As the federal election looms, leaders of all political stripes are promising to increase the zero-emission transportation sector through incentives and investments as a key tool to tackle the climate crisis.

But there’s a catch. 

Positioning Canada as a leader in electrifying the transportation sector also means increasing mineral extraction to fuel that growth. Batteries that propel electric vehicles are powered by minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel. 

The transition is necessary, given the implications of the alternative: continuing to burn fossil fuels as our means of getting around. The transportation sector in Canada currently accounts for around 25 per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions, around 180 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, according to Natural Resources Canada. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned, “unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 C or even 2 C will be beyond reach.” 

At the end of 2020, Canada had over 200,000 electric vehicles on the road and according to International Energy Association projections, that number could rise to over 2.5 million by 2030.

The question is: what does the growth of the electric vehicle sector look like on a landscape level?

In northern Québec, a new lithium-tantalum mine is set to start production in 2024 after receiving approval from the federal government in August, and several other Québec lithium mines are in various stages of exploration and investment. The new Critical Elements Corporation mine will emit an estimated 74,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, over its 20-year lifespan. In Northwest Territories, mining companies are eyeing cobalt reserves and across the country, mining activity is ramping up as demand increases for other minerals needed for the zero-emissions transportation sector, clean energy and other emerging industries.

Advocates for responsible mining practices caution that getting those minerals out of the ground also comes with its own environmental and social impacts.

“One of our concerns is that the transition to low-carbon energy sources and electric vehicles comes at the expense of negative legacies and mining impacts,” Nikki Skuce, co-founder of BC Mining Law Reform Network, told The Narwhal in an interview. 

For example, Skuce has pointed to the ongoing impact of B.C.’s Mount Polley mine disaster in 2014, after a tailings dam failure led to 24 million cubic metres of mining waste being spilled into an important salmon watershed.

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said the growth of the electric vehicle sector could be a catalyst for Canada to address some of these issues and prevent future disasters. 

“The opportunity for battery manufacturing, which is going to require an increase in metals and minerals, is an opportunity for us to really ensure we clean up mining from an environmental and a social perspective,” she said in an interview.

Liberals and Conservatives promise to support mineral extraction for clean energy

Not all political parties acknowledge the link between mineral extraction and widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles, but each of the four largest parties vying for federal leadership promise to support the growth of the sector. 

For example, the Green Party’s election platform highlights Canada’s opportunity to “become a world leader in cleantech and renewable energy,” noting those sectors are “where the jobs of the future are, and how we will stay globally competitive and build a prosperous sustainable future.” The party also promised to ban the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2030.

Jamie Kneen, co-founder and communications coordinator at MiningWatch Canada, said he agrees this is necessary and important. But he also believes it would be missing the point to only focus the conversation on increasing electric vehicle sales and infrastructure.

“I think that any commitment or any discussion of zero-emission vehicles has to be in the context of our commitment to not using private vehicles,” he said in an interview. “The bigger question is, how are we going to actually shift the transportation paradigm so that it’s more accessible and more equitable and less carbon intensive? Just putting people into public transit makes a much more immediate and bigger difference, even if they’re diesel buses.”

The Green Party acknowledged this by committing to “ensure access to zero-carbon public transportation, with high-speed rail networks between major cities, and spokes of light rail and electric bus connections across the country.”

While the NDP election platform does not address mining directly, the party has promised to establish a research and development centre to “move forward related technologies such as hydrogen, batteries and energy storage solutions.” The party also committed to the Liberal government’s plan to phase out fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 and said it would increase tax breaks to make it easier for people to purchase electric vehicles.

Both the NDP and the Green Party also promised to expand charging infrastructure, including in rural communities, and invest in public transportation.

The Conservative election platform digs into the projected demand for minerals, with a promise to “take advantage of Canada’s abundant resources of the minerals needed to power our clean energy future.” The platform noted this would include “adopting policies to facilitate the responsible exploitation and mining of lithium.”

The Liberal campaign zeroed in on battery manufacturing and the connection to mining. “As the market for batteries grows, the global race is on to attract new manufacturing facilities and jobs,” the platform notes. The party has promised to “double the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for materials on the Canadian list of critical minerals which are essential to the manufacturing of vital clean technologies, such as batteries.” This proposed tax break would cut costs for mining companies exploring for minerals associated with battery production. 

“One of Canada’s advantages is we have all the metals and minerals needed for batteries.”

Merran Smith, Clean Energy Canada

Kneen said the public should be aware of potential consequences as a result of further subsidizing mineral exploration.

“What it does is support the exploration industry, which doesn’t necessarily lead to mining,” he said. “Something like one in 1,000 exploration projects turns into a mine. What it does is keep the helicopters flying in the Yukon.”

Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, told The Narwhal more exploration is necessary if Canada wants to compete for a stake in the global battery market.

“We now have one rare earth mine in the Northwest Territories, that’s it. And it’s brand new,” he said in an interview. “There has been a dearth of base metal discoveries in the past 20 years, in Canada and around the world. We do need some new discoveries to come our way if we’re going to meet this challenge.”

He added that most of the domestic mines currently extracting the metals associated with batteries aren’t actually selling them to battery manufacturers.

“There’s very little of Canada’s current production that goes into batteries,” he said. “We are the fifth largest producer of nickel and a major producer of cobalt but it’s used for other purposes.”

Kneen said the truth of where Canadian minerals end up casts a shadow on a growing narrative that mining is vital for, and inextricably linked to, green technology.

“The extent to which [the mining industry] is actually being bolstered by renewable energy demands is, I wouldn’t say marginal, but it’s not as big as industry is trying to tell us.”  

Canada needs to live up to its commitments before expanding mining sector: expert

Gratton said that Canada has an opportunity to use existing laws and regulations to support and promote responsible mining activity associated with battery production. He said that compared to other countries, Canadian mines have a significantly lower carbon footprint, given the access to hydroelectric power. As an example, he said Canada’s nickel production is second only to Finland in terms of greenhouse gases emitted per tonne of saleable product and has a fraction of the emissions per tonne released in countries like Indonesia and the Philippines.

“In terms of fighting climate change, one of the issues is all this extra material that’s going to be needed consumes a lot of energy,” he explained. “If that energy comes from fossil fuels, then we may be, on a net basis, still reducing [emissions] but not as much as we could if we derive those materials from mines that don’t use fossil fuels, or use much less.”

“I’m sure Canadians wouldn’t want Canada to be the miner to the world for all of our electric cars but I think there would be pretty good support for Canada having a piece of it, knowing that if we didn’t it would be coming from other places where they wouldn’t be done as well,” he added. 

China, for example, is well-positioned to secure a monopoly on the market if other countries don’t step up, according to Gratton. The Chinese government has less stringent rules and regulations on mining activity, both in terms of environmental impacts and human rights.

Skuce said Canada does have an advantage, if it lives up to its federal and provincial commitments.

“Like British Columbia, the federal government has now passed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and needs to ensure that it is respecting that, which means mining companies should require free prior and informed consent on the ground,” she said.

Manufacturers are increasingly demanding assurances of responsible mining practices. Gratton said members of the Mining Association of Canada commit to a sustainable mining protocol framework, which include guidelines for climate change, biodiversity, water stewardship and more. 

“It’s an emerging global system that provides the kind of assurance that the Apples and the auto manufacturers are looking for.”

The framework, which is informed by an advisory panel that has included members of MiningWatch Canada and former Green leader Elizabeth May, has been adopted in countries like Finland, Australia, Argentina and Botswana, he said, though each is at a different stage in implementing the protocols.

Kneen agreed the association’s framework is an important part of helping the industry adopt better practices and described it as a “useful tool for companies,” but as a new BC Mining Law Reform Network and MiningWatch Canada report points out, the framework is voluntary and B.C. alone is home to dozens of mines either actively polluting watersheds or posing risk to downstream habitat and communities.

Critics warns recycling needs support as electric vehicle sector grows

While Kneen and Skuce admitted mining is likely to play a prominent role in the transition to clean energy and the zero-emission transportation sector, they both stressed the need for Canada to simultaneously focus on reduction and recycling as part of the solution.

“The easiest way to avoid mine waste problems is to make less mine waste,” Kneen said. He added current recycling facilities aren’t yet able to extract much lithium during the process.

