The Dominion - 41

December

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:43:49 +0000

Deck:

Download Issue #41 [3 MB, pdf]

Body:

Download Issue #41: December 2006 [3 MB, pdf]

Issue #41 is formatted as sixteen pages of letter sized paper (8.5x11").

Note: The Canadian Foreign Policy issue is available in cities across the country, and events are planned in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and elswhere. Visit the foreign policy issue page for more information, or to get involved in distribution on any scale.

(You need Acrobat Reader or an application that reads pdf files to view the print version of this issue.)

Distribution rights:

You are free (and encouraged) to download, print, and distribute as many copies of the Dominion as you like, with the following restrictions:

the content of the paper will not be modified
no advertising or additional content will be attached to the paper
15% of any profits derived from the sale or distribution of the Dominion will be paid to the Dominion
We ask regular readers for a voluntary contribution of between $2 and $10 per issue. See our donation page for details.

Exceptions to any of these restrictions may be granted on a case by case basis. Contact dru@dominionpaper.ca with any questions.

Race and Waste in Nova Scotia

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:49:03 +0000

Accusations of 'environmental racism' take centre stage during fight against new landfill development

The landfill has become a symbol of the slow decline of the community of Lincolnville. photo: Save Lincolnville Coalition

Brian Daye wants his children to be proud of where they come from. "Who wants to take their kids to show them where they're from and there's a great big pile of garbage sitting there?" he asks.

Daye is fighting the opening of a second-generation landfill located in Guysborough County, Nova Scotia, a few kilometres from Lincolnville, the black community in which Daye was born and raised. The site was already home to a first-generation landfill (meaning it lacked the special liners designed to prevent toxic runoff) for 30 years before it was chosen to house a second dump equipped to receive waste from 17 municipalities in Nova Scotia.

What differentiates this 'not in my backyard' battle from others is that the issue of race -- rather than waste -- has taken centre stage. The opening of the second landfill has become a flashpoint in a fight against racism and oppression that residents of Lincolnville say they've been battling since the community was settled on rocky soil in 1784: the 3,000-acre land grant owed to the black loyalists who founded Lincolnville was never honoured by the Crown.

"Today our land is being threatened again by the municipal government," says Lincolnville resident James Desmond. "We have put up with a first-generation dump site for 30 years. Now they want to put a second-generation one."

The second landfill has become a symbol of the slow decline of Lincolnville that residents say is a result of lack of economic opportunity, plunging property values, poor health and the stubborn indifference of the municipality. Daye is afraid that Lincolnville might disappear altogether, taking with it a history, culture and way of life. "It's almost like we're being exterminated," he says. "If we don't do something, there's going to be nothing left except garbage."

Lincolnville is easy to miss from the highway. "It is a very small community – well, now it is," says Daye. Thirty years ago, there were 300 people living in Lincolnville; today, according to residents, there are 58. "As of now it's mostly made up of seniors. There's also the young people that are still going to school, and that's about it. As soon as they graduate, most of the students are gone. There's no employment -- there's a mega-million dollar facility in our backyard [the landfill] and no offer of jobs."

Like others his age, Daye left Lincolnville after graduating from high school in 1995. Upon learning that he was going to be a father, however, something pulled him back home. "It's where I'm from. My family and my roots are here. All my ancestors are buried down the road," explains Daye. "Everything is here."

Teen resident Cassandra Desmond feels similarly. "Lincolnville is my home. It's been my home for 15 years and it's going to be my home for another 15 more -- hopefully more than that," she says. "I learned from Lincolnville everything that I have. Everything is Lincolnville."

When it comes to tangible infrastructure, 'everything' is very little. The community has a small hall, a basketball court, and that's about it. Residents argue that they've gained no economic benefits from a landfill that brings the municipality millions. "All we see is the decline of our community. Look at the white communities around here, there's new houses built every day. It's been over 20 years since a new house was built in Lincolnville."

"You're taking away from our community. You're gaining profit by harming us, and we don't get no benefit from it." That, says Daye, is racism.

The health impacts of the first dump are unknown, though residents believe rates of cancer in the community are far above acceptable levels. According to Daye, there are two or three people in every family who have cancer or have died of the disease within the past 15 years. While he was growing up, all the industrial waste from the region ended up in the dump a few kilometres from his home. "Who knows what was dumped there?" he asks.

The brochure created for the "Save Lincolnville" campaign (which now involves groups such as the Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group, Bound to Be Free and the Dalhousie Black Law Students Association, as well as individuals who have lived, or currently live, in and around Lincolnville) accuses the municipality of environmental racism, defined as: "The intentional situating of hazardous waste sites, landfills, incinerators and polluting industries in and around communities inhabited mainly by people of black descent and First Nations people, as well as the working poor."

Bringing race into the equation is "beyond cynical," according to Guysborough Warden Lloyd Hines. But, those campaigning against the dump point to the fact that before two dumps were located in Lincolnville, one was located in Sunnyville --another black community in Guysborough County. Organizations such as the Indigenous Environmental Network and the Environmental Justice & Health Union point to mounting evidence that communities of colour in North America are disproportionately affected by environmentally hazardous facilities in their communities.

