[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 23, 1995
.1117 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
This is a meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing a study of environmental regulations and duplication overlap in relation to the mining industry.
We are very pleased today to have with us Vic Shantora, director general of the toxics pollution prevention directorate of the environmental protection service, and Pat Finlay, acting chief of the mining, minerals and metallurgical processes division.
Thank you, gentlemen, for agreeing to appear before the committee to share with us your points of view and knowledge in relation to this subject matter. The committee welcomes you, and you can begin your presentation when you see fit.
Mr. Vic Shantora (Director General, Toxics Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment): We're very pleased to be here with you to offer a few remarks on mining and its competitiveness, particularly how we work with the mining sector in Canada to implement environmental protection measures.
My name is Vic Shantora, as the chairman has already said. My colleague here, Patrick Finlay, is with the chief of the mining, minerals and metals division. We're both active in the area of toxics pollution prevention, as the name suggests.
We work with a range of industry sectors across the country - mining, pulp and paper, the chemical industry, and oil refining, to name a few. Of course mining is a rather major sector of Canada's economy and obviously is very important to us.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about the laws that we have in effect and how they might impact on the mining industry, and the regulations, cover some points around the issue of federal-provincial harmonization, and then do a summary wrap-up. Then, as you wish, Mr. Chairman, we'll be happy to address questions or comments.
Environment Canada has two major legislative vehicles for advancing environmental protection: the Fisheries Act, which we share with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Under these two acts we have four regulations that pertain to the mining industry. These are the metal mining liquid effluent regulations - I'll speak to these in more detail later - the asbestos mines and mills regulations, the secondary lead smelter release regulations and the Alice Arm tailings deposit regulations. With the exception of the site-specific Alice Arm regulations, the others set national standards for environmental performance across Canada.
.1120
The federal regulations that I think are of most interest and most relevance to the mining industry and to your committee, Mr. Chair, are the metal mining liquid effluent regulations, which were promulgated in 1977.
There may be equivalent or more stringent standards administered by provinces or territories at individual facilities across the country. For instance, in provinces such as Ontario, these national baseline standards have been surpassed with more comprehensive and stringent requirements on a geographic-specific basis.
The role of the federal government in designing our regulations for the mining industry has been to provide environmental leadership and consistency across the country. Therefore we have that notion of national baseline requirements. Provinces, should they so choose, may then set tighter, more specific requirements on a site-specific basis or a geographic area basis, for example the Great Lakes area of the country.
One of our most important legislative vehicles is the Fisheries Act. It's one of Canada's earliest statutes, as I'm sure you're aware, first passed by Parliament in 1868.
Subsection 36(3) prohibits the deposit of all deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish. The general prohibition applies to everyone, anywhere in the country. Subsection 36(4) provides for exceptions to this general prohibition through regulations. Subsection 36(5) provides authority to make regulations specifying allowable deposits of deleterious substance. It is under this subsection that the metal mining liquid effluent regulations were passed.
These regulations were developed between 1973 and 1977 by a federal-provincial industry task force. They're based on what we term ``best practicable technology'' at the time of their introduction.
The regulations address three basic water pollution problems: total suspended matter, in other words, the grit or fine particles that may leave a mine site and then foul a fisheries stream; total and dissolved metals, such as arsenic, copper, etc., and acidity; and radium 226 in uranium mine and mill effluents and tailings. So for mines that are active in extracting uranium ores, these regulations also apply to them. While these standards are eighteen years old, we believe they've stood the test of time and have done the intended job.
As we mentioned, new standards issued by the Ontario government, the Ontario Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement - MISA, as it's called - were published in 1994. Interestingly enough, the MISA regulations, while they're more stringent for total suspended matter and acidity levels, are identical for the other parameters that are covered in the federal regulation.
With regard to amending the metal mining liquid effluent regulations, we've set up a multi-stakeholder process called AQUAMIN. It's being carried out to assess the effectiveness of the existing regulations. Its objectives are to determine the current science and technology, to determine the adequacy of the existing regulations and whether they are protecting the environment as they were intended, and to determine whether and how these might be amended or changed. The mining sector is a key player in this exercise, together with provinces, territories and environmental groups.
We hope to complete the AQUAMIN process by March 31, 1996, with a report and recommendations. These will be submitted to Environment Canada, and we'll assess those and determine what further action we need to take.
.1125
We believe the existing regulations have served the interests of environmental protection and the communities and industries well for almost twenty years now. These regulations have provided predictable, practical, technology-based national effluent quality standards. The updating and strengthening of these regulations has involved, and will continue to involve, many stakeholders in related initiatives to reflect continuous improvement and developments in technologies, practices, and policies by governments, industry and public sector organizations.
We're fully committed to having efficient and cost-effective regulations. We also now look to a complementary mix of tools to effect environmental improvements. We recently initiated what we call a ``strategic options process'', where if we decide we do have reason to believe there is an environmental problem we look at all possibilities with the stakeholders, to come up with the best combination of solutions. This will look not only at the what but at the who. By that I just want to stress that if it is more appropriate for provinces to play a lead role in a particular aspect of an environmental problem, so be it. If it's seen as a national requirement, so be it. But we use that strategic options process to determine the approach.
