1. Legislating a One Project…

1. Legislating a One Project, One Process (1P1P) Approach for Mine Permitting
The proposal states that “mining projects in Ontario are regulated by several ministries, each dealing with different permits or authorizations separately. This means that both project proponents and Indigenous communities may go through multiple, repetitive processes on a permit by permit basis.” Rather than creating another level of bureaucracy/coordination such as the Mine Authorization and Permitting Delivery Team (MAPDT), the government should ask these “several ministries” to review their processes and streamline those so “multiple, repetitive processes” are simplified and more efficient. Creating a MAPDT to act as liaison between applicants and ministries will not change how the ministries work, not make them more efficient, nor make the permitting process quicker.
2. Limiting Foreign Jurisdictions’ Participation in Ontario’s Economy
Protecting the Strategic National Mineral Supply Chain
A definition of “strategic national minerals” is missing in the proposal, including mention that such a definition should be established.
A definition is also need to describe what action or activities the government considers a risk for which protection is required.
Nothing in this section about protecting the strategic national mineral supply chain describes the actions or activities (nor gives examples) from which the government is seeking to protect Ontario’s mineral resources and the strategic national mineral supply chain.
Such a blanket statement is not acceptable because there are no guardrails nor guidance; anything or nothing could be considered applicable. More clarity on the concept is required.
Limiting Foreign Jurisdictions’ Participation in Ontario’s Energy Sector
Foreign ownership is not addressed in this section and should be. Foreign ownership should be limited to 49% so that Canadians retain control of mining and energy companies. Any companies who are operating in Ontario who do not meet this criterion will need to change.
I am concerned that the examples given in parentheses in this statement, “participation of foreign jurisdictions in Ontario’s electricity sector (i.e., specifically as it relates to foreign equipment, systems, services, facilities or technologies)” seem to flirt with micro-managing businesses. They cannot operate in an over-regulated environment. It also seems overzealous. For example, it is not clear to me how purchasing foreign-made equipment would always constitute “participation of foreign jurisdictions”, nor do I see how it would be easy to define when it would be. This proposal needs a lot more clarity and revision before passing on to the next stage.