EDITORIAL Ontario has to move on its Mining Act

Anyone involved in mining in Ontario may owe Charles Stuart a vote of thanks.

Stuart is the man who has re-staked the mining claims at Hemlo, Ont., on which the Golden Giant gold mines is built. Stuart contends that the property was not properly staked and therefore is open ground. He says he plans to go to court to stop Hemlo Gold Mines, a Noranda subsidiary, from mining the deposit.

Without judging the merit of Stuart’s case in any way, the idea that such a conflict can even arise indicates that Ontario’s Mining Act is just not adequate. The possibility that a mine which has been in operation for three years, some eight years after the initial staking was completed, because of a technicality in the Act is preposterous.

It may be that Stuart’s actions to point out the flaw in the Act will be enough to prompt the current Ontario government to stop toying with the Mining Act as it and its predecessor governments dating back to 1972 have done and finally get the changes in place that are so obviously needed.

That’s not to say that Stuart or anyone else shouldn’t be allowed to challenge the validity of claim staking. That right is fundamental in the industry and must continue. But it has to be more clearly defined in the Act. Specifically, there should be a time limit imposed.

In 1974, in response to the first proposal to revise the Act, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada suggested that a 60-day limit be placed on how long claim staking can be disputed. If no disputes are forthcoming, then the claims should be deemed in good standing.

In that way, a claim staker must be scrupulous in the process of staking claims, but if no one disputes his staking, he need not lie awake nights wondering whether anyone will discover that his corner post was really 3 1/2 inches square instead of 4 inches and will he lose his royalty as a result.

To be able to develop a mine and then a decade later find that ownership is threatened because the staking might not have been sufficient is ludicrous. If such a situation is possible, it would very severely impede investment in mining in the province, Canada’s largest mineral producing province.

Nor would a time limit preclude a dispute regarding ownership arising from some criminal activity during staking such as fraud. Such matters would not be subject to the time limitation and would be handled in the courts in the same manner as any other criminal charge.

That is one revision that should be incorporated into a new Act. There are others that would not compromise the basic soundness of the original Act but would help the industry move ahead in developing the province’s mineral wealth, not move backward.

As we said less than a month ago in an editorial, Ontario’s Mining Act has served that province well for almost 100 years, but it’s time to bring it into the twentieth century.

Perhaps Stuart’s actions will prompt the government to act quickly.