British Columbia is currently in the grips of a “critical mineral” frenzy, accelerating approvals for projects in the name of a clean energy transition and economic security.
Governments argue faster permitting is essential to remain competitive and secure minerals needed for a green future. This rushed approach prioritizes short term economic gains and risks undermining crucial environmental protections, sidelining Indigenous rights holders, and perpetuates BC’s boom-and-bust economic cycles, all while making a big mess for future generations to deal with.
Billions of dollars in subsidies and infrastructure supports are being provided to resource extraction industries, who already benefit from tax credits and access to taxpayer-supported development funds.1 At the same time, the provincial government is moving to accelerate timelines by publishing priority project lists and pressuring permitting agencies, as well as making plans to reduce environmental protections and oversight with “expedited” environmental assessments.
Debunking the “permitting slowdown” myth
The narrative from industry is that companies are ready and willing to build, but are blocked by a wall of bureaucracy. However, the idea that the mining industry is unduly constrained by permits and process is not supported by evidence.
Studies consistently show market forces, commodity prices, access to financing, technical feasibility, and social license are far more decisive than permits. One 2024 study of BC’s mining sector found that only around half the mines that got through BC’s environmental assessment process actually began mining, with the most stated reason for failure being market conditions.
Accelerating permits won’t make an uneconomic mine suddenly profitable. What acceleration will do is compress the timeline for environmental assessments and meaningful consultation, reducing oversight and allowing mines windows to cut corners on things like safety and environmental protections.
Mining’s impacts do not end when production stops. Numerous abandoned and closed mines require ongoing funds for water treatment, monitoring, and reclamation after company finances have failed or proved insufficient, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars for even small mines, with large mine cleanups costing billions2. Loopholes and creative accounting practices have enabled mining companies to offload those long term costs onto taxpayers. Britannia, Tulsequeh Chief, and Quinsam are just three examples of mines that have or will take taxpayer money for cleanup, and will continue to require funding for long term monitoring.
Studies also show that economic claims from mines navigating the permitting process can be heavily inflated. In BC as a whole, mines have only created around half of the jobs they claimed they could, and a measly 7% of their tax contribution. And every mine brings with it long term environmental damages: research has shown water quality downstream of older mines continues to be heavily impacted decades after they have been reclaimed.
Cutting oversight processes short only benefits investors who stand to make more money if they have less responsibility to clean up after themselves. For an industry such as mining, which has been shown to leave gaping holes in landscapes and huge environmental burdens and costs for future generations, due diligence should not be negotiable. Thorough review is one of the few opportunities Canadians have to ensure risks are properly understood before irreversible decisions are made.
Critical minerals: A green mirage?
The very concept of “critical minerals” as a simple, green alternative to fossil fuels is itself problematic. While certain minerals such as lithium, copper, and cobalt are used in renewable energy and electric vehicles, labeling all mining associated with their extraction as “green” oversimplifies the picture. Reports show that many of the materials on critical mineral lists are largely used for militarization and arms manufacturing, and that relatively modest investments in certain key minerals would be more than enough to support a green energy transition.
Mining is an extractive activity. It involves massive disturbances to landscapes, generates environmentally dangerous wastes, consumes vast quantities of water, and has long-lasting effects on biodiversity, water quality, and local communities. The “greenness” of any mineral depends not only on its ultimate use but on how it is extracted, processed, and disposed of.
Sidelining Indigenous Rights and meaningful engagement
Perhaps most concerning is the impact that accelerated permit processes could have on Indigenous Nations and their inherent rights and title. True reconciliation requires respect for the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
The rushed timelines proposed by the BC government run counter to the commitment to meaningful engagement and reconciliation. Meaningful consultation takes time. It requires providing Indigenous Nations with adequate information, allowing them to conduct their own assessments, and engaging in respectful dialogue and negotiation. Indigenous Nations have been on the frontlines of resource extraction impacts for generations. Accelerating permits without addressing the underlying power imbalances and failing to ensure Nations have the capacity and time to participate meaningfully will only exacerbate historical injustices.
Beyond the rush: Towards responsible resource governance
British Columbia needs a fundamentally different approach to mineral development, one that moves beyond the simplistic “accelerate and extract” mentality. We must move towards a system that:
- Prioritizes environmental protection: Strengthening, not weakening, environmental assessments and implementing robust regulations to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, and ecosystems.
- Upholds Indigenous rights: Fully implementing UNDRIP and ensuring Indigenous Nations are true partners in decision-making with consent-based agreements on approvals, with the authority and resources to meaningfully participate.
- Embraces transparency and public accountability: Making permitting processes more transparent and ensuring that decisions are based on sound science and public input.
- Invests in long-term solutions: Prioritizing recycling, mineral efficiency, and the development of sustainable circular economies to reduce our reliance on new mining.
- Addresses the legacy of past mining: Ensuring that existing and closed mines are effectively reclaimed and that mining companies, not the public, bear the costs of environmental damage.
The race for critical minerals should not be a race to the bottom in terms of environmental and social responsibility. BC has an opportunity to lead by developing a modern, equitable, and sustainable approach to resource management. Speeding up the current flawed system, however, will only worsen old problems and cause problems for generations to come.
- For example, the $3.9 billion dollar North Coast Transmission Line designed to supply the KSI Lisims LNG plant and northwestern gold mines, as well as $400 million in smelter capacity upgrades given by the federal government. Mining tax incentives can be read about here.
- BC’s Tulsequeh Chief ($48 million), and the Yukon’s Giant Mine and Faro Mine ($4.4 billion and $500 million respectively)