EDITORIAL PAGE — Manitoba ponders bill

In contrast to British Columbia, where in the post-Windy Craggy era the “No Mining” sign hangs prominently outside the provincial legislature, Manitoba welcomes miners and explorers.

Over the past few years, the Manitoba government has endorsed several measures under its $12.5-million Mineral Exploration Incentives Program (MEIP). The legislation aims to lure exploration companies to the province — a concept verging on heresy were we to listen only to west coast politicians, river rafters and the U.S. Administration (an administration which, in light of Windy Craggy, seems to take an inordinate interest in the mining affairs of Canada).

Among the initiatives that draw exploration companies to the province are a mining tax holiday which ends once capital costs are recovered on a new mine, writeoffs of as much as 150% on expenses, and a 25% grant of up to $10 million on eligible investments. (This last program is said to have generated $4.5 million in new exploration.)

But Manitoba’s commitment to mining is evident in other areas. Later this fall, for example, the province’s Energy and Mines Ministry plays host to a 3-day convention (Nov. 21-23) with the come-hither slogan, “Stake a Claim in Manitoba.” Mine tours will be available to convention-goers. For these and other initiatives, the government and its Mines Ministry, as well as the industry itself, deserve a round of applause.

But a cloud hovers on the Manitoba horizon. It is known as Bill 41 — the Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act — and is the brainchild of the parks branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources. This piece of legislation, if enacted, could well discourage exploration. It doesn’t explicitly aim to do so. In fact, the Mining Association of Manitoba endorses the bill, but with certain reservations it will present during the public hearing stage.

On the other hand, we’re told environmentalists are up in arms over the bill. More than 100 individuals and groups of an environmental bent have formally protested Bill 41.

But if we’ve read the bill correctly, it contains what we would term the “Windy Craggy option.” This would allow, in the future, groups opposed to a specific proposed mine development to circumvent the existing mine approval process simply by appealing to a board — in the case of Windy Craggy, it was the provincial cabinet — which has the right to designate any area of a province a park or protected wilderness area, or some such thing. So, let’s say a mining company goes in the front door following all the requirements of the approvals channel. It has spent a couple of million dollars to this point and now seeks approval for mine development. But what happens? Having snuck in the back door under the aegis of such legislation as Bill 41 (if it becomes law in Manitoba), opponents to the mine seek park designation for the area in and around the proposed mine site. Suddenly, months of work — if not years, and a few million bucks to boot — are jeopardized.

The bill also lacks any mention of compensation to a mining company should this occur.

Fortunately, for miners interested in Manitoba, Bill 41 is still at the talking stage — and there is opposition (see “Letters to the Editor,” opposite).

In Manitoba, there already exists a strong commitment to the concept of sustainable development from the industry, from the mines ministry and from the premier himself. Clearly, the government is open to the need for compromise and common sense. We can only hope that sustainable development, and not the Windy Craggy option of no development, wins the day as the bill proceeds towards enactment.