The Dominion - Mining

What if Natives Stop Subsidizing Canada?

Tim McSorley — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:01:13 +0000

This piece was originally posted on the Media Co-op. For more #IdleNoMore coverage, click here.

MONTREAL—There is a prevailing myth that Canada's more than 600 First Nations and native communities live off of money—subsidies—from the Canadian government. This myth, though it is loudly proclaimed and widely believed, is remarkable for its boldness; widely accessible, verifiable facts show that the opposite is true.

Indigenous people have been subsidizing Canada for a very long time.

Conservatives have leaked documents in an attempt to discredit chief Theresa Spence, currently on hunger strike in Ottawa. Reporters like Jeffrey Simpson and Christie Blatchford have ridiculed the demands of native leaders and the protest movement Idle No More. Their ridicule rests on this foundational untruth: that it is hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians that pays for housing, schools and health services in First Nations. The myth carries a host of racist assumptions on its back. It enables prominent voices like Simpson and Blatchford to liken protesters' demands to "living in a dream palace" or "horse manure," respectively.

It's true that Canada's federal government controls large portions of the cash flow First Nations depend on. Much of the money used by First Nations to provide services does come from the federal budget. But the accuracy of the myth ends there.

On the whole, the money that First Nations receive is a small fraction of the value of the resources, and the government revenue that comes out of their territories. Let's look a few examples.

Barriere Lake

The Algonquins of Barriere Lake have a traditional territory that spans 10,000 square kilometres. For thousands of years, they have made continuous use of the land. They have never signed a treaty giving up their rights to the land. An estimated $100 million per year in revenues are extracted every year from their territory in the form of logging, hydroelectric dams, and recreational hunting and fishing.

And yet the community lives in third-world conditions. A diesel generator provides power, few jobs are available, and families live in dilapidated bungalows. These are not the lifestyles of a community with a $100 million economy in its back yard. In some cases, governments are willing to spend lavishly. They spared no expense, for example, sending 50 fully-equipped riot police from Montreal to break up a peaceful road blockade with tear gas and physical coercion.

Barriere Lake is subsidizing the logging industry, Canada, and Quebec.

The community isn't asking for the subsidies to stop, just for some jobs and a say in how their traditional territories are used. They've been fighting for these demands for decades.

Attawapiskat

Attawapiskat has been in the news because their ongoing housing crisis came to the attention of the media in 2011 (MP Charlie Angus referred to the poverty-stricken community as "Haiti at 40 below"). More recently, Chief Theresa Spence has made headlines for her ongoing hunger strike. The community is near James Bay, in Ontario's far north.

Right now, DeBeers is constructing a $1 billion mine on the traditional territory of the Āhtawāpiskatowi ininiwak. Anticipated revenues will top $6.7 billion. Currently, the Conservative government is subjecting the budget of the Cree to extensive scrutiny. But the total amount transferred to the First Nation since 2006—$90 million—is a little more than one percent of the anticipated mine revenues. As a percentage, that's a little over half of Harper's cut to GST.

Royalties from the mine do not go to the First Nation, but straight to the provincial government. The community has received some temporary jobs in the mine, and future generations will have to deal with the consequences of a giant open pit mine in their back yard.

Attawapiskat is subsidizing DeBeers, Canada and Ontario.

Lubicon

The Lubicon Cree, who never signed a treaty ceding their land rights, have waged a decades-long campaign for land rights. During this time, over $14 billion in oil and gas has been removed from their traditional territory. During the same period, the community has gone without running water, endured divisive attacks from the government, and suffered the environmental consequences of unchecked extraction.

Sour gas flaring next to the community resulted in an epidemic of health problems, and stillborn babies. Moose and other animals fled the area, rendering the community's previously self-sufficient lifestyle untenable overnight. In 2011, an oil pipeline burst, spilling 4.5 million litres of oil onto Lubicon territory. The Lubicon remain without a treaty, and the extraction continues.

The Lubicon Cree are subsidizing the oil and gas sector, Alberta and Canada.

What will Canada do without its subsidies?

From the days of beaver trapping to today's aspirations of becoming an energy superpower, Canada's economy has always been based on natural resources. With 90% of its settler population amassed along the southern border, exploitation of the land's wealth almost always happens at the expense of the Indigenous population.

Canada's economy could not have been build without massive subsidies: of land, resource wealth, and the incalculable cost of generations of suffering.

Overall numbers are difficult to pin down, but consider the following: Canadian governments received $9 billion in taxes and royalties in 2011 from mining companies, which is a tiny portion of overall mining profits; $3.8 billion came from exports of hydroelectricity alone in 2008, and 60 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from hydroelectric dams; one estimate has tar sands extraction bringing in $1.2 trillion in royalties over 35 years; the forestry industry was worth $38.2 billion in 2006, and contributes billions in royalties and taxes.

By contrast, annual government spending on First Nations is $5.36 billion, which comes to about $7,200 per person. By contrast, per capita government spending in Ottawa is around $14,900. By any reasonable measure, it's clear that First Nations are the ones subsidizing Canada. (2005 figures; the amount is slightly higher today.)

These industries are mostly take place on an Indigenous nation's traditional territory, laying waste to the land in the process, submerging, denuding, polluting and removing. The human costs are far greater; brutal tactics aimed at erasing native peoples' identity and connection with the land have created human tragedies several generations deep and a legacy of fierce and principled resistance that continues today.

Canada has developed myriad mechanisms to keep the pressure on and the resources flowing. But policies of large-scale land theft and subordination of peoples are not disposed to half measures. From the active violence of residential schools to the targetted neglect of underfunded reserve schools, from RCMP and armed forces rifles to provincial police tear gas canisters, the extraction of these subsidies has always been treated like a game of Risk, but with real consequences.

Break the treaty, press the advantage, and don't let a weaker player rebuild.

Idle? Know More.

The last residential school was shut down in 1996. Canadians today would like to imagine themselves more humane than past generations, but few can name the Indigenous nations of this land or the treaties that allow Canada and Canadians to exist.

Understanding the subsidies native people give to Canada is just the beginning. Equally crucial is understanding the mechanisms by which the government forces native people to choose every day between living conditions out of a World Vision advertisement and hopelessness on one hand, and the pollution and social problems of short-term resource exploitation projects on the other.

Empathy and remorse are great reasons to act to dismantle this ugly system of expropriation. But an even better reason is that Indigenous nations present the best and only partners in taking care of our environment. Protecting our rivers, lakes, forests and oceans is best done by people with a multi-millenial relationship with the land.

As the people who live downstream and downwind, and who have an ongoing relationship to the land, Cree, Dene, Anishnabe, Inuit, Ojibway and other nations are among the best placed and most motivated to slow down and stop the industrial gigaprojects that are threatening all of our lives.

Movements like Idle No More give a population asleep at the wheel the chance to wake up and hear what native communities have been saying for hundreds of years: it's time to withdraw our consent from this dead end regime, and chart a new course.

Dru Oja Jay is a writer, organizer, Media Co-op co-founder. Co-author of Paved with Good Intentions and Offsetting Resistance.

Barriere Lake Protest

DeBeers Victor Mine

War is Peace

Tim McSorley — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:26:04 +0000

Francophonie summit exposes Canada's hypocrisy towards the Congo

MONTREAL—Comforted by the contradictions befitting classic Orwellian “doublespeak,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended the Sommet de la Francophonie in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, over the weekend.

Prior to the weekend, Harper had already indicated to the Congolese, with a straight face no less, that they should engage in actions that favour democracy and respect for human rights. Such a posture of talking down to the Congolese allows Ottawa to cut short all legitimate questions concerning the historic responsibility of Canadian businesses and the Canadian government in the Great Lakes area conflict in Africa that claimed millions of Congolese lives between 1996 and 2003.

In the early 1990s, the power hold of Joseph Mobutu's Congolese kleptocracy had begun to waiver. Mobutu, who had ruled the Congo, and before that Zaire, as absolute master, largely by supporting the country's social system with a nationalized mining infrastructure, suddenly found himself cut lose by his former supporters. These included most notably Belgium, France and the United States.

Under pressure from the World Bank, Mobutu opened the country's prized asset, its mining sector, up for privatization. Barrick Gold, the Canadian gold mining outfit, at the time received an exploration lease for a mind-boggling 82 000 km2. Justin Kanhwenda, former assistant to the special representative of the Great Lakes area to the Secretary General of the UN, has noted that the Barrick Gold deal officially signalled to the world that the Congo was open for business.

What followed was the triggering of a bloody and protracted conflict over the country's mineral resources. The High Commissioner on Human Rights, referring to the violation of fundamental rights during this period, summarized the conflict as a clash between armed rebel groups and militias representing the government's interests. Both sides made war to secure mining leases, which they would then concede to international, private enterprises, for the very purpose of continuing to finance their own war.

Yet another UN report on the war-torn Congo, this one published in 2002, highlighted the actions of nine mining Canadian companies in particular, including AMFI, Banro and First Quantum Minerals. The report found that their actions went against the guidelines for multinational enterprises of the France-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, as their dealings in the Congo were considered unethical.

In the mid-2000s, the Congolese parliament had recovered slightly from the shock of years of mineral-driven civil war, and created a commission charged with studying the contracts signed between the government and private industry during war time. The commission, signed-off on by then president Christophe Lutundula, concluded that an impressive number of extremely unequal contracts had been signed between private companies and the government-at-war during the period of 1996 and 2003. These ultra-advantageous contracts involved numerous Canadian companies, notably Anvil and Emaxon. Some of these Canadian companies ratified these contracts via their subsidiaries located in tax-haven nations.

A commission to “revisit” these mining contracts was subsequently put in place to attempt to restructure their terms, at least superficially. Fear of reprisal from foreign investors has limited this commission's strength.

Amidst the UN sources already mentioned, the “expert” report mandated by the UN Security Council on the October 16, 2002 (S/2002/1146) recommended that home nations investigate the companies suspected of having profited from the pillage of resources in the Congo during the war. The report added in no uncertain terms:

“The Governments have the power to regulate and sanction those individuals and entities. They could adapt their national legislation as needed to effectively investigate and prosecute the illegal traffickers. In addition, the OECD Guidelines offer a mechanism for bringing violations of them by business enterprises to the attention of home Governments, that is, Governments of the countries where the enterprises are registered. Governments with jurisdiction over these enterprises are complicit themselves when they do not take remedial measures.”

