Consolidated input – Mines…

Consolidated input – Mines Ministry consultation 2023

What we would like to hear from you:

1. Do the current thresholds for exploration plans and permits need to be updated?

Not a high priority.

2. If yes, please provide why and how the thresholds should be changed.

3. If no, please provide why the thresholds should remain the same.

Until the plans and permits regime ceases to be a complete joke and an insult to the intelligence of the exploration community, tinkering with threshholds will simply allow the minister to hide behind a smokescreen.

4. Are there alternative approaches to regulating early exploration activities that should be considered?

Cease to try to regulate any exploration activity that has essentially the same impact on the land as hiking or berry picking. These activities include mapping, collecting hand-sized samples, ground geophysics with grid cutting but using only GPS for control of data sites.

5. Is there any additional feedback you would like to provide on this initiative that was not captured in the questions above?

Go back to the Supreme Court rulings that clearly specify that at this level consultation does grant Indigenous communities a veto and approve the permissions solely on technical grounds.

What we would like to hear from you:

1. What parameters (e.g., environmental, geological) should be considered
when determining the geographical area covered by a permit?

Contiguous staked claims.

2. Is the current 200-metre radius for activity detail under Ontario’s mapping
standards appropriate, and if not, how and why should this be changed?

The 200 metre radius is arbitrary and its difficult to effectively cover an area with circles; the provincial cell-grid should be used to define the area.

3. Is the current 100m line, point or polygon for exploration trails, roads and
camps appropriate, and if not, how and why should this be changed?

The 100 m line is not appropriate for trails or roads that will access trenches and drill holes etc. that have a 200 metre radius. It is not possible to be more accurate with access than with the thing being accessed.
4. Are there any details which should be added to the Mapping Standards?
Are there any requirements in the Mapping Standards that should be
removed?

The mapping standards use "optional" words such as ; "may, should, can" the meaning of which is not "non-optional" or "must". Reviewers often take the examples of maps provided and disregard the optional nature of the wording which should take precedent. For example, there is no reason why a polygon shouldn't be used to define an area of drilling or overburden stripping or the access to those destinations, rather than a point. In fact, an area of drilling or stripping is more accurately defined by a polygon and should be the preferred representation.

5. Should the Mapping Standards incorporate the requirement to highlight a general area in which specified activities are to take place, rather than require precision on activities such as the number of drill pads, etc?

Yes! See above.

6. Is there any additional feedback you have with respect to geographic flexibility?

When a claim is staked it is to acquire the mining rights that the claim covers for the purposes of exploration and ultimately mineral development. If there are concerns about conducting any exploration activity on the claim, it should be stated as early as possible in the permitting process.

In at least one example in the northwest, after staking claims in an area with no cautions or alienations shown on MLAS, a strong objection was published by a local FN community that the claims should not have been permitted as there was a pre-existing claim by the FN that had been under review for years. Despite the claimholder requesting clarification from top Mines Ministry managers, no response has ever been provided and the claims languish without a permit. This obstructionism by civil servants amounts to a contravention of law as stated by the Supreme Court because it surreptitiously concedes a veto to the FN that raised the objection.

In another case, a FN brought forward Provincial Caribou Legislation that impacted claims, including 'caribou travel corridors' that were designated free from disturbance. These vast areas were not shown on MLAS. This issue caused delays of years and continues to be unresolved with permits not issued.
If there are sensitive issues these should be indicated on MLAS and at the very least be identified immediately upon a permit being applied for. Failure to publish this type of hinderance to users of MLAS amounts to lying by omission.

If Ontario continues to condone this unethical and unprofessional practice, it must provide the claimholder a straightforward mechanism to cancel their claims and, especially, to recoup from the Ministry, all costs incurred.

What we would like to hear from you:

1. Apart from the 200 metre radius requirement, are there other ways in which the current Mapping Standards, or other aspects of the mapping system, should be changed to allow proponents more flexibility to adapt their programs when new data is obtained during the course of exploration?

The 200 metre radius requirement is a red herring. The problem is the inexcusable time it takes to have a permit issued. While this is remedied, allowing a proponent to undertake a revised exploration program, to a possible limit of 50 drill sites, within the area of a claim should replace the 200 metre requirement; only when expanding exploration to claims not covered by a permit should a new application be required.