This comes as no surprise to Dave Curry, a law student at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who is doing pro bono work for the Lincolnville campaign. Curry grew up in an African Nova Scotian community in the Annapolis Valley and says he knows well "the racism and oppression that go along with that." The story that's playing out in Lincolnville is a familiar one, he says; "It could just as easily be happening in any other First Nation or African Nova Scotian community. It could be a landfill or it could be something else, problems with education, access to services…"

Many of the accusations of Lincolnville residents have been echoed by other black communities in Nova Scotia and are reminiscent of the complaints by former residents of Africville, a black community formerly located in Halifax, which was destroyed by the Halifax municipality in the 1960s.

"The dump is just the outlet for the anger and outrage that the community has felt towards the municipality of Guysborough throughout the years," says Daye. "Lack of development, lack of employment. Other communities had summer grants; none of the kids from our community had summer jobs so they could save for university. It's simple little things like that. And the little things add up to one big thing."

"We've lost too much," says Lincolnville resident Wendy Campbell. "We're not going to lose no more. We're here and we're here to stay."

Those protesting the landfill "have nothing better to do," says Lincolnville resident and municipal councillor Sheila Pelly. Pelly has found herself at the centre of the landfill battle as the Councillor for District Two, which includes the communities of Lincolnville, Sunnyville and Upper Big Tracadie. Along with the municipality, Pelly supports the opening of the second landfill and says the majority of Lincolnville residents do as well.

"It's hard to put into words the outrage I feel towards the councillor and the municipality," says Daye. He says he wasn't aware of the community consultation when it took place and that Pelly and other municipal councillors have refused to attend any of the community meetings held in Lincolnville since then. This appears to be frustrating those campaigning against the dump almost as much as the dump itself. Residents feel like no one cares enough about the future of their community even to listen to their concerns.

"We've had a number of meetings where the municipality from all levels was invited to come to listen to us and try to work with us on something," says Daye. "I'm sure something could have been worked out."

"It's hard to identify it as racism 'cause it is subtle," says Curry. However, he adds, the cumulative effects are not subtle. Poverty, lower levels of education and higher rates of addiction are just some of the problems facing communities of colour in Canada.

"It's been way too long to be dealing with this kind of stuff," says Curry, but he does see some hope in Lincolnville. " I do think it's great that the community is standing up against the environmental racism that is going on because a lot of time communities just don't have the power to stand up. Especially when it's a marginalized community," he says. "It's very encouraging to me to see a community standing up."

Hillary Bain Lindsay investigates accusations of 'environmental racism' that have taken centre stage during a fight against a new landfill.

Where Have All The Fishes Gone?

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:38:57 +0000

Newfoundland losing lakes to mining waste

The reclassification of the two lakes in Newfoundland marks the first time that Schedule 2 was used to allow a known fish-bearing water body to be used as a tailings impoundment area. photo: Maretarium

The death knell of Trout Pond and an unnamed lake in central Newfoundland's Exploits River headwaters sounded quietly on October 18. The two lakes became the first casualties of Environment Canada's amendment to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER)--a regulation under the Fisheries Act--that adds these water bodies to the list under 'Schedule 2.' Schedule 2 allows the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Environment Canada to exempt the companies from the law that protects fish habitat, notably Section 35 and Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitat and the deposit of deleterious (toxic or harmful) substances into waters inhabited by fish. Mining companies need only get water bodies added to the Schedule 2 list to legalize the use of natural water bodies as 'tailings impoundment areas' or mine waste disposal sites.

DFO and Environment Canada officials are justifying the amendments by altering nearby areas to create new fish habitat as part of an 'environmental compensation plan.'

The threats of this amendment to Newfoundland's largest watershed, the Exploits River system--one of the most visited natural destinations in the province--has many concerned, including Dr. John Gibson, a former DFO biologist who lives in Newfoundland. Gibson knows the two lakes that have recently been added to Schedule 2 to be used by Aur Resources' Duck Pond copper and zinc mining operation. He notes that, "The two lakes have populations of Atlantic salmon and trout, and associated wildlife, such as beavers, otters, and waterfowl, all of which will be poisoned. The life of the mine is expected to be six years, but the ponds will become toxic waste sites in perpetuity. Over that time, there is a possibility that there will be leakage of copper and zinc, which are toxic to fish, and if the retaining dam breaks there will be massive mortality of salmon down the Exploits River."

Gibson reviewed the mining company's environmental compensation plan and calls it, "totally inadequate and merely an excuse to allow the mine to pollute the two lakes. Trout Pond has effectively been privatized for the mining company to use as a toxic waste dump. The Fisheries Act, previously held in esteem, has been considerably weakened."

The Trout Pond Action Group, a local coalition of concerned individuals and environmental groups from across Newfoundland, contends that Aur Resources, the local Environment Canada Environmental Protection Branch, the Newfoundland Department of Environment and Labour, and the DFO did not fulfill their legal obligations to examine properly alternative mine waste disposal options. The group does not believe that the best option is sacrificing Trout Pond and putting the Exploits River at risk. Exploits River has had $30 million of federal money invested in it to enhance salmon habitat.

