Letters to the Editor O’Neil answers two challenges to Bill 71

In last week’s issue you printed a prominent paid advertisement criticising several aspects of Bill 71, the amendments to Ontario’s Mining Act. The nature of the criticism seems to ignore the close working relationship between industry and government which is responsible for drafting the regulations for Bill 71. Industry representatives involved in the process were chosen by their respective associations based on their knowledge of the topics involved. Their participation ensures that the views of those who must work within the framework of the legislation and regulations are accounted for.

I am very proud of our record of consultation during the development of Bill 71. We built on the files of input and advice dating from 1972, as well as the public meetings and written responses to the Green Paper, when drafting the Bill. Now that we are drafting the regulations, I have encouraged the establishment of knowledgeable working groups of industry representatives to help us in the drafting process.

This is not the place to get into a detailed technical argument over the specific issues raised by the advertisement. However, I would like to draw your readers’ attention to two of the challenges we are facing in drafting these regulations.

Under Bill 71, a claim can be held in good standing indefinitely by doing work on it. The first challenge is to set this required rate high enough to encourage the submission of high quality data to the assessment file database for all to build on, while ensuring the rate is competitive with neighboring jurisdictions and fair to individual prospectors and junior companies. I believe that we are close to reaching agreement on this issue.

The second major challenge relates to leases. Following suggestions made by representatives of the Ontario Mining Association and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada we incorporated into Bill 71 the novel concept that a title holder can change from claim to lease and back again to a claim at their choice.

Clearly if substantial work is required to hold a claim, and only nominal rentals apply to a lease, we would see wholesale conversions to lease and a dramatic decline in the amount of work submitted for assessment. The 2% figure for the proportion of leases mentioned in the advertisement actually now stands at 10% and would climb much higher unless we introduce adequate safeguards in the regulations.

I agree that these issues are not simple to resolve to everyone’s complete satisfaction. I am confident, however, the current round of discussions will provide regulations that ensure the longterm viability of our industry. Hugh O’Neil Minister of Mines, Ontario