2. What parameters should be considered in the development of a project description in a plan or permit application form?

3. Are there any additional questions that should be included in the Activity Details Report? Are there any that should be removed?

4. Are there any alternative reporting requirements that could be used in place of the Activity Details Report, to account for the iterative nature of exploration?

5. Are there any additional approaches to increase flexibility in the permitting application process?

6. Are there any concerns with regards to the terms and conditions placed on permits?

Where periods of time when exploration is not permitted are imposed as conditions, the annual requirement for exploration should be shortened commensurately; an exclusion of time or equivalent type of extension to be applied.

For example, if a condition states that no permit activities are to take place from March 1st to April 15th (6 weeks) and September 15th to November 30th (an additional 6 weeks) for a total of 3 months per year, then an exclusion of time for one (1) year should be automatically issued for the claims over the 3-year term of the permit; that is, 9-months rounded up to the full year. If the sum of prohibited time in the conditions on the permit amounts to one year plus one day, the extension to be rounded to two years and so forth.

7. Is there any additional feedback you have with respect to operational flexibility?

What we would like to hear from you:

1. How long should an exploration plan or permit be issued for? If two to three years is not considered enough time, what would a more appropriate period be and why?

The exploration plan or permit should remain in force for a long as the program outlined in the application is ongoing. A hiatus of five (5) years should be allowed if market forces impede the raising of funds to complete a program.

2. What alternatives, if any, should be considered to the current renewal process?

The renewal process should be eliminated, as per the response above.

3. How could the Ministry of Mines accommodate any changes in project plans throughout the course of the plan or permit without having to require a new application?

MLAS Questions:

1. What additional changes would you like to see to improve your MLAS experience in the permitting application process?

2. Are there any current MLAS functions that you feel are restricting your ability to complete the permitting application process?

Administrative Burden Questions:

1. Please identify if there are any permitting application processes that you feel should be removed. Are there any that should be added that you would recommend?

2. Are there any changes that you would like to see regarding the temporary hold process?

The temporary hold must be temporary, not indefinite. It must have a specific time frame, for example, 4 weeks, after which time the permit is issued or a report with complete and in-depth justification to issue a further temporary hold must be delivered to all parties. Only one (1) such temporary hold to be allowed per application.

3. Are there any changes you would like to see for when a plan is bumped to a permit? Should a new application be required, or should the information simply be copied to a permit application if the change is due to consultation purposes?

There are two possibilities: one, scrap plans and use only permits; and two, if the change is due to consultation purposes, the Ministry to copy the information a permit application which will be provided to the proponent with in five (5) business days for their review before being circulated. The entire process to take no more than ten (10) business days.

4. Are there any other administrative processes that you would like to comment on?

Where a permit application is not approved within 50 days, the permit claims should be automatically placed on special circumstances and the time from the 50 days to the approval should be automatically excluded from the due date.

What we would like to hear from you:

1. Please identify how the current permitting application timelines impact you and what specific changes, if any, you would recommend.

The current timelines are unpredictable and it has in some cases taken years to have a permit approved. This uncertainty destroys the perceived value of the mineral rights and the ability to plan, coordinate and finance exploration work.

2. Are there service standards you would like to see?

First, if a comment has not been received by the applicant or the Ministry within 50 days of the date of application, the permit shall be issued.

Second, when the Ministry is unwilling to issue a permit within one year of the submission of the application, the applicant shall be the option to cancel the claims and the Ministry shall reimburse them for all costs incurred by the applicant in attempts to resolve the impediments.

3. What service standards would you like to see for timelines for application to circulation periods for plans and permits?

One week.

What we would like to hear from you:

Is the current annual work requirement sufficient to ensure exploration work is undertaken, or should it be increased? If it were to be increased, what impacts would you foresee for the industry?

It would be if the proponent could actually have a permit approved.

Ontario is a laughing stock now in the prospecting community. Increasing the requirements for assessment work at this time will turn derision to scorn.

What do you consider to be a reasonable annual work requirement to keep a claim in good standing?

The current rates are sufficient.

What we would like to hear from you:

Are there any alternative options the Ministry could consider to incentivize exploration work?

