Ministry review of the Class EA for Activities of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines under the Mining Act

The ministry’s evaluation of the class environmental assessment for projects related to surface rights, mining rights, and mine hazard rehabilitation carried out by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

On this page Skip this page navigation

Environmental Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was August 10, 2012. this paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the proposed Class Environmental Assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM)

What

Ministry Review for the proposed Class Environmental Assessment for Activities of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines under the Mining Act (MNDM Class EA) which will cover discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities.

The proposed MNDM Class EA would replace the existing Declaration Orders:

MNDM-3 for Discretionary Mining Land Grants; and,
MNDM-4 for Abandoned Mine Hazard Rehabilitation

When

MNDM Class EA submitted: May 11, 2012; amended August 10, 2012

First inspection period: May 11, 2012 to June 29, 2012

Amended MNDM Class EA submitted: August 10, 2012

Ministry review comment period: August 31, 2012 to October 5, 2012

Where

The proposed MNDM Class EA will apply to the proponent’s discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities, for activities across the province.

Why

To provide a single Class Environmental Assessment process whereby environmental impacts and benefits of the MNDM's discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities are considered before irreversible decisions are made, providing direction:

to ensure impacts and benefits of discretionary activities are considered in a consistent matter; and,
to provide a framework to address and respond to input from the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies.

Conclusions

Based on the ministry Review of the MNDM Class EA, the Ministry of the Environment has concluded that the proponent has prepared the proposed MNDM Class EA in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. Further discussion and conditions of approval may be proposed to ensure that final government agency concerns and requests for clarification are incorporated into the MNDM Class EA.

Class environmental assessment process

A Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of a Class EA, as well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents preparing a Class EA are required to identify specific categories and sub-categories of undertakings to which the Class EA would apply, and provide a planning process for evaluating the environmental effects of each individual undertaking. The Class EA may require proponents to consider actions to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy potential environmental effects. When preparing a Class EA, the proponent must consult with interested stakeholders including government agencies, public, non-governmental organisations as well as Aboriginal communities and organisations.

A Class EA submitted for approval under the EAA differs from a project-specific environmental assessment (EA). The Class EA is unique because it receives approval for a planning process for an entire class of projects. This allows each project in the class to be carried out in accordance with the requirements and planning process set out in the Class EA.

Once the Class EA is approved, the proponent does not need to apply for approval under the EAA for each individual project provided they follow the procedures in the Class EA. However, the proponent is required to monitor implementation and effectiveness of the environmental protection planning of the Class EA and compliance with the EAA approval.

When following an approved Class EA, proponents of individual projects within the class of undertakings address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. A Class EA provides the framework for a proponent to determine, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how any environmental effects can be managed.

1.1 Terms of reference

Preparing a Class EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the Class EA will be prepared.

On August 23, 2011, the Minister approved the MNDM's ToR. The ToR set out how the MNDM would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the proposed MNDM Class EA. The ToR established the scope and purpose for the proposed MNDM Class EA and it outlines the content of the proposed MNDM Class EA using the requirements of the EAA and the MOE's standards for all Class EAs as the starting point. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the proposed MNDM Class EA process.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the Class EA process and prepare the Class EA. The Class EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has prepared the proposed Class EA, including consultation, the proposed Class EA is submitted to the MOE for review and approval.

On May 11, 2012, the MNDM submitted the proposed MNDM Class EA to the MOE for approval. The MNDM Class EA was made available for public inspection and comment for a seven-week period which ended on June 29, 2012. The Government Review Team (GRT), including federal, provincial and local agencies reviewed the proposed MNDM Class EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the proposed MNDM Class EA were valid, based on their agencies' mandates. The public, Aboriginal communities and interested organizations also had an opportunity to review the proposed MNDM Class EA and submit their comments to the MOE. All comments received by the MOE are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the proposed MNDM Class EA, including comments and concerns related to implementing projects using the proposed MNDM Class EA.

During this inspection period various comments were submitted, predominately by the GRT and a few Aboriginal communities. No comments were received from the public. The comments were for the most part suggestions for improvement in the following areas: clarifications and minor editorial comments; categorizing emergency rehabilitation activities; consultation and documentation requirements; the appropriateness of screening criteria for identifying potential environmental impacts (i.e. cultural heritage resources); and, planning process steps. Additional time was provided to the MNDM in order to hold discussions and respond to the comments received by making revisions to the proposed MNDM Class EA. The MNDM provided the MOE with an amended MNDM Class EA on August 10, 2012.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the MOE to prepare a review of the proposed MNDM Class EA, known simply as the Review. The Review is the MOE's evaluation of the proposed MNDM Class EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the proposed MNDM Class EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the proposed MNDM Class EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed MNDM Class EA.

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the proposed MNDM Class EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the proposed class of undertakings. The MOE staff, with input from the GRT, evaluates how well the proponent has consulted with others and ensures that the proponent has provided clear and complete documentation of such consultations. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, government agency and Aboriginal community comments on the proposed MNDM Class EA.

The Minister considers the conclusions of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their comments on the proposed MNDM Class EA have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the proposed MNDM Class EA, and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the proposed MNDM Class EA, or any matter relating to the proposed MNDM Class EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the proposed MNDM Class EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review has been posted on the MOE's EA activities website, the MNDM's website and published in the same newspapers where other notices about the proposed MNDM Class EA were published: Kenora Daily Miner and News, Kingston-Whig Standard, L'Express de Timmins, North Bay Nugget, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa le Droit, Sault Ste Marie Star, Sioux Lookout Wawatay News, Sudbury le Voyageur, Sudbury Star, Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal, Timmins Daily Press, Windsor le Rempart, and Windsor Star. An information notice was also published by the MNDM on the Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Registry. The Review and amended MNDM Class EA will also be made available for viewing at the offices of the MOE and the MNDM. The Notice of Completion indicates that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from August 31, 2012 to October 5, 2012. Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the proposed MNDM Class EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. A copy of the amended MNDM Class EA will also be made available on the MNDM's website and at the public record locations.

The proposed class environmental assessment

2.1 Description

The MNDM is a government agency that regulates the province’s mineral industry. The MNDM's Mines and Minerals Division works to support land use management and mineral resource development by administration of the province’s Mining Act, and by providing geoscience expertise and client services. The Mining Act encourages prospecting, staking and exploration for the development of mineral resources in a manner that minimizes the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment. The MNDM is seeking EAA approval for the class of undertakings which includes discretionary tenure decisions related to surface rights, mining rights and chattels, and discretionary rehabilitation activities, which includes emergency rehabilitation activities. These discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities undertaken by the MNDM for the purposes of administering the Mining Act are subject to the EAA. The discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities the MNDM is proposing to be covered under the MNDM Class EA are routinely carried out by the MNDM and have predictable environmental effects which can be readily managed.

Currently the MNDM's discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities have EAA coverage by way of two Declaration Orders. Declaration Order MNDM-3 enables the MNDM to carry out dispositions of certain or all rights to Crown resources without obtaining individual approvals under the EAA. Declaration Order MNDM-4 enables the MNDM to address environmental and safety hazards of abandoned mines throughout Ontario, primarily on Crown land, without having to obtain individual approvals under the EAA. The Declaration Orders expire December 31, 2012. The MNDM Class EA will replace the Declaration Orders MNDM-3 and MNDM-4.

A Class EA sets out a standardized planning process which must be approved by the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council for a group or class of undertakings. These classes of activities are routinely carried out and have predictable environmental effects which can be readily managed. The activities the MNDM is proposing to be covered by the MNDM Class EA fall within this description. Projects defined within a Class EA require no further approval under Section 5 of the EAA, conditional upon being planned according to the procedures set out in the Class EA document and not being subject to a Part II Order request (or bump up). A Class EA includes a process whereby any interested stakeholder or member of the public may request that the Minister order that an individual EA be carried out for a particular project.

The MNDM Class EA will not apply to the development of a mine itself. Mining developments and operations are private sector undertakings and as such are not subject to the EAA unless designated by regulation, or if the proponent enters into a voluntary agreement. However, ancillary activities associated with mining developments such as land dispositions, diesel power generation and transmission lines may trigger EAA requirements, under other processes such as the Ministry of Natural Resources' (MNR) Resource Stewardship and Facilities Development (RSFD) Class EA or Ontario Regulation 116/01 (Electricity Projects Regulation) made under the EAA.

The proposed MNDM Class EA includes a description of administrative processes for monitoring and amending the document, and a process for Part II Order requests. If approved, the proposed MNDM Class EA will be monitored to ensure it meets the requirements of the EAA. The proposed MNDM Class EA includes a compliance monitoring and reporting program. The goals of the monitoring program include evaluating compliance with the provisions of the MNDM Class EA and, identifying opportunities for continuous improvement. The compliance monitoring program includes the development of annual compliance reports that will be prepared and submitted to the MOE for review and posted on the MNDM's website.

