GUEST COLUMN (January 06, 1992)

It may be tempting to view smugly the demise of communism in the USSR as inevitable, but we are faced with a more insidious battle within Canada over the property rights of individuals. We have experienced a gradual diminishing of these rights over the last several decades.

Earlier this year I wrote a letter to Premier Bob Rae (who also happens to be my M.P.P. of York South), noting the disturbing trend in our society toward the attenuation of individual property rights. This was in connection with Bill 71 — An Act To Amend The Mining Act. Simply put, the right of individuals to own private property distinguishes democracies from other forms of government:

“…the original Ontario Mining Act of 1906 has been held in high esteem with government officials in most parts of the world. I can state this with some authority, having been a policy analyst (1977/79) with the Ministry of Natural Resources and as the representative for Ontario and Canada at a United Nations conference on mining in 1978.

“In Ontario, as in most parts of the world, mining claims are held by an individual while he is performing prerequisite work to improve the mineral property. The granting of a patent on such claims is based on some measure of improvement beyond the mandatory 5-year work. Having taken Ontario’s lead, most jurisdictions in the world limit the amount of labor an individual must perform in order to patent land…

“An astute concept was introduced in 1922 by the deputy minister of mines for Ontario. This was the recognition that the key to granting patented claims is the `willingness to expend time and money for development.’ To abandon patents in favor of leasing or demand excessive levels of work, or production, would be examples of attenuation of property rights for individuals…

“It should also be noted that mining lands on which active operations are being performed represent only 0.03% of Ontario’s land surface. Despite this, mining produces 200 times more wealth per acre than agriculture and even greater orders of magnitude more wealth than all other land uses. Therefore mineral policy is critical for Ontario.”

I did receive a response from Premier Rae and from Gilles Pouliot, then Ontario’s mines minister. Pouliot responded succinctly to most of the points in my letter. On the subject specifically of patenting claims under the (then proposed) new act he wrote:

“The practice of granting patents as mining lands is going to become very restrictive but still attainable to claimholders. The minister of mines may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, issue a licence of occupation, lease or patent of any mining lands or mining rights on such terms and conditions as the minister considers appropriate.” Bill 71 was given royal assent in June. It should be apparent to all readers that individuals and corporations concerned with exploration and mining in Ontario have the right to know under what conditions and circumstances claims can be patented. Some may consider that patenting has been profligate in Ontario’s mining history and that this has unnecessarily “tied up” land for further exploration. However, it is not logical to deny mine developers the opportunity to patent claims and hold them without restriction. It is another matter entirely, whether the government of Ontario elects to induce claimholders to bring their claims to lease rather than patent (this was in effect under the former Mining Act with annual fees being skewed in favor of leasing) and whether owners of patented claims have the same environmental concerns as the public at large. There are sufficient regulations provided under the various environmental statutes to ensure enforcement. It is most important to separate these matters in order to prevent infringement on the rights of the majority of Ontario residents. Let us at least know the ground rules.