On January 7, 2025, the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals released a draft Mineral Claims Consultation Framework (MCCF) and invited mineral explorers and First Nations for feedback. The framework is expected to be online shortly. Details on how you can provide feedback are below. The draft MCCF addresses Justice Ross’s decision in Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), which requires the provincial government to implement a mechanism to consult First Nations prior to registering mineral claims by March 26, 2025. We expect this to be followed by an update to the Mineral Tenure Act (MTA) as a separate process.

We acknowledge the significant progress and effort made by the Ministry in developing a draft MCCF, and thank the Ministry for including some of our recommendations. Our advocacy has been guided by our members and was summarized in a ‘What We Heard’ report published in July 2024.

Specifically, dealing with the implementation of a consultation framework before the goal of a broader MTA modernization is significant and helpful progress. The draft MCCF incorporates some of our recommendations by:

  • Proposing a focused, government-led consultation and accommodation-based solution that protects the first-come-first-serve nature of mineral claim staking.
  • Incorporating timelines of 90-120 days, and a commitment to outline the required consultation process in more detail.
  • Processing applications in batches to ensure efficiency for all parties involved.

As the draft MCCF evolves, we will continue to advocate for the principles outlined by our members, specifically:

  • Reasonable timelines – The Chief Gold Commissioner could and should establish presumptive service standards or time limits for consultation and decision-making, recognizing that there will need to be discretion as the extent of consultation and accommodation required is fact specific, and time must be allowed for meaningful consultation.
  • Best efforts – All parties must make best efforts to engage with one another during the process.
  • Transparency – Decisions and decision making must be publicly accessible, with clarity for First Nations on who must participate in consultation.
  • Fairness – All participants must be treated fairly and without prejudice under the law. If the applicant is denied they will still have first rights to the process and opportunity to make a claim.
  • Confidentiality – Applicants to the process must have their information and information about their projects protected by government and Nations.
  • Capacity – Government must ensure that Nations have the appropriate funding to receive, review and engage with applicants. This could be delivered as annualized funding, or a portion of the fee associated with making an application. 

AME has also provided examples of what industry will not support:

  • A consent requirement for mineral tenure. AME supports consultation and accommodation at this early stage of the mineral development life cycle. 
  • A process with open timelines or no end date. Any process must include clear timelines for consultation by government and Nations.
  • A process that involuntarily removes tenures, including existing tenures. Similarly, moratoria on negligibly impactive exploration are neither appropriate nor reasonable.
  • Payments unrelated to tenure. The timeline for working the land and payment of held lands must only be triggered once the mineral tenure is awarded.
  • Unnecessary accommodations that are costly, time consuming and disproportionate to the impact of a negligibly impactive exploration.

AME welcomes members’ feedback on the draft MCCF, and will continue to ensure the voices of our membership are heard and incorporated. Members can provide feedback by:

We look forward to working with government and First Nations in the implementation of the MCCF. We have been able to get this far thanks to the voices of our members over the past year.