“The cobalt or the nickel and other parts are kind of easier to separate out,” he said, suggesting that Canada could invest in research and development to reduce the amount of waste associated with batteries and support recycling facilities.

Skuce agreed.

“We need to look at reducing the waste [extracting] raw material produces and way more on recycling.”

B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy announced last week that it will include electric vehicle batteries in the province’s five-year recycling strategy. The strategy puts the onus on producers — manufacturers, distributors and retailers — to take responsibility for the full life-cycle of products, to encourage a circular economy.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals promised in their respective campaigns to support the growth of battery recycling in Canada.

Skuce noted there are still important outstanding issues in the mining industry that federal, provincial and territorial governments need to address before supporting industry growth.

“There’s all sorts of innovations that we need to make sure we’re looking at while at the same time making sure that we’re closing the gap on regulations, laws, compliance and enforcement so that we can be a part of [the transition] without putting watersheds and communities at risk.” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Mining companies are extracting billions of dollars worth of gold from Canada every year but are paying only a tiny fraction in taxes and royalties compared to operations in other countries, an analysis by The Narwhal has found.

Experts say Canadian governments are collecting a smaller percentage of mineral value than almost any other jurisdiction on earth, ranging from Burkina Faso to Chile to Finland.

For example, Barrick Gold, the second-largest mining company in Canada, extracted close to $250 million in gold from its Helmo mine in northwest Ontario in 2017, the most recent year for which data is publicly available. In return, the company paid $14.4 million in taxes and fees — or only 5.8 per cent of the gold’s worth.

That same year, Barrick extracted roughly $817 million in gold at its Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic. There, the company paid $327 million in taxes, royalties, fees and infrastructure improvements — a full 40 per cent of the gold’s total value.

Meanwhile in Peru, the government received $45.5 million in compensation for the company’s Lagunas Norte mine — or 9.4 per cent of the recovered gold’s worth.

When broken down, the disparity between fees paid is stark: Barrick paid the Dominican Republic roughly $503 per ounce of gold, paid Peru $117 per ounce of gold and paid Canada $73 per ounce.

The Narwhal analyzed the second round of public data released by mining companies operating in Canada under the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, a new mandatory reporting framework. All amounts listed are in U.S. dollars.

“Generally speaking, the royalty and corporate tax revenues — which we would argue are the two main potential fiscal benefits for states from mining — are a disaster in Canada,” said Ugo Lapointe, program coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.

Andrew Bauer, a natural resource governance consultant formerly with the Natural Resource Governance Institute, told The Narwhal governments need to work hard to find symmetry when weighing taxation against attractiveness to industry.

“We need to find a better balance: a fiscal regime that encourages investment while allowing governments to collect a larger share of these economic rents,” Bauer said.

“The question is, ‘are we, as Canadians, getting fair value for our underground wealth?” he continued. “Are Canadian governments transforming our minerals into better social services and infrastructure for all? Or are we allowing the private sector to capture the vast majority of that wealth, ultimately benefitting shareholders?”

Companies forced to report payments to governments

Starting in mid-2015, extractive companies listed on a Canadian stock exchange or operating in the country with at least $20 million in assets, $40 million in revenue or employing at least 250 employees had to start reporting payments of at least $100,000, whether in taxes, royalties, fees, bonuses, dividends or infrastructure improvement.

Companies were granted a two-year deferral to report payments to Indigenous governments, so this analysis could not account for these unreported figures.

The 2017 numbers reveal some astoundingly low payments to municipalities, provinces, territories and federal coffers in exchange for the right to extract gold, especially when compared to payments made in other jurisdictions around the world.

While there are more than 60 types of metals and minerals mined in Canada, gold is by far the most valuable.

In 2017, an estimated $8.7 billion worth of gold was extracted from Canadian mines.

No other mined resource came close to matching that total value — not coal ($6.2 billion), copper ($4.7 billion), potash ($4.6 billion) or diamonds ($2.6 billion).

But while gold mining operations are notably profitable for companies, much of that wealth does not extend to surrounding communities and municipal governments.

Take Detour Gold Corporation’s operation in northeastern Ontario, one of the largest gold mines in the country.

In 2017, it produced 571,000 ounces of gold. While the price of gold fluctuates greatly from month to month, the average price in 2017 was $1,257 per ounce, meaning Detour extracted upwards of $718 million in gold that year.

Detour paid $4.9 million in fees and bonuses, according to the company’s disclosure report. But $1.4 million of that was for a penalty payment “relating to an incident at the Detour Lake property.” That means Detour only paid out $3.5 million: a mere 0.5 per cent of the gold’s worth.*

Or consider Alamos Gold’s Young-Davidson mine in northern Ontario. It extracted 200,000 ounces of gold in 2017 — worth around $250 million — but only paid out $1.6 million in taxes and fees. That’s 0.6 per cent.

For its two similarly sized gold operations in Mexico, with the Mulatos and El Chanate mines producing 220,000 ounces of gold in 2017, Alamos Gold paid the government 1.8 per cent of the gold’s value in taxes and fees —  three times the percentage Ontario received, although still a very small percentage.

The issue isn’t by any means restricted to Ontario.

IAMGOLD’s Westwood mine in southwestern Québec produced 125,000 ounces of gold (or around $157 million in gold) but only contributed $4.6 million in taxes and fees — or three per cent of the gold’s value.

That same year, IAMGOLD’s Rosebel mine produced 302,000 ounces and paid $56.2 million to Suriname (about 14.8 per cent of the gold’s value) while its Essakane mine in Burkina Faso produced 389,000 ounces and paid $42.9 million, or 8.7 per cent of its worth.

When The Narwhal requested clarification from the Government of Ontario about revenues from the Hemlo and Detour mines, senior media advisor for the provincial ministry of mines replied: “The Government of Ontario cannot release any data that could breach the confidentiality of taxpayer information.”

Percentage of fees paid by three major producers per ounce of gold extracted. Source: Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act Report 2017. Graphic by The Narwhal

‘They don’t want you to know’

Because taxation in Canada is not consistent across the spectrum, it can be difficult to understand exactly why projects pay what they do.

As accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers Canada put it in a recent report: “Mining taxation in Canada is not easy to understand, partly because each province and territory imposes its own mining tax, under systems that vary significantly.”

Lapointe, from MiningWatch Canada has a different take: “The industry loves to bring you down that rabbit hole by saying it’s too complex and you can’t really compare. They don’t want you to know.”

To put all these numbers in perspective, MiningWatch Canada currently estimates that total unsecured liabilities for mine site clean-up — that is, the amount that will be needed for remediation but isn’t currently held as financial securities — totals $15 billion, and is potentially as high as $20 billion. That excludes liabilities for oilsands mining operations, which could easily double the figure.

Deferred fees means you mine for free

Every mine is different. In addition to mineral prices and the cost of production, one of the most important factors in determining payments to governments is the phase of production the mine is in.

For the first few years of production, taxes and royalties are usually quite low because this is what is called the “cost recovery” phase during which companies don’t pay certain fees until they recover a portion of their costs.

It’s not usually until this phase of the lifecycle of the mine is completed that it starts to churn out major contributions to governments.

In addition, most governments around the world calculate royalties based on production volume and the cost of the mineral. However, royalties in Canada are generally calculated after costs have been subtracted, a practice which is exceedingly rare globally.

This could help explain the low royalty payments in Canada relative to other parts of the world.

In recent years, much of the mining sector has used a metric called “all-in sustaining costs” to report the amount of money it requires to remove and process an ounce of gold. It includes costs like labour, energy, royalties, administration, exploration, capital expenditure and reclamation.

In 2017, the all-in sustaining cost at Barrick’s Hemlo mine was $1,092 per ounce. That was on the high side for the company. In the Dominican Republic, for example, Barrick boasted an all-in sustaining cost of only $525 per ounce.

Such costs can vary from year to year, and depend heavily on factors like local labour costs, finding efficiencies in mining processes and whether a company is making a short-term investment in a capital project like a tailings pond. By only charging royalties on revenue above those costs, governments are only receiving a fraction of the gold’s worth.

“Most Canadian jurisdictions do not charge a real royalty,” Bauer said.

“When you can deduct costs from your royalty payments, you are not fully compensating the owners of the resource — Canadian citizens — for the use of their assets, which is what a royalty is intended to do.”