Previously, artificial impoundments were the accepted method of disposing of mine waste; critics of the plan worry that mining companies are finding the practice too expensive and have chosen to go back to the old days of dumping waste in natural water bodies. At the Louvicourt copper-zinc mine in Quebec, where Aur Resources is a 30 per cent owner as well as the mine manager, man-made structures hold the mine waste. Aur Resources and Canadian regulatory authorities have called it a viable alternative to the destruction of fresh water bodies.

But Maggie Paquet, a biologist in British Columbia who participated in the revision process of the MMER, says, "We reviewed all the public documents made available to us and could find no evidence that Environment Canada provided any advice to Aur Resources about less-damaging waste disposal technologies at this mine."

Pages 23 to 25 of the project's 2001 Environmental Impact Statement contains 11 lines of text, one map, and one chart based on a Multiple Account Analysis that concludes that the destruction of Trout Pond is the best alternative for mine waste disposal. This conclusion appears not to have been challenged by any of the provincial or federal government reviews of the project's environmental assessment.

Aur Resources bought the majority of the mine property in 2002 and mulled over ways to minimize costs to exploit their small but rich deposit. Aur finally made the decision to go ahead with the current plan in December 2004. What is not known is whether a bond has been posted that is adequate to cover costs of perpetual monitoring of ground and surface waters around the mine and perpetual maintenance of the dams to keep the highly acidic and toxic mine waste from contaminating the Exploits River watershed.

These are just some of the issues that The Trout Pond Action Group say should have been addressed in public consultations. Meagre public consultations regarding this project occurred several years ago and reached few people. They were conducted before mining regulations and standards were amended in 2002. Many affected parties, including residents, recreational fishermen, tourism industry workers and aboriginal groups, were not informed about the potential environmental impacts of this project. Aur Resources did not have to hold new consultations when it took over the mine. Environment Canada employees Chris Doiron and Patrick Finlay of the Mines and Minerals Branch claim they did not become aware of the project's intention to use Trout Pond as a mine waste disposal site until February 2005. There are concerns that the amendment revision process to include Trout Pond and the other lake on Schedule 2 was hastened to accommodate Aur Resources' desire to start operations in 2006.

Trout Pond is not the first natural water body in Canada to be used as a tailings impoundment area. For decades, mining companies dumped waste in a number of water bodies across Canada. But in 2002, changes under the Fisheries Act aimed at restricting the practice were passed.

Schedule 2 was also added to the MMER in 2002. This happened without any wide public consultation. Schedule 2 legalized historic mines' use of lakes--ostensibly, those lakes were non-fish-bearing arctic and alpine lakes--and also allowed new mines to dump waste into fish-bearing waters. The reclassification of the two lakes in Newfoundland marks the first time that Schedule 2 was used to allow a known fish-bearing water body to be used as a tailings impoundment area.

Environment Canada confirms that at least nine other mine projects in British Columbia, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories are seeking similar amendments to use lakes for waste disposal.

Environmental organizations and some First Nations are currently considering legal interventions to do away with Schedule 2 before more mining companies sacrifice freshwater lakes and fish-bearing water bodies.

Activists hope the loss of two lakes in Newfoundland to mining waste isn't the beginning of a new trend. Tracy Glynn learns

Locked Dumpsters Full of Mangoes

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:49:02 +0000

Hungry people, wasted food, and the politics of dumpster diving

Food waste needs to be rethought, reduced and rerouted. photo: Fatty Tuna

Unappeasable customers, bitter bosses and deserted lunch shifts; it is no secret that restaurant work can be soul-crushing. However, the most painful moments in the food industry -- ask anyone who has worked in a café, restaurant, bar or food store -- are moments spent throwing away good food. Those who work in supermarkets, bakeries and delis know that tossing bags of fresh bread and pastries, cases of coffee, trays of uneaten lasagne, chicken and sautéed vegetables into the dumpster out back is part of the daily reality.

Less visible is the more shocking layer of food waste that occurs even before food gets to restaurants and grocery stores. On the outskirts of towns, distributors and wholesalers operate construction dumpsters, which are regularly filled with produce which is riper, fresher, and generally of better quality than what reaches the consumer. This is the fate of the truckload of Ecuadorian mangoes that ripened before making it to the supermarket and the flat of tomatoes from Ontario with a couple of bad fruit; thrown "away" for fear the decay would spread over the whole shipment.

Spencer Mann is sensitive to food waste and food security. He is a founding member of Co-op sur Genereux in Montreal: a housing co-op of 15 members. "These giant dumpsters full of beautiful food are not located near residential areas and are therefore more difficult to access for people who use dumpsters as a source of food," he explains. Part of the solution to the injustices of food waste, says Mann, is to become part of a society that is "okay with waste," but makes that "waste" accessible to those who will make use of it.

Mann's interest in the content of dumpsters is more than cerebral. Dumpsters are the main food source for Mann and the other members of Co-op sur Genereux. "The first time we started consciously dumpster diving," he explains, "was during harvest time, at the Jean Talon market. At first we were buying our produce; then we noticed the vendors throwing away perfectly good tomatoes and eggplants." There is one hour between the market's closing time and the time the truck comes to take away dumpster contents. Mann describes the sense of conviviality among the regular divers at the market -- elderly Italian women, young locals and new immigrant families -- getting "incredible hauls," and the swapping that follows.

