[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 28, 1995
.1540 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
We are the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) continuing to study the overlap and duplication of regulations within the mining sector, both within the federal government itself and between the federal and provincial governments.
We are very honoured to have with us the Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Natural Resources, to provide us with information in relation to the subject matter we are studying.
Thank you, Minister, for coming. Certainly feel free to commence your remarks at your convenience.
[Translation]
The Honourable Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to meet with you today. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the issue of regulatory reform which is crucial to the future of a healthy mining industry in Canada.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today. It's a pleasure to be able to chat with the committee this afternoon about the very important work you're doing in relation to mining regulations, the regulatory regime and our ongoing efforts to avoid overlap and duplication.
I know from your report, Lifting Canadian Mining off the Rocks, that this committee is concerned with the impact of burdensome environmental regulations on the mining industry. I share those concerns, as do my colleagues in cabinet.
I believe the committee's current round of hearings provides an excellent opportunity for you to make recommendations on regulatory reform that can contribute meaningfully to our goals of sustainable development and enhanced competitiveness.
I have provided the committee with the full text of my speech, but I have no intention of reading it all. It goes on for some 30 pages. Rather than go through that text, I would prefer to focus on the subject at hand, which is regulatory reform. I would, however, ask you to read through my speech, which will provide you with the contextual framework for my department's concern and interest in this area.
I am, however, going to read the prepared text starting on page 19.
It should be a vast relief to you, Mr. Wood. It's toward the end of the speech.
I want to talk specifically about three areas of regulatory concern that my department has been working on in conjunction with others. As part of my commitment and my department's commitment to regulatory reform, in October NRCan and the Mining Association of Canada jointly sponsored a seminar on regulatory streamlining, which was attended by both industry and a number of other federal departments.
The participants at this meeting developed a draft action plan that focuses on three areas where the industry believes there are problems that need to be addressed on a priority basis. These are fish habitat management, land use, and environmental assessment. I would like to focus on these three areas for a few minutes, and bring to your attention a few other issues where short-term progress is possible and where your input would be welcome.
Many stakeholders are of the opinion that the current environmental assessment process is in need of improvement. This was apparent at the first ministers' meeting in St. John's and at the meeting of western premiers earlier in October. I have also heard this message from both my provincial and territorial colleagues at the mines ministers conferences, and from industry.
.1545
I am convinced we can make progress in the short term to establish more certain, cost-effective, and timely processes for environmental assessments. Progress on this issue is critical if we are to improve the business and investment climate for the Canadian mining sector.
I am pleased to report that we are moving forward on a number of fronts. For example, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, in collaboration with NRCan and other departments, is continuing to work on bilateral agreements on environmental assessments with several provinces.
In the case of British Columbia, a draft document has been released that reflects real progress. The B.C. document delegates the conduct of screenings and comprehensive studies to the province, and establishes specific time lines. At the same time it allows for a separate federal decision. We are hopeful that these concepts can be applied in other regions of Canada to facilitate the development of new mines, such as Voisey Bay in Newfoundland.
My officials are currently working with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, CEAA, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the panel review process. In fact, NRCan has just released a staff report that pulls together the views of industry representatives who have been through this process. I'm sure you have heard and will hear from other industry members who have been through this process. Some of their stories should give us all pause in terms of how we can go about improving the process.
The report I have just mentioned includes a number of recommended improvements, and I would be pleased to provide copies of that report to the committee for its deliberations.
Turning to the longer term, we will continue to build on the B.C. approach, the bilateral approach, to achieve the Whitehorse mining initiative goal of a single timely assessment, conducted by a clearly identified lead agency, that results in one set of recommendations that meet the requirements of all jurisdictions.
Before the end of this year, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Mining Association of Canada, and several federal departments, including my own, will meet to identify ways to establish a more direct dialogue on improving the assessment process.
The second area I want to focus on today is fisheries habitat management, which as you know is a topic of significant importance. The mining industry has pointed out that subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for many mining projects. This and the way the no-net-loss guideline in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans habitat management policy is applied are matters of particular concern to the industry.
Some key industry people have been very forthright with me on this issue. They are questioning why the Government of Canada is involved in freshwater fish habitat matters that are essentially local in nature. They are also questioning whether balanced consideration is being given to habitat and economic development issues. Some provinces have also questioned whether the federal government should be involved at all in regulating freshwater fish habitat.
I believe these concerns are legitimate, and they need to be addressed as quickly as possible. My officials are continuing to work on this issue in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and I would appreciate hearing your views on whether there is scope for further improvement in this area.
Although I understand that the committee does not intend to focus on land use issues at this time, you should be aware that my department is currently drafting a report in cooperation with the Department of Environment on how Canada's network of protected areas can be completed in a more certain, timely and cost-effective manner. This report could be provided to the committee should you wish to study the issue of land use and natural resource development at some future date.