Bauer said that if a company stops production before the “cost recovery” phase is completed, a government could conceivably receive no compensation at all.

Royalties under this scheme become another net revenue stream, Bauer said, “somewhere in between a profit’s tax and a royalty.”

“This is what companies want since they don’t need to pay much to governments until shareholders get paid out of profits.”

Lapointe added: “These are non-renewables. Whatever you extract from the ground, which is never going to come back to future generations, needs to be fairly compensated. We should not allow those tactics to bring it down to zero. There should always be a minimum floor contribution for extracted resources.”

Gold-rush era laws

There are more ways that companies can get around paying taxes, even if a mine has been in production and has recovered some costs.

Financial tools can include tax credits, cost allowances, development expenses, loss carryovers and flow-through shares.

One of the most common means of lowering tax payments is shifting profits from higher-tax jurisdictions to lower-tax jurisdictions, a process known as “base erosion and profit shifting.”

Or, in some provinces or territories, companies can open a mine near existing operations and call it an “expansion” even though it’s a sizable distance away — meaning a company can continue in the initial “cost allowance” phase.

That allows a mine that has been open for many years to continue paying very little in revenue to governments.

Bauer said that this regime made sense from a 19th century perspective in which Canada wanted to encourage investment and get projects underway. But now, millions of ounces of gold are being extracted by companies without any clear benefit for governments or the average citizen.

“The fiscal regime does do that,” he said. “It creates massive incentives to explore, develop new mines and populate rural areas. But we’re no longer in the 19th century when the government’s goal was colonization.”

*Update July 18, 2018 5:58 pm pst. A slight adjustment to Detour’s figures was made to adjust for U.S. dollar conversion rates.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canadian mining company Gabriel Resources is suing Romania for $4.4 billion through a secretive tribunal after the country denied permits for the largest open-pit gold and silver mine in Europe — a project Canadian officials advocated for, according to documents obtained by DeSmog Canada.

Since 1997, the Canadian mining company (fun fact: it was founded by a man convicted twice of heroin possession), has pressured Romania to allow the construction of the proposed mine in northwest Romania.

The mine would destroy three villages, level four mountains and displace 2,000 people.

Tens of thousands of people marched against the Roșia Montană project in 2013 — the same year the Romanian parliament rejected permits for the mine’s construction. Since then, Romania has applied for the site to be designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Location of Roșia Montană mine. Image via Gabriel Resources

Canadian Ambassadors Advocated For Mine

Hundreds of pages of documents obtained by DeSmog Canada via Mining Watch Romania  — a distinct organization from Canada’s MiningWatch — show Canadian officials have vocally advocated for the mine, which would access the largest undeveloped gold deposit in Europe.

The documents are a portion of the thousands of pages released to Eugen Melinte of Mining Watch Romaina through Canada’s Access to Information legislation. The materials contain internal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade correspondence regarding the Roșia Montană mine going back to 2004.

A 2007 e-mail featuring the subject “Rosia Montana good news” sent from a Canadian embassy staffer to Canada’s senior trade commissioner in Romania noted that an “ardent supporter of the Gabriel Resources project” was re-elected as mayor and a “congratulations phone call might be appropriate.”

In an e-mail from 2008 a trade commissioner with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada clearly stated: “Our embassies in Bucharest, Brussels and London have provided extensive support to Gabriel Resources, such as offering business development advice and facilitating meetings with key decision makers.”

The documents show former Canadian ambassador to Romania Raphael Girard later joined the board of Gabriel Resources, worked as a lobbyist for the company and used connections inside the ministry to push for the project.

Marta Moszczenska, the ambassador who took Girard’s place, also advocated strongly for the Roșia Montană mine.

Melinte shared documentation with DeSmog Canada showing Canadian officials used foreign diplomatic meetings to discuss the mining project with Romanian counterparts, often when mining was not officially on the meeting agenda.

“They hunt down the decision makers in unrelated meetings,” Melinte said in an interview.

“Let’s say there’s a meeting for all the Francophone countries. When the Canadian official would meet the Romanian counterpart, they would discuss particular mining projects. I found traces also in NATO meetings….NATO is about defence, not mining. Yet when they would meet, they would put this on the agenda.”

The internal documents include briefing notes prepared for then-prime minister Stephen Harper in advance of a meeting with the prime minister of Romania. Those notes included suggestions to “address the issue of Rosia Montana” and advise “a broader point should be made to the Romanian PM about the risk of creating an unfavourable investment climate in Romania.”

Bizarrely, the documents also detail a Canadian embassy recommendation that Gabriel Resources meet with Prince Charles, a vocal critic of the project.

The company was not successful in arranging that meeting, Melinte said.

“I think it is important that [the company’s] side of the story be told to the most important influencers that have already been approached by the project’s opponents,” wrote David McGregor, senior trade commissioner at the Canadian embassy in Romania, in a 2005 e-mail. “Our mandate now includes supporting [Canadian] investors.”

When asked by DeSmog Canada if the Canadian government still supports the construction of the mine, a spokesperson from Global Affairs Canada responded: “This is a matter between Gabriel Resources and the Government of Romania.”

Government of Canada, Gabriel Resources Rosia Montana ATIP Selections by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Excerpts from documents released via Access to Information laws containing internal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade correspondence regarding the Roșia Montană mine.

Tailings Breaches Spilled Millions of Cubic Metres of Mine Waste in Romania, Hungary

The Roșia Montană mine would produce 300 tonnes of gold and 1,400 tonnes of silver.

The process itself would require the use of cyanide to remove the gold from rock, an extremely controversial practice that in part triggered the 2013 protests. Some 200 million tonnes of mine waste, known as tailings, would be stored behind a dam proposed for the scenic Corna valley.

There have been a series of catastrophic tailings breaches in the area. In 2000, a Romanian gold mine breach spilled 100,000 cubic metres of mine waste — including 100 tonnes of cyanide — into a tributary of the Danube River, killing all plant and animal life in the water for hundreds of kilometres. The catastrophic Ajka alumina plant spill in neighbouring Hungary released one million cubic litres of waste in 2010, killing 10 people and injuring another 150.

Local residents are wary the Roșia Montană mine’s cyanide-tainted waste might leak or spill, despite the company’s assurance that the tailings dam will be “100 times safer than a usual tailing dam.”

The company continues to purchase land in the mine’s proposed region, where some residents refuse to relinquish their land rights.

Gabriel Resources failed to respond to multiple interview requests made by DeSmog Canada.

Investor-State Trade Deals Pose Threat to Environmental Protections

Romania has until 2019 to respond to Gabriel Resources’ $4.4 billion suit.

The challenge is filed via an “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) based on both Canada-Romania and United Kingdom-Romania business investment treaties.

The threat to Romania’s national sovereignty and environmental protections is especially relevant in light of ongoing negotiations of trade agreements including NAFTA, TPP and CETA.

The case also highlights the exorbitant amount companies can claim through investor-state trade deals.

“It is a huge amount of claimed compensation, based mainly on the company’s hoped-for future profits if the mine were allowed to go ahead,” Gus Van Harten, associate professor at York University Osgoode Hall Law School and expert in international investment treaties, told DeSmog Canada.

“There are many other ISDS cases in which the foreign investor claims billions,” Van Harten said. “Claimants sometimes inflate the amounts at stake in a dispute as a bargaining tactic to intensify pressure on a country.”

It’s been estimated that Gabriel Resources has spent $700 million to date trying to pull off the project, including helping to fund a pro-mine documentary called “Mine Your Own Business.”

The secretive and often punitive process of investor-state compensation claims occur behind the closed doors of international tribunals.

Van Harten said investor-state dispute settlement should be abolished.

The current system serves as “an institution of globalization that is stacked in favour of the least vulnerable and against ordinary people,” he said.

Why A Canadian Mining Company Is Suing Romania for $4.4 Billion https://t.co/qZ1HN9SKoc #cdnpoli @james_m_wilt @MiningWatchRo @MiningWatch

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 19, 2017

Three-Quarters of Global Mining Companies Headquartered in Canada

Pressure is mounting on Romanians struggling to prevent the Roșia Montană project.