In this regard the department has engaged in a number of in-house exercises as well as extensive harmonization work with the provinces. In 1993 Environment Canada participated in a regulatory review exercise that was called for in the 1992 budget. We reviewed the effectiveness, efficiency, and competitive implications of the four regulations pertaining to the mining sector. None of the four regulations, I might add, were found to have an adverse impact on competitiveness of mines in Canada.
A recent survey of base metal and gold mines in Canada found that the costs of the metal mining liquid effluent regulations are minimal in the total and capital and operating costs of a mine. Clearly, the most important issue as it relates to profitability and competitiveness of a mine site is the quality of the ore deposit, the extraction cost, and the cost to deliver to market.
The four federal regulations dealing with the mining sector are going to be subject to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment harmonization initiatives, which you may have heard of. Under the CCME harmonization initiatives governments have negotiated a draft environmental management framework agreement that seeks to maintain a high and consistent level of environmental protection while establishing more efficient processes and arrangements for delivery of environmental programs and services to Canadians. This draft framework agreement contains numerous schedules outlining federal roles and responsibilities in areas such as monitoring, compliance, and guidelines. The draft agreement, with the ten schedules, has been released for public discussion.
The policy and legislation schedule of the draft agreement addresses the issue of legislative and regulatory duplication. Under this schedule governments have committed to reviewing legislation and regulations with a view to minimizing, and possibly eliminating, duplication.
As a bit of a wrap-up, I'd just like to say that our sense of the situation in Canada is that environmental protection, the role of governments, the nature of the business, are changing. Many years ago we tended to focus on command-and-control types of regulations. Today we're shifting our emphasis to pollution prevention. It's cheaper, it's quicker, and it's more effective. We now see some industries coming forward with some very novel ideas for how to prevent pollution and save money. So the traditional regulatory framework is being augmented and complemented by these other various initiatives.
One such initiative we participated in was the Whitehorse initiative. This multi-stakeholder process will better position Canada's mining industry to face the next century and to promote sustainable development.
A significant example of another initiative is a voluntary initiative called ARET, the Accelerated Reduction and Elimination of Toxics. The mining sector is a key player in this. To date, thirteen mining companies representing 83% of the value of Canadian-based metal production have signed on to reductions anywhere between 50% and 90% in terms of their pollution loading to the environment.
.1130
The challenge is to make sure we get the 100%, and we continue to discuss that with our colleagues in the mining industry. It's only then that voluntary initiatives will achieve the level playing field necessary for competitors within an industrial sector.
I make a point of that because in my discussions with a number of companies that have signed on to these voluntary challenges, they come back and they always ask about the free riders. We do need a way to capture the free riders. We're working on that.
As the globalization of the economy continues, it's imperative that our industries be able to assure their customers in foreign markets that they meet the exacting standards that consumers demand. As we have done in the past, we will work closely with our various industrial sectors to ensure that when new controls are introduced they are efficient and effective and based on sound science. We will continue to consult broadly and to work with the provinces to ensure that we avoid duplication and overlap.
In closing, I'd like to state that well-designed and well-implemented environmental regulations provide both the environmental protection that Canadians are looking for and the certainty and predictability that industry needs to compete in Canada and in world markets. Increasingly, voluntary initiatives are complementing regulatory requirements as industries become more environmentally responsible, but again I would stress that voluntary measures are a complement to regulation, not a substitution.
Continuous improvement is built into the system and environmental standards and performance will be regularly examined.
Environment Canada believes that we have strong partnership relationships with our industry colleagues. We want to maintain and enhance those, and we want to do it for the benefit of all. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Thank you, Mr. Shantora. There is one aspect of things I would like to define with you. In a vast country like Canada, the department often wants to set basic standards. It is very virtuous to talk about standards, especially environmentally friendly ones, but should the department simply establish basic standards or have full responsibility for the standards?
Here's what I mean. Since controlling natural resources is normally a provincial prerogative, why would the department not simply set the basic standards and leave the responsibility for administering these standards in the hands of the provinces? A lot of money could be saved that way.
You said earlier that you were trying to eliminate overlap through administrative agreements with the provinces. If the provinces were simply responsible for administering these basic standards, you would not have that problem. The provinces would respect their own environment, because no one wants to live in a polluted environment. There is no better client than someone who owns his own land. Do you not think it would be more advantageous and beneficial for the federal government to set basic national standards instead of also being responsible for enforcing them?
[English]
Mr. Shantora: I think the objective of the harmonization exercise is to do essentially that. I think the issue here is that while that's a sound principle, we have cases where some individual provinces may be more capable of implementing requirements than others.
.1135
I'll give you the case of PCB regulations we have currently in effect. Alberta, for example, has signed an equivalency agreement. It deals with them exclusively in that province. Other provinces such as Prince Edward Island are saying they really don't have the capacity and the federal government should do that.
While I think the principle is there that provinces, where they have the capability, should enforce those requirements, it isn't always possible to do that.
I would suggest two additional factors for your consideration. First, the way budgets are going with the government's preoccupation with the debt, various departments are being downsized, which also helps push us to the table to make sure we minimize duplication and overlap. I think I'm responding in particular to your comment about the discussion around efficiency and whether we can do things better. We believe we can.
