Bill 5,1 An Act to accelerate the granting of the authorizations required to carry out priority national-scale projects (Bill 5), tabled by Finance Minister Éric Girard, is part of a broader government strategy to accelerate the completion of strategic projects in Quebec. Inspired by federal law C-5,2 Bill 5 aims to streamline the administrative process behind major projects so that they can be rolled out more rapidly. Purpose of Bill 5: make it easier to grant authorizations for strategic projects The government’s stated intention is to stimulate the Quebec economy by accelerating the administrative process underlying strategic economic and energy projects to be designated by it. These projects must: generate major economic spinoffs; create jobs; and further the energy transition. During his opening speech of the session, Premier François Legault stressed the fact that lead times need to be shortened and administrative processes need to be streamlined, while maintaining high standards. The goals are clear, but does Bill 5 actually make it possible to achieve them? Framework and scope of Bill 5: transition to a single authorization for large-scale projects Bill 5 will allow the government to change how various laws are applied to accelerate national-scale projects in Quebec without circumventing environmental assessment processes and the rights of Indigenous communities. It provides for the granting of a single authorization allowing both the project and all of the operations necessary for its completion to be carried out. In the context of a mining project, this means the granting of environmental authorizations under the Environment Quality Act (“EQA”)3 and mining titles under the Mining Act,4 as well as the approval of a preliminary version of the rehabilitation and restoration plan required by the Mining Act5 and any other authorization required by the Natural Heritage Conservation Act6 of the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife,7 among others. Indigenous communities Why James Bay and Northern Quebec are excluded Section 2 of Bill 5 stipulates that the Bill applies subject to any act aimed at implementing the Agreement concerning James Bay and Northern Québec8 and its amendments,9 as well as the Northeastern Québec Agreement. These agreements are put into practice in particular under Title II of the EQA, which establishes an environmental and social impact assessment and review procedure in which Indigenous communities must participate, as prescribed by the agreements. Title II of the EQA is part of the list of provisions that the government cannot add to the list of laws having an authorization process that can be replaced by the authorization granted under Bill 5. The constitutional obligation to consult Indigenous communities Bill 5 stipulates that it must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the obligation to consult Indigenous communities, and that these communities must be consulted separately when circumstances warrant doing so.10 Consulting Indigenous communities is one of the government’s constitutional obligations. As such, it could not in any case have set that obligation aside. In short, an authorization cannot be granted more rapidly under Bill 5 at the expense of the obligation to consult the Indigenous communities of southern Quebec. Also, in its assessment of an application for the designation of a project, the government may in particular consider whether the project takes the interests of local and Indigenous communities into account.11 This implies prior consultation work by the project proponent, further to which it can document the concerns and interests of Indigenous communities and adapt its project accordingly. In James Bay and Northern Quebec, mining projects are generally subject to the environmental and social impact assessment and review procedure provided for in Title II of the EQA. They fall completely beyond the scope of Bill 5.12 Contradictions in Bill 5 and implementation challenges The challenges of the two-year implementation deadline Although the Bill is presented as a way to fast-track projects, not a way to circumvent the law, a number of issues remain where mining projects are concerned. Exclusion of mining projects in James Bay and Northern Quebec The text of Bill 5 is clearly intended to apply to mining projects. Take section 4 para. 2(1) which mentions, among the points that can be considered for the designation of a project, the fact that it would consolidate Québec’s autonomy and resilience, in particular as regards energy, critical and strategic minerals or infrastructure. However, Bill 5 cannot apply to projects governed by Title II of the EQA, that is, those located in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. As such, many mining projects are excluded by default. This contradiction raises questions about the overall effectiveness of the Bill for mining projects, the implementation of which it claims to accelerate. Prerequisites for granting authorization maintained By its very nature, Bill 5 is intended to apply to large-scale projects, and section 1 of the Bill describes these as priority, national-scale projects. However, large-scale projects such as these are likely to be subject to the environmental impact assessment and review procedure or, at minimum, to the EQA’s ministerial authorization regime. It is important to note that, in order for an authorization to be granted under Bill 5, all the steps prior to that authorization must have been completed. Section 10 of Bill 5 stipulates that the application for authorization “must mention the permissions allowing the proponent to carry out the project ... and must be accompanied by the information and documents required as well as the payment of the duties and fees payable for the granting of those permissions.” If the project is subject to the environmental impact assessment and review procedure, the procedure must be completed before an authorization under Bill 5 can be granted. The only difference in the procedure is in section 30 of Bill 5, which stipulates that, when the impact statement for a designated project is deemed admissible, the Minister of the Environment mandates the BAPE to hold a public hearing, and the BAPE then proceeds without holding an information period. With the recent amendments made to the EQA by the Act to amend various provisions relating to the environment (also known as Bill 81), which, according to representations made by representatives of the MELCCFP, aim to reduce the impact assessment and review procedure from 18 months to 9 months, we wonder whether Bill 5 will actually contribute to