Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 31st, 2011

[Ugo Lapointe]

One of the big problems is the enforcement of laws and regulations that already exist, and the follow-up and monitoring of their enforcement. Before talking about tightening regulations, it might be better to tighten up follow-up and monitoring of the laws and regulations that already exist.

I think that it might be advisable to ask about the work of the departments concerned, that is, the ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec and its federal equivalent. There is an unprecedented mining boom in the history of Canada and Quebec. These ministries must therefore have a budget enabling them to have the human and financial resources to ensure real follow-up. Mining goes on in remote territories. So the mines are not very visible and it's important to have these resources.

We're making some advances on another major issue, though. We have to make sure the mines have appropriate and adequate financial guarantees to ensure the reclamation of mining sites once they're finished operating.

The Auditor General of Quebec, in 2009, indicated lots of problems in this connection. We're now making advances regarding a bill, but it still hasn't been passed. So we can't say that it has been given effect.

Still there is progress being made in this area.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My next question is for the representatives of the Saskatchewan Mining Association.

Ms. Schwann, I'd like to talk to you about aboriginal personnel. You say that, of all the people hired, one out of every two is aboriginal. Page 21 of your presentation shows the job categories offered by your sector. Are there aboriginal personnel in all these categories?

Also, you state you are the leaders in recruitment among first nations and Métis. I'd like you to tell me more about this.

[Pamela Schwann]

Certainly. I might ask Mr. Merasty to respond specifically. His company does the hiring of these individuals.

[Gary Merasty]

With respect to the one in two, at our mine sites, 50% of our employees are northern first nation and/or Métis people. They are spread out over the different types of positions you see listed there.

Unfortunately, the challenge for us going forward, and for the communities, is not a labour shortage as much as it is a skill shortage. We are running into situations, as the communities are very clearly telling us, with regard to graduation levels from high schools, especially with adequate math and science, where having adequate facilities and adequate funding is putting a strain on the number of high school graduates eligible for trades and the higher science-related professions in the industry....

We work very closely with them on how we can address that. One example of that is that we work with the aboriginal skills employment program in a program established in northern Saskatchewan: northern career quest. Our goals there were to target 3,000 first nations and Métis people as to their career paths and aspirations, put 1,500 of them into training, and employ 750 of them. In the three and a half years that we've been in this program, out of four years, we've exceeded those targets. We now have more than 1,000 people employed in our industry throughout northern Saskatchewan.

But the pressure remains. We are sitting on a huge retirement bubble of skilled people. There are only 40,000 people in the north, half of whom are under the age of 20, and there is a graduation rate that is in the 35% to 42% range. Between the first nations and the mining companies, we have a great interest in working together to increase those numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Day.

We go now to Mr. Calkins for up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened quite intently to the presentations that were being made at the start. I think Mr. McGuinty talked about this. Mr. McGuinty and I spent quite a bit of time on the environment committee prior to coming here. I know the chair has admonished some for wandering off topic a little; I'm going to go back to some environmental aspects, but I want to stay onside with the chair.

Pam, I want to thank you for your presentation, in which you talked about the significant barriers the membership of the association faces. Could you go back to your presentation and just repeat that line for me, please? I want to make sure that I got it right. It was something about the barriers you face and providing no environmental benefit, I believe. I would really like to hear you expand on that line, if I heard it the way I thought I heard it.

[Pamela Schwann]

Yes. That was actually a quote from the commissioner for environmental and sustainable development. That quote indicated that, really, the federal environmental assessment process suffers from systemic delays and lack of coordination and focuses on expensive and frustrating processes without being able to demonstrate the value to the environment or to society.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's a fairly damning and condemning statement if that's a quote right out of the commissioner's report. Then, if those are the commissioner's findings, I'm sure you've included this in your report because your industry association is somewhat sympathetic to that comment. Is that correct?

[Pamela Schwann]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That was a no-brainer question.