An important issue that was not addressed at the MAC-NRCan regulatory reform seminar, which I do believe bears scrutiny by this committee, is the current definition of waste. Because this definition includes metal recyclables, it can seriously impede international trade in secondary scrap metals, which are an essential feed stock for Canada's metallurgic industries. In addition to being counter-productive to the goal of sustainable development, these trade problems are inhibiting the operation of the recycling industry.
.1550
We are not talking here of a municipal recycling program. We are talking about a program that is of growing importance to the Canadian economy. The secondary scrap recycling industry employs more than 15,000 Canadians and recycles more than 11 million tonnes of metals each year, at no cost to the taxpayer. Two-way trade in metal recycling is worth nearly $2.3 billion annually to Canada.
The government's mining agenda includes a commitment to redefine waste in a way that will support and facilitate the recycling of secondary scrap metals. While I acknowledge that government should control wastes that are destined for final disposal - I have no question about that whatsoever - I also believe we should more appropriately manage goods that trade as commodities and can be recycled.
Another issue that I believe is important for the committee to address is that of voluntary approaches to achieving our shared environmental protection objectives. Regulation is not always the right approach. Education and communication are also key mechanisms, and voluntary incentives can often achieve the same results as regulations without the accompanying expense or administrative burden.
This is not, however, to say there is no role for regulations - far from it. However, voluntary programs that address environmental issues can be either complementary or, in some particular instances, an alternative to the traditional regulatory approach.
One example is the accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics initiative. Under this voluntary program, 13 mining companies that account for most of Canada's base metal production have reduced their discharges of 12 major substances by 43%. Their target is to reduce discharges by 71% by the end of the decade making us, yet again, world leaders.
The department's voluntary challenge and registry program, or VCR, as it's known, as it relates to climate change and our national action plan is another example of a successful non-regulatory approach that helps achieve our environmental objectives. It is complementary to a wider range of measures and initiatives that are regulatory, educational and informational.
Today in the VCR you will find close to 500 organizations from all provinces and all sectors in this country, including many mining companies, who have signed up for the registry and developed voluntary action plans to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, thereby contributing to Canada's goal of stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.
I would appreciate receiving any recommendations you might have on other non-regulatory approaches to environmental protection.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, Natural Resources Canada and other federal departments have made significant progress in addressing the issue of regulatory reform. Nevertheless, much work remains to be done. For example, the committee might wish to look at some of the proposals of Professor Michael Porter of Harvard. I have had the opportunity to read some of his work recently and I've been most impressed by it.
Porter makes the case for innovation-friendly regulations. In his view, smart regulations - rules that allow industry to plan ahead that are properly designed and effectively administered - can help industry to be innovative and internationally competitive, an objective we can all support.
If I might, I'll give you one example of the process Porter recommends in regulatory innovation and regulation-making. Two weeks ago I declared in force new energy efficiency regulations as they relate to incandescent and fluorescent lighting. Let me tell you about how those regulations were created.
They were not created in-house in my department without consultation with industry. We went to industry from the very beginning and told them we wanted to improve our energy efficiency regulations as they relate to those forms of lighting. They said, ``Great! We have some ideas for you.'' In fact they'd been waiting for us to go and talk to them about it.
.1555
So from the outset we worked with the lighting industry, and we promulgated those regulations last week. They come fully into force April 1, 1996. By the year 2000, that one set of regulations in relation to those two kinds of lighting will mean the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions, and there are 15 million cars on the road today. So it's the equivalent of one-fifteenth of the world's cars being off the road through a regulation that was drafted, worked on and created from the outset in partnership with industry.
When I was in Toronto recently at a CIPEC meeting, I had industry representatives coming to me and saying, ``Thank you, and thank your department, for pursuing that regulatory reform. It makes us more efficient and more competitive. Thank you for letting us participate in the creation of those regulations.'' That is truly a win-win situation when it comes to meeting our economic and environmental objectives.
It is exactly the kind of regulation creation that Michael Porter talks about, and he condemns most countries in the western world and the OECD nations for not pursuing that kind of cooperative approach. Get past this adversarial, confrontational approach with industry in drafting regulations. We all know it's counter-productive and generally not cost-effective.
If you haven't had the opportunity to read Mr. Porter's work, I suggest you do, because I think it does speak to the way all of us in the developed world are going to have to go about regulation-making in the future.
A few months ago my department released an issues paper entitled Sustainable Development and Minerals and Metals. That's a consultative paper. It's out for consultation now. We're receiving views from a host of stakeholders.
What I would ask is that the committee, through this initiative, provide me with input into the final policy. Here's an opportunity for your committee to help us and the mining industry in developing a new sustainable minerals and metals policy. I look forward to what you recommend coming out of this committee in relation to regulatory reform, because it's going to be an important part of how we achieve a sustainable mining industry in this country.