In late August, the Romanian prime minister suggested he’s strongly considering withdrawing the country’s application for a UNESCO World Heritage Site, leaving the door open for future development “maybe after 20 years, when technologies will advance and we will no longer use cyanide.”

“We will try to withdraw it, to write that we no longer support the same point of view, which will put us in a very strange position with the international organizations,” he said in a televised discussion and quoted in the Guardian. “If things remain final, it’s all over.”

Canada is home to 50 per cent of the publicly listed mining companies in the world and has no significant legislation to guide the practices of companies operating overseas.

Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act is often criticized for its weak scope and enforcement. Since its introduced in 1999, only one individual and three companies have been convicted under the act.

Melinte said Canada also backs mining projects in South America and Greece.

“Wherever they have a mining project, they support it fully regardless of the consequences,” he said. “They’re not oblivious to the consequences: they just pretend they don’t know.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Fish and wildlife in Alaska’s major watersheds are threatened by six British Columbia mines close to the Alaska border, according to a new petition that asks U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to investigate the threat of acid-mine drainage, heavy metals pollution and the possibility of catastrophic dam failure originating in the Canadian province.

The formal petition, organized by a coalition of Alaskan tribal governments and conservation groups, calls for the International Joint Commission to investigate threats from B.C. mines that will continue to hang over the watersheds for centuries after their closure.

“It’s a very urgent issue and it’s important to a lot of people and their families,” Kenta Tsuda of Earthjustice, a signatory of the petition, told DeSmog Canada. “Their communities are at risk.”

B.C. experienced an explosion in mine growth under the former BC Liberal government, which expedited new project approvals under the 2011 jobs program.

The resource-rich corridor straddling the B.C.-Alaska border has been at the epicentre of new mine projects but also bears the legacy of B.C.’s old, abandoned mines, such as the Tulsequah Chief mine, which for decades has leaked acid mine drainage into a tributary of the salmon-rich Taku River.

Guy Archibald of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council pointed to the lack of enforcement of mining regulations by the B.C. government and the scathing report last year from B.C.’s auditor general that said the Ministry of Environment could not guarantee the safety of any of the mines.

ICYMI: Public Inquiry Formally Requested to Investigate B.C.’s Shoddy Mining Rules

“For 60 years the Tulsequah Chief has been leaking acid mine drainage into a very productive salmon watershed and the B.C. government is doing nothing about this,” Archibald said.

In addition to Tulsequah, the petition names Brucejack mine, which started production earlier this year, Red Chris, Schaft Creek, Galore Creek and Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM), which will be the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America.

Ten mines in various stages of development are situated along the B.C./Alaska border and within a transboundary watershed. Source: Salmon Beyond Borders

The new petition — and a previous petition submitted to the Department of the Interior — show that B.C. mines are diminishing the effectiveness of two treaties that protect Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, grizzly bears and woodland caribou, Tsuda said.

“We think the facts that we present in the petition do invoke their duty to investigate,” Tsuda told DeSmog Canada.

The Taku, Stikine and Unuk rivers flow across the Canada-U.S. border from headwaters in B.C.’s Coast Mountains and the wildlife and salmon sustain local communities and support hundreds of Alaskan workers and their families, he said.

The International Joint Commission is the body that administers the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, with a mandate to investigate disputes between the two countries.

A provision of the treaty states that “waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.”

The group’s petition has been submitted under what is known as the Pelly amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act that requires the U.S. Commerce and Interior Departments to investigate when other countries may be harming U.S. conservation treaties.

The amendment emphasizes the need, under international agreements, to protect habitat, but, if all the mines planned for the B.C. side of the border are developed, it will destroy fish habitat, Archibald predicted.

“We are willing to use every tool in the toolbox to enforce this — and the International Joint Commission looks pretty good versus a trade war,” he said.

Fred Olsen Jr., tribal president of the Organized Village of Kasaan and Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission chairman, said in an interview that awareness of threats posed by the B.C. mines is growing among Southeast Alaskans, along with frustration about the lack of action.

“Native people have relied on salmon and caribou from these watersheds for generations and communities continue to do so today. Commercial fishermen from Southeast Alaska also rely on these watersheds, catching tens of millions of dollars worth of salmon from these three river systems annually,” says the coalition news release.

The former provincial government promised the Tulsequah Chief would be cleaned up, but nothing happened and, on the federal front, hopes were high that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would be sympathetic to environmental concerns, but that has been a disappointment, Olsen said.

“He has a Haida tattoo, but then look at the things he does. Everything you hear is either neutral or in favour of mining,” he said.

Eleven southeast Alaskan tribes have signed the petition and, over the next two months, other tribes will be asked to send letters of support, Olsen said.

ICYMI: Canada’s Environmental Fines are Tiny Compared to the U.S.

Enforcement of mining regulations in Canada needs to be tightened, according to Ugo Lapointe, Canada program coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, but there also needs to be a close look at the inadequate fines levied when there is a spill or an accident, he said.

On both sides of the border there is incredulity at the lack of charges after the Mount Polley disaster three years ago when the mine’s tailings dam failed, spewing millions of cubic metres of toxic waste and sludge into nearby waterways.

Lapointe also pointed to the recent $20,000 fine handed to Coalmont Energy Corp., a company which, in 2013, expelled 60,000 litres of mine waste into a tributary of the Tulameen River in the Okanagan-Similkameen region.

“$20,000 for dumping mining waste into a river is another pitiful environmental fine, showing the weakness of both B.C. and federal environmental laws and the enforcement regime. It is not setting a proper example for the industry as a whole,” Lapointe wrote in an e-mail.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As the three-year anniversary of the Mount Polley mine disaster approaches, so too does the deadline for the province to lay any charges against mine owner Imperial Metals.

Considered one of the worst environmental disasters in Canadian history, the failure of the Mount Polley tailings pond sent an estimated 25 million cubic metres of contaminated mine waste flooding into Quesnel Lake, a source of drinking water for local residents of Likely, B.C., on August 4, 2014.

“I would have expected something to have happened by now,” fisheries biologist and Likely resident Richard Holmes told DeSmog Canada. “I know they had a lot of information to sift through but it has been three years. I’m hopeful there will be some charges forthcoming.”

While the time limit for provincial charges runs out in August, federal charges, including for violations of the Fisheries Act, can be brought for another two years.

An investigation is ongoing by the Conservation Service Office, aided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment and Climate Change Canada.  

Meanwhile, the B.C. government granted Mount Polley permission to drain the mine directly into Quesnel Lake, where the vast majority of the spilled mine waste remains to this day. The B.C. government also gave Imperial Metals the go-ahead to build the Red Chris Mine in northwestern B.C., with the same tailings technology used at Mount Polley — despite experts recommending otherwise.

“I think the mining company is ahead now,” Holmes said. “Everything seems to have fallen in their favour since this disaster. Before the disaster they were looking at building a water treatment facility. Now they have basically a large filter in place and they just release everything directly into the lake.”

“I’m sure they’re happy about that.”

Alberta Coal Mine Slapped with $4.5 Million Fine for 2013 Tailings Spill

The absence of fines for the Mount Polley disaster was highlighted by a recent $4.5 million penalty handed out to a coal mining company in Alberta for a 2013 spill that released an estimated 670 cubic metres of tailings into tributaries of the Athabasca River. That spill was nearly 40,000 times smaller than the Mount Polley disaster.

Last month, the company responsible for the spill, Prairie Mines and Royalty, pleaded guilty to two violations of the federal Fisheries Act as well as one violation of the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.

Over $1 million in federal fines were used to fund research for fish habitat and recovery while an additional $2.1 million was paid to the Environmental Damages Fund.

Provincially, the company paid $363,000 in fines toward a dam research project considering the safe storage of water at coal mines as well as $370,000 for an environmental education project for indigenous youth, the CBC reports.

Ugo Lapointe, Canadian program coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, said Mount Polley could still face similar repercussions in B.C.

“It took nearly four years to see those charges brought forward in the case of the coal spill,” Lapointe told DeSmog Canada. “So, technically, Mount Polley timing is still comparable.”

However, Lapointe added, a $4.5 million fine may not be enough to encourage large mining corporations to change the quality of mine management.

He added the maximum penalty for violating the federal fisheries act is $12 million, $6 million for causing harm to fish and fish habitat and $6 million for dumping deleterious substances without a permit.

