Will Cutting Red Tape Make BC Great Again?

The B.C. government is pushing ahead with controversial legislation to streamline the approval of major infrastructure projects, including mines, despite concerns from opposition politicians and First Nations leaders.

Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, was introduced in the legislature on May 1 and passed second reading following a narrow 46 to 44 vote on Tuesday evening, with Infrastructure Minister Bowinn Ma calling it “the single largest and most ambitious capital infrastructure plan in B.C. history.”

In a statement, the B.C. Conservatives noted that two of the party’s former MLAs, Dallas Brodie and Tara Armstrong, who now sit as independents, were absent. “While our entire Conservative caucus stood in the Legislature, fighting to stop the NDP’s dangerous power grab, they were nowhere to be found,” the party said.

The bill has been criticized for granting sweeping powers to fast-track projects the government designates “provincially significant.” That fast-tracking would include bypassing major parts of environmental assessments and giving industry consultants the power to greenlight permits.

In announcing the bill, Premier David Eby said many infrastructure developments in the province face “unnecessary and costly delays” and the new legislation would speed up permitting and approvals.

“At a time of uncertainty caused by Donald Trump’s tariffs, it’s more important than ever that we create more good-paying jobs by delivering the critical infrastructure projects people need — faster,” Eby said.

Experts The Tyee spoke with expressed concern that the open-ended nature of the legislation would take decision-making away from communities and hand broad powers for approving projects over to present and future governments.

They said the legislation reflects a broader trend to expedite industrial projects and reduce environmental oversight, which could have detrimental effects on First Nations rights and the environment. The Trump administration is leading that trend, experts said.

Robert Phillips, a member of the First Nations Summit political executive, told The Tyee he understands the province’s desire to see new projects launched but that B.C.’s recent moves could threaten decades of hard-won progress that First Nations have fought for in the courts and on the international stage.

“I don’t want to see that eroded,” Phillips said, adding that Eby’s signals that he will push the bills through despite First Nations opposition is “almost political suicide.”

“There's going to be potential for increased litigation,” Phillips said.

In a recent interview with CBC’s The Early Edition, Eby blamed pushback on misunderstandings about the legislation. He said it won’t mean circumventing First Nations consultation or lowering environmental standards.

Eby added that the province won’t use the law to expedite “controversial” projects such as pipelines or LNG projects because they require a higher level of oversight.

“We need to go through an extensive process to make sure that it’s done properly, that we have supportive communities as much as possible for these projects,” Eby said.

But experts point out that these limits aren’t explicitly reflected in the legislation and instead are left up to the government’s judgment.

New ministry to streamline infrastructure approvals

The government created a new Ministry of Infrastructure following the November election, with a promise to streamline the building of schools, hospitals and “other infrastructure to support growing communities.”

Since then the ministry has announced new schools and student housing, expanded health-care facilities, additional child-care spaces and funding for school playgrounds.

Bill 15 gives power to the new ministry to take the lead on these kinds of government-run projects.

But it also includes broad powers for the government to expedite development in the natural resource sector by changing permitting and environmental assessment processes.

To be eligible for fast-tracking, projects need to be deemed “provincially significant,” the province said.

It added that the criteria for designating projects as provincially significant will come later this month. So far, it has said projects would need to create “significant economic, social or environmental benefits” and contribute to things such as food security, replacement of U.S. imports, disaster recovery and critical mineral supply, suggesting the law could be used for new mining projects.

The wording in the legislation, however, means it could be applied to almost anything, according to Andhra Azevedo, a staff lawyer for Ecojustice.

“They basically said an infrastructure project is a project about infrastructure,” she said. “That is pretty open to what they want to define it as.”

The law “is basically a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants,” Azevedo said.

Fast-tracking new projects

Once a project is designated by government, it is eligible for the law’s list of fast-track treatments.

That could include imposing timelines on approvals, said Azevedo, who added the new law could mean industry-hired professionals gain the power to sign off and approve permits.

Typically, under B.C. law, the government issues permits throughout a project’s lifespan, allowing it to do things that might have environmental or other impacts and setting limits on how those impacts happen. For example, a mine permit can specify how a tailings facility must be monitored or establish the height of a tailings dam.

If a project is designated under the new law, Azevedo said, some permits signed off by industry professionals could be considered equal to government-issued permits. That could limit the regulator’s right to challenge or investigate the industry professional’s conclusions.