That's all I have to say. You will find me supportive of the principles of regulatory reform. There is much we as a government can and must do, and we do it in the name of economic development and competitiveness and environmental sustainability. One cannot be sacrificed to the other. The two must be integrated and must move forward at the same time and in tandem.
I look forward to your recommendations on regulatory reform, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
Merci.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.
We'll begin the questioning with Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Thank you, Madam Minister, for coming here today. It's always a pleasure to have you here because when we put questions to the officials, they answer that it is not their responsibility to establish policy but that of the government. And as the Minister responsible for Natural Resources, we can expect you to give a clearer vision of the direction being followed by the federal government.
I'd now like to put my first question. In view of the fact that the Canadian mining industry has long been calling for regulatory change, particularly the harmonization of regulation, how do you see your role in relation to that of your colleagues, particularly the Minister of the Environment? Do you see yourself as playing the role of a negotiator or mediator in ensuring better harmonization of regulations without necessarily diminishing them?
[English]
Ms McLellan: Are you speaking of my role among my colleagues interdepartmentally within the federal government or of my role among my provincial colleagues?
.1600
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: No, my question dealt with the changes that the mining industry has been expecting for a number of years. Various witnesses have told us that these changes were slow in coming because of the different levels of decision-making involved.
We were told three weeks ago that if we wanted changes, someone was going to have to take the initiative. So my question is as follows: What influence do you think you can exercise so that these long-expected changes materialize?
[English]
Ms McLellan: You're right. I couldn't agree more that it seems to take government - and my department is as guilty as any - a long time to get its interdepartmental act together to move the regulatory reform agenda forward. That's why we hosted the workshop in October, to try to bring some of the key departments together with industry so officials in departments working on these files could hear firsthand from industry what their key priorities are and their impatience and frustration with the slowness, quite truthfully, of the governmental regulatory reform processes.
My colleagues, John Manley and Art Eggleton, and I all share that frustration in terms of wanting to move the regulatory reform agenda forward. We will continue to work together. We have enjoyed good support from the Minister of the Environment, Sheila Copps, and from other ministers, such as the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries, when their departments have been implicated.
Having said that, you generally have many departments involved, and it is a lengthy process. I can see that. What we have to do is get some urgency into this. That's what we wanted to do with the workshop. That's what I am going to continue to push. My colleague, John Manley, and I - because of course the whole Building a More Innovative Economy is his initiative - are going to work very hard to move this along in the next few months.
We as a government and as a nation don't have money for big programs, be they cost-shared with the provinces or with industry, any more. However, one of the things we can do that is not costly to my colleague, Mr. Martin, is make sure we have the most efficient, innovative regulatory regime in every industrial sector in this country. That will lead to greater competitiveness and to greater environmental sustainability.
That is our challenge, and I'm going to tell you, so far we haven't delivered on that challenge, but we are going to, or I'll die trying.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms McLellan: Did you hear that, gentlemen? That's our challenge.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I don't think we expect quite that much.
[English]
Ms McLellan: There's nothing too much for my country.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Madam Minister, one of the headings in your statement is "Better regulation, not less regulation". I agree with this intention but one of the problems faced by a committee attempting to improve regulation is the temptation to overregulate so that environmentalists cannot claim that regulatory reform usually leads to deregulation.
I'm not at all in agreement with that approach because I think it is possible to have simpler and more efficient regulation without running the risk of this leading to deregulation.
When we talk about better regulation rather than less regulation, do we not run the risk of creating new forms of regulation rather than attempting to reduce it?
[English]
Ms McLellan: I agree. Everybody these days talks about smart regulations, and that's fine. That's what we have to do and that's what people such as Michael Porter talk about. Basically I'm in favour of smart regulations, but I also believe that if we get it right and actually have smart regulations developed in the way I've outlined with my specific, concrete example relating to energy efficiency, we can also have fewer regulations, but not less regulation in terms of lower standards. I think Mr. Miller made that point when he came before you.
.1605
I haven't met anyone in the industry who says we should have lower standards, but everybody in the industry says we should have fewer regulations. Don't confuse the two concepts. We need smarter regulations. We need more finely tuned regulations. We need to understand the problems for which we're promulgating regulations, and we need to work with industry to make sure we understand the problems and how we can best deal with them. That has nothing to do with lowering standards, but a lot to do with getting it right and hopefully having fewer regulations.
I am one who believes you're right. Too often we pass new regulations and forget to take the old ones off the books. There are thousands upon thousands of them out there. We have committees that should prevent that from happening but they don't always do as well as they should. So we need to reduce the number of regulations dramatically, but that does not mean lower standards.
We also need to put these regulations into plain English so that the people who actually have to use them and operate under them can understand them. That's a challenge to all of us. People like myself, as a lawyer, are especially great at obfuscating, but we're not very good at clarifying.