The amending process outlined in the proposed MNDM Class EA describes a process for making both major and minor amendments, and requires a rationale for why an amendment to the document is being requested and who can bring amendments forward to the Director of the Environmental Approvals Branch (Director) of the MOE. The proposed MNDM Class EA also requires that the MNDM undertake a review of its document and submit it to the Director every five years to evaluate the effectiveness of the environmental protection planning of the proposed MNDM Class EA and compliance with the EAA approval.

Where an activity undertaken by the MNDM and subject to the EAA may potentially effect the environment, such activity can be elevated to an individual EA by way of a Part II Order request made by the Minister. The proposed MNDM Class EA describes the process to make a request to the Minister for an activity and how it will be considered by the MOE and the Minister when making his/her decision.

The proposed MNDM Class EA includes a description of each category of activities. The categories are based upon the potential for effects on all aspects of the environment as described in the EAA. The categories include:

Category A: Activities with no potential environmental effects and emergency rehabilitation activities;
Category B: Activities with potential for low environmental effects;
Category C: Activities with potential for moderate environmental effects; and,
Category D: Activities with potential for significant environmental effects.

To determine the appropriate category for an activity, the proposed MNDM Class EA describes a screening process that will be applied to the activity first. The screening process determines the potential level of effect on the environment and the anticipated level of public interest first in order to decide the appropriate category. However, the screening process does not apply to discretionary tenure decisions that are administrative in nature or that do not change a land use that is permitted under existing mining rights (i.e. termination of licence of occupation for rent arrears) and emergency rehabilitation activities. These activities have been pre-assigned to a Category A because there is no potential for environmental effects, or in the case of emergency rehabilitation activities, there is an immediate threat to human health and safety, and/or the environment. The screening process for all other activities subject to the proposed MNDM Class EA is made up of two sequential parts that are used to determine what category the proposed activity should be assigned to.

The Part 1 screening criteria are applied to discretionary tenure decisions that may have a potential environmental effect, and have not been already pre-assigned as a Category A. Should the Part I screening criteria determine that there is a potential environmental effect, the MNDM will then proceed with applying the Part 2 screening process. The Part 2 screening criteria lists all the potential environmental effects, the cause and degree of effect, and mitigation measures that can be used to eliminate or reduce the effect. For permissions to test mineral content (bulk samples) and discretionary rehabilitation activities, the screening process will be initiated by the MNDM at the Part 2 screening process. Based on the results of the Part 2 screening, the MNDM will be able to assign the proposed activity to the appropriate category as follows:

Category B: all identified potential negative effects can be easily mitigated;
Category C: at least one potential negative effect cannot be readily mitigated, or if there is an unknown environmental effect requiring the MNDM (or third party) to gather supplemental information and/or undertake further study/assessment; and,
Category D: multiple negative effects that cannot be readily mitigated or multiple unknown environmental effects.

The category will define the level of assessment for each activity. However, should results of the screening process determine that a discretionary tenure decision or discretionary rehabilitation activity may have significant potential environmental effects that are not predictable or manageable, the MNDM may decide to make the activity subject to the requirements of an individual EA.

The proposed MNDM Class EA also describes the consultation and documentation requirements for each category. Consultation includes notices of commencement (Category D), opportunity for input on the proposed activity (Category B and C), opportunity to review a draft environmental study report (Category D) and notices of completion (Category C and D). Consultation may also include meetings and open houses where appropriate.

The proposed MNDM Class EA also includes a process for identifying potential heritage resources, assessing and mitigating possible impacts to them. This is described in detail in Appendix 5 of the proposed MNDM Class EA, entitled Heritage Management Process (draft). Both the MNDM and the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) Culture Division continue to work together to finalize this process. The purpose of the Heritage Management Process is to: identify known or potential cultural heritage resources that may be impaired, damaged or destroyed by proposed activities; identify the type and scope of proposed activities which may have an effect on a cultural heritage resources; identify interested communities and stakeholders; and identify protection and mitigation measures to be applied to proposed activities.

Approval by the Minister will only be granted if the proposed MNDM Class EA is developed in accordance with the requirements of the EAA.

2.2 Evaluation of the class environmental assessment

2.2.1 The class of undertakings

The class of undertakings proposed to be covered by the MNDM Class EA is defined in the ToR and includes the activities currently under two Declaration Orders. Declaration Order MNDM-3 enables the MNDM to carry out dispositions of certain or all rights to Crown resources without obtaining individual approvals under the EAA. There are three types of discretionary activities carried out by the MNDM under the Mining Act that are subject to the EAA and they include:

new dispositions (i.e. granting mineral rights under road allowances, sale of physical assets on mine sites owned by the Crown);
conversions of existing tenure (i.e., combining several leases into one); and,
forfeiture or surrender of title (i.e., mining rights are forfeited or surrendered to the Crown due to non-payment of taxes or rent).

Declaration Order MNDM-4 allows the MNDM to address environmental and safety hazards of abandoned mines through rehabilitation throughout Ontario, primarily on Crown land, without having to obtain approvals under the EAA for each activity. Rehabilitation activities include small projects, such as capping or filling of mine shafts, and large scale, multi-year projects to remediate features, such as tailings and dams and to manage and dispose of hazardous wastes. The proposed MNDM Class EA also applies to emergency rehabilitation activities where the MNDM is the proponent. Emergency rehabilitation activities fall under the class of undertakings for rehabilitation activities.

In 2008, the MNDM requested an extension to its two Declarations Orders. Declaration Order MNDM-3 would have expired on June 11, 2009 and Declaration Order MNDM-4 would have expired on June 27, 2010. Both Declaration Orders now expire on December 31, 2012. The proposed MNDM Class EA will replace the Declaration Orders.

Because the Declaration Orders will expire, the proposed MNDM Class EA was necessary and will include the activities covered by MNDM-3 and MNDM-4 as well as emergency rehabilitation activities undertaken by the MNDM as these activities are also subject to the EAA and are not covered by Declaration Order MNDM-4.

Conclusion: The MNDM has provided a clear description of the class of undertakings.

2.2.2 Reasons for using a class environmental assessment

The proposed MNDM Class EA outlines a number of reasons for the development of a Class EA for discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities including the following as described in Section 1.5 of the proposed MNDM Class EA:

provides long-term EAA coverage for the MNDM's activities under the Mining Act that have predictable and manageable environmental effects;
provides clear and consistent direction about assessment and study processes in compliance with the EAA;
allows the MNDM to identify and assess the significance of any potential environmental effects from activities subject to its proposed MNDM Class EA;
allows the MNDM to plan, design and amend activities in a consistent manner to mitigate potential negative environmental effects from activities subject to its MNDM Class EA; and,
ensures that the MNDM is consistent with other Ontario ministries that have long-term EAA coverage.

Conclusion: The MOE is satisfied with the MNDM's rationale for the development of the proposed MNDM Class EA.

2.2.3 Similarities and differences among undertakings

The proposed MNDM Class EA identifies the range of activities under the Mining Act that are subject to the EAA. These activities include new dispositions (i.e. exploratory licences of occupation), conversions of existing tenure (i.e. licence of occupation to a lease), forfeiture or surrender of a title (i.e. for tax or rent arrears), and post-mining rehabilitation activities. The proposed MNDM Class EA includes a screening process first to evaluate the potential environmental effects prior to determining which categories the activity is assigned too. For those activities that are administrative in nature or do not change land use that is permitted under existing mining rights, and emergency rehabilitation activities are pre-assigned to Category A. The discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities take place on former or existing mining lands are considered to be similar. These activity types may also differ when the activities: have varying levels of effects on the environment; range from being administrative decisions with no impact on the environment to large-scale mine rehabilitation activities that ultimately have positive environmental effects and/or improved human health and safety benefits when the rehabilitation work is finished; include the MNDM-administered mine rehabilitation activities that deal with a variety of methods and mine hazards that vary in description, size, scale, and environmental settings; and, have site specific considerations — cultural heritage resource considerations, social and economic features, community and public interest, land and resource use, and natural environmental features.

Conclusion: The MNDM has provided a sufficient description of the nature of similarities and differences to be expected in activities in the MNDM Class EA.

2.2.4 Environmental effects of activities in the MNDM Class EA

The proposed MNDM Class EA identifies in general terms that the environmental effects of activities in the class will vary from project to project based on the environmental setting, location, and the history of a particular site. The proposed activities may occur within an undisturbed setting or it may occur within a previously disturbed site. There may also be unknown factors (i.e. undocumented underground mine infrastructure) that the MNDM may not aware of. The majority of discretionary tenure decisions should result in either nil or low potential environmental effects (e.g., correction on mining title of small slivers of land accidentally omitted at time of mining claim staking). For discretionary rehabilitation activities, potential effects may include potential impacts to culture resource features, species at risk, sensitive habitats, safety and existing and asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Conclusion: The MNDM Class EA identifies some potential environmental effects of its proposed activities and recognizes the importance of mitigating the potential environmental effects. However, a condition of approval is being proposed to require the MNDM to better describe specific potential environmental effects of its activities and the specific mitigation measures to address them. The conditions of approval referred to in this Review are only proposed as a means of addressing outstanding issues, if the Minister makes a decision to approve the proposed MNDM Class EA.

