Charles Caccia

[Yukon Quartz Mining Act, October 21st, 1996]

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.

[Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on June 19, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to inform the House whether her department was on target to deliver our red book commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which cause climate change. Our red book promise is clear, a 20 per cent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions below 1988 levels by the year 2005.

As shown in Environment Canada's recent study, the Mackenzie Basin impact study, climate change is already having an impact in Canada. This six year study shows that the Mackenzie Basin in northwestern Canada has warmed an average of 1.7 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. Scientists found historically low water levels for Great Slave Lake, localized melting of permafrost and increased erosion and landslides resulting from an historically high number of forest fires in the region. They also concluded that the area covered by Arctic sea ice decreased by 5 per cent between 1978 and 1995.

So far the response to climate change by the Department of Natural Resources has been the national action program on climate change and its voluntary challenge and registry program for industry.

The same department estimates that carbon dioxide emissions in Canada will be 13 per cent above 1990 levels by the year 2000.

It is clear that the voluntary challenge will not stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, let alone reduce them by 20 per cent beyond 1988 levels as indicated in the red book. Thus we have a long way to go if we are to honour our international commitment and our red book promise.

There are alternatives. The rational energy plan developed by the Sierra Club of Canada with Informetrica provides a model for reducing carbon dioxide emissions while increasing employment for Canadians. Informetrica concludes that if the plan were fully implemented employment would increase, adding more than 550,000 person years of employment between this year and the year 2000. In addition, the Department of Natural Resources concluded that the plan would result in Canada's secondary energy demand falling by roughly 13 per cent by the year 2010, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 22 per cent.

At present we seem to be working at cross purposes. We have in place subsidies which continue our dependence on non-renewable

energy sources which, in turn, increase carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, subsidies to the renewable energy sector, although slightly increased in the last budget, are insignificant next to those enjoyed in the non-renewable fossil fuel energy sector. It seems that little planning is going into the transition from non-renewable carbon dioxide producing energy sources to the renewable sources. That transition will have to occur because of climate change and eventual resource exhaustion.

In her response to my question on June 19, the minister emphasized the government is committed to stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 but made no clear commitment to the further reductions called for in the red book. Internationally we talk about the stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions and further reductions beyond the year 2000, but domestically we seem to be failing to meet even the first of these objectives.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House whether her department is on target in delivering on our red book promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent below 1988 levels by the year 2005?

[Temagami, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is great concern about protecting biodiversity, vanishing old growth forests and sustainable development, the Ontario government has given the go ahead to log and mine the Temagami wilderness region.

Over the past six years a planning council composed of Temagami aboriginal people and residents developed a comprehensive

land use plan allowing for both the conservation of wilderness and development in Temagami.

The Harris government chose to ignore their recommendations, leaving us with social unrest, discontent and chaos in the planning process. The Ontario government decision should be reversed.

Temagami is a unique environmental jewel, not a warehouse for liquidation.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, September 16th, 1996]

How many fossil fuel energy projects in foreign countries have been funded by the Export Development Corporation (EDC) and/or the Canadian International Development Agency in the last five years, what is the total amount of funding for these

fossil fuel energy projects, where are they located, and what percentage of the respective organization's total budget do they comprise?

Return tabled.

[Committees Of The House, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The committee has examined federal regulations on biotechnology and, in light of the testimony from various witnesses, has unanimously decided in the best interests of all parties concerned that:

The government defer any decision on the new biotechnology part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and maintain the existing provisions regarding the Canadian Environmental Protection Act until such time as the committee has completed its study. A government response is requested pursuant to Standing Order 109.

I thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee and our staff and members on all sides who have worked in the spirit of true parliamentary co-operation.

[The Environment, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

On page 70 of the red book there is a commitment to Canada's role in the global reduction of greenhouse gases which cause climate change. Our commitment is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 20 per cent by the year 2005.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House whether she is on target in delivering on this important promise?

[Committees Of The House, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development relating to the second Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, held on March 13 and 14, 1996 in Yellowknife, and to the third ministerial meeting on the Arctic environment protection strategy, held on March 19 and 21, 1996 in Inuvik.

The committee is recommending that the government take the necessary measures to implement the recommendations contained in the statement of the second conference of parliamentarians, that the standing committee of parliamentarians of the Arctic have a permanent and substantive role in the Arctic council, and finally that the Parliament of Canada formally recognize the standing committee of parliamentarians of the Arctic.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a response to this report.

I would like to thank officials from Environment Canada for their excellent work in co-ordinating the conference of parliamentarians.

[The Environment, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proclaimed June 17 world day to combat desertification.

Desertification results from changes in climate, the deterioration of vegetation due to over exploitation, over grazing, deforestation and burning, through wind and water erosion due to poor cultivation practices.

Desertification is more serious in Africa and Asia, but is also impacting our prairies. In 1995, Canada ratified the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. The convention commits supporters to provide resources for programs and projects designed to halt and, hopefully, reverse the expansion of deserts. These efforts are urgently needed if we are to ensure the productivity of lands and forests for future generations.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 13th, 1996]

What will be the precise reduction of CO2 emissions per year to the year 2000 for each of fluorescent and incandescent lightbulbs under the new energy efficiency regulations announced by the Minister of Natural Resources in November of 1995?

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to replace the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act. It is destined to remedy some of the problems encountered in the existing act and replace the Atomic Energy Control Board with a nuclear safety commission as described in Bill C-23.