If that's the case, then, what recommendations can you have for us here? I think most Canadians obviously value jobs. They value opportunities. They value economic development. But we also have one of the best backyards in the world as Canadians: we also value clean water, clean air, and our pristine landscapes.

If we're not providing any tangible benefit through our current policy, other than frustration, maybe, and creating economic investment barriers, what recommendations would you have for this committee to ponder, insofar as streamlining the process or providing compensation when the environment is altered or changed during the exploration and mining processes is concerned?

What kinds of ideas are there, other than simply the idea of the regulatory burden getting in the way? Is there something else we can do for enhancement or whatever the case may be? What recommendations would you have for our committee going forward?

[Pamela Schwann]

Thank you for the opportunity.

Firstly, it's very important to say that environmental protection needs to be foremost in people's minds. We're not looking at any mechanism that might shirk any responsibility with respect to the environment or cause environmental harm. What we're looking for are processes that are efficient and that are timely, and we don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Concerning the assessment process, you have both a provincial assessment and a federal assessment going on, not necessarily at the same time. You also have multiple federal departments that aren't communicating with each other. We'd certainly like to see improvements in the communication ability, and we'd like to see one project and one assessment.

The Major Projects Management Office, which was constructed three years ago, I believe, has potential. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a lot of benefit to it in Saskatchewan yet. We don't see a lot of teeth, if you will, in MPMO, but it might be one way to improve the coordination and the timeliness without any sacrifice of environmental protection quality.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I know that we already heard from that particular office. My understanding was that they were focused mainly on north of 60 types of activity. Am I to understand that they have a pan-Canadian approach, then, and that you're just feeling they're not doing as much as they can in Saskatchewan?

[Pamela Schwann]

I'd like to refer this to Ms. Van Lambalgen, if I can, please.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay. It's my misunderstanding. It's been a while since we've heard from those witnesses.

I'll just draw this to your attention. I don't know whether your association has looked into this at all.

For example, as an Alberta member of Parliament, I visit Fort McMurray on a regular basis. We have a number of opportunities up there to extract bitumen from the oil sands. One of the projects going ahead right now is the Kearl Lake project, which will see the complete removal and destruction of the current Kearl Lake. But in the reconstitution and reclamation process, an even larger lake that bears fish and so on, which Kearl Lake currently doesn't do, is on the books.

So when you take a look at it at the end of the day, there will be a massive number of jobs there, and there will be economic opportunities there for Albertans and for all Canadians. At the end of the day, we're actually going to have more recreational or better environmental opportunities than what Mother Nature seems to have produced herself.

Does your association have any position in regard to this? Is this the way most of your organizations go forward in their reclamation projects or in any of their activities?

[Pamela Schwann]

I'm going to refer this again to Ms. Van Lambalgen. I just would say that the footprint of mining is very small in Saskatchewan, but Tammy has some specifics that she can refer to.

[Tammy Van Lambalgen]

I can.

Cameco and AREVA both, speaking mostly on the uranium mining side, obviously have to look at fish habitat compensation programs for any habitat destruction we undertake as part of our projects. We are looking, in the context of the Midwest project, at something unique. It took us about four years to get to this point, but we are looking at going off-site to add fish habitat compensation to the Montreal River, which is slightly southwest of La Ronge, where currently a weir built back in the 1940s is a barrier to fish travelling upstream to the Montreal Lake.

We also look at opportunities to benefit the public, and we have the support of our first nation communities in doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins. You're out of time.

We go now to Monsieur Jacob, for up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Ugo Lapointe.

You said that you were in favour of development in the north, particularly northern Quebec. I imagine that you are in favour of sustainable development. You talked about social and environmental problems that would be resolved with more serious, more effective monitoring.

Could you tell us what this more effective monitoring that would be desirable for northern Quebec consist of?

[Ugo Lapointe]

You want me to take the environmental point of view mainly?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

And the social point of view.