“I think it would open the door to a proponent turning around and saying, ‘Well, the law says that you must consider this to be the approval, so you can't question it,’” said Azevedo.

The province hasn’t yet determined which kinds of permits would qualify for the new, industry-led process. Those details will be established through regulations, which don’t get voted on or debated in the legislature.

The law also allows the government to scrap major parts of B.C.’s normal environmental assessment process. If designated under the act, a project can receive an “expedited” environmental assessment, which allows government to pick and choose which parts of B.C.’s assessment process they want to keep, Azevedo said.

For example, the government could remove requirements to carry out early engagement or dispute resolution with First Nations. It could also scrap requirements to assess parts of the project, such as the accident or project malfunction risks, greenhouse gas emissions or the cumulative environmental impacts of a project.

The legislation could also allow the provincial government to do an environmental assessment without a public engagement process, which is currently required, Azevedo said.

While B.C. has responded to criticisms by arguing it will apply these powers judiciously, Azevedo said the lack of detail in the bill places few limits on what projects governments could designate as provincially significant.

“The limits they say they're putting on it just aren't there in the language of the bill,” Azevedo said.

A step back from environmental regulation?

Gerald Singh, an assistant professor at the University of Victoria’s school of environmental studies, told The Tyee that B.C.’s current Environmental Assessment Act is seen as “world-leading” environmental legislation.

When the act was passed into law by the province in 2018, it was an attempt to move away from what was seen as the rubber-stamping of projects without due consideration of key aspects such as Indigenous rights and environmental protections. That lack of due process led to court challenges that stalled or stopped projects, he said.

“The act as it currently is was a response to that, to really try to build trust and legitimacy in the process,” Singh said.

Singh said the new legislation is “quite vague” on how the province would replace the environmental assessment process on some projects.

“It’ll really depend on what gets rolled out. If it’s just an exemption, so that certain kinds of developments don’t have to go through any kind of assessment, then lots of people are going to lose their voice on any considerations for new development,” he said.

Nikki Skuce, co-chair of the BC Mining Law Reform network and director of Northern Confluence, a conservation organization aimed at tightening B.C.’s mining laws, told The Tyee that environmental assessments provide an important planning tool to assess complex projects.

Skuce expressed concern that the proposed legislation provides “no parameters” around the types of projects that could be designated. While Eby has said that controversial projects like pipelines would not be considered, “there’s nothing in the law to prevent them from doing so,” she said.

She said B.C.’s move to circumvent environmental regulations is “totally emulating Trump.”

“Why aren't we standing up for our values, which is to respect Indigenous rights and to have regulations and rules around not polluting the environment and protecting nature?” she said.

Law could undermine ‘years of work’ on Indigenous rights

Indigenous leaders say they were not involved in Bill 15’s development. They expressed concern that B.C.’s approach could mark a reversal of the government’s commitments to strengthen relationships with First Nations and better protect ecosystems.

“Beyond just having a poor consultation process on this, it actually undermines years and years of work, which is even more of an insult and a slap in the face to many First Nations,” said Naxginkw Tara Marsden, wilp sustainability director for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

B.C. has also made commitments through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, including co-developing laws with First Nations.

But that hasn’t been the case with Bill 15, Marsden said.

After B.C. made sizable advances on Indigenous rights, Marsden said, the government now seems to be “coming in after the fact with these slapdash legislations that just undo all of that work.”

Eby has denied that Indigenous rights would be impacted, telling CBC’s The Early Edition that pressure to move ahead with many projects is “coming from Indigenous leaders in different parts of the province. They want projects that they're supporting to move faster.”

Marsden questioned that framing.

“I would say, ‘Prove it,’” she said. “Why aren’t they in the press conferences with Eby if this is a partnership?”

The First Nations Summit’s Phillips also contests Eby’s claim that the laws are aligned with B.C.’s commitments to Indigenous rights. “I think he has a communication strategy, and it's not reality what's happening,” he said.

Will Bill 15 pass?

Neither the Conservative Party of BC nor the BC Green Party plan to support Bill 15.

Conservative Party of BC Leader John Rustad called the bill a “power grab” and accused the NDP government of offering “cash for access.” The bill could allow governments to favour allies and supporters, he said.

On Thursday, the BC Green Party issued a statement saying the bill would grant “sweeping powers to bypass environmental assessment, municipal authorities and the jurisdiction of First Nations.”