With the third factor, the role and leadership of the federal government comes in. There is still a need to ensure we have some sort of national consistency and a level playing field.
In the old days we used to talk about pollution havens and used our national standards as the levelling of the playing field. Today, I think we would find that may not be so much an issue between the federal government and the provinces. As our economy becomes more global - and the mining sector is important in that respect since it exports a lot of its products - it's important for the federal government to ensure domestic national standards are reasonable and consistent at home, and we work in the international community to make sure the playing field is level. That's the new challenge.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Shantora, the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides for the recognition of relevant provincial standards so that provinces can say: "Well, our standards are equivalent or superior to those of the federal government." The provinces could use that aspect to have a single window set up. But at the same time, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development suggested, in its most recent report, more intervention in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Given that government funds are on the decline, I would prefer that there be a better agreement and that the provinces, and especially the industry, be provided with a single window for their request.
We know that one of the main criticisms from Industry, especially the mining industry, is that they have to deal not only with the federal and provincial levels, but also with several departments. There are all kinds of overlap.
As a director, how do you see this report which states that the federal government should get more involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction?
[English]
Mr. Shantora: I think the challenge here is that nothing is static. In 1970, when Environment Canada was first formed, I believe we were the only jurisdiction level of government that had any environmental requirements.
Over the ensuing years, provincial environment departments were formed and provincial laws came into being. These laws, as well as federal laws, get tightened and amended from time to time. It's rather difficult to take one snapshot in time and say the feds should be more active or the provinces should be more active.
.1140
We find it depends on the issue, whether it's national in scope or very site-specific, and the nature of the pollution problem. Sometimes it deals with plants and effluent pipes and sometimes it deals with products in commerce, imports and exports.
So we tend to have to weigh all of this in terms of deciding on the right mix of tools, as I described earlier, and who should act. I think the strategic options process I described earlier, along with the environmental management framework agreements, will help us get to that point.
I understand the concern you've raised, but I just have to say I have never found a cookie cutter - if I may use that expression - kind of answer, or a sort of one size fits all answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Shantora, through your work, you are in a position to measure the impact of pollution caused by various industries, especially the mining industry. We know that human and agricultural activity cause pollution, but these fertilizers enable the plants we eat to develop.
We know that from the 1920s to the 1940s the mining industry was responsible for a lot of pollution with its big tailing ponds that must now be decontaminated. Do you think that the mining industry now has good self-regulating policy? We have to be on the lookout. I think there has to be some limit. Is the mining industry still a source of pollution?
[English]
Mr. Shantora: The mining industry still contributes to pollution in Canada. It does so at a significantly reduced rate from levels in the 1970s and 1960s. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I recall making a presentation to the international joint commission about two and a half years ago. It is specific to the Great Lakes, but I think it is indicative of the national scene. We did some studies to look at pollution loadings to the Great Lakes and who was contributing.
Without fail, the major industry sectors have reduced their pollution loading to the Great Lakes in the order of 70% to 90%, so the loading has very significantly improved. I think if you talk to any of your colleagues in the Great Lakes region of the country, they'll tell you the quality of the water has improved significantly.
Having said that, I'd just like to add that the job is still not done. There is still some room for improvement in the mining sector, the pulp and paper sector, our municipalities, and the way we as individuals deal with pollution.
The Chairman: We'll move on.
Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): You mentioned in your presentation that in a study the department has done of the four major regulations involved in the mining industry, none of them were found to be detrimental to mining. Why is the mining industry moving to Chile from Canada? If regulations aren't a problem, why does the mining industry seem so unwilling...and why does it keep saying regulations are the problem in Canada?
Mr. Shantora: I'm not sure I hear it expressed in those terms, and certainly not from the comments of some of my colleagues in the mining industry when they speak to me on this subject. For example, I understand some Canadian companies are doing work in Chile because of the quality of the ore deposits there.
We were in Chile in March of this year for a major government-to-government workshop that included our people and the Chilean environmental agency. It was a bit of a technology transfer session. They were interested in Canadian laws and regulations and in how we do business. We shared that information with them.
.1145
While I was down there I spoke with a vice-president of a major mining company. His concern was not that Canadian laws were so tough and that, gosh, Chilean laws are lax. That's not the case. His concern was that what they really need down there is to make sure that whatever the laws - and they believe Canadian laws are reasonable - would we please work with the Chileans to make sure they adopt a similar approach.
This particular individual in that company was deathly afraid.... Perhaps I'm overstating it, but he was certainly concerned about a United States kind of regulatory, adversarial, in-your-face approach being used that would really not be helpful.
We spent some time with the Chileans. They've since been back up here. We - and they - have identified mining as a major area of activity. Some of their people are visiting our provinces, looking at the way they do business, their permitting procedures and environmental assessment procedures. I think they visited some mine sites in Canada.
If the Canadian companies are willing to spend $5 billion investing in mine sites down there, I think that's good for Canada.
Mr. Strahl: I'm not disputing that. What I'm questioning is.... You may not be hearing it, but I'm certainly hearing that the mining industry doesn't want a tax break. They know they're not going to get that. They don't want to reduce environmental protection. They're not calling for us to pump lead into the lakes. What they are saying consistently is that it is a regulatory problem in Canada. In other words, it may not be that any one of these mining regulations is by itself specifically the thing that's deterring investment in Canada, but overall there's something wrong.