The Canadian public has every right to be as mad as hell about this.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: One of my colleagues on the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee told me that his committeee was afraid that the new mining regulations would be harmful to the environment.
Doesn't this distort the restructuring process, the aim of which is to improve rather than worsen things?
Of course you will say that this is our aim but if the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee is already convinced that this is not possible, where are we headed with this?
Do you think that there is some openness on the part of the Minister of the Environment to an objective debate so that the environment can be protected and the mining industry can forge ahead?
[English]
Ms McLellan: Yes, absolutely. That's what I speak of - and that's what the mining industry speaks of - when I talk of sustainable development, and of the fact that none of us want lower standards. And we know the standards are in fact increasing all the time. One of the reasons for that is the pressure of competitiveness; the other is the pressure of sustainability. The two go hand in hand.
Let me suggest this to the committee. If, in the environment committee, concerns are in fact being expressed about how provincial, I presume, mining regulations might not be forwarding the cause of environmental sustainability, your committee and the environment committee should think about having a joint initiative. I think that would speak to some very useful collaborative work.
It's one thing for my colleagues and I to work together, but I think we should see some collaborative work on the part of committees like natural resources and environment. Often they're seen as antagonistic. I think that doesn't get us anywhere. We have to get past that notion of confrontation, so if these kinds of suggestions are in fact being made in the environment committee, Mr. Chair, I would ask you to have some joint sessions with them in order to share the views of the two groups and to hopefully work together.
It's absolutely clear you can have high environmental standards, and you can have a vibrant competitive mining industry. We have them now, but we need to improve the situation. We need to streamline and harmonize and enhance. There is absolutely no dichotomy or confrontation between a vibrant, growing mining industry and strong environmental standards and sustainability.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): Thank you, Minister, for agreeing to be here today.
Ms McLellan: It's my pleasure.
Mr. Stinson: You mentioned the B.C. agreement. Within that, what actions have you, yourself, thought of, or what actions would you take, to ensure that the province and the federal government impose, say, only one window, environmental assessment on mining developments?
.1610
As it is, we're sitting on these separate ones now. I'd like to use the Kemess mine in B.C. as an example. Moe Sihota, the B.C. Minister of Environment, and Anne Edwards, the B.C. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, signed off that project, and yet it has been delayed for months now due to the federal concern over nine pairs of bull trout.
So what we're talking about here is 500 full-time jobs being delayed for months, a total of $350 million in work put on hold that should have been started long before now. This is after the B.C. government had already signed off and given the go-ahead on this project. The company itself has already stated that they anticipated pulling out 580,000 ounces of gold. They're now down to 555,000 due to this hold-up here.
Ms McLellan: I'll ask Bill to talk a little bit about the specifics of that situation. That involves undoubtedly the Department of the Environment, but particularly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have had discussions with the company and with our colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I know that is an example to many in the mining industry of some of the real problems we have in terms of getting our act together and being able to accommodate both economic development and environmental sustainability. I am very supportive of the fact that we work collaboratively to try to move that kind of project along, and that we do so in a way that is timely and certain.
Having said that, and here you see the problem, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a certain mandate and that mandate has to be respected, but it's the manner in which we respect it and the manner in which we go about business. We're working with the fisheries department to see if we can streamline these processes and get over some of the aggravation.
Bill, do you want to say something more specific?
Mr. Stinson: You do realize, though, that what we're doing here is chasing the mining industry out of Canada over nine pair of bull trout that could have been moved at any time.
Ms McLellan: As I say, this is a case we are well aware of and one that is almost, I suppose - maybe I'm not overstating the case - a paradigm example of some of the major concerns of the mining industry.
Bill, do you want to talk about that?
Mr. Bill McCann (Director General, Mineral Strategy Branch, Department of Natural Resources): At the officials level we at NRCan are dealing with both Fisheries and Oceans and the province of B.C. on this. It's not because we have the legislation to do that but because it's of major interest to the mining industry and very much part of the investment climate issue. So we are dealing with that.
You did take me a little bit by surprise when you said that Minister Edwards and Minister Sihota had signed off on this. When I spoke to the province last week I understood that they hadn't signed off, that they were still talking to the company, as is DFO.
You're absolutely right, it is about bull trout; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans believe these are extremely important fish in terms of the genetic -
Mr. Stinson: They must be worth millions of dollars.
Mr. McCann: - family, or whatever the words are here. But we do know that the company, and both the province and DFO, are talking about contingency measures.
I think right now, according to the province and according to DFO, it really is about contingency measures. They have put in a plan, the company has put in a plan, the plan has been under discussion, but there is some concern still about what are the contingency measures if the plan doesn't work.
I understand there is some difficulty between the company and the governments - and I do make that plural - in terms of getting straight what could be the contingency measures on that.
But you're absolutely right, this is an issue that is of major concern to the industry. It's of major concern to the industry in B.C., which has gone through some very difficult times, and everybody is trying to work towards a solution on this.
