Introduction
Before the European exploration of Canada 350 years ago, the country was viewed as a vast, snowbound, scarcely habitable terra incognita, which blocked the route to the riches of China and India. Large tracts of Northern Canada are still considered ‘wild’, though the Western concept of wilderness has evolved from a need to transform and ‘tame’ the land, to a wish to preserve it. Canada is the second largest country in the world, covering an area of 9,984,670 km². 85% of this land is undeveloped and relatively uninhabited, and is considered ‘wild land’. On a global scale, Canada is one of few countries with vast expanses of wild areas; it contains 20% of the world’s remaining wilderness. Some of these wilderness areas have been legally protected by legislation while others have not, but all are vulnerable to the impacts of humans.
These wilderness areas are used for many purposes and enjoyed by many people. Wilderness uses include habitat for wildlife, a base for indigenous cultures and activities, hunting and fishing, winter sports, water sports and simple relaxation. Canadian wilderness is also valued for its intrinsic value: the pleasure gained by people from knowing it exists.
Canada is endowed with extensive natural resources, and the country’s resource extraction based industries make up a fundamental component of the national economy. The natural resources sector of the economy provides 12% of the country’s GDP and employs over a million people.
Major disagreements occur between resource extraction companies and the individuals and organisations that advocate wilderness protection in Canada, including environmental pressure groups, First Nation communities and the government department responsible for the protection of Canada's natural heritage, Parks Canada. Canada is considered a crucial country for international wildlife protection, and has a global responsibility to protect the habitats of the many important species found within its borders. At the 1992 Global Environmental Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Canada was one of the leading nations to sign an accord pledging to protect the world’s biodiversity.
Resource extraction is capable of having a profound effect on global and Canadian environments. Resource depletion, pollution and the destruction of habitats are just some of the impacts environmental organisation accuse the industry of. However, the environmental, social and economic impacts of resource extraction are not easily quantified because of a wide variety of variables are involved, such as the different extraction methods employed and the geographical location. Examples of extractive activities include logging, mining, and gas and oil exploration. All extraction of a resource from the environment will create some ecological impacts, but there are a number of ways that the impacts can be reduced or mitigated.
In this report, areas of conflict arising from resource extraction will be highlighted with internet-based case studies taken from forestry operations and mining developments located in the Canadian wilderness.
Timber extraction within Canada’s Boreal Forests
The boreal forest ecosystem is the contiguous green belt of coniferous and deciduous trees that encircles a large portion of the Northern hemisphere and is sometimes referred to as ‘The Emerald Halo’. The ecosystem stretches across most of Northern Canada and has been identified as one of the world’s three great forest ecosystems. Approximately 35% of Canada’s land mass is occupied with boreal forest, which contains much of Canada’s biodiversity and is an important global carbon sink. The boreal forests consist of many habitats including lakes, bogs and fens that intermittently interrupt the extensive forest ecosystem. Although much of the ecosystem remains pristine wilderness, with one of the world’s lowest human populations, the region still faces the possibility of mass degradation and destruction.
During the late 1980s, Canada’s boreal forests were subjected to mass destruction by the logging industry. From British Columbia to Newfoundland, hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of the ecosystem were allocated to logging companies for the production of goods such as paper. The development of pulp mills, and thousands of kilometres of seismic lines laid by the oil and gas industries, created untold ecological damage in the boreal forest, all of which severely fragmented wildlife habitat and impacted upon First Nation’s traditional food gathering, trapping and hunting territories. A report published by the World Resources Institute in 1997, indicated that 63% of Canada’s boreal forest has either been lost or is currently threatened.
A report by the Boreal Forest Networks’ Steering Committee, entitled ‘Canada’s Forests at a Crossroads: An Assessment in the Year 2000’ documented the relentless pressures on the boreal ecosystem. They reported that Canada’s forests are managed predominantly for timber yet the Canadian public do not value forests because of their timber production. Few people are aware that the boreal forest is in crisis, though there has been increased interest over recent years due advances in electronic media. The report emphasises the long-term un-sustainability of present timber harvesting rates, under current management practises almost 50% of the boreal forest is under tenure to large-scale forestry operations. The cause of the boreal regions’ destruction is not limited to logging however, as there are also over 300 hydro dams and 60 active mines in the ecozone.