2.2.5 Consultation process during the MNDM Class EA planning

A range of consultation activities are specified in the proposed MNDM Class EA including mandatory requirements such as Notices of Commencement and Completion as well as opportunities for the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies to review project documentation. The proposed MNDM Class EA provides a clear description of the consultation requirements for each category and describes the processes which the MNDM may use to consult with the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies that may be affected by the activity. The process provided allows flexibility for the MNDM to increase the level of public consultation undertaken when and as necessary (i.e. arranging public information centres and/or meetings), at their discretion.

For consultation with Aboriginal communities, the MNDM is responsible for fulfilling the Crown’s duty to consult where an activity that is subject to its proposed MNDM Class EA may have the potential to affect existing or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights. Section 6.0 of the proposed MNDM Class EA describes the approach to consulting with Aboriginal communities and how it will be documented.

Conclusion: The MNDM Class EA provides an appropriate framework for the MNDM to use to ensure that adequate consultation occurs with the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies.

2.2.6 Methods for evaluating and implementing activities

The proposed MNDM Class EA provides a clear planning process and framework for the identification and evaluation of the proposed activity including identification, categorization, evaluation; documentation; and implementation. Furthermore, the proposed MNDM Class EA includes a description of how Category B, C, and D activities may change from the original proposal based on the environmental evaluation and/or consultation processes.

Conclusion: The MNDM Class EA provides a clear description of the process to be used to evaluate a proposed activity and how it will be carried out during implementation.

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the analysis of the proposed MNDM Class EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the proposed MNDM Class EA, nor present the information found in the proposed MNDM Class EA. For information on the planning process, refer to the proposed MNDM Class EA as it outlines how the MNDM will proceed through the planning process to address the requirements of the EAA.

As noted earlier, the Review does not make a decision about the proposed MNDM Class EA. That is the decision of the Minister. Any conditions of EAA approval referred to in this document are only proposed as a means of addressing outstanding issues, if the Minister makes a decision to approve the proposed MNDM Class EA.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The MOE coordinated an analysis of the proposed MNDM Class EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR and EAA have been met. In addition to the standard required contents of all Class EAs, the ToR identified that the proposed MNDM Class EA would address additional matters including consideration of cultural heritage resources and would recognize the distinct interests and potential involvement of Aboriginal communities in discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities.

The MOE concludes that the proposed MNDM Class EA followed the framework set out in the ToR and demonstrated how the required components of the EAA have been met. Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the proposed MNDM Class EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the Class EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be taken prior to the submission of the proposed Class EA to the MOE and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. The consultation plan included government agencies, members of the public, Aboriginal communities and organizations, and other interested groups or individuals, each of which were provided information at key stages during the preparation of the proposed MNDM Class EA. Included with the submission of the proposed MNDM Class EA was a Consultation Record, documenting the consultation undertaken by the MNDM with the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities and organizations. The MOE is satisfied with the level and type of consultation that occurred during the preparation of the proposed MNDM Class EA and that the MNDM was responsive to addressing concerns and incorporated suggestions for improving the document.

Once the proposed MNDM Class EA was submitted to the MOE, additional MOE-driven consultation occurred during the comment period. The GRT, the public and affected Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to review the proposed MNDM Class EA and to submit comments to the MOE on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, and on the proposed MNDM Class EA itself. All comments received by the MOE during the proposed MNDM Class EA comment period were forwarded to the MNDM for a response. Summaries of the all comments received along with the MNDM's responses are included in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B.

Government Review Team

During the preparation of the proposed MNDM Class EA, the MNDM consulted with the government and other agencies, including: the MOE; MTCS; MNR; the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA); and, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO); Infrastructure Ontario (IO); and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). These government agencies also provided comments during the First Inspection Period.

Throughout the development of the proposed MNDM Class EA, meetings and discussions were held with representatives of the MTCS Culture Division, the MOE and the MNDM. At key milestones, the MNDM provided status updates and documentation for review to the public, Aboriginal communities and government agencies. Members of the public, interested stakeholders, Aboriginal communities and government agencies were also invited to comment on the draft MNDM Class EA between January 20 and February 21, 2012.

Comments from government agencies on the submission of the proposed MNDM Class EA included comments from the MOE, MTCS Tourism and Culture Divisions, MNR, MAA, IO and CEAA.

In general, government agencies did not have significant concerns with the proposed MNDM Class EA. Information and clarification was requested about categorizing emergency rehabilitation activities, consultation requirements for both the general public and Aboriginal communities, screening for environmental effects, definitions in the glossary; documentation requirements, planning process steps, minor editorial comments and general understanding of the proposed MNDM Class EA. Government agencies provided comments that required minor word revisions (i.e. clarify terminology) to major changes (i.e. eliminate one of the pre-screening tables, provide additional consultation notices) to the proposed MNDM Class EA. Government comments are discussed more fully in Section 3.2 of this Review. The MTCS Culture Division and the MOE also provided detailed recommendations and required specific modifications to the proposed MNDM Class EA. The MOE asked that the MNDM respond to each of the comments made. A summary of the GRT's comments, the MNDM's responses, and the MOE's evaluation is provided in Table 1, and the formal submissions themselves are available at the public viewing locations.

In order to address the comments made by the GRT, the MNDM amended its proposed MNDM Class EA to incorporate the comments received. There are some remaining comments raised by the MTCS Culture Division, which will have to be addressed through ongoing discussions and/or proposed conditions of approval of the Minister’s decision.

Please refer to Section 3.2 for key issues raised by government agencies during the First comment period for the proposed MNDM Class EA.

Public Consultation

The MNDM used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public which included:

posting notices on the Environmental Registry and on the MNDM's website;
documentation available for viewing at both the MNDM and the MOE offices;
meetings and discussions with government agencies; and,
advertisements in 14 newspapers, including French language newspapers.

During the pre-submission of the proposed MNDM Class EA, comments were raised by the public about a variety of issues including: impacts to a cottage property; minor editorial comments; and concerns with mining projects (which is not covered under the proposed MNDM Class EA). A comment was also received from the Municipality of Red Lake requesting a minor editorial change in the MNDM Class EA.

No public comments were received during the First Inspection Period for the proposed MNDM Class EA.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to consultation with the broader public, Aboriginal communities were consulted in recognition of the unique interests of Aboriginal people in decisions of the MNDM under the Mining Act. Given the application of the proposed MNDM Class EA for discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities across the province, the MNDM sought input from Aboriginal organizations, Tribal Councils and approximately 134 individual Aboriginal communities, including certain communities located in the provinces of Manitoba and Quebec. Aboriginal communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

The MNDM employed the following efforts to solicit advice and input:

direct notification of approval of the ToR and the proposed MNDM Class EA;
direct notification of opportunity to comment on the draft MNDM Class EA;
direct notice and mail outs to key contacts, Chiefs of Ontario (and certain Chiefs of Quebec and Manitoba) and Provincial Territorial Organizations, Tribal Councils, and Métis organisations including providing advance notice of the intent to seek input on the draft MNDM Class EA;
direct mailing to the Chiefs of Ontario, Provincial Territorial Organizations, Tribal Councils and Métis organizations advising of the intent to provide Aboriginal communities with an opportunity to provide input and advice;
the MNDM met with the following communities during the development of the proposed MNDM Class EA:
- Alderville First Nation;
- Algonquins of Ontario;
- Beausoleil First Nation;
- Chippewas of Georgina Island;
- Curve Lake First Nation;
- Hiawatha First Nation;
- Métis Nation of Ontario;
- Mississaugas of Scugog Island;
- Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs Forum (includes Chapleau Cree First Nation, Brunswick House First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Pic Mobert First Nation, and Hornepayne First Nation);
- Serpent River First Nation;
- Six Nations of Grand River; and,
- Temagami First Nation.

Following notification by the MNDM that it had submitted the proposed MNDM Class EA to the MOE for review, comments were received from Aboriginal communities.

