sideration. We shall see, if mineral policies and regulations as they relate to welcoming investment, will be accepted by this government. I suspect some will and some won’t. They may not have enough talent and experience due to attrition to implement them or in a timely manner. The other good news is that funding for the Geological Survey Branch has been partially restored so they actually have funds to do field work and apparently we have an assessment geologist or at least funding for one. It has been a while. It was welcoming news to see New Age Metals finally get their exploration permits (waited over three years) on their Manitoba Lithium Project.
Major Concerns in Manitoba TLEs being allowed to be put on top of on Mineral Dispositions One major concern MSPDA has in the imposing of Treaty Land Entitlement Areas (TLEs) on mineral disposition such as mining claims or mineral exploration licenses. They are not allowed to be imposed on hydro areas, farm areas, private land, forestry permits, wildlife management areas or parks, yet they are allowed to infringe on mineral rights of exploration companies and prospectors. This imposition of TLEs provides no security of tenure for the holder or security from loss of investment and business opportunity and is in violation of the Mining Act. Worse, the province will not issue work permits and the holder loses the disposition because of default on work. This falls directly at the feet of the Minister of Resources and the Director of Mines. It should not have been allowed and would have been rejected outright when Manitoba had real mining recorders. If the province chooses to honour a TLE request on top of mineral dispositions, a notice of expropriation must be issued with a legal mechanism for the holder to receive appropriate compensation. This, although legal, is however a very bad signal to mineral investors across Canada to the security of 10 2019-2020 Northern Prospector
Manitoba mineral tenure. Security of Tenure for mineral dispositions is an agreement with the Crown on acquiring mining claims, that they cannot be taken away from the owner without: a) the owner either defaulting on required work to maintain the dispositions, which work cannot be hampered from being completed because of the company’s inability to carry out the required work because of negligence of the province in issuing work permits in a timely fashion, or b) by expropriation where the holder is given compensation for the claims, on expenditures on the claims and lost time and opportunity. Security of investment on mineral claims is an understanding with the Crown that money invested in exploration or mineral development cannot be unreasonably held up or halted so that the money invested is lost at no fault of the exploration or mining company relating to permitting. Investment security is critical if the province wishes to attract mineral exploration or development. It is inherent under the Mining Act that the province and the Director of Mines promote exploration and mine development to add to the province’s economy and benefit the residents of the province. Neglect of the province to provide competitive policies that facilitate the discovery and development of the province’s mining economy and resources is gross negligence in the stewardship of the duties of government, especially in those regions mainly dependent on mining. Without security of investment, exploration dollars just will not come. This is a major problem in areas outside the mining camps, where permits can be held up for years breaking the backs of investors and the companies they have invested in. Again, if this is the case, and the province may have many reasons to avoid the issues directly, either politically or constitutionally, but the option to not address them is irresponsible. It is absolutely inherent that the province outlines these no-go zones where per-
mits are being withheld. It is fraudulent for the province to offer areas for staking or mineral exploration licences if they know full well that permits may not be issued in these areas, because certain communities do not want mineral exploration and can hold up exploration work in an unreasonable time manner as related to company funding. This legally falls on the province to regulate properly and issue permits or alternatively restrict mineral exploration from these areas and compensate disposition owners who have standing claims. The province cannot give the false impression that it is open for business when in reality it is not. That is deception by omission. In the Mining Act, Section 10(1) C, “the Director shall promote sound management of the mines and mineral resources of the province”. The implication is that this will have Minister and Cabinet support under the Premier, including the Finance Minister. Here in Manitoba, security of investment is under attack and in certain areas security of Tenure has been lost.
MSPDA Recommendations for a Sustainable Mining Industry Recommendations to Increase Exploration “The two Prospector groups, the MSPDA and MPDA, do not represent mine operators as does the Mining Association who likewise cannot represent the overall interest of prospectors and junior exploration companies.” The prospector groups’ concerns centre on policies that facilitate exploration to make discoveries, and the wide availability of land to not limit where a discovery can be made. Prospectors and junior exploration firms’ impacts on the land are minimal compared to a mining company. They take on the most risk and suffer the highest failure rate because Mother Nature hides her treasures well. So the risk-reward is rarely skewed in their favour, which means policy and regulations should be, in order to attract high