Keeping the food industry's "waste" accessible means supporting food redistribution efforts, and also sorting out a clear sense of the politics of dumpster-diving. "It is an art to get to know the rhythm of a dumpster," explains Mann, "to learn when it is filled and when the food is taken to the dump. Part of the etiquette of dumpster-diving is to leave food for people who are regular visitors to that dumpster. There are many families who rely on that food. One strategy is to collect food only just before the truck comes, so you know you are not taking food from someone else's mouth."

Before embarking on an urban scavenging adventure, one must know the rules. Don't rip bags; open them to look through them and then close them again. Be quiet; leave the dumpster cleaner than you found it. Be respectful in conversations with employees, managers and owners. "Eighty-five per cent of these interactions will be positive. Employees of a store tend to know only too well about the food that is being wasted in their store and tend to be supportive of that food being used instead of sent to the dump." Owners and managers, who would prefer that customers pay for food, are less tolerant. That is why it is crucial to respect the rules: you don't want to be responsible for a local dumpster -- upon which 10-15 people might depend for their daily bread -- becoming locked up.

"Sometimes it is unfathomable that things get thrown out." Mann gives the examples of a 30-lb bag of organic Fair Trade sugar, unopened bags of organic figs and sun-dried tomatoes and huge bags of dried chickpeas. Co-op sur Genereux challenged its members to one month of surviving exclusively from dumpsters, and succeeded. However, Mann acknowledges the difference between benefiting from a wasteful system and the need for waste to be rethought, reduced and rerouted.

Distributors can participate in this change by ordering on demand instead of on speculation and by getting involved with local food redistribution organizations that take their 'waste' to food banks and soup kitchens. Local businesses can order responsibly to cut down on overstock. Consumers can demand local food that will not have to survive a trip across a continent and be less picky about blemishes and discoloration that does not impact the taste or nutritional value of the food.

Awareness events, such as Montreal's "Etat d'Urgence," organized by the "urban intervention" group ATSA, seek to encourage people to confront the reality of the waste-stream. Since 1995, ATSA has co-ordinated an annual five-day "urban refugee camp" in downtown Montreal, feeding, clothing and entertaining people of all social stripes. Each year, for the last meal of the event, Co-op sur Genereux has fed more than 200 people on spoils saved from Montreal dumpsters.

Why is good food thrown away?

1. Capitalism allows for a certain margin of waste. Food waste is written into many business plans and makes up a significant portion of food cost and inventory.

2. 'Best before' standards require merchants to toss food that has 'expired.' Restrictive health by-laws, which often prevent restaurants from giving food, turn such food into a liability for the restaurant.

3. Shelf-space has value, in its being a place for product. This means a merchant needs his or her product to be of the highest value possible, or it is not 'worth' the space it takes.

4. If a merchant were to sell blemished food for, let's say, half-price, his clientele would change. He would lose rich clientele who do not want to shop alongside poorer clientele.

5. Branding. A business demands everything that leaves through its doors to be of high quality for the sake of its reputation.

Moira Peters investigates the politics of dumpster diving within a food system that results in hungry people and wasted food.

The Canadian Wheat Board's Last Stand?

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:25:32 +0000

Farmers fear that proposed changes in the CWB will mean that farmers lose out and transnationals cash in

Globally, the grain industry is dominated by transnational corporations with four companies controlling more than 70 per cent of international grain market. photo: flyzipper

On October 25, Inside US Trade, an American business magazine, published a report that could have serious implications for Canadian grain farmers. The Report of Technical Task Force on Implementing Marketing Choice for Wheat and Barley was first released not to farmers or the Canadian public, but to this US journal. According to Stewart Wells, President of the National Farmers Union (NFU), that reveals something about the report's underlying aims. "That should provide some indication of whose interests are being served with this report," he said. Essentially, the report argues for eliminating the present Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and replacing it with the so-called CWB II, a move that many argue will threaten the viability of small wheat farmers in Canada and further increase the profitability of Big Agribusiness.

The Canadian Wheat Board was established on the initiative of farmers. At the beginning of the last century, farmers felt helpless at the hands of middlemen and market speculators, observing, among other things, an inordinate difference between the price they received and the eventual selling price. In response to this situation, the pre-cursor to the CWB was established in 1917. The Canadian Wheat Board Act was passed in 1935. The CWB has existed more or less in its present state for 70 years.

Today, the CWB is collectively owned by farmers and receives financial backing from the federal government (including low interest rates and guaranteed payments). The taskforce that wrote the report proposes to scrap the current board, which is composed of 15 members elected by farmers and five government representatives, and replace it with a board appointed entirely by the federal government. The move away from a farmer-controlled board is troubling for NFU's Wells. "Buried in the platitudes is the underlying theme of absolute government control of the Canadian Wheat Board," he said The report also suggests that the Board should be re-structured to a share-capital company, with shares available for sale to any interested buyer. The CWB argues that this move will shift control of the Board away from farmers and into the hands of shareholders. According to a statement issued by the CWB on November 6, "In the share-capital model, farmers are inevitably forced into the position of being a supplier instead of an owner."