[Ugo Lapointe]

I would direct you to a report that we produced in November 2009, which is available on our Web site: www.quebecmeilleuremine.org. This report, which was prepared with Ecojustice, includes some 25 recommendations, which I haven't listed for you today. I could, however, summarize our chief recommendations.

In fact, we are currently experiencing a problem which is not unique to Quebec. Although it is old, the Mining Act of Quebec very often takes precedence over other uses of the land. There the mining regulations need to be cleaned up, since they allow companies to have easy access to the land and to resources. That gives a lot of power to the mining, gas and oil companies in Quebec. It's time to rebalance the forces between businesses, on the one hand, and the communities and regions affected by these activities, on the other.

Concretely, these laws have to include new elements making better development of the land possible. For example, if a municipality or an MRC wanted to promote some type of economic development, the development of a protected area, hunting and fishing or any other use of the land, it should be able to choose this collectively. Therefore we have to stop always giving precedence to the mining companies.

Actually, if you consult the recommendations contained in our report and the briefs submitted to the Commission de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec, you'll find specific measures in this regard.

As far as the environment is concerned, I have talked a lot about the need to reinforce the role of the departments in follow-up and monitoring. It is fundamental. I've also talked about the need to strengthen financial guarantees to ensure complete reclamation of sites. At present, in Quebec, the bill proposes financial guarantee coverage of 100%, or 50% payable the first year and 50% payable within the first three years of operation. This in itself would be progress.

That said, there are other deficiencies from an environmental point of view, particularly with respect to open-pit mining. At present we emphasize the complete reclamation of open-pit mines. We hope that the new legislation will require companies that propose open-pit mines to analyze various scenarios for reclaiming the pit, including a scenario providing for complete refilling. Some companies said in committee that it would be feasible. The important thing is for them to know in advance so that they can include these scenarios in the design of the project.

There is another important environmental issue which I'd like to stress before our time runs out. I said that the Coalition Pour que le Québec ait meilleure mine was generally in favour of mining development. However, we have firm positions respecting two mining sectors, the first being uranium. There are not yet any uranium mines in Quebec, but there is a lot of exploration. At present, a moratorium on uranium is being demanded by over 300 municipalities in Quebec. The Cree are opposed to the Matoush uranium-bearing project. We are also opposed to asbestos. We should no longer invest public money to support this declining industry. I should add that, in both the cases I've just mentioned, namely asbestos and uranium, there are much less dangerous alternatives with fewer impacts.

I could still go on for a long time, but I invite you to read the November 2009 report, which has close to 25 recommendations.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like to ask a second question. The development of mineral resources in northern Quebec and Canada involves activities liable to have an effect on aboriginal interests. How does the mining industry take into account the interests and concerns of aboriginal peoples?

[Ugo Lapointe]

At present, it happens in a voluntary and somewhat anarchical fashion. We allow businesses to judge for themselves the risks with regard to a given area. We also leave it up to them to establish a relationship with the aboriginal community and get along or not with this community.

There is someone doing very relevant research into relations between aboriginal communities and the mining companies in Canada and Australia; his name is Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh. He is doubtless one of the world leaders in the field. I invite you to read his works, which are very relevant. He has studied over 75 agreements concluded between aboriginal communities and mining companies in recent years. One of his big conclusions is that the agreements that we call impact and benefit agreements are not a bad idea in themselves, but there are some very good ones and some very bad ones. So there's a variety. In the end, what makes the difference between a good agreement and a bad one is the political ability of the communities to negotiate with the companies.

To some extent, we have to wonder about the position of the government and the state. I think the governments are shirking their responsibilities. Companies and communities are left to their own devices, knowing there's an imbalance of forces.

There would be an improvement if these agreements were monitored and certain guidelines were suggested. This would ensure that the communities got something out of it, that they were protected and the environment was also protected.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

I still have one short question.

Oh, is it over?