The MOE sought input from 134 Aboriginal communities, including tribal councils and other organizations, providing a brief description of the proposed MNDM Class EA and how they could get involved. During the proposed MNDM Class EA submission comment period, the Huron Wendat, Wahnapitae First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs Forum, Algonquins of Ontario, Historic Suageen Métis, Nokiiwin Tribal Council, Northern Lights Métis Council, Chippewas of Rama First Nation and Independent First Nations Alliance commented on the proposed MNDM Class EA. Nokiiwin Tribal Council, Northern Lights Métis Council, and Chippewas of Rama First Nation indicated satisfaction with the proposed MNDM Class EA and/or indicated that they had no further comments. The Independent First Nations Alliance asked that the MOE inform them when the public notice for the Review is posted as they will be providing comments during the second inspection period. The Huron Wendat expressed satisfaction with the consultation undertaken thus far for the proposed MNDM Class EA and asked that they be kept informed and updated on the proposed MNDM Class EA.

The Wahnapitae First Nation raised several comments on the proposed MNDM Class EA which included: compensation for loss of Crown resource and need to avoid potential negative environmental effects; consulting with Aboriginal communities early in the planning process and that the 30-day review period may not be sufficient time for Aboriginal communities to comment; partnerships; they requesting clarification on the proposed MNDM Class EA and triggers for federal EAs; minor editorial comments; and, comments outside the scope of the proposed MNDM Class EA (i.e. financial assurance).

With respect to compensation for loss or use of a Crown resource and potential impacts on the environment as a result of a proposed activity, the MNDM indicated that it is required to consider mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts on Aboriginal communities and on the environment. Should there be a potential negative impact; the MNDM will be consulting with the affected community as early in the planning process as possible. Furthermore, the MNDM acknowledged that consulting early with Aboriginal communities may provide valuable input and information for a specific activity during the MNDM Class EA planning process. The MNDM has committed to consider comments received during the planning process whether or not it is received during a specific comment period. The proposed MNDM Class EA allows some flexibility with respect to the consultation requirements in order to accommodate potential concerns about treaty and Aboriginal rights. The MNDM recognizes that Aboriginal communities will have a significant role in determining the outcome of the EA of an activity planned under the proposed MNDM Class EA. With respect to situations where an Aboriginal community wants to enter into a partnership with the MNDM for a proposed activity, the MNDM has indicated that it is willing to discuss this possibility.

The Missanabie Cree First Nation together with the Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs Forum requested to meet with the MOE staff to discuss the proposed MNDM Class EA. On July 26, 2012, the MOE sent a letter confirming that it is willing to meet and discuss their concerns with the proposed MNDM Class EA. The MNDM will arrange to meet with the Missanabie Cree First Nation and the Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs Forum during the Ministry Review comment period and the MOE staff will participate in this discussion.

The Algonquins of Ontario informed the MOE that it appreciated the opportunities to learn about the proposed MNDM Class EA in December 2011 and March 2012 with the MNDM. The Algonquins of Ontario also shared with the MOE that it expected that the MNDM recognize and accept that the proposed MNDM Class EA is not sufficient to satisfy its duty to consult. The MNDM recognizes that where a duty to consult is triggered by a decision affected by the proposed MNDM Class EA that cannot be fulfilled by the process, and where a negotiated protocol exists setting out how the parties intend to satisfy that duty to consult, the proposed MNDM Class EA process would not be intended to replace or alter that negotiated process.

The Historic Saugeen Métis commented on the importance of consideration of cumulative effects of mining projects, consultation being a collaborative process, and that Aboriginal communities should be involved in the determination of their asserted rights and interests. The proposed MNDM Class EA does not apply to mine development projects. The proposed MNDM Class EA is limited to discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities. Potential effects of these activities will be evaluated, assessed and mitigated on site by site basis. As for consultation being a collaborative process, the decisions made by the MNDM are the responsibility of the MNDM; however, Aboriginal communities will play an important role in that decision-making during the proposed MNDM Class EA planning process for an activity.

The MOE is satisfied that the comments raised by the Aboriginal communities during the comment period have been adequately addressed by the MNDM. The MOE is satisfied that the MNDM values the interest of Aboriginal communities and it recognizes that Aboriginal peoples have an important role in the planning process. All Aboriginal community comments, including the MNDM's responses and the MOE's evaluation are provided in Table 2 of Appendix B.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

Overall, the MOE believes that the MNDM provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the proposed MNDM Class EA. Feedback from the government agencies and Aboriginal communities required amendments to the proposed MNDM Class EA. the MNDM took each comment into consideration in the amendments to the proposed MNDM Class EA. The MNDM provided various opportunities for input at key milestones in the proposed MNDM Class EA process.

3.1.3 Conclusion

With respect to consultation, the proposed MNDM Class EA has satisfied the requirements of the ToR and is consistent with the MOE's expectations for Class EA documents and followed the guidance outlined in the Code of Practice: Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario. The Record of Consultation submitted in support of the MNDM Class EA documents the consultation methods used by the MNDM to engage the GRT, the general public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities during the development of the proposed MNDM Class EA, setting out the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed. The MOE is satisfied that the MNDM provided sufficient opportunities for participation and input during the preparation of the proposed MNDM Class EA.

3.2 Key issues

Cultural heritage considerations

Both the MNDM and the MTCS Culture Division have been working together to develop a process for identifying, assessing and mitigating potential impacts to cultural heritage resources, referred to as the Heritage Management Process, throughout the development of the proposed MNDM Class EA. The MTCS Culture Division also raised concerns about the MNDM Class EA not providing enough detail and guidance where there is a potential impact to a cultural heritage resource. The key concerns raised by the MTCS Culture Division that will be described in further detail are as follows:

draft Heritage Management Process (Appendix 5) of the proposed MNDM Class EA;
abandoned mines could be valuable cultural heritage resources for communities and require additional supplementary provisions for its protection;
inadequate description of all environmental effects and mitigation for all discretionary activities;
screening and predefined categories; and,
prioritization of rehabilitation mines does not consider cultural heritage resources.

Heritage management process

The draft Heritage Management Process is currently described in draft form in Appendix 5 of the proposed MNDM Class EA. The draft Heritage Management Process prepared by the MNDM, in consultation with the MTCS Culture Division, was developed as a result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two ministries. The MOU set out a framework for developing a process to evaluate and assess potential cultural heritage resources. The MOU was established through a condition of Declaration Orders MNDM-3 and MNDM-4. The Heritage Management Process is currently in draft form as the MTCS Culture Division and the MNDM were unable to finalize the document prior to the submission of the proposed MNDM Class EA to the MOE. The main outstanding items that the MTCS Culture Division and the MNDM have not been able to finalize the Heritage Management Process are: inclusion of possible potential impacts, mitigation and conservation options; screening flowcharts; evaluation methodology for determining cultural heritage resources; and, screening checklist for determining archaeological potential for discretionary tenure decisions. The MTCS Culture Division and the MNDM continue to work together to finalize the draft Heritage Management Process to include the outstanding items. The MOE is proposing that a condition of approval of the Minister’s decision be imposed on the MNDM to finalize the Heritage Management Process, within a specified timeframe. This condition will ensure that there is a final and mutually-agreeable process, between the MNDM and the MTCS Culture Division, for identifying, assessing and mitigating potential effects to cultural heritage resources for an activity planned under the proposed MNDM Class EA.

Abandoned mines and cultural heritage resource potential

The MTCS Culture Division contends that the proposed MNDM Class EA does not adequately recognize that abandoned mines could be a valuable cultural heritage resource for communities and therefore, additional supplementary provisions for its protection are recommended. The proposed MNDM Class EA has been amended to include additional references to the importance of cultural heritage resources; however, the revisions provided did not to satisfy the MTCS Culture Division’s concerns. The MOE is confident that through further discussions between the MNDM and the MTCS Culture Division, the MNDM will be in a position to finalize the Heritage Management Process. The MOE is proposing that a condition of approval of the Minister’s decision be imposed on the MNDM to finalize the Heritage Management Process.

Environmental effects and mitigation

The MTCS Culture Division also raised concerns about the lack of clarity on the descriptions and understanding the affected environment and the potential impacts from the discretionary tenure decisions and rehabilitation activities. The MOE agrees that further descriptions are required in the proposed MNDM Class EA to include specific potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for all discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities. The MOE is proposing that a condition of approval of the Minister’s decision be imposed on the MNDM to describe potential environmental effects and associated mitigation measures for all activities.

Screening and predefined categories

The MTCS Culture Division is concerned that the screening process for identifying potential environmental impacts in the proposed MNDM Class EA does not adequately address potential impacts to cultural heritage resources. The MTCS Culture Division is recommending that a cultural heritage evaluation (Heritage Management Process) be completed first prior to completing the screening process and include the use of predefined categories for activities in the proposed MNDM Class EA. the MNDM has indicated the screening processes described in the proposed MNDM Class EA will be completed in order to identify potential environmental effects and associated mitigation. Identifying the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity will help to determine which category the activity will be screened into. The MOE does not have a concern with the MNDM screening its activities into a category once potential environmental effects have been determined. The MOE is confident that during the ministry Review, both the MTCS Culture Division and the MNDM will continue discussions to address this concern.