Currently, the CWB has the exclusive right to market Western Canadian wheat and barley (with the minor exception of barley grown for feed). This function, referred to as a 'single-desk,' means that one organization represents all Western Canadian barley and wheat farmers. According to the NFU, "The CWB's single-desk selling advantage enables it to extract higher prices in world markets and to price-discriminate between buyers," thus getting more money for farmers. The NFU estimates that this advantage results in annual premiums of $265 million for wheat and $72 million for barley. The taskforce's report recommends that this feature be done away with, allowing other (mainly transnational) companies to compete. Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, who appointed the taskforce but did not sit on it himself, is in agreement with the recommendations and endorses "freedom of choice for marketing of wheat and barley and voluntary participation in the CWB." But various critics have pointed out that the CWB cannot be both strong and voluntary.

Jan Slomp farms near Rimbey in central Alberta; she is one prairie farmer concerned about what will happen if the single-desk is abolished. According to Slomp, in an environment of so-called 'market choice,' "the CWB cannot function. It does not have elevators or terminals, like all the other grain companies do. So in order to do business it would have to use facilities that were owned by other grain companies, making it impossible to capture a price higher than the price offered by these companies." As the CWB notes in its response to the taskforce report: "In the absence of the single-desk, a 'strong and profitable CWB' is a myth. In the absence of a single-desk there is no viable alternative for the Canadian grain industry other than that which exists in the rest of the world."

Globally, the grain industry is dominated by transnational corporations with four companies controlling more than 70 per cent of international grain market. In a report published last year, the NFU notes that while corporate profits are on the increase, farmers are earning less: "…overall, Canadian farmers have not earned a single dollar of profits from the markets since 1984. Over the same period, agribusiness has accumulated profits almost certainly reaching into the trillions."

When asked who stands to benefit from proposed changes to the CWB, Slomp is brief and to the point. She names the four biggest players in the global grain trade: Cargill, Bunge, ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) and Louis Dreyfus. In its statement, the CWB warns that removing its single-desk function would have a crippling effect on Canadian farmers, while boosting the power of transnationals. Control would fall to companies whose "focus is quite naturally on the most profitable way to make the sale…[and who] are necessarily indifferent to whether the grain needed for the sale comes from Argentina, America or Ukraine."

Those who support the re-structuring of the CWB argue that the board is obsolete and not financially viable. Various economists and think tanks (such as the George Morris Centre, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the National Citizens Coalition) have suggested that farmers would have lower costs and higher returns if the CWB were disbanded. The NFU disagrees. After tallying the benefits provided by the CWB (including price premiums, low freight costs and efforts to prevent the introduction of GM wheat) the NFU estimates that the Board saves farmers over $800 million every year.

Despite serious opposition from farmers, Minister Strahl is pushing ahead. According to Strahl, "We have promised to implement a system of marketing choice, and we are moving in that direction." Until recently, Strahl dismissed the notion of farmer plebiscites to determine the future of the CWB, even though such votes are required by law under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. But already, the resistance of farmers has met with some success. According to Stewart Wells, while there is still no commitment to hold a wheat plebiscite, "Farmers have scored a major victory by forcing the federal government to conduct a plebiscite on barley." Much will depend on how the plebiscite is worded, however. Wells, for one, is not optimistic: "We don't have much confidence this government will run a fair vote on this plebiscite."

For Jan Slomp a future without the CWB is a grim prospect. "Many farmers have indicated to quit producing after the single-desk is gone," she said. "It does not make sense to keep trying if all the farmer market power is gone."

Anna Kirkpatrick investigates proposed changes to the CWB that farmers fear will decrease their viability and increase transnationals' profitability.

Digging Up Canadian Dirt in Colombia

Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:34:02 +0000

Canadian corporations and aid agencies facing controversy and resistance in Colombia

Children play in Barrio near the mine. photo: Chris Arsenault

Up a flight of stairs, behind double-enforced bulletproof glass and a large, silent bodyguard, sits the office of Francisco Ramirez, a mining-policy researcher and President of a small Colombian trade union.

Mining policy really isn't sexy stuff and researching it usually isn't a dangerous occupation, but some of Mr. Ramirez's conclusions can mean life or death, literally and figuratively. "Once they tried to kill me right here in this office," said the researcher, who has survived seven assassination attempts.

In Colombia's mineral-rich underworld, often demarcated by the full-scale destruction of towns near mining sites, environmental contamination, paramilitary attacks and assassinations of those who stand up to mining interests, Canadian hands are dirtier than those of a coal miner coming up from the pit.

"We had a five-year, $11-million project in Colombia, which ran from 1997 to 2002," said a senior official with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Basically, it was to help Colombia strengthen its institutional capacity in both the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment and the regulatory agencies these agencies worked with," said the CIDA official in a phone interview.

Many Canadians believe CIDA's role is building schools, providing food aid and doing other touchy-feely 'development' in poor countries. But with a $3.74-billion international assistance budget in 2004-05, CIDA spearheaded some controversial meddling in Colombia's domestic mining legislation. According to Ramirez, this 'development assistance' did not improve the lives of ordinary Colombians, but in fact helped to "further under-develop Colombia, creating more poverty and decreasing tax revenue for public investment."

In 2001 and 2002, CIDA's Colombia branch teamed up with the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), a think tank funded by the mining industry and various government departments, based at the University of Calgary. The two organizations worked together to "streamline the country's mining and petroleum regulations," reported the Calgary Herald.

