Native Participation in Mineral Development Activities

Dixon Thompson was Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary.

This document is useful and current. The conference was held in March 1984 and the proceedings published in August 1984. It was sponsored by three federal agencies (EMR, DIAND, and the Employment and Immigration Commission) and was held at Queen’s University’s Centre for Resource Studies, which is funded by the mining industry.

For any conference, it is important to assess the origin and affiliations of the participants. There was one participant from Ottawa for every two from the rest of the country; over one third of the participants were federal civil servants.

Of the seven papers published, only the one by Laliberté speaks directly from native experience. Katherine Graham’s view, while apparently accurate, is second-hand. The “Digest of Discussions” hints at very important components of the proceedings which have been left out. There is the suggestion that the knowledge which native groups have of the Department of Indian Affairs’ operations is limited. This suggests that the Department has been engaged in a monologue without paying any attention to the audience. The “Discussion” also mentions presentations by Archie Patrick, Chief Staat, and Terry Daniels, which might have greatly increased the perception of “native participation.” These omissions may reflect a bias toward the government and mining industry with respect to “native participation.” If there is no bias, and the fault lies with the editors of the proceedings, then they would take pains to avoid apparent bias in the future. If there is a real bias, then future proceedings should emphasize participation by native groups and should insist that Ottawa and industry representatives spend more time listening carefully.

There appear to be some very important topics that were not addressed in these proceedings. Mackenzie states that mining decisions are fundamentally governed by economics. That fact should lead to a strong warning to native groups. Native groups want to be very aware of and knowledgeable about other factors related to mineral development: boom and bust problems, abandonment phase, pollution problems, demands on water resources, impact of access roads, and the cultural implications of moving to a wage economy.

Authors in the document stress the likelihood of rapid change within the mining industry; however, they do not bother to warn native groups about the very difficult problems this will force on communities. No counsel is given on planning for abandonment when markets crash or reserves run out, nor is the audience advised on how to avoid short- and long-term pollution problems. Demands on water resources by mining operations and decimation of wildlife and fish populations by white “sportsmen” after access roads are opened can impose long-term costs that far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.

In short, the terms of reference of the conference, or the conceptual frameworks of the speakers, appear to have been far too narrow to allow the audience, native groups in Canada, to start to understand all of the factors they must consider to evaluate mineral development proposals.

The report’s final recommendation — that a second conference be held with more native participation and less government — has some merit. It could produce a companion set of proceedings that could complement and complete this one.