Feature Article February 20, 2003
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
Mining Claims bring rural landowners into the political worldby Jeff GreenMarilyn Crawford describes herself and her neighbours as kind of laid-back country folk, who live in and around the lakes of Bedford district. Nonetheless Crawford and the other members of the Bedford Mining Alert have become experts in the convoluted regulations of the provincial Mining Act; have come to know the officials at the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) in Sudbury; and Crawford herself is now bringing information to the council of South Frontenac about a mining claim on a piece of property the township itself owns.
I was gong over the rolls at the township office so I could inform people about mining claims that are in what the Mining Act calls "forfeiture", so the landowners could inform the ministry of their own interests in the land before the mining company is given the option of reversing the forfeiture and reinstating the claim, when I came across a property on Miners Lake owned by the township, Crawford recalls.
Crawford then phoned Bedford counsellor David Hahn and asked him if he knew about the land. Hahn wasnt aware of the land or the claim, but encouraged Crawford to bring the matter before council so they could petition the MNDM to put a condition on any further actions by Graphite Mountain, the company who staked the claim, in regards to the piece of land.
In a letter to council that was on the agenda at Tuesday night's meeting, Crawford quotes the Mining Act, which says that a person interested in the property, which in this case is South Frontenac Township, as represented by the council is entitled to raise questions about the forfeiture.
For that reason, a motion is was put forward and passed by council at its meeting on February 18, stating South Frontenac has an adverse interest to the interest of Graphite Mountain in the parcel of land, and as such, these interests must be resolved with the holder of the claim before the Ministry considers relieving the forfeiture of Graphite Mountain's claim on the land.
What all this means in English is that South Frontenac council is asking that the Ministry force a mining company to come to the owner of a piece of land and discuss the owner's(s') interests and the owner's(s') use of the land, before they can proceed with reinstating their claim.
Currently, under the Mining Act, there is a large amount of property in Eastern Ontario on which the landowner owns only the surface rights to their land, and any mining prospector can cheaply and easily stake that land. The landowner can dispute the claim, but this must be done within 12 months, and the mining company is not obligated to inform the landowner when it stakes the land.
This issue has been simmering for years, both in Bedford district of South Frontenac, and in South Sherbrooke district of Tay Valley.
In fact, Marilyn Crawford has just been informed this week that a hearing will be held in Smiths Falls on March 6, chaired by Roy Spooner, the Provincial Mining Recorder for Southern Ontario. At that time 34 different landowners will be heard who have disputed claims made on their property by Graphite Mountain. The most common item for dispute is the contention that Graphite Mountain misinformed the ministry when making the claims; thus the claims should be discarded. The contention is that in many cases what are termed improvements to the property were not noted by Graphite Mountain when staking claims. Houses, gardens, even barns and farmers fields are considered improvements to property.
Maureen Towaij, who lives in Tay Valley Township near Perth, and found out her property had been staked by Graphite Mountain last year, has since become involved with a group called Citizens Mining Action Group CMAG. CMAG has been working on the political level to try and effect the same changes sought by the Bedford Mining Alert. Maureen Towaij notes that her group submitted information in accordance with subsection 76 subclause 5 of the Mining Act, whereby the ministry may challenge the validity of a claim within the life of the claim.
Within the form Graphite Mountain filled out when staking certain claims it is written by them that there are no buildings within the territory of the claim. This is not true. For instance, in Black Lake, one of the territories theyve staked, there are 220 buildings. In a claim around Otty Lake, it is signed that there are no buildings, but there are in fact 32 buildings and a summer camp.
Towaij submitted this information to the ministry on October 29, and was still waiting for a response as of last Friday.
Changing the Mining ActWhile the Bedford Mining Alert and CMAG are seeking results within the confines of the Mining Act, both groups participate in the groundswell calling for an overhaul of the century old mining Act. Phil Leonard, chair of the Frontenac Management Board, has recently sent a letter to the ministry calling for just such a change.
Marilyn Crawfords letter to South Frontenac Council notes how the townships Official Plan intends to protect our water quality, wetlands, , and environmentally sensitive areas, including all lands within 90 metres of the high water mark of lakes and rivers. The Mining Act does not consider the Official Plan when lands are at stake. It does not consider the efforts of council to preserve the Townships environmental integrity while enhancing both its rural character and its long term economic viability..
