Commentary: Ontario’s Far North Act would cause conflict, delay: OMA

The following is the second of two edited portions of the Ontario Mining Association’s submission to the Standing Committee on General Government on the Mining Act (Bill 173) and the Far North Act (Bill 191). Last week’s commentary focused on Bill 173.

Regarding Bill 191, or the Far North Act, once again, we are appreciative of the government’s efforts to foster a multi-stakeholder dialogue and build consensus through the Far North Advisory Council. We also agree with the goal “to strike the right balance between conservation and development,” which was set out in the Premier’s July 14, 2008, announcement.

However, Bill 191 presents many challenges for our members, which if not rectified, will cause unprecedented delay, unnecessary conflicts and diminishing economic benefits for the province and communities of the Far North.

The nature of the mining industry is one that requires long-term certainty and clarity — given the long planning cycles of our industry, as well as the significant capital expenditures and detailed permitting process required for the development of a mine. Additionally, mineral exploration is a highly risky undertaking; only 1 in 10,000 prospects becomes a mine.

Industry would appreciate greater balance between industry, community and conservation components in various aspects of Bill 191 so that the bill achieves the desired goal of economic development and conservation.

Without this balance, Bill 191 may be seen as an impediment to future investment and development in Ontario’s Far North for mineral exploration and mine development, forcing companies to look elsewhere for mineral development projects.

While the proposed legislation is a start in putting a process in place to ensure partnership building between government and Aboriginal peoples, it has not provided a specific role for other stakeholders, such as the mineral industry.

Given the importance of mineral development to the economic development and prosperity of the Far North and its people, it is critical that the mineral industry have a seat at the table.

The OMA supports active participation of Aboriginal peoples in the mineral industry and understanding and co-operation between the industry and Aboriginal communities where mineral development and extraction occur.

The members of the OMA have collectively more than 50 agreements with the First Nations. If we are to respect the integrity of the Premier’s words, and ensure the wellbeing of Far North communities, there needs to be a balanced interest in development and the consultation aspects, which are currently nonexistent in the bill.

We recommend a target of 10 new mines in the next 10 years. One just needs to look at the benefits which the Musslewhite and Victor mines have brought to their respective communities and the province in terms of, jobs, training, business opportunities and tax revenue.

While targets on conservation are mentioned, there are no economic or social targets.

Another area of concern is how the act discusses the importance of respecting Aboriginal and treaty rights and consultation. The current government consultation aspects are limited in their scope, and we would encourage the Government of Ontario to expand this to include a broader swath of stakeholders, inclusive of the mining sector, to ensure a balanced approach to land-use planning is achieved.

This requires clarification for our members to assist them in their relationship building with the First Nation communities and other business decisions.

Given the level of effort involved in land use planning and review, including the need to conduct comprehensive, long range data collection and geological mapping, a key determining factor in the success of the government’s land use planning initiative is the sustained availability of adequate resources, both financial and human.

Proposals for land use planning in the Far North place a large responsibility and scope of work on First Nations, local authorities and companies alike.

The legislation cannot achieve its goals unless greater governmental resources are dedicated to enhance the capacity for land use planning in the Far North.

The government has allocated $40 million to implement the Mining Act and it will require much more — hundreds of millions of dollars as well as significant planning expertise and resources — to achieve the goals set out in the Far North Act.

In embarking on the monumental task of land use planning in the Far North, the government needs to ensure that the necessary funding mechanisms, as well as manpower and related resources are in place.

The proposed ban on mineral exploration in 50% of Ontario’s Far North means that the mineral geology of that area may never be known, with the result that significant mineral development opportunities will be missed.

Given that mineral exploration has very limited environmental impacts, we suggest that mineral exploration be allowed in protected areas, subject to a ban in highly sensitive areas identified based on clear scientific or cultural evidence. These areas could be given a “no-go” protection designation.

This would help achieve the balance between conservation, historical preservation and economic development that is the stated intention of the Bill and the government.

While operating mines occupy a very small footprint — about 5 sq. km — they are rare and very hard to find, especially in a vast remote area like the Far North, where the geology is largely unknown.

Because geological survey work would be ongoing over an extended period of time, the Far North Act needs to make provisions for a regular review of the community based land use plans and areas designated as protected.

We suggest that a five year review is warranted and that these reviews include the opportunity for companies to be actively consulted and contribute together with other affected stakeholders.

New mineral discoveries (assuming exploration is permitted in protected areas), new science, the changing needs of the local residents, technological changes and shifting circumstances may all trigger reviews of the community based land use plans.

As with our earlier comments on the Mining Act, we would like to stress that the review process needs to be objective, fair and transparent with all stakeholders.

In conclusion, the OMA would remind the committee that mining companies function in a fiercely competitive mobile global market. Ontario needs to remain open for business.

Recent turbulence in the economy has had a negative impact on our industry, but there are steps that the government can take to ensure Ontario remains in an optimal position to take advantage of the next boom in commodity prices.

Bill 173 and Bill 191 are a start in that direction, but only if this committee ensures that the amendments recommended are in fact implemented in a manner that will foster the growth of mining in the province.

The sustained success of mining as an economic engine of Ontario’s economy requires the following: certainty of the rule of law and land title; land access for mineral exploration; investment in infrastructure, technology and training; regulatory certainty and efficiency; and certainty on Aboriginal rights and engagement.

The OMA believes that in developing the proposed legislation there is an unprecedented opportunity to foster a mining environment that promotes fair and balanced development that will benefit all Ontarians and ensure all of us a healthy and prosperous future.