In preparation for the Oct. 25 federal election, The Northern Miner asked representatives of four of the main political parties to respond to a series of questions pertaining to mining. All representatives were asked the same five questions, which were devised with the assistance of the Mining Association of Canada, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and consulting firm Watts, Griffis and McOuat. The first interview is with the leader of the New Democratic Party, Audrey McLaughlin.
* Do you support the retention of a federal department responsible for mines?
Yes. As a northerner, of course, I am pretty close to the concerns of the mining industry. It’s still a large part of our economy and our potential economy.
It’s a changing industry, and a federal department is important because there are changes in the industry as a result of environmental regulations and possible developments of new technology, but also because we need a strategy in this country for the non-renewable sector, and we really haven’t had it. * Although the matter falls
within provincial jurisdiction, does your party support the decision by British Columbia’s NDP government to transform the Tatshenshini-Alsek wilderness area into a park and thereby prevent Geddes Resources from mining the $8.5-billion copper-gold deposit known as Windy Craggy? How do you blend the concerns of environmentalists and the under-informed public with those of the mining community?
Obviously the Windy Craggy decision affected the Yukon as well, so it’s something I have been fairly close to. I have always maintained, both to the company and to others who have asked, that I thought there should be a full environmental review. Then all the facts are on the table. I didn’t sit at the British Columbia cabinet table, so they may have had information that I do not have access to, but I think a full environmental review, which I know is what the company wanted and which seemed to me to be a sensible course, would give us all the information. But that didn’t happen. There are clear reasons, because of the Tatshenshini and pressures from the U.S. and because it is a world heritage site (or at least parts of it are), so I can understand why they took that decision. We don’t have a party position on Windy Craggy; it’s not something we’ve discussed at a convention. But as the member of Parliament for the Yukon, those are the comments I have made to all parties consistently.
It is difficult to blend the concerns of environmentalists and the public. It’s difficult in every area. We see it in forestry. It’s not unique to the mining sector.
I have certainly made it my business, since I’ve lived in the Yukon and as a member of parliament, to meet with all sectors of the community, and in the north we see clearly the advantages of addressing the concerns of both. Maybe in some ways we have more options at this point because, being in the North, it’s not as developed; maybe we haven’t made as many mistakes. Also, we’re dealing with a fragile ecosystem in the North, much more so than in many southern regions which rehabilitate more quickly. But I have always maintained that we can and we must address both issues. I’ll sit down with the Klondike Placer Miners Association or the Chamber of Mines, and they all have children, too. I haven’t met a miner who says: “I don’t care about the future, I don’t care what kind of world my child or grandchild lives in.” Sometimes we get to extremes, on all sides, and I’m very proud that, in the Yukon, organizations such as the Klondike Placer Mining Association took environmental initiatives. They saw the changes and they began to take those initiatives themselves. I think that’s an important role of the industry — to recognize the changing climate and to take those initiatives. And many companies are (doing so), not just in my own riding, but elsewhere. People have to have a functioning economy and jobs. We cannot deny that jobs are important for every Canadian, no matter where you live, and mining will be a part of that. Similarly, we can’t do that at the expense of our future in terms of our environment.
Look at Eastern Europe, where environment and the health of people was destroyed. Certainly we can’t ignore that. Can we balance it? I believe absolutely, and we do that with a fair system of regulations. One of the problems for the mining industry has been that it’s complicated; nobody exactly knows when or how new regulations will come in. People are planning and then regulations come in . . . There’s a whole lot of bureaucracy. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I have to streamline the process. This doesn’t mean circumvent it. I won’t back down from the issue that having an environmentally sustainable industry is important, but in the economic interests of every party involved, we have to streamline the process so people understand it clearly. And we must have the assistance of enough officials — often they are federal officials, but sometimes provincial — to be able to meet the requirements within an adequate time frame. The smaller miner, whom I often refer to in the context of the “family farm” — we have a lot of examples in the Yukon where the family enterprise is mining — doesn’t have a big margin of profit or availability to cope with an extremely complicated system. We’ve just been through an interesting process called the Implementation Review Process which is a standard on sedimentation as a result of placer mining. There was a tremendous amount of negotiation and talk about how that would be done, but we found a resolution. Now, it took longer because it’s tough, but environmentalists, scientists, fisheries people and miners were all players. That, to me, has been an encouraging example of everyone saying, “We have to reach some agreement here.” And we were able to do it.
Secondly, I think a lot of the mining technology used now is made out of the country. I think we have to look at the development of new environmental technologies. One of the things we have seen happen is that, as new regulations have come in, industries have responded by developing new techniques. We could have a real leading role in that in Canada. One of the things we talk about in our jobs plan is the development of environmental technologies. We’ve done quite a bit in this country as a developer of leading-edge technology and there is some considerable latitude for that here in the non-renewable resource sector. I notice there has been some work done, but I think government can help encourage that. That doesn’t necessarily create jobs in the mining sector — perhaps (it does so) secondarily — but it does show commitment to a new climate and to what can be done. You note that the public isn’t fully informed. I think that’s true; there could be a lot more done by organizations in various communities talking about what it really means to do non-renewable resource development: working with children, explaining how you can balance environmental and non-environmental concerns, what reclamation means, etc. There are lots of examples where it has been successful — and a few where it hasn’t been successful — but I think people need to hear more about the importance of the sector. Most people really don’t know a lot about it unless they happen to live in an area (where mining occurs), as I do.