According to Ramirez, this "streamlining" had some nasty effects on average Colombians. "Environmental regulations were 'flexibilized.' Labour guarantees for workers were diminished and the property of indigenous and Afro-Colombian people was opened to exploitation," said the researcher during an evening interview in Bogota.

One of the most controversial changes to mining regulation concerns the amount of royalties paid to the Colombian government by foreign companies extracting non-renewable resources. After reviewing the new code with a lawyer in Bogotá, Ramirez's allegations of a Canadian royalty robbery glistened like elicit gold.

How CIDA Works to Trim Royalties

Prior to August 2001, royalties were set at a minimum of 10 per cent for coal exports above three million tons per year, and a minimum of five per cent for exports below three million tons. After the code was "streamlined," with the help of CIDA, CERI and their Colombian legal team, the royalty tax for private owners of Colombian subsoil was reduced to 0.4 per cent, regardless of the amount of material extracted.

Refugees displaced by the Cerrejon mine in La Guarija. photo: Chris Arsenault

It's difficult to determine exactly how much money the Colombian people lost because of these changes to royalty rates. One thing is clear: In a country where an estimated 80 children die per day from hunger and curable diseases and where 64 per cent of the population lives in poverty (earning less than $3 per day), the extra royalties pocketed by mining companies could be doing more than increasing stock dividends.

The new code also increased the length of mining concessions from 25 years to 30 years, with the possibility that concessions can be tripled to 90 years.

In 2001, the final year of new code's development and the beginning of its implementation, 1,667 homicides were committed in Colombia's mining regions, twice the average rate of previous years, according to Mr. Ramirez's calculations.

The process by which CIDA helped alter Colombia's mining code has been called 'Canadianization,' but that isn't quite accurate. "Do as we say, not as we do," would be more appropriate. "Canadian royalty rates vary, but they tend to be more like three to four per cent," said Jamie Kneen, Communications Co-ordinator for MiningWatchCanada, a union-funded research and advocacy group. Moreover, payroll taxes and provincial taxes are generally higher in Canada, bringing increased revenue to support programs like decent public health care, necessities not granted to average Colombians.

It's worth noting that, under Colombia's post-CIDA mining code, the 0.4-per-cent royalty tax is not ubiquitous. "This notion of 0.4 per cent as the royalty rate is absurd, you should check your sources better," said Edgar Sarmineto, Director of land acquisition for Cerrejon, the world's largest open-pit mine, which supplies coal to power plants in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States.

"Our mine has paid more in royalty taxes every year for the last five years. Today, in royalty taxes alone, we're paying around $300 million a year," said the senior mine official as he brought up pie charts on his computer screen.

The aberration in Cerrejon's royalty rates stems from Colombia's earliest mining code proclaimed in 1886. It was based on a French/Spanish model where subsoil resources are the property of the state, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon model of full private ownership. Cerrejon is a useful example because of its size and political importance; Hernan Martinez Torres, recently appointed Minister of Mines and Energy by Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, worked at the Cerrejon mine for 17 years.

Cerrejon is divided into three main zones: north, central and south. The pre-CIDA royalties are in place for the north and south zones because the subsoil is still owned by the state. Thus, as high oil prices push up demand for coal and extraction increases rapidly, the mine ends up paying more royalties. The centre zone, operated by the Swiss company Glencore (but still owned by Cerrejon) is private property, and thus the 0.4-per-cent royalty rate is in full effect.

Mining trucks carrying coal and kicking up dust. photo: Chris Arsenault

The focus on royalty rates is misplaced, however, according to a mid-level official from Colombia's Mining and Energy Planning Ministry (UPME), the bureaucracy responsible for administering the new code, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The real issue here isn't the royalty tax, but the regular taxes that all businesses pay. That's where most government money in the mining sector comes from."

But article 229 of the post-2001 code states: "The obligation to pay royalties on the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is incompatible with the establishment of national, departmental and municipal taxes on the same activity, of whatever denomination, method and characteristics." Legalese aside, this means that if a company is paying royalties, it no longer has to pay other taxes to state or municipal taxes.

If the UPME source is correct in his claim that regular taxes are the key component for government mining earnings, then Article 229 essentially decapitates the state's ability to garner public good from the exploitation of non-renewable resources.

Technicalities aside, it's clear to people likeFrancisco Ramirez and institutions like MiningWatch and the North-South Institute that mining companies have benefited more than the people of Colombia from the changing Colombia's mining and energy legislation, . And thanks to vast public-education initiatives, senior CIDA officials seem to realize they now have some explaining to do.

Half an hour and a couple of tough questions into the interview with the senior CIDA official, the UPME source was getting irritated. "The mining code in Colombia was developed by Colombian government officials. We had almost negligible involvement in developing the code. They asked us to make one or two comments on specific areas," he said.

While discussions of royalty rates weren't appreciated by CIDA sources, they were happy to discuss peace-building initiatives and conflict-resolution schemes in Colombia with which the organization is currently involved. "With the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment, we provided training and information on how to conduct community consultations and conflict resolution," said the senior CIDA official.

