A coalition of tribal nations from Alaska has taken legal action in the B.C. Supreme Court to ensure their participation in significant mining ventures in the northwestern region of the province. They allege that the British Columbia government has neglected to engage with them regarding major mining projects planned for the area. Some of these projects have been earmarked for expedited processing by both provincial and federal authorities amidst the backdrop of ongoing trade tensions with the United States.
Guy Archibald, the executive director of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC), emphasized the group’s primary objective of safeguarding the rivers, salmon, and cultural heritage. The commission represents 14 tribes, including members of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian communities, whose ancestral lands span across both British Columbia and Alaska.
Among the projects causing concern for the tribes is the proposed expansion of the Red Chris copper and gold mine, situated 160 kilometers east of the Alaskan border, with the backing of the Tahltan Nation in British Columbia. Prime Minister Mark Carney has identified this expansion as a key “nation-building” initiative that he aims to accelerate.
Another project drawing attention from SEITC is the Eskay Creek Gold/Silver project, which seeks to revive a historic mining site in close proximity to Red Chris and approximately 80 kilometers from the Alaskan border. SEITC previously initiated legal action against the B.C. government over the Seabridge Gold mine near Stewart, B.C., although this lawsuit was later withdrawn to focus on a case deemed strategically more significant.
In a recent petition for judicial review filed in November, SEITC is seeking to compel the province to engage with SEITC members on any mining undertaking that could impact their territories on either side of the border. Central to their grievances is the argument that they should receive the same consultation treatment as Indigenous nations in Canada, given their historical use of lands spanning both sides of the border.
Archibald pointed out the illogicality of excluding Alaskan tribes from consultations on projects with ramifications for their territories, emphasizing the need to manage these interconnected watersheds holistically rather than being divided by jurisdictional boundaries.
B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office declined to comment on the specific case but emphasized the government’s commitment to consulting with affected First Nations and tribes in the U.S. when necessary to fulfill its obligations under the Canadian Constitution regarding the impact on Aboriginal rights.