We can say that it's all good, but it's not good. That's why we're having this meeting. It's not good. It takes too long and there are too many hoops to jump through. From what I'm hearing and reading and so on, the mining industry says that regulatory reform is the biggest single thing we can do in order to help them start new mines and get a return on their investment.
I'm not blaming the Chileans for wooing our industry. I'm wondering at the slow pace of regulatory reform. It seems that everybody agrees with the promises made in the red book and in others, but it just seems to take forever. Last week the government had yet to respond to the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment, five months after it was tabled. As a matter of fact, they are in contravention of the standing orders now because they have not tabled the response.
In 1995 the industry minister promised he would have, in an innovative economy, streamlined, regulatory ideas in six specific areas to be presented in this calendar year. As for the framework agreement from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, they have a framework agreement but they don't have a final agreement. The mining industry is just totally unconvinced that what they have is going to be the answer.
In other words, everybody says we have to move forward. It has just not happened yet. Why? What is it? What's the hold-up? Is it the provinces? Is it the industry? Does it just take that long to go through the hoops? What's holding it up?
Mr. Shantora: Sir, it simply takes a fair bit of time if you're dealing with thirteen governments, as we are in Canada. That process is going to take a fair bit of time to work through.
In my previous experience with the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment.... I'm not trying to make excuses. I hear the message you're giving us, but all it takes is one government changeover. A certain policy position would then be withdrawn, and the province you thought you might have had support from is no longer there because somebody else is there and it can work on the federal side too.
.1150
I've been in this business for nineteen years. I'd say that there are some signs of things happening. They might be subtle and maybe they're not coming to the fore as yet, but, in my discussions with my provincial colleagues, I recall B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and at least one other - and I suspect there are more than that - who are looking seriously at their whole permitting procedure and saying that the paper burden is too much. If you have a smokestack, then that requires one permit in one group. If you have an effluent pipe, then that's another permitting process with somebody else. They're trying to streamline that and pull it together so it's one-stop shopping, or what have you. That's an example that is happening. Again, unfortunately, it will take some time.
By the way, it doesn't hurt to have the mining industry, or companies at large, to keep our feet to the fire on that. We respect that and we are doing the best we can.
Mr. Strahl: Right. Many of us are concerned that an active mining industry should be around to do that. A major mine hasn't been opened in Canada for some time.
I mentioned that report by the Standing Committee on the Environment. I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that the mining industry is deathly afraid of that report. Their analysis of it is that it will destroy their industrial chances in Canada. That report's recommendations - there are a lot of them, 140, so not all of them - in general tend to centralize power in Canada more than to farm it out to the provinces. This isn't the department, but the report's recommendations are that Canada should move to give more, rather than less, power to the federal government.
How do you respond to that?
Mr. Shantora: I'm not involved personally in the CEPA review exercise we have within the department, and through the government as a whole, so it would probably be more appropriate to wait. Once cabinet will have decided on their position, we'll see where things will come out on that.
In the job we're charged with, we try to look at and respect the views of the various stakeholders. It's sometimes a bit tougher to come to a decision on the right course of action, and most of the time you don't get all you want, but you get something where you have a fair degree of buy-in. If we can do that and the environment can be improved by steps, without undue impact on the industry, then I think it's a win-win situation.
Mr. Strahl: But on that report itself, have you looked at those recommendations to see how they would impact on what you're trying to do, which is to integrate and to make sure there's no duplication and so on? Isn't that your job?
Mr. Shantora: I feel quite certain that all of the issues you've talked about will be integrated into the government's response.
Mr. Strahl: Okay. We'll wait. We now wait, and we wait, and we wait!
I give up for now. I'll come back.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I'd like to ask a direct question: are you in favour of grandfathering?
Mr. Strahl: Are you talking about in the metal industry, or just in general?
Mr. Reed: I'm talking about the approvals process and the interface between industry and government. When a project begins, the industry begins with a certain set of rules, as they see them, a certain set of regulations. As a result of that, an investment decision is made and the process is begun.
You have the idea.
.1155
Mr. Shantora: That sort of issue is examined on a case-by-case basis, but just to go back to the metal mining liquid effluent regulations I spoke of earlier, when they were set up in 1977 we actually split that package into two streams. For existing mines they were subject to guidelines. In other words, they were grandfathered...recognizing they were already there. We said new mines would be subject to the regulations.
So the principle of grandfathering is one that obviously we have looked at in the past, and I suspect it would be a consideration in the future.
Mr. Reed: I think that was one of the major concerns delivered to us by the mining industry, not just from a federal perspective but from a provincial perspective. The way they worded it was that they couldn't stand to have the goalposts continually changed.
I have some personal experience with this. While it exists, a number of industries will decide not to invest simply because of that fear of changing the regulatory process in midstream, which results in cost overruns, and huge investment.... A great deal of money is involved in rehiring consultants and resubmitting four or five times before you finally get the permit to go ahead and do some work.
Mr. Shantora: I understand the concern. But if I can just offer another perspective on this....
