EDITORIAL PAGE — B.C.’s B-32 Bomb

The government of British Columbia has officially launched a search-and-destroy mission on all but the most environmentally benign of new mine projects. The lethal instrument is Bill 32, alias the Environmental Assessment Act. The scene of the crime will be the legislature in Victoria, the capital of what is now without a doubt La La Land. John Cashore, the environment minister, will lead the assault.

The current mine review process is time-consuming and costly enough, but the new process outlined in Bill 32 is, in a word, impossible. This is how, unless the bill is substantively altered, development reviews will occur under the new law: First, a mining company submits an application. Then come government ministry comments, followed by review by an executive director. A panel consisting of those who might be “affected” (socially, culturally, environmentally, economically, or whatever other grounds there might be) also reviews the application. Then comes a comprehensive report, a review by an environmental assessment board and, finally, review by cabinet. (The powers of the latter will not be known until after the legislation is approved.)

Referring to the wording of the bill, a columnist for The Vancouver Sun noted that some of it is pure Alice-in-Wonderland. “One clause would license the cabinet to `define any word or expression used but not defined in this Act.’ I was reminded of Humpty Dumpty. `When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”

Other provisions of the bill penalize companies for trying to advance projects. For example, the legislation envisions collecting fees from mining companies to defray the costs of project reviews. These costs would be over and above the costs companies already incur for the vast studies required under current legislation. In effect, a user fee; in fact, a penalty for taking the next step toward development.

A more galling provision is that companies may be required to pay all or part of the costs for interested public groups to review and even oppose their mine proposals.

“Environmentalists will be lining up for blocks,” predicted one mining executive. Mines Minister Anne Edwards tried to soothe such fears. Only public groups that have solid reasons for being involved and whose participation will be helpful to the review process will be funded, she said. Question: What does the term “helpful” mean in this context and what will be considered “solid reasons?”

The British Columbia mines ministry itself has been relegated to the status of mere co-reviewer of projects. (Clearly, Edwards carries the clout of a gnat around the cabinet table, as she continues to demonstrate that she is indeed a friend of the mining industry — Chile’s mining industry, Venezuela’s, indeed every jurisdiction’s except that of her own province.) In Ontario, at least, the mines ministry is the single permitting body. Review and input from other ministries still occur.

This legislation would add to the cost of mine development, it would add to investor uncertainty — who knows how long a single development review might last? — and it would add to the growing perception that British Columbia is closed to mining.