Prioritization of abandoned mine sites

The MTCS Culture Division is concerned with how the MNDM has prioritized its abandoned mine sites as it does not satisfy all aspects of concern under the EAA. The MTCS Culture Division is requesting that the MNDM re-prioritize the abandoned mines sites to consider threatened cultural heritage resources. The prioritization of abandoned mine sites focuses on the biggest threats to human health and safety, and environmental contamination and does not consider that the potential cultural heritage resource of an abandoned mine site may be threatened. The MOE is satisfied that the process of prioritization of abandoned mine rehabilitation is outside the MNDM Class EA process. The proposed MNDM Class EA does not require the MNDM to consider alternative abandoned mine sites for rehabilitation. The MNDM does recognize that an abandoned mine site may have potential or known cultural heritage resource present and therefore, will apply the screening process described in the draft Heritage Management Process of the proposed MNDM Class EA to ensure that potential cultural heritage resource is identified, assessed and mitigated.

The MOE has recommended that further discussions proceed in parallel with the Ministry Review comment period so that a mutually-acceptable solution can be reached on matters relating to cultural heritage resources, including finalizing the Heritage Management Process. The MOE will participate in these discussions to determine if and how these issues are addressed and whether conditions of approval are warranted to set out further direction in the MNDM Class EA. The MOE is proposing conditions of approval on the MNDM to finalize the Heritage Management Process and better describe specific potential environmental effects of its activities and the specific mitigation measures to address them.

Emergency rehabilitation activities

The MOE and the MTCS Culture Division staff raised concerns with emergency rehabilitation activities being exempt from the screening and categorization process. The MOE understands that, given the nature of emergency rehabilitation activities, screening may not be appropriate; however, this activity requires categorization as it is an activity that is subject to the MNDM Class EA. Furthermore, the MOE expressed concerns with the MNDM's interpretation of the Mining Act. The proposed MNDM Class EA stated that emergency rehabilitation activities on privately held sites are not subject to the EAA. This statement was incorrect as the applicability of the Mining Act relates to who the proponent is and not the status of land (see Section 148 of the Mining Act). The MNDM has addressed the matter by revising its MNDM Class EA to indicate that emergency rehabilitation activities are Category A activities, and accurately reflect the applicability of Section 148 of the Mining Act.

Consultation and planning process requirements

During the first inspection period, the MOE staff provided comments on the consultation Section prepared for the proposed MNDM Class EA, the consultation requirements for the different categories; and level of information on the notices and planning process steps. The MNDM revised its proposed MNDM Class EA to further clarify when in the planning process and for which category a consultation plan would be prepared as well as what would be included in the plan. The MOE staff requested further information be added to describe the public notices would be required. The MNDM revised its MNDM Class EA to clarify when the notices would be required.

Additional information and clarity on the details of the consultation record for both the general public and Aboriginal communities was required. The MNDM revised the consultation Section to include further details on the consultation records and recognized the differences and special circumstances when consulting with the general public versus Aboriginal communities.

The MNDM Class EA included a flow chart that explained the review process for each category; however, it was not clear to the MOE at what stage of the planning process assessment, evaluation and consultation would occur. The MNDM revised its proposed MNDM Class EA to further describe the planning process as well as add a table that outlines each step (or phase) of the planning process and which category is applicable.

Screening criteria

The proposed MNDM Class EA included a table entitled Part 2 Site-specific Screening Criteria for Discretionary Tenure Decisions that scoped potential environmental effects by asking questions with specific values (i.e. year-round surface water within 120 metres of the site). The MNR, the MTCS Culture Division and the MOE expressed concerns with this table, as the MNDM did not provide a rationale for how it established the numeric values outlined and that the criteria listed in this table did not adequately ensure that all potential environmental effects associated with a decision would be identified. The MNDM made a decision, as a result of the comments received by both the MNR and the MOE, to eliminate this table from the screening process. The MNDM has demonstrated that eliminating this table improves and clarifies the screening process to identify potential environmental impacts on proposed activities and will not impact, based on the screening, how to categorize a proposed activity.

The proposed MNDM Class EA was amended and resubmitted to the MOE during the preparation of the Review to address agency comments. The amended proposed MNDM Class EA included: additional definitions in the glossary; clarified consultation (both for interested persons and Aboriginal communities) and documentation requirements; modifications to the screening for potential environmental effects and planning process; revisions to the draft Heritage Management Process (Appendix 5); and updated wording regarding emergency rehabilitation activities. All comments received by the MOE, MNR, MTCS Tourism Division, MAA and IO were addressed; however, there remains outstanding comments from the MTCS Culture Division.

3.2.1 Conclusion

Overall, the MOE is satisfied that the MNDM has responded to all Aboriginal communities and agency comments by describing how the proposed MNDM Class EA has the scope and flexibility to address the range of issues which may be associated with the class of undertakings.

With respect to comments submitted by the GRT, the MNDM has substantially addressed the concerns raised through its responses and revisions to the proposed MNDM Class EA. Further discussions with the MTCS Culture Division and the MOE are required to resolve issues relating to cultural heritage resources and to finalize the Heritage Management Process as identified in Table 1 of Appendix B.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis of the proposed MNDM Class EA. The proposed MNDM Class EA provides a framework for the MNDM to assess the potential environmental effects of discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities and seek ways of reducing potential impacts to the extent possible. The proposed MNDM Class EA also provides the MNDM with guidance on how to engage and address the concerns of the public, interested stakeholders, agencies and Aboriginal communities when planning their discretionary activities.

The MOE is satisfied that the MNDM provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to comment on the proposed MNDM Class EA prior to submitting if for review and approval. During the first inspection period, both repeated and new concerns were raised by the GRT, but these have since been largely addressed through amendments to the proposed MNDM Class EA and/or responses made by the MNDM. All outstanding comments raised to date from the MTCS Culture Division and discussed in this Review can be resolved through further discussions or through proposed conditions of approval. The MOE is satisfied that there are no outstanding public and Aboriginal community concerns.

This Review concludes that the proposed MNDM Class EA complies with the requirements of the ToR, and therefore, has been prepared in accordance with the EAA.

4.1 Summary of proposed conditions of approval

There are several standard conditions imposed on any Class EA approval. The proposed conditions discussed in this Review are specific to the proposed MNDM Class EA and are related to the comments raised during the first inspection period:

The MNDM shall finalize the Heritage Management Process (Appendix 5).
The MNDM shall describe specific potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for all discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. The Review will be posted on the MOE's website and be made available at public viewing locations of the offices of the MOE and the MNDM, including a copy of the amended MNDM Class EA. The MNDM will also post the amended MNDM Class EA on its website and post an information notice on the Environmental Registry. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, interested stakeholders, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the MOE about the proposed MNDM Class EA and the Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the proposed MNDM Class EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, the MOE staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the proposed MNDM Class EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the proposed MNDM Class EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the proposed MNDM Class EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

give approval to proceed with the undertaking;
give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; or
refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking.

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire proposed MNDM Class EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire proposed MNDM Class EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the proposed MNDM Class EA, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Following completion of the Review, the proposed MNDM Class EA may be amended by the proponent only upon such conditions as the Minister may by order impose.

Should the proposed MNDM Class EA receive approval, further modifications or amendments to the proposed MNDM Class EA are possible. The process is described in Section 7.2 of the proposed MNDM Class EA, whereby the MNDM or any other party may submit written requests for amendments to the proposed MNDM Class EA to the Director of the Environmental Approvals Branch (for minor amendments), or the Minister (for major amendments). The proposed MNDM Class EA recommends that any outside party consult with the MNDM before submitting a proposed amendment, addressing the specific concern or issue being addressed, the reason for the proposal and the proposed amendment itself. The MOE may require that consideration of a minor or major amendment be deferred for consideration as part of the five-year review or may require that the proposed MNDM Class EA be updated in the interim.

Public record locations

The public record for the Class Environmental Assessment for Activities of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM Class EA) can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following Ministry of the Environment offices:

Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

Ottawa District Office
2430 Don Reid Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1H 1K1

The Review, amended MNDM Class EA and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

933 Ramsey Lake Road
Sudbury, Ontario
P3E 6B5

1-888-415-9875 ext. 5755

203-447 McKeown Avenue
North Bay, Ontario
P3E 6B5

705-494-4045

1270 Highway 101 East
South Porcupine, Ontario
P0N 1H0

705-235-1625

104-810 Robertson Street
Kenora, Ontario
P9N 4J2

807-468-2819

6-875 Queen Street East
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
P6A 2B3

705-945-6931

P.O. Bag Service 43
126 Old Troy Road
Tweed, Ontario
K0K 3J0

613-478-3161

10 Government Road
Kirkland Lake, Ontario
P2N 3M6

705-568-4517

B0002-435 James Street South
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7E 6S7

807-475-1311

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was August 10, 2012. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Making a submission

A five-week public inspection period ending June 6, 2008 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the Class Environmental Assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director
Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, ON M4V 1L5
Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Class Environmental Assessment for Activities of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines under the Mining Act
Attention: Cindy Batista, Project Officer

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act requirements

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Problem/opportunities	Description of the class of undertakings to which it applies: section 14(2)(1)	The Class EA must describe the projects for which approval is being sought. The ToR identifies that the class of undertakings will include the activities subject Declaration Orders MNDM-3 and MNDM-4. Declaration Order MNDM-3 enables the MNDM to carry out discretionary tenure decisions. Declaration Order MNDM-4 enables the MNDM to address environmental and safety hazards of abandoned mines throughout Ontario.

