EDITORIAL — Mining traditions worthy of respect — Staking our claim

At Inco’s 1997 annual meeting in Toronto, an aboriginal spokesman stood up and warned shareholders that their $4.3-billion investment in the Voisey’s Bay project was a mere “paper investment” insofar as the deposit was on land that “belonged” to Labrador’s Inuit and Innu nations.

This statement was not challenged and, subsequently, media reports echoed the notion that Inco’s rights (if it has any) should take a back seat to aboriginal traditions and rights. Years earlier, similar comments were made about BHP Diamonds and Dia Met Minerals, partners on a proposed diamond mine in the Northwest Territories.

Environmentalists, too, have challenged the rights of resource companies to acquire land for economic purposes, and they have done so on the grounds that any sort of development “threatens” wildlife and ecosystems. The public is then given a black-or-white choice of either accepting the mine and its related environmental damage for short-term commercial gain, or unselfishly rejecting the project in favor of a pristine environment for future generations. This “either/or” debate is based on false assumptions that need to be challenged if resource industries and rural lifestyles are to survive.

In the aftermath of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, it was hoped that mining would have a broader acceptance in society, based on co-operation with aboriginal, environmental and labor groups. It was hoped that labor groups would advocate and defend multiple land-use and champion sustainable development. It was hoped that mining companies and aboriginal groups would be allies on new mine proposals. And it was hoped that urban environmental groups would drop their knee-jerk opposition to any mine proposal in favor of a more balanced approach that would accommodate rural stakeholders.

Unfortunately, little progress has been made on most of these fronts. Labor leaders have been conspicuously silent on the issue of land-use management, and it is impossible to recall a mine project that has not gone forward without some degree of opposition from environmental groups. While some alliances with aboriginal groups have been made (particularly in areas where land claims have been settled), lengthy and adversarial negotiations are still the norm rather than the exception.

It is the mining companies that have been the most accomodating and open to change. They have placed environmental and social issues front and centre; so much so that mine planning is now more about running the permitting gauntlet and satisfying the concerns of other stakeholders than it is about defining tonnes and grade, or determining the best mining and processing methods.

The industry has learned the hard way that it is no longer sufficient to point to the jobs and other economic benefits generated by new mines.

Environmentalists win this battle by portraying the mine owner as a greedy capitalist, while they portray themselves as unpaid defenders of Mother Nature. They remain unwilling to recognize the changes that have taken place in the mining industry or to drop the adversarial strategy that has served them well.

If the Whitehorse Initiative is not the answer, what is? How does the industry deliver the message that mining and nature can co-exist and that new mine proposals can accomodate the aspirations of native Canadians? While there are no easy answers, the industry should, at the very least, strongly defend its right to gain access to land. We need to drive home the message that mines in Canada collectively occupy less than 1% of the land mass, and that mining is a temporary use of land.

The industry needs to defend its traditions, and key among those is the right of any person to go into the wilderness, stake a claim and have a reasonable expectation of being able to mine what is found. This tradition built the nation and, more recently, resulted in the discovery of nickel in Labrador and diamonds in Canada’s North. It is a tradition that deserves to be respected.