When an application for a permit is submitted by a partnership that includes a prospector or company and a potentially affected Indigenous community, assessment work credits should be accumulated at double the normal rate for the duration of the exploration program.

How would changes to, or removal of, the double credit incentive impact industry members?

Do you agree or disagree with some or all of the proposed possible limitations listed above?

The current “double credit” system should apply only to individual prospectors and sole proprietors. It should not be available to limited companies and corporations or any other entity the qualifies for flow-through tax credits.

Are there additional or alternative limitations you would propose?

What we would like to hear from you:

What do you consider to be a reasonable per day rate for one’s own work?

$500 for the claimholder; $350 for any assistant.; all other assessment credits to remain.

Should the Ministry consider applying different rates for different circumstances, e.g., different levels of experience and educational background, or the geographic location of the work conducted?

Different rates should apply only with regard to accessibility. Penalizing prospectors on educational grounds is wrong. Measuring experience is a mug’s game; for example, using the number of years one has held a prospector’s licence presumes that the holder has conducted field work.

What we would like to hear from you:

Are there any other options that would increase the amount of work conducted for mineral exploration on mining claims?

What impact would this have on your operations or the sector as a whole if the Ministry made changes to the credits in reserve process?

What parameters would you consider appropriate to put on credits in reserve?

None.

Should credits in reserve be reduced by a set percentage after a certain period of time if they are unused (e.g., after 5 years)?

No. That is rather like authorizing a unilateral reduction in the size of my financial savings account.

Are there any alternative approaches the Ministry should consider to reduce the amount of unpatented mining claims that are held for long periods of time without exploration?

The Ministry has heard from industry that there is an interest in expanding the types of work eligible for assessment work credit, to reflect technological innovation and to better reflect the true cost of working on claims that are challenging to access because of geography and/or topography. The Ministry is considering expanding the list of eligible work types and related expenses available for assessment credit. Examples include:

1. Utilization of technology such as artificial intelligence (“AI”) to provide new geoscientific analyses of data.

Surely you jest. Assessment credit to now be given for a new exploration idea, whether generated by man or machine! Or from a different perspective, “I have an idea; I have not tested it; give me assessment credit instead of expecting me to use it to raise capital”.

What criteria should be established if the Ministry were to accept AI for assessment work credit?

All algorithms, data and work product to be placed in the public domain upon filing.

2. Providing criteria for the acceptance of assays conducted on previously submitted samples for assessment work.

All such addition credit awarded solely for additional elements or compounds, for new and unique technology, for detection limits improve by one order of magnitude.

What criteria should be established for accepting assay results on samples that have previously received assessment work credits? What limitations, if any, should there be?

See above.

3. Allowing eligibility of overflight beyond registered claim boundaries for geophysical survey flights following the establishment of clear parameters for flight paths.

What would be acceptable business reasons that would warrant requiring overflight for assessment work credit?

What parameters should be established to allow overflight to be eligible for assessment work credits?

Such data to be allowable for credit if the land covered is acquired by staking or option within 30 days of the date when the data were collected.

To qualify for assessment credit, all over-flight data to be submitted with data being submitted.

At what distance should the maximum percentage of overfly be granted assessment work credits?

No limit.

What types of overfly should be accepted for credits?

All technologies; all types of aircraft.

Should there be different criteria for each type?

No.

4. Accepting raw datasets from geophysical surveys to provide detailed geophysical data for Ontario’s database.

Should the acceptance of raw datasets be mandatory?

The filing of raw datasets should be mandatory when datasets are submitted for assessment credit..

Should raw datasets be eligible for extra credit as an alternative to being a mandatory requirement?

Yes, they are more valuable than the processed information.

5. Accepting costs for the mobilization and demobilization conducted out of Province.

What costs for mobilization out of province should be considered for assessment work?

None; this jeopardizes work for Ontarians.

Which jurisdictions outside of Ontario should be considered eligible for assessment work credit?

None.

Additional Questions:

Are there any other work types and related expenses the Ministry should consider eligible for assessment credit?

No opinion.

Should any additional work types and related expenses have associated eligibility criteria?
If yes, what should the eligibility criteria include?
Please provide any thoughts on the potential expanded list of eligible work types and related expenses above.