Mining Law

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.

The United States depends heavily on rare earth elements (REEs) for both everyday products and national security. These materials are essential for items such as smartphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and advanced military equipment. Concerns about the security and reliability of the U.S. REE supply chain have become a major policy issue in Washington. Greenland’s geology makes it especially interesting in this context. The island contains a wide range of critical minerals and holds some of the world’s largest undeveloped rare earth deposits. In other words, many of the minerals that are crucial for modern technologies could, in principle, be sourced from Greenland. At present, more than 60% of the world’s rare earths are mined in China, and China controls over 90% of the global processing capacity. This concentration creates a strategic vulnerability for Western countries, which depend on Chinese production and processing for these key materials. Greenland, by contrast, offers significant but largely untapped potential. In addition to rare earths, it is believed to host deposits of gold, copper, nickel, iron ore, zinc, molybdenum, tungsten, titanium, and vanadium, along with graphite and diamonds. Greenland is also thought to have large reserves of oil and natural gas. While many of these minerals are currently produced in China and in several African countries, there are growing reasons to look for new sources. These include geopolitical tensions, concerns about supply disruptions, transportation costs, and the need to secure long-term access to critical resources. Despite its vast resource potential, Greenland’s mining sector is still in the early stages. Most activity remains focused on exploration and evaluation rather than large-scale production. As global demand for critical minerals continues to rise, however, Greenland is likely to draw increasing attention as a possible alternative or complementary source of supply. For mining companies and their advisors, Greenland’s resource potential highlights a broader reality: as demand for critical minerals intensifies, attention increasingly turns to jurisdictions with significant but undeveloped deposits. In such contexts, geological promise is only part of the equation. Regulatory frameworks, permitting processes, environmental and social considerations, and access to infrastructure often play an equally decisive role in determining whether and how projects advance.   In many respects, these dynamics will sound familiar to industry participants operating in Canada and Quebec, where strategic minerals, evolving policy priorities, and heightened expectations around responsible development continue to shape the mining landscape. Greenland therefore offers a useful point of reflection on how global supply chain pressures can create both opportunities and complexities for mining projects. Lavery’s Mining Law Group regularly assists clients in navigating these issues and is available to help assess how such developments may translate into practical considerations for their business.

Under the Act to amend the Mining Act and other provisions1 (the “Act”), assented to on November 29, 2024, certain amendments were made to the Mining Act.2 In this bulletin, we will focus on the rules that have been in effect as of the Act’s date of assent concerning the assignment of a mining lease or a mining concession, and those that have been in effect since November 29, 2025, concerning the transfer of an exclusive exploration right (“EER”), formerly known as a claim. Except in the case of the assignment of a mining lease or a mining concession made under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act3 or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,4 this type of transfer will require that a financial guarantee be provided in advance to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forests (the “Minister”) by the new holder. Without it, the transfer will be null and void.5 Furthermore, as mentioned above, a new restriction has been introduced on the transfer of an EER during the first three years of its registration,6 that is, before it is renewed. During this initial validity period, the transfer of an EER will now require its holder to first obtain authorization from the Minister by submitting the required form.7 The transfer will be granted by the Minister if the exploration work required and determined by regulation has been carried out on the property that is subject to the mining right. The assignment of an EER without prior authorization from the Minister will be null and void. 2024, chapter 36, Bill 63. CQLR c. M-13.1. R.S.C. (1985), c. C-36. R.S.C. (1985), c. B-3. Section 123.1 of the Mining Act: this requirement is also found in section 101 of the Mining Act for the granting of a mining lease. This initial validity period established in section 61 of the Mining Act will vary for converted EERs, according to what is stipulated in section 83.3, depending on the expiry date of the EERs before they were converted into map designated EERs. At the time of writing this bulletin, it appears that the Minister has not yet adopted the means to implement this restriction and the specific form to be submitted in the event of the assignment of an EER affected by this. However, we note that since the new provisions came into force, a box to check has been added to Section 3 of the mining rights transfer application form, entitled “List of mining titles, percentage transferred and authorization,” for requesting authorization from the Minister. Consequently, we assume that the application for authorization will be submitted at the same time as the form is submitted to the Register of real and immovable mining rights.

The federal budget presented on November 4, 2025 (the “Budget”), proposes a significant change to the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (CMETC). As a reminder, the CMETC is equal to 30% of “specified mineral exploration expenses”1 incurred in Canada that a company has renounced to flow-through share investors. Critical minerals currently eligible for the CMETC The critical minerals currently eligible for the CMETC are nickel, cobalt, graphite, copper, rare earth elements, vanadium, tellurium, gallium, scandium, titanium, magnesium, zinc, platinum group metals, uranium and lithium (including lithium from brine deposits). Critical minerals added to the list The Budget proposes to expand the definition of “critical mineral” to include the following additional critical minerals: bismuth, cesium, chromium, fluorspar, germanium, indium, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, tantalum, tin and tungsten.  Impact of this measure on mining exploration expenses The measure will make the 30% CMETC apply to exploration expenses relating to these new types of critical minerals that a mining exploration company would renounce to flow-through share investors. The measure will cover exploration expenses renounced under flow-through share agreements entered into after Budget Day and on or before March 31, 2027. The Budget also confirms the renewal of the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit until March 31, 2027 (METC). Please feel free to contact our professionals for more information Canadian exploration expenses incurred by a company after April 7, 2022, as part of mineral exploration activities conducted from or above the surface of the earth targeting mainly critical minerals.