.1615
Ms McLellan: Sometimes there are just really sticky specific situations and they become, I think, examples and almost a rallying cry then for other things that might be wrong in the system.
Mr. Stinson: This is not the only example. I can come up with -
Ms McLellan: No, it isn't, I know that, but I think this is an acute one. Bill makes a good point. We are not the lead department on that issue in the sense that we have nothing in our department or legislation that would trigger an environmental assessment process. Fisheries does, obviously.
We think it's important that we can play a facilitative role in terms of understanding the concerns of the mining industry and working with colleagues in Fisheries and other departments to get them to understand...and also with the provinces, because my department has good working relationships with our counterparts in the provinces. It's a facilitative role. We don't have the lead but we're going to continue to work to keep people at the table.
I think in this context, it's not the best answer in the world, it doesn't deliver everything Kemess wants, but I am confident that we are close to resolving this particular issue.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): You mentioned how enthusiastic you are, to the point almost of apoplexy, about making sure that change happens.
Ms McLellan: Never apoplexy.
Mr. Strahl: Everybody's agreeing that change must happen, but the cry goes out, ``When, oh Lord, when?'' Just for my own clarification, in terms of your commitment to redefine waste in your speech, whose department will define that and when can we expect a legislative initiative?
Ms McLellan: This is an interdepartmental initiative.
Mr. Strahl: Oh, no.
Ms McLellan: It also has international ramifications implicating the Basel convention.
Ron or Bill, do you want to talk about waste?
In the mining policy, what we did was make a commitment to redefine waste to exclude metal recyclables, and this has a domestic ramification and an international one. We all agree domestically. My colleague, the Minister of Environment, and others are on side that the metal recycling industry is an important one and will become a growing one. We want to be part of that, and that which is capable of recycling should not be comprehended within the definition of waste.
Mr. Strahl: Okay.
Ms McLellan: Then we have this whole international overlay with some people in other countries who are pushing for another approach. Do you want us to provide more detail on that?
Mr. Strahl: I don't know if I really want to get into that. I'm wondering if there was an initiative. As you say, there is an ongoing commitment, but there are lots of good commitments. If there's nothing coming up soon, what do we do, put it on the back burner again?
Ms McLellan: Environment Canada is the lead on this question, both domestically, because of the environmental implication, and internationally, because of that aspect of it, but we are moving this along. In fact, we've taken quite an aggressive stand internationally. It's very clear that we want metal recyclables excluded from the definition of waste.
Mr. McCann: I would like to mention that the CCME is now looking at the definition of waste, and one of the issues they're challenged to look at in this is how to treat recyclable metals. CCME is looking at it.
Mr. Strahl: On another issue, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled their report some six months ago. The government, I don't believe, has yet responded.
Ms McLellan: No, we haven't.
Mr. Strahl: I think they may even be in contravention of the Standing Orders of the House.
Ms McLellan: No, the Department of the Environment sought an extension.
Mr. Strahl: Okay.
In that report, which, as you know, is very controversial, one of the recommendations the committee has advocated is a move away from risk-based assessment to intrinsic hazard-based assessment. In your opinion, what will that do to the regulatory burden or process if that goes ahead as they propose? Industry says it'll be a catastrophe.
.1620
Ms McLellan: We've worked very hard with our colleagues in the Department of Environment and the Department of Industry, who also are very concerned, because to some extent, this implicates processing and manufacturing and that type of thing. We have come a long way in terms of crafting a response that reflects the concerns of our departments, as well as those of industry.
But you're quite right that we, as a department, pursue a risk-assessment approach. We think that's the appropriate approach. We think it is a science-based approach. Within the Department of Industry and the Department of Natural Resources, we believe good science must dictate ultimate government policies.
It doesn't mean you seek certainty, because nothing is certain in science. We operate on the precautionary principle as a government. But we are proponents of risk-based assessment. We will continue to do so.
The Chairman: Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood (Nipissing): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Minister, you seem to be addressing a large number of issues and agencies at once. It's kind of a shotgun approach. There are federal-provincial overlaps, a lot of regulations, numerous federal and provincial environment acts, as well as a number of different ministries, as you've already mentioned: Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Industry. I guess my question is pretty simple: is too much being addressed at one time?
Ms McLellan: That's why we've concentrated on the three areas I've identified. You talk about the fact that we work interdepartmentally. As you know, within the Department of Natural Resources we do not have very many triggers that would trigger environmental assessment. You find them in Transport, Fisheries, Environment, and to some extent Agriculture, but not that much. So it's imperative that when we work with the mining sector we facilitate understanding on the part of other departments and provide them with sectoral expertise so they understand the implications of what they're doing on the mining, forestry, or energy sectors.
We work, as a department, probably more than any other, other than Environment itself, with other departments to provide them with the sectoral information and knowledge they need to understand what they will do and the impact they will have on key industrial sectors.
