breaking new ground on building relationships in the very early stages of project development. If Taseko chose to build a more constructive relationship with the TNG, would that not better serve the interests of the company and the interests of their shareholders?

To be fair to Taseko, the federal and provincial governments are ultimately to blame for many of the problems we have in addressing First Nations’ rights and title issues in project approval processes. Rights and title can only be resolved by the Crown outside of these processes. The only way to truly foster productive relationships between companies and First Nations is by resolving rights and title claims. Otherwise, the uncertainty associated with the assertion of First Nations’ rights ends up poisoning both the project approval process and the relationship that companies can have with First Nations in BC.

The Taseko Mines letter is available here.


Best regards,
Stephen Harrison
Legislative Assistant
Bob Simpson, Independent MLA, Cariboo North
250-387-8347
stephen.harrison@leg.bc.ca
http://bobsimpsonmla.ca/

This weekend I was provided with a letter that Taseko Mines President Russ Hallbauer sent to Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent last November. The letter was sent in advance of the new panel hearings into Taseko’s proposed Prosperity Project. Unfortunately, the letter clearly illustrates why the Tsilhqot’in (TNG) will fight, with every means available to them, Taseko’s right to the “Prosperity” ore body on their traditional territory. It also illustrates why some First Nations’ leaders are saying Prosperity is not only the wrong project, but the wrong company.

Show more Show Less

Rejection for Burns Lake’s Ditni Yoh project

By Rebecca Billard – Burns Lake Lakes District News
Nearly, but not quite.

This is the outcome for the Ditni Yoh Green Energy project that was to be located 26 kilometres East of Burns Lake. The project was submitted to BC Hydro’s phase two call for bioenergy, making it through to be one of seven that were short listed, but was not chosen in the final round. The four projects chosen are located in Fort St. James, Fraser Lake, Merritt and Chetwynd.

Ditni Yoh was to be a $140 million investment in the local area that would have provided between 20 and 60 full time jobs. The proposed 35 megawatt plant would have produced enough energy to supply power to 33,000 homes, which was more power than Burns Lake required from a residential standpoint, so the majority of the power was to go back to the grid.  This is the second blow for the project. It was originally submitted to BC Hydro in 2008 as part of the phase one call for bioenergy and was also passed over.

The phase two submission had been revamped and new partnerships had been formed between Western BioEnegry Inc. who is a 100 per cent owned subsidiary of Dalkia Canada, and six local First Nations groups collectively called the Lakes District Native Economic Development Corporation. The six First Nations include; the Burns Lake Band, Lake Babine Nation, Skin Tyee Nation, Nee Tahi Buhn Band and the Stellat’en First Nation. Harvie Campbell, director of Western BioEnergy Inc. who was working on the project said he is very disappointed that the project was not chosen to move forward.

“It is a personal disappointment as so many good friends including First Nations and local councillors worked to move the project forward,” he said. Campbell said it was a competitive process and Ditni Yoh was not chosen as the fibre supply costs were too high.

“The fibre sources for the four projects that were chosen were less expensive than they were for Ditni Yoh, but not by much, which made them more attractive to BC Hydro.” Campbell said for now it is tools down for the project but he went on to say that if the opportunity presents itself in the future the project could be resurrected.

“We are still prepared to support the project. It is very unfortunate because it was a very good, solid project and it had a lot of community support behind it.”

“We did everything we could think of [to have the project selected].” However all is not lost for Western BioEnergy Inc. with two of their  three short listed projects selected in the final four. The Merritt Green Energy Project and the Fort St. James Green Energy project will surge ahead now that BC Hydro approval has been given.

“The region did not completely lose out because the West Fraser Mills Ltd. Fraser Lake Sawmill Biomass project was chosen as one of the four,” Campbell said, adding that it is still a blow to Burns Lake.
Burns Lake Band Chief Albert Gerow said to Lakes District News that he is equally disappointed the Ditni Yoh project was not chosen.

In a media release he said Ditni Yoh would have had an initial injection into the local economy of $140 million dollars along with significant construction jobs, long term plant jobs, as well as fibre supply jobs. “Spin off opportunities would have been significant.”
He continued to say, the community of Burns Lake is heavily dependent upon the forest industry. “By adding a bioenergy plant to the Lakes District, alongside Babine Forest Products and Decker Lake Forest Products, it would have helped to stabilize the local economy by adding some diversification.”

“All this is now lost due to the decision of BC Hydro.”

“This is a project that has been in the works for over four years. When BC Hydro first started the Green Energy Initiatives, First Nations were not even considered as potential partners or even on the radar screen. Then BC Hydro came back with call for proposals which had a requirement to include First Nations.”

We felt that the Ditni Yoh project would be a shoe in, because not only did we have First Nations participation, but we had a total of six First Nations as potential partners.”
Chief Gerow said that having secured a 400,000 m3 annual license from the Ministry of Forests, as well as secure backing from Western BioEnergy Inc. and Dalkia Canada as well as the participation of six First Nations should be a feather in the cap of BC Hydro, to show that they are working with First Nations.

He said, “Burns Lake was the epicenter of the worst natural disaster B.C. forests have ever seen and something I would not want our grandchildren’s, grandchildren to experience. The unprecedented attack on lodge pole pine trees by the mountain pine beetle devastated the forests in the Lakes District. Lakes District forest alone have had 80 per cent of the pine trees killed, provincially over 17 million hectares has been decimated.”

“The bioenergy plant which we worked on for Burns Lake would have  been a healing process in utilizing some of the beetle killed trees in a beneficial way.”  Chief Gerow said he will now be working with consultants to determine where to go with the project.

“Obviously I hope that we can come to an early resolution with the cooperation of BC Hydro,” said Chief Gerow, adding that he will now be approaching BC Hydro asking for an explanation, despite hearing that the project was denied due to fibre supply costs. Chief Gerow also said he will be taking the matter to Nechako Lakes MLA, John Rustad.

Show more Show Less
  • Children and Youth
  • Climate Change
  • Covid-19
  • Elders
  • Fisheries
  • Forestry
  • G2G
  • International
  • Job Posting
  • Mining and Energy
  • Missing Women
  • News
  • Oil and Gas
  • Title and Rights
  • White Sturgeon
  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2

Suite 200 - 1460 6th Avenue
Prince George, BC
V2L 3N2

Phone (250) 562-6279
Fax (250) 562-8206
info@carriersekani.ca

Facebook