The UN report mentioned that the experts themselves did not have the legal prerogative to carry out such investigations, or bring private companies to justice.

Canada never capitulated to these demands. It did perhaps win itself some points, and time, by organizing round table consultations with various concerned parties, all within the sterile, and legally-unbinding, environment of determining “good governance.” The “consensus” that came forth from these consultations amounted to nothing, except for Ottawa's nomination of a powerless “ethics counsellor.” For this continued inaction, Canada has assumed the global leadership role as the regulatory and judicial safe haven of choice for mining companies. Today, 75 per cent of mining companies choose to register themselves within the Canadian legislative framework, as the lax system of accountability assists them in their mining endeavours outside of Canadian soils.

Canadians driven by ethic convictions are today at the same point as were Europeans at the end of the 19th Century. All attempts are made by the government to hinder the identification of the individuals responsible for the grave suffering caused to the Congolese people. In the age of Belgian colonial domination in the Congo, the Brit Edward Dene Morel and the American author George Washington Williams, having gathered information from returning Europeans as to the atrocities being committed, drew grave hypotheses as to the true goings-on in the resource rich African nation. Diplomat Roger Casement confirmed these allegations in an investigation undertaken by the British government.

Today, Canada has still not undertaken a similar investigation. Instead, we find ourselves with a regressive government seeking, through any possible artificial means, to create colonial-inspired propaganda that allows Canada to assume the role of a democratic older brother to the Congo. All this, when in reality the pressure should be weighing on Canada.

Alain Deneault's most recent book, written with William Sacher, is Imperial Canada Inc.: Legal Haven of Choice for the World's Mining Industries (Talonbooks: 2012). He is a member ATTAC-Québec and the Réseau international pour la justice fiscale. Translation from the French by Miles Howe.

Mining and War

Mining Companies Feel Heat in the Ring of Fire

taramichelle — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:25:16 +0000

Assembly of First Nations backs evictions from northern Ontario

TORONTO—In late July, hundreds of First Nations chiefs from across the country backed a moratorium on mining and development in an area of Northern Ontario known as the "Ring of Fire." They also called for the eviction of companies operating in the mineral rich area, which has been described as "Ontario's oil sands".

The province has called the Ring of Fire "one of the most promising mineral development opportunities in Ontario in almost a century." The area contains the largest chromite deposits in North America, as well as gold, nickel, copper, platinum and palladium. Opening the area to development has become a major focus for the Dalton McGuinty government.

The moratorium demand and eviction notices were voted on by the hundreds of First Nations chiefs gathered in Toronto for the Assembly of First Nations' (AFN) Annual General Assembly. The AFN is the largest First Nations advocacy organization in the Canada.

"It is solidarity," said Sonny Gagnon the Chief of Aroland First Nation, whose community would be impacted by the development. "We need the support. If and when we need to go on the land to enforce the evictions notice…we will have 633 First Nations that will be behind us."

Over 20 mining companies have claims in the Ring of Fire; however a major impediment to these projects is that there is currently no ground access to area. Several companies are now competing to build road or rail access.

Proposals from two of these companies, Noront Resourses and Cliffs Natural Resources, have entered the province's Environmental Assessment stage. This has lead First Nations to believe that the projects are moving ahead without obtaining their "free, prior and informed consent," as laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In late June, the Matawa First Nations Council, which is made up of nine first nations communities, announced an “immediate moratorium on all mining exploration and development…unless, and until, Ontario and Canada come to a government-to-government table with a mandate to negotiate fundamental questions of First Nations jurisdiction…and real resource benefits and revenue sharing for our First Nation.”

"We hope that the Matawa Tribal Council communities will reconsider this action and come to the table to discuss their concerns with us," said Andrew Morrison, a spokes person for the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, in an email to the Toronto Media Coop.

"We recognize that there are differing views and positions on First Nations’ jurisdiction and rights. Those differing views do not diminish Ontario’s commitment to working constructively with First Nations and industry to achieve practical outcomes and results," explained Morrison. "Through good will, mutual respect, and ongoing dialogue we are confident that we can resolve these concerns in a positive, productive and meaningful way."

Chief Gagnon sees the province's dealings with First Nations very differently. "They just seem to want to come into my community, stand on a podium and preach to our people as to how they are going to develop this land. No, no, no. We have got to have dialogue."

He believes that for First Nations to be treated as equal partners they need to be provided with the resources to hire lawyers, geologist and other consultants that the government and mining companies are able to afford.

Cliffs Natural Resources and Noront Resources were among the companies that were issued eviction notice in late June 2012. Both companies refused to respond to a request to comment in this article.

Gagnon said that an action plan to enforce eviction notices was being developed, but would not reveal any of the details.

Tim Groves is a toronto based researcher and journalist, to get email updates on his stories fill out this form.

Chief Sonny Gagnon of Aroland First Nation

Ghost Town

Tim McSorley — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:43:55 +0000

ghost town.jpeg

By Heather Meek.

Hemispheric Resistance to Canadian Mining

Sandra — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:56:30 +0000

Day of Action organizers speak out about repression, connections, solidarity

VANCOUVER—From Canada to Argentina, preparations are well underway for the Continental Day of Action Against Canadian Mega Resource Extraction on August 1.

Dozens of organizations have signed a call for the day of protest in solidarity with communities impacted by Canadian extractive industries. The event is meant to highlight the dominance of the Canadian mining industry worldwide. Their demands range from divestment to putting people before profit.

But some activists in North America argue that the serious repression accompanying Canadian mining around the world requires going further than those initial demands. They say that acknowledgment, a sense of urgency and a deeper strategic analysis for concrete local action are also needed. Communities and organizers resisting extractive industry projects in Latin America continue to face displacement, harassment, threats, and death, often dismissed as part of unrelated violence and conflicts.

Decentralized actions will be taking place throughout the western hemisphere on Wednesday, including a national day of mobilization in regions of mining conflict in Colombia, a memorial in Vancouver to remember those who have lost their lives opposing mining projects and a rally outside the Canadian Embassy in San Salvador.

The National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining (Mesa Nacional Frente a la Mineria Metalica) in El Salvador, comprised of community-based groups affected by mining as well as environmental and other organizations across the country, will be actively participating in the day of action. Vidalina Morales spoke with The Dominion from her home in the department of Cabanas, El Salvador, where Vancouver-based Pacific Rim's plans to develop a gold mine have been fraught with controversy.

"We're going to rally in front of the Canadian Embassy here in El Salvador," said Morales, adding that there will also be a press conference on-site. Over the course of the Roundtable's actions and campaigns, many affiliated organizations have faced ongoing human rights violations, particularly in Cabanas.

The community-based resistance to the Pacific Rim mining project in Cabanas has suffered extreme repression, including murders of several active community organizers and activists from communities in the vicinity. Earlier this month, 19-year-old engineering student David Alexander Urias was murdered in the community of Palo Bonito, says Morales, only a few kilometres from Pacific Rim's operations. His murder has been reported as being gang-related, but Morales says local community organizers suspect otherwise.

"Because we continue directly in the region where we're in conflict and where the company has shown so much recent interest in mineral exploration, we've seen some things that seem surprising to us—when families that have been longtime supporters of our efforts are attacked. Here in this department where we live, a youth [David] who was only 19 years old was recently murdered—a young student who is the son of a woman who has been very involved in this struggle," she said.

"Here, anything that happens, they always blame it on the gangs, because it's the easiest way to deny links to other things," said Morales.

In Colombia, murders, threats and other repression against individuals and communities facing large-scale mining activities around the country take place amid an ongoing armed conflict. Mario Valencia, a member of the Colombian Network Against Large-Scale Transnational Mining—RECLAME—spoke with The Dominion via telephone from Bogota, where preparations for the August 1 day of action are in full swing.

"In the middle of this conflict, the issue of mining can't be seen as unconnected because many of these conflicts take place in zones that are rich in natural resources...It's a struggle for territory. It has to do with taking possession of these areas—for example, displacing small-scale miners from territories where they have been mining for years, or even for centuries, and the conflict becomes a tool for that to happen," said Valencia. "The National Confederation of Miners of Colombia, which unites small and medium-scale miners, is currently threatened and being persecuted by the government, to make way for transnational companies."

In Colombia, a national day of mobilization "to stop the mining-energy locomotive" is being organized, coordinated by an alliance of unions, communities, and organizations, including the National Confederation of Miners and RECLAME. Rallies, marches, carnival-style parades and cultural festivals will be held in over a dozen different departments, all regions with mining conflicts. In Caldas, for example, actions will denounce the displacement of communities to make way for Canadian company Gran Colombia Gold's Marmato mining project, says Valencia.

"Mining is one of the principal activities in the Colombian economy. The government's idea is that Colombia should be a mining country, so the most important issue is territorial defense. We have proposed to take this on as the defense of life, the defense of water, the defense of territory, so that these transnational companies can't find the conflict, the pretext to enter these regions," he told The Dominion.

Valencia says that organizations in Colombia realized that they would not be able to confront the mining policy alone—a mining policy imposed on the country from outside but fiercely adopted by the Colombian government. Some of the sectors that have joined forces against transnational mining in Colombia may not seem like natural allies to some people, he says, given that they include communities resisting mining, mining and energy sector workers, small-scale miners and environmental organizations.

"Obviously not everything is all rosy and there are conflicts, but we are fundamentally united in RECLAME for one reason," Valencia explained, adding that the unity is a product of years of discussion. "We came to the understanding that the main aspect of the contradiction on the issue of mining isn't between workers and communities or between environmentalists and small-scale miners, but that the principal contradiction is with transnational large-scale mining companies."

Root Force, a campaign based out of Tucson, Arizona, also connects environmental, social and other justice issues through a strategic anti-infrastructure approach to solidarity with communities in Latin America resisting extractive industry projects. Root Force has signed onto the call for the Continental Day of Action, although concrete actions are left to the discretion of the various autonomous collectives and affiliate groups scattered throughout the southwestern US, the Pacific Northwest and beyond.