“It’s anti-democratic,” interim leader and West Vancouver-Sea to Sky MLA Jeremy Valeriote told The Tyee. “It's a concerning trend to say, ‘Trust us, we will make the decisions behind closed doors and cabinet.’”

Valeriote said the Greens agree with the desire to build public infrastructure like hospitals and schools faster.

“The problem with Bill 15 is it goes well beyond schools and hospitals into just about any project that cabinet deems provincially significant,” he said.

Valeriote said the Green Party has asked for a pause on the legislation until the fall.

“So far, I haven't heard that that's going to happen,” he said.

The announcement on Bill 15 came one day after the government introduced separate legislation, Bill 14, to speed up permitting for renewable energy projects.

Valeriote said the party is also “deeply concerned” about that legislation, known as the Renewable Energy Projects Act. He said the legislation would consolidate too much power under the BC Energy Regulator, a Crown corporation responsible for overseeing oil and gas activities in the province.

“Bills 14 and 15 together signal a direction for provincial governance that sidelines communities, environmental standards and Indigenous rights,” Valeriote said in a statement.

Without support from other parties, the NDP might need to rely on extraordinary measures to pass the legislation. The government has declared Bill 15 a confidence vote, which means that “if the bill fails, the government falls,” said Stewart Prest, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.

Prest says the government might need to rely on the legislature’s Speaker — generally considered a non-partisan actor — to provide the required tie-breaking vote.

“That’s the Speaker becoming highly political in a role that ought not to be partisan,” said Prest.

Prest added the potential consequences are shown by the United States, where ostensibly non-partisan officials have been put into politicized positions.

“To be pushing us in that direction, right off the hop, in this new legislature is a troubling precedent,” he said.

Last week, B.C. passed a closure motion to cut off debate before the session closes at the end of May. Valeriote said the Green Party is “fundamentally opposed” to the motion and that the bills currently before the legislature “should get a lot of scrutiny.”

Bill reflects bigger trend toward deregulation

B.C. isn’t alone in its push to cut environmental laws. During Canada’s federal election campaign, both the Liberal and Conservative parties promised to reduce regulations and streamline approvals to promote industrial development in response to the U.S. trade war.

Experts told The Tyee the approach has similarities with those of Trump, whose first executive orders committed to “halt... regulatory onslaught” by slashing 10 rules for every one added. Trump frequently cites rule-cutting as a key ingredient in the economic boom his administration has promised, but so far failed, to deliver.

As Canada reels against the economic upheaval of Trump’s tariffs against Canadian goods, its governments are invoking their own variations on the growth-by-deregulation agenda.

Singh said a “mood shift” began during B.C.’s fall election, where the Conservatives blamed permitting delays and regulatory overreach for stifling industry. That shift became more pronounced with Trump’s tariff threats.

“The B.C. Conservatives gained unprecedented support, and part of what they were running on was essentially diminishing or taking out regulatory oversight or any kind of what they would consider roadblocks to development,” Singh said.

Last month, the province of Ontario tabled the Unleashing Our Economy Act, which would repeal the Endangered Species Act in favour of a modified law allowing the government to pick and choose from its former requirements.

Arguments for further cuts to Canada’s regulatory regime abound, including a recent op-ed in the conservative publication the Hub, which described deregulation as Canada's “golden ticket for economic growth.”

“I think there's a growing perception over the last number of years that the government is an obstacle to getting things done,” said Prest, adding that rhetoric has fuelled populist movements around the world.

Prest said there’s a role for ongoing review to ensure the system is working properly, but that B.C. is currently taking a more scorched-earth approach.

“Bills like this would seem to be saying we're not going to engage in regular pruning exercise but rather we’re just going to empower ourselves, to move without or to substitute those processes whenever it seems politically important to do so,” he said.

That opens the government up to real or perceived political interference, Prest added.

The University of Victoria’s Singh agreed that there are drawbacks to fast-tracking development, including the increased likelihood of court challenges.

“I’m afraid it might backfire. At the beginning, it might lead to more approvals for development, but I think there’s going to be more challenges to decisions,” he said.

Marsden sees B.C.’s new laws as consistent with a broader political shift, in Canada and beyond, toward greater government control and fewer people having “more wealth and more power.”

“We have so few people who are actively holding industry to account,” she said.