[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 7, 1995
.1109 
[English]
The Chairman: I'll call the meeting to order.
.1110
You will remember that prior to the steering committee meeting we resolved to get the committee involved in mining regulations and duplication and overlap and all that kind of stuff. It's a very significant and important issue, and this is what the steering committee has recommended. If we could have a motion adopting this as the subject matter of the study, as was the recommendation of the steering committee, that would be great.
An hon. member: So moved.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
I will inform you that there is a work plan here. I want you to know this isn't cast in stone or anything like that; we've got some ideas set out here.
We've got some government people lined up, as well as some of the national organizations. If you can think of more national organizations that might be interested, if you can think of people from your own areas from specific sectors of the mining industry - specific companies that have specific problems with the overlap and duplication - you can bring these names forward and the steering committee will bring forward an updated witness list. Please feel free to contact people you know in your area who may be able to assist the work of the committee. Look over the work plan, see how things go, and bring back some feedback and we'll deal with it accordingly.
We have Minister McLellan in place; she will be coming November 28. I'm wondering if the committee would be interested in extending an invitation to Minister Copps and Minister Manley, both of whom will be involved to a significant degree in the work we're doing. If the committee would be interested, we can extend the invitation, at least. There are a number of other departments involved, though probably not to a great degree. With departments such as DIAND and fisheries, officials may be satisfactory - there's not such a great involvement with what we're looking at.
Would the committee be interested in hearing from Minister Copps or Minister Manley?
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): First of all, as we proceed to hold meetings and hear from witnesses, we will be in a better position to evaluate whether or not we need to hear from Minister Manley or Minister Copps.
I don't know if you agree with me that our objective here is to examine overall regulations in the mining sector and in other industries. We want to be certain that the different regulatory regimes of the various departments do not impede the development of industry. Regulations are necessary in the environmental sector, but my specific question is as follows: Are we thinking about focussing solely on environmental regulations or are we going to take an overall approach to matters? If that's the case, Minister Manley would be a more useful witness than Minister Copps.
[English]
The Chairman: The direction of what the committee will be studying will be to look firstly at the duplication and overlap within the federal system itself, and secondly, the duplication and overlap between the federal government and provincial governments. At some stage it would probably be useful to hear from both ministers. Minister Manley is in charge of the varied projects within government to deal with the duplication overlap issue, as it has been one of the 6 sectors targeted by our department to do something with it. Minister Copps, because of the environmental legislation, has by far and away the biggest impact on overlap and duplication, so perhaps we should also hear from her. If you would like us to extend the invitation, we shall.
.1115
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very useful to have both ministers, at a prudent time, come here and share the message that natural resources needs to deliver to both of those ministries.
I'm delighted that the steering committee has taken on this challenge of the regulatory process, because it is one of the most inhibiting of all of the areas that hinder development and investment in this country. I'm particularly anxious that we not only look at the duplication and the overlapping, but also at this business that the mining industry brought to our attention so forcefully, and that is the business of not grandfathering projects where a proposal can go into government and go into the mill and over a period of years is faced with changing regulations, which is incredibly costly and discouraging for investors. I speak as one who has had that unfortunate experience in an area other than mining.
The other thing is the navigability of rivers, and the ministry of the environment has an involvement there. The mining industry brought that message to us very forcefully. We have an assumption now that all rivers are navigable, but there's no test on them any more. That provides a real stumbling block, not only for the mining industry, but for municipalities in every province across Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Members of the committee, do you wish to have longer sitting hours? Are the two hours twice a week enough, or do you want to have longer sitting hours and hear more people?
An hon. member: Longer, for sure.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): Seven days a week.
The Chairman: I'm just curious. Is this sufficient?
An hon. member: Two days, two hours.
The Chairman: I seem to have another amazing consensus. This is going to be an easy committee to work with. I can see it already.
Mr. Reed: It always has been.
The Chairman: With out-of-town witnesses, I always prefer to do video-conferencing. It's a lot cheaper and we can hear a lot more witnesses than hauling them into Ottawa. It gives us a much broader sampling of opinion for the same amount of money.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): Except for witnesses who are in Florida or the Caribbean. I think the committee should travel then.
The Chairman: Of course. That is without question.
If that is satisfactory, we can invite the witnesses in and get on with the show.
.1122
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
This is the first meeting of the newly reconstituted Standing Committee on Natural Resources. The committee has decided, on the recommendation of the steering committee, to study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the duplication and overlap of regulations in the mining sector within the federal system itself and between the federal and provincial systems of government in the country.