Analysis of the EA

The proposed Class EA will include only those activities under the Mining Act that are subject to the EAA. The two types of activities are: discretionary tenure decisions related to surface rights, mining rights and chattels, and; discretionary mine rehabilitation activities, as described in Declaration Orders MNDM-3 and MNDM 4, as well as emergency activities.

The MOE is satisfied with the class of undertakings.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Reasons for using a Class EA	A description of the reasons for using a Class EA with respect to undertakings in the class: section 14(2)(2)	The proposed Class EA must clearly identify the reasons for developing a Class EA for discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities.

Analysis of the EA

Declaration Orders MNDM-3 and MNDM-4 expire December 31 2012. The classes of activities covered under the declaration orders are routinely carried out and have predictable environmental effects which can be readily managed. The activities the MNDM is proposing to be covered by the Class EA fall within this description. The proposed Class EA will ensure impacts and benefits of discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities are considered in a consistent matter; and, provides a framework to address and respond to input from the public, Aboriginal communities and government.

The MOE is satisfied with the reasons for the development of the Class EA.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Reasons for using a Class EA	A description of the similarities and differences to be expected among the undertakings in the class: section 14(2)(3)	The Class EA must outline the similarities and differences to be expected among the undertakings in the Class.

Analysis of the EA

The proposed Class EA categorizes all its activities by undertaking a pre- screening process that evaluates potential environmental effects prior to determining which categories the activity is assigned too. For those activities that are administrative in nature or do not change land use that is permitted under existing mining rights are pre-assigned to Category A. Discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities that are similar are those which will take place on former or existing mining lands and are linked with past or present exploration and mining industry activities.

These activity types may differ when: there are varying levels of effects on the environment; range from being administrative decisions with no impact on the environment to large-scale mine rehabilitation activities that ultimately have positive environmental effects and/or improved human health and safety; and include MNDM-administered mine rehabilitation activities that deal with a variety of methods and mine hazards that vary in description, size, scale, and environmental settings.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Environmental considerations related to undertakings to which the Class applies.	A description of the expected range of environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class: section 14(2)(4)	The Class EA must outline the potential environmental effects from undertakings within the class.

Analysis of the EA

The proposed Class EA outlines, in general, the expected range of environmental effects, recognizing that a wide variety of social, cultural, economic and environmental values may be affected by the projects covered under the proposed Class EA. These impacts will be assessed in accordance with the guidance provided by the proposed Class EA. A proposed condition will be considered to amend the Class EA to provide more details on the environmental effects of discretionary tenure and discretionary rehabilitation activities.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Environmental considerations related to undertakings to which the Class applies.	A description of measures that could be taken to mitigate against adverse environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class: section 14(2)(5)	The Class EA must provide reference to the types of mitigation measures which can reduce or mitigate adverse environmental effects from undertakings within the class.

Analysis of the EA

Mitigation and effects monitoring is provided within the Class EA and general examples are included in the document. The Class EA lists standard approaches to mitigate effects associated with discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities and

The majority of discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities covered by MNDM's Class EA should be either administrative in nature or produce negative effects that are easily mitigated by applying terms and conditions and/or by following regulations. Potential negative effects will be identified early in the Class EA screening and planning process in order to develop specific mitigation measures. A proposed condition will be considered to amend the Class EA to provide more details on the mitigation measures of discretionary tenure and discretionary rehabilitation activities.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Evaluation	A description of the process to be used by a proponent of a proposed undertaking to consult with the public and with persons who may be affected by the undertaking: section 14(2)(6)	The Class EA must provide guidance on public consultation processes which proponents can use when planning projects under the class.

Analysis of the EA

The proposed Class EA outlines the minimum requirements by which the MNDM will consult with the public, Aboriginal communities, and government agencies. The Class EA provides a flexible framework which can be adjusted based on the public and stakeholder interest in the undertaking and specifies minimum documentation requirements including the preparation of a Project File or Envronmental Study Report for activities depending on their category.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Evaluation	A description of the method to be used to evaluate a proposed undertaking with respect to the matters described in paragraphs 4 to 6: section 14(2)(7)	The Class EA must provide direction on how proponents are to evaluate the impacts of proposed undertakings including assessing potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures which can be utilized and methods to consult with the public.

Analysis of the EA

The proposed Class EA applies a consistent evaluation matrix to all projects, focused on potential environmental effects (positive and negative) related to discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities. Further, the proposed Class EA provides general mitigation methods and mitigation monitoring for a proposed activity, and outlines methods for determining the public consultation methods which are appropriate based on the circumstances of the activity and its category.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Evaluation	A description of the method to be used to determine the final design of a proposed undertaking based upon the evaluation described in paragraph 7: section 14(2)(8)	The Class EA must provide a framework which allows proponents to identify and describe the proposed undertaking in a level of detail that is appropriate to the setting.

Analysis of the EA

The proposed Class EA exceeds the minimum requirements for screening by requiring all activities (minus a few administrative activities) to be screened for environmental impacts first prior to categorization. Because the activities will be very specific to the environmental setting, public and Aboriginal community interest, and the size and history of a site, categorizing an activity prior to screening will ensure that any project that has one potential impact on the environment will be at minimum a Category B project. In addition, a Category D project provides the public, agencies and Aboriginal communities' opportunities to review a draft Environmental Study Report.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The proposed Class EA recognizes that there may be culture heritage value or interest for discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities given that the mining industry is an integral part of Ontario’s history and heritage particularly in the exploration, opening up and settlement of Northern Ontario.

Analysis of the EA

Appendix 5, entitled Heritage Management Process defines a process that ensures appropriate measures are in place to avoid or reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources. Although, this appendix is in draft form, the MOE is satisfied that the MTCS and the MNDM will continue to work together and finalize this document. A proposed condition will be considered requiring the MNDM to finalize the Heritage Management Process.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The proposed Class EA will include a number of administrative provisions to ensure consistency of approach across activities undertaken. Such provisions will include: Documentation requirements for activities Addendums to Environmental Study Reports Part II Orders and resolution provisions Class EA five-year review requirements Monitoring and reporting requirements Requirements for public consultation

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA includes:

Documentation requirements for projects
Addendums to Environmental Study Reports
Part II Orders and resolution provisions
Class EA five-year review requirements
Monitoring and reporting requirements
Requirements for public consultation

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	As a means of keeping the Class EA current, the document will outline the proposed amendment process, including associated notification requirements and opportunities for the public and government agencies to request amendments.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA defines both minor and major amendment processes, including associated notification requirements and opportunities for the public and government agencies to request amendments.

EA decision making process	EAA and ToR requirements	Description and characteristics of the requirements
Additional commitments	Additional ToR commitments	The Class EA will provide for direct engagement of Aboriginal peoples and communities who may be affected by or have an interest in activities subject to the class of undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

The Class EA recognizes the distinct interests and potential involvement of Aboriginal communities in its discretionary tenure and discretionary rehabilitation activities.

Appendix B: Submissions received during intial comment period

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

MOE is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #9

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment

Summary

No Notice of Completion for a Category B project? Where will the Statement of Completion be posted for a Category B project?

Proponent’s response

We would also recommend replacing the term water body with a term such as surface water feature, and including wetlands (other than provincially significant wetlands which are included in Item 6) in the descriptor.

In Item 4 of the table, we would suggest including other Aboriginal communities along with First Nation reserves. Consideration should also be given to including areas of archaeological potential, in addition to identified cultural heritage resources in Item 5. In addition, we suggest that Item 6 be broadened to include significant wildlife habitat in general, rather than just breeding dens or nests.

Proponent’s response

Due to a number of comments on Table 6, MNDM has removed it from the Class EA and made the appropriate revisions to the text throughout the body of the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #22

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment

Summary

For the Notices of Completion where it speaks to submitting a Part II Order request, EAB recommends that MNDM reference the process outlined under the Class EA for submitting a Part II Order request.

For the Amended Notices for Completion, can MNDM clarify why the following statement is included in the notice: The environmental effects of the project are unchanged?

