The public generally accepts that compensation should be paid if government expropriates land purchased by a citizen. On the other hand, as a society we generally do not accept the idea of compensation to landowners for zoning bylaws that restrict their use of land, or compensation to polluters if a permit to pollute is canceled. In the latter case, nothing has been paid for the permit and there is no legitimate expectation that it will not be canceled. It would be unfair to society as a whole if government were responsible for paying off everyone adversely affected by a government decision such as placing a restriction on mining or restricting or canceling a right to pollute. A right to compensation for mineral claim holders significantly extends the ambit of government activities for which compensation is payable.
Claims are highly speculative and only a tiny fraction of claims become working mines.
Not compensating claim holders for restrictions on their right to mine only marginally adds to the risks faced by claim holders. On the other hand, Bill 12 means that taxpayers have a legal obligation to compensate claim holders for claims in which the claim holder invested little and had little expectation of profit. Bill 12 is unfair to the taxpayer. Bill 12 sets a bad precedent for compensation for other land and resource decisions. Granting a statutory right of compensation, when no right to compensation would otherwise exist, sets a bad precedent for other provincial land and resource decisions.