We are very fortunate today to have with us Mr. Bill McCann, director general of the mineral strategy branch.
We understand it's kind of a last-minute invitation, and we do appreciate very sincerely both your efforts to prepare yourself and your consent to appear before the committee.
As well we have David Pasho, director of the resource management division; Bill McCutcheon, deputy director of the nonferrous division; and Liviu Vancea, environmental assessment policy coordinator.
Welcome, gentlemen. We thank you for your attendance. You can commence your remarks.
Mr. Bill McCann (Director General, Mineral Strategy Branch, Minerals and Metals Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you very much. Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here.
We'd like to thank you for the opportunity to assist you in your consideration of regulatory reforms for the mining sector. We've taken note of the committee's interest in this area, as indicated in the recommendations in your recent report, Lifting Mining Off the Rocks. The government response to your report indicates that it shares many of your views and is actively engaged in making improvements to the federal regulatory regime in areas related to minerals and metals.
My understanding is that we can best assist you by providing an overview of the aspects of the current federal regulatory system that are often noted by industry and other stakeholders as impacting upon the minerals- and metals-related investment climate and on its competitiveness. I should say, however, that witnesses from other federal agencies are best placed to provide you with specific details on the statutes and regulatory processes for which they are directly responsible.
.1125
Our first slide deals with the structure of the presentation today. To facilitate the presentation of what is a complex subject, I'll provide you with an overview of the government's work in minerals- and metals-related regulatory reform over the past few years. As well, and more specifically, I'll speak to current government reform efforts. I will then present specific issues related to the regulatory system. These issues will be presented to you in the same general order as a company would encounter federal regulations and decision-making processes in its attempts to find and develop an economic deposit.
I hope you'll find this approach a useful framework for considering the information you will be hearing from us and others.
The framework for the presentation includes three main components where federal regulations, processes, and decisions are required. These are listed on the slide and are as follows.
One, in prospecting and exploration, land use issues play a major role.
Two, in mine development, when a deposit has been found and is judged to be potentially profitable, a company may need federal agencies to give it approvals, such as fisheries authorization and possibly a favourable environmental assessment.
The next area would be mining operations. Once a mine is operating and marketing its products, the company must, amongst other obligations, meet specific limits on its liquid effluents, deal with toxic substances, and comply with regulations related to the transportation of its products and wastes.
I'll end the presentation with some succinct conclusions.
The next slide is the overview slide. For several years, industry has expressed some concern that the regulatory regime can cause uncertainty and unnecessary costs and delays. It has also stated that where these inefficiencies exist they are having an impact on investment and competitiveness.
The overall regulatory regime of which they are speaking is a mixture of both federal and provincial regulations. The provinces are of course a key element in the overall regulatory regime, as they have responsibility for mines and minerals within their respective jurisdictions. The federal role, however, is also important because of its role north of 60 and more generally because of its responsibility for national parks, certain aspects of species and habitat protection, fisheries and environmental assessment, and other regulatory areas that I will address later in my presentation.
The regulatory-related concerns of industry and other stakeholders have been taken very seriously by Minister McLellan and the government in general. As an initial step in developing more information on these concerns, their significance and their causes, federal and provincial mines ministers initiated a government industry task force to review Canada's international competitiveness. This activity included an examination of Canada's environmental regulatory regime and land access policies.
The report of the task force concluded that problems existed and emphasized the need for federal and provincial governments and industry to work cooperatively to address them. One example mentioned was overlap and duplication in environmental assessment processes.
The Liberal mining agenda, released in October 1993, identifies a number of commitments to create a regulatory framework to sustain mining and achieve sustainable development. These policy directions include: a predictable environmental assessment process that avoids duplication and delays, land use decision-making procedures to eliminate uncertainty, a logical definition of ``waste'' for use in domestic and international legislation, and the exemption from regulations of metal recyclables that trade as commodities.
As government turned its attention to the need for more efficient regulation, it became increasingly clear that any meaningful effort to formulate practical, durable solutions would need the involvement of other stakeholders, such as the aboriginal and environmental communities and labour.
Acceptance of this fact led to the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. I believe you are familiar with this important initiative, based on previous presentations. I will say, however, that the WMI resulted in a stakeholder consensus on a wide range of common goals, many of which dealt very specifically with regulatory reform.