MiningWatch brought a private prosecution against the Mount Polley Mining Corporation and the B.C. government for violations of the Fisheries Act last fall but the federal government asked the courts to stay the charges, a request that was made before MiningWatch was given the opportunity to present evidence. The case was dismissed this spring.

“The federal government is currently reviewing its Fisheries Act,” Lapointe said. “We think it is also time it reviews the fines and possible criminal charges for those responsible of polluting Canadian waterways and aquatic habitats.”

No Charges, No Fines For #MountPolley Mine Disaster as Three-Year Legal Deadline Approaches https://t.co/yk0H3yOBiC #bcpoli @jjhorgan

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 23, 2017

Underfunded Liability for B.C. Mines an Estimated $1.5 Billion

B.C. taxpayers bear the lion’s share of liability stemming from the province’s many mines.

A 2016 study conducted by economist Robyn Allan for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs found financial assurance policies for mines are “woefully inadequate” leaving more than $1.5 billion in underfunded liability on the shoulders of everyday British Columbians.

The exact costs incurred by mines, for expenses like environmental disasters like Mount Polley as well as for reclamation of abandoned mines, is no longer made available to British Columbians, Allan found, stating the price tag could be even higher.

British Columbians were on the hook for an estimated $40 million in cleanup and reclamation costs for the Mount Polley mine spill.

There are more than 120 tailings dams in British Columbia and despite recommendations made to the B.C. government after the Mount Polley disaster, risky mine procedures, including the practice of storing mine waste in giant wet tailings ponds continues to this day.

Since the Mount Polley disaster three new mines have been approved with wet tailings impoundments, including the giant KSM mine in northwestern B.C. that was recently granted federal approval to construct a tailings dam in fish bearing waters.

At least 10 new mines are proposed or under construction along the B.C./Alaska border, leaving Alaskans concerned about the province’s poor record of mine management.

“There are examples all over the world of responsible mining and that should become law in B.C.” Holmes said.

“But I haven’t seen any of the laws change. They’ve had three years to change them and have had recommendations coming from the Mount Polley investigation panel,” he said.

“But nothing’s changed. If I was an Alaskan I would be really worried about B.C. mines.”

Holmes said he would be worried in particular about the Red Chris mine which is owned and operated by Imperial Metals, the company responsible for the Mount Polley mine, and which also uses wet tailings technology.

“I hope the new government in B.C. will address those concerns. We haven’t done a very good job of looking out for our neighbours.”

Image: The Mount Polley mine disaster, August 2014. Photo: Cariboo Regional District

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The B.C. Ministry of Environment has quietly granted the Mount Polley Mining Corporation permission to drain mining waste directly into Quesnel Lake, B.C.’s deepest fjord lake and a source of drinking water for residents of Likely, B.C., as part of a “long-term water management plan.”

The wastewater discharge permit comes nearly three years after the collapse of the Mount Polley mine tailings pond spilled an estimated 25 million cubic metres of mining waste into Quesnel Lake, in what is considered the worst mining disaster in Canadian history.

No charges and no fines have been laid for the spill that cost B.C. taxpayers an estimated $40 million in cleanup costs and that B.C.’s chief mine inspector, Al Hoffman, found was the result of “poor practices” and “non-compliances.”

Some critics feel the new wastewater discharge permit simply grants Mount Polley the permission to continue polluting Quesnel Lake.

“The permit really adds insult to injury,” said Nikki Skuce, project director for Northern Confluence, an initiative based out of Smithers that aims to improve land-use decisions in B.C.’s salmon watersheds.

“Mount Polley still hasn’t cleaned the initial spill up. It’s still visible there in the lake,” Skuce said.

The permit grants Mount Polley, owned by Imperial Metals, permission to release diluted wastewater collected in the mine’s drainage ditches to be piped deep into Quesnel Lake 45 metres below the surface.

“To the layperson that might sound okay, but in digging down deeper what Imperial Metals asked for was for a huge increase in the amount of heavy metals, like selenium, copper, arsenic and others, they can release into the lake,” Skuce said.

“They come up with this plan and it’s to continue pollution, to allow for long-term pollution to go into Quesnel Lake.”

“We’re only two years into the disaster and it is not clear what the impacts are. Salmon run in four year cycles and yet they’re permitting more pollution.”

B.C. Quietly Grants #MountPolley Mine Permit to Pipe Mine Waste Directly Into Quesnel Lake #bcpoli https://t.co/Gpv8yg97dK

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 17, 2017

B.C. Government Unaware ‘What True Consultation Means,’ Say Locals

In a press release, the B.C. Ministry of Environment said the permit was granted after extensive community and First Nations consultation.

Local municipalities as well as local First Nations were vocally against the permit, however.

In a submission to the B.C. government, watchdog group MiningWatch argued the province should reject the long-term discharge permit.

“Ongoing concerns raised by members of the Xat’sull (Soda Creek) and T’exelc (Williams Lake Indian Bands), as well as formal opposition taken by local organization such as the Likely Chamber of Commerce, Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake, and local members of the First Nation Women for Responsible Mining clearly indicate that [Mount Polley’s] long-term water management plan, as currently proposed, is unacceptable.”

Jacinda Mack from the Xat’sull First Nation gathered 250 signatures from predominantly local First Nations who opposed the plan.

“There was extensive consultation,” Richard Holmes, fisheries biologist and resident of Likely, B.C., told DeSmog Canada, “however, the government, who should be governing fairly for all, has lost its way.”

“The government is bound by extremely weak regulations and law that applies to mining and the company took full advantage of this in spite of the overall opposition by the First Nations and especially the local residents who call this area their home.”

“The provincial government has no idea what true consultation with action really means. Consultation to them remains a catchphrase term meaning ‘this is what we are going to approve…thanks for listening to our plan,’ “ Holmes said.

“I would have supported their efforts to continue to mine if they were better environmental stewards,” he said.

Skuce, who has participated in numerous community consultation processes related to B.C. mines, said communities often feel government engagement is one-sided.

“Government often speaks about robust public engagements with communities and First Nations but quite often it’s an extremely technical one-way engagement,” Skuce, who participated in the public engagement process, said.

“It’s not a process that is meant to make people’s voices heard.”

After submitting comments to the Ministry of Environment during the public consultation process, Skuce was told by the ministry to direct her questions about the permit directly to Mount Polley.

“What is not clear is where my questions go. Are they just sent to the company? Does the government monitor the company’s intake and response to those questions?” Skuce said.

“And who is holding this company to account? Just us, the public?”

“It really sheds a light on the extent to which there is regulatory capture in this province.”

Holmes said the original permit for the Mount Polley mine in the 1990s prevented the company from discharging water from the site into nearby lakes.

“And look where we are now,” he said. “We feel deceived.”

Imperial Metals Major B.C. Liberal Donor

Since 2005 Imperial Metals and the Mount Polley Mining Corporation have donated $195,010 to the B.C. Liberals. B.C.’s political donation rules are some of the weakest in the country and place no limits on corporate donations.

Ugo Lapointe, MiningWatch Canada’s program coordinator, said it is concerning that major political donor Imperial Metals has not been held accountable for the tailings pond collapse.

“The key message to Canadians is this was the biggest mining spill in Canadian history and there have been zero sanctions and zero fines, and certainly that’s not because of lack of evidence of damage to the environment,” Lapointe told DeSmog Canada in a previous interview.

MiningWatch launched a private prosecution against Imperial Metals and the B.C. government for violation of the federal Fisheries Act. The company escaped those charges recently, after the case was blocked by federal government lawyers.

Holmes said the lack of accountability in B.C. for companies like Imperial Metals, which are also major political donors, is troubling.

“It’s a worrisome trend in a democracy such as in Canada when the corporations dictate the outcome of government decisions through their lobbying for weaker regulations to say nothing of the scandalous practice of corporate donations to our Liberal government,” he said.

Skuce said the high level of political donations in the province appear to give mining companies outsized political influence.

“It’s hard for the public to have confidence that the high contributions these companies make don’t have influence in the process,” she said, adding the circumstances make British Columbians suspicious of favourable industry permits.

