Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Yukon for her balanced and thoughtful approach as usual and for the opportunity she gave us to better understand the implications of mining in her riding. I wish I could say the same for the member for Okanagan-Shuswap who is still struggling after three years in Parliament to learn the basic rules of debate in this House.
The debate on Bill C-6 can legitimately take place against the background of the leadership council accord document, namely the Whitehorse mining initiative dated November 1994, and signed by a number of outstanding citizens and politicians including our Minister of Natural Resources. In the document we find some very interesting statements which deserve to be put on record in connection with this second reading debate. On page 14:
The environmental impact of mining can be minimized by: careful exploration; mine design and operation, including risk assessment; and appropriate management policies, programs and procedures. Prevention of post-closure impacts requires effective site reclamation and monitoring. Voluntary programs emphasizing-
On the same page:
Environmentally responsible mining exploration, development, operations and public policies are predicated on maintaining a healthy environment and, on closure, returning mine sites and affected areas to viable, and, wherever practicable, self-sustaining ecosystems that are compatible with a healthy environment and with human activities.
This is beautiful stuff on page 14. There are also other very interesting and meaningful paragraphs on page 16. Time does not allow me to read them all.
Under planning and environmental assessment, the following principle is espoused:
Environmental assessment is an essential tool for identifying potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, determining their acceptability, and evaluating potential mitigation and remediation measures, thus enabling economic activity to proceed while safeguarding the health of the environment.
Among the goals is to ensure that government policies and programs adequately incorporate environmental considerations.
This is music to the ears of anyone who is concerned with sustainable development because this is the essence of good sustainable development policy processes. It is a very recent document as I mentioned, dating back less than two years.
Coming to the bill, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, this bill establishes an environmental management regime for mining activities conducted in the Yukon Territory.
This bill amends the Yukon Quarts Mining Act an the Yukon Placer Mining Act to provide an environmental management framework. This is a much needed initiative. The member for Yukon already referred to it in positive terms.
It is desired if we in Canada are to make environmentally sustaining mining processes a reality. It must be noted that to this point Yukon is the only jurisdiction in North America that has not regulated the impacts of mineral exploration and development.
Until now, experience has taught us that mineral development can result in habitat loss, the leaching of acids into soil and water, creating sedimentation in rivers and streams, adding to water pollution and other erosion problems to name a few.
We all appreciate that mining is an important factor in the Canadian economy but it must be achieved through a well regulated industry which safeguards the environment, human health and wildlife and which takes into consideration the justified claims and goals of our native people. Again, the member for Yukon made reference to that.
I am told that each day in Canada the mining industry generates approximately 1 million tonnes of waste rock and 950,000 tonnes of tailings, totalling some 650 million tonnes of waste a year.
At present there are approximately 6,000 abandoned tailing sites in Canada. Some of these contain 185 million tonnes of uranium mine tailings considered to be low level radioactive. Others contain an estimated 875 million tonnes of rock and tailings capable of allowing acid to leach into the soil and water.
The clean-up costs of all these abandoned tailing sites is estimated at $6 billion I am told, a cost which presently is likely to be borne by the public at large, Canadian taxpayers, if and when required.
Some of us are concerned that certain activities described in the bill as class one activities require no approval or notice, and therefore the level of activity approved under class one exploration programs could cause significant environmental damage, especially in environmentally sensitive areas and heritage sites.
The potential impact of these class one activities is significant when one considers that there are over 40,000 mineral claims in Yukon.
Imagine the cumulative environmental impact of these claims if not properly regulated. It could have a far reaching impact on the environmentally sensitive northern ecosystem, but as a general rule it should be a concern regardless of whether the ecosystem is particularly sensitive. That sector has a long way to go in operating within a regime that is now becoming more and more accepted in the southern latitudes.
In order to provide a regulatory framework in Yukon or anywhere else in Canada capable of ensuring environmentally sustainable mining, the government should seriously consider the following suggestions. First, it should provide an environmental protection regime that is as strong as any in North America and not weaker than that.
Second, it should ensure that mineral rights are not granted without considering competing land use values. I will address that issue a little later.
Third, it should regulate all stages of mineral exploration and development.
Fourth, it should ensure that sufficient funds are set aside to cover the full costs of mine reclamation, namely the good old polluter pays principle.
Fifth, it should ensure effective inspection, monitoring and enforcement of mineral activities including provisions for citizen enforcement.
Sixth, it should provide for special control measures for ecologically and culturally sensitive areas.
Seventh, it should ensure that penalties for failing to meet regulatory requirements are strong enough to act as a real deterrent.
I will spend a couple of minutes discussing the free entry system. In Canada and throughout North America there has been a pattern over the decades to have a so called free entry system which permits the mineral operator to enter lands where minerals are in the hands of the crown. It obliges the government to grant exploration and development rights if the miner, the applicant, applies for them.
The free entry system was developed in the 19th century to encourage the extraction of mineral resources. While this approach may have been suitable and understandable when Yukon was considered a wild frontier to be tamed, it is certainly no longer appropriate today. Elevating the importance of mineral extraction above all the other resources has led to other problems.
Provinces such as Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and other countries such as Australia have eliminated the free entry system. Other jurisdictions in Canada are currently moving away from the free entry system.
Under the free entry system, the right to stake a claim and mine cannot be refused on public lands unless the lands have been closed entirely from staging. This fails to give consideration or protection to other land users, which is a very serious matter. This fact is recognized in the Whitehorse mining accord which I mentioned earlier. The need to consider other land uses is also stressed: "No aspect of social, economic and environmental sustainability can be pursued in isolation or be the subject of an inclusive focus without detrimentally affecting other aspects".
It seems the Government of Canada has a responsibility to all members of the public when regulating the uses of public lands. It basically boils down to that. Under the free entry system it could be said that the government essentially abdicates its responsibility to regulate whether mining activity will occur at a particular site.
I would submit that the free entry system is still a fundamental weakness of mining in the mining regulatory system in Yukon.
In short, the free entry system assumes mineral development is the most important interest in public land and once a mineral claim is staked there can be no consideration of importance of other uses of public lands. This flaw undermines the effectiveness of good, sound, long term land planning. This method requires the government's attention. I would hope that it will be possible to do so if not in committee in the examination of the bill then on another occasion.
The automatic right to mine on public lands should be replaced by a system where the government has the discretion to permit the production and development of crown minerals as in the case with other natural resources such as timber, gas or oil, or even if necessary deny their particular use for reasons related to the larger public interest.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to participate in this debate.