These changes are…

These changes are problematic on a number of fronts and contrary to what the posting states they will result in impacts to the environment, health, and Aboriginal and treaty rights. This proposal will allow for "alternative rehabilitation measures and post-closure land uses" but doesn't give any examples except stating that infrastructure can remain on the land post-closure. We need more details before the full impacts of these changes can be understood. Infrastructure that remains on the land could degrade and become a mining hazard, which would certainly impact the environment, health, and Aboriginal and treaty rights. The land should be restored to it's pre-mining state to minimize these impacts as much as possible. The government should be consulting with Indigenous communities about these proposed changes and how they could potentially impact s. 35 rights.

The government needs to ensure that companies are rehabilitating the land so that the costs aren't borne by taxpayers and so that we can use the land when mining is done. This proposal seems to increase the likelihood that companies will not follow through with remediation, which will certainly lead to impacts to the environment and Aboriginal and treaty rights. The government needs to ensure that companies provide financial assurance that they can fully rehabilitate the mine site, otherwise the project shouldn't be approved. Increasing the number of mines without guaranteeing remediation isn't worth potential impacts to the environment and health. It appears that this proposal could potentially move us away from current progressive rehabilitation model since it allows the minister to defer "at least one" of the required elements of a closure plan if requested by a proponent. The minister should not defer any remediation unless the proponent has provided full financial assurance, otherwise we're just increasing the likelihood that the proponent will walk away from the project without remediating. If we are moving to phased financial assurance we should not be giving these powers to the minister.

On the recovery permits, the government is proposing to change the requirement to "improve land" to leave the land "comparable to or better than." The rationale for this is that "improve" is too vague a term according to the government, yet "comparable to or better than" is very precise. Undoubtedly this will result in mining companies leaving the land in a worse state than it was originally, but the government will deem that it is "comparable." Since both terms are vague it would be better to use "equal to or better than." This would also ensure that land is not degraded over time, which would result in environmental impacts.

The government is proposing to eliminate the need for ministry technical reviews of closure plans and instead rely on proponents' senior officers and "qualified persons" without defining who these persons are (no doubt they will be connected to the mining industry and approve anything that comes their way). The role of the public service is to review and regulate this industry. We need to keep the review function of the public service which will provide advice in the interest of Ontarians and not only consider mining industry profits. Public servants are educated in their fields and there is less potential for corruption and environmental damage if oversight remains with the public service and not private companies.

Additionally, the Minister of Mines is taking on the responsibilities of the Directors of Mine Rehabilitation and Exploration, positions which do not exist in the Ontario Government directory. There are Senior Managers with similar titles, but not Directors. It is also misleading to state that these individuals are appointed by the minister because public servants are hired in competitive processes, not appointed by political officials. This posting seems to imply that as the minister's appointees these 'Directors' would be doing his bidding anyway therefore the minister assuming their responsibilities makes sense, which is not the case. These are independent public servants that are not appointed by the minister.

It is difficult to understand the impacts of this proposal when key information is missing. For example, what is meant by "alternate rehabilitation measures and post-closure land uses"? You cannot say that there won't be any environmental impacts as a result of this proposal if you don't explain these terms. Additionally, some of the posting is incomprehensible even though the government is supposed to communicate at a fifth grade level. What is this sentence attempting to convey - "Lay the necessary groundwork for anticipated regulatory amendments that would strengthen qualified persons certifications provided with closure plans, including establishing the concept of qualified persons in the Mining Act: this would eliminate the need for a ministry technical review as they would be fully certified by qualified persons."