“What we have in B.C. is a government trying to say to the public that everything is okay now, that they’ve fixed everything. But the story on the ground is that they’ve continued permitting pollution and aren’t going to hold the company accountable for the spill,” Skuce said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The federal government is seeking to stay a private lawsuit brought against Mount Polley Mining Corporation and the B.C. government in October 2016, nearly 30 months after the collapse of the Mount Polley tailings pond spilled 25-million cubic metres of contaminated mining waste into Quesnel Lake, a source of drinking water for residents of Likely, B.C.

Now the federal government is seeking a withdrawal of the criminal charges before MiningWatch Canada — the organization that first brought the charges, which claim the company and the province violated the federal Fisheries Act — has been given the opportunity to present evidence.

“We were stunned that the federal Crown does not even want us to show the court that there was enough evidence to justify proceeding with a prosecution against both the B.C. government and [the Mount Polley Mining Corporation] for the worst mining spill in Canadian history,” Ugo Lapointe, Canada Program Coordinator for MiningWatch, said.

“To add insult to injury, the Federal Crown did not even provide an explanation for why it is doing this now, with such short notice before the Court date which was set for the last two month,” Lapointe told DeSmog Canada.

Lapointe said under normal circumstances a process hearing would take place during which evidence would be presented and after which the court would emit a summons and set a trial date. Or, if the court decided to stay the proceedings, it would do so with an explanation based on the evidence and provided to the court and thus the public.

The B.C. court will take up to several weeks to decide if the Crown is warranted in entering a stay of charges.

Cancelling the proceedings without strong justification sends a dangerous signal to the mining industry in Canada, Lapointe said, adding it could further erode public confidence in Canada’s regulatory system.

“We initiated this private prosecution out of concern that it has now been over two and a half years since the Mount Polly disaster happened and yet, despite clear evidence of violations of Canadian laws, no charges have been brought forward by any level of government,” he said.

No charges and no fines have been laid against Mount Polley, owned and operated by Vancouver-based Imperial Metals. The collapse of the tailings pond released mining waste containing copper, lead, iron, arsenic and selenium into fish-bearing waters.

Quesnel Lake, where the vast majority of the spilled waste still resides, is home to one of the province’s most abundant sockeye salmon runs.

A 2015 investigation by Chief Inspector of Mines Al Hoffman, did not result in charges against Mount Polley. Hoffman’s report found the company engaged in poor practices but he stopped short of citing Mount Polley for non-compliance.

A subsequent report released by B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer found B.C. suffered from inadequate monitoring and inspection of mines and as a result was unable to ensure mine operators were following provincial rules.

An investigation into the incident by B.C.’s Conservation Officer Service is ongoing.

Imperial Metals is owner and operator of the Red Chris mine in northern B.C. and is exploring options for two more mines on Vancouver Island.

The MiningWatch lawsuit was filed under a citizen’s provision of the Criminal Code that allows for private prosecution of offenses, such as a violation of the Fisheries Act.

According to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, private charges like those brought by MiningWatch are a “valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authorities.”

Lilina Lysenka, lawyer for MiningWatch, said the court should be cautious about dismissing a case without reviewing the evidence.

“Staying the charges prior to having the opportunity to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed could undermine this constitutional safeguard if it is done without good reason,” Lysenka said.

Bev Sellars, chair of First Nations Women Advocating for Responsible Mining which supports the MiningWatch prosecution, said the impacts of the Mount Polley mine spill are far from over.

“The disaster that was the Mount Polley tailings pond collapse is not over for those of us who live and depend on the lands and waters and particularly on the salmon that have always sustained us,” she said at the time of the proceeding’s launch.

“Nor is it over for those living in the shadows of other existing and planned mines across B.C. who are acutely aware of the government’s own panel of experts who reported we can expect to see two more such failures every decade,” she said.

MiningWatch hopes the case will be cleared for trial and will be eventually taken up by the Federal Crown.

Although supported by an impressive coalition of environmental, social justice and First Nations organizations that includes West Coast Environmental Law, Amnesty International Canada, Sierra Club BC, the Wilderness Committee, Concerned Citizens of Quesnel Lake and many others, MiningWatch recognizes “the cost and expense associated with prosecuting a case against a mining corporation and the Provincial government can be immense.”

“If Canada’s unique environmental values and waters are to be fully protected, it can only occur if the government stands against violations of its own laws and uses all the means and resources it has at its disposal to do so,” the group states.

Image: Screenshot of the August 4th tailings pond collapse at the Mount Polley mine. Credit: Cariboo Regional District via Youtube

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Almost 30 months after 25-million cubic metres of contaminated sludge and water swept into lakes and creeks around the Mount Polley Mine, near Williams Lake, MiningWatch Canada has filed a private prosecution against the provincial government and Mount Polley Mining Corporation.

MiningWatch, supported by a coalition of environmental, First Nations and social justice organizations from Canada and Alaska, was forced to take action because the Crown has failed to lay charges and enforce the Fisheries Act despite ample evidence, said Ugo Lapointe, MiningWatch national program coordinator.

“We are all concerned that, almost 30 months later, despite clear evidence of impacts on waters, fish and fish habitat, no sanctions and no penalties have been brought forwards by any level of government,” Lapointe said.

“This sends the wrong signal to the industry across the country and undermines public confidence in the capacity of our regulatory system to work effectively to protect our environment.”

The collapse of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam destroyed or permanently affected more than 2.6 million square metres of aquatic and riparian habitat, according to MiningWatch.

Mount Polley is a gold and copper mine operated by Mount Polley Mining Corporation, a subsidiary of Vancouver-based Imperial Metals. The company also owns Red Chris Mine near the B.C. border with Southeast Alaska and is exploring the possibility of opening two mines in Clayoquot Sound.

Mount Polley closed after the 2014 dam breach, but started full production again last year when it was given a clean bill of health by the province.

The MiningWatch charges were filed in Provincial Court in Williams Lake Tuesday, using a provision of the Criminal Code that allows citizens to start a private prosecution if they believe someone has committed an indictable offence.

The legislation is a valuable constitutional safeguard that provides for citizens to enforce federal laws, such as the Fisheries Act, to protect public resources, said MiningWatch lawyer Lilina Lisenko.

The same legislation was used by salmon farm activist Alexandra Morton in a case against Marine Harvest Canada, when the company pleaded guilty to illegal possession of wild salmon, and for an ongoing lawsuit by Marilyn Burgoon against Executive Fuel Flight Services after 33,000 litres of jet fuel spilled into Lemon Creek.

“The next step is to go through the process hearing and, if the court accepts the evidence, then they set up a trial date,” Lapointe said in an interview.

However, looking at the massive expense of taking the province and a mining corporation to court, Lapointe is hoping the case will be picked up by the Federal Crown.

“They can decide whether to take over the case or not,” he said.

#MtPolley & BC Gov't Target of Criminal Charges Brought by Watchdog @MiningWatch Canada https://t.co/eOiRNGj9Cz #bcpoli #bcmining #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 19, 2016

MiningWatch lawyers will be arguing that Mount Polley Mining Corporation and the province failed to implement minimum safeguards, which led to the largest mine-waste spill in Canadian history and to violations of the Fisheries Act.

The province was aware that the tailings pond and dam were not constructed according to design, but the Ministry of Energy and Mines did not enforce the law or apply its own policies, says a MiningWatch background paper.

Last December B.C. Chief Inspector of Mines, Al Hoffman decided not to forward charges to Crown counsel over the collapse of the tailings pond dam.

At that time Hoffman said that the company had poor practices, but he could not find evidence of non-compliance with mining regulations.

Hoffman found a major cause of the dam failure was a weak glacial soil layer beneath the foundation of the dam and other factors included the slope of the pond’s embankment, inadequate water management and insufficient beaches.

Imperial Metals is suing two engineering firms for damages over the dam failure.

B.C.’s Auditor General Carol Bellringer found in a report released in May that provincial monitoring and inspections of mines were inadequate to ensure mine operators complied with requirements.

Another investigation into the Mount Polley disaster is being led by B.C.’s Conservation Officer Service with assistance from Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and RCMP, but there is no indication whether charges will be laid.

Than investigation is ongoing, a spokesman for the B.C. Ministry of Environment said Tuesday.

A letter to MiningWatch lawyer Lilina Lysenko, written last month by Thomas Hlavac of Fisheries and Oceans, said investigators have served a number of search warrants to obtain evidence.

