News Fish Lake

• Monday Mar 07, 2011
  First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining (FNWARM) supports letter to Credit Suisse re new Prosperity Mine bid.
  INVESTORS URGED TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN RULES AGAINST BAD MINE PROJECTS
  FNWARM supports letter to Credit Suisse re new Prosperity Mine bid

  
  March 7, 2011: Toronto: As delegates around the world mingle here this week at the planet’s largest mining conference, BC’s First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining is calling on the investment community to play its role in weeding out unacceptable projects.
  
  FNWARM, which has delegates at the annual Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference in Toronto, today welcomed efforts by the international organization EARTHWORKS and MiningWatch Canada to help BC’s Tsilhqot’in Nation reach out to the global investment community.
  
  The two organizations have written on behalf of the Tsilhqot’in to Credit Suisse, which has extended lines of credit in the past to Taseko Mines Ltd, to inform it of the history and issues involved in this company’s efforts to revive its rejected Prosperity Mine project in BC.
  
  The letter asks Credit Suisse to consider its own policies against bad mining practices and the importance of defending its own reputation should it be asked to back Taseko’s new Prosperity bid. (Letter, and EARTHWORKS/ MiningWatch news release: http://prosperity.earthworksaction.org Backgrounder: http://www.miningwatch.ca/).
  
  “Reputable banks and other financial institutions have, or are in the process of establishing investment policies that lay down clear environmental requirements and rules for the free prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples,” said FNWARM member Chief Bev Sellars, of the Soda Creek First Nation.“These institutions have enormous power to reward good mining practices and reforms, and to discourage companies that seek to get around environmental safeguards and indigenous rights. But to make a difference, these policies have to be enforced,” said Chief Sellars.
  
  Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Chief Marilyn Baptiste, whose Tsilhqot’in community would be most directly hit by an approved project, said: “Prosperity was approved by a BC government that was too willing to ignore and deny the devastating impacts on the environment and our culture and rights.
  
  “Fortunately it was ultimately rejected by a federal government that recognized it simply was not defensible, but if investors and investment houses been more prudent with their dollars, perhaps Taseko wouldn’t have had the resources to waste $100 million over 17 years on this bad idea,” said Chief Baptiste.“Now that Taseko has submitted a revised bid – even though it is on record admitting that any alternative plans for the mine would cause even more damage – we hope the investment community will take a stand and say enough is enough.”
  
  Chief Sellars. Chief Baptiste and other FNWARM members are at PDAC to encourage mining reform and good practices with the mining industry and the need for relations building with First Nations.
  
  “We can keep fighting and stopping unacceptable projects that should not have been developed, in which case nobody wins. Or we can try to create a fair mining system in which we can work together on sustainable environmentally and culturally sound projects, in which case everyone wins,” said Chief Sellars. “We would prefer the latter.”
  
• Thursday Feb 24, 2011
  Taseko Mines Ltd proves it only cares about money – not the environment or rights
  
  
  
  Taseko Mine’s Limited is playing costly and dangerous games with First Nations and all British Columbians in its cynical attempt to revive its so-called Prosperity mine, the Tsilhqot’in National Government said today.
  
  “This latest move would be laughable, were the issue not so serious,” said TNG Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse. “Enough is enough. It is time to put an end to this company wasting everybody’s time and resources on a project that most now realize is a dead issue.”
  
  “This latest move by the company leaves little doubt now that its plan all along was to get the cheapest project it could. Now it is desperately trying to find any way it can to revive this project regardless of its impact on the environment and our First Nations rights,” Chief Alphonse said.
  
  “We commend the federal government for seeing through the company’s claim and rejecting its first plan – which the company was told for 17 years was not acceptable – and we also commend Prime Minister Stephen Harper for standing firm on that decision this week,” said TNG Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Chief Marilyn Baptiste.
  
  “Hopefully the federal government, the soon-to-be-elected new provincial premier, and the public will quickly make it clear to Taseko Mines Ltd that this nonsense must end,” said Chief Baptiste.
  The latest move by Taseko is so cynical and fatally flawed that that it is hard to see how anyone can take it seriously, Chief Baptiste said.
  
  The company has not consulted with First Nations or the public and it has kept the details secret. It continues to pretend that there is only one issue – the protection of Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) – that needs to be addressed, when the CEAA review panel report and the federal government’s own conclusions made it clear there was numerous and “scathing” problems with the project.
  
  “It seems to think it can insult governments and the public by treating us all as fools with short memories,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  “This company categorically insisted that – even with soaring gold and copper prices – its first proposal was the only economically viable one. It also categorically insisted that any other options for the project would be even more devastating to the environment and First Nations rights,” said Chief Alphonse.
  
  “Yet within weeks of its proposal being rejected last November 2, it claimed that it could now suddenly afford to go with an alternative that saved Fish Lake, and it is now hoping that everyone will forget that both it and the CEAA review panel report made it clear last year that any alternative to the original plan would be an even bigger disaster.”
  