"The sort of broader goal of Root Force is to help bring down this global economic system that is at the root of the various injustices that so many of the environmental and social justice groups are organizing against," Ben Pachano, an organizer with Root Force, told The Dominion in a telephone interview. "The method that we've identified for doing that is by preventing the expansion of this resource extraction and transportation infrastructure that underlies the system.

"The actions that Root Force promotes and that, you know, our affiliate and allied groups take are aiming toward that ultimate goal, which is itself an act of solidarity, because the idea is that oppression of an Indigenous community resisting a mine, say in Guatemala, is coming in large part because of the demand for that metal in the first world," said Pachano.

The organization provides resources to facilitate connections between like-minded groups, to raise awareness about struggles against extractive and infrastructure projects in Latin America and their connections to the US, and to promote effective strategic action at the local level.

"Because of that sort of interconnected nature of basically a globalized capitalist economy, that means that you don’t necessarily need to be in the place where the resources are being extracted to take actions affecting that extraction," he said.

In Canada, which is home to companies that together own more than 3,000 mining projects around the world, actions are planned across the country. In Toronto, where many corporate headquarters and the Toronto Stock Exchange are located, people will mobilize at Queen's Park. In Vancouver, another city with a huge number of mining company offices, the local Mining Justice Alliance is hosting a memorial action outside of Goldcorp's head office.

Latin American communities spearheaded the Continental Day of Action, but the Vancouver action is also in solidarity with communities in Asia-Pacific, in Africa, locally and around the world, Mining Justice Alliance member Beth Dollaga told The Dominion. She is also a founding member of Canada-Philippines Solidarity for Human Rights and sees the same patterns of extraction and repression that occur in the Philippines happening elsewhere as well. Paramilitaries around the world are often trained not just to protect corporate infrastructure, she says, but also to harass communities resisting mining and people who speak out in support of community resistance.

"We know that the aggressive extraction—mining—it’s not just the environment plundered or killed, but also mostly Indigenous people, because this happens in the remotest areas of places, like in Latin America or anywhere in Asia-Pacific. So most of these places are actually the Indigenous ancestral domain. And people are killed," she said.

"Part of this event is also to remember them. And to continue. It's not just remembering those people, those martyred activists, but also to carry on and pick up from [where they left off], in solidarity, from wherever we are," said Dollaga.

Dollaga is not the only one to recognize that solidarity organizing with resistance to Canadian extractive projects is often a matter of life or death for people from affected communities. Pachano also emphasizes that for many, it is a fight for survival.

"When you look at a lot of communities that are opposing mega-extraction projects, often the root of their opposition is that they believe that these projects will destroy their way of life and that at the end of the day it's a battle for survival," said Pachano. "Solidarity requires that we take that—that we sort of take to heart the urgency of the battles we’re in solidarity with."

"Ultimately, true solidarity requires looking at the systems that are producing these types of exploitations and actively trying to take them down."

Sandra Cuffe is a Vancouver-based freelance journalist.

Day of Action

Uranium Territory

Sandra — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:53:58 +0000

Inuit campaign for referendum over mine in far north

BAKER LAKE—A conflict over a uranium mine in the far north, four decades in the making, has pitted members of a small Inuit community against their territorial government and a French company.

Inuit in the community of Baker Lake, located west of Hudson Bay in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, have raised a hue over what they call a faulty, biased process and the Government of Nunavut's uncritical support for uranium mining.

John*, an Inuk from Baker Lake who spoke with The Dominion, said the Nunavut Government’s support for uranium mining was biased.

“The new government policy with regards to uranium, I think that’s biased,” he said. “Them knowing their own people don’t really want uranium mining and the impact it would have on the people. We’ve heard for years now the environmental impact it’s going to have in our community.”

He later commented, “I think there should be a ban on uranium mining...no uranium mining in Nunavut, period.”

Bill*, also an Inuk from Baker Lake, said that he was unsure whether or not the new policy truly reflects the opinions of Nunavummiut (“the people of Nunavut”).

“I think they should have held a [public] vote on the issue.”

Outrage over the government’s new policy has been expressed by Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit (Makita), (“The People of Nunavut Can Rise Up”), the region’s only environmental NGO, which called the process to develop the policy “biased” and “flawed.” High on the list of Makita’s complaints is the fact that the government relied on consultants with close ties to the uranium mining industry to develop its uranium policy.

Makita was formed in 2009 by residents of Baker Lake and Iqaluit, out of frustration over barriers to public participation in decision-making. Makita’s objectives include promoting public participation in decisions related to uranium development, promoting accountability and transparency in the territory’s governing institutions and promoting public awareness of the impacts of uranium mining.

Makita was the driving force that initiated the Nunavut government’s development of a new policy. In 2010, the group demanded that Nunavut hold a public inquiry into uranium mining, citing concerns that “a uranium industry in Nunavut would pose serious risks to the environment, to public health and safety and to Inuit traditions and practices.”

Instead, the government held a “public forum,” which involved hiring consultants to undertake research on uranium mining and a series of public consultation meetings. The outcome was the June 6, 2012 release of a policy providing conditional support for uranium mining. It differed little from a policy the government issued in 2007.

At the centre of the uranium debate in Nunavut is a proposed mine by AREVA Resources Canada Inc, the Canadian subsidiary of the French, mostly state-owned owned multinational corporation AREVA. Located 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, the proposed “Kiggavik” project is only the latest of uranium proposals.

The struggle against uranium mining dates back to the 1970s. At that time, Inuit in Baker Lake unsuccessfully initiated legal challenges against uranium exploration near their community. In the late 1980s, Inuit successfully opposed a proposal by German company Urangesellschaft to mine the same Kiggavik uranium ore body that AREVA plans to exploit. In a local plebiscite in 1990, over 90 per cent of the residents of Baker Lake rejected Urangesellschaft’s proposal.

At the time, all major Inuit organizations opposed Urangesellschaft’s proposal.

The rights to the Kiggavik ore body were eventually acquired by AREVA, which now wants to develop a mine with four open pits and an underground component, a milling operation, a winter access road and potentially an all-season access road. The Nunavut Impact Review Board is currently conducting an environmental review of the Kiggavik proposal.

The community of Baker Lake is divided over AREVA’s proposal, with Inuit expressing a wide range of perspectives on the matter. Inuit Elder Margaret Niviatsiaq, a member of AREVA’s community committee and strong supporter of the Kiggavik mine, said that she supports the proposal due to hopes that it will provide her grandchildren with employment. “We have to think of the next generation. Where are they going to work? How are they going to survive? We have to think about our children.”

However, some Inuit in the community remain highly critical or outright opposed to uranium mining.

Janet* expressed serious concerns with AREVA’s proposal. “[I’m concerned with] how it’s going to affect the environment, the wildlife,” she said. “Even though they say it’s going to be safe, accidents happen all over the world and if anything happens here, especially with our drinking water...I have many concerns.”

She was also suspicious of the industry’s promises of prosperity and economic development. “I always say, the local people are going to get crumbs while someone gets the steak.”

Paul*, a hunter from Baker Lake, was worried that the Kiggavik mine might disturb caribou. “That area where they want to build the mine is along the migration route of three caribou herds.”

He was also concerned that opening the Kiggavik mine might lead to other uranium mines opening in the area. “The problem with uranium is we have so much of it around here. Once they open up one mine, how many others will follow?”

Lucy*, a young Inuk woman, formerly of Baker Lake, was concerned about the colonial implications of developing the economy of her home community by doing business with multi-national mining corporations.

"Relying on mining companies to come in and employ Inuit is still a reliance on ‘outside help’. It does not empower Inuit to become owners and producers of their production. It not only reduces Inuit to be trained just enough to ensure that...a specific sector succeeds in the north...it [also] keeps Inuit and non-Inuit living in the north in a state of dependency. It's backward. It's not progress."

Some who were critical of uranium mining also felt that their concerns and opinions were being suppressed. Janet said that some people in town are afraid to speak out, because they are “intimidated by other people” or “worried that they will lose their jobs”.

Paul felt that his views were being suppressed because his influence was small compared to that of the mining industry. “They [the mining industry] have all sorts of consultants and lawyers and money,” he said. “Those of us who are opposed, when you compare it, we basically have nothing.”

Until recently, there were a number of political barriers to uranium mining in Nunavut. Following the settlement of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, several institutions issued policies that either forbade uranium mining or provided the public with the right to refuse uranium mining. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (an Inuit organization that attained mineral rights to the Kiggavik ore body as part of the Nunavut land claim) initially maintained a policy that forbade mining for uranium on lands to which it held title. The 2000 Keewatin Region Land Use Plan contained a section that stated, “Any future proposal to mine uranium must be approved by the people of the region.”

However, these political barriers were quickly overcome with, some suggest, no meaningful public participation. In 2007 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated reversed its stance on uranium mining and adopted a policy that gave conditional support for uranium mining.

The same year, the Government of Nunavut issued a similar policy when then Baker Lake MLA David Simailak tabled six “guiding principles” on uranium mining in the Legislative Assembly.

In 2008, the Nunavut Planning Commission ruled that “the people of the region” approved uranium mining, based on resolutions of support from various hamlet councils in the Kivalliq.

In a 2010 media release, Makita condemned these policy changes, arguing that they were made “without involving [Inuit] in the decision-making process” and “without regard for the democratic standard set in Baker Lake by a public plebiscite.” Makita further argued that these policies left the question of uranium mining up to environmental reviews, which would ultimately result in “bureaucrats in Nunavut and Ottawa decid[ing] whether or not [uranium mining] is in [Nunavut’s] public interest.”

Accordingly, Makita demanded that the Government of Nunavut hold a public inquiry “on whether or not to open Nunavut to uranium mining.” The group argued that a public inquiry is more “transparent, flexible and democratic than a regulatory process is,” and that the government needed to seriously assess whether or not Nunavut’s institutions had the ability to properly regulate uranium mining.

Petitions demanding a public inquiry, initiated by Makita, were tabled in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in June, 2010.

In August, the government responded by announcing that, instead of a public inquiry, it would hold a “public forum” on uranium mining to help the Government of Nunavut develop a more comprehensive uranium policy.

Makita responded with heavy criticism to the decision to hold a public forum instead of a public inquiry. In a press release, Makita argued that “the proposed process is window dressing—public meetings without a mandate for research and reporting, and without clear standards for transparency or process, will be a waste of time and money.”