So I don't like the notion of what you said. Was it a scatter-gun approach?
Mr. Wood: Shotgun. Remember, I voted against gun control.
Ms McLellan: That would speak to the fact that we are not highly focused; we are highly focused. It's just the nature of our work that requires us to deal interdepartmentally. That's why, in fact, we've developed an outlook and a facility to work with other departments and understand their concerns as well as our own.
Mr. Wood: I guess I'd be curious to know if you or your ministry has a strategy or a timetable in place that will enable you to resolve each of these issues with the groups involved. Or are you working under the general theme of changing the environmental regulations in mining?
Ms McLellan: No. In fact, when you talk about a timetable, John Manley's timetable, in terms of building a more innovative economy, was for the end of 1995. Obviously we will have made some significant progress by that time. But will the work be completed? No.
Do I and my colleague, the Minister of Industry, want to move this agenda forward in the new year? Absolutely.
My colleague, Ralph Goodale, chairs an ad hoc committee of cabinet that deals with jobs and economic growth. They have identified regulatory reform as a key area in which there has to be progress if we are going to deliver on our agenda of jobs and economic growth. So this issue is going to become more important in the coming months.
.1625
The one thing I will say to this committee is that I will continue to make sure that it is on the top of colleagues' agendas as we move forward in the months ahead. This is too important to the Canadian economy and the Canadian environment to leave this and let there be any slack in the system. So we're going to increase our efforts to move this agenda forward.
Mr. Wood: As I see it, the purpose of our study is really to seek and reduce the overlap and remove the impediments that are obsolete. In my view, however, it's not our mandate to dismantle the current environmental regulatory system so the mining companies can do as they wish. My question is, do you agree with this interpretation of what we're trying to do or do you have maybe a different interpretation?
Ms McLellan: Interpretation of what? Define for me what you are trying to do.
Mr. Wood: I think there's obviously a great overlap, as we said, and one should remove the impediments that are kind of obsolete, as we all know. We're all sitting here doing it. It's our mandate to do it.
Is it our mandate? I don't think it's our mandate, really, to dismantle the current environmental regulatory system.
Ms McLellan: No, I don't think so. It's not for me to tell you what your mandate is, but let me just go on to provide some elucidation.
It seems to me your mandate is to develop an understanding of the present system and how the present system impacts on the mining sector. Then you should make qualitative assessments yourselves as to what is and what isn't apparently working.
At the end of the day, while you may well focus on the environmental assessment process, there are many other kinds of regulations dealing with other subjects that are also important to the future competitiveness of the mining sector. Therefore, I hope you are looking not only at the present rules surrounding CEAA, the assessment process, but also at other regulatory regimes that have an impact on mining.
I would say your task is not to dismantle the present assessment process. Your task, as it relates to that specific set of regulations, is to offer the government recommendations as to how we can make that system work better, and achieving its goal, which is environmental sustainability. How can we make it work better?
Mr. Wood: I have one more question. There's been some recent progress, as the Reform gentleman said, in signing some bilateral agreements for the provinces to coordinate environmental assessment. Most recently, that was in British Columbia. I guess I'm curious as to whether you support this bilateral process. Do you feel this process can be successful nationwide?
Ms McLellan: I do support the bilateral process. I'm a strong believer in having one assessment process that meets the requirements of both levels of government. This isn't easy to reach, obviously, but we have made significant progress. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has made significant progress on this file. B.C.'s agreement, the bilateral one, is a good example of what is possible. There are other bilateral agreements in existence, and there will be more to come.
If one was talking about nirvana as it relates to environmental assessment in this federation, it would be nice if we eventually had one set of processes or standards that industry could quite literally take to the bank that met the requirements of all the provinces and the federal government. That would be great. But we are a federation in which we may eventually get to that, but we have to work in partnership and cooperation with the provinces. Therefore, I think bilaterals are a good start. I think bilaterals may ultimately, down the road, lead to a commonality of provincial standards and a buying into by the federal government of those standards, thereby reaching my nirvana, which is one set of standards in the nation.
Mr. Wood: Would you favour a meeting of representatives from all the provinces in order to hammer out the strategy you just outlined?
.1630
Ms McLellan: My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and her provincial colleagues, are seized with the lead on this file. They are pursuing it with some diligence.
Now, with harmonization, because it's a difficult federal-provincial issue, there are hiccups along the way, or detours, but the B.C. bilateral, and others, are examples of how far we've come.
Is there need for more progress? Yes. I think everybody would agree with that. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is working hard to put in place new bilaterals with other provinces. I think bilaterals are an important first step toward the kind of perhaps multilateral commonality, ultimately, that I see as our long-term goal, in which everybody accepts the same high standards, everybody understands the process, and it's timely.
Mr. Wood: So do you see that everybody will get together someday?
Ms McLellan: Yes, I do. I have infinite hope for the flexibility of the federation.