  Taseko’s new move is costly because it will force governments to spend tax dollars dealing with a clearly unacceptable bid, and could even see the province continue to pump tax dollars into promoting this project on Taseko’s behalf.
  
  It will also force First Nations, who have been on the front line of defending the land against this project, to continue to spend scarce resources that would be better spent on pursuing genuine and sustainable opportunity.
  
  One also has to wonder how excited investors are about the company adding to the $100 million it has already wasted pursuing this doomed project over the last 17 years.
  
  The rebid is dangerous because it seeks to avoid having another full review of the project and have governments accept the new plan as addressing all concerns. If it were to succeed, it would mean the strong federal EA process would be taken over by the weak and industry biased provincial process.
  
  In effect, the company is seeking to undermine the entire process and set a precedent that will give companies a way to proceed with bad projects through the back door.
  
  The new bid also diverts attention away from the real issues facing mining in BC, and the need to reform the mining system to ensure that the industry and first Nation and other governments can work together to identify and pursue good mining projects.
  
  “The company and supporters such as provincial Mines Minster Randy Hawes and Liberal Leadership Candidate’s Christy Clark and Kevin Falcon continue to act as if money is the only issue here.” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  “We are particularly offended that Mr. Hawes has once again implied we are holding out for money and that he will try to buy our support with benefit agreements,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  “He knows full well that we will never accept this project and that for us that this is not about money. We are not willing to sell out the land, the water and our rights, future generations and way of life at any price. Period.”

   
• Friday Feb 11, 2011
  Christy Clark’s blinkered pro-Taseko pledge is divisive and disastrous
  
  Christy Clark’s blinkered pro-Taseko pledge is divisive and disastrous

  
  Williams Lake BC. February 11, 2011: Liberal Leadership candidate Christy Clark’s pledge to give priority to reviving Taseko Mines Ltd’s dead and discredited Prosperity project would plunge BC into a costly, wasteful, divisive and destructive battle, the Tsilhqot’in National Government said today.
  
  In statements made in Burnaby this week, Ms. Clark said that if she becomes premier, she would use her first meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to demand that his government reverse its decision last Nov. 2 to reject the mine.
  
  “This pledge might have the backing of those in the well-financed mining industry in BC who believe they have the right to treat the province as their own personal staking grounds, but it demonstrates that Ms. Clark is living in the past and favours conflict over co-operation in BC,” said TNG Tribal Chair Joe Alphonse.
  
  “Ms Clark’s comments also demonstrate that she is prepared to steamroll over First Nations rights and environmental protection to help Taseko Mines Ltd get its way. If this is her idea of leadership, we believe it places her completely out of step with most British Columbians,” Chief Alphonse said.
  
  Xeni Gwet’in Chief Marilyn Baptiste, whose First Nation would be most directly impacted by the destruction of Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and the ecosystems and lands that this dead project would have caused, said: “Ms. Clark has clearly not bothered to pay any attention to the facts – as evidenced by her statement that she will persuade Mr. Harper to reverse the decision by arguing it would mean votes in BC.
  
  “I am sure Mr. Harper is fully aware that support for his party in BC was not harmed by rejecting this mine proposal, and has indeed risen since. It was the Provincial Liberals who suffered by so blatantly trying the help Taseko Mines Ltd. get its devastating project approved at any cost.”
  Ms. Clark demonstrates further lack of knowledge by repeating the myth that the federal decision was based on misinformation and false allegations.
  
  The 60 days of public hearings by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Review Panel heard overwhelming community opposition to the mine and legal and environmentally scientific evidence as to why it should not proceed.
  
  “The panel’s report was the most damning the CEAA has ever released against a proposal. It highlighted in detail the extensive violation of First Nations rights that would occur and the devastating impact that this lake- and ecosystem-killing open-pit mine would cause with its massive 35 sq. km, footprint on a pristine wilderness area,” Chief Alphonse said.
  
  In rejecting the mine, then Environment Minister Jim Prentice, speaking on behalf of his government, called the report “scathing” and the “most condemning” he had ever read.
  
  This ruling should have come as no surprise to Taseko and the province as they had been told for 17 years by federal officials that it was unacceptable and a waste of their time and money.
  
  Indeed, the fact that the province and Taseko chose to not proceed with a joint review with the federal government indicates that that they knew full well that the project was a bad one.
  
  As many commentators have since noted, the fact that Mr. Harper’s Conservative and pro industry government was compelled to reject this mine demonstrates how weak and industry biased the provincial review process really is.
  
  “If, like our Tsilhqot’in and other First Nations in BC, Ms. Clark wants responsible mining that respects the land, water and rights, then she should show leadership and focus on ways to reform the mining process in BC to ensure that we can all focus on projects that can actually pass this test,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  “If Ms. Clark really wants jobs and quality of life for all, then the reality that she should be embracing is that it is mining reform, not bullying, that will create jobs.”
  
  Chief Alphonse added: “Unfortunately, her comments this week suggest one of Ms. Clark’s main reasons for wanting to become premier is to help the mining industry treat BC as its own domain and exploit our resources as and where it sees fit. This is a vision that British Columbians simply cannot afford.”
  
• Thursday Jan 20, 2011
  Tsilhqot’in comment on recent talk of reviving Prosperity project: Nothing has changed, the plan cannot be ‘tweaked’ to fix its massive flaws
  
  
  
  Williams Lake, BC – January 20, 2010: Tsilhqot’in National Government today expressed its deep disappointment and concern that Taseko Mines Ltd has announced to shareholders that it intends to compound all the mistakes of the past by resubmitting its failed Prosperity project.
  
  Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse said, "We are concerned that, even though its ill-conceived proposed mine was emphatically rejected, Taseko Mines Ltd. has apparently learned nothing from wasting 17 years and $100 million of investors’ money pursuing this project despite clear warnings that neither our First Nations nor the federal government could accept it."
  
  Chief Alphonse said: "The Tsilhqot’in are not against development, but it must be done with respect for us as a people, with respect for the environment, and with a scientifically solid plan.
  
  "We had hoped that the ruling to reject the Prosperity mine proposal would serve as a catalyst for reform and a new relationship between governments, the mining industry and First Nations,” said Chief Alphonse. “This continues to be our hope despite this attempt to revive this dead project and the unproductive conflict that it has generated since the beginning."
  
  Chief Marilyn Baptiste, Xeni Gwet’in First Nation, said: "Taseko said all the way through the process that the only way to get at the gold was to destroy Teztan Biny and the surrounding watershed. How can it be, after so many years of doggedly saying there was no other way than to drain and destroy our sacred lake, that they suddenly have a new way forward?
  
  "To compound matters, after the project was rejected last Nov. 2, the company immediately began working with the Province and other mine supporters to revive this disastrous project without consulting our First Nations. We did receive a letter in January from the company’s president suggesting a meeting, but this was after the fact. Now we read in a company statement that it claims to have a new bid that will be acceptable – and we know nothing about it," said Chief Baptiste.
  
  "It is very difficult in these circumstances to believe the company is acting in good faith with us, or that it has any goal other than to force this totally unacceptable mine on us," said Chief Baptiste.
  
  TNG is unanimous in its position that the Prosperity Project is dead and is interested now in turning attention towards positive projects that fulfill its environmental mandate.
  
  "The right decision was made and it would be fruitless to look at this project again. The region needs to come up with alternative ways to economically diversify and to work with First Nations to achieve this," Chief Alphonse said.
  
  On November 2, 2010, then federal environment minister Jim Prentice announced the plan would not be approved, citing the "scathing" finding of the CEAA review panel report, which the federal minister said was "the most condemning" he had ever seen. The report noted the loss of Fish Lake, the inadequacies of the proposed replacement lake, the immense cultural impact and the impact on grizzlies and other wildlife would all cause "significant adverse effects." The CEAA panel and the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans also found two potential alternatives to be even worse than the rejected project.
  
  "It makes no sense that after 17 years, the company has found in a few weeks a new idea, or for it to claim it will be acceptable when it has not even talked to us or provided a hint as to what this grand new plan is," said Chief Baptiste.
  
  Chief Alphonse said: "Instead of wasting time and resources trying to bring a bad project back from the dead, we once again call on the province, local municipal government and industry to work with us to create viable diversified economic plans for this area."
  
  
  Contact:
  Chief Joe Alphonse, Tribal Chair, TNG: 250.305.8282 or 250.394.4212
  Chief Marilyn Baptiste, Xeni Gwet’in: 250.394.7023 x. 202 or 250.267.140"
  
• Thursday Jan 20, 2011
  Tsilhqot’in comment on recent talk of reviving Prosperity project
  
  
  
  Tsilhqot’in comment on recent talk of reviving Prosperity project: Nothing has changed, the plan cannot be ‘tweaked’ to fix its massive flaws
  
  Williams Lake, BC – January 20, 2010: Tsilhqot’in National Government today expressed its deep disappointment and concern that Taseko Mines Ltd has announced to shareholders that it intends to compound all the mistakes of the past by resubmitting its failed Prosperity project.
  
  Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse said, “We are concerned that, even though its ill-conceived proposed mine was emphatically rejected, Taseko Mines Ltd. has apparently learned nothing from wasting 17 years and $100 million of investors’ money pursuing this project despite clear warnings that neither our First Nations nor the federal government could accept it.”
  
  Chief Alphonse said: “The Tsilhqot’in are not against development, but it must be done with respect for us as a people, with respect for the environment, and with a scientifically solid plan.
  
  “We had hoped that the ruling to reject the Prosperity mine proposal would serve as a catalyst for reform and a new relationship between governments, the mining industry and First Nations,” said Chief Alphonse. “This continues to be our hope despite this attempt to revive this dead project and the unproductive conflict that it has generated since the beginning.”
  
  Chief Marilyn Baptiste, Xeni Gwet’in First Nation, said: “Taseko said all the way through the process that the only way to get at the gold was to destroy Teztan Biny and the surrounding watershed. How can it be, after so many years of doggedly saying there was no other way than to drain and destroy our sacred lake, that they suddenly have a new way forward?
  
  “To compound matters, after the project was rejected last Nov. 2, the company immediately began working with the Province and other mine supporters to revive this disastrous project without consulting our First Nations. We did receive a letter in January from the company’s president suggesting a meeting, but this was after the fact. Now we read in a company statement that it claims to have a new bid that will be acceptable – and we know nothing about it,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  “It is very difficult in these circumstances to believe the company is acting in good faith with us, or that it has any goal other than to force this totally unacceptable mine on us,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  TNG is unanimous in its position that the Prosperity Project is dead and is interested now in turning attention towards positive projects that fulfill its environmental mandate.
  
  “The right decision was made and it would be fruitless to look at this project again. The region needs to come up with alternative ways to economically diversify and to work with First Nations to achieve this,” Chief Alphonse said.
  
  On November 2, 2010, then federal environment minister Jim Prentice announced the plan would not be approved, citing the “scathing” finding of the CEAA review panel report, which the federal minister said was “the most condemning” he had ever seen. The report noted the loss of Fish Lake, the inadequacies of the proposed replacement lake, the immense cultural impact and the impact on grizzlies and other wildlife would all cause “significant adverse effects.” The CEAA panel and the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans also found two potential alternatives to be even worse than the rejected project.
  
  “It makes no sense that after 17 years, the company has found in a few weeks a new idea, or for it to claim it will be acceptable when it has not even talked to us or provided a hint as to what this grand new plan is,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  Chief Alphonse said: “Instead of wasting time and resources trying to bring a bad project back from the dead, we once again call on the province, local municipal government and industry to work with us to create viable diversified economic plans for this area.”
  
• Saturday Dec 11, 2010
  Letter from Professor John A. Meech
  When the federal government announced its rejection of the Prosperity Mine proposal, UBC professor of Mining Engineering, John A. Meech, P.Eng., Ph.D. and Director of CERM3 (The Centre for Environmental Research in Minerals, Metals and Materials) sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, expressing his displeasure with the decision.
  
  George Colgate, a mechanical engineer in Vancouver during the 1960s before choosing a different career path as a cowboy, rancher, band manager, and founder of Xeni Gwet'in Enterprises, responded to Meech's letter. Colgate, a 34-year resident of Nemiah Valley, sent a copy of his letter to Prime Minister Harper, the federal environment minister, and to the Dean of Applied Sciences at UBC.
  
  LETTER FROM PROFESSOR JOHN A. MEECH
  
  Dear Prime Minister Harper:
  
  I am shocked and appalled that your government would reject the Prosperity Mine project. This is indeed a sad day for British Columbia and for the Canadian Mining Industry.
  
  My letter to you on July 5th regarding the Prosperity Mine deliberately avoided discussing the process by which your government chooses to make its decisions on these issues since I was hopeful that you and your colleagues would weight the specifics of the case rather than succumb to emotion and rhetoric.
  
  Now I wish to express MY emotions about the issues and to share with you my views on the environmental review process - a lengthy and clumsy vehicle that does nothing but generate conflict in an environment of animosity and irrationality.
  
  Something is terribly wrong in this country with respect to sharing power with First Nations. The process you are using deliberately pits one group (First Nations) against another (Mining Industry) and appears to be the new tactic being employed by NGOs and the regulators to the detriment of all sides with a preconceived concept about mine development of any kind.
  
  There is really no opportunity for the two groups to find common ground. There is really no way for the companies to approach the First Nations in a rational, logical manner since all decision-making on revenue sharing and sensible balanced mine development must be done through two levels of governments - each of which have multiple agencies representing different contexts of the issues. And these agencies appear to approach the issues with preconceived notions about mining being something evil. No matter how much you may deny this, that is in fact what is projected by your bureaucrats and by the dialog and processes that you have put into place.
  
  Our industry is put into the position of being the big, bad developers who destroy the land and rape and pillage the meek and poor when the reality is quite the opposite. The compensation plan for the demise of Fish Lake was more than reasonable in consideration of the significant benefits to the communities in the region with respect to the economy and job creation. Fish lake was not a significant contributor to the culture nor to the livelihood of First Nations in the region. Whereas the new lake planned would create a new industry for the locals to work in and contribute to society. First Nations children could be given opportunities to move out of poverty and gain the necessary training to play positive roles in the future development of our country and become productive instead of having such a limited future.
  
  What your decision does is transfer wealth to other regions of the world where environmental standards and regulations are significantly weaker than ours. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Not only does this transfer of wealth and pollution take place in an unregulated fashion, but you leave our own First Nations to exist in poverty for long into the future - although I am sure they will be at the table for a hand-out from your government when the need arises and we decide to feel sorry for our ancestors having brought smallpox to the west coast.
  
  The mine environmental review process has been usurped by a bureaucracy out of control whose vested interest is to take as long as possible to arrive at a decision. Delay, obfuscate, lie, exaggerate - those are the fundamentals of the process.
  
  The "testimony " of the First Nations peoples, both old and young alike, was presented in an environment of "okay who is next?", instead of allowing thoughtful questioning and discussion of what is the truth. One of the young Indians actually referred to Avatar, the block-buster movie of last year that presents miners in a very negative light as being exploitative of people and the land and only interested in the bottom-line. By your decision today, your government has now perpetuated that terrible myth, instead of educating society about how we all rely on mining fundamentally and sustainably.
  
  Most of the elders talked about the past and lamented on the loss of their culture (which is not really true), yet no one mentioned how this project could provide new opportunities to provide training and assistance to the poverty and lack of hope that is a feature of all the reservations in this region. This is much more than simply a cultural thing in which some folks want us to return to the trees and live like we did hundreds of years ago. The smallpox their ancestors died from is now eradicated and will never happen again. Yet it was dragged up as a reason to reject the application. And that eradication took place because of education and knowledge gained over the years through careful scientific study and new technologies. That was a good thing and needs to be put into the context of what was happening hundreds of years ago, not used as an argument against development and upgrading today. Instead we proceed to apologize for something that is irrelevant today.
  
  Nowhere in the review report could I find any positive reference to the significant strides taken by our industry in Canada to avoid the problems of the past, both environmentally and socially. The Canadian mining industry holds no candle to anywhere else in the world with respect to metal pollution standards and control and modern methods to deal with acid rock drainage. As someone who has studied mining and the environment for many years and has contributed to establishing new knowledge about the issues, I take great exception to how our industry is depicted in this review process.
  
  The role of DFO (the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) has been ridiculous. They provided no testimony in the report about how this mine affects transportation through the interconnected lakes. In fact it was stated that because of lack of personnel and time, they had been unable to prepare their submission - perhaps it was supplied to cabinet at a later date, but I have been unable to find any significant evidence, just hearsay, that supported that conclusion.
  
  You have lost my confidence in your government and party and I hereby withdraw my support for your party in the next election. Furthermore, I intend to tell others about how this decision was made and how wrong it is for the future welfare of British Columbia and Canada.
  
  Yours sincerely,
  
  John A. Meech, P.Eng., Ph.D.
  
  RESPONSE BY GEORGE COLGATE
  
  Dear Professor Meech,
  
  I have recently read a letter you sent to Prime Minister Harper in regard to the Prosperity Mine decision. I write to you at this time as I too am "shocked and appalled" but not at the federal government.
  
  I have lived in Nemiah Valley, adjacent to the site of the proposed Prosperity Mine and home of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation, since 1976. My personal knowledge of the Prosperity Project consists of some minor contracts involving exploration, site cleanup and discourse with various technical personal involved in the development of this mine proposal. I have also spent several days before the commencement of the federal hearing studying the nine volumes of the Environmental Impact Statement of Taseko Mines Ltd in preparation for my presentation to the federal panel in Nemiah Valley. I also spent one week in Williams Lake attending the 'technical hearing' session of the Federal Review Panel.
  
  In the discourse which I present below, I have assumed that you have studied the many controversial environment issues arising from these hearings and be, at least, as informed as I.
  
  In your letter you state that it is"...a bad day for British Columbia and for the Canadian Mining Industry". Although I do not necessarily disagree with this statement the reason for rejection must be placed where it belongs - with the mining industry in general and with Taseko Mines Ltd in particular. In the first place, this "... lengthy and clumsy vehicle that does nothing but generate conflict in an environment of animosity and irrationality", was the specific choice of Taseko Mines and neither the choice of the federal government nor that of the First Nations. A 'joint panel process' was the original choice of process by all government bodies including the First Nations. It was the specific request of Taseko Mines that this process be abandoned in favour of the process that you so venomously condemn.
  
  Your letter indicates your many qualifications in the field of mining engineering but nowhere in your credentials is any mention of expertise in the field of anthropology and yet most of your objections to the federal government decision are anthropological rather than technical. The real issue here is NOT anthropological but technical. The federal government's decision to reject the proposal "as presented" was because of "serious adverse environmental effects", and not because of aboriginal issues. Furthermore, for you to assert expertise in the complex relationship First Nations have with their traditional homelands is both pretentious and arrogant. This type of response merely feeds the growing fire of First Nation scapegoating and actually disguises the root of the problem.
  
  In your letter, you state "Our industry is put into the position of being the big, bad developers who destroy the land and rape and pillage the meek and poor when the reality is quite the opposite". Unfortunately, in too many cases, it is NOT "...quite the opposite." It is not mere perception that 'your industry' is an industry rife with environmental disasters and corruption - as confirmed by the recent environmental consequences in the Gulf, the Danube and the Tar Sands of northern Alberta. Yes, the extraction of the earth's minerals by mining operations is essential for the economic and social well being of present day society but at the same time, society cannot afford the reckless mining industry practices of the past and which, exemplified in the Taseko Mines proposal, continue today.
  
