The first Ecojustice letter was sent in July 2007 by Ecojustice Canada's (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund). It addressed constructive suggestions about amending the Quebec Mining Act in light of the explosion of uranium mining claims in West Quebec (see: http://no-uranium.blogspot.com/2007/07/sierra-legal-defence-fund-open-letter.html).
The second Ecojustice letter (co-signed by WQ-CAMU / COQCEU) was about SOQUEM Inc.'s mineral claims registered in La Peche (see: http://no-uranium.blogspot.com/2007/12/quebec-government-mining-company.html).
The response, in summary, is as follows:
- Ecojustice's concerns will be taken into consideration while developing the Quebec Mineral Strategy.
- Section 17 of the Quebec Mining Act does state that mineral development is a favoured activity but it must take into account possible other uses of land.
- MRNF confirms that no exploration or mining company can access or perform any work on private property without the consent of the property owner.
- MRNF has no involvement with SOQUEM Inc., therefore any questions about SOQUEM's activities should be directed to SOQUEM.
Of note, the response says that mining companies are much more responsible now than in the past - their survival depends on it. I have a few issues with that biased opinion given some of the observations I've made and things that have been reported to me about exploration companies active in West Quebec, including:
- poorly announced, organized and timed public meetings on exploration programs by exploration companies to avoid public participation while trying to give the impression consultation is taking place
- promises to respect community wishes and then failure to do so when asked by the community (specifically, one company was asked to withdraw its claims after overwhelming objections in La Peche to its activities and it failed to do so after publicly stating it would not conduct projects where the community is opposed)
- three known cases of trespassing by exploration companies on private property - even after being told in writing by two of the landowners consent to come on private property was not being granted
- inflated promises of jobs by one company that fly in the face of published government and industry data on the total number of jobs in the uranium mining sector in Canada
- false public statements made by one company about how an open pit mining operation, once completed, will leave the natural environment "pristine" (i.e., in its original, untouched state)
- publication of false information by at least one exploration company about its mineral holdings, by stating its claims are in close proximity to an active uranium mine on Grand-Calumet Island (this is completely false) to try to attract investors
- published reports on mineral holdings by some locally-active companies that do not conform to securities regulations (see NI 43-101 regulations on reporting mineral holdings to the public): http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Regulation/Rulemaking/Current/Part4/rule_20051007_43-101_sd-mineral-projects.jsp
Download a copy of the MRNF's reply here (PDF): http://know-uranium.org/docs/wq-camu/13-02-2008_Response_letter_from_MRNF.pdf
So, we'll have to wait to see what the Quebec Mineral Strategy has to offer. For more information on the Quebec Mineral Strategy see:
http://no-uranium.blogspot.com/2007/09/minister-bechard-announces-brief-public.html
and
http://no-uranium.blogspot.com/2007/10/selected-submissions-on-quebec-mineral.html).
