EDITORIAL PAGE Land claim settlements are overdue

Mention native land claims to anyone in the mining industry and you’re likely to get a strong response. Individuals have their personal views on the legitimacy of these claims and the political maneuvering surrounding their negotiation. The mining industry as a whole, however, has concerns apart from that. Simply put, the industry just wants these contentious issues settled. Exploration needs access to the largest land base possible, and, should exploration be successful, it needs some reasonable assurance that development can proceed after that time and money has been invested. In short, the mining industry wants to know the rules and have confidence that the rules won’t change halfway through the game. Land claim settlements are, in fact, the process of making new rules. It could be that these will make resource development uneconomic or unworkable. The recent settlement in the Northwest Territories between the federal government and the Gwich’in Indians, for example, gives the aboriginal people control over wildlife, land and environmental management — another set of regulatory hoops the industry will be forced to jump through if it expects to develop mineral deposits in the area. But resolution of these claims doesn’t have to drive away resource development. Apart from the cost of settlements (which could bankrupt the country), they could benefit the industry simply by clearing up the question of land ownership once and for all. “I would like to see more land claim settlements so we can get some stability here,” says the general manager of the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines. Dealing with native groups has often led to the conclusion that any kind of mining activity — even exploration — was out of the question. Like parks, areas subject to land claims were simply off limits. Ontario’s Cobalt area is a case in point. Exploration and mining activity has been banned in the large and prospective area west of Cobalt since 1974 pending resolution of a land claim dispute. The disputants seem to think that mineral exploration will monopolize the land. It’s true that exploration needs to cast its net wide to get the best chance of success, but exploration leaves virtually no mark on the land and ultimately finds economic deposits on only a small fraction of it. Mining itself, although more obtrusive, takes up very little area. All of the mines in Ontario, for example, use less land area than one of the province’s main thoroughfares, Highway 401. We have our doubts about the high cost of native land claim settlements. If one small Indian band such as the Gwich’in receives $75 million — about $40,000 for each member of the band — it is frightening to think what the settlement will cost for larger more complicated disputes. And that cash figure, which is non-taxable, does not include royalty rights. At the same time, however, we hold out hope that once ownership is settled, the benefit to all of developing those lands’ resources will be evident. Indian leaders will recognize that it is in their best interest to foster mineral exploration and development. An effective partnership could develop between mining companies and native bands for the purpose of developing those resources. A communique from a recent meeting of 25 Indian chiefs and council members from across the country is reason for optimism: “The untapped mineral resource potential from our reserves and traditional lands could pave the way for an economic venture that could well support our goals of self sufficiency.” That kind of approach is one that mining companies might be able to work with. If so, perhaps it is time to settle these land claims and get on with business.