Proponent’s response

Agree. MNDM has amended the Notice of Completion templates to include a reference to Section 7.5 Part II Order Process.

MNDM intended this statement to reflect the changes to the project result in no change to the level of environmental effect. MNDM has amended the text to provide better clarity.

Status

MOE is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #75

Submitter

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

Summary

MAA recommends that revisions be made to the screening templates, included in section three (Screening and Categories), to identify Aboriginal interests based on the following criteria: proximate reserves; land claims or claims in litigation against Ontario; existing or asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights or; an interest in the area of the project; as well as; Sites of Aboriginal cultural significance (included in Table 7 Screening Criteria page 33).

Proponent’s response

MNDM agrees and has made the following additions to the screening criteria:

Physical Environment: Proximate First Nation Reserves and other Aboriginal communities.
Social / Economic / Cultural Environment: Land claims or claims in litigation against Ontario; and, Aboriginal interest in the project area.
Existing or asserted Aboriginal treaty rights will be assessed when communities have been identified.

As noted, Table 7 already includes Sites of Aboriginal Cultural Significance. Also please note that MNDM has changed the First Nation Reserves criteria to First Nation Reserves and other Aboriginal communities.

Status

MOE is satisfied that amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #76

Submitter

Infrastructure Ontario

Summary

For EA projects, where multiple Class EA processes are triggered for a single project, IO is consulted regarding the proponency and applicability of which Class EA process should be followed as a one-window type of approach to avoid duplication of effort among the respective parties involved. According to the Class EA proposed for MNDM, only those undertakings regulated under the Mining Act are to be assessed under the proposed new Class EA process; however, if a proponent’s proposed undertaking is regulated under the Mining Act and may also directly or indirectly affect lands or facilities owned by MOI and managed by IO, then undertakings that fall under the MOI Class EA, if possible, should also be simultaneously assessed under the MNDM Class EA process without having to conduct a separate assessment under the MOI Class EA in order to streamline all EA requirements.

The proponent of the MNDM process would still have to ensure that all of the MOI mandatory Class EA requirements have been met under the MNDM process. Assessing all of the undertakings at the same time and streamlining the two processes under one Class EA would result in an overall savings of time and cost to complete a project.

Proponent’s response

As described in Section 4.4. of the Class EA, …the Class EA planning process will be coordinated or integrated with other legislation or planning processes. This would include potentially coordinating MNDM's Class EA process and MOI's Class EA process when appropriate.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #77

Submitter

Infrastructure Ontario

Summary

Infrastructure Ontario undertakes a variety of projects on government owned land that are not necessarily under title to MOI. Some of these activities are similar to or the same as those that fall under the Mining Act. Within the MNDM Class EA, two classes of Undertakings have been identified (See section 2.2.1 Classes of Undertakings). The second class of these undertakings could in the future, be applied to IO managed lands.

Proponent’s response

Proponent’s response

Agree. MNDM has amended the text to clarify that activities not listed in Table 4 require further screening to determine level of potential environmental effects.

Please note: the activities listed in Table 4 are administrative activities with no environmental effects.

Status

MOE is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #81

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources

Summary

Section 3.1.1: Screening Criteria. Based on the draft Class EA, MNR understands that discretionary tenure decisions considered by MNDM will be subjected to a multi-level screening process. The approach is intended to focus efforts on those decisions with greatest potential for environmental effects and where mitigation measure likely will be required. Rehabilitation activities are not subject to Tables 4, 5 or 6 and proceed to Part 3 Screening and Categories.

Given the complexity of a multi-stage screening methodology, it may be helpful to provide a flowchart which is a subset of Figure 1, identifying the possible outcomes of the screening process.

Proponent’s response

Agree. The screening process is depicted in Figure 1.

Status

MOE is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #82

Submitter

Ministry of Natural Resources

Summary

Table 5, Part 1 Screening Criteria for Discretionary Tenure Decisions. Question 4 in Table 5 appears to duplicate the intent of Table 4 which identifies decisions that are likely administrative even though Table 4 has previously identified and pre-assigned listed administrative activities. MNR suggests removal of Question 4.

Summary

Section 7.5.1 Making a Part II Order. Pages 64 and 65 outline that a written request for a Part II Order must address several issues. One of the issues identified is the adequacy of the planning process and compliance with the approval Class EA process.

Based on this experience, many people will not be sufficiently abreast of the content of this new MNDM Class EA to effectively discuss the adequacy of the planning process and/or whether compliance with the EA process has occurred, in a Part II Order request.

One option for addressing this concern would be to make the public more aware of the issues they must address in a Part II order request through various notice templates in Appendix 6). Another alternative would be to clearly indicated in the above notices that the identified MNDM contact should be contacted prior to any person submitting a Part II Order request to discus what information needs to be provided in such a request (in order to meet the intent of Section 7.5.1).

Proponent’s response

The last paragraph (before the first bullet) on page 64 indicates that written requests must address the following issues as they relate [emphasis added] to the identified concerns. This means that a description of the adequacy of the planning process, etc., is just one issue that may be considered when submitting a Part II Order Request, if it is applicable to the request.

MNDM has amended the appropriate notices (as referred to by MTCS's) to include a reference to the Part II Order section of the Class EA.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response and is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #90

Submitter

MTCS's Culture Division

Summary

2.2.1 Classes of Undertakings, Table 1. MNDM's Discretionary Activities under the Mining Act. The text preceding the Table states MNDM's discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities are described in the following sections and listed in Table 1. However, instead of providing clear descriptions of the discretionary activities, Table 1 limits itself to providing a cross-reference to the sections of the Mining Act that authorize the activities. Table 1 does not clearly describe the decisions or the environmental impact of those decisions.

Proponent’s response

The purpose of Table 1 is to identify MNDM's activities under the Mining Act that are included in MNDM's Class EA, not to describe potential environmental effects of proposed projects.

MNDM has made the following revisions to the Class EA: The last sentence before Table 1 now reads: MNDM's discretionary tenure decisions and discretionary rehabilitation activities under the Mining Act are listed in Table 1 and are also described in the following sections.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #91

Submitter

MTCS's Culture Division

Summary

Table 1. MNDM's Discretionary Activities under the Mining Act MTCS's proposes that the columns could be re-labelled as follows: delete Description and add Type of Decision; delete Discretionary Decision and add Description of Decision. Additional information to help the reader understand is also suggested. For example, in row 1, the Type of Decision might be shown as Consent of the Minister to allow staking in lands not open for staking. A clearer description for the Description column might be The Minister has the authority to decide when to allow staking in the lands described below which are not normally open to staking.

Note: it appears from a review of the Mining Act that the section that is referenced here is not yet in effect (on a day to be approved, etc.). The applicability of the provisions that are not yet in effect needs to be clarified.

Proponent’s response

Submitter

MTCS's Culture Division

Summary

Summary

Table 7. Part 2 Screening Criteria Footnote Page 33. This footnote is not consistent with MNDM's commitment in the approved ToR. It should be deleted and replaced with the following: The screening in Appendix 5 must first be undertaken in order to complete the Part 2 screening table. In addition, it may be necessary for an evaluation to be undertaken to complete Part 3. The ToR states that the proposed Class EA will define processes that ensure that appropriate measures are in place to avoid or reduce impacts to cultural heritage resources and that appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated into discretionary decisions related to surface rights, mining rights and chattels and MNDMF administered-mine rehabilitation projects.

Proponent’s response

Agree. Please refer to above response.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #150

Submitter

MTCS's Culture Division

Summary

MTCS's sees that there is an opportunity for MNDM to help ensure the protection of cultural heritage resources through the terms and conditions upon which they grant discretionary tenure rights. This approach is consistent with the statement on page 24 of the Class EA: MNDM may require third parties and partners to undertake certain procedural aspects of the Class EA process.

Proponent’s response

The protection of cultural heritage resources is addressed in Appendix 5.

Status

MOE is satisfied with response.

Comment #151

Submitter

MTCS's Culture Division

Summary

4.6 Effects Monitoring Pages 51. Add further information and guidance about monitoring program. Monitoring program should consider and document the following:

Component: the environmental component or strategy being monitored and the scope of the program;

Rationale: the reason for monitoring;
Methods and timing/duration: the procedures that are to be used for monitoring (e.g., techniques, equipment, indicators, measurements, duration, frequency, etc.);
Reporting: provision for reporting of data, results and action taken, including frequency and to whom results are reported; and
Adaptive Management: provision for additional actions that may be required to mitigate an impact, including any related monitoring.

Proponent’s response

Agree. MNDM will make the suggested changes.

Status

MOE is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #13

Aboriginal Community

Wahnapitae First Nation

Summary

Add to the list if the crown has knowledge of a potential project on the lands, waters, culture and livelihood of local and affected Aboriginal communities.

