EDITORIAL — Innu demand ‘unrealistic’ — Miners have rights too

If Toyota or General Motors announced plans to build a huge manufacturing plant anywhere in North America, people would jump up and down with joy at the prospect of decent jobs and spinoff benefits for local businesses. If a widget factory set up shop, personnel officers would be swamped with job applicants and those lucky enough to find work would be congratulating each other on their good fortune.

Which begs the question: if jobs are so badly needed and in such short supply, why are some people eager to stop development of a mine that promises to deliver good-paying ones in an economically depressed region? The Voisey’s Bay nickel project is, without question, the best thing to have happened to Labrador and Newfoundland in decades. But one gets the opposite impression when aboriginal groups and environmental organizations make ever-increasing demands upon Inco, the Canadian nickel producer that shelled out $4.3 billion to acquire the project. The company plans to spend well over $1 billion to build a mine and mill at Voisey’s Bay, Labrador, and a smelter at Argentia, on the province’s mainland. This should be welcome news, yet Inco’s plan to start production in 1999 has been delayed by a lengthy environmental review process and problems in reaching agreements with aboriginal groups.

Some people have gone to court to block the company from building a road and airstrip. Others want Inco to stop all development until native land claims are resolved,or until economic benefit packages with local aboriginal groups are settled. If all this were not discouraging enough, the Innu nation (just over 1,000 people) is seeking a 3% net smelter royalty valued at about $490 million — the same percentage given to the two prospectors who found the deposit in the first place.

Blocking the project would be justified had environmental concerns been given short shrift. But this does not appear to have been the case. Inco has already spent more than $13 million on environmental studies, and more studies are being requested. In contrast, BHP Minerals spent $14 million preparing a 64-lb. environmental impact statement (EIS) for its 51%-owned diamond project in Canada’s Northwest Territories. And BHP was allowed to build an airstrip before the EIS was completed and to start construction before land claims were settled (though it had signed benefits agreements with the government and two aboriginal groups).

We agree that aboriginal communities should be provided employment and training opportunities and share in the economic benefits of resource development. But we also share Inco’s view that the Innu Nation’s $490-million royalty request is “unrealistic,” especially compared with the 1995 agreement between Falconbridge and Makivik Corporation (which represents more than 7,200 Inuit) for the Raglan nickel deposit in northern Quebec. That agreement provides training and employment opportunities, and encourages the creation of Inuit enterprises. It also includes guaranteed contributions representing more than $60 million in operating profits to be paid by Falconbridge over 18 years to an Inuit-created trust fund for the benefit of local inhabitants.

Much is made about the rights of native groups, which is as it should be, but what of Inco’s right to seek a decent return on its investment? There is nothing to stop aboriginal leaders from training their young people to become prospectors. One of them might even go on to find the next Voisey’s Bay,

a rich diamond deposit or a large copper

find, in which case a 3% royalty would be well-deserved.