Exploring regulatory inconsistencies facing Pacific Booker’s Morrison mine project
Today during question period I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources about what appears to be regulatory inconsistencies facing the advancement of Pacific Booker’s Morrison Mine project. As you will see from the exchange below, I was not particularly impressed with the Minister’s response to my questions.
I intend to explore this issue further in the coming weeks.
Below I reproduce the video and text of the Question Period Exchange.
Video of Exchange
Question
A. Weaver: I’m sure every member of this House will agree that a stable regulatory environment is key to maintaining B.C.’s reputation as a welcoming place to do business. This means that the approval of natural resource projects must be based on scientific evidence and not politics. Yet in 2012, upon recommendation from the executive director of the environmental assessment office, the B.C. Liberals rejected the Morrison mine project proposed by Pacific Booker Minerals, despite it having received a positive environmental assessment. In justifying their decision, they cited environmental concerns about the effects of the mine on water quality in Morrison Lake and local salmon populations, despite already having a positive environmental assessment.
Despite their rejection of the Pacific Booker project, in 2013 the B.C. Liberals went to Ottawa to lobby the federal government to approve the Prosperity mine, a project that had received two negative assessments by federal review panels. There’s some suspicion that the decision around the Morrison mine had less to do with environmental concerns and more to do with political calculation.
My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has this government been able to determine why this company was treated so differently from others at the time? And how will it prevent situations like this from happening in the future?
Answer
Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. I’m sure the member will appreciate that I’m not in a position to advise what led the former government to make its decision about the proposed Morrison mine. What I can say, though, is that their approach was shortsighted and certainly didn’t bring certainty to the sector.
Our government has taken a different approach. My predecessor, as minister, initiated the Mining Jobs Task Force, which worked hard with First Nations, industry and communities to find ways to strengthen this fundamental, foundational industry.
There were 25 recommendations emanating from the task force. They’ve all been accepted by government, and almost all of them have now been implemented. We have made two mining tax credits permanent, bringing immediate benefits to the B.C. mineral exploration sector by adding more certainty. We’ve invested $1 million for the mining innovation roadmap, $1 million for the Regional Mining Alliance.
As further evidence of the strengthening of the sector, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan just signed a $300 million investment deal to provide an investment in the New Afton mine, just outside the civic boundaries of Kamloops.
Supplementary Question
A. Weaver: I must admit that was a lot of information about a lot of mines that weren’t the mine I’m actually talking about. Maybe I can try again.
A key element of the previous government’s unrealistic strategy for natural resource development revolved around, as we all know, LNG. We know that certain natural gas projects were located in areas close to the Morrison mine. Comments from groups engaged in the Pacific Booker project have indicated that the province was facing significant pressure to avoid reopening discussions around the Morrison mine in order to obtain the support necessary for the Prince Rupert gas transmission line.
The decision to reject the project had serious repercussions for Pacific Booker. Their share price plummeted, from $14.95 to $4.95 in one day, and many investors lost their life savings. What’s more is that the ministry failed to inform Pacific Booker of its intention to issue an adverse recommendation and did not provide the company with an opportunity to respond to it.
After a legal battle in which the Supreme Court found that this conduct violated standards of procedural fairness and that the environmental assessment office recommendation be presented to cabinet for reconsideration, the government once again rejected the project in order to undergo further assessment. However, in its order, the government appeared to issue unclear directions that substantially delay the process. As of 2019, in September….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Weaver: As of Sep 2019, Pacific Booker had yet to be fully provided with this opportunity. My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. When is this firm going to have the chance to have their project undergo further assessment, as put forward by the Supreme Court?
Answer
Hon. B. Ralston: The short answer is that the company is currently working through the required regulatory processes for further assessment. The further assessment for the proposed project includes the requirement for a supplemental application information requirement. There are a number of requirements. The EAO continues to work with the company on this, and I’m advised that the latest submission was received by the EAO in December 2019.
Latest Posts
February 25, 2024
Recent Comments
- on Global warming: An intergenerational conversation and plea for action
- on When ideology trumps evidence: The decision to cancel the school liaison officer program in School District 61
- on Earth: The final frontier and the failure of fear-based climate messaging
- on Earth: The final frontier and the failure of fear-based climate messaging
- on Earth: The final frontier and the failure of fear-based climate messaging
5 Comments
Dear Dr. Weaver,
Thank you for looking into the Morrison Mine fiasco, it means a lot to myself and other Pacific Booker shareholders.
As you probably discovered, there are literally thousands of pages of reports- engineering, fisheries, water quality etc.
With so many pages to review, I wanted to make sure you were aware of what IMO, are gross errors in the letter denying the permit Oct 1st, 2012.
I feel the letter is a pathetic attempt to justify saying no to the permit.
The 2 major areas of concern seem to be the risk to the sockeye salmon and the LBN claim to the land.
You will see how in just a single sentence, there were 4 false or misleading points made regarding the sockeye
Below are parts of the letter to BKM and my reasoning as to why the letter is fundamentally flawed.
33 page report Oct 1, 2012 … the first 31 pages are positive and the Conclusions on page 31 state:
Page 31
D. CONCLUSIONS
EAO is satisfied that:
* The Assessment process has adequately identified and addressed the potential adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of the proposed project …
Page 33
RECOMMENDATION:
* the proposed project does not have the potential for significant adverse effects: and,
* First Nations have been consulted and accommodated appropriately.
…….. In particular, I recommend that the Ministers adopt a (1) risk/benefit approach
* the location of the proposed Project directly (2) adjacent to Morrison Lake, which has a (3) genetically unique (4) population of sockeye salmon at the (5) headwaters of the Skeena River.