.1130
Another major activity is the government's initiative on building a more innovative economy. I'll use the term BAMIE for that. The objective for mining in BAMIE is to facilitate improvements to the federal regulatory regime, to promote sustainable development, to provide for greater certainty, and to reduce delays and costs. This initiative addresses a broad range of minerals- and metals-related areas that include land-use decision-making, the impacts of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or CEA, the administration of the Fisheries Act, the mining regulatory regime north of 60, and the definition of waste and toxics management.
Because of the scope of issues and the statutory responsibilities involved, regulatory reform of the mining sector has been very much undertaken in partnership with many other federal departments, including the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, as well as the regulatory agencies.
On the next slide we look at specific regulatory issues. As previously mentioned, I will raise these issues more or less in the same order that a company would encounter them.
The first deals with land use. It is important because mining companies need access to the land to explore. We are all aware that the amount of land needed for development of an economic deposit is minuscule in comparison with the amount of land that must be explored to find it.
Both the provinces and the federal government established land-use restrictions through parks, wildlife areas, etc. At the present time there are a great number of protected areas initiatives at federal, provincial and territorial levels. In fact, we estimate that there are in excess of 60 different types of land-use designations across Canada that establish the rules on permissible activities.
Industry, when they appear before the committee, will probably state that they need the greatest possible access to land so that they can increase their chances of finding an economic deposit. The more land that is closed, the less chance of finding new mineral deposits. As well, they may state that they want assurance that if they are permitted to explore an area and then find an economic deposit, they will be able to develop it if they comply with regulatory requirements.
While industry agreed in the WMI on the need to complete networks of protected areas, they indicated that they face a high degree of uncertainty when they select areas to explore, because they don't always understand where the federal and provincial networks of protected areas are headed or how they fit together. In addition, there is concern about how and if the processes used to select protected areas take into account mineral development potential.
The responsibility for designating protected areas south of 60 rests largely with the provinces. At the same time the federal role is important because of its responsibilities in the offshore and with respect to certain aspects of habitat protection such as migratory birds and endangered species. In addition, you are all aware of the federal role with respect to national parks.
Many stakeholders have stated that improvements to land-use decision-making may be possible for the benefit of the mining industry as well as for those of us supporting timely completion of networks of protected areas. This improvement can come by effective coordination between federal and provincial jurisdictions in such areas as definitions of terms like ``protected'' and land-use classifications. Other possibilities include improving the quality of information for selecting such areas and enhancing stakeholder ability to access information on protected areas and restrictions.
The current regulatory reform initiative at the federal level is making some progress in these areas. Natural Resources Canada will soon be releasing a report done in close cooperation with Environment Canada that will provide an overview of protected areas initiatives and make recommendations for improving the processes leading to their completion. We will also be introducing a better method for estimating the economic impacts of restricting mineral development in a given area so that decision-makers are better informed. Federal departments have also established a steering committee to coordinate and rationalize initiatives for offshore protected areas.
.1135
The next slide deals with fisheries authorizations. We are now at the stage where an economic deposit has been found and a project is proposed. If a proposed project were to result in the harmful alteration of fish habitat that cannot be mitigated, the project proponent should seek an authorization from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that allows the project to harmfully alter fish habitat.
Some of the industry concerns with this process are uncertainty as to what constitutes harmful alteration; the clarity and consistency of the process; and requirements for getting an authorization to destroy fish habitat.
The no-net-loss guideline has been a particular point of concern. Such concern relates in part to whether the guideline and authorization process fairly considers the economic benefits of say mineral development relative to the value of the fish habitat.
DFO is responsible for administering subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, which allows the minister to issue authorizations. In accordance with DFO's policy on the management of fish habitat and its no-net-loss guideline, acquiring an authorization requires that the proponent provide acceptable compensation for the damage done to fish habitat. An example of compensation is creating new habitat elsewhere.
There seems to be general agreement that improvement could be made to clarify the processes as they relate to mineral development projects and through better communication between agencies and industry. Stakeholders point out that a review of the application of the fish habitat management policy, including the no-net-loss guideline in the context of sustainable development and consideration of federal and provincial roles in freshwater fish habitat management, might also result in identifying other possible improvements.
DFO is making significant contributions to the regulatory reform initiative through both new guidelines on what constitutes harmful alteration of habitat and a new policy directive on the application of the fish habitat policy.
There has also been an agreement between DFO, other relevant federal agencies and industry to establish a formal mechanism to discuss and address concerns related to fish habitat management.
