These comments have also…

These comments have also been submitted via an email letter to the Minister's email address. For completeness' sake, they are being submitted as well via this comment form.

Dear Minister Pirie,

On behalf of Sagamok Anishnawbek Council and First Nation, I am writing to express our concerns with the amendments to the Mining Act proposed by Bill 71, known as the Building More Mines Act, 2023. Our Anishinabe laws places a stewardship responsibility on us to protect and safeguard the lands and resources within our traditional territory.

While Sagamok Anishnawbek is generally supportive of the mining sector, we do not believe that the changes Bill 71 proposes are either necessary or in the interests of fostering a nation-to-nation relationship between the Crown and Sagamok Anishnawbek. Moreover, the proposed changes may cause more harm to the environment.

I am especially concerned with Bill 71’s proposal to reduce the requirements of the mineral recovery framework and to amend the closure plan process to allow for the submission of incomplete closure plans. In my opinion, these amendments will weaken the Crown’s ability to effectively guarantee the continued exercise of Sagamok Anishnawbek’s constitutionally affirmed Aboriginal and Treaty rights, thereby increasing regulatory uncertainty for proponents.

Before commenting on the substance of Bill 71 however, I wanted to express my surprise and disappointment at Ontario’s lack of outreach to First Nations during the drafting of the proposed legislative text. Given the importance of the mining sector for First Nations, and the importance of First Nations in the mining sector from both an environmental and economic perspective, Ontario’s failure to conduct proper outreach represents a missed opportunity to achieve greater regulatory certainty for both proponents and First Nations.

Sagamok Anishnawbek is concerned that the removal of the requirement to improve lands associated with “recovery” mining activities will degrade the environment in which we exercise our constitutionally recognised rights, and accordingly reduce regulatory certainty for proponents who seek to operate in our territory. As noted in Ontario’s proposal details sheet, the “proposed amendments in the Bill would replace the requirement to “improve” the land subject to the recovery permit with a requirement that the condition of the land be “comparable to or better than” it was before the recovery activity.” It is unclear why Ontario believes that it is appropriate to remove the requirement to improve lands which are, in practicality, likely are already significantly degraded.

Applied to Sagamok Anishnawbek context, a community whose exercise of treaty rights is already threatened due to the cumulative effects of industrial development on its territory, Ontario’s proposed amendments would weaken our ability to provide our free, prior, and informed consent to permits associated with ‘recovery’ activities. Moreover, and given Ontario’s practice of delegating elements of the duty to consent and accommodate to proponents, it is likely that the proposed amendments would also result in greater regulatory uncertainty and costs to proponents. We encourage Ontario to rethink the proposed lowering of the land improvement threshold for activities associated with recovered minerals.

The proposed amendments to the closure plan process will reduce Sagamok Anishnawbek’s ability to consent to mining projects. As Sagamok Anishnawbek has often communicated to Ontario, our environmental planning and permitting is done with a view to seven generations. Our reviews of closure plans, and our ability to consent to closure plans, is taken with a view to ensuring that lands and waters impacted by mineral activity, will, following closure and rehabilitation, meet the requirements of as-yet unborn generations of our community. Ontario’s proposed amendments, particularly regarding the proposal to allow a proponent to defer part of a mine’s closure plan, will make this task more challenging and thereby reduce our ability to consent to mining projects in our territory. It is difficult for our Council to see how Ontario’s proposed amendments will meaningfully promote either regulatory certainty or the protection of the environment in which our members, both born and unborn, exercise their rights.

As a community that is proximate to the Sudbury basin, we are familiar with, and an active participant in, both the economic and regulatory facets of the mining sector. Indeed, Sagamok Anishnawbek is proud of the many productive relationships we have with proponents within the mining sector. Regrettably, we do not see Bill 71’s proposed amendments as meeting the needs of our community, or of our partners within industry.

I therefore encourage you to pause the amendment process and engage in more fulsome consultations with us and other First Nations.

Sincerely,

Chief Angus Toulouse
Sagamok Anishnawbek