* the strength of claim of Lake Babine Nation, in particular their moderate to strong (6) prima facie case for aboriginal title.
1- Risk/Benefit Approach- The government can’t just change the rules. From what I understand, this was the first time Pacific Booker heard of this.
This seems to be against the law- what would be the point of contract law, if the government could change the rules without notice?
Who would risk doing business with the government is they could simply change the rules whenever it suited them?
From what I understand, no other mining company since has had to undergo a “risk/benefit” analysis.
In addition, it seems to me that a risk/benefit approach already has the risk portion evaluated.
The EAO already assesses risk or potential danger to the environment and sockeye etc.
The benefits are obvious- government taxes, high paying jobs, shareholders paying capital gains taxes, revival of Granisle, which is close to being a ghost town, LBN well being etc.
IMO this concept seems like a complete sham
2- Adjacent to Morrison Lake- both the Granisle Mine and the Bell Mine were far closer, as they are both right on the shore of Lake Babine.
Even being much closer to the lake shore, and operating for many years, there have been no major issues that I’ve heard of.
In fact the sockeye return to Lake Babine has increased from approx. 500,000 salmon to 1.2 million.
Clearly the increased sockeye run are from the fish hatcheries, however that said, the 2 mines did not have a negative impact.
3-Genetically Unique- These are anything but genetically unique. They are a mix of Skeena and Fraser River sockeye
It’s almost embarrassing that the government would say these were “genetically unique” sockeye
FYI:
The Babine Salmon Hatchery was established in 1907 on Morrison Creek, one kilometer below the outflow of Morrison Lake. The Babine Salmon Hatchery operated until 1936, when it was shut down due to government cutbacks. Eggs were obtained primarily from Morrison Creek and supplemented intermittently with eggs obtained from the Babine River, Fulton River, Morrison Lake, Pierre Creek, Pinkut Creek, Tachek Creek and Tahlo Creek as well as from Stuart Lake located in the Fraser River Watershed. In 1928, the Stuart Lake Hatchery’s entire egg collection from Pierre and Pinkut creeks was transferred to the Babine Lake Hatchery.
4- Population- The Morrison Creek and Lake as well as the Tahlo Creek and Lake sockeye represent a tiny fraction (1 to 2%) of the Lake Babine sockeye.
In other words, 98 or 99% of the Lake Babine sockeye are not from Morrison Lake
5- Headwaters of the Skeena River- This is simply ridiculous. The headwaters of the Skeena River are nowhere near Morrison Lake and can quickly be found on http://www.maps.google.com
6- prima facie case for aboriginal title-
In 2007, after 4 or 5 years of negotiation, the LRMP (Land Resource Management Plan) was signed between the Provincial Government and LBN, which designated the area where the mine is to be located to in fact be used for mining and forestry.
In 2012 a MOU was signed between Lake Babine Nation and Pacific Booker Minerals.
In 2014 and again in 2018 a map with clearly marked LBN reserve land and crown land was reaffirmed.
The Morrison Mine is to be built on crown land.
It seems illogical that after all this, that LBN could block mining in the area due to a Prima Facie, or traditional land claim.
Also, below is a quote from a mining news article showing that the safety of the project was supported by 3 third party reviews.
“We plan to move forward,” company Director Erik Tornquist tells ResourceClips. “We were required by law to do an effects assessment to determine whether there were any significant adverse environmental, social, heritage, economic and health effects, which we did. Our findings were supported by three third-party reviews. The environmental assessment concluded there were no significant adverse effects. The report that went to the minister from the EAO [Environmental Assessment Office] and dealt with the various components, like water, fish, wildlife, etc., determined that there were no significant adverse effects. Well [the government says], ‘What about the risk?’ But it’s not a risk assessment, it’s an effects assessment.”
we have the worlds best engineer Harvey Macleod and being approved by both the BC liberals and the federal government in 2012
I cannot see why it takes months +months for anything to happen.
I think it is time to read the letter sent to Mary Polak in 2015 to the Liberals and NDP in parliament.
Beyond the fact that I’ve been following this story ever since the adverse decision was made in 2012, and to my amazement that, based on the EOA’s own commentary throughout, the negative decision was indefensible. Since then the Supreme Court ruled to the same effect… there were no grounds for the adverse decision.
Great shot of the back-benchers nodding knowingly, like they knew something ‘we’ don’t, as the new Minister ‘defended’ the government’s inaction… in a clear cut case of political intervention.
Appalling really, and I’m not even an investor.
This should be as big a news story as any pipeline controversy since so many long term jobs and investor confidence are being rocked.
Why?
Kudos to Dr. Weaver !!! Why has it taken this long for an MLA or the Press to realize this injustice to this mining company ? This “no adverse effects project” deemed by EAO, was denied clearly for political reasons. This denial has cost shareholders, tax payers, first nations , and the B C economy tens of millions of dollars in losses, lost jobs, lost tax revenue, and poisoned the BC mining industry. Its late, but rather have this wrong corrected now rather then even later !!!!
About time someone looked into the Environmental office , this has gone on way to long . I think the whole batch of workers in that office should be held liable and personally repay all the damage to Pacific and it’s shareholders.
The Supreme Court ruled in Booker’s defence and yet the Environmental office stalls.
It appears that the environmental office is above reproach. It’s really a sad case when a hand full of people hold up and or reject very sound projects , either for personal beliefs or gain .
We need projects to happen and not just pipelines and LNG . They are politically nice but do very little for the rest of the province .
Please get Booker thru the Environmental process, it’s 12 years overdue .
Install some confidence in the mining industry .