Land claim divides Yukon mining industry

Negotiations on a preliminary agreement land claim settlement in the Yukon Territory are expected to wrap up within two weeks, on the orders of federal Northern Development Minister Bill McKnight.

If that goal is reached, it will mark the end of an amazing 15 years of off-and-on negotiations toward a settlement involving the federal and Yukon governments and the Council of Yukon Indians.

As far as the three parties involved in the land claim negotiations are concerned, a settlement should be welcomed by everyone in the Yukon because of the certainty it will provide for land ownership and use.

Government Leader Tony Peni kett, among others, has long maintained that economic development in the territory has been hamstrung by investor doubts about the legality of certain ventures and changes the future could bring. It’s a view that is shared by many in the mining industry too.

The Yukon Chamber of Mines, however, is still resisting many of the changes the claim will bring. Chamber President Ron Granger says mining investment will be jeopardized under a post-claim system because the new system will be unworkable for “the little guy.” He says it just won’t be possible for anyone other than large corporations to have the time or resources to negotiate with Indian bands.

There’s no doubt the rules of the mining game will change should a settlement be reached. Land tenure, surface and sub-surface rights and control over access are key elements of the land claim. Although not all of the negotiated parts of the framework agreement are public information yet, among what is known is that: — The claim will see 16,000 square miles of the Yukon, known as settlement lands, turned over to the territory’s 13 Indian bands, in small and big chunks selected for traditional and economic development reasons; — Sub-surface and surface rights of 10,000 square miles of that land (known as Category A land) will belong to the Indians, with surface rights only under native control for the remaining (Category B) land; — Different access provisions will prevail for the two land categories; — Access across all settlement lands will be allowed in order to get to other lands, provided the access is casual; — All existing third party rights will be honored, along with existing rights of access; and — Sub-surface discoveries on Category B lands will require the miner to negotiate with the Indian band for access. A special surface rights board will be created to adjudicate if agreement can’t be reached.

As for Category A lands, “the lands will be held by the band and the band will have the power to determine use and ownership of that land,” says head Yukon negotiator Barry Stuart.

A prospector himself, Granger is bitter on the subject after seeing a summer of hard work prospecting go down the drain after an Indian band identified land he’d been working on as part of its proposed claim.

The federal government had gone out of its way to tell miners to register their claims as quickly as possible, as freqeuntly as every week, so their rights will be preserved should the land they’re working be identified.

But Granger says that’s just not practical. For one thing, miners can’t afford to come into the Mining Recorders office every week. For another, they can’t afford to spend $100 a claim on every piece of remotely interesting land.

“And while your present alienation will be protected, all well and good, but what about it if you have to enlarge it to make it viable?” asks Granger.

Essentially, Granger feels the reality of prospecting isn’t address ed by the rules.

A case in point has gone to the Federal Court of Canada. Laurence Halferdahl of Edmonton is challenging the federal government’s right to order land withdrawn from staking. Land he had worked, but not registered, for some 10 years in the Burwash area was withdrawn and when he went in to register 265 quartz claims he was refused. Halferdahl is arguing the federal order-in-council that froze the land applies only to placer claims. The federal government disagrees. The case was heard in mid-July but Justice Frank Collier, has not yet handed down his decision.

Both governments and the Council for Yukon Indians are nervously awaiting the verdict as it could strike at the heart of the land claim.

Not all miners are as strongly opposed to the claim as Granger and the Chamber. There are many who feel the mechanisms for dispute resolution will work, unlike Granger who is highly skeptical.

Granger seems to feel natives will not have any interest in exploiting mineral wealth on their lands. Federal spokesperson Craig Yeo disagrees. “If anything, there’ll be an economic incentive for Indians to consider economic development opportunities.”

Complicating the entire matter are the charges and denials of racism that have flown back and forth over a call for a territory-wide referendum on the land claim package.

The mining industry is identified with the referendum — in fact, the Chamber officially supported the petition calling for it — because the group initiating the petition is led by Dennis Prince, a former Chamber president. Other groups, such as the Yukon Liberal Party, have also supported the referendum call.

The petition has been labelled as racist by the Council for Yukon Indians. Penikett has denounced the petition, saying its supporters are using it merely as a means to “stonewall a settlement.”

Prominent native lawyer Dave Joe says the call for a referendum is “the most racist and divisive thing I have seen in the Yukon.” It is wrong to have a majority commenting on the legal rights of a minority, he argued.

With the Yukon claim coming hard on the heels of the Dene- Metis claim in the Northwest Territories, the negotiators and governments involved are keenly aware that what they’re doing is setting a precedent for future claims across Canada, one they feel is workable and fair.