Proponent’s response

The screening process described in the Class EA (section 3.1) helps MNDM to determine potential impacts on lands, water, culture and livelihood of local and affected Aboriginal communities. In addition, through consultation, Aboriginal communities have the opportunity to provide MNDM with input and information about potential environmental effects that MNDM may be unaware of.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #14

Aboriginal Community

Wahnapitae First Nation

Summary

Add Aboriginal land use is not limited to traditional use but also embraces current and planned use whether, social, economic, spiritual and subsistence.

Proponent’s response

MNDM has changed the wording in Section 2.5.2 of the Class EA to uses related to existing and asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights in order to be more inclusive of Aboriginal land uses.

Status

The MOE is satisfied amended Class EA addresses.

Comment #15

Aboriginal Community

Wahnapitae First Nation

Summary

Affected Aboriginal groups must be involved in all screenings with costs borne by the proponent and/or governments.

In reference to ‘Table 7. Part 3 Screening Criteria', remove the column of Unknown. Proponents and government should have an obligation to conduct thorough screening.

Proponent’s response

As the proponent of the Class EA, MNDM will conduct all screenings for projects under the Class EA.

The purpose of screening is for MNDM to assess potential environmental effects of a proposed project. The purpose of the unknown column is to indicate for which screening criteria more information is needed. If the potential environmental effect of a proposed project on a certain screening criterion is unknown, MNDM or a third party will be required to gather information and/or undertake further research in order to determine what the effect will be and if mitigation measures are required.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #16

Aboriginal Community

Wahnapitae First Nation

Summary

This is not known unless affected Aboriginal groups are involved early in the process, all decisions and share in the discretionary evaluation/screening of projects… all activity has the potential [to] impact Aboriginal communities.

Proponent’s response

Proponent’s response

Although the first comment period for the proposed Class EA ended on June 29, 2012, your community will have another opportunity to provide comments. The Ministry Review includes an analysis of all First Nation community, Métis community, organizations, public and government agency comments submitted during the first comment period, as well as the MNDM response to these submissions.

The Ministry Review will be placed on the public record for a five week comment period during which time the MOE will seek input on the proposed Class EA and the Ministry Review. The proposed Class EA and Ministry Review will be sent to you directly and your community will have another opportunity to provide comments to the MOE.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #29

Aboriginal Community

Missanabie Cree First Nation

Summary

Missanabie Cree First Nation is a member of the Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs Forum (NSRCF). I am requesting a meeting between the Ministry of the Environment, the Chiefs of the NSRCF, as well as the NSRCF Elder’s Council to be hosted by the Missanabie Cree in Sault Ste. Marie as soon as possible in support of being properly consulted on the proposed changes to the class environmental assessment proposal. I have forwarded the information you have provided to the NSRCF Secretariat with instructions to review all documents, and to prepare additional comments on behalf of the Missanabie Cree.

Proponent’s response

MNDM met with Chief Rainville and Northeast Superior Regional Chief’s Forum a day after receipt of this letter. MNDM staff made a commitment to you and the NSRCF at the June 19, 2012 meeting, to meet again to further discuss the proposed Class EA. When this meeting occurs, MOE staff will also participate to listen to your comments and concerns.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #30

Aboriginal Community

Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs Forum (NSRCF)

Summary

Thank you for meeting with the Chiefs and Elders of the NSRCF last week to discuss the aforementioned initiative. As explained, the NSRCF has attempted over the last four years to work collaboratively with MNDM on a solutions-based approach to a number of concerns associated with the Mining Act modernization process, particularly the free entry system. While we recognize that the proposed Class EA initiative is but a small portion of a much larger process, it does however represent the first meaningful opportunity for the NSRCF to implement its new Consultation and Accommodation Law which was developed in direct response to ongoing challenges with the Crown over meaningful Aboriginal engagement.

Proponent’s response

MOE staff will participate to listen to NSRCF's comments and concerns.

MNDM will contact NSRCF directly to arrange a date for this meeting to take place during second comment period, so that the MNDM can outline how it has addressed the comments received and identify any changes it has made to the proposed Class EA as a result of the submissions.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #31

Summary

5.1 Consultation with Interested Persons. This sections states, As the proponent, MNDM will determine the approach to consultation that is required for a project. Can a consultation process that is determined by only one party truly be consultation? HSM suggests that consultation should always be collaborative process with consideration for all parties' views on the approach to be taken. Also within this section is a provision to maintain communication through the entire life of the project. Communication should continue to play an important role during any further design or implementation stages, while seeking their regulatory approvals, and during construction, operation, decommissioning and monitoring, as required. HSM strongly support this initiative of continued communication through the entire life of a project. In this way all parties can maintain a constructive working relationship and will be able to identify any issues at their very earlier stages.

Proponent’s response

While the decisions that MNDM makes under the Class EA are the responsibility of MNDM, Aboriginal communities will play an important role in that decision-making. The Crown’s duty to consult requires MNDM to consult with Aboriginal communities where its actions or decisions may adversely affect asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights. In addition, and whether or not the Crown’s duty to consult is triggered, Aboriginal communities play a significant role in determining the outcome of the environmental assessment of a project, by providing input and information and raising concerns about the proposed project.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #34

Aboriginal Community

Historic Saugeen Métis

Summary

Section 6: Aboriginal Consultation. Under this section it states The scope of the duty to consult is proportionate to a preliminary assessment of the strength of the existing or asserted right, and seriousness of the potential adverse effect. Although this is not an unreasonable or uncommon approach HSM would suggest that the Aboriginal community being assessed would have the opportunity to examine the strength of claim assessment and respond to its conclusions if necessary. Furthermore, the Aboriginal community should be involved in the determination of the seriousness of the potential adverse effect on their asserted rights and interests.

This section also outlines the fact that the consultation process for the Class EA may not always satisfy MNDM's obligations under the ‘Crown’s duty to consult' and therefore MNDM may need to supplement the consultation process in these circumstances. It is positive to see this distinction made and a commitment outlined.

Proponent’s response

As noted above, effective and meaningful involvement of Aboriginal communities is an integral part of MNDM's Class EA process. Aboriginal communities play a significant role in determining the outcome of the environmental assessment of a project by providing input and information and raising concerns about the proposed project.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #35

Aboriginal Community

Historic Saugeen Métis

Summary

7.1 Compliance Monitoring and Reporting. This section and the few following outline a thorough process for ensuring the goals of ‘long-term economic and environmental sustainability' through a variety of monitoring and reporting procedures. Verification and accountability are an essential part of environmental protection.

Proponent’s response

Effective compliance monitoring and reporting is an important part of MNDM's Class EA process to ensure that MNDM's projects under the Class EA are carried out consistent with the Environmental Assessment Act.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #36

Aboriginal Community

Historic Saugeen Métis

Summary

This document strives to create a process that will contribute to sustainable development and ultimately proves long-term economic and environmental sustainability. Sustainable development is best achieved with multiple stakeholder involvement and this document strives to incorporate this principle. It is advised that this principle should be carried through all aspects of this process including the different levels of consultation, allowing Aboriginal communities to define their rights, interests and consultation goals in the specific area of a project.

Proponent’s response

Again, as noted above, effective and meaningful involvement of Aboriginal communities is an integral part of MNDM's Class EA process. Aboriginal communities play a significant role in determining the outcome of the environmental assessment of a project by providing input and information and raising concerns about the proposed project.

The Class EA provides a process for screening, evaluating and mitigating potential environmental effects. MNDM's Class EA will contribute to sustainable development by ensuring that MNDM's activities under the Mining Act that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act are carried out in a manner that provides for long-term economic and environmental sustainability.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #37

Aboriginal Community

Huron-Wendat Nation

Summary

We wish to acknowledge the fact that you contacted us at the very beginning of the beginning of this project linked to mines in Ontario. This proves that the Ministry of the Environment respects the obligation to consult First Nations when management, development or any other measures regarding a new project could affect our rights, as described in Supreme Court judgments resembling Haida, Taku River and Mikisew.

Proponent’s response

Effective and meaningful involvement of Aboriginal communities is an integral part of MNDM's Class EA process. Aboriginal communities play a significant role in determining the outcome of the environmental assessment of a project by providing input and information and raising concerns about the proposed project.

Status

The MOE is satisfied.

Comment #38

Aboriginal Community

Huron-Wendat Nation

Summary

One of the possibilities we can see is that the Huron-Wendat Nation could be in charge of the environmental assessment. Our team includes forest engineers, biologists, wildlife technicians and geomatics specialists. We are specialized in bird and wetlands monitoring, as well as forest management, restoration and fish-related projects.

Proponent’s response

While the decisions that MNDM makes under the Class EA are the responsibility of MNDM, Aboriginal communities will play an important role in that decision-making.

Status

MOE is satisfied.

Appendix C: Supplemental information

Contents are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Updated: July 08, 2021

Published: September 14, 2016