Environmental assessment is the next slide. Mining projects that will impact upon an area of federal responsibility must undergo a federal environmental assessment under the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Such an assessment could involve a relatively simple screening or require a mandatory comprehensive study. In such cases, the project proposal may be referred to a formal panel for review, or to mediation.
Stakeholder concerns about the assessment process have tended to focus on the impacts of overlap and duplication of federal and provincial processees. Others include uncertainty associated with certain requirements and process, such as how to do cumulative environmental impact assessments, or the interrelationship of the new CEAA process with other federal acts, including the Fisheries Act.
Another area of concern is the panel review process. The CEAA agency is responsible for the administration of the act. Other departments are also involved when one of their acts triggers a CEAA review, or when they are an expert department offering advice on a project.
Some advances toward reform in this area include the recent draft agreement on environmental assessment harmonization with the Government of British Columbia. This draft agreement was released last month for public review.
Other examples are cooperative efforts to consider practical problems of cumulative impact assessment; new CEAA process efficiency regulations that include time lines and the establishment of the joint monitoring project to monitor the competitiveness impacts of the act; and a NRCan staff report on possible improvements to the panel review process, which will be released in the near future.
The next slide is on effluence, wastes and toxics. Keeping with our framework, we now have a mine up and running. Mining operations and product marketing are affected by a number of regulations. Some of the most important in the context of regulatory reform cover the quality of substances in liquid effluence discharged from an operation, the transportation and international trade of recyclable metals, and the designation and management of toxic substances.
.1140
Some stakeholders have concern that both the federal and provincial governments have effluent regulations. Another concern, especially for industry, is the definition of waste that includes recyclable metals. The process for identifying and managing toxic substances has also raised concerns.
Environment Canada is responsible for the metal mining liquid effluent regulations, or the MMLERs, that are made pursuant to the Fisheries Act. Transport Canada is responsible for the transport of dangerous goods regulations, within which the definition of waste is of concern. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the key statute for toxics management.
Areas for possible improvement suggested by stakeholders include: harmonization of federal and provincial responsibilities for effluent regulations; ensuring a good scientific basis for any amendments to the MMLERs; and changing the definition of waste to ensure that recyclable materials are not considered or regulated as waste destined for final disposal.
The stage has been set for advances in harmonization of effluent regulations through the recently released environmental management framework negotiated through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The CCME has also formally committed to review the definition of waste. The recent toxic substances management policy represents a significant advance in this area, particularly because it is based on sound scientific approaches.
I'd just like to mention, in the next slide, the recent workshop on regulatory reform. In October NRCan and the Mining Association of Canada jointly sponsored a regulatory reform workshop. The key objectives were to promote information exchange, enhance government-industry liaison, and develop commitments to actions that would advance the government's regulatory reform initiative. The workshop was structured to facilitate an information exchange in areas where industry and other stakeholders wanted to see improvements and where federal departments were making substantive headway. A key point was that suggestions should advance regulatory reform without diminishing environmental protection.
Over 30 representatives of national and provincial mining associations and companies attended. Key representatives of all relevant agencies, including Environment Canada, CEA Agency, Fisheries and Oceans, Heritage, PCO, Treasury Board and others, were also in attendance.
As you might expect, the workshop focused on three of the same areas I have focused on today: fish habitat management, environmental assessment and land use. In each of the three areas the principal result was agreement that the responsible federal regulatory agency in the mining industry, along with other relevant federal departments, will establish a formal mechanism for addressing industry concerns.
I'd like to conclude the presentation now with just a couple of very succinct points.
Particularly during this period of economic restraint, regulatory reform offers us an excellent mechanism for enhancing competitiveness, encouraging investment and creating jobs. These objectives can be accomplished without diminishing the protection of the environment. In large part because of partnerships between federal agencies, industry and other stakeholders, progress is being made. We in NRCan as well as our colleagues at other federal departments are striving for approaches that minimize regulatory uncertainty, costs and delays in a manner that, in the spirit of sustainable development, allows us to achieve our social, economic and environmental objectives.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Okay.
The way we'll handle this now is to allow ten minutes to each political party for questions and answers, then five minutes to each individual who wishes to ask questions.
I have a quick question first. With regard to the workshop sponsored by NRCan and the Mining Association of Canada, is there some documentation available, such as the materials and conclusions, that the committee could get its hands on?
Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, we're completing that material now. I would certainly think we could make something available. We just haven't completed it quite yet.
The Chairman: Terrific.
We now have the questions from the Bloc Québécois.