accelerating the administrative process underlying projects already subject to the impact assessment and review procedure. Short-term implementation criterion The requirement for short-term implementation (approximately two years taking into account the combined effect of sections 4 para. 2(5) and 20 of Bill 5) seems unrealistic for large-scale projects requiring comprehensive consultations and assessments. In the case of mining projects, the granting of an authorization including a mining lease must be preceded at a minimum by the approval of a preliminary version of the rehabilitation and restoration plan and the payment of a provisional financial guarantee. Despite the fact that section 46 of Bill 5 scales down requirements,13 the preparation, even of a preliminary version of such a plan, requires time and the collaboration of experts in the field to meet the expectations of the MRNF. Thoughts and outlook While it may be appealing to think it possible to reduce the time required to grant the necessary authorizations for large-scale projects that could generate major economic spinoffs for Quebec, it appears that, in terms of environmental protection, Bill 5 does little to address a key issue, namely the time it takes to prepare application files, whether for a ministerial authorization or as part of the environmental impact assessment and review procedure. Add to this the fact that, to complete these processes, additional studies are generally required, depending on the questions and requests for clarification raised during the analysis phase. Bill 5 offers no solution to the issue, which, however, is probably the most significant issue when we consider the time and energy that project proponents must devote to the file preparation phase. Conclusion: We don’t know whether proponents will see greater efficiency Bill 5 shows that the government is indeed trying to increase government efficiency and spur economic growth. However, it leaves mining project proponents hanging by immediately excluding projects located in the James Bay area and further north, and by not addressing the time it takes to prepare environmental impact assessment and review files or applications for authorization. Takeaways Does Bill 5 make it possible to avoid BAPE hearings? In a word, no. The BAPE process continues to apply to designated projects, but the public information stage is eliminated to jump directly to the hearing stage, slightly reducing the time needed to complete the process. Which mining projects will benefit most from Bill 5? Primarily projects involving critical and strategic minerals located in southern Quebec, provided that proponents can demonstrate that short-term implementation is possible (approximately two years). Why does Bill 5 not apply to James Bay and Northern Quebec? Because the separate environmental and social assessment processes (Title II, EQA) that apply to these territories were established by agreements that Bill 5 cannot unilaterally amend.  Bill 5, An Act to accelerate the granting of the authorizations required to carry out priority national-scale projects: https://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/projet-loi-5-43-2.html Federal Bill C-5: https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/bill/C-5/first-reading Environment Quality Act: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/Q-2?langCont=en Mining Act: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/m-13.1?langCont=en Section 46 of Bill 5 scales down requirements regarding the rehabilitation and restoration plan, providing for the granting of an authorization instead of a mining lease without such a plan having been approved—that is, if a preliminary version of such plan has been approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife and a provisional financial guarantee has been paid. The rehabilitation and restoration plan will likely still need to be considerably advanced. A mining authorization establishes the time limits within which the rehabilitation and restoration plan must be approved and the financial guarantee paid. Natural Heritage Conservation Act: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-61.01?langCont=en Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/c-61.1?langCont=en James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/corporate/james-bay-northern-quebec-agreement.html Section 2 of Bill 5 refers to section 1 of the Act approving the Agreement concerning James Bay and Northern Québec, which states the following: “In this Act, unless the context indicates a different meaning, the expression “Agreement” means the Agreement reached between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec), the Northern Québec Inuit Association, the Government of Canada, the Société d’énergie de la Baie James (the James Bay Energy Corporation), the Société de développement de la Baie James (the Société de développement de la Baie James), the Commission hydroélectrique du Québec (the Commission hydroélectrique du Québec) and the Gouvernement du Québec, dated 11 November 1975, and the Amending Agreement dated 12 December 1975, tabled in the National Assembly, 9 June 1976, as Sessional Documents, Nos 101 and 102.” Section 2 of Bill 5 also refers to section 1 of the Act approving the Northeastern Québec Agreement, which states: “In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise, the expression “Agreement” means the Northeastern Québec Agreement reached between the Band of Naskapis of Schefferville and its members, the Gouvernement du Québec, the Société d’énergie de la Baie James (the James Bay Energy Corporation), la Société de développement de la Baie James (the James Bay Development Corporation), the Commission hydroélectrique de Québec (the Québec Hydroelectric Commission) (Hydro-Québec), the Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec), the Northern Québec Inuit Association and the Government of Canada, dated 31 January 1978, tabled in the National Assembly on 18 April 1978, as Sessional Papers, No. 113.” Section 3 of Bill 5 Section 4 para. 2(3) of Bill 5 Schedule A of the EQA provides that “all mining developments, including the additions to, alterations or modifications of existing mining developments” are subject to the mandatory assessment and review procedure provided for in sections 153 to 167 and 187 to 204 of the EQA. Section 46 of Bill 5 provides for the approval of a preliminary version of the rehabilitation and restoration plan and the payment of a provisional financial guarantee instead of the financial guarantee established on the basis of the final version of the rehabilitation and restoration plan.

In general, the directors and officers of a legal person have obligations and responsibilities relating to the legal person’s activities. Each director must act with prudence, diligence, honesty, loyalty and in the legal person’s interest.1 Each officer is responsible for representing the legal person and directing its activities.2 That said, directors and officers must keep in mind that they have greater duties and responsibilities and a heavier burden to meet when it comes to ensuring compliance with certain environmental laws. Since it came into force on May 12, 2022, the Act respecting certain measures enabling the enforcement of environmental and dam safety legislation (the “Act”) has ensured the enforcement of various environmental laws.3 The Act essentially provides for two types of consequences arising from the actions of directors, officers and, in some instances, other representatives of a legal person. The first involves a particular burden as regards compliance with environmental laws, and the second, consequences relating to the administration of the environmental authorization scheme. The duty of directors and officers to ensure compliance with environmental laws The Act’s criminal provisions provide for stiffer penalties for directors who commit an offence under an environmental law. Section 47 of the Act provides that where an offence is committed by a director or officer of a legal person, the minimum and maximum fines that would apply in the case of a natural person for such offence are doubled. Also, where a legal person commits an offence under an environmental law, its director or officer is presumed to have committed the offence, unless it is established that they exercised due diligence and took all necessary precautions to prevent the offence.4 The Act additionally provides that anyone who, by an act or omission, helps a person to commit an offence or induces a person, by encouragement, advice, consent, authorization or order to commit such an offence commits that offence and is liable to the same penalty as that prescribed for the offence they helped or induced the person to commit.5 Naturally, this rule applies to the directors and officers of a legal person, but is not limited to them. For example, it would also apply to an engineer or legal advisor who provides a legal person with advice causing it to commit an offence under an environmental law. Lastly, where a legal person has defaulted on payment of an amount owed,6 the directors and officers are solidarily liable, with the legal person, for payment of such amount. However, they may be exempted from this obligation if they are able to establish that they exercised due care and diligence to prevent the failure which led to the claim.7 This rule could apply, for instance, where a legal person is insolvent, which underscores the need to anticipate and effectively manage the environmental issues that a legal person is likely to face. Conduct of directors, officers and shareholders and the environmental authorization scheme The Environment Quality Act (EQA) establishes a ministerial authorization scheme for certain activities considered likely to have an impact on the quality of the environment.8 This authorization scheme is discretionary. Any activity covered by such scheme cannot be legally carried out unless the required authorization has first been issued. Holding and keeping such authorization is therefore fundamental for the company in question to continue to pursue its activities. Under the Act, the Minister of the Environment9 may refuse to issue, amend or renew a ministerial authorization, or decide to amend, revoke or cancel such an authorization, or oppose its transfer in certain situations relating to the conduct of the directors, officers and shareholders10 of the legal person holding the authorization.11 Situations in which the Minister may intervene in this way are, for example, those where one of a legal person’s directors, officers or shareholders has: filed a false declaration or document, or false information, or has distorted or omitted to report a material fact to have the authorization issued, maintained, amended, renewed or transferred failed to comply with an injunction made under any act that is administered by the Minister of the Environment defaulted on payment of an amount owed under any act administered by the Minister of the Environment (including monetary administrative penalties or any other fees that must be paid under such acts) been found guilty of an offence under an act administered by the Minister of the Environment or any regulations made under those acts been found guilty of an offence under a fiscal law or an criminal offence connected with activities covered by the authorization12 Thus, the conduct of directors, officers or shareholders can have repercussions on a legal person’s rights and obligations in carrying out activities authorized by the Minister. In addition, their conduct could hinder or even prevent the transfer of an authorization as part of an asset sale. Directors and officers have a vested interest in ensuring that the legal person they represent complies with environmental laws. Evidently, compliance is not only in the interest of the legal person itself, but also that of its directors and officers, whose personal liability and assets could be at stake should the legal person fail to comply. Articles 321 and 322 