Company Bulldozers Move In

These 'consultations' ring hollow for 700 former residents of Tabaco, a farming town in Colombia's northwestern La Guarija Peninsula, which was reduced to rubble by Cerrejon mine company bulldozers in 2001.

"There were 300 soldiers and police in anti-riot gear. There were also representatives from the mine, the mayor and a priest. They smashed the houses with large machines. They took our farms," said Jose Julio Perez, the former Tabaco residents' elected leader, when discussing the 'community consultations' Cerrejon mine conducted before displacing the farmers.

"Mistakes have been made in the past. We are working to be better community partners," said Edgar Sarmineto, the senior Cerrejon mine official. Apparently, CIDA's information on how to conduct community consultations wasn't properly communicated.

Tabaco was one of several villages destroyed by this particular mine, and three more-- Chancleta, Pantilla and Roche-- are on the chopping block.

"People from the mine have been threatening me to leave and they're stealing my cattle," said Tomas Ustatie, a farmer in Roche who milked his cows as we spoke.

Two menon horseback who don't live in the community watch are conversation closely. Ustatie says the mine is paying goons to eavesdrop on community members and create problems.

Sarmineto admits the mine hires private citizens, i.e. vigilantes, to watch property and garner information. "This is a very large site and there is a lot going on here with the guerrillas and other problems. We need to keep informed," says Mr. Sarmineto.

Along with irregular forces and paramilitaries who often guard mine sites, gather information and sometimes harass local residents, the military also works closely with Cerrejon and other mines.

Peace Without Justice

Most residents in towns near the mine site are indigenous or Afro-Colombian. According to international law-- International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169, ratified in Colombia in 1991-- indigenous persons must be consulted on issues that affect their land and any agreements affecting them must come through negotiation.

By the admissions of Edgar Sarmineto at the Cerrejon mine, the company never conducted serious negotiations with the people of Tabaco before smashing their village.

Workers at Cerrejon beside a company dump truck. photo: Chris Arsenault

To circumvent pesky international protocols and domestic legislation, the Cerrejon mine hired an anthropologist who claimed there was only one Afro-Colombian in Tabaco. "It's not enough to deny them land. Now the company is denying who they are as a people," countered one international observer.

In fact, any indigenous groups on the Guarija Peninsula and beyond say they were never consulted when the mining code was altered in 2001. Thus the CIDA-backed legislation likely violates ILO 169.

The trajectory of dispossession, privatization and government impotence that CIDA's code helped spawn is being accelerated by Colombia's right-wing, Harvard-educated President, Alvro Uribe. On July 25, the Colombian government announced it was privatizing 20 per cent of Ecopetrol, the state oil company -- a ludicrous move considering the profitable firm puts large amounts of money into the public purse and will only continue doing so as oil prices rise.

President Uribe was re-elected over the summer with a strong mandate. Questing for peace in Colombia, Uribe made a deal with the devil, providing amnesty to some 30,000 members of right-wing paramilitary groups, many of whom have been implicated in massacres and other crimes. Thus far, the devil has delivered.

While tenuous peace may become part of Mr. Uribe's legacy, critics argue that justice will not. The country's vast natural wealth has been siphoned off by well-connected government functionaries and sold away to foreigners at bargain-basement prices.

Ramirez says he has lasted this long, "because I believe in God and run very fast." Solidarity activists say Colombians need more than crucifixes and cross-trainers to deal with the current theft of resources. They need our support not because we're nice people, but because we caused many of their problems.

Chris Arsenault travels to Colombia to investigate the impacts Canadian aid agencies and corporations are having there.

The High Cost of Lousy Water

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:14:40 +0000

Water Crisis in Indigenous 'Canadian' Communities

Clean water is a rarity on many reserves. According to Health Canada, as of November 10, 86 First Nations communities were under drinking water advisories across Canada. photo: Sparrows' Friend

Cuts to programs and services on the Kashechewan First Nation reserve in northern Ontario are causing some people to accuse the federal government of trying to make up the costs of last year's evacuation. In April 2005, Cree living in the community of about 1,900 people, 10 kilometers upstream from James Bay, were flown out due to sewage-contaminated drinking water. The community was evacuated again after flooding in April 2006.

Kashechewan had already been under a boil-water advisory for two years before the first evacuation. The community remains under a precautionary drinking water advisory, but Health Canada states that essential upgrades to Kashechewan's water systems have been carried out and that certified personnel are closely monitoring the system. Consequently, Health Canada maintains that Kashechewan's water system no longer poses a high risk to health.

But Kashechewan is just one of many First Nations communities with boil-water advisories. According to Health Canada, as of November 10, 86 First Nations communities were under drinking water advisories across Canada.

While Canada might possess as much as 20 per cent of the world's supply of fresh water, usable freshwater is much less. Still, Environment Canada says that Canada has seven per cent of the world's renewable fresh water.

While everyone needs water to survive, water is also important in the culture of the Original Peoples; Original Peoples have long been connected with waterways. This reverence for water is exemplified by the Cree in northern Manitoba at Echimamish. Echimamish River, "the-river-that-flows-both-ways," flows east into the Hayes River and west into the Nelson River. This awe-inspiring reversal of flow eased travelling between the rivers. In gratitude, the Original Peoples paid tribute after each crossing.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights holds that the right to water is crucial to human dignity and that other rights flow from this. Nonetheless, uranium contamination in Sahtu (Great Bear Lake), mercury poisoning in northern Canada and the flooding of territory by huge hydro-electric projects and other industrial projects have imperiled the salubrity of many bodies of water on indigenous land.

