Summary#

Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act, 2023, amends Ontario’s Mining Act. Its title signals a goal of building more mines; the changes themselves mainly revise mine-rehabilitation rules and move some powers from officials to the Minister of Mines. The Act has received Royal Assent, but the supplied material does not show when all its provisions took effect.

• The Minister may exercise the powers and duties of the Director of Exploration, and takes over the rehabilitation powers and duties previously held by the Director of Mine Rehabilitation.
• Rehabilitation may restore a site to its former use or condition, or change it to a different use or condition that the Minister determines is compatible with nearby land or suitable for a future use.
• A proponent may ask the Minister for an order allowing a closure plan or amendment to be filed before it meets every requirement. The order must set a time and manner for meeting the outstanding requirements; the Minister may add other conditions.
• The Minister may order changes to a filed closure plan, including changes that increase financial assurance (security for rehabilitation costs). Phased financial assurance is allowed, but if a proponent fails to follow the required phasing, the Minister may require other acceptable security.
• The Minister may use financial security to carry out required rehabilitation if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe it will not be done. A proponent can appeal certain orders, but must provide an increased amount of financial assurance to appeal an order requiring an increase.
• For land where minerals are recovered from tailings or other waste, the required post-remediation condition changes to “comparable to or better than” before recovery for both public health and safety and the environment.

What it means for you#

• Mining proponents: You must comply with your filed closure plan and give prompt notice of a planned, actual or likely change that could materially affect whether the plan is adequate. You may seek permission to file a plan with missing requirements, but must meet them as the Minister’s order directs.
• Mining proponents and people providing security: The Minister can require changes to a filed plan, including more financial assurance. If the Minister orders rehabilitation work and the work is not done, the Crown may use or enforce the security provided for it.
• People using or living near mining land: The bill allows rehabilitation to end in a different use or condition from the site’s former one, subject to prescribed standards and the Minister’s determination. The bill does not set out how nearby communities would take part in that determination.
• Taxpayers and the public: The Minister may appoint an agent to carry out rehabilitation on the Crown’s behalf. The bill does not create a new mining grant, tax, or front-line public service.

Money#

The bill requires financial assurance in closure plans, but no cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

• It allows forms of phased financial assurance and lets the Minister require other security if required phasing is not met.
• The Crown may use or enforce security to pay for required rehabilitation. The material gives no estimate of likely rehabilitation costs or any effect on public spending.
• The bill permits regulations on financial assurance and other rehabilitation requirements; the supplied material does not give those rules or their costs.

What is unclear#

• The Act has staggered commencement provisions. The supplied material does not say which provisions have been proclaimed or when the remaining provisions took effect.
• The supplied material does not include the Mining Act itself. I could not verify the full current-law baseline or how these amendments interact with all existing rules.
• The bill leaves “qualified person” requirements and many rehabilitation standards to regulations. Those details are not supplied.
• The bill gives the Minister discretion over different rehabilitation outcomes, exemptions and orders, but the material does not set out decision criteria beyond the stated tests, or a process for public input.
• The bill does not explain how the new rules will affect existing closure plans or how the transition will work. It authorizes transitional regulations.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that allowing a different, suitable future use for a site may make rehabilitation more practical than requiring restoration to its former condition in every case.
• Allowing an incomplete closure plan to be filed under an order could let a project proceed while still requiring the proponent to meet outstanding requirements by a set time.
• Allowing phased security may give proponents another way to provide financial assurance, while the Minister can require other security if the agreed phasing is not met.
• Moving powers to the Minister may make responsibility for exploration and rehabilitation decisions more direct.

Case against#

• The bill allows a closure plan to be filed while requirements remain outstanding. The Minister sets the deadline and may set other conditions, but the supplied material does not give a standard deadline.
• The Minister has significant discretion over alternative site uses, plan requirements and changes to plans. The bill does not fully explain how those decisions will be made or how affected communities can take part.
• A proponent appealing an order that increases financial assurance must provide the increased amount while the appeal is pending. That may make an appeal harder to pursue.
• Key standards and requirements depend on future regulations, so the bill alone does not show the full obligations or costs for mining proponents.