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) Article 312 of the C.C.Q. These environmental laws are the Environment Quality Act, the Act to increase the number of zero-emission motor vehicles in Québec in order to reduce greenhouse gas and other pollutant emissions, the Natural Heritage Conservation Act, the Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, the Pesticides Act and the Dam Safety Act (section 1 of the Act). Section 51 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act. The amount owing may be a monetary administrative penalty, a fine or financial compensation required under a notice of execution, among other things. Section 66 of the Act; In addition, under section 67 of the Act, the reimbursement of an amount owing is secured by a legal hypothec on the movable and immovable property of the debtor, in this case the director and officer of the legal person. Section 22 of the EQA. The EQA also provides that certain activities listed in the Regulation respecting the regulatory scheme applying to activities on the basis of their environmental impact may benefit from the more flexible declaration of compliance framework, or even an exemption. There is no need to describe these in detail for the purposes of this article. In accordance with section 2 of the Terms and conditions for the signing of certain documents of the Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (M-30.001, r. 1), assistant deputy ministers, directors general, the secretary general, directors, regional directors and assistant directors are authorized to sign any document relating to such decisions. For the purposes of these provisions of the Act, a shareholder means a natural person holding, directly or indirectly, shares that carry 20% or more of the voting rights in a legal person that is not a reporting issuer under the Securities Act (section 2 of the Act). Except in a situation where urgent action is required, the Minister must give prior notice of such a decision to the person concerned, so that they may submit their observations (section 39 of the Act). The Minister’s decision is then notified to the person concerned (section 40 of the Act), who may contest it before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (sections 40 and 41 of the Act). See sections 32 to 36 of the Act.

A new environmental authorization scheme, which is intended to be a simplified version, was implemented under the Environmental Quality Act (“EQA”) and has been in effect since March 23, 2018. How does this new scheme affect mining companies? Is the authorization scheme truly simplified? What about the right to continue unauthorized operations that could benefit certain mining companies (also called an acquired right)? Under the new EQA authorization scheme, mining activities will be subject to different schemes depending on the risk they present. While the majority of activities are subject to ministerial authorization1, others may: benefit from exemptions be subject to the new scheme of declaring compliance be subject to the environmental impact assessment and review procedure if they present an elevated risk. The implementation of the EQA’s new environmental authorization scheme involves a review of the regulations adopted pursuant to this act. This bulletin refers to the Draft Regulation on Ministerial Authorization and the Statement of Compliance in Environmental Matters (“Draft Regulation”). This Draft Regulation has been published, but it is not currently in its final form and may be modified before it comes into force.2 Consequently, a regulatory watch is required.3 What authorizations are mining companies subject to? Depending on the nature of the activity, the applicable scheme ranges from exemption to environmental impact assessment and review procedure. 4 The general environmental authorization scheme Subject mining activities Article 22 of the EQA lists several activities whose implementation requires prior authorization from the Minister.  Mining activities are not part of this list. However, the 10th item of the list is “any other activity determined by government regulation.” At present, the Draft Regulation states that “any mining activity shall be subject to authorization.”5  This leaves little room for interpretation. Thus, with the exception of the specific cases currently provided for in the Draft Regulation, any mining activity requires an authorization from the Minister. Content of the authorization request It should be noted that in addition to the documents listed in the EQA, an authorization request for mining activity may have to be accompanied by the additional information and documents listed in the Draft Regulation.6 In addition, from now on, any documents submitted in support of an authorization request are considered as being public. It is up to the person submitting the request to specify whether certain documents include a confidential industrial or commercial secret. The decision as to the public nature rests with the Minister who notifies the applicant for authorization. This decision is legally binding upon the expiration of a period of 15 days following the transmission of the notice. Once this period has elapsed, the documents are made public, hence the importance of calling on the courts quickly if it is necessary to contest the Minister’s decision.7 Right to pursue an activity without environmental authorization In its former version, the general environmental