September 1, 2016…

September 1, 2016

BY EMAIL

Natalie Dumont
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Willet Green Miller Ctr
Level B6 - 933 Ramsey Lake Rd
Sudbury, Ontario
P3E 6B5

Re: EBR Registry No. 012-8179 A proposal for amendments to Ontario Regulation 308/12 Exploration Plans and Exploration Permits, and amendments to the “Provincial Standards for Early Exploration.”

On behalf of the Ontario Prospectors Association (OPA), I am pleased to submit the following comments in response to proposed amendments by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) to Ontario Regulation 308 / 12, Exploration Plans and Exploration Permits, and to the Provincial Standards for Early Exploration.

The OPA exists to enhance and promote Ontario’s mineral exploration and development community and to foster a healthy mining industry in the Province.

The OPA is concerned about the confluence of a range of factors that have led to a decline in the amount of grassroots, early-stage exploration currently taking place in Ontario, including:

•a downturn in exploration financing;

•policy commitments to withdraw large tracts of prospective land;

•challenges related to the Crown’s handling of its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal people; and,

•concerns raised by proponents and investors over regulatory issues.

The explorers of the province spend a minimum of $300 million annually exploring for minerals and developing ore zones. At its peak this expenditure has reached $1.0 billion in a single year. Ontario is endowed with some of the highest potential geological environments in the world. The minerals and elements mined in Ontario are a backbone to the Province. From Windsor to Attawapiskat and Ottawa to Kenora exploration and mining can be seen as a strong economic driver.

We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the review of Ontario Regulation 308 / 12, Exploration Plans and Exploration Permits, and to the Provincial Standards for Early Exploration and offer feedback on the proposed changes.

The OPA has responded to the proposed amendments outlined by MNDM. A detailed assessment of each of these areas, and their associated recommendations, is provided below. We trust that the Ministry will find the comments helpful when making the policy and regulatory changes necessary to generate certainty, consistency and predictability, which are critical for mineral development and investment. It is important that MNDM continue to work with industry, Aboriginal groups and other stakeholders to ensure that interests are balanced, particularly that proponents are able to access land to conduct exploration to find deposits and the Crown fulfils its obligations to Aboriginal communities as outlined in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

1. Current Regulation: Section 1, 5(2), 12(2) of Regulation 308/12: Proposed Regulatory Change: Expand list of those required to take the Mining Act Awareness Program.

Rationale: Mining Act Awareness Program to include not only the Qualified Supervisor, but also those involved in the early exploration work, as well as the proponent. This would enhance the education and understanding of those involved in the execution of early exploration activities

OPA comment on the changes:

The [OPA] appreciates the goals and objectives of the Mining Act Awareness Program (MAAP), particularly the aim to provide basic information and guidance on the Mining Act’s provisions and regulations. The proposal to expand the list of those required to take the MAAP could, in principle, build capacity within the industry and raise awareness about key aspects of the Act. However, the industry was opposed to all employees on site having MAAP when the program was first presented. As previously discussed it burdens the proponent and Qualified Supervisor with monitoring and proving all peoples working on the property have MAAP. The fact that the Program was watered down to a multiple choice answer format that could be completed without reading the materials is really ineffectual. The potential could occur where there could be local people that would benefit from employment that had never worked in the industry but would be excluded from the workforce since they didn't have the MAAP.

OPA recommendation: While MNDM might want to continue to make it mandatory for proponents and Qualified Supervisors in the field to complete the MAAP, perhaps it should be made voluntary and encouraged as a good practice to have these and other employees / members of the project team to complete the program. A review of complaints or conflicts arising from work completed since the introduction of MAAP by non-MAAP trained explorers should be undertaken to see if there is a real issue.

2. Current Regulation: Section 3(2) of Regulation 308/12: Proposed Regulatory Change: Clarify the exemption for early exploration work being undertaken within Closure Plan areas.

Rationale: The intent of the provision was to allow Closure Plan proponents to do early exploration on the lands covered by their Closure Plan without needing an exploration Plan or Permit. Some argued that anyone doing exploration within a closure plan would be exempt, even if they were not the closure plan proponent. The proposal is to make sure the exemption is clear.

OPA comment on the changes :

If this is in fact to rectify the issue of proponents completing the work within the Closure Plan that are not the Closure Plan holder then by all means clean up the loop hole. But do not place more paper work and consultation on the Closure Plan proponent that has already completed consultation.

OPA recommendation: Close the loop hole so that claimholders, other than the Closure Plan holder, require a Plan or Permit.

3. Current Regulation: Section 18 of Regulation 308/12: Proposed Regulatory Change: Broaden discretion of the Director to require an exploration permit for activities that do not otherwise require an exploration permit process. Currently, this discretion is limited to the need to address issues pertaining to existing or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights, or if the Minister has issued a notice of intent to impose a surface rights restriction with respect to sites of Aboriginal cultural significance.

Rationale: A number of stakeholders (ENGOs, Cottagers, and industry) requested a broader discretion for the Director to require an exploration permit process for non-exploration permit activities.

