Letters to the Editor Prospector faults Bill 71

I am writing to you in answer to the statements put forth by Ontario Mines Minister Hugh O’Neil (T.N.M., March 19/90). I would ask on what basis he thinks setting high rates will encourage the submissions of high-quality data.

If the minister’s thinking in any way relates to types of data, then I would ask him what will be the difference in the type of data submitted now or under higher rates. As myself and many others can see, the difference is that contractors will raise their rates and make the cost of exploration even higher.

If the minister’s thinking in any way relates to quantity of data, then it is contradicted by his second major challenge: “the novel concept that a title holder can change from claim to lease and back again to a claim at their choice.” No data will accrue “to the assessment file database for all to build on” under a lease.

This “novel concept” should be removed from Bill 71 because it only serves to set the stage for high lease rentals. The argument for an early lease — or lease at will — was to provide the increased security of tenure needed to raise money from investors.

As for the minister’s statement that the 2% figure for leases is now 10%, he should clarify and justify this statement by concrete data. The 10% amount is also minimal as opposed to the real problem — patent properties held in fee simple represent a substantial part of potential exploration area and are not reflected in ministry figures.

For instance, 55% of the prime potential exploration area of the Porcupine mining division in Hoyle Twp., Timmins, Ont., is tied up in patents, in fee simple, mostly owned or controlled by major companies or foreigners, not paying taxes on their mineral rights and not producing any information to encourage or enhance exploration. Arvo Salo Virginiatown, Ont.