authorization scheme in Article 22 of the EQA prohibited “undertaking the operation of any industry, the performance of an activity or use of an industrial process [...]” without having obtained a prior certificate of authorization. Because of the word “undertaking,” the case law recognized the possibility of pursuing an activity without authorization when it had been undertaken before the entry into force of the EQA on December 21, 1972. In its new version, Article 22 of the EQA no longer speaks of the need to obtain an authorization to undertake but rather to carry out an activity. This demonstrates the legislator’s willingness to no longer allow an activity to continue without environmental authorization. However, certain transitional provisions specifically provide that an activity may be pursued without authorization, providing that it must then rely on the wording of the government regulation on the issue to make sure8. At present, the text of the Draft Regulation does not support the conclusion that mining companies could benefit from a right to pursue an activity without authorization. Exemption scheme Certain mining activities considered to be of little risk to the environment are completely excluded from the obligation to obtain prior environmental authorization. The Draft Regulation currently provides that the following are exempt: milestone marking, geophysical, geological, or geochemical surveys, drilling work (unless performed in wetlands and water environments9) stripping and excavation work under certain conditions (unless they are carried out in wetlands and water environments or within 30 meters of such environments). The statement of compliance scheme The statement of compliance scheme allows for proceeding by transmitting to the Minister all of the documents required by the EQA and the applicable regulatory provisions by stating compliance to them.  In this case, if thirty days after the transmission of the documents, no follow-up has been made with the Declarant, he or she may begin the activity concerned. The Draft Regulation provides that drilling work carried out in the wetlands and water environments as a part of a project searching for mineral substances would be, under certain conditions, eligible for the statement of compliance.10 It should be noted that special provisions may be applied depending on the environment in which the work is carried out. Certain conditions are specific to work carried out in a pond, marsh, swamp or peatland10, and others are specific to work carried out on a lake or shore or in a lake or river12. The compliance statement scheme requires the production of extensive and professionally signed studies. If the processing time is shortened, the declarant’s task remains complicated. The environmental impact assessment and review procedure scheme Certain mining activities are subject to the environmental impact assessment and review procedure pursuant to the Regulation on the assessment and review of the environmental impact of certain projects13currently in force.  The purpose of this bulletin is not to discuss the procedure followed under this more complicated scheme that involves the intervention of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement [Bureau of Public Hearings on the Environment] (“BAPE”).14 The following mining activities are subject to this review procedure: The establishment of a uranium or rare earth mine; The establishment of a mine with a maximum daily metal-bearing ore mining capacity of 2000 metric tons or more; The establishment of a mine with a maximum daily ore (other than metal-bearing) mining capacity of 500 metric tons or more; Any increase in the daily maximum mining capacity of a mine thus making it reach or exceed the thresholds identified above;15 The establishment of a mine within an urban area identified in the construction and development plan of a RCM or in an Indian reservation or within 1000 meters of such an area or reservation; Any expansion of 50% or more of the operating area of a mine in certain specific cases identified in the regulation; After the BAPE’s work, the Minister makes a recommendation to the government as to the authorization requested.  Ultimately, it is the government that decides whether or not to issue the authorization. 16 Changes to the environmental authorization scheme are major. Mining companies have every interest in taking a closer look at it and monitoring the entry into force of the regulations that allow the implementation of this scheme in order to continue their operations in Québec legally.   Article 22 EQA.    The Minister of Sustainable Development, the Environment, and the Fight against Climate Change, Ms. Isabelle Melançon, mandated Ms. Suzanne Giguère and Mr. Jean Pronovost to give their opinion on the regulatory approach adopted by the Ministry. Here is the link to the SDEFCC press release: http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/Infuseur/communique.asp?no=3996 On July 19, a press release was issued by the SDEFCC announcing the intention of the Minister, Isabelle Melançon, to postpone the coming into force of the draft regulations considering the findings of Suzanne Giguère and Jean Pronovost. Here is a link to the SDEFCC press release: http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/infuseur/communique.asp?no=4049 It should be noted that at the time of writing, most of the government regulations implementing