  Over the years, I have been told by prominent members of the mining community that sufficient regulations have been put in place to safeguard against the mining industries 'sins of the past'. One of these safeguards involves the prospective mining company posting a bond sufficient to cover the cost of the project reclamation. But, at the time of the Federal Panel Hearings, Taseko Mines Ltd did not know the cost of the reclamation stage of their proposed project! Think about this. Taseko Mines Ltd produced an engineering feasibility study and the Provincial Government gave approval to a project in which the cost of the site reclamation was unknown!
  
  You further state in your letter, "The compensation plan for the demise of Fish Lake was more than reasonable in consideration of the significant benefits to the communities in the region with respect to the economy and job creation." The proposed "compensation plan" is the creation of 'Prosperity Lake', a lake intended to replace the existing Fish Lake and provide sustainable fish populations now and for future generations. The proposed water course intended to feed the Prosperity Lake spawning channel, however, flows from north to south counter to the natural water course gradient which is from south to north! In order for this 'more than reasonable compensation plan' to work, then, it will have to be maintained in perpetuity!
  
  Moreover, 24 years after mine closure (this could be closer to 50 years if the mine life were to be extended from 20 to 33 years, a quite likely scenario) natural discharge from the site area will once again discharge into Fish Creek a tributary of the Taseko River which in turn is a tributary of the Fraser River. This natural discharge will now contain 'probable' toxic waste ('probable' being the middle ground between what the Taseko experts say to be 'possible' and what the TNG experts say to be 'definite') and will need treatment at an annual cost of 14 million dollars for a minimum period of 100 years! It is unclear who will bear the cost of this treatment!
  
  You further state that "What your decision does is transfer wealth to other regions of the world where "environmental standards and regulations are significantly weaker than ours". This statement further exemplifies the irresponsibility of 'your industry' and points out a logical inconsistency in your objection. You imply on one hand, that without 'environmental standards and regulations' your 'industry' would act in a less environmentally responsible manner prevalent in "other regions of the world". But, on the other hand, when our federal government invoked these same "environmental standards and regulations" in making its decision, you call "foul". "You should be ashamed of yourselves", you say. But the real 'shame', Professor, rests with those in 'your industry' who continue to protect and advocate these environmentally insensitive industry standards, not with the federal government!
  
  In the planning of any mining proposal and especially a proposal of the magnitude and ecological complexity as that proposed at Fish Lake, reclamation MUST be given the same weight as the removal and the processing of the ore itself. The mining industry is going to have to do a MUCH better job in the future than what they have done in the past in regard to the protection and reclamation of the environment. Environmental problems arising from projects in the present must NOT be passed on to future generations to resolve. Responsible governments can no longer accept mining practices which lead to environmental catastrophes. The federal government in handing down its decision on the Prosperity Project did not turn it down outright; it turned it down "as it stands". It has sent a clear message to Taseko Mines and hopefully the mining industry in general. The federal government in making its decision need not be applauded nor condemned as it is the ONLY decision a RESPONSIBLE government of the 21st century could possibly make. Hopefully the UBC Department of Mining Engineering will also take up the slack and become a true cornerstone of the solution rather than to continue nourishing the root of the problem.
  
  Yours sincerely hoping for a sustainable future,
  
  George Colgate
  
  Nemiah Valley, BC
  
• Friday Nov 12, 2010
  TITLE AND RIGHTS COURT CASE EMPHASISES NEED FOR MINING REFORM IN BC
  
  Williams Lake BC, Friday, November 12, 2010: The Prosperity Mine proposal is now history, and it is time to focus on reforming British Columbia’s mining regime and Environmental Assessment process to create a positive environment for repsonsible mining in BC, the Tsilhqot’in National Government said today as it prepares for a ground-breaking Title and rights case in Vancouver next week,.
  
  “Taseko’s proposal is dead and any variation that involves Fish Lake and its environs are non starters,” said TNG Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse. “If we want jobs and economic opportunity we need to move on and find ways to work together to identify projects that can work.”
  
  The federal government rejected the ill-named Prosperity proposal on the “scathing ” findings of the CEAA review panel report, which the federal environment minister said was “the most condemning” he had ever seen. The company repeatedly said that there were no other viable options, and two potential alternatives were found by the CEAA panel and the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans to be even worse than the rejected project. ( See West Coast Environmental Law assessment: http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/oh-wait-%E2%80%93-we-don%E2%80%99t-need-destroy-fish-lake-after-all )
  
  Furthermore, the BC Court of Appeal will hear appeals of the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s groundbreaking Aboriginal title trial starting Monday Nov. 15. The trial court’s judgment affirming Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal rights to hunt and trap throughout lands that include the Fish Lake area – a prominent factor in the CEAA panel report – is not under appeal. However, the Court of Appeal will be considering whether the Tsilhqot’in Nation additionally holds Aboriginal title (recognized ownership of the land) to the Fish Lake area.
  