The metal mining effluent regulations have been in effect since 1977, so I think there's been a fair bit of stability with those regulations. I think the industry is now comfortable with them. I think it's fair to say that most, if not all, of the companies that fell under the guidelines are meeting the requirements, which are essentially equivalent to the regulatory standards. I spoke also of the fact that we are looking at amending those regulations and we're doing that in a totally public way. The industry is sitting at the table with us in those deliberations.
Quite honestly, I can't accept, at least for the kind of work we do, that someone would suggest somehow we're changing things on them in midstream. We really do try to be open and transparent and provide a rationale up front if we are going to change something. We may not be 100% successful, but it's a good business principle and I think we try to respect it.
Mr. Reed: My own experience has not been with the federal government. It's been provincial. The process has been out of control, if you like, with no recognition at all that an investment and business are involved. Some of the changes, one might argue, are specious, to say the least.
I want to know how you deal with the relationship between some form of man-made intrusion into the environment vis-à-vis natural occurrences. My people have had this debate in fisheries, where it is unacceptable to undertake activity on a river bank but it's quite okay as the rains fall and the erosion takes place on the river, because one is natural and one is man-made.
.1200
Is there any sense of understanding applied in these cases? Some people on the firing line say there is a difference. This one's man-made and this one's natural. So because it's natural, it's okay; if it's man-made, it's not okay.
Mr. Shantora: It's interesting that you should raise it, because the government announced what we call a new toxic substances management policy this past June. In part, it addresses exactly what you're talking about.
You've probably heard of DDT, mirex, toxafene, and PCBs. These are clearly synthetic substances. Their special feature is that not only are they highly toxic, but they're also persistent and they're bio-accumulative. So you and I as human beings carry out a little bit of PCBs or DDT in our body. That's sort of a sad legacy I guess we have to accept.
We're also finding that these things float around in the atmosphere. For the longest time we thought the Arctic was unpolluted, because there's no human activity up there to speak of. But the polar bears and seals up there also are contaminated with these things.
We realized that we needed a new policy framework to deal with something that's persistent and bio-accumulative, as well as toxic. It's not enough to talk about reductions for those sorts of things; you also have to talk about how we should keep them from getting out into the environment.
So our policy basically says that if a pollutant or toxic substance is principally anthropogenic, as well as being toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative, we then move it into what we call a ``track one'' approach. That is the approach that says we have to devise a strategy that keeps it from getting into the environment. If it gets there, it's too late.
There was some debate at the time as to how we treat metals. You can equally argue that mercury is toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative. Lead is toxic and persistent, but maybe not so bio-accumulative.
So that's why we set up this criterion that says that if it's principally anthropogenic, toxic and bio-accumulative, it becomes a track one substance.
With respect to metals, we've said they don't fit in that category. We should treat them under the track two approach, which is basically along the lines we're already dealing with. Look for reductions where you can, but, clearly, you can't eliminate them from the environment, because they're already there naturally. So try to reduce the threat, but you're not going to be able to totally eliminate it.
Mr. Reed: You have two tracks. Do you have a third track that would deal with something non-toxic or less noxious?
Mr. Shantora: If it's non-toxic, it kicks out of the system entirely. We don't deal with it.
Mr. Reed: Maybe I'm misinterpreting some Fisheries people out on the firing line. My people have had a discussion about silt. In this case, it wasn't organic silt, which I know can suffocate a fish, but it was sand, and so on. The response was that they didn't want to run any risk of destroying the minnow population in this particular area. If a flood comes down and does it, that's okay, but if it's a man-made occurrence with much less impact, that's not okay.
Mr. Shantora: I'm not familiar with the issue at all. I don't think I can -
Mr. Reed: This would fall under the Fisheries Act, and so on.
Mr. Patrick Finlay (Acting Chief, Mining, Mineral and Metallurgical Processes Division, Department of the Environment): To add to that, you are quite correct. As you said, it falls under the Fisheries Act. The responsibility we have under the Fisheries Act relates to industrial discharges, rather than the situation you are referring to, which is fish habitat and so on.
.1205
So I think the point you are making is more properly addressed to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Chairman: We'll be hearing from the Department of Fisheries next week, so you can raise it at that time.
Mr. Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll save something for the next time around.
The Chairman: Mr. Thalheimer.
Mr. Thalheimer (Timmins - Chapleau): When you're making your assessments and so on, on environmental impacts, how much tolerance is there? Do you take the position that we protect the environment at any cost to the industry? Or do you assess it in terms of costs that are of immediate effect on the industry?
Mr. Shantora: We do a number of things as a matter of routine. We'd first of all look at the scientific base on which a problem is measured. Do we have a good scientific understanding of the problem so that we can therefore establish the cause-effect relationship?
Second, we'd look at the technologies or the approaches that are available to solve the problem. We had, in the early days.... The metal mining liquid effluent regulations are an example of an area in which we actually did some work with the mining industry to look at what sorts of technologies were out there that were capable of doing the job.
The third area we'd look at is what we call the socio-economic impact. We'd ask ourselves questions about what the cost is to clean up this particular effluent or emission, or what its impact will be on the affected industry. We'd also look at any social considerations. A one-mine town or that sort of thing would be factored into the decision-making process.
We don't take any sort of preliminary decisions ourselves. We bring this forward to ministers, who ultimately make the decision about the nature and the shape of the regulations. We obviously give them some options, but all of that gets factored into the decision-making process.
