Legislation allows claims on potential mineral assets under privately-owned lands
WHITEFISH FALLS—They call it Kitchitwaa Shkwaandem in Anishnaabemowin —Heaven’s Gate. A name sung into the stone by time and thunder, preserved in 2021 by an act of collective devotion: community donations, federal and provincial funds, a will to protect what is irreplaceable. Spanning 1,900 acres of the La Cloche range, it is a living corridor between Killarney Provincial Park and the La Cloche Provincial Reserve. A sanctuary of sky and stone, lake and lichen. A refuge for bald eagles, river otters, Blanding’s turtles and perhaps even the majestic Algonquin wolf. This region is the canvas that once stirred the brushstrokes of the Group of Seven and continue to inspire artists and travellers from across the globe.
Today, that preserve is the subject of concern following notification that a mining claim has been staked on a portion of the land.
The claim, discovered in late May or early June, was filed through Ontario’s public mineral claim system. While staking a claim does not equate to an active mine, it does permit the claimant to conduct exploratory work, such as sampling, trenching and drilling, to determine whether economically viable minerals are present.
“We’ve filed an objection to the claim with the province,” said Beth Gillespie, executive director of the EBC, which owns the land. “We’re also in contact with our funders, including the Ontario Land Trust Alliance and federal representatives, to understand what protections may apply given the public funding used to secure the land. We acquired the land for a really specific purpose — to preserve it.”
The purchase was no modest act. Nearly half a million dollars was raised through public and governmental generosity to protect Heaven’s Gate —or so they thought. But in Ontario, “forever” is a fragile word, easily fractured by extractive law.
Legal and Regulatory Gaps
Under Ontario law, lands held by private conservation organizations—including registered land trusts like the EBC—do not receive the same protections from mining activity as lands held by the Crown in the form of parks or conservation reserves.
“Land like ours—whether it’s held by the EBC, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, or smaller trusts—does not currently enjoy automatic protection from mining claims,” Ms. Gillespie said.
She points out that this is not a new issue, but one that conservation groups have long raised. While land trusts aim to protect biodiversity in perpetuity, the current framework leaves privately conserved lands exposed to subsurface claims unless mineral rights were acquired along with the surface property—something that was possible at nearby Willisville Mountain but not at Heaven’s Gate.
There is currently no legislation in Ontario that automatically extinguishes mineral rights on land purchased by conservation organizations, even when those purchases are supported by government funds.
Gold in the Fault Lines
The company behind the claim is McFarlane Lake Mining, a Canadian firm with a portfolio of six gold properties stretching from Timmins to the Manitoba border. Three of their properties are past-producing mines. One of their primary targets: the Macmillan and Mongowin Properties, about 13 km south of Espanola and within the historic Huronian Gold Belt.
While the company has not announced specific plans for the newly staked claim within the preserve, historical data suggests that the region contains fault-altered geological structures linked to gold mineralization. Exploratory activities would likely be contingent on initial findings and economic viability.
These are not hobbyists. McFarlane is interested in albitized fault systems—those deeply fractured zones where gold has historically concentrated. And while the shaft of the old McMillan Mine reached depths of 900 feet nearly a century ago, modern technology allows companies to dig deeper, faster and with fewer checks than ever.
Ms. Gillespie confirms the area in question is on the Canadian Shield—one of the few places in the La Cloche Mountains where the geology overlaps with known mineral potential. “When we acquired Willisville Mountain,” she notes, “we also acquired the mining rights. So, we don’t have to worry about that. But here, at Heaven’s Gate, we didn’t have that option.”
Lessons from Elsewhere
This is not the first time a so-called protected area has faced encroachment. In British Columbia, a 1982 provincial push to abolish the Gulf Islands Trust nearly succeeded. Only a massive public outcry saved the “preserve and protect” mandate from dissolution. But cracks remain. Developers have long poked at the legal definitions: What exactly is “unique”? What does “protected” truly mean? British Commonwealth legal traditions place significant weight on the semantics of statutory and contractual language, making precise wording central to how laws are interpreted and enforced.
Ontario’s record is more complex. Past policy changes have contributed to this regulatory gap. In the mid-1990s, amendments to Ontario’s Mining Act under Bill 26 reduced oversight, removed certain financial and liability requirements for mine closure and allowed for low-impact staking and exploration in areas designated for future parks.
While some reforms have since been reintroduced, legacy issues remain.
As documented by Mining Watch in 2005, sweeping changes under the Harris government deregulated the mining sector. Financial securities for mine closures were replaced with self-assurance programs. Liability for pre-existing hazards was eased, reporting requirements streamlined. Leaving more abandoned mines, more cleanup costs on the public dime.
Now in 2025, that legacy deepens. Municipal powers are eroding under new legislation. Environmental assessments are bypassed in favour of “streamlined development.” Land once considered sacred by community and government alike is once again being eyed for extraction.
A Broader Picture
And this is where the broader conversation begins. According to a 2023 report from the Alliance of Canadian Land Trusts, even returning land to Indigenous stewardship—vital as it is for justice—does not automatically shield it from future development unless it is held under the legal structure of an Indigenous Land Trust. Canadian law, even in its reforms, still demands to be reckoned with on its own terms.
A Gate Worth Guarding
At present, the EBC continues to seek clarity from provincial and federal authorities. Whether the claim proceeds to exploration or not remains uncertain, as does the legal standing of the land trust’s objection.
“It might turn out that this is a non-starter, especially given the involvement of public funding,” Ms. Gillespie said. “But at this stage, we simply don’t know.”
Heaven’s Gate remains open to the public for hiking, nature observation and educational use. The EBC maintains its commitment to stewarding the property for future generations. But as this case illustrates, even land acquired with the intention of permanent protection may face future pressures under Ontario’s current framework.
As this situation unfolds, it raises broader questions about the limits of conservation in the province—and what tools, policies, or legislation may be needed to ensure that land acquired for ecological preservation stays protected in practice, not just in promise.