During question period in the Legislative Assembly in October, 2010, Premiere Aariak defended the government’s choice of a public inquiry, stating that the government “concluded that the public would be fully consulted with greater participation through a public forum.”

The public forum was held in 2011. Golder Associates—the same consulting firm hired by AREVA to conduct feasibility studies and write sections of their impact assessment for the Kiggavik mine—was hired by the Nunavut government to conduct research into uranium mining. The outcome of this research was harshly criticized by Mining Watch Canada, an Ottawa-based NGO that had been invited by Makita to participate in the consultation meetings held during the public forum.

Jamie Kneen of Mining Watch slammed the Nunavut government’s decision to have its research conducted by Golder Associates. “Golder should not be expected to produce a document on its own that could put its primary clients (the mining industry) in a bad light,” he writes in the report A Flawed Foundation.

Kneen further charged that the information provided by Golder is “biased, inaccurate and incomplete,” that it “misrepresent[s] the nature of environmental regulation and health protection” and that it “presents assumptions and theories as facts.”

Representatives from the Government of Nunavut were not available for immediate comment on their choice of Golder Associates to conduct research for the public forums.

Consultation meetings were held in Baker Lake, Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay in spring, 2011. Comments were also accepted by internet and telephone submission. According to a report by Brubacher Development Strategies Incorporated, local residents from communities throughout the territory asked many questions and voiced a variety of opinions on the possibility of uranium mining in Nunavut.

While some residents spoke about the potential employment uranium mining could bring to Nunavut, others voiced concerns about the potential impacts of uranium mining on the environment. Major concerns included the potential for mine roads to impact caribou migrations, the possibility of contamination of wildlife and water and potential impacts on human health. Many of these concerns were related to the possibility that impacts on wildlife might negatively affect Inuit hunting and fishing. Some indicated that they had moral objections to mining activity in their territory that might support the creation of nuclear weapons. Some residents expressed frustration that the majority of the panel the government commissioned for the consultation meetings was supportive of uranium mining, which they felt ensured that discussions during the consultation meetings were also biased.

On June 6, 2012, the Nunavut government released the results of the consultation meetings and a “new” policy statement on uranium mining.

Aside from some minor changes, the new policy statement is essentially the same as the original guiding principles issued in 2007, and indicates support for uranium mining subject to five conditions. Included in these conditions was an assurance that “uranium mined in Nunavut shall be used only for peaceful and environmentally responsible purposes,” that the people of Nunavut “must be the major beneficiaries” of uranium mining and that uranium mining must have the support of the people of Nunavut “with particular emphasis on communities close to uranium development.” The policy also stipulated that environmental standards must be “assured” and that the health and safety of workers “shall be protected to national standards.”

Makita criticized both the policy and the process by which it was developed. In a press release, Makita again criticized the government’s choice to have Golder Associates help develop the uranium policy. Chair Sandra Inutiq called the consultation process “clearly not an ‘objective’ policy review” and “biased from the outset.” She further argued that “the Nunavut government’s ‘public forums’ were a way to deflect Makita’s call for a public inquiry,” according to the June 8 press release. Due to what the organization considers to have been a “flawed process” with an outcome that supports uranium development, Makita reiterated its position that Nunavut’s institutions are “incapable of protecting the public interest in matters of uranium.”

In an e-mail to The Dominion, Makita member Jack Hicks took issue with the government policy’s assertion that uranium from Nunavut would only be used for “peaceful and environmentally responsible purposes.”

“We know where and how uranium from Nunavut could end up in nuclear weapons. Almost everyone I've ever spoken with—including people who are in favour of opening the territory to uranium mining—knows perfectly well that the [Government of Nunavut] and [Nunavut Tunngavik, Inc.] have zero control over how uranium will be used if it leaves the territory.”

“And given that the world has not found a way to safely store the highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, despite having spent countless billions of dollars trying, the idea that even non-military use of nuclear energy can be called 'environmentally responsible' is absurd,” Hicks said.

“What is tragically fascinating is that in a single generation the Inuit leadership has shifted from holding principled anti-nuclear positions (for example the Inuit Circumpolar Conference’s 1983 Resolution on a Nuclear Free Zone in the Arctic) to repeating the 'peaceful and environmentally responsible' lies of the politicians of the dominant society.”

With regard to the condition that the uranium industry must have the support of communities close to uranium development, Hicks felt that only a plebiscite could be used to determine community support.

“This should take the form of a public vote, such as the one that was held in Baker Lake in 1990. Nothing less than a free and democratic vote is acceptable. And if a majority vote in favour of the Kiggavik proposal, so be it.”

On the question of a plebiscite, Inuit from both sides of the issue agreed with Hicks.

Margaret Niviatsiaq, who strongly supported the Kiggavik mine, told The Dominion, “There should be [a] vote...if there’s no vote there will be a lot of conflict between the community and the mine.”

Janet, who was very critical of AREVA’s proposal but stopped short of expressing opposition, said that there should be a vote “where people are not intimidated and they can vote freely.”

“Looking at the history of proposed uranium in Baker Lake, I still feel that there are a lot of people against it.”

*Due to the controversial nature of AREVA’s proposal, many people spoke under the condition of anonymity. In these cases, pseudonyms have been used.

Warren Bernauer is a graduate student at York University.

Northern meltdown

Express Coup Rattles Paraguay

dawn — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:14:05 +0000

Transnational corporations including Canada's Rio Tinto Alcan undeterred by political turmoil

TORONTO—A coup snuck up on South America last month, taking people around the world by surprise. The June 22 ouster of President Fernando Lugo Mendez and his replacement by Federico Franco, head of the right-wing Paraguayan Liberal Party, took place without heavy police or military repression.

The Economist called the coup a "constitutional impeachment." There is no doubt that when he left office on June 22, Lugo bowed to the pressure of the Paraguayan Senate.

While several governments in South America indicated they would not recognize the coup government, Canada and the US immediately acknowledged the incoming regime. "Canada notes that Fernando Lugo has accepted the decision of the Paraguayan Senate to impeach him and that a new president, Federico Franco, has been sworn in," Diane Ablonczy, Canada's Minister of State of Foreign Affairs, said in a statement following the coup.

Lugo's final statement as president indicated he would submit to the request of the Senate and step down. Initially, he did not call for his supporters to take to the streets, and in fact through his words demobilized the Paraguayan people.

Following the coup, however, Lugo stated that what happened was indeed a coup, and that he had been removed from office in the same style as Manuel Zelaya was removed in Honduras.

"Here, there was a rupture of the democratic order, here there was a political trial without any reason, and a parliamentary coup was carried out. There are various names: an express coup, Cristina Kirchner [president of Argentina] mentioned that it was a soft coup," Lugo said during a radio interview a week after the coup. "The laboratory for all of this was three years ago in Honduras, and here in Paraguay it was perfected."

Unlike in the case of Zelaya, who was removed from Honduras to Costa Rica by Honduran soldiers, Lugo continues to reside in Asuncion, Paraguay's capital. Now in the thick of winter, Asuncion is cold, rainy and grey, and the level of mobilization is far lower than it was following Zelaya's ouster in Honduras.

Even before the coup took place in Paraguay, tensions were mounting. Lugo's removal as president came after calls for his resignation on the heels of a massacre in the Curuguaty region east of the capital, in which at least 17 people were killed, including six police officers and 11 peasants. It was the first peasant massacre in Paraguay since the country's return to democracy in 1989.

The campesino (peasant) movements in Paraguay are the most important social movements in the country, which is a little larger in size than the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population of just over 6.5 million. The context of struggles around land, and in particular the events in Curuguaty in June of this year, are of great importance in order to properly understand the coup.

"In Paraguay there are between nine and 11 million hectares of land that we call 'wrongly-granted land' (tierras malhabidas), which are lands that were granted in a fraudulent manner during the Strossner dictatorship, from 1954 to 1989, to children of the dictator, relatives of the dictator, business people from the region, even to other dictators like Somoza, and to members of the Uruguayan military," said Abel Enrique Irala, a researcher with the Paraguay Peace and Justice Service (Serapaj) who spoke to The Dominion from Asuncion, Paraguay.

The June 15 massacre took place at Yvy Pyta, an area that is classified as having been mis-granted during the dictatorship and where the peasant movement had organized occupations at least four times. But at the time of the massacre, those who were occupying the lands were not connected to the larger peasant movement; they were called to participate by supporters of the Liberal party, of which Federico Franco is part. Following the massacre, press reports indicated that the police were killed by sharpshooters, but according to Irala, the only weapons found in the peasant camp at Yvy Pyta were machetes and homemade shotguns.

"This occupation was not carried out in the framework of the peasant movement, or with the knowledge of support of any Paraguayan national or regional peasant organization," said Irala. The day after the massacre, Irala traveled with a delegation of activists and journalists to Curuguaty, where he said local Liberal Party bosses were already calling for Lugo's resignation and the promotion of Franco to the presidency.

"The next day when we did the evaluation of what we saw, one of the things that really caught our attention was the relation between the [political] parties in that area, and the calls specifically for Lugo to resign and be replaced by Federico Franco," said Irala. "What we didn't imagine is that those speeches, made 170 kilometres from Asuncion, coming from what seemed like local party members...We would end up hearing seven days later, with the political trial of Lugo and with Federico Franco staying on as president."

Since Franco took power, the commission entrusted to investigate the events at Yvy Pyta has been cancelled.

In Paraguay, there have been actions to protest the coup, including a week-long occupation of a state-owned TV station by its workers, demonstrations in the capital, and international protests along with supporters in Paraguay's border areas with Brazil and Argentina. However, the overall level of social mobilization since the coup has been low.

Paraguay was the last country in the region to break with a two-party system, with the election of Lugo, considered a progressive President, in 2008. "Since 2008, a sector of the best [social movement] leaders transformed into bureaucrats and took up residence in the capital, convinced that this was the path to gain more force," wrote Raul Zibechi, a Uruguayan journalist and analyst, following the coup. "Today, with some exceptions, the movements are the weakest they have been in decades."

Though considered progressive, Lugo's government passed anti-terrorist legislation and declared a state of emergency across a number of departments (provinces) with a high level of peasant organization, once in 2010 and again in 2011. His government used repression to discourage peasant organizing and land occupations, and has maintained close relationships—especially with regards to intelligence sharing—with the US government under the umbrella of anti-narcotics initiatives.