Mr. Thalheimer: Obviously, the -
The Chairman: We'll have to wait until another go-round. The Liberals are done their ten minutes here.
Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Shantora, I would like to know if there are any statistics on pollution levels broken down by industry. We now know that the food industry, the paper industry and even the fishing industry caused pollution. Would it be possible to provide the committee with statistics on the levels of pollution from the mining industry as well as levels of pollution from other sources, if you have any, so that we can get an idea of the order of magnitude involved?
We are here today to discuss the excessive number of regulations and above all the overlap. For example, if authorization to cross navigable waterways comes from your department, could you not speed up the process in some cases?
Let's look at a specific example. From a practical point of view, an industry waiting to obtain permission to cross a small waterway - what you call a creek in English, in that it may only be 2 metres wide - could wait a long time before obtaining the results of such a simple study. However, it is impossible to compare that type of study to the environmental studies carried out when a dam is to be built. It there not a simpler way of obtaining a permit to cross a small waterway? That would improve things practically, if not politically.
[English]
Mr. Shantora: On the first point, we will undertake to get some information on loadings by sector and discharges. You may be aware, or you may not be, that we have what we call the national pollutant release inventory. It was released for the first time last year. It actually gives figures by company and by region of the country in terms of air and water and waste. So we can certainly make that available.
With respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, it is not administered by us. It is under another department. However, we do have a role to play. If an NWPA application comes in and there's a potential environmental implication to it, we will make comments on the particular application. We do try to expedite those.
.1210
I'm not personally involved in that, but I can certainly undertake to pass your comments on to the right people to address themselves to that. In fact, you may be having other departments coming, so you may want to just raise that with them.
Mr. Deshaies: Merci.
The Chairman: Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: A couple of things have come up in the discussions here. I get back to the recommendations of the environment committee. One of the basic thrusts of those is the change in the way hazardous products may be defined. You mentioned before that as it is now the minister would make a final decision based on the recommendations your department may give to her.
The old way of evaluating things is risk-based. You look at something and say yes, there are going to be three parts mercury per million, or whatever, and yes, it's a hazard; it's a risk. But there's natural mercury, so we accept a certain risk because that's just part of.... Breathing creates greenhouse gas, so what are we supposed to do, hold our breath?
Anyway, the old way was risk-based. The new proposal is an intrinsic hazard-based evaluation of discharges and emissions, where it's basically deemed toxic no matter what. How would that affect the approval process?
That's a huge shift in emphasis, because it goes away from the scientific-based process you talked about earlier, which is that all things being equal, we're going to go ahead with it because we feel it's as safe as we can make it, or relatively safe. Now it would change, under those kinds of recommendations. It would basically make it almost impossible to mine, because mining always does have by-products.
What will it do to the approval process, in your opinion, if you switch from a risk-based to an intrinsic hazard-based analysis?
Mr. Shantora: Let me go back a little bit. I don't think our intention is to shift from a risk-based to a hazard-based analysis. The toxics management policy I described earlier recognizes a risk-based approach. I presume you're referring to the parliamentary committee's report.
Mr. Strahl: Yes.
Mr. Shantora: I've talked to some people who were part of the parliamentary committee. I really don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but my impression was that their comments on inherent risk really dealt with the track one substances - the DDTs and some of the more toxic pesticides - not the whole universe of substances. I may be wrong, so I qualify my remarks, but I was certainly under that impression.
Basically how we define what substances become track one substances is exactly around that point. We need to encourage companies and industries, whether it's an old product or particularly when it's a new product, to do the right sorts of analyses up front to determine whether they're persistent, toxic and bio-accumulative. If they are, we need to make sure we have that kind of data for an assessment.
It's nevertheless still a risk-based approach.
.1215
Mr. Strahl: I have a logging background and I know that the Fisheries Act is like dealing with a higher power - and I don't mean just the federal government. We are talking about it being impossible to deal with them, because subsection 36(3), which says that no deleterious substance can be placed in a creek, means that if you walk through a creek you have placed a deleterious substance in it, because it washes some dirt off your boots.
You can't win. If they want to throw the book at you, then they can shut you down at any time, which is why you go around grovelling and scraping the entire time, hoping that they'll leave your work site before they shut you down, because no matter what you do you could be in contravention of the Fisheries Act.
This is a very important principle. If you give that kind of power, the Fisheries Act type of power, to the environment act in general, then people might find it very difficult to do business.
The other question I have is about the voluntary emissions program, the ARET program. Something else that the Minister of Natural Resources has been emphasizing is the greenhouse gas emissions voluntary program. She has really been stressing that, and the industry, of course, is bending over backwards to try to comply on a voluntary basis in order to avoid additional regulations. The hope is that they can reduce their greenhouse emissions by enough to satisfy the government and the international community and the consumers so that they won't have to go through the regulatory process, because they feel that it's probably no more effective and much more difficult to handle.
So far the Minister of Natural Resources has said that that's the way she's going. She's going to emphasize the voluntary aspect of greenhouse gas emissions. She's going to ride herd on it.
Next week I'm going to get a briefing on it, the voluntary aspect, how it's working, if it's working, and so on. So my point is that there's a real emphasis on the voluntary nature, proactive, really stressing the voluntary side of it.