Survival of the boreal forest is intrinsically linked to the cultural survival of the First Nations people who live there. 80% of all Canada’s First Nations people live within the boreal shield ecozone and Daniel Ashini, past president of the Innu Nation, states that,
“We are, I fear, on the brink of collapse as a distinct people. Like indigenous peoples all around the world, our distinct culture and economy are being crushed by an incredibly greedy and environmentally irresponsible industrial order.”
This highlights the conflicts that have arisen from industrial development in the boreal regions and the First Nations people that live there. The people work to protect their traditional lands, plants, animals, their knowledge and their culture. First Nations communities often work with environmental groups that act as a conduit, highlighting the destructive activities that occur within these traditional territories to a much larger national and international audience. The Federal and Provincial governments of Canada should be aware of the destruction that is affecting the traditional lands of First Nations people, yet the extraction of timber and other resources continues. It is only through the work of non-governmental organisations that the voice of the First Nations are being heard. It is important for the country of Canada to respect the traditional ways of life of the First Nations people and to cease in the destruction of the ecological diversity of the boreal ecosystem.
Provincial governments have implemented some policies that assist in the preservation of fragile ecosystems for ecological diversity and the rights of First Nations people to their traditional lands, though environmentalists believe this often does not go far enough.
The Stoltmann Wilderness
The Upper Elaho Valley is a three-hour drive north of Vancouver, near Squamish, Pemberton and Whistler and is sometimes known as the Stoltmann Wilderness. The region is home to some of Canada’s oldest Douglas fir trees, some of which are over 1300 years old. It has been proposed as a National Park. The diverse ecosystem sustains the most southerly grizzly bear and moose populations on the Pacific coast of North America.
In the late 1990s, a timber firm called International Forest Products (Interfor) introduced plans to begin extracting timber from the Stoltmann Wilderness. During the summer of 1999, there were violent confrontations between demonstrators protesting against logging plans and those associated with Interfor. Five Interfor employees faced assault charges while the BC Government remained reluctant to resolve the land use conflict.
In late 1999 Interfor deferred plans for a new road to the north of the region. This is so that the company can negotiate with First Nations, environmental groups and community interests before seeking a new forest development plan approval for the Stoltmann Wilderness. The grizzly bear values in the area also have to be assessed and appropriate management measures need to be determined.
In May 2000, Interfor was presented with a controversial award for ‘environmental excellence and achievement’ by the United Nations Environment Programme. Soon after, the Wilderness Committee, in coalition with BC environmentalist groups launched a ‘Boycott Interfor’ campaign in an attempt to get the award revoked by the UNEP. The Western Canada Wilderness Committee is now petitioning the federal and BC governments for park protection for the entire proposed Stoltmann Wilderness Reserve area.
Resource extraction industries do seem to be increasingly concerned with forest practises. Canadian forest industry initiatives mean that Canada is the first country to launch the development of Sustainable Forestry Certification Standards. Certification is a neutral and objective process that acknowledges that specific standards have been met that have been developed by recognized, independent organizations and certification is performed by independent auditors. Certification will ensure customers that the wood used to manufacture the products they buy is derived from forestry operations managed on an environmentally sound and sustainable basis. Companies such as IKEA have announced that they would stop buying wood products that came from disputed areas unless they have been certified, but only a fraction of Canada’s forest stands have been acknowledged with certification.
The mining and mineral extraction industries within Canada have also caused considerable degradation of wilderness areas. Comparisons can be made between forestry and mining in terms of their ecological sustainability. Environmentalist groups and First Nations communities calling for the reduction in extractive industries, face the same struggle with government policy and the economic powerhouses of the extractive industry, whether it is forestry or mining in a wilderness area.