.1145
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Having listened to your statement, I would like to ask you a pertinent question further to the workshop on regulatory reform. At the conclusion of the workshop, a decision was made to establish formal liaison mechanisms to make things easier for the mining industry and to help it secure permits as quickly as possible.
When Troilus industry wanted to open a mine north of Chapais, it had to get 37 different permits. My goal, one which I have mentioned to the mining industry, is to see what steps the different departments could take to set up one-stop shopping to reduce the number of stakeholders and departments involved. Each time someone wants to launch a project, different people must be consulted. When papers are not in order, the level of frustration rises. The industry would certainly be encouraged if a way could be found to develop a one-stop shopping approach.
Could Natural Resources Canada initiate this one-stop shopping approach so that where the industry is concerned, there would be only one place at the federal level, and if possible, only one place at the federal-provincial level, where all regulatory regimes would be harmonized?
I don't believe the industry wants fewer regulations. I think it is prepared to deal with them, but if it could obtain the necessary information all at the same time and from a single source, this would help a great deal.
[English]
Mr. McCann: Thank you very much. Certainly the idea of one-stop shopping, to the degree possible, has been something that stakeholders have requested, for example, in environmental assessment. The Whitehorse Mining Initiative addressed that issue.
Certainly NRCan is aware of that and is working with other federal departments to discuss how this might come about. As well, the CCME is looking at this issue and Environment Canada has that responsibility. It's certainly an issue we're well aware of.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: The members of the committee would like to look at the various problems preventing one-stop shopping. Departments have in place a range of cumbersome administrative procedures which may make one-stop shopping impossible. Is your department willing to promote such an approach? Already, this would be a big step in the right direction. This may not mean that we will find solutions, but perhaps the will to find solutions will emerge.
Furthermore, the federal government has already concluded agreements with British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba. With respect to the environmental process and to Bill C-56, since the Environment Department is one of the heavyweights in the decision-making process, what's stopping you from becoming the major stakeholder, since the mining sector is your responsibility? Could you take a leading role in implementing any recommendations that could be made by the committee?
[English]
Mr. McCann: The minister will be appearing before this committee. I think that is a very good question to put to the minister.
I can only say that the minister is on record as being a strong proponent of regulatory efficiency without diminishing environmental protection, and the department has been working on these issues within the federal family.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Madam Minister will certainly be happy to see that her staff is prepared to assist her tremendously. At least I think so. We will put the question to her. Thank you.
.1150
[English]
Mr. Stinson: According to many people involved in the mining industry - and this is to follow up a little bit on the questions before - the federal government continues to be involved in areas of say environmental regulations, and so forth, where provincial governments are already very active. Is there any specific area of the environmental regulations now for which this federal government is willing to allow the provinces the sole responsibility?
Mr. McCann: If I understand correctly, you're asking me if there are areas where the federal government would -
Mr. Stinson: Are they looking at any areas where they're willing to hand that section over to the provincial arena?
Mr. Rideout: That's a policy decision by the political realm.
Mr. Stinson: So that would be out of this?
Mr. Rideout: It would be beyond the bureaucratic input. It would be something that only ministers and cabinet and those people would decide.
Mr. Stinson: Okay. You mentioned parks at the beginning of your address here to the committee. Does what's going on or how we would be looking at addressing federal parks also fall out of your scope?
Mr. McCann: What we've tried to do today is give you examples of what the stakeholders - and by stakeholders I mean industry, the environmental community, aboriginal groups - consider to be the pressure points. So in terms of protected areas that is considered by stakeholders to be a pressure point.
We mentioned the MMLERs, the environmental assessment. These are all pressure points, where stakeholders are often looking for either coordination or harmonization in some way.
Mr. Stinson: Do you have any recent stories that you could...?
Mr. McCann: In what sense?
Mr. Stinson: In the sense of what's happening with the regulatory system, in regard to -
Mr. McCann: I do know that Environment Canada and the B.C. government have produced a draft agreement for public consultation.
Dave, do you want to just mention that, or Liviu, do you want to say...? It really is for Environment Canada to speak to that, but if you could just give a little bit of an overview....
Mr. Liviu Vancea (Environmental Assessment Policy Coordinator, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Natural Resources): On October 23 Minister Copps and the Minister of Environment for British Columbia released for public comment a document relating to cooperation in the environmental assessment field, and in that document there is an agreement between the province and the federal government on how to coordinate their environmental assessment processes.
Mr. Stinson: To follow up on that, I was just over in Labrador, and my understanding is that the same parties are being involved with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in creating a new park up there. Now do you have any knowledge of that?