Paraguayan analysts and writers have also commented on the appearance of a "ghost" guerrilla movement, the Paraguayan Peoples Army (EPP), which they say has been used by the government to justify increasingly repressive tactics, including the use of Colombian-trained special forces, against the peasant movement.

"The fall of Lugo, as in every political crisis, exposes the changes that are being produced in the region since Barack Obama defined the [United States'] new defence strategy," wrote Zibechi.

Since Franco was named president, he has agreed to re-initiate negotiations with Montreal-based Rio Tinto Alcan, and has sat down to meet with various local, national and international representatives of transnational capital. "One can deduce that [Franco] has already met with regional, national and international business people, who represent transnational power," said Irala. While Rio Tinto Alcan represents the biggest Canadian interest in Paraguay, it is far from the only one.

Bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Paraguay last year was valued at more than $25 million. "Canadian companies looking into the Paraguayan marketplace may find opportunities in oil and gas, mining, and infrastructure sectors," according to the Government of Canada. Paraguay is also a participant in Canadian military training through the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

Dawn Paley is a freelance journalist and co-founder of the Vancouver Media Co-op.

An article focused on the coup government's resumption of negotiations with Rio Tinto Alcan was published by the Media Co-op on Friday.

Anti-Coup protestors in Paraguay

Colombians Refuse Canadian Mine

Tim McSorley — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:14:16 +0000

Farmers' stance against extractive project ignored in Ottawa

BERRUECOS, COLOMBIA—In southwest Colombia people are organizing within and throughout their villages, creating a strong network of resistance to Canadian gold mining. But they’re not fighting for concessions or reforms: they’re fighting to win.

Canadian mining company Gran Colombia Gold set up exploration platforms in small farming communities near Berruecos, Colombia in early 2011. Soon after, local coffee farmers began to question the benefits of a large-scale gold mine. “All I see that can come from this project is conflict and displacement,” said Hector Gomez*, a local farmer who is opposed to exploration. We spoke at a former drilling platform near the Mazamorras stream, where he had brought his kids for a swim.

His neighbour, Carlos Perez, adds that he moved to the area in part because of its reputation for being safe. “The first thing we lost [when the company came] was peace,” he said.

The budget for exploration is $3.8 million, which includes geophysical surveys and drilling, to test the size of gold, copper and silver reserves.

Gomez and others have already paid a heavy price for speaking out against the project. The Committee for the Integration of the Colombian Massif (CIMA), a rural social movement that counts many local farmers as members, has officially reported ten separate cases of harassment, death threats and violent assaults against critics of the company and their children since April 2011.

In two of these cases, CIMA representatives say, the head of private security for the mining project directly threatened the lives of local organizers. The human rights committee for the CIMA notes that many more cases go unreported due to fear and a lack of faith in officials to investigate.

“It's just like what happened with the coca-producing zones,” said Gomez in a comparison that may seem unexpected, until explained. “First comes the money, then comes the violence—the armed groups, drinking [and] crime.”

Farmers have had difficulty getting the Colombian government to provide information about the environmental impacts of large-scale mining, let alone hear their concerns about the project.

Gloria Muñoz, another local coffee farmer and young mother, went door to door collecting signatures for a petition calling on the municipal government to hold a forum against mining. She says she collected over one thousand signatures and sent it to officials, including Ingeominas, the Colombian government department responsible for granting mining exploration permits. She received no response. Meetings with the local mayor led to promises of a forum, but no results. "They put it off three times," she said in the courtyard of her modest but quaint home overlooking green hills and neighbouring farms.

"They act like if the company leaves, we'll die of hunger," said Muñoz. Sylvia, a relative of Muñoz, was hired as a spokesperson for the company. Also a young mother, Sylvia stresses the importance of job-creation, and argues that, when it comes to the environment, farmers have nothing to worry about. “This is a responsible company,” she said.

The debate between locally-hired contract workers and project opponents over jobs and the economic future of the region has sometimes boiled over, creating what the CIMA has called an atmosphere of chaos, anxiety and confrontation.

Local spokespeople for Gran Colombia Gold have their work cut out for them. People living close to exploration platforms say that when drilling began, it was loud and took place around the clock. When a shuttered drilling platform began to leak water, project opponents say they noticed that the water level in a near by aquifer began to drop.

As tension mounted between rural communities and the company, local contract labourers and spokespeople carried out community projects on Gran Colombia Gold's behalf—some of which did not go over well.

On October 9, 2011, some of the company's workers and private security personnel arrived to repair a paved soccer court in Bolivar, a tiny hamlet only accessible by a winding footpath up a steep hillside. Farmers living nearby say that they did not want company employees to carry out community work, so they approached the workers and asked them to stop.

They allege that the head of private security for the project ordered the workers to continue, and that a physical confrontation resulted in which a mine worker struck a protestor along with his sister and niece.

Later that day, hundreds of angry residents from Bolivar and nearby communities occupied two of Gran Colombia Gold's mining exploration camps. They remained on the grounds until the following day when they burned the camps to the ground.

Shortly thereafter a mediation team arrived, including the Department (the Colombian equivalent of a province) of Nariño's Human Rights Ombudsman, representatives of two municipal governments and of the Governor's office, as well as a Gran Colombia Gold employee.

Farmers say they negotiated a tentative agreement in which Gran Colombia Gold would suspend work for one month while the Governor of Nariño prepared and held a department-wide forum on the impacts of large-scale mining.

Gran Colombia Gold never signed the agreement. In a press release it said that the burning was carried out by "unknown invaders." The release did not mention a previous confrontation or mediation process.
Municipal elections led to some small gains for project opponents in 2012. In March, organizers finally got their mining forum in Berruecos, at which a number of officials and mayors declared their opposition to mining by multinational companies.

They were also able to pressure the newly-elected Governor of Nariño, Raul Delgado, to hold a department-wide forum on mining in March. At the forum the governor committed to setting up a co-operative roundtable that would bring together an array of social actors and decision-makers in order to better negotiate land-use policies handed down by the Colombian government.

At the end of the forum, CIMA representative Robert Daza said he was hopeful about the roundtable, but that the movement was prepared to organize a general strike across the department if it doesn't work out in favour of the local population.

Organizers believe that a large mobilization like this is possible because they are not alone. Their story is being played out in different ways across the country. While agriculture accounts for 22 per cent of jobs in Colombia, the national government has made large-scale mining a major priority in development planning.

In 2008 the Colombian Ministry of Mines and Energy reported that 52 per cent of companies investing in mining exploration in Colombia were Canadian. That same year the two countries signed a free trade agreement, which includes strong protections for investors. The agreement went into effect in August 2011.

The Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC) has followed the trade deal closely, producing a report on the agreement in 2009 entitled Making a Bad Situation Worse. Brittany Lambert, program officer for the CCIC's Americas Policy Group, said from Ottawa, “Our concern all along with the Canada-Colombia FTA has been that it has the potential to exacerbate the ongoing human rights crisis in Colombia.”

Colombia is home to the highest internally-displaced population in the world, estimated at between 3.8 and 5.4 million people. Peace Brigades International reports that 80 per cent of human rights violations that have occurred in Colombia over the last ten years took place in mining and energy-producing regions, with 87 per cent of internally-displaced people originating from these zones.

Many see this as a result of the tendency for rich earth to attract armed actors, from guerrilla groups to paramilitaries to the Colombian armed forces. The Colombian military has a strong presence in regions hosting large mining projects. President Juan Manual Santos announced in February 2012 that 30 per cent of Colombia's public forces—more than 80,000 members—are currently dedicated to protecting mining and energy infrastructure.

Aside from the militarization of mining zones, social and human rights organizations have reported the targeted killings of leaders opposed to large-scale mining. In September 2011 José Reinel Restrepo, a Catholic priest and outspoken critic of another Gran Colombia Gold mining project, was assassinated a week after travelling to Bogota to criticize the company's plan to displace the entire town of Marmato, Caldas.

Almost one year after the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Colombia came into effect, the Canadian government was slated to release a report on how the deal has impacted human rights. Rather than comply with the requirement to produce an annual report, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade released a document on May 15 that merely outlined the methodology it will use to produce a report for next year.

Voices from communities like Berruecos have, at least for the moment, been ignored in Ottawa.

Despite being up against a powerful company, farmers in Narino are optimistic. "We're not rich, but we do good work here, and we're not going to lose what we've got because we're willing and ready to defend it," said Gomez.

*Some names in this article have been changed for security reasons.

Leah Gardner is a member of the Project Accompaniment and Solidarity with Colombia (PASC), a Montreal-based collective.

Colombian Farmers Demand Mining Dialogue

Burned out Mining Camp

Ottawa's Colombia Problem

dawn — Mon, 28 May 2012 10:41:01 +0000

Canada fails to release human rights report on Colombia following FTA

MEDELLIN, COLOMBIA—The Canadian government's failure to report on Colombian human rights, as promised as part of its Free Trade Agreement (FTA), drew criticism from the country's opposition last Thursday.

The FTA, which went into effect in August 2011, received the backing of Canadian opposition parties when Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed to releasing annual reports on how trade was affecting human rights in Colombia. A report analyzing the treaty was released last Wednesday with no mention of human rights issues.

"As the agreement has only been in force for the last four and a half months in 2011, there's not enough available data to do a comprehensive analysis," said Trade Minister Ed Fast in Canada's House of Commons. "That analysis will be released in 2013."

The report's delay drew the ire of many government critics, who felt the current administration was only seeking profit from Colombia while ignoring its human rights violations.

"Canadians want more trade...but we also want...the partners we trade with to respect democratic values," said the opposition's international trade critic Don Davies. "It leaves us to wonder whether the government was afraid to table an honest human rights assessment because it shows the situation in Colombia has not improved."

Opposition party member Scott Brison, who used his close ties to Colombian officials to propose the joint report, assured Canadians that the South American nation was committed to improving its shoddy human rights record, which has seen 17 trade unionists disappear since the agreement was signed.

"I know the Colombian government, with which I continue dialogue, takes this reportage very seriously and actually views it as an opportunity to deepen corporate social responsibility and to increase transparency around human rights and the effect of legitimate trade on actually strengthening human rights," said Brison.