  “It is not in the best interests of First Nations or anyone else in BC for the province and industry to add to the 17 wasted years already spent on this totally discredited project by pursuing it any further and continuing to pretend there is no need for mining reform ,”said Tl’esqox Chief Francis Laceese .
  
  Xeni Gwet’in Chief Marilyn Baptise, whose Tsilhqot’in Nation is at the centre of the pending court appeal, said: “According to reports, the company spent $100 million pursuing this mine despite it being made clear since the beginning that neither our First Nations nor the federal governnment could accept this proposal.
  
  “That money, the tax dollars wasted by the Province to promote this doomed proposal, and the scarce resources that First Nations were forced to use to defend against it could have been far better spent creating real economic opportunities and jobs. It is time to put an end to this waste and futility.
  
  “It says volumes about the credibility of the industry that its game plan for solving its problems is to keep its government allies on side by publicly endorsing the HST, instead of working with us to find a mining system that works fairly for the environment and everyone,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  Former Xeni Gwet’in Chief Roger William, who brought forward the case in which Justice Vickers assigned hunting and trapping rights over the whole claim area, said “Our case being heard before the BC Court of Appeal will not affect the proven Aboriginal hunting and trapping rights that have already been applied to stop this project, but they do have the potential to establish our Aboriginal title to the land.
  
  “The provincial and federal governments accept that hunting and trapping rights exist and the question to be decided by the appeal courts is whether to grant Aboriginal title to the lands.”
  
  Chief Baptiste added: “This is a ground-breaking case and should the judges so decide, we believe it would be the first time that a court has recognized Aboriginal title. This could break the logjam that has stalled the recognition process in BC.”
  
  However, because this is potentially such an historic case, it is expected that a verdict will not come until next year and that it will likely proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which could take several more years.
  
  “The question is, in the meantime, do the industry and governnents want to continue wasting effort and money pursuing projects that cannot proceed and chasing new proposals that should not be put forward, or are they finally prepared to work with First Nations to establish a regime that respects all parties, and the environment and allow us to focus on viable, envrionmnetally sound projects that respect our rights and cultures,” said Chief Baptiste.
  
  Chief Alphonse said: “ First Nations also want good jobs for our people and a future for our children and we want them to prosper, but we do not want to destroy our environment, values and future generations to achieve this.
  
  “If we are to identify and work on projects that will stand the test of existing Aboriginal rights, future determinations of Aboriginal title in BC, and environmental responsibility, then we all need to work together on land use planning, decision sharing, reforming the online staking system, and creating a credible and valid environmental assessement process.”
  
  First Nation Chiefs and elders will be at the Court of Appeal in Vancouver on Monday, November 15 for the beginning of the appeals, which are expected to last for three weeks.
  
  An analysis of the findings of Justice Vickers that formed the basis of the appeal court hearings next week can be read at: http://www.elc.uvic.ca/associates/documents/Tsilhqot'in-Nation-Feb7.08.pdf
  
• Wednesday Nov 03, 2010
  Letter to Minister Jim Prentice
  Hon. Jim Prentice
  Minister of the Environment
  
  Dear Mr. Minister;
  
  We are writing to congratulate you and to thank you for your decision not to allow the Prosperity Mine development. We have no doubt that this was a difficult decision.
  
  Friends of the Nemaiah Valley were glad to be able to participate in the federal environmental assessment process. It was a fair process carried out with exemplary professionalism from start to finish. The Panel's report, while it did not reflect all of our concerns, was as balanced and complete as it could have been given their mandate. It was particularly gratifying to observe the respect and openness with which First Nations elders were heard and their concerns recognized.
  
  Given the quality and findings of the report we believe you could have come to no other decision than you have. Nevertheless, others clearly believed differently and brought extraordinary pressure to bear.
  
  The federal government will now come under increased pressure to mesh its environmental assessment process with that of the provinces. Given the patent superficiality of a provincial process that your assessment and subsequent decision have exposed, we are of the firm opinion that the processes must remain separate and distinct. We also believe that this should remain primarily an “environmental” assessment so that perceived economic needs (which tend to be short term in a resource based economy) cannot trump environmental concerns. Only in this way can it remain a science based process rather than one subject to manipulation and tainting by different interests.
  
  There will also be moves now for Taseko, or perhaps a different company, to mine the Fish Lake deposits without destroying the lakes and ecosystem. Our observations and extensive local knowledge and research, including that into the blue listed grizzly bear, convince us that this cannot be done.
  
  At the very least there should be no mining development of any kind in the proven Tsilhqot'in rights and/or title area until the question of aboriginal title has been resolved either through negotiation or by the courts.
  