Mr. McCann: No.
Mr. Reed: The comment was made, and I think it's a very valid one, about what is termed ``one-stop shopping''. I know that Ontario - I just received some information last week - is moving in that direction, where the bodies that comment on regulation will become commenting bodies and a separate ministry will do the approving.
I think that kind of approach is positive, because what tends to happen in large ministries, and I think of the Ministry of Natural Resources in Ontario, for instance, of which I have some peripheral knowledge, is that the various sets of interest groups are represented through that ministry but they aren't all in agreement with each other. Therefore, what tends to happen.... Of course the problem there is that they are also an approving body. They're in a conflict of interest, and I think a good many of them realize that. I think that removing the approval from those ministries and having them become commenters is a move in the right direction.
.1155
The other interesting comment you made was about approaching things from a scientific point of view. It's very commendable, but there is an area where science and alchemy get mixed up, and that's in fisheries.
You know that fisheries, and pronouncement on fisheries and habitat and so on, can become very subjective, depending on whose school the graduate came from, etc., and their own set of prejudices. I'm wondering if in your deliberations you have considered an opportunity to challenge from the outside some pronouncements and decisions made by ministry officials. If something is misdiagnosed or misinterpreted inside a ministry, or in the view of the applicant misinterpreted or misdiagnosed, is there an opportunity to come back and say wait a minute, you declared this a cold-water fishery and actually it's not, and here are the reasons we say it's not? Is there any mechanism being considered to deal with that kind of subjective assessment?
Mr. McCann: I'll start this off and then I'll ask David Pasho to speak a bit to it.
I think there are two areas. Certainly we communicate with our colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We hear about projects and the decisions from them, as well as from other stakeholders. Where we believe there is a question of science, or indeed a question of policy, we'll communicate that to them, and they're often very open to hear what we have to say.
In terms of formal mechanisms coming out of the recent seminar, there was an agreement with industry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to set up a formal mechanism to look at pressure points. I'll ask Dave, who organized the seminar, to give you a bit of information about what resulted there.
Mr. David Pasho (Director, Resource Management Division, Department of Natural Resources): In the regulatory reform seminar Bill was referring to, one of the three sections for the day focused specifically on issues related to fisheries. There were fisheries people there who are involved in the decisions related to fisheries' authorizations and there were industry people there who have been experiencing the results of those decisions.
There was quite a good exchange. I think there were a number of things that came out that might be of interest to you in line with the questions you raised. One of the issues that was raised that would be discussed in this more formal mechanism is the idea of an appeals mechanism, something that would allow the industry, drawing perhaps on scientific consulting talent or expert advice from government departments, to ask that in regard to a decision by DFO on a fisheries authorization related to destruction of habitat and compensation there be a mechanism for reviewing that and bringing forward information they might think had been overlooked.
Another area, of course, that came up is the idea of having set, clear guidelines for decision-making so that when decisions are made people know what the criteria are and the information upon which those decisions are made. That's basically a question of clarity and transparency in order to alleviate uncertainty.
In regard to the question of science, most of the expertise in the area of fish habitat management is certainly within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is some expertise in NRCan related to the geological sediments in water, but the vast majority that really relates to fish habitat is in DFO. It's there, and in DFO working with its provincial colleagues, where they come to decisions related to the scientific background on which they recommend to their minister that decisions be made.
.1200
Mr. Reed: Are we still dealing with this situation of overlap where the provincial ministry can hide behind the federal ministry when the going gets tough? I see that happening in DFO particularly. As you know, the Fisheries Act is nominally administered by the provinces except for a couple of sections that are administered federally. Sometimes some sticky wickets arise at the provincial level. The provinces are now, or have been in the recent past, able to say, oh well, we'll throw that onto the feds and escape the responsibility or the accountability.
Mr. McCann: We can't think of the details of this, but as I understand it, the last authorization for fisheries is with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Mr. Reed: That has not yet been resolved with federal-provincial negotiation, I take it. In other words, a division hasn't been made between what is clearly provincial jurisdiction and what is clearly federal.
Mr. McCann: That would be a good question when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans comes. They would have a particular opinion on that.
Mr. Reed: I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, if I might be allowed the minute. It is a subject I've raised in this committee a number of times, and I did before you came in. This is the question of grandfathering in the regulatory process.
A mining company, for instance, makes a proposal to begin a process. They start with a set of rules; these are the regulations. Then once the thing is under way someone decides we are going to change some regulations. The company is then obliged to reconsider and resubmit, at added cost, based on a new ball game - that is, the moving of a goalpost.
