Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Timiskaming-French River for his forceful introduction of this motion and for his keen interest in the importance of the mining industry.
The motion before us urges the government to adopt the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources entitled "Lifting Canadian Mining Off The Rocks" and urges the adoption of a new program of incentives.
It seems to me that at a time of budget austerity and restraint it would be wiser not to seek new tax incentives and subsidies. It is true that the mining industry is an important part of the Canadian economy. It is true that the past recession has proven difficult for the mining industry, but the resource sector has returned to profitability. For example, Barrick Gold Corporation of Toronto posted record profits of $250 million in 1994, up 17 per cent from 1993.
In addition, as the member for Timiskaming-French River pointed out at the beginning of this debate, there was a substantial increase in exploration activities throughout Canada in 1994, 9.1 per cent or $3.3 billion above 1993 according to the Minister of Natural Resources and the press release which she issued on February 9, 1995.
On page two of the report I mentioned earlier, we find the following statement: "An application to build a mine in Canada, for example, can take up to four years to make its way through environmental assessments, in contrast to a mere six months in Chile". Are we to conclude that Chile has a more advanced environmental assessment process than Canada, or that Chile is providing greater environmental protection than Canada?
Environmental assessment regulations and legislation and the cumulative impact assessment are essential parts of sustainable development. They are here to stay. They are safeguards on human and environmental health.
The report goes on into great detail on issues of tax reform. It is silent on the cost of tax incentives not only in terms of forgone revenue but in terms of potential damage to water, soil, and air. This, I submit, requires attention.
The concluding paragraph of the report on page 11 is also important because it reveals a big gap between the position of the mining industry and that of the government. The paragraph states: "Governments must strike a much more realistic balance between environmental considerations and the economic viability of the industry".
This idea of balancing environmental and economic considerations runs counter to the Brundtland definition of sustainable development and the position of the government in the red book and also paragraph 6(a) of the Department of Natural Resources Act, which calls for the sustainable development of Canada's natural resources.
Balancing environment and economy is not sustainable development because it separates the two, running the risk of making policy decisions that give precedence to the economy over the environment. The mining association must realize that the Department of Natural Resources has a mandate to integrate the environment and the economy, as defined in the red book.
Regarding federal and provincial overlap and duplication, it is important to act on what is known. In the late 1980s the federal government delegated authority for the monitoring and enforcement of mining regulations to the provinces. In his 1990 report the then auditor general Kenneth Dye stated: "In the one area where the federal government has already delegated monitoring and enforcement authority to the provinces, there has been a serious deterioration in compliance. A review of the metal mining liquid effluent regulations issued under the Fisheries Act indicates that compliance fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per cent in 1988." This conclusion seems to be important and should be kept in mind when we hear calls for voluntary programs to reduce emissions.
Voluntary programs such as the accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics, ARET program, are not substitutes for regulations. This conclusion is substantiated by a 1994 Kellogg Peat Marwick management survey, which found that 95 per cent of respondents from Canadian organizations cited compliance to regulations as the principal motivator on environmental issues, while only 16 per cent cited voluntary government programs as a principal motivator.
In conclusion, the suggestion that greater investment incentives to the mining industry should be offered at a time when governments are desperate for revenues is not synchronized with a government agenda attempting to reduce deficit and debt. Instead, it would be preferable to ensure sustainable development in a variety of ways, including an efficient management of minerals, for example, by ensuring that recycled materials and virgin materials are treated equally under the tax system.
It is important to note that a 1994 study entitled "A Comparison of Tax Incentives for Extraction and Recycling of Basic Materials in Canada" concludes that "there is a potential bias in the tax system toward the use of virgin materials relative to recycled materials". This bias ought to be addressed and corrected.
In addition, to ensure sustainable development we could consider programs aimed at new technologies for mineral extraction and environmentally sensitive exploration methods and equipment. We could ensure that regulations aim at environmentally responsible exploration methods and that the regulations are enforced. We could ensure that exploration, mining operations, and reclamation
projects are conducted in an environmentally sound manner and do not compromise vital land uses such as ecologically sensitive areas and parks.
Mining and sustainable development can be integrated for the long term benefit of Canadians and the economy.