PDAC Perspectives (November 11, 1991)

Native issues are rapidly rising to the top of the list of priorities for the federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada. They could even eclipse environmental priorities which have dominated the top spots for quite some time.

We in the mineral industry are particularly interested in native issues because we are particularly vulnerable. As a result of land claim settlements, native organizations will own the surface title to large tracts of Crown lands as well as the sub-surface rights (i.e. mineral rights) to specific areas.

As for their negotiations toward self-governance, native groups are asking for a level of control or ownership of mineral resources in reserves, settlement areas and their “traditional lands.”

The position of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada on native

issues has been well publicized. We look

forward to doing business with native landowners under clear and reasonable rules that govern exploration and mining. After all, native prospectors were involved in some of the major discoveries in Canada, including Dawson Creek, Hemlo and Buchans.

The association expects governments to act fairly and expeditiously in resolving native issues. While unresolved, they create uncertainty, and at times, acrimony from both a social and business point of view. The public depends on governments to negotiate balanced settlements in a manner that is sensitive to the needs and rights of all Canadians. However, as native issues have risen to the top of the public agenda, so have they risen in political sensitivity. And here lies a critical area of vulnerability.

Governments have been strongly motivated to minimize or avoid “incidents” that may cause trouble or embarrassment. As a result, they have reached a state of virtual paralysis in many instances, whereby the zeal to provide protection has overcome the ability to perform balanced, rational decision making.

Obviously, the native organizations are running an effective campaign. Unfortunately, the resulting hypersensitivity and loss of rationale by some government agencies are causing the rights of all Canadians to be eroded — and the mining industry is no exception.

Take for example, the recent case of a small exploration company that planned a work program this summer on its claim group near the Sandy Lake Reserve in northwestern Ontario. Its application for a work permit was submitted in April and came under the review of an Interim Measures Agreement (IMA) recently signed between the federal and Ontario governments and the Nishnawabe-Aski Nation (NAN). The agreement covers the whole of northern Ontario including Timmins and requires that work permit applications be provided to NAN communities for information purposes at least 30 days before the permit is issued.

When NAN issued a list of questions about the work plan on May 29, it was then up to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to resolve the concerns, approve the work permit and get things moving.

Instead, MNR became paralyzed with the perceived “political sensitivity” of the situation — and failed to respond to the questions raised. Consequently, six months later, the exploration company still does not have a work permit, the summer work program has been cancelled and about 10 jobs lost, four of which would have involved native people from the reserve.

There were no unique circumstances involved in this case. The exploration company had established a good working relationship with local native residents and the concerns expressed by the reserve were all resolvable. MNR failed in its responsibility to the mining industry, the investing public and the NAN First Nation.

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of government hypersensitivity that has resulted in the mismanagement of a situation like this. Although native issues have a high political profile, Canadians still have every right to expect governments to act in a balanced manner, giving consideration to the rights and concerns of all.