Aboriginal and Inuit Mining and Oil/Gas – Page 156

Tsilhqot’in decision fuels uncertainty in Ontario – by Alisha Hiyate (Mining Markets – July 11, 2014)

July 11, 2014

http://www.miningmarkets.ca/

‘Every treaty in Ontario is about to be challenged’

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent Tsilhqot’in decision will have a ripple effect across Canada and could deter resource investment in the country, according to Neal Smitheman, a partner at law firm Fasken Martineau.

The decision, released on June 26, gave an aboriginal group in British Columbia aboriginal title over lands for the first time in Canada.

Aboriginal title means the group has a collective ownership of the land and the right to profit from its use, including mining and forestry, and the right to decide how the land is used.

The ruling has huge implications in B.C., where there are few settled land claims, but even projects in Ontario, where most of the province is covered by treaties, could be affected.

The decision is likely to inspire legal actions across the country as historic treaties are compared with the landmark ruling, which granted the Tsilhqot’in aboriginal title over a huge swath of land.

“From what we’re hearing, every treaty in Ontario is about to be challenged by First Nations,” said Smitheman in a presentation this week.

Mine-impacted Nunavut hamlets eligible for QIA funding – by David Murphy (Nunatsiaqonline.com – July 11, 2014)

July 11, 2014July 11, 2014

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/

“We want to make sure that the families in the communities are supported”

The Qikiqtani Inuit Association plans to give away $750,000 to communities affected by the Mary River iron mine every year for the next six years.

QIA on July 9 launched its Ilagiiktunut Fund, which intends to offset potential social, economic and cultural impacts of the Mary River iron mine in five North Baffin communities.

Various bodies, such as hamlet councils, committees, groups, and even individuals in Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Hall Beach, Igloolik and Pond Inlet may apply for funding for projects of their choosing.

“750,000 for five communities is a lot of money,” Okalik Eegeesiak, president of QIA, said when she announced the fund on Nunavut Day. The Ilagiiktunut Fund replenishes to $750,000 every year, with QIA and Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. each contributing $375,000. Eegeesiak said the fund is essential for those working at the mine and their families.

“Because in a mining operation there’s at least a two-week-in, two-week-out period where staff work at the mine site, leaving the families behind,” Eegeesiak said.

Aboriginal title ruling ‘all but guarantees uncertainty’ for CA mining projects – by Dorothy Kosich (Mineweb.com – July 11, 2014)

July 11, 2014

http://www.mineweb.com/

“Future natural resources projects may be scuttled, and existing projects may be halted or shut down,” said Ravina Bains of the Fraser Institute.

RENO (MINEWEB) – In a briefing published Thursday, British Columbia’s Fraser Institute’s Centre for Aboriginal Policy Studies warned that a recent Canadian Supreme Court ruling granting a group of six B.C. First Nations title to a large piece of land outside their reserves “will likely stunt economic development across Canada”.

“This court ruling all but guarantees uncertainty for natural resource projects in Canada and a potential increase in cost for economic development across the country,” said Ravina Bains, associate director of Aboriginal policy studies at the Fraser Institute.”

Unlike previous court rulings, the Tsilhqot-in Nation v. British Columbia judgment states that Aboriginal title can extend to all traditional territories and is not limited to specific villages. “This is particularly important in B.C. where one-third of the country’s First Nations reserves reside and where outstanding claims involve more than 100% of the province’s land,” said the Frasier Institute study.

Why the Supreme Court’s Tsilhqot’in land title decision is no game changer – by Robin Junger (National Post – July 10, 2014)

July 11, 2014

The National Post is Canada’s second largest national paper.

Robin Junger is a lawyer with McMillan LLP and co-chairs its aboriginal and environmental law groups. He is a former Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the Province of British Columbia.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Tsilhqot’in v. British Columbia is important. But it is not the first case dealing with aboriginal title and it is not a “game changer” that will undermine governmental authority or the ability to approve projects in the resource sector.

Perhaps the most legally significant aspect of the judgment is that it confirms, subject to certain requirements, governments – including provincial governments – can continue to regulate the land base where aboriginal title is claimed or proven.

And the reasons for which title can be infringed are not vague. The court has, twice now, expressly stated that these reasons can include purposes such as infrastructure development, mining, and forestry, provided justification is shown. So while this decision is historic and significant for the Tsilhqot’in people who have been the first to successfully prove title in a specific area, it simply does not represent a fundamental advance for the law of aboriginal title.