"I hope that the Harper government takes this reportage process as seriously as the Colombians do," he added.

Numerous criticisms against Canadian mining operations have been lodged by Colombian civil rights groups, according to Jennifer Moore, the Latin American coordinator for Canada-based industry monitor MiningWatch.

"What really worries us is that you put into place a new free trade agreement, you provide new and substantial rights to foreign investors to defend their investments...and there are no correspondingly strong rights for communities to assert their rights when they're being infringed upon by these corporate interests," Moore told Colombia Reports, where this story originally ran.

Complaints have ranged from company representatives entering Indigenous land without permission to overlapping mining operations forcing residents from their homes. Canadian gold mining company Gran Colombia has been the target of heated protest in recent years after its alleged failure to allow "robust public participation" in communities where operations have taken place, according to Moore.

In 2011, a Catholic priest from the historic gold-mining department of Caldas protested his town's demolition to make way for the company's mining operations. He was murdered by unknown assailants shortly afterward. Gran Colombia denied responsibility for the murder, saying it was simply a robbery gone wrong.

"The inclusion of this human rights report in order to justify the passage of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was a whitewash from the beginning and now we're just seeing what a sham it really is," added Moore.

The FTA made news May 7 when Canadian officials claimed Colombia failed to issue duty-free licenses to its exporters in 2011.

The United States FTA with Colombia went into effect on May 15. The agreement has also been fiercely criticized by human rights organizations in both countries due to the ongoing violence against labour activists and union workers.

Brandon Barrett is a journalist and regular contributor to Colombia Reports based in Medellin, Colombia. An earlier version of this story appeared in Colombia Reports and the Media Co-op.

Harper and Santos Handshake

Canada Deepens Ties with Deadly Regime

Tim McSorley — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:58:53 +0000

Honduran journalist visits Montreal, reaffirms strength of resistance movements

MONTREAL—In June 2009, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped by soldiers and taken to Costa Rica in a military airplane. The Honduran army took control of the streets.

Nearly three years later, a popular resistance movement continues to organize against and oppose the coup. Meanwhile, the Canadian government and Canadian companies continue to deepen their ties with the controversial post-Zelaya regime.

The coup in Honduras was more than the kidnapping of a popular, progressive president. The day of the coup, Zelaya was scheduled to oversee a non-binding, nationwide survey on whether people were in favor of holding a binding referendum on re-writing the Honduran constitution. For the first time in history, the opinion of regular Hondurans would have had the potential to dramatically change the future of their country.

Had the June 2009 survey passed, it would have meant serious momentum toward a long-term goal of the Honduran social movement, the writing of a new constitution by way a people's assembly, inviting representatives from every sector and municipality to join in the re-founding of Honduras.

The coup, a joint operation by the military, supreme court, congress, and business elite, put a stop to all of this. It meant that the current Honduran constitution, written under a US-backed military dictatorship in the early 1980s, would continue to benefit a small elite.

But the coup also gave rise to the creation of the National People's Resistance Front, which now has local chapters in each of Honduras' 298 municipalities. The resistance movement is dedicated to bringing about a new constitution, at whatever cost.

In 2011, Honduras became the deadliest country in the world, for those countries which the UN has been able to gather statistics. "Our country of just 8 million people is suffering more than 20 murders per day," said Felix Molina, a Honduran journalist who recently spoke in Montreal during a Canadian tour. “Among the victims are around 20 journalists and 424 women. On top of murders, there are death threats, forced disappearances, exile for some and a general criminalization of the social resistance movement.”

Molina is the host, producer and founder of the radio show Resistencia. The show airs on the station Radio Globo, which has supported resistance and pro-democracy movements since the coup.

In the November 2009 Honduran general elections, Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo was elected president in a vote took place under what some considered a state of siege.

In the five months between Zelaya's kidnapping and the vote, more than 4,000 anti-coup activists were arbitrarily detained. Anti-coup media outlets were repeatedly shut down by the military. More than 100 community organizers were assassinated. Meanwhile, Zelaya, the president in exile, made his way back to Honduras and hid out in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa surrounded by the military.

As a result of the deteriorating security conditions under the interim coup regime headed by Roberto Micheletti and the military's offensive against the resistance, all international election observation bodies refused to send observers.

Regardless, the United States and Canada applauded Lobo's election, and put pressure on other countries to do the same.

The Harper administration has shown it is especially eager to work with Honduran officials since the coup, and Canada's corporate interests in the country continue to grow. In August 2011, Stephen Harper traveled to Honduras and signed a free trade agreement with Honduras. The announcement was unexpected, and took many by surprise.

”The Honduran population was never informed about this [agreement],” said Molina. “As with many of the most important decisions in Honduras, they learned about it after it was taken.”

Honduran congress is considering a new mining law, which critics say prioritizes corporate interests over human rights. This mining law, they say, is designed to benefit mining companies by, among other things, failing to protect access to water and limiting both access to information about mining activities and the ability to have mines closed.

Canadian mining company Goldcorp has faced criticism of its San Martin gold mine, which operated from 2000 to 2008 in central Honduras.

Goldcorp consistently denied that its operations had anything to do with a variety of health problems among locals, including miscarriages and skin diseases, as well as the death of livestock. In 2011, results of tests conducted in 2007 were finally released, showing heavy metal poisoning among 62 residents of the area near the mine.

The National People's Resistance Front recently voted to form a political party as another way to confront these corporate interests. Some groups within the wider resistance movement believe there are other ways to continue the struggle, such as establishing autonomous popular zones and small-scale municipal powers.

“The discussion is far from being over,” Molina said during his talk in Montreal. “In the meantime, we have to make sure that the popular movement keeps existing and to reinforce the capacities of the National Resistance Front.”

Stéfanie is part of the Montreal Media Co-op and is currently interning at CKUT 90.3FM's community news department.

Jesse Freeston is a media co-op sustainer and maker of the upcoming film Resistencia about the ongoing farmer occupation of Honduras' Aguan Valley, www.resistenciathefilm.com.

This article was produced by the Montreal Media Co-op.

Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

Felix Molina

Canadian-owned Mine Fuels Violence in Mexico

stephlaw — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:29:17 +0000

Residents of San José del Progreso are deeply divided over the mine

SAN JOSE DEL PROGRESO, MEXICO—It's been almost three years since hundreds of people took direct action to temporarily shut down Vancouver-based Fortuna Silver's gold and silver mine near Oaxaca City, Mexico. Since then, the neighbouring community of San Jose del Progreso has been deeply divided and residents have faced a series of difficult and sometimes deadly confrontations.

Three people have been killed so far, most recently, Bernardo Mendez Vasquez, who was shot seven times on January 18, 2012 by a municipal police officer. Locals say municipal authorities ordered the police to attack residents who were refusing to allow a new water system to be installed on their land because they feared it would be used to supply the mine with water.

Mine operation came to a two-month halt in 2009 when Zapotec community members from San Jose del Progreso and surrounding villages held it for nearly two months. The blockade ended with a massive police raid, during which demonstrators were beaten and 23 people were jailed, some for up to three months.

Fortuna has thus far avoided being linked to the violence by playing up the fact that people in San Jose are fighting with each other. CEO Jorge Ganoza has repeatedly referred to it as “senseless” violence.

"It is in no way related to our activities or involves company personnel, and we really hope that the people of San Jose, with the assistance of the state authorities, will find a long-term solution to this senseless violence,” Ganoza told the National Post regarding the recent killing.

The mine, known locally by the name of its subsidiary, Minera Cuzcatlan, went into production in late September 2011. Its opponents maintain that Fortuna Silver’s mine is the root of social problems that plague the once peaceful region.

In a press conference following the police shooting of Vasquez, mine opponents made it clear that they see a direct link between Fortuna Silver and the violence.

“The social and political conflicts that have ended the lives of three people are due to the appearance of the mining company, without the consent of the people, and not [due] to the control and power over the municipality as expressed by various authorities in the state government,” reads a statement signed by over a dozen Oaxacan organizations.

The existence of the mining project is something that residents of San Jose del Progreso cannot ignore. The main access road into the town passes directly in front of Fortuna’s massive operations, complete with the company's own power station, offices and a huge stockpile of ore, all surrounded by high chain link fence.

“In one year [the company] managed to cut the town in half, to divide the people, and the dispute became present in all spaces: in the primary school, in the secondary school, in the kindergarten, in the health centre, in city hall, in all of these situations,” said Bernardo Vasquez Sanchez, who lives in San Jose and works with the Co-ordinating Committee of the United Villages of the Ocotlan Valley.

In the centre of the village, which is home to about 1,200 people, Sanchez pointed out that there are two different taxi stands, one used by people in favour of the mine, and another by those who are opposed.

City hall has effectively been shut down since January, when municipal authorities and municipal police fled after the murder of Vasquez.

“Basically the entire town is divided in two parts, one part that has a mayor, and another part that does not have a mayor,” said Sanchez, who has worked with other community members to formally requested the dissolution of powers of the municipal government.

Sanchez and others are worried the project might eventually become an open pit mine, further threatening the region’s already fragile water system. Given Fortuna’s track record, there is reason to be worried: Simon Ridgway, chair of Fortuna’s board of directors, was subject to two arrest warrants in Honduras because of environmental contamination from an open pit mine now owned by Goldcorp Inc.

Father Martin Garcia Ortiz, a priest in San Jose del Progreso, was beaten and kidnapped by people in favour of the project in 2010. He was later jailed and then released without charge and subsequently decided to leave the parish.

According to sources in Oaxaca City and San Jose del Progreso, a group started by the mining company, called “San Jose in Defense of our Rights,” has taken on a paramilitary role in the community, intimidating opponents of the project.

“Things are so broken that there’s no other way out, the only way, I think, is that the company leaves,” said Father Ortiz.

Dawn Paley is a journalist and co-founder of the Vancouver Media Co-op.

A longer version of this story was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

Fortuna Silver's mine

Bernardo Vasquez Sanchez

Plan Nord Under the Microscope

dawn — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:48:35 +0000

Public involvement in diamond venture ends once gems are found

MONTREAL—Since the mid 1990s, every man, woman and child living in Quebec has donated the equivalent of $20 towards exploration costs for the province's first diamond mine project. But when a mine was finally discovered and the promised rewards for years of the province's investment began to be realized, the Quebec government sold the project to a private company. Not only that, but Quebeckers can expect to shell out even more as the now privately owned mine moves towards production.