“That evidence is under examination by the investigators. Any charges supported (by) the evidence will be recommended to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for their consideration and action,” Hlavac wrote.

Tara Scurr of Amnesty International Canada, one of the organizations supporting MiningWatch, said it is concerning that the mine has been granted a license to resume full operations when the Conservation Officer Service’s criminal investigation has not yet finished.

“While there is evidence of some impact on fish and fish habitat, many questions remain to be answered about long-term impacts and what role people affected by the spill will have in determining any remedies that are required,” Scurr said.

Bev Sellars, chair of the group First Nations Women Advocating for Responsible Mining and a councillor with the Xat’sull First Nation in Williams Lake, said there is no point in having laws if governments and industry are not held accountable when they are violated.

“The disaster that was the Mount Polley tailings pond collapse is not over for those of us who live and depend on the lands and waters and particularly on the salmon that have always sustained us,” she said.

“Nor is it over for those living in the shadows of other existing and planned mines across B.C. who are acutely aware of the government’s own panel of experts who reported we can expect to see two more such failures every decade,” she said.

Mount Polley Mining Corporation referred questions to Steve Robertson, Imperial Metals vice-president of corporate affairs, who did not respond to calls from DeSmog Canada Tuesday.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canadian mining companies are desperate.

That’s about the only possible conclusion to be drawn after monitoring the federal lobbying database for more than eight months.

Since the election in October, companies such as Teck Resources, Rio Tinto Canada and Iamgold — mining the likes of gold, copper, uranium, coal and diamonds — have racked up 164 “registered communications.”

Such meetings have involved MPs 78 times, ministers 16 times and chiefs of staffs another 20 times.

Even those impressive efforts pale in comparison to the Mining Association of Canada, which has met with federal officials in 123 separate meetings.

(For some context, that number matches the combined number of meetings that three heavyweight oil and gas lobby groups — the Petroleum Services Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canadian Fuels Association — have had in the same span of time: 52, 45 and 26, respectively.)

The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada has chipped in another 30 meetings; all together, lobby groups representing the mining industry have totalled 173 meetings.

That means that since October 19, mining companies or associations (excluding oilsands operations and mining for industrial minerals such as potash) have lobbied federal office holders 337 times.

And that doesn’t include communications relating to the “enforcement, interpretation or the application” of legislation, meaning the actual number is likely far higher.

Mining Companies May Be Nervous Due to Environmental and Indigenous Priorities

Jamie Kneen of MiningWatch Canada suggests two things may account for the high number.

For starters, companies and associations “may be a little bit nervous” about the new federal government.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet have indicated an interest in environmental reviews, a nationwide carbon tax and at least symbolically respecting Indigenous rights.

Compounding such possible changes is that the industry is “in a bit of a crisis globally.” Iron ore prices, copper and gold prices are down. And massive trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) loom on the horizon, something mining companies certainly have an interest in.

“Commodity prices are down,” Kneen says. “The customary level of relationship and support they have from the government is that much more important. And that affects everything from royalty and taxation rates to access to land and permits and so on.”

South of the border, a new report by Western Values Project noted that five mining companies, including the massive Peabody Energy, spent $95 million on lobbying U.S. legislators prior to their respective bankruptcies.

Kneen also said a lot of lobbying efforts were put into seeing an extension on the controversial mineral exploration tax credit, which was granted in the federal budget.

Lindsay Tedds, tax policy expert at the University of Victoria, has argued the mechanism “only serves as a tax planning tool for wealthy investors,” leading to high-risk investments. It costs taxpayers between $40 and $150 million per year.

Why is the #Mining Industry on a Federal Lobbying Spree? https://t.co/F7s7JWsDgq #cdnpoli #bcpoli #Alaska pic.twitter.com/gvWXXus6kf

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 5, 2016

Mining Companies Coping With Plummeting Credit Ratings, Allegations of Tax Avoidance

Domestic metal mining activities might not draw quite as much attention as the oil and gas industry, but there’s certainly lots going on.

The Mining Association made waves in April when it called for a national carbon price, although Kneen suggests “there wasn’t a lot of substance to it” as it didn’t make any commitments to any particular form of carbon pricing.

Regardless, he says it was a “very politically astute” move. And the industry certainly could use some good press.

The uranium giant Cameco Corporation is currently facing serious allegations of tax avoidance. Teck Resources’ credit rating continues to plummet due to low commodity prices (it’s currently sitting at a B3, in the realm of “high credit risk.”)

The annual conference hosted by the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, held in early March, witnessed a far smaller attendance than in previous years. Barrick Gold is under fire for five cyanide spills in Argentina.

Ontario and Quebec Beefed Up Mining Regulations in 2013

Some provinces are slowly beefing up their mining legislation: in 2013, Quebec increased taxes, environmental regulations and protected areas, and made the review process more rigorous while limiting expropriation opportunities. Ontario also tweaked its Mining Act, but Kneen says it didn’t go very far.

“Ontario did a reasonable improvement on access to land so it was no longer possible for people’s property to be drilled without them even knowing about it,” Kneen notes.

The pressure on mining companies is increasing. But there’s still enormous growth potential for the industry: in 2013, the Conference Board of Canada predicted a 91 per cent increase in mineral output in Canada’s North between 2011 and 2020.

The Liberal government will have plenty of time before then to augment regulations, taxation, carbon pricing regimes and concepts of Indigenous sovereignty.

If the first nine months of its term is any indication, mining companies and associations will have plenty to say about such matters.

Image: Teck Resources

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Costs associated with the closure and reclamation of 84 abandoned industrial sites, mostly from mining, in B.C. have increased to $508 million, according to new information released from the Crown Contaminated Sites Program.

Responsibility for the sites has fallen to the province because the owners or operators of the projects “no longer exist,” according to a provincial press release.

The estimated cleanup costs have grown by $231 million since 2014, representing an increase of 83.4 per cent, watchdog group MiningWatch notes.

According to the province, a number of the mines, like the Britannia Mine near Squamish, or the Bralorne-Takla Mine in northern B.C., that now present a risk to human and enviornmental health, operated before 1969 when modern environmental legislation was created.

Although the province is quick to highlight work done over the past two years to clean up contaminated sites, Ugo Lapointe from MiningWatch says the significant growth in overall liability signals an urgent need for reform in the mining sector.

“Almost two years after the Mount Polley mine disaster, multiple cases of environmental mismanagement, and exponentially growing costs to clean up contaminated mine sites at taxpayers’ expense, it’s about time the B.C. government starts ‘walking the talk’ on desperately needed reforms in the province’s mining sector,” Lapointe said.

“This is only the tip of the iceberg, as yesterday’s report indicates that only 18 of 84 identified sites have been remediated to date, 16 are still under investigation, and 48 more are categorized as ‘lower priority’ and have yet to cleaned up. About 90 per cent of these sites are mining sites.”

Lapointe said at current rates it will take B.C. 64 years to clean up the remaining sites.

Polluter-Pays System a Failure in B.C.

In May B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer issued a scathing report that criticized B.C.’s weak mining liability regime. Bellringer estimated the province’s mining operations carried a $1 billion liability shortfall that ultimately falls onto taxpayer shoulders.

Economist Robyn Allan followed up on that report with a new analysis that showed, when combined with underfunded mining reclamation costs, the liability ballooned to $1.5 billion.

B.C. claims a polluter-pays system is in place for mines: “The Environmental Management Act ensures that those that pollute are held responsible under a polluter pay principle so the taxpayer does not have to assume these clean-up costs.”

Although, according to Robyn Allan, that claim is misleading.

“This statement is not true from the perspective of protecting human health and the environment, nor is it true that polluters are paying for the damage they cause,” Allan told DeSmog Canada. “The polluter pay principle is not working in B.C. For the polluter pay principle to work, polluters must pay for the damage they create. Instead, we find time and again, that it is taxpayers who are paying, or else much of the damage mining companies have caused is going unaddressed.”

Allan’s recent report detailed “decades of neglect in compliance and enforcement activities” within the B.C. Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Environment.

“The regulators are not protecting the environment from substantial harm or protecting taxpayers from bearing extensive financial cost to fix it,” Allan told DeSmog Canada.

She added the province has standards in place, but doesn’t do enough to ensure the protection of human health or the environment. Both the Snipgold Johnny Mine and Chieftan Metal’s Tulsequah Chief Mine are prime examples of a failed compliance and regulatory system in B.C.