It seems to me that in the mining industry what you're describing, the voluntary aspect, the ARET, is almost an afterthought. Or does it receive the same emphasis as it seems to be getting from Ms McLellan on greenhouse gas? In other words, does the environment department look on the ARET program as being the way to go, or is it only that ``It's good as far as it goes, but we've really got to get at the regulations''?
In other words, the industry says that it is very hard to meet every jot and tittle of regulations. The voluntary program might be more acceptable.
Mr. Shantora: I spoke about the mix of tools and trying to enhance the scope and breadth of those. I think the way I would describe it best today is that it is a bit of a pilot project, an experiment. We have others with motor vehicle manufacturers in the Great Lakes, the auto parts manufacturers, aimed at pollution prevention, and they seem to be successful. We've had some very good progress reports from them.
As I mentioned in my presentation, the one thing we always come back to is, if you don't get 100%, how do you deal with the free riders?
A number of industry associations.... I'll speak of the Canadian chemical producers specifically, because I know best what they're doing. They very much are strong-arming their members who haven't signed up to ARET to get signed up.
I think there will be a fair bit of peer pressure, but at the end of the day it still comes back to if you have 50% or 60% or 80% of membership signed up and committed and doing a good job and the other folks aren't -
Mr. Strahl: It's not a level playing field.
Mr. Shantora: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Strahl: Say you get 80% compliance on a voluntary reduction of lead in the tailings. You don't get 100%, so everybody's piqued - industry, government. Everyone's annoyed at the bad apple who continues to ignore that. What could we do then to target that one bad apple, rather than just saying, it didn't work because we didn't have 100% compliance, so, I'm sorry, you're all now going to have to go through this regulatory regime in order to get that one guy who's not kicking in?
.1220
Is there a way to target the one person while leaving the others, the good corporate citizens, to do what they're doing effectively?
Mr. Shantora: That's exactly what we're looking at in trying to see if we can devise some systems that really direct themselves at levelling the playing field and not penalizing everybody for the sake of a few.
Mr. Strahl: Do you have examples? You're working on it, but what does that mean?
Mr. Shantora: We're working on it in the sense that we're trying to build a policy discussion paper, so I have absolutely nothing I can share with you, but I can give you an example in the pulp and paper industry. Maybe this doesn't exactly get at your point, but maybe it's an opportunity in terms of approach.
In that industry, we issued new regulations in 1992, I think, and they're all to be in full compliance by the end of this year. Any company that's in full compliance and can demonstrate that over some period of months - I forget what it is exactly - they are regularly and consistently below the norms, then what we do is say okay, you can reduce the frequency of your sampling, for example. So that obviously reduces the cost and the burden.
If they have one hit above, then they go back to the old way of doing business. Meantime our inspectors or investigation officers might be in there trying to understand what happened and what corrective action to take. But that might be one example where if you can clearly demonstrate that you're a consistent performer, it's like the kid in school with the gold star; you recognize that individual.
Mr. Strahl: I think I know the industry. I'm not saying they're all doing this for altruistic reasons, but the fact is that it's for every reason, including consumer confidence, international acceptability, and so on. It's in their best interest, which is what we're trying to drive at, that they adhere to that.
I guess you don't have a timeframe on that study paper that's being initiated. It seems to me that if we can make it palatable and desirable for these good corporate citizens to come on board, we can get a lot of mileage out of that with the way the world is interested in environmental issues right now. I think it's really the way to go. If we can find ways of doing what you describe, reducing significantly their burden - paperwork, costs, sampling, and so on - this could make a big difference and I think could set a standard we could be proud of.
Mr. Shantora: We'll continue to persevere. I think there is some opportunity there.
Mr. Strahl: We need it very soon.
The Chairman: I have just a quick question.
From time to time, some people have suggested that the way to deal with these individuals within industry who do not want to voluntarily comply is simply to have the industry notify their clients, or whoever they're supplying product to, that these guys are bad apples and here are alternative suppliers. Some people suggest that might have quite a significant impact on their behaviour. What is your view of that?
Mr. Shantora: Actually, I think we have an excellent working example of that in Canada today. I might suggest that if your schedules permit, you invite the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association to make a presentation. They have been operating under a program they call Responsible Care for a number of years now.
In fact, in terms of public opinion polls, the public perception of them has probably been lower than that of a used car salesman. They were obviously concerned about that and they've really worked on this Responsible Care program to turn around their image and the way they approach business. They're not doing exactly what you're suggesting, but what they are doing is having CEOs sign on the dotted line to a certain base level of commitment. That's the price of membership, and if you don't comply with those requirements you're out of the club.
The Chairman: Mr. Rideout.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): I have just a couple of questions.
.1225
We haven't really talked a lot about recyclables and the definition of waste, and how these may or may not be captured in that definition. I wonder if you have any comments on that general area, because in one sense we're trying to encourage recycling, yet on the other we're saying because this is waste you can't transport it, you can't do this, you can't do that. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot with this?
You can give comments outside policy.
Mr. Shantora: I think the government and Environment Canada in particular have put a lot of emphasis on promoting and supporting recycling, as have provinces. So we're very much in tune with the need for recycling. Certainly the secondary lead smelters in Canada are doing us all a big favour in taking the batteries back in, reprocessing the lead, and that sort of thing.