According to documents obtained by The Dominion, all that’s left for the public after they invested over $157 million in the Renard Diamond Project is a 37 per cent stake in a private company, and token public representation on the company’s board of directors.

The diamond mine is today being hailed as a model operation by the Quebec government. But a deeper look into what this model would mean for Quebeckers casts a long shadow over the government’s economic policies.

For the last seven years, the sun has been shining over Quebec’s mining sector. Between 2009 and 2010, total mining investments in Quebec increased by almost 43 per cent, totaling $2.9 billion. Over the past six months, things have gotten so hot that the skin has started to peel off the hands of boardroom executives, geologists and international investors. The key moment came in May 2011 when Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced his now-famous legacy project, the Plan Nord.

The good times in the mining industry could last for the next 25 years, if Charest is to have his way. “The Plan Nord will lead to over $80 billion in investments... and create or consolidate, on average, 20,000 jobs a year,” reads the Plan Nord website. The idea behind the plan is to "stimulate" the energy, mineral resources, forest and wildlife sectors, as well as those of tourism and "bio-food" production.

The Renard Diamond Project is one of 11 mega-mining projects proposed as part of the Plan Nord. Unlike most of the other mining projects, the $675 million Renard project is the only mine venture whose development involved a serious public partnership approach—the rest of the projects are private sector initiatives.

The Renard Diamond Project got its start in 1996 in the Nord-du-Quebec region, about 600 kilometres north of the great Lac-St-Jean, as a 50-50 joint-venture between Diaquem—a wholly-owned subsidiary of crown corporation Quebec Society for Mining Exploration (SOQUEM)—and Ashton Mining of Canada Inc—a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto plc.

Founded in 1965, SOQUEM is a holdover from the “maitres chez nous” (masters in our own house) economic doctrine which saw the creation of many Quebec-owned corporations. At one point, SOQUEM was an exploration powerhouse, employing more than 1,500 people and at the forefront of geologic mapping.

After 45 years in the business, SOQUEM’s mandate has shrunk to supporting specific projects only. In the first quarter of 2011, SOQUEM—now a 50-employee entity—was swallowed up by the mammoth Investissement Quebec (IQ), the Quebec government's investment arm.

Fifteen years down the risky road of exploration, the Renard Diamond Project promoters discovered a field of kimberlite intrusions—volcanic rock known to contain diamonds—with a mineral reserve of 18 million carats. Exploration risks stem from the fact that anomalistic (diamond containing) geological formations are hard to find, and expensive to analyze.

Ashton Mining was bought out and the Renard Project is now under the Stornoway Diamond Corporation flag. “Excluding potential deposits, we evaluate the life duration of the project at at least 25 years,” Ghislain Poirier, Vice President Public Affairs at Stornoway told a local newspaper last winter. The plan for the mine includes two 100-meter-deep open pit mines, one 600-meter-deep open pit mine and several underground mines. The Renard mine would be Quebec’s first diamond mine.

Stornoway released its conclusive feasibility study in November 2011. According to the company, the mine will begin commercial production by 2016. Mine permits, community hearings and negotiations with the Cree Nation and other local communities have yet to be completed.

Public money for a private mine

Beyond the celebratory press releases, the course of events in the boardrooms and corporate headquarters linked to the deal has been anything but usual. In December 2010, a sudden and unexpected transaction occurred. Just as the public finally stood to make a return on the $57 million it invested in exploration, IQ sold its stake in the Renard project to Stornoway.

The transaction left IQ with a minority share of Stornoway, and a meager two per cent revenue royalty on net smelter returns on future production. Three senior IQ administrators joined Stornoway’s 11-member board. IQ also agreed to provide Stornoway with an additional $100 million to fund mine construction.

“They're just being nice to the company,” said MiningWatch Canada’s Jamie Kneen.

IQ spokesperson Chantal Corbeil refused to comment on the rationale behind this divestment.

“They are not allowed to reveal what's being discussed on the board, not even to Cabinet,” said Kneen of the three IQ board members now serving Stornoway. “The public is not represented in this mining project,” he said.

Before the Renard mines produce a single diamond, the people of Quebec have already spent $157 million, and been left without representation that will guarantee a return on their investments in the actual mine development. But according to IQ’s Corbeil, the good news is that IQ owns 37 per cent of Stornoway, and if the company is successful, the government will cash in royalties and taxes. Royalties of two per cent on net returns amount to very little. Had the royalty been applied to both net returns and extracted value, it could have amounted to a more significant sum.

Without diving too deep into economic detail, it's worth noting that 100 per cent of exploration costs are tax deductible in Quebec, and a significant portion of them are reimbursable. In other words, beyond the $157 million already committed, additional fiscal incentives are handed to Stornoway through tax credits and exploration reimbursements.

Diamonds will come out of the ground at the Renard mine site until the company signs an agreement with the Cree of the Otish region. Stornoway is currently negotiating an Impact and Benefits Agreement (IBA) with the Cree Nation of Mistissini and the Grand Council of the Crees.

“The Cree Nation has adopted a mining policy,” said Cree negotiator Abel Bosum. “This policy makes clear what our conditions are for supporting a mining project on Cree land. It also sets out who needs to be part of negotiations to make a mining project work: The Cree Nation, the local Cree community and/or the Cree users of the land.”

In addition, Route 167 will need to be extended 243 kilometers, from the town of Mistissini to the Otish Mountains. Finally, a 165-kilometre Hydro-Quebec transmission line will also have to be built, connecting the Nikamo sub-station to the future Renard sub-station.

Premier Charest has already made an infrastructure announcement through which Plan Nord is to pump $287.6 million into Route 167. Stornoway is expected to put $44 million into the pavement effort.

Proponents of this infrastructure spending argue that these expenses will also benefit a conservation megaproject, carried out by the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks (MDDEP) in collaboration with the Mistissini Cree Nation, which plans to establish the 11,000 square kilometre Albanel-Temiscamie-Otish National Park, at the end of Route 167.

This major northern infrastructure spending bumps public expenditures to $444.6 million.

Figures for the cost of setting the electricity line to power the Renard project are not yet public, as Hydro-Quebec is still in the process of completing its pre-project study. Details of preferential electricity rates—a standard Hydro-Quebec practice—are not available yet either. It is expected, as announced in the Plan Nord, that Hydro-Quebec will pay the bill. The exact corridor and final design of the 165-kilometre line, should be ready by the fall of 2012, as confirmed on the phone by Richard Simard, manager of community relations at Hydro-Quebec.

“I can't tell you the cost, I don't have the cost,” the Hydro-Quebec manager told The Dominion, when pressed for an estimate of total expenditures. “But one thing's for sure,” Simard said.

“As far as I can remember, this is the first time that we build such a long line.”

Old Rules for a New Game

The Renard mine site is just one project encompassed by the ambitious Plan Nord, which covers a territory of 1.2 million square kilometers, encompassing crown, Cree, Innu, Inuit and Naskapi lands.

“The Cree support the Plan Nord for now,” said Abel Bosum. But even the largest official Cree organization is not giving the government a blank check on Plan Nord.

“We support it, [on] the condition that we can conclude a reasonable and fair settlement on governance issues, that the Cree vision of the Plan Nord in different sectors—even beyond mining—be taken into account and that we participate in its planning and development in the respect of the Cree way of life,” Bosum told The Dominion by phone. Bosum invoked section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to underline the fact that his nation, like other northern First Nations, has the right to a review process on major projects, and expects proper consultation.

The scope of Plan Nord and its potential impacts on rural and Indigenous communities is mind-boggling, as is the money to be made: its release is timed with growing demand and higher prices for precious metals. What may come as a surprise, however, is that the laws and regulations that will guide mining activities under Plan Nord are more than 140 years old.

The Mining Act of Quebec, first minted in 1880—and almost untouched since—prioritizes mining activity over other types of land use.

“The law is wrong because it has priority over many other laws on land development,” said Ugo Lapointe of the Coalition for Better Mining in Quebec. “What we denounce are the great powers that are given to mining corporations, compared to the power of municipalities, First Nations and citizens."

Quebec’s mining law is currently under review. A new Quebec-wide standard known as Bill 14 is about to be adopted though it satisfies neither opposition parties nor civil society groups.

If the rules of the game seem old fashioned, consider the royalty regime. The government recently increased the royalty rate from 12 per cent to 16 per cent of net profit on a mine-by-mine basis: an improvement, it may seem, but only on the surface, since net profits are lowered with accounting tricks, as the Auditor General of Quebec revealed in 2009.

Building an economic strategy as big as Plan Nord around antiquated rules of the game has led some to speculate that the Quebec government is stuck in a colonial model of development.

“Mining in 2011 continues to be a colonial development, like in 1870,” said Martine Ouellet, Parti Quebecois spokesperson and Official Opposition critic on mining and shale gas. “It's pitiful to watch the Liberal Party [of Quebec] perpetuate this colonial development to the advantage of foreign multinationals, instead of to the benefit of the Quebecois.”

The mass transfer of funds from public to private hands isn’t unique to the Renard Diamond Project. Plan Nord's first action, which covers the years from 2011 to 2016, proposes making $2.1 billion in investments. Of the total, $500 million will be taken from the pockets of IQ and dumped into private sector projects.

The next months will reveal how much more money will be pumped into the Renard Diamond Project, further calling into question the economic strategies behind Plan Nord.

Frederic Dubois is a reporter and interactive documentary maker. Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

Renard Project

Renard Project Map

Foreign Aid to Mining Firms

dawn — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:08:10 +0000

CIDA teams up with NGOs to do development work at mine sites

MONTREAL—As excavators, heavy haulers and chemical treatment plants dig made-in-Canada mines around the world, Ottawa has taken new steps to ease growing criticism of Canada’s extractive sector.

The Harper government recently announced a publicly funded agreement between three of Canada’s mining giants and three of Canada’s leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The agreement, which marks a significant shift in how mining and politics mix, elicited little more than a yawn from the media. But a closer look reveals this partnership is transforming Canada’s aid landscape—with disturbing implications.

