VANCOUVER - Federal commitments to streamline environmental
reviews of major resource projects sit well with the mining
industry, but not so well with environmentalists, scientists and
many other notable Canadians.
Miners have been a leading voice in calling on the Harper
Conservatives to amend the review process to remove what they
believe are needless delays in getting projects vetted by federal
regulators.
They want duplication of paperwork eliminated, and they want
Ottawa to commit its bureaucracy to fixed time limits for reviewing
projects and rendering a verdict.
That could mean faster turnaround times on projects that
typically take a decade to develop from early drilling
investigations to operating mines.
When Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver announced in
mid-April what the Tories are calling the Responsible Resource
Development initiative, representatives of mineral explorers and
mine operators applauded.
The world relies on mining to supply everything from gravel for
roads, sidewalks and building foundations to coal for steelmaking,
copper for electronic devices, gold for jewelry.
In Canada, mining accounts for 10 per cent of the economy and 40
per cent of exports - and British Columbia is a major player in
that enterprise.
But the Tories' approach - inspired in large part by similar
initiatives in British Columbia since the B.C. Liberal Party took
power in 2001 - has alarmed many.
Notably, two former federal fisheries ministers from British
Columbia, Progressive Conservatives Tom Siddon and John Fraser,
described the Tories' plan to water down habitat protection
legislation as either inexcusable or foolish.
B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake, meanwhile, applauded the
changes and said the province will look at legislative changes to
match those emerging from Ottawa.
Gwen Barlee, policy director of the Wilderness Committee, noted
the province has been more aggressive about supporting resource
projects than have the feds.
B.C. approved Taseko Mining's Prosperity copper-gold mine near
Williams Lake before its rejection in 2010 by regulators in Ottawa.
(The project has been revised and is now undergoing a second
federal review.)
``Gradually over the years we have incorporated environmental
laws and standards to make sure we can deal with acid-rock
drainage, or prevent it from happening in the first place, so that
we aren't having groundwater contamination, or damage to fish
streams,'' Barlee said.
``Around the world, other jurisdictions are improving
environmental laws. In Canada, we are rolling back environmental
laws by 10, 20, 30 years. It makes me shake my head.
``I think the government has taken a misstep, particularly the
federal government when it comes to how strongly British Columbians
feel about protecting fish, whether it's wild salmon or cutthroat
trout or runs of steelhead. I don't think British Columbians are
going to sit back and get out of the business of environmental
management and turn it over to corporations.''
Karina Brino, president and CEO of the Mining Association of
British Columbia, believes the changes amount to less than what
opponents fear.
``We as an industry absolutely have a social responsibility in
the communities where we are operating,'' Brino said. That
responsibility includes environmental safeguards and ensuring new
mines are catalysts for community growth, not disruption.
The industry also believes its contribution to modern life is
too easily overlooked amid the discussion about the merits of a
proposed new mine and its environmental impact, its capacity for
job creation, royalties it will pay to the provincial treasury, and
the value of metals and minerals as global commodities.
Canada, for example, is the world's second-largest exporter of
steelmaking or metallurgical coal and 66 per cent of the product
comes from mines in southeast and northeast B.C. The product is
shipped to steelmakers in Asia and Europe and finds its way back
here in automobiles, industrial equipment, even kitchen
utensils.
Seven mines scattered around B.C. account for 40 per cent of
Canada's annual output of copper, a soft metal used for plumbing,
motors, batteries, wiring and electronic devices.
Fifty per cent of Canadian silver production comes from B.C.;
it's used in electronics, batteries, automobiles and medicine.
Other prominent metals in B.C. include gold, which is used
either in jewelry or as a store of wealth in lieu of currency;
lead, which is used in batteries, electronics sheathing and
corrosion resistance applications; molybdenum, which is used
primarily as an alloy in steelmaking; and zinc, which is used in
brass, steel plating and other industrial applications, as well as
in products ranging from deodorant to nutritional supplements.
``It's very easy to talk about mining in terms of facts and
figures, but that doesn't mean a lot to the person walking down the
street,'' Brino said. ``When people think about mining they think
about the hole in the ground and the stuff in the water.
``They don't think about their bikes or cars, about all of the
medical equipment that's available because of mining. We all want
to be green, we all want to drive hybrid cars and we all want to be
responsible for less emissions.
``But for all of that to operate, you need steel, you need raw
materials that come from the ground.''
Brino said new B.C. mines will get developed, responsibly, in a
tighter time frame as a result of the federal changes. The mining
industry isn't looking to gut the environmental review process, she
said. Rather, they're looking for a process akin to B.C.'s
environmental assessment agency.
The province imposes a limit on the amount of time a project can
be in the hands of its staff, but routinely interrupts that process
if it determines the proponent needs to conduct more research. If
proponents want a speedy deliberation, the onus is on them to make
sure they've got all the required information before entering the
process in the first place.
``When people think of `faster' they think of speeding something
through. What we are talking about is clear timelines. When a
project is deemed to be reviewable - meaning that when all of the
information that's required for the review has been submitted - it
shouldn't take 10 years for a decision to be made,'' Brino
said.
``There is going to be an obligation on the side of the
proponents, on the industry, on our side, to be very clear about
the scope of the review, about the type of information that's
required from that level of assessment, and being ready with the
information, with the tools, with the data, with the impacts, with
the research, with the studies - so that when the review starts,
when the clock starts to tick and we're all in there participating
in the review process, we all understand when we are going to come
out at the other end.
``If we are serious about taking advantage of the opportunity of
supporting resource development where all of the requirements have
been met, then it should be a priority.''
Loading...
Email
No selection was clipped for this page.
