Ontario’s Building More Mines Act law will give more sway to experts over bureaucrats, says Pirie

Ontario’s new Building More Mines Act aims to drastically cut timelines of mine permits and plans to get operations opened faster, says Mines Minister George Pirie.

Originally drafted as Bill 71, the new legislation amended the Mining Act and received royal assent on May 18. Regulations to support the act are under development.

In an interview on June 14 at his office in Queen’s Park in Toronto, Pirie told The Northern Miner that in the committee meetings on environmental regulations before the act was passed, the ministry heard the environmental process described as a “merry-go-round” of consultations.

“Things that used to take two months, now take routinely two to five years,” he said. “An endless process of questions and replies and more questions and more replies. So, we want to use the experts that are in the field rather than the bureaucrats… to simplify the process and get to the right endpoint quicker.”

Speaking specifically about the role of experts with mine closures, Pirie said the final certification of those plans will still be done by himself and the ministry. But in the new act, experts, who are referred to as ‘qualified persons’ will provide most of the input on the closure plans, as well as certify most aspects of the plans.  

“That would shave [part of the environmental process] from two to five years versus two months. That’s a significant advantage… so that the business of permitting these mines is conducted at the speed of business,” he said.

This change proved contentious during legislative assembly debates on Bill 71 in the spring. Ted Hsu, MPP for Kingston and the Islands and other MPPs drew attention to the vagueness of the term ‘qualified persons’ and its potential for conflict of interest, according to Hansard transcripts.

In April, Hsu noted that ministry officials would no longer be doing the assessment of mine plans.  

“The difference is that the people assessing mine closures now can move into the private sector and potentially work at the same firm and be paid out of the same revenue as those other kinds of qualified personnel who evaluate a mine’s potential to protect investors,” he said.  

Pirie responded that the ministry will still give input on the plans and has final say on closure processes.  

In April, Guelph MPP Mike Schreiner made a motion to amend the act by inserting the clause that qualified persons are “not employed or otherwise related to the proponent” but his proposal was voted down.

While some Indigenous communities have criticized the bill, saying that they were not consulted about it, Pirie emphasizes that the ministry will achieve those shorter timelines without sacrificing the duty to consult with Indigenous people or environmental regulations.

An area of the act where the provincial government also aims to change decision-making to boost efficiency is by shifting duties from directors to the minister. Previously, the ministry’s director of exploration would decide whether to issue permits to companies, taking into account if an explorer had conducted sufficient consultation with Indigenous groups and comments received about a permit.

That role will continue under the act, but the minister can also exercise those powers.

In contrast, the role of director of mine rehabilitation will be removed and its powers vested in the minister.

Pirie said the shifting of those duties and powers puts Ontario’s mining laws in line with other Canadian jurisdictions, such as Quebec and Newfoundland.

“The positions and the jobs that these directors are doing, they’re still there, the work still has to happen,” he said. “But ultimately, because capital is mobile, capital moves to the jurisdiction where in fact the investments can be made quicker… We want to ensure that we’ve got the best climate for investment for mining in Ontario.”

Flexibility on reclamation

The act also changes other processes around reclamation, including financing of closure plans. Companies can now provide financial assurance of their plans in phases that match the development schedule of a site, instead of showing that assurance up front and all at once.

“The complete process might be worth many multi-millions [of dollars]. And so if you’ve got a phase in your mine that’s going to be developed 10 years from now, then provide for the financial liabilities at that time, rather than doing it 10 years earlier,” Pirie said.

Another legislative change to closure that’s likely to draw the ire of environmental groups focuses on the condition of reclaimed land at former mines.

Previously, the land at reclaimed sites regarding public health and the environment had to be “improved,” while now it has to be “comparable to or better than it was” before the site’s recovery.  

Pirie explained that the change now allows for the reprocessing of existing mine tailings and heap dumps.

“There’ll be situations like we’re looking at in Sudbury with the heap dumps, and the slag heaps and the tailings, to reprocess those using bioleaching to recover rare earths. That change is done to reclaim what would have been waste facilities,” he said.

Hearing Indigenous concerns

Some of the loudest critical voices about the act have been from Indigenous communities. Allan Gustafson, chief of the Whitesand First Nation in northwestern Ontario said in a letter to Pirie in April that the act will “increase the speed and access of industry and investors” to the nation’s homeland, while the “encroachment” of mining companies and explorers on its traditional territory continues.  

Gustafson said the First Nation wasn’t consulted on the act’s amendments, adding that no future activities will occur on its lands without consultation.  

The letter, published by online news site NetNewsLedger went on to say that the province must be held accountable for its “exploitive and aggressive approach to mining in First Nations Treaty lands, traditional territories, and homelands contrary to the principles of reconciliation and the effect on Treaty rights.”

When contacted by The Northern Miner, the First Nation declined to comment further.

And in May, Kiiwetinoong MPP Sol Mamakwa said in a legislative debate that future mines could take 50 to 100 years to open  

“You’re just talking to certain First Nations that are willing to work with you. When you do that, you’re dividing and conquering First Nations,” he said. “It is on you if you pass this bill without talking to all First Nations. It has already been done, where you continue to have no informed consent from First Nations.”

Asked how the province will reassure Indigenous communities that their concerns will be heard when it comes to mining projects on their lands, Pirie said the answer is simple.

“There isn’t a word in the new bill that’s changed from the old bill in relation to the duty to consult and or the province’s world-class environmental regulations,” he said.

As the Ontario government jostles to attract investment along all stages of the critical minerals supply chain to capture the benefits from exploration through manufacturing, a funding dispute between the federal government and Stellantis over its planned $5-billion EV battery plant in Windsor has recently been in the news. In early June, Ontario pledged to pay one-third of the cost of the plant, a joint venture with LG Energy, though the exact amount won’t be made public until a deal is signed.  

The Northern Miner asked Pirie how he, as mines minister, feels about $1.6 billion of provincial funding going to the plant instead of to exploration and mining.

“We’ve got to get the minerals out of the ground to secure the supply chain to ensure that those battery plants will be built and operated from the minerals that are mined in northern Ontario,” he said. “This is all about creating jobs in the mining industry for southern Ontario, northern Ontario and Indigenous communities. There’s an urgency to get this done.”