The Canadian mining industry
Mining, as with timber extraction, has always played an important part in the history of Canada’s development, from the development of coalmines of Nova Scotia to the Yukon gold rush. The discovery of nickel, copper and other valuable minerals was a key factor in the emergence of the Great Lakes region as the main economic zone in Canada. The employment provided by the mining industry, and the communities that flourish as a result, are of direct importance to a large number of Canadians and will remain so as long as the mining industry grows.
In January 1995, there were approximately 558 mining establishments in Canada. This large number of operating mines in Canada has resulted in Canada becoming the world’s largest mineral exporter, providing 16.4% of Canada’s total exports and contributing $11.7 billion to the trade balance. Canada also ranked first in the production of uranium (15.1%), zinc (28.2%) and potash (36.1%). The mining industry as a whole employs over 550, 000 people all over Canada, and is the mainstay employer in over 115 communities. The industry is therefore important to all Canadians, whether due to the employment opportunities it provides, or economic benefits to the nation as a whole.
The main mining process in Canada is open-pit mining. This involves recovering ore by making a progressively larger and deeper pit to remove waste rock and extract the important ore. A major environmental impacts resulting from open pit mining is the potential erosion caused by the extraction itself and the construction of exploration roads. This increased erosion can silt up rivers and endanger fish habitats in wilderness areas.
Nickel mining in the Nitassinan homeland, Newfoundland
The Innu First Nation’s Nitassinan homeland is located in Labrador, Newfoundland. The area is often describes as a,
“Vast, pristine wilderness”
The Innu people have lived in the Nitassinan region for thousands of years and have always maintained that the land is their birthright. The Nitassinan homeland is major traditional hunting and fishing area for the Innu people. It holds significant archaeological and ancestral burial for the community and is important habitat for caribou, wolves, bears and migratory birds.
The Innu have never surrendered their ancestral territory to the Canadian government. They are currently in negotiations with the government in an attempt to reach a land rights agreement with them.
Mining activities have occurred in the region for years, largely due to the Innu people using the resources in the area for tools and trade. In 1994 one of the richest nickel deposits in the world was detected in the Emish area of the region, also known as Voisey’s Bay. Since the discovery extraction activities at the site have expanded rapidly, there are now 14 drills active on the site and engineering and planning for the mine is now well under way. The two base camps at the site currently support a workforce of approximately 120 people.
The Innu have always opposed the mineral exploration at Emish, which commenced without the communities consent on land they believe they have a claim too. The concerns of the Innu relate to the cultural and ecological impacts of the extraction developments in Nitassinan. Issues include poaching and over-fishing by exploration workers, the effects of low flying survey helicopters on migratory birds and caribou, damage to cultural heritage, the short and long term effects of the mine tailings and pollution of the Emish food chain, including contamination of the Innu’s traditional sources of food.
At present, exploration companies can stake their claim to the land without going through the trouble of even planting a flag. The Innu people are being forced to live with the impacts that the mining has on the land, whilst attempting to negotiate land rights with the government. The community requested the Newfoundland government for interim protection for the area to put in place while the land rights negotiations were in process. They also asked for a moratorium on mining development until a land rights settlement had been reached. The Provincial government did not carry out these requests.
Negotiations were also attempted between the community and the mining companies, but these ended abruptly when the companies stated they did recognise Aboriginal rights in the area. The Innu people asked 50 mining companies to sign a declaration stating that they would protect and monitor the environment to maintain a natural habitat; only one of the companies in the area signed up.
This case study again emphasises the lack of voice that the First Nations people of Canada have on issues relating to their historical land rights. Environmentalists side with First Nations people because their way of life is sustainable and in harmony with the local ecosystems. This is the most likely way that their rights will be acknowledged by both Provincial and Federal governments as they have few ways of combating the degradation caused by the huge industries.