Mr. Wood: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Thalheimer.
Mr. Thalheimer (Timmins - Chapleau): Madam Minister, what do you see as the biggest obstacle to reform to get the regulatory process on side between the provinces and the feds? The municipalities are obviously involved too. What's the biggest obstacle you see to getting us to uniformity or your nirvana?
Ms McLellan: First, you are dealing with 10 discrete jurisdictions, plus the territories and the Yukon. There are differences in processes that are pursued and in absolute standards. I think the biggest problem, or frustration, if you like, is that, in our federation, it is important to work with the component parts in cooperation and partnership.
But I believe it can be done. What you need is the will to move this forward. I think that's what we're seeing now. The Canadian public is telling all of us federal and provincial elected representatives that turf wars are out. They're inefficient, stupid and unbecoming.
We have to work together to be efficient in the federation. One of the main areas in which we can deliver efficiency with a major payback for both the environment and the economy is in relation to environmental assessment processes as they relate to the mining sector.
Mr. Thalheimer: That almost seems like an impossible task to me when we look at just the federal aspect of it, which you've basically been talking about here today. Within our own government, we seem to have so many obstacles. We have so many departments that are running differently. Everybody is building their little empires. We have Fisheries. We have Environment.
Incidentally, what does the Navigable Waters Protection Act come under? Is it Fisheries or Transport?
Ms McLellan: That's under Transport.
Mr. Thalheimer: Within the federal scheme itself, we have so much competition and so many different departments to deal with that it seems to me we can't even get our own act together in the federal government before we even tackle the problems in the 10 provinces.
Ms McLellan: You've identified a very important problem. In fact, that's one of the keystones of John Manley's regulatory reform initiative, which was, in fact, the bringing together of federal departments, in a way, to sit down. We identified six sectors as part of that reform initiative - mining was one of them - to fast track.
Part of it is to do exactly what you said, which is to get federal departments together around the same table to see if we could reach agreements as to processes, standards, and which will be the lead agency in relation to various situations.
If we can get our own house in order, we will be in a much better position in terms of how we deal with the industry and also in terms of dealing with the provinces. You're quite right that, until we get our house in order, it is hard to require the provinces to get theirs in order.
That's why we held the regulatory reform workshop in October. It was to bring key departments together to try to bump some heads together, start the creative thinking, and get some urgency injected into this agenda among departments at the federal level.
.1635
Mr. Thalheimer: It seems to me that the immediate task for us, then, is to attack the federal regime -
Ms McLellan: I agree.
Mr. Thalheimer: - to get regulatory reform in there. That is the main obstacle. If we don't have it there, we can't go out talking to provinces and territories when we're infighting ourselves, when we have no regulatory unanimity within ourselves.
So that's the main obstacle as you see it, then? What are we going to do?
Ms McLellan: I agree that it is an obstacle, and Mr. Manley has so identified it. We are working very hard with him, as it relates to the mining sector, to remove and limit those kinds of things that are departmental problems.
Mr. Thalheimer: Should that be our priority, then?
Ms McLellan: Again, it's not for me to dictate what the committee should do or recommend, but I think that would enhance and reinforce Mr. Manley's commitment to building an innovative economy.
The Chairman: Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Madam Minister, since the area of Natural Resources does theoretically come under the provinces, do you not think it would be advisable to transfer the management of standards or federal regulations to the provinces in order to better harmonize regulation?
We might be able to provide single window service more quickly; in my view, it would be far more efficient.
[English]
Ms McLellan: Well, resources are primarily, but clearly not exclusively, within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has very large interests in terms of the environment, international trade, foreign affairs, and science and technology, but primary jurisdiction rests with the provinces.
Having said that, it is also fair to say that if you look at an issue like the environment, the environment is not provincial per se. It is a shared jurisdiction, because clean air and clean water do not respect provincial or national boundaries. Therefore, there has to be to a role and an interest, a national interest as well as a provincial interest, in terms of many of these issues.
Of course, the goal is to harmonize, to bring both those legitimate interests together and do it with processes and standards that meet both legitimate interests. That's what our whole harmonization agenda is about. That's what our whole overlap and duplication agenda is about. But you know and I know that isn't easy when you have provincial and federal governments working together. That takes time.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: If you transfer the management of conditions and mining industry regulations to the provinces who want to look after this there will be less overlap among the departments because the provinces will be responsible for ensuring enforcement.
[English]
Ms McLellan: You're right, and in fact we are doing that on an incremental basis. It's unrealistic to expect that the federal government would simply turn over holus-bolus all our enforcement and administration of standards in every industrial sector.
What we are doing - and again, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has pushed this file very hard - is that the Province of Alberta and some others are now fully responsible for the administration and enforcement of the effluence standards as they relate to the pulp and paper industry. They are standards that both the province and the federal government accept as meeting their legitimate environmental needs, and our government has turned the enforcement and monitoring of those standards over to the Province of Alberta.
