British Columbia has introduced a framework for government to consult with First Nations before a mineral claim is issued—the very start of the mineral exploration process. The Mineral Claims Consultation Framework meets a deadline set by the B.C. Supreme Court in Gitxaala vs. British Columbia. While its development took most of the 18 months set by the court, government eventually put forward a plan to consult First Nations for any impacts claim registration may have on their rights.
This was a substantial effort, and the Association for Mineral Exploration (AME) is grateful to government for listening to some of its members’ key concerns. But the process’ development was, at times, confusing and opaque. The Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals did not include the AME in meaningful discussions until the final two months before the deadline, leaving little time to provide industry expertise about a complex decision. At the beginning of the process, the ministry’s efforts varied from attempting to build a consent standard, to closing off large portions of land by issuing orders under the Environment and Land Use Act. These activities, combined with the framework, cumulatively create significant uncertainty for would-be B.C. mineral exploration investors, and play a significant role in the 25-per-cent drop in mineral exploration expenditures in B.C. from 2023 to 2024.
While AME was able to collectively resolve some of the glaring issues with the framework, the government refuses to protect the confidentiality of the applicants’ names during the consultation process. This does not protect intellectual property that has been developed by the applicant and introduces potential for subjectivity in the consultation and decision-making process. We continue to urge for this to be changed.
Timelines also remain a concern. Delivering decisions on mineral claim applications on time will provide investors with certainty. We continue to urge the government to monitor the framework’s implementation and look forward to reviewing the progress after six months.
At conferences and at AME member townhalls this year, members and investors have been clear that B.C. is sending the wrong message about exploration and development of critical minerals in the province. There are three clear actions that can address this.
First, the government has set a 2026 target date to update the Mineral Tenure Act, the legislation that regulates how mineral claims are granted. Government should address any issues that arise from the framework before embarking on this project. A rushed legislation update would further cast shadow on mineral exploration investment in B.C.
Next, there is a huge opportunity to unlock early-stage mineral exploration, put people to work and attract investment right away by reducing timelines for the notice of work permits needed for early-stage mineral exploration activities. With the average mineral exploration project requiring $1.95 million investment, approving the 147 permits currently in the system could add $287 million of mineral exploration spending in the province, with 90 per cent of that investment staying right here. A goal of having 400 active exploration projects would mean $780 million.
Finally, Budget 2025 contained no growth in the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals budget or allocation of staff for mineral claim and notice of work applications. It is essential that the ministry and Indigenous communities have the resourcing required for this work, so that all parties can support timely decisions for the exploration sector and help provide certainty.
There is a shared ambition to attract investment in B.C.’s mineral exploration sector so that good projects can develop fairly and responsibly into tomorrow’s critical mineral mines. Acting on and communicating this ambition must be a priority for the provincial government. Now is the time for us all—government, First Nations and industry—to pull together.
Trish Jacques is board chair of the Association for Mineral Exploration (AME).