Allan added financial failure in the mining sector, especially in relation to coal, increases these concerns. The collapse of Walter Energy, which Allan outlines in her report, will likely lead to water contamination at the company’s coal mine in northern B.C., Allan said, “because the company was not required to post full financial security” and “is now under bankruptcy protection.”

Allan added a similar situation could unfold with Teck Resources that could see “taxpayers picking up billions of dollars of reclamation and water treatment costs in the Elk Valley in the future.”

“The polluter doesn’t pay if the polluter becomes unable or unwilling,” Allan said. “This is why it is imperative that a fully secured financial assurances system with accurate estimates of reclamation costs and responsibilities be introduced as soon as possible.”

Underfunded Liability Concerns Alaskans Downstream of B.C. Mines

B.C. has at least 10 new mines planed or proposed for northwest B.C., many located above salmon-spawning rivers that travel directly into Southeast Alaska.

Weak regulations, limited liability and a lack of mining oversight has Alaskans living downstream of the mine sites worried another Mount Polley-style disaster will negatively affect local tourism operations and salmon populations.

Concerns over the recent increase in mining activity in northwest B.C. were heightened with the approval of the Red Chris Mine, located in the Iskut and Stikine watersheds. The Red Chris Mine is owned and operated by Imperial Metals, the same company responsible for the Mount Polley mine disaster which sent an estimated 25 million cubic metres of mining waste into the pristine waters of Quesnel Lake nearly two years ago.

The majority of that mining waste, which contains mercury and arsenic, remains on the bottom of Quesnel Lake. No charges or fines were issued in response to the Mount Polley incident.

Recently Alaska’s Congressional Delegation asked Secretary of State John Kerry to step in to protect Alaskan interests from B.C.’s mining boom.

In a letter to Kerry, the delegation wrote, “Alaskans need to have every confidence that mining activity in Canada is carried out just as safely as it is in our state. Yet, today, that confidence does not exist.”

“Should there be an impact to the transboundary waters that flow from Canada to Alaska, our state’s fisheries, tourism and native peoples could all be hurt.”

“Clearly, this program has not been a priority for the B.C. government and nothing in the report indicates that this will change in the future. Nor is there anything to indicate that the B.C. government will seriously enforce the ‘polluter-pays’ principle so that the industry pays for the mess it created,” Lapointe said.

“That’s a shame, because at the end of the day, it’s B.C. taxpayers who will be left with a bigger hole in their pocket to clean up the mess.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Ontario's largest mining find in decades – a 5000 square km region known as the Ring of Fire – won't be developed by Cleveland-based Cliffs Natural Resources without facing significant obstacles.

“We question whether the Ring of Fire can be mined without being a massive financial burden on Ontario taxpayers, or without trashing the province's most pristine watershed,” says Ramsey Hart, Canada program coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, an Ottawa-based organization.

“It is also unclear if this development will proceed in the best interests of the First Nations living in the Ring of Fire,” Hart told DeSmog Canada.

A briefing note to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs from earlier this year warns that the Anishinaabe/Omushkego* (First Nations of the Ring of Fire) “are some of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in all of Canada” and this could prevent the Anishinaabe/Omushkego from benefitting from the Ring of Fire mega mining project.

Stumbling Upon the Ring of Fire

The Ring of Fire is a proposed mining development the size of Prince Edward Island located in the Northern James Bay Lowlands of northern Ontario. The prize for the mining industry in Ring of Fire is “chromite,” a key ingredient in the making stainless steel which was accidentally discovered in the area in 2008. It turned out to be the largest deposit of chromite in North America.

Mining the Ring of Fire enjoys the rare support of practically all parties involved – federally, provincially and even quite a few Anishinaabe/Omushkego members. The federal government estimates between $30 billion and $50 billion worth of mineral resources lay in the ground.

“The entire province will feel the positive economic impact, especially the north with its mining consulting and equipment industries, as well as its supply and service sectors. We have to get it right, especially for the Aboriginal communities to ensure they have the tools to fully participate in the development,” says Christine Kaszycki, coordinator of the Ontario government's Ring of Fire secretariat, the provincial body responsible for developing the Ring of Fire.

‘Getting it Right’ With the Ring of Fire

Using the catch-phrase ‘getting it right’ when discussing the Ring of Fire mining project has become as popular as the region's Johnny-Cash-song-title name. The mayor of Thunder Bay wants his city, which lies 500 km to the south, to be “the next Fort McMurray” referring to the tar sands-boom town in Alberta. However the mayor insists “we’re hoping to do it right” if the development is approved.

‘Getting it right’ to ensure the Anishinaabe/Omushkego are positively, not negatively, affected by mining the Ring of Fire will most likely prove more difficult than mining chromite in the area.

A briefing note to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs obtained by the CBC last June warned low education levels, housing shortages and lack of access to clean drinking water could “jeopardize” the ability of the Anishinaabe/Omushkego to enjoy the economic benefits of the Ring of Fire development.

The 70% high school drop out rate in Anishinaabe/Omushkego communities creates a huge skills gap between Anishinaabe/Omushkego hoping for employment in mining the Ring of Fire and the skills and qualifications mining companies will seek for their operations.

Canada and Mining Company Thwarting Anishinaabe/Omushkego Call For Joint Review Panel

Although proponents of mining the Ring of Fire claim they want to do what is best for the Anishinaabe/Omushkego, the behaviour of some proponents seems to indicate otherwise.

The Matawa chiefs of the Anishinaabe/Omushkego mounted a legal challenge in 2011 demanding a independent joint review panel (JRP) be established to deliberate over mining company Cliffs Natural Resources' chromite project called 'Black Thor' instead of relying on an environmental assessment conducted by Cliffs.

“What we have now is a paper-based (environmental assessment) process, run completely outside of the communities affected, with no meaningful involvement of First Nations, and is non-transparent,” said Aroland First Nation Chief Sonny Gagnon in a statement.  

“It needs to be made accessible, by holding hearings in the First Nations and using an independent panel,” Gagnon concluded.

A JRP would be more thorough and require more time than the comprehensive environmental assessment Cliffs and the federal government want. The JRP would also be required to travel Anishinaabe/Omushkego communities to hold meetings and consultations with residents.

Cliffs claims the legal challenge is “impeding the progression” of their project. Last March a federal judge ruled in favour of the Matawa chiefs and a judicial review on whether a JRP should be conducted on the Black Thor project will take place this summer. The judge also criticized Cliffs and the federal government for causing unnecessary delays in the case.

“Cliffs has been neither cooperative or helpful during this entire process. They should not be surprised that they themselves are facing delays with their project,” says Hart of MiningWatch. MiningWatch is one of a handful of organizations supporting the Matawa chiefs' call for the JRP.

The Ring of Fire May Not Be Economically Feasible

The necessary infrastructure investment alone to mine the Ring of Fire will be at least $1 billion and mining companies are looking for Ontario or the federal government to foot a big chunk of this bill. This area is a relatively untouched wilderness with few roads.

In addition massive investments into the Ring of Fire project – whether by a company or a government – may be difficult to justify given the recent decline in commodity prices.

An Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) analyst described the economics of Cliffs' Black Thor project as questionable given the current price of refined chromite or ferrochrome.

Value-added jobs such as refining chromite for Ontarians will not be in abundance as many had expected. Cliffs wants to refine 40% of Black Thor's chromite outside of Canada. The other half is to be processed in Sudbury, Ontario but a processing centre still needs to be built. It is anticipated Cliffs will likely rely on subsidized Ontario electricity rates to off-set the cost of energy-intensive chromite refining.

“The world is not going to stop using stainless steel anytime soon. The chromite in the Ring of Fire is not going anywhere. There is no need to rush the development," Hart told DeSmog Canada.

“If mining the Ring of Fire is truly in the public's interest – and that is a big if – why not take the time to do it right?” he said.

*Anishinaabe and Omushkego are the names for the “Ojibwe” and “Cree” First Nations peoples of northern Ontario in their own languages. The author has used “Anishinaabe/Omushkego” instead of “Anishinaabe and Omushkego” to recognize the interconnection and sharing between these two cultures that has taken place in northern Ontario.

Image Credit: Tony Dang Flickr, Government of Ontario

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.