“The Canadian government is using aid to support the expansion of Canadian mining...[and] to determine development paths inside countries according to the logic of mining companies,” Yao Graham of Third World Network Africa, a research and advocacy organization based in Ghana, told The Dominion. Graham has seen many communities in Africa ravaged by the exploitative labour practices and lax environmental practices that often accompany mining megaprojects.

In the first phase of this new program, the World University Service of Canada (WUSC) has partnered Rio Tinto Alcan; Plan Canada is paired up with IAMGOLD; and World Vision Canada has joined forces with Barrick Gold. This new funding approach raises some serious ethical and political questions about the role of NGOs, and constitutes a veritable PR coup for a mining industry that has racked up quite the rap sheet of environmental and human rights abuses.

Critics argue that under this new dispensation, industry can counter resistance to its activities by claiming that its presence has brought development to impoverished communities. Cash-strapped NGOs, in an era of shrinking government funding for international development, have found a funding niche. Last but not least, the Canadian government is able to deflect demands for more stringent—and potentially profit-damaging—controls over one of its most lucrative industries.

In the past, while NGOs were bound by financial ties to the state, they still had some nominal autonomy to bear witness to that abuse. Now, they are increasingly tied to government funds earmarked to further Canada’s mining interests, topped up by money from the mining industry itself.

“When a mine goes in, there is a development deficit created immediately because there are impacts that can last literally thousands of years on water, on land, on the air,” said Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada. “And these impacts can be devastating. It can mean that people literally have to leave that area and live somewhere else because they can’t live there anymore.”

Coumans, who has kept a watchful eye on this evolving relationship, argues that whatever project an NGO gets up and running in one of these mining communities cannot even begin to redress the damage caused by the mining company’s presence there. She calls the NGO presence at mining sites “a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.”

Chris Eaton, the Executive Director of WUSC, sees things differently. He argues that this closer working relationship between NGOs and the mining sector will be an opportunity for organizations like WUSC to “nudge along good practice.” He is confident that WUSC’s role in building the capacity of local government to engage with mining companies will reap greater benefits for local people.

Plan Canada, another beneficiary under the new government initiative, could not find anyone to respond to our questions before this story went to print. Plan Canada will receive $5.7 million from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to fund activities relating to IAMGOLD’s mining activities in 13 communities in Burkina Faso.

While Plan Canada’s project is nowhere close to any of IAMGOLD’s operations, it has partnered with a mining company that has been mired in labour strife at at least one of its mines.* Last May, IAMGOLD had to close down operations at its Essakane mine in Burkina Faso due to labour unrest. The company’s CEO, Steve Letwin, warned that he would not tolerate an ‘illegal’ strike ‘and as they will find out, will not tolerate anything that has a negative impact on our stakeholders.’

Given Plan Canada’s stated commitment to ‘work in the best interests of children and the communities in which we work,’ would they be prepared to risk their multi-million dollar funding to speak out against any violations of labour or human rights in the communities in which their partner works?

For the Canadian government, this new troika is simply the latest step in a long process of prying open the door on the planet’s mineral wealth to the benefit of the extractive industry. The last decade saw the Canadian government provide technical and financial support to create industry-friendly mining codes around the world. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability documented how government initiatives in Colombia and Tanzania have translated into weaker environmental and social safeguards, reduced royalties for the host countries and new tax holidays.

Canadian cash, technocrats and know-how have also been involved in rewriting mining codes in Malawi, Ghana, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo (with, in this last case, civil war as a backdrop). All this has led to rising profits for Canadian companies and dwindling revenues for host countries.

Now that many official hurdles to access to overseas mineral wealth have come down, the government has turned its attention to partnering NGOs with mining firms. At the local level, this kind of agreement is cause for suspicion.

The Canadian government is turning its back on a deeper examination of the structural problems in the relationship between First World mining firms and Third World resources, says Third World Network’s Graham, instead opting for what he calls a “palliative” approach. “It’s a way of sidestepping the need for companies to pay more revenue because they can say, ‘We are doing so much for the community. Why do we have to put more into the central treasury?’”

The mining industry’s dismal reputation is its Achilles heel. Concern about its poor track record overseas is growing—even the mainstream is starting to take note.

Despite the clarion call from Canadians to put guidelines and mechanisms in place to keep the industry in check, the government has opted for optics instead. “The Canadian government is very anxious about the reputation of mining companies and instead of accountability, it is putting money into projects that show that mining leads to development,” said Coumans. In her view, it is now taxpayers that are footing the bill to polish a tarnished corporate image.

“CIDA has always worked government-to-government,” said Coumans. “Now what CIDA is doing is channelling Canadian taxpayer money directly to the mine site and basically paying for corporate social responsibility projects, and that is very bizarre.”

MONEY IN MINING

WUSC-Rio Tinto Alcan project
Total budget: $928,000 over 3 years
CIDA: $500,000
WUSC/Rio Tinto Alcan: $428,000
Rio Tinto net profit in 2010: $726,000,000

Plan Canada-IAMGOLD project
Total budget: $7.6 million over 5.5 years
CIDA: $5.7 million
Plan Canada: $0.9 million
IAMGOLD: $1 million
IAMGOLD gross profit in 2010: $597,000,000

World Vision-Barrick Gold project
Total budget: $1 million over 3.5 years
CIDA: $500,000
World Vision/Barrick Gold: $500,000
Barrick Gold net profit in 2010: $3,279,000,000

Source: Canadian International Development Agency, Sedar.com

Eaton insists that WUSC’s work is about community empowerment, not corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects. “I don’t think the government should be funding NGOs to do the CSR of mining firms, and I don’t see ourselves doing that in the context of this initiative,” he said.

In the swirl of controversy around this corporate shift in government aid policy, one thing is clear: the Canadian mining sector has emerged the big winner.

Last year the Canadian mining sector led a successful lobby effort to defeat Bill C-300, the Bill that would have seen the introduction of minor controls on the unregulated overseas activities of Canada’s mining industry.

Now, this same powerful sector has access to even more government funds as well as NGO know-how to help revamp its public image. Little wonder the Mining Association of Canada recently issued a press release encouraging the federal government to continue its support for Canada’s CSR Strategy. It knows a good thing when it sees it.

*The original version of this article incorrectly implied that the joint project by Plan Canada and IAMGOLD would be taking place in a mining community. In fact, Plan Canada’s work will not be carried out at any of IAMGOLD's mine sites. The version above has been changed to correct the error.

Roberto Nieto is a Montreal-based independent journalist and activist who has worked for unions, and as an organizer in support of migrant workers. He is a regular contributor to Amandla!, Canada’s longest running African current affairs radio show. Gwendolyn Schulman is co-founder and co-host of Amandla! Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca..

Foreign Aid to Mining Firms.Image

The Changing Face of Oil Extraction

stephlaw — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:39:35 +0000

Shale oil and gas plays in Israel/Palestine, Jordan and Morocco

You may have heard of "Dirty Oil", "Ethical Oil", "Bloody Oil" or even "Conflict Oil"-- but have you heard of "Apartheid Oil"? This is the topic that Edmonton-based writer and activist Macdonald Stainsby has been exploring ever since he visited the Middle East and Northern Africa earlier this year.

In a four-part series to be released over the next month, Stainsby examines key shifts in technology and politics that could change the face of oil extraction in Israel/Palestine, Jordan and Morocco. As an introduction to the series, The Media Co-op had a chance to talk with Stainsby about what he learned on his visit and through the writing process.

Media Co-op: How important are the new shale oil and gas plays in the Middle East?

Macdonald Stainsby: The question is fairly technological, as well as geopolitical. If the Israeli plans go ahead for example, it could mean a dramatic shift towards Israeli power and away from the traditional sources of oil in the region. It would take many years for Israel to be able to produce at a level that could undermine other countries, but the impact of proving the ability would be immediate. In the case of Jordan, the question will be the destruction of local water first and foremost, as well as tightening the previous "peace accords" with Israel without repatriating a single refugee. In North Africa, Morocco has the potential to become one of the most polluted countries in the region where environmental standards are already alarmingly low. In each of these cases, it is hardwiring forms of oil production possibly even more destructive than Canadian based tar sands production.

Media Co-op: What surprised you about your time in the Middle East and North Africa?

MS: In all three cases, the biggest surprise was the level of media awareness [about tar sands and shale oil] in the business pages — which was quite high — and how little concern it seemed to generate among the population that one would hope should oppose such projects. In Israel in particular, the main opponents are pro-Zionist groups that openly collaborate with sectors of the government involved in ethnic cleansing inside the 1948 borders internationally recognized as Israel.

Media Co-op: Are people aware of what is going to happen because of these projects?

MS: Not really, though, community groups near the proposed site in Israel are taking an oppositional, "not in my backyard" approach. Considering the condition of water in Morocco and, even more so, Jordan, education about the potential dangers to the little water available is paramount.

Media Co-op: How could these new oil and gas plays factor into the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions [BDS] campaign against Israeli Apartheid and other organizing in Canada?

MS: If BDS is to work, it has to be able to make the Israeli state economically scream, to borrow a phrase. The ability to sanction a state with a massive oil and gas sector is slim to nil. BDS is already having strong effects, but pollution aside, the energy security provided to the state by such a play would be monumental and could be the single greatest enabler of Israeli intransigence for years to come, all the more reason — along with those other pesky issues like climate change, peak oil and water in desert regions — such projects must be halted.

Media Co-op: Can you talk about the interconnections between the heavy oil discoveries and the longer term state response to the uprisings in the spring?

MS: It also appears the US is openly planning to use GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries — all of them currently major oil producers — as a local attack dog in the region for US interests. We saw this with Saudi and Qatari troops invading Bahrain, as well as Qatar openly engaging the adventure in Libya. With Morocco and Jordan invited into the GCC, likely also now to be oil producers — this locks them into that alliance, which ultimately also serves American and Israeli interests. This could end up having these tar sands and oil shale projects playing major role in global capitals efforts to steer the Arab Spring in the direction they want, again as we have recently seen in Libya.

Stay tuned: over the next month, the Dominion will publish four articles exploring the theme of Apartheid Oil. This series originally ran on the Media Co-op in November 2011.

Shale Oil Basins in Israel and Jordan

Another Niagara

Tim McSorley — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:08:24 +0000

another_niagara_comic_heathermeek.jpg