Opinion: First Nations, mining for change – by Russell Hallbauer (Vancouver Sun – July 9, 2014)

July 10, 2014

http://www.vancouversun.com/index.html

Agreement would give new meaning to New Prosperity mine’s name

Russell Hallbauer is president and CEO of Taseko Mines

Many readers likely will have read that the British Columbia government has now signed 14 economic development agreements with First Nations across the province. These agreements commit the provincial government to share up to 37 per cent of the B.C. mineral tax from B.C. mining operations collected within First Nations’ traditional territories.

Over the past four years, $12 million has been shared with various First Nations. The most recent agreement was the one signed May 21 on the Huckleberry Mine, a few hundred km from Williams Lake.

A similar agreement is being developed between the government and those bands in proximity to our Gibraltar Mine.

These agreements, over the next 25 years of Gibraltar’s life, will allow First Nations communities to benefit directly over and above employment and other opportunities, in the financial success of the Gibraltar Mine.

Taseko personnel were some of the earliest advocates of revenue sharing when the process began with government and the Mining Association of British Columbia a number of years ago.

Lac Seul stakes its development claim – by Ian Ross (Northern Ontario Business – July 9, 2014)

July 9, 2014

Established in 1980, Northern Ontario Business provides Canadians and international investors with relevant, current and insightful editorial content and business news information about Ontario’s vibrant and resource-rich North. Ian Ross is the editor of Northern Ontario Business ianross@nob.on.ca.

A 2012 Friendship Accord struck between Lac Seul First Nation and Sioux Lookout is already paying huge dividends if you judge the brisk foot and vehicle traffic through the local Tim Hortons.

Instead of residents driving an hour south to Dryden along moose-infested Highway 72 to Dryden to get a double-double fix, it’s now available in their own backyard.

The northwestern Ontario First Nation community of 1,000 is the proud owner of the franchise on the south side of Sioux Lookout, which opened last summer to great fanfare and a continuous outpouring of patronage.

Chris Angeconeb, Lac Seul’s economic development general manager, said it’s not uncommon for folks visiting from the remote fly-in communities to make a special detour from their in-town appointments to almost clean the place out of coffee and doughnuts.

“We have a tough time keeping the shelves stocked.” But ownership of a fast food outlet is really only the window dressing of the steady progress Lac Seul has made on a number of fronts through partnerships and agreements in the energy, mining and mineral exploration, forestry and training fields.

Aboriginal group on Vancouver Island signs deal for LNG project – by Brent Jang (Globe and Mail – July 9, 2014)

July 9, 2014

The Globe and Mail is Canada’s national newspaper with the second largest broadsheet circulation in the country. It has enormous influence on Canada’s political and business elite.

VANCOUVER — A self-governing aboriginal group on Vancouver Island has signed a deal with a fledgling liquefied natural gas company in hopes of developing a massive project to export LNG to Asia.

Members of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations say they are eager to work with project leader Steelhead LNG Corp. to build an export terminal near Bamfield on the southwest side of Vancouver Island.

Huu-ay-aht First Nations chief councillor Jeff Cook said his group is in a strong position to help nurture a major venture in the resource sector. He noted that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last month that the consent of aboriginals is required for how their ancestral lands are used.

The Huu-ay-aht are part of the 2011 Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, one of only a handful of treaty and land claim pacts in British Columbia. “We’re open for business.

For too long, we’ve been left behind in the resource industry and basically consulted after the fact. We want to be part of this LNG project,” Mr. Cook said in an interview.

BHP nickel sale hits hurdle – by Nick Evan (The West Australian – July 9, 2014)

July 9, 2014

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/

A native title ruling could throw a shadow over BHP Billiton’s attempts to sell its Nickel West assets, after the Federal Court ruling last week paved the way for native title claims over BHP’s Kambalda nickel concentrator and Gold Fields’ St Ives mine.

In a decision released last week, the Federal Court ruled that the transfer of mining tenements from State Agreements between 2004 and 2007 should have triggered negotiations for a land use agreement with the Ngadju people, who claim native title over the region around Norseman and Kambalda.

The ruling covers more than 200 mining leases transferred from State agreements originally held by Western Mining Corporation.