  We also wish to express our great concern regarding the use of Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER). The ability to reclassify a natural water body such as Teztan Biny as a tailings
  impoundment area, and thus no come longer under the protection of the Federal Fisheries Act, has been the root of the problem we have been dealing with. Millions of dollars would have been saved, First Nations would not have been angered and disrespected, and a mining company and local business interests and communities would not have been led down a garden path for years if Schedule 2 had never been legislated. Governments could have been saved from embarrassment. Most importantly, an important ecosystem would not have been needlessly threatened with extinction.
  
  Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize how gratified we are by your wise decision.
  
  
  
  Yours Truly,
  
  
  David Williams (President)
  Wolfgang Zilker (Vice-president)
  Susanne Wilson (Vice-president)
  Pat Swift (Secretary)
  Sibylle Zilker (Treasurer)
  Noreen Thiele
  Sylvan Foreman
  
  Board of Friends of the Nemaiah Valley
  
• Tuesday Oct 26, 2010
  Nemiah businesses have mine concerns
  As part of our submission to the CEAA Panel hearings into Taseko’s proposed Prosperity Mine, Friends of the Nemaiah Valley (FONV) has conducted a questionnaire of the businesses closest to the mine site in the Nemiah Valley area.
  
  Thirteen of 15 businesses responded to the questionnaire. They were lodge owners and operators, river rafters, guide outfitters, B&Bs, ranchers and trappers. Most had been in operation for many years, were valued in the millions of dollars, and in total are significant drivers of the local economy.
  
  These businesses would be most heavily impacted by mine development due to their nature and proximity to the mine yet have been heard little in the debate over the mine.
  
  We feel this is an opportune time, close to a decision being announced by the federal government, when the broader public should be made aware of the results of our questionnaire.
  
  Questions covered concerns about increased traffic in the area, increased mechanized recreational use, impacts on wildlife and fishing for salmon and trout, and anticipated impacts on their businesses.
  
  All respondents expressed concern in all these areas and added a few of their own, including worry over noise, dust and light pollution. None of them thought that this mine was appropriate for this area.
  
  All of them thought the mine would have a significantly negative effect on their businesses and some believed it would put them out of business.
  
  The full questionnaire can be viewed here
  
• Monday Oct 18, 2010
  Open Letter regarding UBCIC’s Support for Tsilhqot’in Nation and Call for the Federal Rejection of the Proposed Prosperity Mine
  Hon. Gail Shea
  Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
  House of Commons
  Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0A6
  Fax: (613) 992-1974
  
  Hon. Jim Prentice
  Minister of Environment
  House of Commons
  Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0A6
  Fax: (613) 947-9475
  
  Hon. Christian Paradis
  Minister of Natural Resources
  House of Commons
  Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0A6
  Fax: (613) 943-1562
  
  Hon. John Duncan
  Minister of Indian Affairs
  House of Commons
  Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0A6
  Fax: (613) 996-3306
  
  Premier Gordon Campbell
  Government of British Columbia
  PO Box 9041 STN PROV GOVT
  Victoria, BC V8W 9E1
  Fax: (250) 387-0087
  
  VIA FACSIMILE AND POST
  
  RE: Open Letter regarding UBCIC’s Support for Tsilhqot’in Nation and Call for the Federal Rejection of the Proposed Prosperity Mine
  
  Dear Honourable Ministers and Premier Campbell
  
  We are writing to you with respect to UBCIC Resolution no. 2010-32, Support for Tsilhqot’in Nation and Call for Federal Rejection of the Proposed Prosperity Mine that was carried at the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Annual General Assembly on September 16, 2010 (enclosed).
  
  We are writing again, to strongly emphasize UBCIC’s position of support for the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s rejection of Taseko Mine Ltd’s proposed Prosperity Mine. We fully support the efforts of the Tsilhqot’in to protect their lands which hold profound cultural and spiritual value and will stand behind them in full defense of these lands. We call on you and your governments to heed the cautions of the independent panel and we urge you to demonstrate your commitment to environmental protection and the cultural survival of First Nations and to reject the proposed Prosperity Mine. Again, we would like to reiterate that the federal government must reject the proposed Prosperity Mine and review DFO’s “no net loss policy” which allows lakes to be reclassified as tailings ponds to support mining development. The independent panel concluded that this project would result in “significant adverse environmental effects” on fish habitat, grizzly bears, navigation and First Nations traditional land use, cultural heritage and on Aboriginal Title and Rights.
  
  Further to UBCIC’s most recent resolution regarding this issue, we are advising you of the close surveillance that First Nations across Canada are paying to this particular issue. We caution the federal government that if approval is made for the proposed Prosperity Mine, despite clear warnings from the independent panel, this would demonstrate complete disregard for the survival of First Nations as distinctive cultures within Canada.
  
  Please contact us for any further information. You can reach the UBCIC office at 604-684-0231.
  
  
  On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS
  
  [Original signed]
  
  Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
  President
  
  Chief William Charlie
  Vice-President
  
  Chief Bob Chamberlin
  Secretary-Treasurer
  
  cc:
  Honourable George Abbott, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
  The First Nations Summit
  The BC Assembly of First Nations
  Tsilhqot’in National Government