Nov. 2nd, 2022 To whom it…

Nov. 2nd, 2022
To whom it may concern:

Re: Draft Policy document Assessment Work-Costs

There are a number of concerns regarding the new proposed Assessment Work Polices, contained in the document : Draft Policy, Assessment Work-Costs dated July 2022.

First and foremost, the manner in which the Ministry notified and circulated the proposed polices for comments, in my opinion, did not go far enough to include those that would be directly affected by the polices, mainly its intended user base, through its own messaging system. If the purpose of this policy is to provide direction to claim holders and decision makers with respect to their options for meeting their assessment work requirements pursuant to the Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990 M.14 (the Act) and Ontario Regulation 65/18 (the Regulation), Then why were these proposed policies, or even the notification of them, not circulated effectively through the Mining Lands e-mail notification system of claim holders, or a letter to all Claim holders (of which are required to have an MLAS account/email), nor were these proposed policies circulated, or even notification of, posted to the Notice Board of MLAS, or through the MNRF Bulletin or News Letters though the websites directly controlled by MNRF.

As it relates to the three policy documents circulated. The accessibility of to these policy document (and archived format of historic policies) intended to provide direction to claim holders and decision makers; are not accessible through the MNRF website, nor the MLAS. While its easy enough for a claim holder to acquire the documentation related to using MLAS, filing Work reports, etc. the policiy documents propped here, and others from 2018, which outline the policies that are used, are not accessible to the persons who need them most, and are not archived, or easily accessed , such as those that proponents would need such as the Assessment Work O. Reg 65/18, Mining Act R.S.O. 1990, c. M.14, Technical Standards for Reporting Assessment Work.

As is relates to the timely decision making process by decision makers, on filed Work Reports, as of late, there appears to be a significant inconsistency the criteria, methods, and policies which are used. I understand that much of the determination is up to the discretion of the assessor assigned the Work report for review. However, if the Ministry uses internal policies to govern and advise decision makers, then the claim holders should have the same access to those polices, especially in an archived way. Most of the comments and concerns that recent assessor have been issuing to myself, for example, are not on the Technical Merits of a work report, but nit-picking the costs and invoices received. Some decision makers require full receipts, others do not. The same format submitted and approved by one decision maker, is rejected by another. Thus it is clear there is a large inconsistencies between assessors, especially as to what is an is not accepted.

To this extent, these proposed policies go and reassert daily allowable rates, a per diem rate for food & lodging, or daily rates for labour, or allowable mileage for Transportation. However, this does not include or state per diem rates or usage rates for a company/personally own vehicle (other then mileage) or transportation equipment; that one would otherwise be required to rent (tools/quads/snowmachines/boats/rock saw/chain saw, etc.). Due to the limited availability of some of these items, which could have been rented, but instead were used or owned wholly by the person/company. Determining or confirming what a "reasonable commercial rate" is up to the assessor, and is not directly related to what is reasonable. Often, rentals for transportation equipment on a daily rate is not commercially available, or is significantly higher then that to purchase, thus many claim holders opt of usage of personally owned equipment. I am in favour of these daily allowable rates, but what actual value is deemed reasonable, perhaps should be considred by the ministry, and a rate should included within these policy documents, to help in clarity for all persons involved. This would include rates for such things quads, snowmachines, boats, rock saw, chain saw, survey equipment, etc. This would be similar to daily allowable rates which in other work types (mentioned above), and are aligned with other jurisdictions. Furthermore, it could alleviate the often burdensome, time-consuming, and costly process scrutinizing and sourcing/providing every receipt and invoice related to the operation and usage of equipment to access and work the properties.

To be fair to those who work in more remote locations, where these costs could be higher than the allowable rates, then words to the effect that documentation or receipts should be provided. However, currently, the list/table of these rates, and terminology about them, are not easily accessible to all proponents; and perhaps these rates should be reviewed on an annual basis, to adjust for changes in inflation, and commercially available reasonable rates. Furthermore, a step towards allowing a daily rate, would fit well with the requirements of the daily Logs which are required for some work types, and could be easily worked in as required.

The other two Policy documents out for review, serve as good user guides for claim holders and decision makers, and reflect well on how these the current Regulations match up with the interface of the MLAS online system. However, while not directly stated, it is evident that changes in direction of reserve bank, land ownership, and time application, its clear that perhaps the ministry is trying to address or facilitate its mandate as it relates to work assessment on mining claims, pushing closer to the “work the ground, or losing the ground “mentality, will help facility turnover of claims, provided the historic work is recorded. However, the reserve bank, common land managers, transferability of reserve credits over long distances, transferability, or secondary markets for re-sale of reserve bank credits, etc, in my opinion, does not go far enough to limit the abuse of the system, which would result in some proponents hold ground in perpetuity. If anything, it would promote claim owners to pursue objective which deviate from actual exploration, instead focusing on business opportunities which enrich the claim holder, not the ground in which is staked. While there are some limitations or expectations for allowances of a reserve bank for market conditions, recessions, which may represent long periods of hiatus; the reserve banks which exist today are exponentially large, such that no new proponent could attempt to work new ground or arrive with new idea which may move the ground towards a profitable development for the province. This system of building up “exploration banks” on one claim to transfer to others, often many townships away, does not sit well with the intent of the policies or regulations which govern it. Perhaps Ontario should take a similar stance as other jurisdictions and limit either the distance work credits can be transferred, a sliding scale of increasing work requirements, a depreciating value of non-applied credits annually, a deductible rate for transfers of credits over long distances, or some combination of the above. Just a thought.

Thank you for your time,