OPA comment on the changes:

The OPA believes that giving the Director the discretion to move an exploration activity into a Permit would then have specific terms and conditions could prevent conflict with other stakeholders, is a viable idea. The OPA would hope that this discretion would be very well considered before implementation and that dialogue between the parties would be encouraged first. It is the OPA's opinion that Best Practise methods would prevent the use of this discretion most of the time.

OPA recommendation: The OPA encourages MNDM commit to the development and use of clear, consistent and transparent criteria and communication of a rationale for Director decisions.

4. Current Regulation: Regulation 308/12: Proposed Regulatory Change: Allow proponents the option to submit all activities under the exploration permit process when undertaking both plan/permit activities.

Rationale: Streamlining for industry, other stakeholders and Aboriginal communities. Different processes are required for exploration plan activities and exploration permit activities. Where an exploration project includes both types of activities, all could be combined in one application, which would follow the exploration permit process set out in the Regulation, including Aboriginal consultation requirements.

OPA comment on the changes:

Industry fully believes this is a worthwhile amendment. There have been various examples of explorers being placed in a poor situation when they had Plan type activities they wanted to complete that should have been coupled with Permit activities. This also cuts down on the paperwork that would be sent to the Aboriginal Communities and the number of postings on the spreadsheet on the MNDM website.

OPA recommendation: The OPA would like to see this go forward and looks forward to working with MNDM in executing the change.

5. Current Regulation: Section 20 of Regulation 308/12: Proposed Regulatory Change: Clarify MNDM process to amend exploration permits (i.e. information updates or administrative changes; impact/project changes and Director’s discretion to require amendment).

Rationale: This would provide clearer guidance to proponents, other stakeholders and Aboriginal communities about the permit amendment process.

OPA comment on the changes:

The idea of clarification is always helpful but if it means easier amendments or forced changes by MNDM after the Permit is issued then it wouldn't be a positive. Changes mid project could cost the proponent money and delays that were not foreseen or budgeted.

OPA recommendation:

The OPA cautions MNDM that certainty of exploration Plans and Permits is critical in keeping and attracting explorers in the Province. The OPA recommends that MNDM maintain a listing of the potential information updates or administrative changes. The impact of project changes, when the Director uses discretion, needs to be well documented so explorers understand the process. The MNDM should also consider the financial impact to the explorer when changing the Permit during active exploration.

6. Current Regulation: Regulation 308/12: Proposed Regulatory Changes: Update definitions and terminology to clarify terms and for consistency and harmonization. (e.g. Prospectors Awareness Program which is now known as the Mining Act Awareness Program, clarify definition of the circulation date).

Rationale: Regulation refers to outdated terminology.

OPA comment on the changes:

This is housekeeping and as long as MMAAC is presented with the rationale and has a chance to comment there are no issues to industry.

OPA recommendation: Present the rationale to MMAAC.

Provincial Standards for Early Exploration:

Seeking comments on the proposed changes to the Provincial Standards

1. Clarification of language in the Provincial Standards and standardization of terminology with other legislation:

• “contained”

• “water body”

OPA comment on the changes:

These are housekeeping and as long as MMAAC is presented with the rationale and has a chance to comment there are no issues to industry.

OPA recommendation: Present the rationale to MMAAC.

2. Enhancing environmental standards to which early exploration activities are held including:

• Establishment of standard buffers around water bodies (30m)

• Addition of drilling fluid standards similar to other jurisdictions

OPA comment on the changes:

Both these issues are addressed in other legislation and it was industry understanding that duplication was not something that MNDM wanted. Complicating the definitions in the Mining Act will result in confusion. If we have a buffer of 30 metres how do we setup a pump for drilling or access a lake to drill in the winter.

OPA recommendation: Leave this subject alone. Other Legislation covers these items but MNDM should engage the Canadian Diamond Drill Association to determine their Best Practises.

3. Requiring mobilization and demobilization notices pre-post execution of early exploration work

OPA comment on the changes:

If an Aboriginal community has a sensitive date or time then maybe this would apply, rarely. The use of the mob and demob notices for informing MNDM inspectors on exploration so the inspectors know when explorers are exploring is inferring guilt. Years ago we were given the right to operate under MNR, DFO, MOL and MNDM regulations without someone standing on our shoulder. The systems were setup as a complaint reaction system we were told, now it is becoming an enforcement big brother group that inspects at anytime. This is going backwards. Inspections on sites cost industry money as the Inspector expects someone to show them around which takes them away from their day job. At present at the drill stage the drill contractor informs the MOL on mobilization.

OPA recommendation: The OPA would like to see the MNDM present a list of "offences" that have occurred since the implementation of the Plan and Permit System.

We look forward to future dialogue and collaboration on MNDM’s proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 308 / 12, Exploration Plans and Exploration Permits, and to the Provincial Standards for Early Exploration.

The OPA believes that some of the conflicts that arise in the present Plans and Permits could be solved by creating a Best Practise Guide for industry and other stakeholders. A Best Practise Guide should be completed with text, illustrations and photos covering all phases of early exploration.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide feedback and present our concerns. Should you have any questions related to this submission, please contact Garry Clark gjclark@ontarioprospecters .com.

Sincerely,

Ontario Prospectors Association

[Original Comment ID: 195058]