The following case study again, emphasises the problems that arise between environmentalist groups, First Nations communities and extraction activities. Notably, the re-opening of the tungsten mine in the subsequently designated Nahanni National Park does show that the mine owners could have been thinking environmentally because they would not be exploiting a new area. However, it is most likely that the re-opening of the mine was for economic reasons due to the lack of exploration costs and access road construction.
The re-opening of Cantung Mine, North West Territories
Located in the south-west corner of Northwest Territories, along the course of the South Nahanni and Flat Rivers, Nahanni was established as a National Park Reserve in 1972, and inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1978 for its globally significant natural features and wilderness values. As is the case in other Canadian National Park Reserves, full National Park status is pending the settlement of regional aboriginal land claims.
Nahanni National Park Reserve protects a relatively small portion of a larger watershed and ecosystem, the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem. The Greater Nahanni Ecosystem consists of the entire South Nahanni River watershed and a small section of the Liard River Valley at the confluence of the South Nahanni and Liard Rivers. The park occupies one-seventh of the South Nahanni watershed and protects a natural area of Canadian significance representative of the Mackenzie Mountains natural region.
According to the UNESCO, Nahanni National Park Reserve is,
“An outstanding example of northern wilderness rivers, canyons, gorges and alpine tundra”.
The lands outside the National Park Reserve are federally owned and controlled by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Responsible for both environmental protection and advancing industrial development in the north for economic reasons, the mandates of this department can, at times, conflict.
The Reserve provides protection of the wintering range of the South Nahanni woodland caribou herd. Unfortunately, it does not encompass important calving, post-calving and rutting areas that are situated close to developments. Grizzly and black bears, woodland caribou, and trumpeter swans are just a few of the wildlife species that live in the park. The Reserve contains transitional and vegetation types of two major biomes, Nearctic boreal forest and Nearctic alpine tundra. Almost 600 species of vascular plants and 325 species of bryophytes have been identified, and 40 species of mammals are present. A total of 170 species of birds in 29 families have been observed within the park. The spectacle of the landscape and the challenges of the river have made the Nahanni one of Canada’s premier wilderness canoeing rivers.
The human population in the proximity of Nahanni was approximately 2,000 in 1981. Fort Liard, Nahanni Butte and Jean Marie are almost entirely indigenous communities in which the Dene people comprises 90% of the resident population. Fort Simpson is almost equally split between native and non-native residents and Tungsten, a private company mining settlement is entirely non-native in ethnic origin. Residents of these settlements are reliant upon various economic activities including mining industry services and staging, staging for oil and gas exploration, air and road transportation, commercial logging/sawmill operations, and handicraft production. Native land claims are pending in the national park reserve, and traditional hunting, fishing and trapping activities are undertaken within it by the Deh Cho First Nations. The Deh Cho are descendants of several cultures, including Dene and Metis, whose traditional territory covers a large portion of the south-west part of the Northwest Territories, downstream of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. The Deh Cho First Nation is presently negotiating a self-government arrangement with the Government of Canada through the Deh Cho Process. From the beginning of their land claim negotiations, the Deh Cho people have expressed a strong desire to protect the entire South Nahanni watershed for the sake of future generations.
In spite of its vast size and remoteness from urban centres, Nahanni National Park Reserve is under serious threat. Industrial development is rapidly approaching the borders of the park. Mine sites are being developed upstream from the protected area of the watershed, and oil and gas exploration activities, particularly seismic lines, are being cut through the area south of the park. Parks Canada, in its 1997 State of the Parks Report found that Nahanni had potential significant impacts to its ecological integrity from external stressors. In 2002 the Canadian Nature Foundation ranked it as one of the 10 most endangered National Parks in Canada. They described mining as the most significant threat to the ecological integrity of the park. Environment Canada and Parks Canada released a report in 1991 concluding that “the cumulative impacts of mining activity could be considerable” and that mining activity has “the potential to adversely affect the water quality of the basin and disrupt the life processes that depend on it.”