the new environmental authorization scheme have been the subject of proposals published in the Official Gazette of Québec. These regulations, however, are not yet known in their final versions. The Draft Regulation on Ministerial Authorization and the Statement of Compliance in Environmental Matters, Appendix 1 (other activities subject to prior authorization), Section 2, Article 4. Draft Regulation on Ministerial Authorization and the Statement of Compliance in Environmental Matters, Article 38. The Regulation on certain transitional measures for the application of the Act to amend the Environment Quality Act to modernize the environmental authorization scheme and to amend other legislative provisions, in particular to reform the governance of the Green Fund currently provides, in a transitional manner, the documents that must be attached to a request for authorization. It should be noted that activities already in progress on March 23, 2018 and for which no environmental authorization was required pursuant to the EQA and that would now be subject to environmental authorization according to Article 22 of the EQA, could be continued without further formalities subject to any special provisions that may be provided for by a government regulation (Art. 290 of the Act to amend the Environment Quality Act to modernize the environmental authorization scheme and to amend other legislative provisions, in particular to reform the governance of the Green Fund (Bill 102, 2017, Chapter 4). It should be noted that the EQA includes a broad definition of wetlands and water environments. These environments include lakes, rivers, shorelines and flood plains of lakes and rivers, ponds, marshes, swamps and peatlands (Article 46.0.2 EQA). The Draft Regulation on Ministerial Authorization and the Statement of Compliance in Environmental Matters, Appendix 2 (activities subject to a statement of compliance), Section 8, Article 19 et seq. Draft Regulation on Ministerial Authorization and the Statement of Compliance in Environmental Matters, Appendix 2, Section 8, Article 21 Draft Regulation on Ministerial Authorization and the Statement of Compliance in Environmental Matters, Appendix 2, Section 8, Article 22 Decree 287-2018, March 21, 2018 Articles 31.1 et seq. EQA It should be noted that this does not apply to a mine existing as of March 23, 2018. Other standards apply to these mines for which any plan to increase the daily mining capacity by 50% or more is subject to the impact review procedure if this increase exceeds the applicable mining thresholds depending on the nature of the mined material. Article 31.5 EQA  

What is a mine’s equipment? What does it include? What is considered an access road to a mining operation? These are, you might think, simple, perhaps even banal questions.  Think again: the answer to these questions represents the difference between millions of dollars in property taxes pouring into the coffers of municipalities and mining companies across Québec holding on to them. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec (Immovable Property Division) (hereinafter “TAQ”) was confronted by these questions as part of an appeal lodged by Bloom Lake General Partner Limited against the City of Fermont1. The underlying principle is simple: municipal taxation is essentially applied as a function of the values entered on the property assessment roll. It is the responsibility of the assessor2 to determine the composition of each assessment unit, what immovables are to be entered on the property assessment role and what their value is. The law3 provides that certain immovables are not to be entered on the role.  Accordingly, their value has no impact on the taxes that can be collected by municipalities. Among the immovables excluded from the role:  “galleries, shafts, excavations, tunnels the equipment of underground or open mines”4 “an access road to forest or mining operations”5. Hence the importance of the questions asked above. With respect to a mine’s equipment, Bloom Lake argued that the equipment of a mine should be taken to refer to all the steps in the operation of a mine, from the extraction of the ore to its marketing and including its processing. Instead, the TAQ adopted a more limited interpretation of the concept of mine equipment that included only the equipment used to extract the ore. As for the concept of an access road to a mining operation, Bloom Lake claimed that it included all the roads located within the mining operation, i.e. all the roads used by vehicles in the mining operation.  Again here, the claim was not accepted by the TAQ, which instead circumscribed this concept to the road linking the public road to the entry gate of the mining operation. If the TAQ had accepted the Bloom Lake interpretation, it could have had a serious financial impact for mining companies, which would have had a large part of their immovables that are included in their mining operation excluded from the assessment role.6   2018 QCTAQ 04461 Also called Municipal Body Responsible for Assessment” or “MBRA”, sections 19 ff. of the Act respecting municipal taxation. Act respecting municipal taxation (AMT), ss. 63 to 68. In this case, the relevant paragraphs are 65 para 1 (4) and 65 para 1 (8). Section 65 para 1 (4) AMT. Section 65 para1 (8) AMT. It should however be noted that at the time of this writing, the time period for appealing the TAQ decision had not yet expired.