They include leases over BHP’s Kambalda nickel concentrator and Gold Fields’ 400,000 ounce-a-year St Ives mine, the fourth largest gold producer in Australia last year.

Gold Fields said in January the action could force the closure of St Ives if the native title claimants sought an injunction to do so.

But the company softened its rhetoric this week, saying in a statement the decision “does not affect the grant of mining tenure to St Ives”. It added operations would continue as usual pending the outcome of the process.

Ontario miners, loggers await Supreme Court of Canada decision on treaty rights – by Drew Hasselback (National Post – July 9, 2014)

July 9, 2014

The National Post is Canada’s second largest national paper.

Get ready for another big aboriginal rights decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.

On Friday, the Supreme Court will release a crucial decision on the wording of a 1873 treaty between the crown and the Ojibway Nation. The agreement, called Treaty 3, covers about 142,000 square kilometres in what is now a large part of northwestern Ontario and a small part of eastern Manitoba.

The legal rights of aboriginals have soared in public attention after the Supreme Court released its game-changing June decision that recognized the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s claim to aboriginal title in a case called Tsilhqot’in Nation (Roger William) v. British Columbia.

Much of the discussion about the Roger William case focuses on its implications for British Columbia. Most aboriginal groups in the other provinces have ceded their land to the crown by treaty. B.C. is unique because First Nations claim title to most of the provincial land mass. This raises questions about the certainty of tenure for resource projects located in B.C., and it leads to the suggestion that projects located in the treaty provinces might be more secure because they won’t be affected by aboriginal title claims.

Yet the existence of a treaty alone may not provide absolute certainty of tenure. It all comes down to how the courts interpret the wording used in those treaties.

A model for First Nations relations – by David Zimmer (National Post – July 9, 2014)

July 9, 2014

The National Post is Canada’s second largest national paper.

David Zimmer is the Ontario Liberal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in the Tsilhqot’in Nation case arising out of British Columbia will inform the way business is conducted across Canada. Here in Ontario, I believe the ruling is consistent with the progress our government has been making in the area of aboriginal consultation and resolving land claims for many years — an approach that has created a province well-prepared for sustainable development benefitting aboriginal people, industry and all Ontarians.

The Tsilhqot’in Nation decision builds on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, including the Delgamuukw, Haida and Mikisew cases, that have given meaning to the constitutional protection of aboriginal and treaty rights and established principles that guide governments in their relationships with aboriginal communities. Consistent with the spirit of these decisions, Ontario launched the New Relationship Fund in 2008.

The Fund has so far helped almost 200 First Nations and Métis communities and organizations engage in consultations with governments and industry on resource-based economic development activities. And the principles underlying the decisions are the same as those that led the province to modernize the Mining Act in 2009, creating the first legislation in Ontario that embeds consultation principles related to established or asserted treaty and aboriginal rights.

It’s also in the spirit of these earlier rulings that, this year, the government signed a historic regional framework agreement with the nine Matawa member First Nations for negotiations on sustainably developing the Ring of Fire.

Taseko sees ‘positive future’ for New Prosperity mine after high court ruling – by Gordon Hoekstra (Vancouver Sun – July 6, 2014)

July 7, 2014

http://www.vancouversun.com/index.html

Tsilhqot’in Nation says company is in denial about central-B.C. project, mine is dead

A Supreme Court of Canada decision may have opened the door to a twice rejected gold and copper mine mired in a legal battle.

That’s because the $1.1-billion New Prosperity mine falls outside the 1,750 square kilometres of territory in central B.C. for which the Tsilhqot’in now has title and where consent is needed for industrial projects, says Taseko Mines Ltd.

The aboriginal title question always hung over the project, and now it’s settled, says the company. “It’s the only mine development deposit (in British Columbia) that people now know for sure is not in aboriginal title area,” says Brian Battison, vice-president of corporate affairs for Taseko.

The Tsilhqot’in continue to oppose the project, citing hunting and trapping rights, and admonish the company for continuing to push a project unwanted by First Nations. “I think Taseko has a very twisted view of things. I think it’s very, very irresponsible,” said chief Joe Alphonse, tribal chairman of the Tsilhqot’in.

The continuing dispute over New Prosperity shows how the complex nature of resource development in British Columbia — where aboriginal, industrial, government and local non-native interests often overlap — will continue to pose a challenge despite the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision.

