To those of you in the mining business who have been following the developments of Ontario’s Living Legacy, I offer my condolences. To those of you who aren’t current, let’s take a few moments to review what has been going on over the past year and a half.

Let’s harken back to the Public Consultation sessions carried out by the three Round Tables. We all remember the assurances that no significant impacts were to be realized upon the mining industry as a result of the Lands for Life initiative - in short, no parks were to be established in areas of high mineral potential. The result of this extensive public consultation process was an exhaustive document from the Round Tables which made 242 specific recommendations. I will point out here that these Round Tables were composed of a cross-section of the local stakeholders in the three regions, and that their recommendations were the consensus opinion of those regions.

What’s the Ontario Government’s response? Our Government took these recommendations under advisement, and after determining that the recommendations did not meet the initial objectives / quotas, set about upon an essentially unilateral selection process for new Candidate Sites. Yes, the Government did consult with stakeholders during this process. However, that consultation was done with only those specific stakeholders invited by the Government - Forestry and Environmental groups being the principal amongst them. Do you remember Option E in the Boreal East Round Table? Well, the new, improved Living Legacy map (by the way, it’s called OLL0699, dated July, 1999) is essentially Option E, but with some new Candidate Sites (E+ if you like). An example of a new site would be Site #C1584 - Tatachikapika River Plain (4 411 Ha). Check the map, this Site is located in Denton and Thornloe Twps, right over the western projection of the Porcupine-Destor Fault Zone and the Bristol Fault. One would think that there is a high mineral potential in this area. Check the claim map and you will see a number of pre-existing mining claims are now impacted by this Conservation Reserve, including Patented claims.

Now that’s not all. Not only are there new sites, but many of the sites under Option E have also had a change of designation. So what you ask? Well let’s take Site # E1031 (Lands for Life) as an example. This site is located about half way between Cochrane and Iroquois Falls, and the “E” designates it as an Enhanced Management area. Well, under Living Legacy it is now called Site # C1598 - a Conservation Reserve. Long story short, exploration and mining are now permitted in this Site, only so long as it is deemed an area containing “Provincially Significant Mineral Potential” whereas exploration and mining were essentially unrestricted when the site was classified as an Enhanced Management Area. (As an aside, a Conservation Reserve is essentially a Park, but is created and managed under the Public Lands Act rather than the Parks Act. It has all of the “look and feel” of a Park, has the same prescriptions as a Park in regards to mineral exploration and mining, but it’s not a Park by definition). What are the overwhelming environmental values protected in this site which require such strict prescriptions? Good question, and I quote from the Approved Land Use Strategy:

“Nahma Bog and Poor Fens - 3 547 Ha. The Nahma Bog (northern Site) is an historical ANSI (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, sic) which provides representation of a basin fen, center raised bog, string bog, and lagg swamps. The site is characteristic of a peat land site, but has a number of special features normally found in lands much further north. The area has been classified as a provincially significant wetland. The biological inventory indicates the presence of one provincially rare animal, the bog lemming. The Poor Fens (southern Site), was brought forward by the public during the Lands for Life process. Fens located here are open or sparsely minerotrophic wetlands with level or depressional surfaces, except for low hummocks or ridges, dominated by sedges, grasses, and/or shrubs.”

I will leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Let’s also look at one more example. Site # E1056 (Lands for Life) became Site #C1531 under the Living Legacy proposal. This is a relatively small site located to the southwest of Hearst. What is so special about this site? According to the description given in the Approved Land Use Strategy (July, 1999), this site is described as:

“C1531, Dube Creek Iceberg Keel Marks, 1 793 Ha. A complex of linear, furrow like marks appear to have been cut into glaciolacustrine sediments. These marks were formed by icebergs floating in glacial Lake Ojibway. This site is required to complete the Cochrane Events Environmental Theme.

The dominant landform vegetation type found here is: weakly broken ground moraine with dense coniferous forest. Other vegetation types represented include: mixed deciduous forest, mixed coniferous forest, sparse forests, and wetlands.”

Again, I will leave it up to the reader to draw your own conclusions.

I could go on at length and in detail, however you will only be treated to a repetitious litany. The point clearly to be made here is that the interests of the exploration and mining industry ARE NOT being addressed. The message to me from our Government is clear - mining is no longer a favoured enterprise in this new millennium, despite the fact that we are a $5 billion a year contributor to the Ontario economy.

To underscore this point, according to the Message from the Minister on Page 1 of the Strategy, it will:

...”also strengthen the forest and mining industries, and enhance tourism and recreation in northern Ontario to improve the economic health of northern communities.”

Perhaps I’m too unsophisticated to understand the Minister’s point, but how can the mining industry possibly be strengthened by the removal of a vast amount of land base from exploration and mine development? Furthermore, excuse me, but I cannot for the life of me envision carloads of tourists lining up to appreciate the natural beauty and splendour of Site #’s C1598 and C1531.

I urge you readers to obtain a copy of the Strategy. Read it. Look at the map. Do you have claims that have been “parked”? Do you know of a prospector or corporation who have claims that have been “blobbed”? If so I encourage you to communicate these instances to your local Association, or failing that (and here I hesitate) I’ve always got a sympathetic ear.