Natives, Canada & the mining boom

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: November 19, 2008 - 3:41 pm

Comments (0) |

This morning I listened in on a teleconference about mining and communities hosted by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics.

The main topic: First Nations' reaction to the mining boom in Canada.

The speakers – Amy Crook of the Center for Science in Public Participation and Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada – gave an overview of recent things that First Nations have done to address mining on their traditional land. (Unlike in Alaska, many of the First Nations' land claims remain unresolved, so the tribes don't control mining activity on "their" land.)

Here are a few interesting tidbits that Crook and Coumans shared.

* The governmental body for First Nations in British Columbia has developed a mining action plan. You can read about it here. Unfortunately, there is no link to the actual plan. (If someone finds one, please pass it along!)

* Mining laws are very different in Canada. In British Columbia, for example, anyone over 18 years old can stake mining claims on private or public land by going onto the Internet and paying $25. In British Columbia and Ontario, a claim holder doesn’t need permission from a surface landowner to use the property for exploration.

I gathered a few more pieces of information after the teleconference.

Here is one recent article about the conflicts that have arisen in Ontario after recent high metal prices set off a claim-staking boom.

And here is a speech from the national First Nations chief last year to miners, discussing the relationship between mining companies and First Nations.

In his speech, the chief talked at length about the failed proposal to develop a new ore body at the North Kemess mine in British Columbia.

The Kemess North project had been compared by some to the dispute over the proposed Kensington gold mine near Juneau because it involved dumping tailings into a lake.

There are some key differences, however. In Alaska, Native corporations have fought to develop Kensington. In British Columbia, First Nations tribes objected to the mine using what they viewed as a sacred lake for waste.

Also, the legal case involving Kensington is much broader than whether a company may use a lake for tailings.

People have brought up the possible burial of Frying Pan Lake near the Pebble project under tons of rock waste as a parallel case to Kensington's Lower Slate Lake. But a ruling in the Kensington case will have consequences for the placement of tailings in any navigable waterway, not just lakes. Navigable waters include lakes, wetlands, streams, rivers, etc.

But I’ll save that discussion for another post.

login or register to post comments