COMMENTARY — Streamlining of regulations must continue

The author is vice-president of sustainable development for Vancouver-based Placer Dome and has written the following article at the request of Keep Mining in Canada, an organization designed to increase awareness of the importance

of mining in this country.

With the development of its Musselwhite gold mine in northern Ontario, Placer Dome became the first mining company to obtain approval for a comprehensive study report through the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

(CEAA).

We found the experience both satisfying and frustrating.

On one hand, we had good support from politicians and bureaucrats as we worked our way through a complicated process. On the other, however, we found that the federal and provincial levels of government still have not resolved the issue of jurisdiction.

We waited about 10 months to obtain permit approvals for the mine. We were dealing with the federal act as well as with provincial permitting — two processes which ran parallel with one another, with little communication between the two tiers of government. Consequently, we duplicated a lot of work.

We were happy, however, that the public review process took only 38 days. I know it has taken other projects much longer.

Since the Whitehorse Mining Initiative was implemented, the federal and provincial governments have talked about a delineation of responsibilities.

When the accord was signed, we were told that streamlining the regulatory process would not cost any money and, given the government’s preoccupation with balancing the budget, would be a priority. This was a “win-win” situation

that would make the industry more competitive. Despite this, however, the streamlining has yet to be accomplished.

We were disappointed at the need to go through the environmental assessment process at all, but when we encountered a small pond on the property containing 20 pike, the federal fisheries act became relevant and triggered the CEAA.

Once into the assessment, we encountered a high degree of rigidity. The policy called for “no net loss of fish habitat,” meaning we had to excavate the pond for that small pike population at a cost of about $750,000. Those were very expensive fish.

We agree that there should be some form of compensation if a company damages a fish habitat. However, it didn’t make a lot of sense, to me, to spend money excavating a pond for 20 pike. We suggested an alternative: given the state of the coastal cod and salmon fisheries, we offered to make a cash payment that would go toward enhancing the stocks of those species which really need help.

Unfortunately, this proposal went nowhere. I would, however, certainly recommend it be looked at for future projects.

One issue looming on the horizon for mining companies is cost recovery for service. Ultimately, we may have to reimburse government for services rendered during the permitting process. It is essential, from our perspective, to streamline the process before that happens. If we are going to pay for services, let us make sure we get value for our money.