Part of the issue you allude to started with the whole Basel Convention and the fact that third world countries perceived, rightly or wrongly, that they might become a dumping ground for first world hazardous wastes. First of all, our major waste-trading nation, if I can use that term, is the United States, simply because we have hazardous waste disposal treatment and recycling facilities in Canada, and they do too. It turns out to be very cost-effective in terms of travel distance or the type of waste you have that those wastes move freely. They are strictly controlled in their movements, but they do move across borders.
Through the United Nations environmental program we have had some difficult issues dealing with waste exports to third world countries. Canada believes wastes that are destined for recycling deserve special recognition. That's not the universally held view. We obviously need to do more work in that area.
It still comes back to the original principle that recycling is a good thing. Keeping junk out of landfill sites when it has some sort of economic value.... Let's make some use out of it.
Mr. Rideout: In fact - not that it falls into the same category, perhaps - there are some operations, particularly in the smelting of copper and that sort of thing, such that if we didn't have recyclables those facilities would be closed down, because there just isn't enough actual new supply. Recycling is an essential component.
Is there anything we as a committee could do to try to advance or push that process to get the definition changed? Are there other things we could or should be doing in order to push that agenda just a bit?
Mr. Shantora: I'm not sure how to address that. Today I can't answer your question, but I'd be happy perhaps to undertake to bring something back to the committee, or send something back to the committee, looking at that in a little detail.
Mr. Rideout: This is not a smart alec question when I ask this one, but ever since the Brundland commission we've been functioning with ``sustainable development'' and what it means. Now in recent months we're starting to get different definitions of what ``sustainable development'' may mean and whether the emphasis is on ``development'' or on ``sustainable''. Perhaps you could tell me whether there is actually a definition you function under. If not, is a shift taking place?
I know I met with the chairman of the environment standing committee, and he told me in no uncertain terms that development follows only after you've made a determination that there can be no possible risk of anything happening. Therefore the emphasis is totally on the sustainable aspect rather than on development. From a departmental view, do you have a definition you function under?
.1230
That's my last question.
Mr. Shantora: We do. I can't cite it chapter and verse, but basically it says we should all use our resources wisely for the benefit of ourselves, yet not impair the ability of future generations to make use of those same resources. It's the old adage about working off the interest, not the capital.
Mr. Reed: Maybe over the last ten or fifteen years we have finally gravitated to the point where we will recognize that people are part of nature. I think we have come through an era where we have had a guilt trip laid on us that we are somehow the enemies of nature, when in fact we are not. Sometimes we do things we shouldn't do. We should recognize those and either not do them or correct them. But I hope maybe the definition of ``sustainable'' will evolve to the point where we're a proper part of this planet.
Mr. Chairman, I was interested that my friend from the Bloc talked about navigable waters. I just want to put it on the record that in the future I would favour having those people who administer the navigable waters act here. Perhaps there are some questions we both would like to ask them.
A comment was made about waste across borders; that it was sometimes economic to have that exchange. My experience with waste across borders is that it's political. It's been a way to escape the fear-mongering that goes on when a population has to deal with its own waste.
I can refer to the riding I serve, out of Halton - Peel, where the Region of Halton at one point had embraced energy-from-waste projects, then abandoned them with the crush of fear-mongers and ended up trucking it to New York state, where it is incinerated at a cost, I have to say, that is nothing like competitive with anything.... Many energy-from-waste plants could have been built and operated at the tipping fees that were paid.
At present we are going through a similar catharsis in Metropolitan Toronto, as you know. The options don't seem to be based on economics as much as they're based in politics. Once again the fear-mongers come out of the woodwork. They seem to make a living at this or something. It becomes good business for them to suppress certain technologies that could serve that population quite well.
I don't know how your regulatory process relates to that, but I'm telling you these are problems that are very serious and have to be resolved.
I have one question. It has to do with your own review of the regulations themselves. This is an internal review you're conducting, and you're looking at regulations, as I understood it, to establish whether they are still relevant, whether they can be combined with others, whether they can be made more efficient. At the risk of being somewhat controversial, I would ask, are you the right people to examine yourselves, or is the fox in with the chicken coop?
.1235
Mr. Shantora: I don't think the fox is in with the chickens. The process was an internal process per se, not within Environment Canada. I mentioned that this had come about as a result of a budget statement in 1992, I think. Central agencies were involved in terms of setting out the guidelines under which we ought to conduct those reviews. I think virtually all departments were asked to undertake the review.
We had some pretty clear and specific direction in terms of what we were supposed to look at, how we were supposed to look at it and that sort of thing, so I think it was a pretty thorough review. Incidentally, that is done and I think we could probably share those reports with you if you wish.
Mr. Reed: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you.
I don't believe there are any further questions. We do have a few questions here that we can provide to you, and if you would undertake as much as possible to provide responses to the committee we would certainly appreciate that. We'll give them to you after the meeting.
Mr. Shantora: Okay.
The Chairman: We very much appreciate your attendance and the sharing of your viewpoints. We wish you all the best in your endeavours.
Mr. Shantora: We hope we've been helpful.
The Chairman: You certainly have. Thank you very much.
We will now adjourn the meeting and we will have a very quick meeting of the steering committee.