First Perspective columnist [Bill Gallagher] features in CTV news segment – by Trevor Greyeyes (First Perspective – July 7, 2014)

July 7, 2014

http://www.firstperspective.ca/ Bill Gallagher right all along I think the mainstream media in Canada is finally starting to clue in to the fact that Bill Gallagher knows a thing or two about First Nation issues especially when it comes to resource issues. When I first interviewed him about his book “Resource Rulers” a couple of years …

The Supreme Court’s BC land-title decision? It’s more important than you think – by Bob Rae (Globe and Mail – July 4, 2014)

July 4, 2014

The Globe and Mail is Canada’s national newspaper with the second largest broadsheet circulation in the country. It has enormous influence on Canada’s political and business elite.

Bob Rae was Premier of Ontario 1990-1995, a federal Member of Parliament 2008-2013 and leader of the federal Liberal Party 2011-2013.

Some of the reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Tsilhqot’in First Nation case, which requires pipeline projects and similar developments to seek aboriginal approval, are so over the top they cannot go without comment.

Nearly forty years ago a case from the Nisga’a community known as Calder made a similar long journey through the courts, and it was there that the Supreme Court (long before the Charter) held that the arguments from both Ottawa and British Columbia that no aboriginal title or claims survived the arrival of European settlement was wrong.

The invasion and occupation of the Americas had been seen by imperial powers as a conquest of empty land, whose borders and boundaries were decided by any number of treaties and agreements signed in Europe. In the sixteenth century there was even a theological argument in the Valladolid debate about whether aboriginals were human. The doctrine of “terra nullius” was often invoked to assert the legal fiction that these lands belonged to “no one” before they were “discovered” by white people from Europe.

The Calder decision rightly blew those doctrines out of the water, and urged governments, First Nations, and other aboriginal peoples to sort out their relationships on the basis of equality and respect.

Supreme Court ruling on native rights offers historic chance for progress – by Robin V. Sears (Toronto Star – July 2, 2014)

July 2, 2014

The Toronto Star has the largest circulation in Canada. The paper has an enormous impact on federal and Ontario politics as well as shaping public opinion.

Now there is in an opportunity to fulfil the heady optimism of the Charter debates and respectfully resolve land claims and treaty implementation.

People were strewn exhausted across Ed Broadbent’s grand old parliamentary office on sofas, window ledges and desks. It was near the end of an intense four-hour negotiating session with some of Canada’s most important First Nations leaders and their lawyers. There was a sense that a consensus was finally, perhaps, possible.

Suddenly, one of the young lawyers stood up and said, “No, this is not good enough. Let’s take a break.” Many of the tired participants looked up in shock and then anger. I followed the young Vancouver lawyer into the hall. We stared angrily at each other in silence.

Then he said, slowly, “Look, I’m sorry, but all of a sudden I had this vision. I’m sitting on the porch with my granddaughter 30 years from now, and she’ll ask me ‘Grandpa, did you really do everything you could do to help our native people. Everything?!’”

The memories of that day, the powerfully emotional negotiations of the final wording of what became the First Nations rights section of the Charter came flooding back this week.

Aboriginals play the long game – but who wins? – by Jeffrey Simpson (Globe and Mail – July 2, 2014)

July 2, 2014

The Globe and Mail is Canada’s national newspaper with the second largest broadsheet circulation in the country. It has enormous influence on Canada’s political and business elite.

If you had a plugged nickel or several hundred millions of dollars, among the worst places to invest that money would be across the parts of British Columbia affected by last week’s Supreme Court ruling.

It was difficult enough before to get the necessary aboriginal agreement to develop Crown land, or what had been thought to be Crown land. Now, those difficulties have grown immensely with the decision in the Tsilhqot’in case.

After the previous (and very vague) Delgamuukw ruling (1997), it was thought that aboriginal title applied in areas where groups had resided, and that their claims diminished in strength the farther they got from those settled areas. There was a kind of sliding scale of rights, from something approximating a veto to the need for consultation. This was how the B.C. Court of Appeal saw matters.

The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that title applies to all the areas nomadic or semi-nomadic aboriginals moved over before white settlement. “A culturally sensitive approach suggests that regular use of territories for hunting, fishing, trapping and foraging is ‘sufficient’ use to ground aboriginal title,” the court said.