We are doing that in a wide range of areas, but I don't think it can simply be carte blanche. It has to be working with the provinces in key areas, such as pulp and paper, which is very important to our industrial economy. It will be done area by area. Some provinces probably don't want or will not want to take the role of monitoring and enforcement. Others will. That's why it is probably not going to be a blanket but will require a more finely tuned and strategic approach. But in principle, I agree that your proposal does have merit.
.1640
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: If it were possible, it would be much more efficient.
I don't know whether you or one of the senior officials with you can explain to me what is missing from the federal-provincial agreement with British Columbia on the evaluation process that prevents it from being considered a single window.
My Reform Party colleagues told me that it was possible for British Columbia to evaluate a mining project. Why can it not conduct a full study and give its approval if the project is in compliance with federal standards? Why must this evaluation be done by Ottawa, thus prolonging the decision-making process?
[English]
Mr. Ron Sully (Assistant Deputy Minister, Minerals and Metals, Department of Natural Resources): I'll comment on that. I think what you are seeing in B.C. is a number of projects going through the system that were caught in the old regime. For example, the Kemess project started before the CEA legislation was put in place. So what I think you are seeing is growing pains, and once the new system is put in place, the draft agreement between B.C. and federal government.... In the future, I think those projects will move more smoothly through the system.
The Chairman: I believe the minister has to go in a few minutes.
Mr. Strahl: I have just one question, and Darrel may have a couple. You mentioned your department's voluntary challenge and registry as a successful example of a non-regulatory way of achieving your environmental goals. I think I am going to get a briefing on that tomorrow from your department.
About that particular program, you mentioned its success in this speech, but I am concerned about the reports I keep reading in the paper that say the environment minister believes we will not be able to meet our goals without further regulatory or taxation measures.
What that means to many people, especially in Alberta and B.C., is either more regulation or the dreaded carbon tax. She didn't actually say carbon tax, but when she says taxation to reduce emissions from carbon based fuels, it doesn't take a genius to put the two together.
What is the situation there? You say it has been very successful, but the environment minister says voluntary won't be enough; we will need either regulatory or other measures. What's the scoop?
Ms McLellan: It is true that much of the media attention has concentrated on the voluntary aspect of our national action plan. The nation has a national action plan, a federal-provincial plan agreed to by all of the provinces. My colleague, the Minister of Environment, filed it in Berlin in the spring.
That national action plan has a number of component parts, one of which is the voluntary challenge. Another part deals with regulations such as the energy efficiency regulations related to lighting and the national building code, which my department is responsible for in conjunction with the provinces, and things like that. Then there is an educational and information component, which in part is to make sure individual Canadians understand that they can do a big part in helping this nation meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets.
I don't want people to think the national action plan, as it relates to global warming, is only voluntary, because it isn't. It has a mix of strategies, just like the national action plans of the world's developed nations.
I am responsible for the voluntary challenge. I was asked by my federal and provincial colleagues of the energy and environment to take on that challenge, and I have done that. That component of the national action plan is going very well, but we do not expect it to deliver our entire stabilization target, because it is only one part of the plan.
For example, transportation is about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. We deal with the transportation sector in our voluntary challenges that relate to the trains, trucking companies and airlines, but individual Canadians could do a lot to help us meet our target simply by driving more efficiently, which is why we have an ``auto-smart'' program, an example of an educational program.
.1645
Mr. Strahl: I'm concerned about the environment minister because she keeps floating the carbon tax.
Ms McLellan: Let me come to that. I just wanted to establish where we're at.
Mr. Strahl: I've been recycling my tin cans for weeks.
Ms McLellan: There's a lot of misunderstanding that voluntary is all were doing. It isn't. The provinces all have their own plans and the federal government, in terms of our operations, has its own plans to set an example for other Canadians and for industry.
The Prime Minister and Mr. Martin have said clearly and definitively that there will be no carbon tax. There is absolutely no change in that.
Mr. Strahl: So what is the environment minister talking about when she muses about further measures, including taxation?
Ms McLellan: She is saying something that I think we should all be open to, which is that we should look, as other countries in the world are, and do the necessary cost-benefit analysis of things like tradable emissions permits. That's an economic instrument, for example. Let's do some research on whether that's possible. Some nations use them.
At this point I am not sure how it would work and whether it would be environmentally and economically viable in our country, but we haven't done the necessary homework, so I don't disagree with her. This committee could do some of that work in terms of looking at some of those things. But the one thing the Prime Minister has taken off the table is a carbon tax.
The Chairman: Ms Minister, thank you to you and your officials for graciously consenting to come here and fill us in.
Ms McLellan: Thank you very much. As always, it is a pleasure to come here and chat.
The Chairman: We appreciate your attendance. All the best.
This meeting is adjourned.