Natural resources department not doing enough to monitor impact of critical minerals promotion initiative, report says

The federal natural resources department isn’t doing enough to monitor the environmental and social impacts of its efforts to promote extraction of critical minerals, according to a federal audit released Thursday.

“Increased mining activities will result in adverse environmental effects and increase greenhouse gas emissions, which could compromise Canada’s ability to meet its commitments to climate action, biodiversity, and Indigenous reconciliation,” concluded the report tabled in the House of Commons by Jerry DeMarco, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

From February, 2024: How crashing metals prices are dashing Canada’s dream of leading in critical minerals

But the Commissioner’s audit found that the department hadn’t analyzed greenhouse gas emissions that might result. Increased mining could increase emissions by damaging or destroying forests and peatlands, which sequester carbon dioxide. This, in turn, could undermine the government’s promises to achieve “net-zero” emissions. (The mining sector accounts for about 1.6 per cent of Canada’s total emissions.)

How well do you know Canada’s critical minerals strategy? Take The Globe’s Mission Critical quiz

Mr. DeMarco warned that if the department didn’t fully assess such risks and impacts, its adverse impacts might well offset any benefits. He recommended that the department conduct a series of analyses, including on the greenhouse gas emissions likely to result from increased mining activity.

From 2023: Why The Globe is digging deep on critical minerals

The Geological Survey of Canada, which is part of Natural Resources Canada, assumed responsibility for the Geoscience and Data Initiative, an effort to identify critical minerals opportunities. The audit concluded that it had hired personnel and begun geological research and collecting data to identify areas of high geological potential. But these efforts gave little consideration to environmental or social outcomes when selecting research activities to pursue. Absent improvements, the initiative probably wouldn’t identify sites that would afford the optimal mix of economic benefits and lowest environmental and social impacts.

In its written response to the report, Natural Resources Canada agreed with nearly all of the Commissioner’s recommendations and vowed to work with other federal departments to publicly report on the initiative’s impacts. But it said it can’t determine in advance which projects it will fund, which limits its ability to assess those impacts. Moreover, its strategy doesn’t approve specific projects, nor conduct environmental assessments. And few critical minerals projects fall within federal jurisdiction.