LETTER TO THE EDITOR — Ministry official replies to

I am writing to address the concerns expressed by Al Gourley (T.N.M., Feb. 20/95) regarding the recent decision of Ontario’s Mining and Lands Commissioner in the matter involving R.A. MacGregor.

The position of the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines regarding the potential for acquiring pre-existing abandoned mine liabilities through the staking of mining claims in Ontario is clear: the holder of an unpatented mining claim is not responsible for abandoned mine features or hazards which existed prior to the staking of the mining claim. In the opinion of the ministry, this is the intent and the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of Part VII of the Mining Act.

Certain comments by the commissioner in her Reasons for Order in the MacGregor matter (Dec. 23, 1994) appear to be contrary to the ministry’s position on this issue. MacGregor has appealed the commissioner’s decision to the Divisional Court of Ontario but, unfortunately, the hearing may not take place until October, 1995. The appeal has stayed the effect of the commissioner’s order pending the court’s final determination. Until that determination, it is important for the prospecting and exploration community to know that the ministry is aware of the concerns expressed and that it is willing to take whatever steps are possible to address them while the commissioner’s decision is under appeal.

The ministry is prepared to consider representations from the mining industry on how the language of certain sections of Part VII of the Mining Act might be improved to clearly state the ministry’s view that the holder of an unpatented mining claim is not responsible for abandoned mine features or hazards which existed prior to the staking of the claim. The Mining Act Advisory Committee, made up of representatives of various facets of the community, considered this issue at its Feb. 22 meeting in Toronto, and the minister expects to receive the committee’s recommendations soon. In my letter of Jan. 24 to mineral industry associations, I stated that Part VII clearly provides that once the holder of a claim decides to take that claim to lease, the lessee thereafter is responsible for pre-existing mine features or hazards, unless some agreement to the contrary has been negotiated with the ministry. The ministry also welcomes representations from the industry on this issue.

In addition, if the ministry should change policy as a result of a careful review and consideration of the industry’s recommendations prior to a decision on the MacGregor appeal, we will take whatever reasonable steps are possible to bring such changes into effect.

I wish to emphasize that the principal concern of the ministry in these matters is to ensure no undue risk to public health or safety arises from any features of, or hazards found on, abandoned mine sites. Where information comes to the ministry’s attention giving rise to pressing concerns about public health or safety, the ministry will take whatever reasonable steps it can, where necessary with the agreement of current lessees, to resolve the causes of those concerns.

The MacGregor appeal raises important issues. I trust this letter will alleviate undue concerns that could arise from recently published interpretations of the effects of the commissioner’s order in the MacGregor matter.

John Gammon

Assistant Deputy Minister

Mines and Minerals Division

Ontario Ministry of Northern

Development and Mines, Sudbury