With this in mind, in early September, Deh Cho First Nation Grand Chief Herb Norwegian hosted a gathering of approximately 200 Original Peoples from Alberta, British Columbia and Denendeh (Northwest Territories) in Liidlii Kué (colonial designation: Fort Simpson) to discuss how to improve water quality and preserve the supply of fresh water.

"In Canada we have an abundance [of water] and we take it for granted, but I think we need to be very serious about what we have at our doorsteps. First Nations have been using it for thousands of years and now we want to have something done about the problems that are coming our direction," said Norwegian.

Pat Marcel, an elder and tribal chairman from Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, blamed the greed of governments and industry for the present predicament of contaminated and depleted water.

That greed might extend to having Original Peoples pay for the poor condition of their water infrastructure. Wawatay Online News reports that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) may freeze funding for First Nations in Ontario to recoup the costs incurred by the evacuation of Kashechewan that occurred earlier this year.

According to Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Stan Beardy, INAC is "creating further bureaucratic delays in already approved capital projects because they have to save money."

Charlie Angus, NDP Member of Parliament for Timmins-James Bay is critical of the government's attempt to recoup funds in Kashechewan. Angus was quoted: "You name me one non-native community in this country that ever suffered from a natural disaster that had to pay for the cost of this natural disaster by taking funding dollars from other communities."

INAC denies the charges.

Kim Petersen investigates charges that First Nations are being forced to pay for the lack of clean drinking water on reserves.

UN-Justice in Canada

Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:42:38 +0000

Canada has opposed the United Nations Draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights

Indian affairs minister, Jim Prentice, cites legal conflicts to explain Canada's opposition to a declaration that would affirm the right of self-determination for Indigenous Peoples. photo: jimprentice.ca

On June 29, 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a Draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights. The Declaration affirms the right of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to traditional territory and resources, and the right of Indigenous Peoples to oversee their own education in their own languages. It was passed by a vote of 30-2–- Russia joining Canada in opposition to the Declaration.

There are several high-profile territorial confrontations occurring in Canada today, including the standoff with the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Confederacy) in Caledonia in southern Ontario; the encroachment of multinationals onto the Lubicon Lake First Nation in northern Alberta; the struggle of the Secwepemc people over plans to convert their territory, Skwelkwek'welt, into a ski resort in B.C.; the deforestation of the homeland of the Haida; and the marginalization of the Innu of Nitassinan.

"It is no coincidence that the Canadian government so adamantly opposes the adoption of the Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," says Adelard Blackman, special emissary for Buffalo River Dene Nation in Northern Saskatchewan. "They believe that it will present a threat because of the power that it will give to Indigenous Peoples, especially in the area of free, prior and informed consent as it applies to lands, territories and resources."

The people of Buffalo River Dene Nation were removed from their traditional territory in 1952, purportedly to establish the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range. The territory contains the world's largest oilsands deposit and Blackman believes the Canadian government knew the land was rich in natural resources. "It was a calculated move by the government and multinationals to gain control of our traditional territory and natural resources contained in it," he says. Blackman believes the federal government fears the impact the declaration may have on land claims across Canada.

Ghislain Picard, regional chief of Quebec and Labrador, is frustrated that Canada is seen by so many as an international leader in human rights, while it continually undermines the rights of Indigenous People. "It is very disappointing, even frustrating, to see that the government of our own country has such a closed mind towards the protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples," he says. "All the more so that Canada pretends to be a key player on the level of human rights internationally."

The Canadian government has been garnering some criticism from the international community regarding its stance on the declaration. The London-based foreign affairs magazine, The Economist –- hardly a left-wing publication -- lambasted Canada's treatment of Original Peoples, stating that they "are treated with a mixture of ignorance and indifference." Human rights organization Amnesty International has been critical holding that recognizing the human rights of the world's Indigenous Peoples is long overdue. "It's difficult to imagine an important issue of human rights that the governments of the world have taken more time to resolve," said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada.

On the occasion of the International Day of the World's Indigenous on August 3, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that of the more than 370 million Indigenous Peoples living in some 70 countries, "Much remains to be done to alleviate the poverty faced by many indigenous people, to protect them against massive violations of human rights, and to safeguard against the discrimination …"

To this end, Annan sees the Declaration as "an instrument of historic significance for the advancement of the rights and dignity of the world's indigenous peoples."

Harper's Indian affairs minister, Jim Prentice, cited legal conflicts between the declaration and Canadian laws as the reason for his government's opposition. But Mary Simon, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Canada's National Inuit Organization) considers this opposition "odd and unsupported," and Liberal Indian Affairs critic Anita Neville agrees: "The government's argument that the draft resolution may be inconsistent with Canadian laws is a non-starter."

The Declaration of Indigenous Rights is now before the 61st session of the UN General Assembly awaiting ratification of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Kim Petersen investigates Canada's opposition to the United Nations Draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights.