Editorial Revising Ontario’s Mining Act

The Ontario Mining Act has been a remarkably resilient piece of legislation. Dating back to 1896, it has governed how the mineral riches of the province are staked, claimed and eventually exploited by anyone with the determination and the spirit to go out and do the work.

The Act has been both augmented and distilled by years of precedent and a number of amendments. There are some fantastic stories that have come to light before Ontario’s mining recorders. Some might argue such an extensive body of law and experience as that should not be tampered with: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

In this case, however, circumstances have changed to such a degree that a revision of the Mining Act is not only desirable, it is essential. Disputes are simmering before all of the province’s nine mining recorders, but when a situation arises such as the one at Hemlo where major disputes over staking of significant mineral deposits eight or nine years previously are still unsettled, surely any reasonable person — even a politician — can see the need to bring the Act into the twentieth century.

For one thing, legislation has changed in most other provinces leaving Ontario far behind. Perimeter or block staking rather than staking each individual claim, permitting disputes over technical staking procedures only for a prescribed length of time after a claim has been staked in order to avoid frivolous disputes years later, measuring assessment work in dollars instead of man-hours in order to judge more equitably between work done in remote areas and accessible areas, map staking in certain areas — these are some of the changes that are required to bring the Act up to date.

It’s not as if our position is a dramatic departure from that taken by the industry and government. It’s not. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about attempts to revise the Mining Act is that every reasonable person does think it’s a good idea, yet nothing has been done to implement the revisions.

Since 1972 there have been two proposed revisions to the Act that have been advanced. Each has gained widespread support with suggestions for some alterations. Neither, however, could survive the cabinet shuffles, elections and ministry reorganizations that have occurred in the past 15 years. Each time a proposal was put forward, the players changed and the whole process started over again.

Lionel Kilburn, a past president of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, says that in 1972 he and 12 other members of the industry spent two years of study and discussion in formulating recommendations. “Sixteen public hearings were held across Ontario, 94 submissions were received, departments of mines were visited in Manitoba, Quebec and British Columbia,” he says. To date nothing has come of that work. And the committee made its recommendations 14 years ago.

Now the current minister responsible for northern development and mines, Sean Conway, says he plans to go through the whole procedure again. He proposes to issue a Green Paper on mines and mineral policy. It will form the basis for public discussion after which the government plans to draft legislation to revise the Act.

That, of course, could take a long, long time. And there’s no guarantee that Conway’s efforts will fare any better than the efforts of those before him. Mining just doesn’t carry the kind of clout necessary to push the thing through.

Is it surprising, then, that the industry finds it difficult to have a great deal of confidence in the minister’s plans? His intentions may be the best, but there’s no indication his execution will be any better than his predecessors’.

There comes a time when further studies, discussions and public hearings can add little and a decision has to be made. David Peterson’s government should make every effort to expedite this latest round and get on with the job of bringing the Act into the twentieth century — before the twenty-first century rolls around.