The mining industry was very specific about this. The message we got from the mining industry was that if you don't accomplish anything else in this section, if you can stop the goalpost from being moved when a project is under way, then we have something to work with. My friend said it very well: mining is not afraid of regulation, but anybody who does anything connected with crown land and so on is faced now with this constant movement of the regulatory process while their project is under way.
It seems to me, to be logical, that if you want to simplify the thing, if on January 1 I make a submission based on these rules, for me those rules should carry on to the completion of that project. If the regulation is changed six months from now, then the next guy knows it and he's able to deal with it. But that's not what's happening right now and it's very, very debilitating to investment.
The Chairman: Mr. Iftody.
Mr. Iftody (Provencher): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of questions.
You mentioned in your presentation some work that's being done in terms of a redefinition of waste materials, in particular those that are recycled materials. I was wondering if you could expound on that a bit and tell this committee precisely what work is being undertaken at present to bring some certainty to that definition.
.1205
Mr. Bill McCutcheon (Deputy Director, Nonferrous Division, Minerals and Metals Sector, Department of Natural Resources): There is a process under way at present through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. There was a meeting on November 1 and 2 at which Environment Canada and the provincial ministries that attended discussed the situation. I am told they will be receiving a report shortly and will be commenting back to the federal ministry of the environment by mid-December. That is an ongoing process. There has been a consultant study done on that.
Mr. Iftody: The consultant is being retained by whom - our department?
Mr. McCutcheon: The consultant was retained by the federal ministry of the environment.
Mr. Iftody: And that report should be available to this committee in mid-December?
Mr. McCutcheon: I would have to ask the Department of the Environment. They paid for it. I really don't know what to say.
Mr. McCann: I think it will be Environment's decision when that gets released.
Mr. Iftody: In the Council of Ministers of the Environment they had apparently made some ground on environmental assessment, but with respect to the harmonization of environmental regulation it's still a long way off. Notwithstanding the bilateral agreements that have been signed - one with Manitoba, where I'm from - what seems to be the primary impediment to getting over that hump and the provinces and the federal government coming to greater certainty with respect to that harmonization? What's the greatest difficulty there that you have to contend with, and how can we help?
Mr. McCann: That's also an appropriate question possibly for our minister or for when other ministers or the Department of the Environment comes. It's a very difficult question for us to address. We do know that Minister Copps has made quite a bit of progress at a recent meeting in Whitehorse, but I think that's an issue they would have to address.
The Chairman: Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Given that your work involves looking out for the interests of the mining industry and that you are the first stakeholders to appear before us, it is difficult today to get an overview of the various issues.
Given that the focus of your work is the mining industry, have you a suggestion for us as to the direction we should take or the means we should employ to undertake the lengthy process of bringing all departments and the various stakeholders closer together to facilitate the regulatory process? Do you have any helpful suggestions for us, or at least would you care to suggest an approach for dealing with the next stakeholders?
[English]
Mr. McCann: The point of our presentation today - and I understand that we are going to come back and the minister will be here later in your process - was to give you an overview of those issues that we're hearing are the most important pressure points. In terms of helping you to fix your agenda, the points we raise today are what we're hearing from industry and other stakeholders as the most important areas. What we also tried to do was explain what certain stakeholders see as potential means and mechanisms to overcome those difficulties. So I hope we were helpful in that way as you begin to set your agenda.
.1210
Mr. Deshaies: Merci. That's it.
The Chairman: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: No, I'll wait for the minister now that you've clarified that.
Mr. Rideout: I think what's going on here is you're now getting a bit of a taste for what the department faces: a lot of the levers are in the hands of other people.
We're sitting here saying we can't really answer that question because somebody else is going to be pulling the strings. It's not to be evasive; it's to in effect highlight what some of the problems are.
Until such time as other ministers are here, you're not going to be able to get the straight goods from us, because we're not in a position to answer. I think that does, in large measure, highlight exactly where some of the regulatory problems may exist and why there is a need to bring these under one system.
The Chairman: I think we delivered straight goods, but maybe just not as many goods.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Iftody: In August of this year the members of the Liberal rural caucus met with the mining industry in Kenora. I was struck by the level of frustration within the industry; I was quite surprised.
