It may be the Attorney General is looking for clarification on the possibility of getting an easement for public transport, something in the public interest rather than that of a single company. That doesn't mean they are going to ask for this, but they do need to make the point that public interest overrides any private claim on land in the province.

I found this about aggregates on mining claims, on the ministry of Northern Development & Mines site --- http://www.mci.mndm.gov.on.ca/mines/lands/policies/unpatented_mining_claims/uc306-1_e.html "In most cases, where there are mining rights only claims in designated areas, the surface rights are privately held, in which case an aggregate licence plus a mining lease would be required to produce from mining rights.

An unpatented mining claim includes the exclusive right to explore for all metallic and non metallic minerals. Sand, gravel, and peat are not minerals and are not included in the mining claim. Aggregates, except sand and gravel, are minerals. The Aggregate Resources Act regulates the surface extraction of aggregate minerals as well as the non minerals - sand and gravel.

To extract aggregate from an unpatented mining claim, an aggregate permit or licence is required depending on whether the area is designated or not designated under the Aggregate Resources Act and whether or not the surface rights are privately owned.

Permit

Where a mining claim exists and there is no pre-existing aggregate permit holder, only the claim holder can obtain an aggregate permit. The only exception to this is the MTO temporary aggregate permit as described in policy UC 306-2." Which means Only KWG as the claim holder should have rights granted for aggregate on their claims, except if the govt wants to build a road. A public road.