It seems to me one area of progress is that the new commission will have the authority to order remedial actions and seek financial guarantees for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. This is a very important central theme when it comes to nuclear power. This is important because in May 1995 the auditor general estimated that nuclear waste disposal solutions will cost at least $10 billion, I repeat $10 billion, over the next 70 years. He estimated that the federal government's share of this cost would be around $850 million minimum, and that this cost could increase if the federal government had to assume responsibilities for nuclear waste producers who fail to meet the clean-up and decommissioning obligations.

This bill requires that all reactors and mines produce decommissioning plans by as early as January 1, 1997 which include cost estimates for so-called cradle to grave waste management responsibilities associated with the facility. This is a very good initiative embodied in the bill.

In a cursory look at the bill itself, the language in clause 24(5) needs to be strengthened to ensure that licences necessarily contain a condition that the applicant provide a financial guarantee in a form and to an extent acceptable to the commission itself.

Every effort must be made to ensure that the real cost of nuclear power production is absorbed by the producers and consumers. It must not be externalized, postponed or pushed into the future to be paid for at some later date by the Canadian public.

At the present time, the decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal costs at Ontario Hydro are carried as an internal debt. In other words, as far as I was able to determine, no real dollars are being set aside for future decommissioning. Perhaps it is being done on paper, but that is the extent of the provision being made right now for future generations. When needed, Ontario Hydro would then borrow the money.

I have been informed by the Minister of Natural Resources that it is Ontario Hydro's intention to change this practice in the near future and to begin to set aside real dollars in an external fund. This is an urgent matter. When the time for decommissioning comes, one is not certain that the utility will be in a position to borrow the required funds. Only through setting aside dollars in an external special fund that is known and visible to the public can the long term interest of the public be properly served.

In addition to setting aside real funds for decommissioning reactors, the cradle to grave management of nuclear waste also requires that an appropriate amount be set aside for that purpose. Here again the auditor general has warned us of the magnitude of the nuclear waste problem over the next decades. It seems only reasonable to say at this stage that the new commission must ensure the necessary funds be made available.

For example, there are some 130 tonnes of radioactive sand in Elliot Lake which must be stabilized. By contrast in the United States, there are only 200 million tonnes of radioactive tailings. By law there, the tailings must be properly stabilized. Mining companies have already spent $2 billion to accomplish this. Here in Canada the mining company in Elliot Lake is talking of posting

some $4 million in the form of a bond to cover the stabilization of the tailings. You can see the difference in approach, Mr. Speaker.

It is hoped the new commission will ensure that in both the private and the public sectors-I hope the production of nuclear electricity will be in the public sector-the full cost of nuclear power will be paid by producers and consumers from start to end, from production to the final disposition of the spent materials, from cradle to grave as it is commonly said.

Another aspect of this bill requires attention. Bill C-23, which is entitled an act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts, allows for the incorporation of provincial laws in the nuclear safety and control act and the delegation of administration and enforcement to the provinces. This legislation could lead to the devolution of regulatory powers for nuclear energy to the provinces. With provincial budget cuts of the magnitude that have been announced, for instance in Ontario, one wonders whether the delegation of administration and enforcement is desirable and in the public interest.

Premier Harris and his government have shown a real interest in deregulation in areas of environmental protection and public responsibility by government. For instance, the Ontario government's red tape commission is presently examining proposals to increase toxic effluents from mines into water bodies. Second, the omnibus Bill 26 opens up conservation areas for development. If this were not enough, omnibus Bill 26 shifts the liability for abandoned mines and tailing sites from the private to the public sector.

The risks associated with nuclear power are, as we all know, to be watched. They require direct federal regulatory approaches. They require a federal presence, a federal responsibility in order to ensure the safety of Canadians and their environment.

In a cursory review of the bill, I notice that clause 24 needs to be strengthened. I would say the same for clause 42 which deals with indemnity and liability under the Nuclear Liability Act, and for clause 46 which deals with the treatment of contaminated land.

The Nuclear Liability Act must be mentioned in this debate because it is an act that needs to be revisited. It needs to be strengthened. The liability in our statutory legislation is too low. Times, costs, inflation and other factors require that the government bring this legislation to the House and modify, increase and modernize the approach that was perhaps adequate when that legislation was passed a few decades ago but is no longer adequate now. Therefore I urge the government to bring the Nuclear Liability Act into this House with the necessary amendments.

I would like to make two points. First, the nuclear industry is most likely the most subsidized industry in Canada. It has received, since its inception, over $5 billion of direct payments. Even now, in times of austerity, we will find an item in the budget of the Department of Natural Resources for a direct grant which exceeds $100 million, maybe in the range of $142 million or $145 million. Last year it was twice as much. It is an industry that is constantly being subsidized by the public at large. It is a subsidy that must come to an end. If everybody has to tighten their belts, from those who have to go on unemployment insurance to those who receive pensions, then the subsidies to industry also have to stop.

Second, our dependence on oil and nuclear sources of energy has to be examined and gradually changed. We need to plan for the future by shifting our dependence from the non-renewables such as fossil fuels and our dependence on the renewables as represented by the rather costly and, at times, dangerous nuclear source of energy to renewable sources.

However, in order to do that research and development have to be activated. Emphasis should be shifted from the continuous support for nuclear and fossil fuels to sources that range from biomass to solar and other forms of energy that are definitely within reach if the funds are put into research and development that are required in order to enhance and accelerate the process of reaching these potential alternatives that are definitely available to humanity.

Therefore, I hope this bill represents a temporary measure. It recognizes our dependence on nuclear power. I call on the government to ensure that this dependence is not increased, that the constant subsidization of the nuclear industry is eliminated, that we ensure that the liability is adequate, and that we move to the discovery of technologies that will provide Canadians and society at large with clean and safe sources of energy.