To summarize their presentation, they impressed upon members of the committee that the level of investment leaving Canada and going elsewhere is indeed substantial. Moreover, the reasons for this are not the costs of doing business in the country or the need to adhere to environmental regulations and assessment and the costs of that, but really have to do with raising money from investors, stakeholders and shareholders for these very expensive undertakings. Of course you all know how expensive it is even to send a crew out diamond drilling, and to do that exploration is a very risky business and has a very high cost to the companies.
They summarized their presentation by saying the lack of certainty for investment in Canada is just killing us. As somebody from rural Manitoba, I must say that certainly with the possibility of having a mine open or expand, the benefits to the communities and the people who live in those communities are absolutely monumental. I speak from some personal experience, having, about twenty years ago, worked in a mine in rural Manitoba. In fact I made more money then than I am making now as a member of Parliament.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Welcome to the real world.
Mr. Iftody: And the Reform Party wants me to cut my pay. This is a rip.
Mr. Stinson: No, no, your pension.
Mr. Iftody: All right.
Anyway, this is their angst. I'm actually travelling next week to learn more about this. I'm going to the mining conference in Sudbury to hear some of the presenters and speakers there.
This theme has emerged really quickly. In terms of this certainty of contract, what can you do? We talked about the environmental assessment and so on. It's out of your area of jurisdiction, but what can our department do here? Is there something we can do to expedite this process very quickly and in the next number of months with respect to streamlining regulations?
Mr. McCann: We certainly support your point on the value of mining to communities.
The situation in the mining industry has improved over the last couple of years, both in terms of the amount of investment in exploration and indeed in terms of the number of mines opening as opposed to the number of mines closing. We have seen a turnaround.
.1215
Eliminating uncertainty - you heard it in Kenora - which was also a major issue when the ``Keep Mining in Canada'' campaign came here for their lobby day, is something we've heard about. In the presentation I gave this morning you heard a number of times that it is an issue we are addressing.
I mentioned the protected areas issue. Industry has mentioned that issue as one where they need greater certainty that if they explore and find something they can then go and develop it. I'll ask Dave to quickly give you some examples of what we are doing in terms of this certainty question.
Mr. Pasho: In the seminar I mentioned that was set in the context of the government's BAMIE initiative, specifically the regulatory reform of mining, one of the objectives, along with the reduction of costs and delays, was to reduce uncertainty. So that is one of our objectives.
If we go through some of the initiatives like land access, one of the questions industry has raised is that if they want to explore a certain area for mineral deposits, how do they know that subsequent to their efforts there might not be a protected area designation that will either hinder or preclude the possibility of developing that?
One of the things we are doing with Environment Canada is trying to put together a clear picture of all the federal and provincial networks of protected areas and the various land use designations. We want to try to present a clear picture of the objectives of the networks of protected areas, how they fit together and where they are going, perhaps as a basis for industry having a better understanding of how these will evolve, and thus greater certainty of where they can look for mineral deposits with a reasonable likelihood of development if they find something.
In the area of fisheries, sometimes the uncertainty is in terms of this definition of ``harmful alteration''. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has produced a thick document that goes into specific detail and could provide much better guidance on harmful alterations. So an industry will know in advance whether they will be making harmful alterations and therefore need a fisheries authorization.
In the area of environmental assessment, the requirement to do cumulative environmental impact assessment under the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, that is a relatively new and complex concept, so there is uncertainty in the industry as to how one does that. Recognizing the uncertainty that surrounds that sort of process, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, together with the mining industry and other relevant agencies whose acts might trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, have agreed that they will work together to try to outline specific guidelines and processes for doing that type of impact assessment for the mining industry.
So dealing with uncertainty in terms of process or what the future might bring - processes like land use or fisheries - has been the core of discussion and has been one of the things that our camp, working, prompting and coordinating with other departments and industry, has been focusing on.
Mr. Stinson: I want to clarify a few things here. When you were answering the question you said that more mines have come onstream in the last little while than ever before. First, any mine coming onstream that started approximately seven years ago has absolutely nothing to do with what we've done in this Parliament. What we have been doing here, or the lack of what we have been doing, is opening up mines in Chile and everywhere else, but not in Canada. I just wanted to make that clear.
.1220
The Chairman: Hearing no more requests for questions, I wish at this time to extend the committee's very sincere thanks to the departmental officials who have come together on short notice to provide us with some background information to get us going. We sure appreciate your coming here and being with us today.
It's a very important topic. Because it's slow, complicated, and expensive doesn't mean it's good. I don't think there's anything we can't do better, cheaper, and faster. Thank you for your assistance in this regard, and thank you to the committee members.
The meeting is now adjourned.