Summary#
Bill 45, the Mineral Resources Act, would repeal and replace New Brunswick’s Mining Act. Its stated goal is to enable responsible, competitive and sustainable mineral exploration, development and production. The supplied document is the first-reading bill; no amendment text is supplied, so this explains that version, not any later changes.
- It would set rules for prospecting licences, mineral claims, mining leases, exploration permits, royalties and mine reclamation. The bill continues existing licences, claims, leases, the claims registry and the Mine Reclamation Fund under the new Act.
- A mineral claim would give its holder exclusive rights to prospect and do work in the claim area, but not possession of the land. Producing minerals would require a mining lease.
- The Minister could make orders to protect the “strategic mineral supply chain,” including cancelling claims, leases or agreements. Some orders could require a transfer; those require approval from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
- The bill would give an appeal authority broad, exclusive power to decide disputes under the Act. Regulations would set how that authority is appointed and operates.
- The Minister could seek a vesting order to transfer private land to a mineral-claim holder for mine development or a related purpose if they cannot reach an agreement with the owner. The appeal authority would decide whether to grant it and set compensation.
What it means for you#
- Prospectors, claim and lease holders, and mine operators: You would need a prospecting licence to prospect, explore or carry on mining, and a mining lease to produce minerals. Actual damage to property or interference with its use would require an exploration work permit. Permit conditions may include a reclamation plan and security (money or another guarantee).
- Landowners and Crown-land lessees: A mineral claim would not give its holder possession of the land. But claim holders would have access rights, and a private-land owner’s consent is not stated as a general condition for that access. A permit is required before actual damage or interference. Some types of property would also require notice, consent and engagement from people set by regulation.
- Private landowners: If a claim holder needs your land for a mine or a related purpose and cannot reach an agreement with you, they could apply for a vesting order. If granted, the order would transfer the land in fee simple (full ownership), require payment of compensation and require payment of debts, liabilities and taxes owing on the land.
- Mining-lease holders: You would have to undertake and complete reclamation and rehabilitation of the environment affected by mining, to a condition satisfactory to the Minister. The Minister could also require processing of minerals in New Brunswick or another Canadian province or territory, but only if satisfied the holder could afford it.
- People with disputes under the Act: The appeal authority would decide a wide range of disputes, including those about damage, compensation, land access, licences and non-compliance. The bill does not name who will serve as the appeal authority; regulations would set that up.
- Indigenous communities: The bill defines reserve lands but does not set out a specific process for consultation, consent or involvement.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s total public cost or expected revenue.
- The bill allows the Minister to hire people for fixed terms and requires the Crown to pay for certain work on drill core. It gives no staffing numbers or cost estimate.
- It continues the Mine Reclamation Fund. Cash security would be held in trust, earn interest at a rate set by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and could pay for approved reclamation work or be refunded when no longer needed.
- Fees, rents, royalties and security amounts would be set by regulations; the bill does not state the amounts.
What is unclear#
- The Mining Act being repealed is not supplied, so it is not possible to verify how much of the bill changes current law and how much continues or rewrites existing rules.
- The bill leaves many details to regulations, including fees, royalties, work requirements, permit rules, environmental safeguards, penalties and the process for vesting private land.
- “Strategic mineral supply chain” is not defined in the bill. It also does not spell out a notice or hearing process before a strategic-supply order.
- A person affected by an appeal authority decision may seek judicial review. But a Minister’s strategic-supply order is stated to be final and not reviewable in court.
- The bill sets no start date; it would come into force on a date or dates set by proclamation. As a first-reading bill, passage is uncertain.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to gather rules for mineral claims, exploration, mining and reclamation into one Act, while continuing existing claims, leases and registry arrangements.
- Requiring a permit before actual damage to property, and requiring mine reclamation and rehabilitation, could give the Minister tools to address harm linked to exploration and mining.
- A dedicated appeal authority could provide a single route for resolving disputes covered by the Act.
- The strategic-supply order powers could let the government act when it considers intervention necessary to protect that supply chain.
Case against#
- The Minister could make strategic-supply orders without prior notice or a hearing, including cancelling rights or directing a transfer. The bill gives no court-review route for those decisions.
- A vesting order could transfer private land to a claim holder without the owner’s agreement. The bill provides for compensation, but regulations would set key criteria and details.
- Much of the practical effect depends on future regulations, so the bill alone does not show the full requirements, costs or safeguards.
- The bill gives the Minister and Recorder broad discretion over permits, conditions, work requirements and other decisions, while the text does not set out every decision process or appeal route.