Editorial Page (June 08, 1992)

Pity the officers and directors of Consolidated Professor Mines. Their efforts since 1973 to make a mine in northwestern Ontario came tantalizingly close to fruition in 1989 but since then have been thwarted by political forces.

It’s not because of economic viability that the project has come to a halt. And it has the support of local aboriginal bands and civic leaders. Its refractory ore can easily be handled in an environmentally safe manner by pressure oxidation.

The Duport gold project, about 50 km southwest of Kenora, was originally opposed by cottagers on Shoal Lake concerned that noise from a mine would disrupt their summer weekends. But that concern didn’t gain much sympathy, so another issue was sought out.

It happens that the orebody lies entirely under Shoal Lake, one bay of which falls within Manitoba. The city of Winnipeg draws some of its drinking water from an intake pipe in the bay, 13 km west of the mine site. By raising fears that the mine might poison the city’s drinking water, the cottagers were able to convince the Manitoba government to get involved.

Manitoba took the issue to the Ontario government of the day, which was prompted to designate the Duport project under its Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) — the first mining project to be so designated. Non-government projects are usually evaluated under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and are not subject to public scrutiny on the scale the EAA requires. And that is what seems so unjust in this case. The rules were changed without warning or consultation, and the costly measures to meet the new rules have “drained the resources of the company,” says Consolidated Professor President Richard Cunningham-Dunlop.

The company has now revised its plans and removed all processing, including crushing the ore, outside the Shoal Lake watershed. It believes that by doing so, its new proposal should not be subject to the EAA. Consolidated Professor has, in effect, addressed the concerns of Manitoba residents and, therefore, the project should once again fall under the more reasonable EPA. But it doesn’t matter that the original cottagers have been satisfied by the company’s plans or that the political pressure from Manitoba has been relieved. The reality is that the politicians who decided to designate the project under the EAA are now in opposition and might choose to make an issue of the New Democratic Party’s lax environmental standards if it changes the project’s designation.

Even Ontario Environment Minister Ruth Grier has acknowledged that the problem is of a political rather than a technical nature.

The concerns of the cottagers that initiated this whole process shouldn’t be taken lightly. Their rights to enjoy their property, however, have to be weighed against Consolidated Professor’s rights to work on the mining claims it has so diligently developed to this stage.

We’re talking about a very small operation on claims that have been in good standing even before Consolidated Professor entered the picture (there are existing mine workings on the Shoal Lake islands).

The greatest concern, however, is that over-zealous efforts in the name of protecting the environment are preventing the company’s shareholders, the local communities and the aboriginal people in the area from enjoying the benefits of a commercial venture that should, by rights, be allowed to go ahead.