logo
Public pushes back against government bill that would lift N.S. ban on uranium mining, fracking

Public pushes back against government bill that would lift N.S. ban on uranium mining, fracking

CBC17-03-2025
Social Sharing
There was nothing lazy about a former government's decision to ban fracking in Nova Scotia, MLAs heard on Monday.
Multiple presenters to the legislature's committee on public bills said the Houston government's plan to lift the ban on uranium exploration and mining and the moratorium on fracking for onshore gas, as proposed in the omnibus legislation Bill 6, should not happen without robust public consultation — if it happens at all.
For several months, Premier Tim Houston has said blanket bans on resource development are the result of lazy government policy and pressure exerted by special interest groups that, to date, neither the premier nor anyone from his government has been willing to identify.
But a number of presenters took aim at that assertion on Monday, particularly when it comes to fracking.
Barbara Harris, a member of the Nova Scotia Fracking Resource and Action Coalition, noted that the moratorium by a former Liberal government followed work by an independent expert panel that included extensive scientific review, public consultation and input that resulted in a majority of the public supporting the moratorium.
"The legislation this government wants to repeal grew out of these studies," Harris told the committee.
"It was not a lazy or cowardly public policy process."
'Pretty well unthinkable'
The man who led that review, former Cape Breton University president David Wheeler, recently told CBC News that the previous Liberal government "badly mishandled" the file by not following through on his recommendations for further research and consultation.
Wheeler said the case for fracking could be made on the basis of smaller risks being managed by regulations, but since his report was published a decade ago the world has "woken up" to the threat of climate change, he said.
"So I think it's pretty well unthinkable that it would make sense for Nova Scotia to revisit the exploration and development of shale gas at this point."
Houston has said projects would not proceed unless it was demonstrated they could be achieved safely.
Tina Northrup, a lawyer with East Coast Environmental Law, told the committee it's been difficult to reconcile the "divisive rhetoric" the premier has used while advocating for greater natural resource extraction with his calls for the province and country to come together in the face of the threats posed by tariffs from the United States government.
As several other presenters did Monday, Badia Nehme with the Ecology Action Centre took aim at the lack of public consultation ahead of the tabling of Bill 6. Nehme noted the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs has also expressed concern about the process.
"It is not lazy policy-making to consult Nova Scotians on matters which affect our health and our environment. It is not immature to consider expert analysis commissioned on behalf of the government or to respect the Mi'kmaw people."
Nehme called for the two moratoriums to remain until a formal public consultation, an independent expert review and First Nations consultation take place.
"Until this is done, the government simply does not have a mandate from the public to arbitrarily lift these bans."
Ken Summers, who lived in the Noel, N.S., area when test wells were being fracked years ago, said it didn't seem like a big deal while it was happening. But when operations ceased, problems started happening with waste ponds left behind by the process that used large volumes of water mixed with chemicals.
"Nova Scotia was totally unprepared for dealing with fracking waste and there's no record that we've learned anything since then," he told MLAs.
One presenter did speak in favour of lifting the ban on uranium exploration and mining.
Sean Kirby, executive director of the Mining Association of Nova Scotia, said much has changed in the mining industry since a former provincial government brought in the ban in the 1980s.
Missed opportunities
The industry is successful in Saskatchewan and contributes to the economy while enjoying considerable public support, he said.
Ending the ban here would allow exploration to determine if deposits are economically viable to mine while improving the data the province has about the resource, said Kirby.
He said reports by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission show the risk once associated with uranium mining is much lower now due to modernized approaches.
"Clearly, there is no health, safety or environmental reason to ban uranium mining," he told the committee.
Witness testimony is scheduled to continue on Tuesday.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Liberals defend stepping in to end dispute between Air Canada and flight attendants
Liberals defend stepping in to end dispute between Air Canada and flight attendants

Toronto Star

timean hour ago

  • Toronto Star

Liberals defend stepping in to end dispute between Air Canada and flight attendants

OTTAWA - The federal Liberal government is defending its decision to intervene to resolve a labour dispute at Canada's largest airline amid criticism from unions and opposition parties that the move sides with big business. Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu said Saturday that she directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board to order Air Canada and the union representing its flight attendants to resume operations and resolve the dispute through binding arbitration.

EDITORIAL: Stick a fork in ‘Elbows Up'
EDITORIAL: Stick a fork in ‘Elbows Up'

Toronto Sun

time2 hours ago

  • Toronto Sun

EDITORIAL: Stick a fork in ‘Elbows Up'

Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised about $1.2 billion in loan guarantees, grants and contributions for Canadian sawmills. Photo by Darren Makowichuk / DARREN MAKOWICHUK/Postmedia 'Elbows Up' hasn't been Prime Minister Mark Carney's approach to dealing with U.S. President Donald Trump on tariffs ever since he won the April election and it's time to consign the phrase to the dustbin of history. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account While Carney advocated dollar-for-dollar tariffs against the U.S. during the Liberal leadership race, he quickly jettisoned the idea on becoming prime minister. That was logical given that Canada would lose a dollar-for-dollar trade war because the U.S. economy is ten times the size of ours. A Leger/Postmedia poll released last week found public support for the 'Elbows Up' approach to trade relations with the U.S. — that the Liberals originally promoted — has plummeted. Six months ago, it was at 73%. Now it's down to 45%, close to a statistical tie with 41% who say Canadian negotiators should take a more measured approach and focus on getting a deal with Trump, even if it means some tariffs on Canadian goods remain. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. That's similar to Carney's path on the issue — posing initially as a trade warrior who would meet Trump dollar-for-dollar on the field of battle and get a deal eliminating all the Trump tariffs. That was always a double-edged sword because Canadian counter-tariffs on imported U.S. goods are paid by Canadians in higher consumer prices. Carney's position has changed significantly since then. First, his government removed counter-tariffs it had initially imposed on many imported American goods that Canadian companies needed to continue operating. He scrapped the Liberals' digital services tax within days of Trump demanding it. Then he lowered expectations, saying a deal with Trump could include some U.S. tariffs. Carney also put out the word that Canada's position was that no deal with the U.S. was better than a bad deal. What it all means is that some of the tariffs Trump has already imposed on us could become permanent, leading up to renegotiating the entire Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade that comes up for renewal next year. Trump agreed to that deal during his first term, praising it at the time as 'the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law … the best agreement we've ever made.' Crime Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Canada Sunshine Girls

GOLDSTEIN: Canada's targets for cutting greenhouse gases fit the definition of insanity
GOLDSTEIN: Canada's targets for cutting greenhouse gases fit the definition of insanity

Toronto Sun

time4 hours ago

  • Toronto Sun

GOLDSTEIN: Canada's targets for cutting greenhouse gases fit the definition of insanity

Liberal and Conservative governments have been setting and failing to meet emission reduction targets since 1988. Photo by iStock / GETTY IMAGES After almost four decades of Canadian governments setting and failing to hit eight consecutive targets for reducing Canada's industrial greenhouse gas emissions, surely it's time to admit the targets are meaningless. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Far from being 'aspirational' as supporters claim, they in fact deceive Canadians about the effectiveness of federal spending of more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money on climate change (as of 2023) on 149 federal programs administered by 13 government departments, since the Liberal government came to power in 2015. In fact, Liberal and Conservative governments have been setting and failing to meet emission reduction targets since 1988. Given 37 years of ongoing failures, these targets now fit the definition of insanity — doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Here's where things stand given the latest available federal government emissions data that comes from 2023. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Canada's current emission reduction target was set by then prime minister Justin Trudeau in 2021 — a goal of reducing Canada's emissions to at least 40% (and, ideally, up to 45%) below 2005 levels in 2030. According to the federal government, which retroactively changes the historical data every year based, it says, on improved data-gathering methods, Canada emitted 759 million tonnes of these gases in 2005. That means the government's target is to cut Canada's emissions to 455 million tonnes (40% below 2005 levels) and, ideally, to 417 million tonnes (45% below 2005 levels) in 2030. Canada's emissions in 2023 were 694 million tonnes which is 8.5% below 2005 levels. To meet the minimum federal target of reducing emissions to 455 million tonnes in 2030 would require cutting 2023 emissions by 239 million tonnes. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. That would mean the equivalent of shutting down Canada's entire old and gas sector (208 million tonnes of annual emissions in 2023) in 2030 and still coming up short. To reach the government's interim target of reducing emissions to 20% below 2005 levels in 2026 (meaning 607 million tonnes) would require a cut of 87 million tonnes of emissions by next year, more than all emissions from Canada's buildings sector in 2023 (82.7 million tonnes). Earlier this year, the government announced another unrealistic target of reducing emissions to 45%-50% of 2005 levels by 2035. A report by federal environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco following an audit of the Liberals' Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act last year said it was still possible for the government to achieve its 2030 target, 'but now the task is much harder because there are only six years left to do essentially 20 or 30 years worth of reductions.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. His findings, however, provided few grounds for optimism. DeMarco said the government's lack of transparency made it impossible for the average citizen to understand, much less believe, its emission reduction targets. It claims current policies will achieve a 36.2% reduction in emissions compared to 2005 in 2030, close to its minimum target of 40%. But when DeMarco's auditors examined a sampling of 20 of the government's 149 measures to cut emissions, they found only nine were on track to achieve their goals. Of 32 additional measures the government claimed would help boost reductions from 36.2% to at least 40% in 2030, only seven were new. The audit found cases where two different programs were funding the same projects and reporting the same expected emission reductions, raising the possibility of double-counting. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. It also reported the computer modelling used to estimate the emission cuts of various government programs wasn't updated in 2023 compared to 2022 and that some of the initial calculations were overly optimistic. In addition, 'recent decreases to projected 2030 emissions were not due to climate action taken by governments, but were instead because of revisions to the data used in modelling.' Given all this, if the Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney won't abandon unrealistic climate targets then they should at least come clean with Canadians about where things really stand. Read More This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. This as opposed to their current practice of insisting they're on track to meet their targets when the federal government's own data tell a very different story. It's the same problem with the Liberals' policy to mandate that 20% of all new car sales must be battery-electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell starting next year, rising to 60% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. The auto sector has warned that given lagging EV sales in Canada, the only way to achieve the 2026 target would be to pull a million new gas-powered vehicles off the market, limiting consumer choice, increasing delivery times and driving up costs for consumers at a time when our auto sector is under siege from Donald Trump's tariffs. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Canada Crime Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Toronto Blue Jays

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store