EDITORIAL PAGE — A voice from the wilderness

Ontario is fortunate to have a vibrant prospecting community, one that has contributed significantly to many important discoveries in the province.

And that is why political leaders should pull up a chair and listen to these prospectors’ views on the “Keep it Wild” campaign, which proposes to remove at least 12% of Ontario from exploration activities.

The prospecting community agrees that its top priority this year will be the protection of Ontario’s mineral resources for use by present and future generations. The challenge, however, will be how best to achieve this. As a first step, the community is trying to establish some common ground from among the various positions of its own members.

Some say, “Give the `greens’ their 12% and be done with it.” Others don’t agree with the process but are nevertheless prepared to participate in discussions for fear of losing everything. Still others regard such participation as “a deal with the devil,” and are prepared to fight it tooth and nail, “with no compromises.”

On the other side of the table are the environmental groups, which are united in seeking to “protect” sufficient land to represent each of Ontario’s “bio-diversity regions” by the year 2000. And they clearly have the support of government, which has identified 13 site regions, each divided into 65 site districts. The goal is to establish one wilderness park (more than 100,000 hectares) and one wilderness “zone” within each region, plus at least one natural environment park (more than 2,000 hectares) and waterway park within each site district. Prospectors, by the way, were not amused to learn that several of the site districts cover parts of the Abitibi greenstone belt. Another controversy is whether Mineral Resource Assessments (MRAs) are an effective mechanism for resolving land-use disputes. The government favors this approach, but prospectors are skeptical, and rightly so. An area of low interest today may prove to be of great importance tomorrow, and removing any ground from exploration may prevent the next Hemlo or Kidd Creek from being discovered.

The quandary for the mining industry is obvious. Should it help devise a method to complete MRAs and participate in the process, or should it stand back and let the government decide which land should be open for exploration? The Ontario Prospectors Association (OPA) believes it has a solution. The OPA proposes that all stakeholders (including the exploration and mining sector) be involved in the land-selection process. It also proposes that the Ministry of Natural Resources develop a new category of bio-diversity protection — one that allows for responsible exploration and mining — within the 12% bio- diversity protection criterion.

The mining industry has a good case to make to the public and to politicians willing to consider this new category of bio-diversity protection. But it should not expect any support from environmental groups.

The harsh reality is that when environmental groups talk about “protecting” eco-systems and wilderness areas, they mean only one thing. Hell will freeze over before even the most moderate of these groups would ever sign off on exploration (or, indeed, any resource development) taking place on any of these lands.