Natural Resources Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Do you have a further comment, Mr. Nash, to conclude?

[Gary Nash]

I said before that the fact that something is carcinogenic does not say anything about risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I quite agree, but we were referring to the second question. I'm sorry, we're out of time, but it's certainly one we can get into.

I think we will have the clerk get your document and we can submit it. Then, Mr. Nash, you would perhaps respond as well to some of the items that were brought out. That would be useful to the committee, because it's something that has certainly got people's attention here.

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for your cogent presentations. They were a little polarized at times, but still cogent, persuasive presentations.

I have read Ms. Kuyek's brief, skimmed through it, and been alerted by it to a couple of points that I don't think have yet surfaced. So I'm not sure it's necessary for her to comment on it, unless she wishes to.

Number one, what efforts has the industry taken to reduce its reliance on water, if in fact that can even be done? I understand the mining industry is a disproportionately heavy or large user of water. Secondly, what efforts, if any, is the industry making with respect to recycling? Can anybody comment on that?

[Gary Nash]

I happen to have brought someone with me who can comment on water.

Tom, where are you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Could you state your name, please, for the record?

[Thomas Hynes, Director, CANMET Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories, Department of Natural Resources]

I'm Tom Hynes from Natural Resources Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

[Thomas Hynes]

The question was on water.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

What the industry may or may not be doing about lessening its reliance on water.

[Thomas Hynes]

I think Gordon can actually speak to that as well, but in fact there are a number of things.

The industry has been looking to cut back on the use of water. There are limitations to what you can do. Many companies, where they can, are using recycled water from the tailings area. There are problems with some of that because of the high salt content in some sensitive applications. Most companies also look to divert water away from the tailings area before it becomes contaminated.

So there has been a general reduction, say, over the last 10 or 15 years in the amount of water taken into an operation.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

The recycling issue, then, if somebody can respond to it.

[Gordon Peeling]

I can certainly respond to it.

It is one of the major activities of the Canadian metals side of the mining and metals industry. We see companies like Falconbridge already integrated all the way downstream into the recycling of computers, joint ventures with Hewlett-Packard to take the end-of-life products off the market to make sure they don't go to landfill. The materials are stripped and appropriately dealt with, be they plastics, etc., then the metals are recovered at places like the Horne smelter in Quebec.

I would make an offer to this committee. If at some point you felt you had time over the summer or during a recess, we would be delighted to take you through one of the most modern recycling plants in North America, in Brampton, Ontario, operated by Falconbridge. You might find, in seeing the reality of recycling, that it would be an important knowledge element.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. St. Amand. We're going to move on. I'm trying to get everybody in on the last question.

Mr. Trost, if you would.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's very interesting for me to listen to all the presentations. For those of you who don't know--I suspect most of you do--prior to coming to Parliament I was an exploration mining geophysicist, so I know a little about the R and D side of it.

Mr. Andrews, you keep saying “geologists” in all the meetings we've had.

[Anthony Andrews]

Sorry about that.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

It's “geoscientists”.

I have one quick question as we wind up here, on international competition. Ore bodies don't move across boundaries, at least on any real-time scale, but capital investment for mining does. Human capital can move, and it's very important. What is Canada's international competitiveness relative to other major competitors, what can we do to improve it, and what are some of our challenges?

I understand we have certain political stability. Our Prime Minister is somewhat more friendly to mining exploration than Mr. Chavez has proven to be recently in Venezuela.

So I'd like some general comments on international competitiveness, what Canada is doing and could do relative to attracting more and more exploration, rather than seeing it maybe migrate to South America, which it's going to do, in certain respects, for certain other reasons. What can we do, and what is our relative international competitive position?

[Anthony Andrews]

Mr. Chairman, I'll start, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

[Anthony Andrews]

Right now Canada is in a very good competitive position, but it really looks back at what we've done historically to become like we are and gain that position. There are some really key factors there, and I'd say the first one is our geoscience database.

A geoscience database is a real competitive factor. In the past Canada has invested significant funds to get a very good database that is primarily bedrock mapping. Companies that are looking for resources look very favourably on a country that has such a database. In Canada, it's a partnership between the government geological surveys and the companies themselves. They will take a map like that and immediately be able to define target areas that have geological interest, and that's where they invest.

The other aspect of this system that's very unique to Canada is what we call the assessment system, such that whatever data the companies derive during their exploration has to be turned over, back to the government, and becomes public knowledge. So there's a very significant amount of information in those assessment files as well. I think geoscience is very significant.

Flow-through shares are another major competitive aspect for Canada as it relates to junior companies. The junior sector is unique to Canada. No other mining jurisdiction has a junior sector like ours.

The reason the junior sector evolved here is because of all the factors that led to entrepreneurialism in Canada, the free-entry system and flow-through shares, which have to be spent in Canada. Given that the whole business is so competitive and there is a big draw for companies that go abroad, flow-through shares make sure that some of that investment stays in Canada.

I could go on, because there are a lot of factors here, but I think I'd better just end it there and focus on those three.

[Gary Nash]

I would just make a very quick comment.

First of all, one of the other elements that one could look at is, for example, research in the area of deep mining. As years go by, we may have to look deeper and deeper for deposits. So deep-mining technology is one area where Canada can remain competitive.

Processing technologies such as hydrometallurgical research and things like that hopefully would minimize environmental impacts, and also energy usage. Within the mining industry, there are a number of areas that could be examined in that context.

Also, I believe reputation is very important in terms of getting access to resources in many countries. Reputation in terms of behaviour, and so on, on the part of our industry is extremely important in terms of being welcomed and being an investor of choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to wrap it up, because we are out of time.

Mr. Trost, thank you for your question.

Again, to our witnesses, thank you very much. I'm sorry, again, that we were so rushed today, but I think it went very well. We certainly opened a lot of avenues of interest.

With that, then, I'm going to adjourn to the call of the chair. We will regroup on Tuesday at 11 o'clock. Thank you.