In January 2002, after 15 years of inactivity, North American Tungsten re-opened their Cantung mine. The mine is located beside the Flat River, upstream from Nahanni National Park Reserve. The company plans to hire 170 people and Sweden-based drill equipment maker Sanvik and Germany-based company Osram Sylvania have agreed to buy all the tungsten the mine can produce. Mine royalties will be paid to the Government of the North West Territories, not Deh Cho communities, although the Deh Cho First Nations are negotiating for control of the region's resources. Environmental organisations, Parks Canada, and the local First Nations communities have all raised objections against this act.
The Canadian Parks and Wilderness society’s specific concerns about the impact of the mine include the risk of contaminating the Flat River and the World Heritage Site downstream, the fact that a major accident has already happened at the mine site, and the need to assess the cumulative impacts of the mine and other industrial developments on the National Park Reserve.
According to the conservation director of CPAWS Northwest Territories chapter,
“[The mine] is in a steep-walled creek valley, and the tailings pond is literally meters away from the creek. We know that there have been serious flash floods in nearby valleys in recent years. A similar flood in the Flat River valley would wash away the tailings pond, as well as possibly rupturing the barrels of cyanide and fuel tanks that are on site. This is not a risk we should be willing to take just outside a World Heritage Site. In addition, we know that the Nahanni region is an active earthquake zone. Earthquakes recorded in the area have caused rockslides and slumping riverbanks in nearby valleys. If a landslide were to occur at the mine site, no precautionary measures could stop the cyanide and other contaminants on site from being washed into the river with horrifying results. This is not an appropriate place for a mine!”
These concerns appeared well founded when, within weeks of re-opening, the mine had a 23,000-litre diesel fuel spill. The spill reportedly reached within 150 metres of the river.
While the federal government could request full environmental assessments for these projects, it has not fully exercised this right.
The best way to protect this unique area is to expand the protected area to include the entire watershed. Parks Canada has identified three general areas of interest for expanding the park to improve its representation of the Mackenzie Mountains Natural Region, and substantial support also exists within the Deh Cho First Nation for further protection of the Nahanni region. Interim protection for these areas is being considered, but it will take time to put in place, and existing land rights and projects will be allowed to continue. The Deh Cho Process offers a powerful opportunity for Parks Canada and the Deh Cho people to work together towards common goals.
Conclusions - Can’t just create a National Park and expect wilderness to be protected if the ecosystem as a whole is threatened. This case study shows environmentalists and First Nations working together to try and protect a wilderness area from damage by mining.
Some areas of Canada’s wilderness are protected to some degree but not to the extent to prevent mining and its associated impacts. The Cheviot Mine in Alberta was approved despite being in a region designated as a Critical Wildlife Area.
The proposed development of Cheviot Mine, Alberta
In 1996, Cardinal River Coals Ltd. announced plans to develop an open-pit coalmine in the Cardinal Divide region south of Hinton, Alberta. The proposal was for a mine 23 km by 3.5 km, consisting of 26 large pits, which would produce metallurgical coal for export for use in Asian steel mills. The site is located 1.8 km from the eastern boundary of Jasper National Park, separated by a 9000 ft mountain range. Established in 1907, Jasper National Park is the largest national park in the Canadian Rockies, and the wildest of the mountain parks. It has been designated a UNESCO World Heritage site and is home to some of North America's rarest animals including healthy populations of grizzly bears, moose, caribou and wolves.
The Cardinal Divide region contains a unique assemblage of plant and animal species, many of which, such as the bull and Athabasca rainbow trout, are considered endangered. It is one of the few remaining places in southern Canada that is home to a full range of carnivores, including, mountain lions and wolverines. The region has been designated a Critical Wildlife Area, signifying that mining should be allowed, but only if the ecological integrity of the wilderness area is maintained.
The proposed development was planned as a replacement for the current Cardinal River Coal Mine, which was reaching the end of its lifespan. The proposal incited strong feelings from many groups with an interest in the region, including Cardinal River Coals Ltd., environmental organisations, the Alberta provincial government, inhabitants of the town of Hinton, First Nations, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and UNESCO. Although these groups can be divided broadly into those for and against the proposed mine development, the reasons for their attitudes are varied. The issue was debated in court cases that lasted for the second half of the 1990s.