* Most provinces require mining companies to pre-plan for mine reclamation by setting aside money in trust funds for several years. While these companies support reclamation plans to safeguard the environment, the requirements drain investment capital resources when they are most needed to start up new enterprises. Do you support the mining industry’s call for federal tax changes to allow companies both to protect the environment and allow funds to accumulate and earn interest free of tax, similar to a registered retirement savings plan?
I think that is really important. It is certainly something we should look at seriously. I do support the requirement for mine reclamation; it is a responsibility of the industry to factor that into its plans for developing, sustaining and eventually closing mines. I have to say in all honesty that we have not discussed this issue within the party, so we don’t have a party position on it. We will have to look at ways to encourage investment in mining because we know the statistics about mining in South America, where there are fewer regulations, and so on. That will eventually change, but we have advantages in this country. What we do have to offer the mining industry in this country is political stability — at least between elections; we don’t have revolutions or anything — and certainly a trained workforce, etc. I have talked to many people in the industry about this. One side of the ledger is, of course, that (in South America) there are lower salaries and fewer regulations, but there are also transportation problems. So, I am certainly in favor of looking carefully at what tax measures can facilitate the industry and this is one of their suggestions which I think we would look at seriously.
* Will your government reintroduce flow-through share funding or other tax incentives to generate much-needed investment in mineral exploration? I have seen first-hand, and am maybe one of the only leaders to do so, the radical decline in exploration. It has been dramatic in my own riding and I know it has been dramatic across Canada. I know Quebec brought in its own provincial flow-through shares program and attracted a bit of interest with that. In Yellowknife, I have spoken to a lot of people involved in the diamond play, so some exploration is going on. But I think flow-through funding — certainly, there is no question — facilitated exploration in this country. It’s like not planting seeds; you won’t have a crop unless you plant the seeds, and the seed of mining is clearly exploration. We have favored restoring that, particularly for junior companies.
I know people in the industry who have problems with the system as it existed, even though they saw the astounding decline in exploration as the result of the cutting off of flow-through. So we are in favor of restoring a flow-through-share type of program addressing some of the quite legitimate concerns which both industry and others had about implementation. * Canada’s mining sector provides some 400,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributes 19% to our gross national product. What steps can we take to halt the erosion and possibly fatal decline of Canada’s mining industry? If we fail, with what can we replace it? Where do you think the industry has been falling down on the job?
I think the industry has been slow to react to the really changing culture in terms of, for example, environmental issues. Many are beginning to now, and we’ve seen, in other industries, that those who have been out ahead of that particular concern have had great success in finding their own markets. I hope it’s not the fatal decline of Canada’s mining industry, but I do agree that it has eroded. One only needs to look at the figures, and part of that is something which no government, in a sense, would have control over. Any business is going to go where it feels it will get the highest profit, and we know, as I said earlier, about the statistics of companies going to South America. Other than providing a more favorable climate here, I’m not sure what a government can do, in terms of investment and production. We can’t say: “You can’t go to Chile.” But there has been a concern that a lot of the work done here is being reinvested not here but out of the country. All participants in this — including government, environmental groups and the mining industry — have to sit down and address these issues. Sometimes it’s tough. All groups, not just miners or environmentalists, look with suspicion on the other side, and this is understandable because we’re talking about jobs and deeply held beliefs. But there is no resolution to it except, for example, the Whitehorse Initiative, which was an attempt to say, “We’ve got to bring aboriginal people and environmentalists and the mining sector and government together and begin to set in place a process that will address some of these issues.”
I don’t think pitched battles — everyone in his own corner duking it out — is really, in the end, going to be satisfactory. What a government can do is facilitate that process and try to bring people together as equal partners in this process. I think every political party realizes we are talking about balances and the importance of trying to balance sectoral interests. We must find a way in Canada to come together on these issues. It doesn’t mean we won’t argue, and I’m not suggesting this is an easy process, but what’s the alternative? The alternative is to have a power struggle which doesn’t, in the end, serve anyone.
The people I talk to most often who are concerned about mining are the miners — the people who are down in the ground or in the pit. They don’t want to see business and unions and environmentalists all fighting. They want their jobs, and the United Steel Workers and other unions which represent the miners want to see the industry survive. These are their jobs. We know how many jobs have been lost in the mining sector and to have this Battle of the Titans is really not, in the end, going to work.
— Lisa Murray is a 7-year veteran of politics at the federal, provincial, municipal and consular levels. She is currently with Watts, Griffis and McOuat.
Be the first to comment on "NDP leader urges consensus on environmental issues"