A joint federal and provincial environmental assessment panel approved the $250-million project in 1996. Residents of the town of Hinton and current mine employees supported the project as it was predicted to create approximately 900 jobs: 450 at the mine and 450 during construction. The immediate economic benefits to the area were promising; with Cardinal River Coals Ltd. envisaging it would inject $400 million into the provincial economy over 20 years. The Alexis First Nation was also a supporter of the proposed mine development. The community holds treaty land overlapping the area designated for the mine, and hoped that the mine would provide its members with employment.
Three main arguments were presented by those organisations against the proposed coalmine. The most widely supported were the possible environmental impacts associated with the scheme. Parks Canada believes the future of grizzly bears in Jasper National Park would be highly uncertain, due to disturbance of their habitat, if the mine development went ahead, and Cardinal River Coals Ltd. concedes that the mine would wipe out bear habitat in the area for several years. Although the park may be protected from direct impacts of the mining activities, the ranges of several species protected within the park borders extend beyond these limits. Industrial activities outside the park can discourage animals from using these areas for feeding and as dispersal corridors to other protected areas, and places them at greater risk to injury and hunting. Significant effects were also predicted for the McLeod River and Cardinal River drainage systems in the region. The drainages in the area provide key nesting and brooding habitat for Harlequin Ducks, an endangered species. Parks Canada concluded that the effects of the proposed Cheviot Mine, coupled with ongoing mining, oil and gas activity, recreation and forestry planned for the next 25 years would have cumulatively significant impacts on the health of Jasper National Park and the surrounding wilderness.
First Nations from the region also has concerns about the effects of the proposed development. The members of the Smallboy Camp community, 80 km south of Hinton, launched a court action in July 1997 in attempt to protect Red Cap Creek, one of the target areas of the coal company, which they use as a medicine plant gathering area and coming-of-age site.
The long-term viability of the mine has been brought into question by environmental organisations. The coal is intended for use in the countries of the Pacific Rim, which is an unpredictable and declining market, with new technologies making use of other types of coal for steel production.
Natural Resources Canada paints a grim future for the coal mining industry in Alberta and across Canada. It notes that coal prices are falling and that new Canadian export mines are unlikely to be able to compete with low-cost suppliers such as Australia, Colombia, and Indonesia.
Environmental organisations and other groups have suggested that Hinton has substantial potential as a tourism destination, not only because of its natural beauty but also because of it mining history. While mining advocates state that many jobs in tourism offer lower wages than those in mining, environmental organisations believe that eco-tourism and an interpretative centre would provide a longer-term source of revenue for the area, especially if wilderness areas such as the Cardinal Divide are protected.
In 1997 a legal challenge to the approval granted by the environmental assessment panel was launched by a coalition of five environmental groups: the Alberta Wilderness Association, the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Jasper Environmental Society and the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, represented by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. It was claimed that the review was incomplete because Cardinal River Coals Ltd. did not provide the panel with all the information available on the environmental impacts of the development. The issue became one of international importance when in 1998 UNESCO approached the Canadian government with its concerns and requested that alternative mining sites be sought that would pose less of a threat to the integrity of Jasper National Park.
In 1999 the Federal Court of Canada reversed the project's approval, after concluding that the panel failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the mine and failed to consider alternatives to the open-pit mine, and therefore the environmental review did not comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As a result, in order for the development to receive approval for a second time a new environmental assessment was required.
The most recent development, in October 2000, saw Cardinal River Coals Ltd. announce that the mine would not go ahead in the foreseeable future. This indefinite postponement was because the “prolonged environmental approval process” caused the company to lose its major Japanese coal buyer, rendering the mine development economically unviable.
The proposed Cheviot Mine has involved consultation with many different parties. Those that support the mining operations are predominantly economically motivated while those opposed are sceptical of the impacts that the mine workings would have on the local environment within Jasper National Park. The fact that the site is within a Critical Wildlife Area emphasises that any approval would be under strict instruction to protect the environment and possible restoration projects after the mines lifespan. The federal government not approving the mine development on the basis of inadequate environmental assessment shows that the impacts upon the environment in these Critical Wildlife Areas are taken into consideration. On the other hand, it is quite disconcerting, knowing that the Canadian governments allow the designation of areas that are supposedly protected as wilderness areas, yet pockets within them may be exploited. It is the Canadian governments way of trying to please everyone while still maintaining a diverse economic base.
Conclusions
Mineral resources in Canada are widely dispersed, and exploration for these minerals requires large areas of land. Without proper management, the impacts of exploration and mining on wilderness areas can be substantial. The mining industry now faces pressure and opposition from conservation groups, First Nation land claims and other interest groups concerned about the environmental impacts of resource extraction. In the past mining was virtually unrestricted due to the lack of knowledge of sustainable development, which has left a legacy of negative environmental impacts, leading to growing opposition regarding mine development. A study by the government of Canada in 1991 found that 6% of Canada’s land is closed for mining and 80% of this land is located within protected areas like National Parks. Developing a sustainable mining industry in Canada depends on resolving land use issues. The environmental, social and economic goals must be integrated at all phases of the resource extraction process.
Canada’s National Parks Act has been amended to ensure that the primacy of ecological integrity in park management and to allow caps to be placed on commercial development. The recognition of First Nations’ land claims has also improved conservation in some areas.
Development pressures still simmer in Banff and Jasper and oil and gas development still continue to spread north from Alberta, where over 10 000 wells are drilled each year.
Vast areas of the boreal forest are still intact with much of the arctic region still wild. The remaining pockets of south Canadian wilderness can be protected, restored, expanded and woven back together. Parks and protected areas remain the best tool for saving wildlife and wilderness. Large core wilderness areas must be buffered by non-intensive land uses, such as the 6 million hectare Muskwa-Kechila Management area in north BC.
However, additional conflicts are arising because of the Federal government’s economic emphasis on resource extraction. Because of Canada’s reliance on exports of wood to its economy, the Canadian government has embarked on an aggressive campaign to maintain and increase its traditional resource extraction industry. Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources attacked environmentalists for providing misinformation to the public and that resource extraction should continue as normal and possibly counter international environmental campaigns. This highlights the economic priority of the Federal government of Canada rather than the portrayed image of a global leader in environmental preservation.
This report has examined some of the conflicts that have arisen from resource extraction in Canada's wilderness areas. Issues, management techniques and conflict solutions discussed have included the legal protection of wilderness with legislation, court action by various parties to uphold such legislation, the effects of First Nation land claims on the legal protection of Canadian wilderness and coalitions between various wilderness user groups.
However, some things have changed for the better in Canadian legislation. The pace of development in areas of wilderness has abated and mega-projects and subsidised resource extraction have fallen out of favour. Commodity prices, especially for mineral products have collapsed and the Endangered Species Campaign has been placed on the agenda of every government in Canada as the public voice their opinions on environmental protection.
First Nation communities, some Federal and Provincial government departments, the recreation and tourism industry and environmental organisations are united against the resource extraction industry. Yet, these very user groups are often to be found embroiled in their own conflicts in other wilderness areas in the country. Each of the interest groups listed has justifications for its set of activities, and arguments for why its particular use of the Canadian wilderness should be given priority over the others.
This report, along with many previous studies, has been unable to rank the various uses of the Canadian wilderness in order of 'worthiness', due to the relative social, economic and environmental merits of each not being easy to judge.
Such classification may be unnecessary however. Canada contains a vast quantity of relatively unspoilt wilderness. With cooperation and understanding it should be possible for each use of the environment, including resource extraction, to be carried out in agreed designated areas, with minimum impacts on other wilderness users.