When the BC government introduced Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act last May, Premier David Eby said it was needed in order to speed up the construction of dams and major highways in response to economic pressure from US tariffs. When it passed into law less than a month later, Minister Bowinn Ma assured the public that it would be used primarily for “hospitals and schools.”

The new law gives the government new powers to exempt selected projects from existing rules, but it requires enabling regulations. On March 10th, the government released a discussion paper outlining a proposal to allow designated “high priority” projects to undergo an expedited environmental assessment. The public has until April 13th to comment via an online survey or written submissions.

Despite the original purpose, the discussion paper explicitly includes “critical minerals projects” as “Provincially Significant Projects” that the Minister of Infrastructure can designate for fast-tracking under the Act.

The EA process needs to be strengthened, not weakened

BC’s EA process is already struggling for credibility with First Nations and the public. It applies only to the largest mining projects, allowing projects with potentially serious environmental and social harms to bypass the process completely, and even to expand their operations post-approval with no additional scrutiny.

The government has also refused to designate projects for assessment, as at Record Ridge, or to address First Nations’ concerns, as with the Copper Mountain expansion. Even within the EA process, community, technical, and First Nations’ concerns are getting short shrift (as at Cariboo Gold) — with the absence of support for public participation, and closeness of the EAO and proponent companies, giving the appearance of regulatory capture.

What’s being proposed

The proposed abbreviated environmental assessment process would set a fixed 20 month deadline. In order to meet that deadline, it would focus only on “high-risk values and interests” — and would theoretically apply only to projects that meet a high standard of “readiness” with respect to First Nations and community engagement, baseline and environmental impact studies, and technical plans.

Having that preparatory work done is supposed to allow for dramatically reduced opportunities for First Nations engagement and public participation, including public comment periods as short as 14 days, and no opportunity at all for Indigenous-led environmental assessments. At the same time, broader considerations would be excluded, such as a project’s impact on climate change, cumulative effects, the justification for the project, alternative ways of implementing the project, and the need for (or alternatives to) the project itself. 

Why is this problematic?

However, even with rigorous “preparedness” criteria:

• The deadlines are unreasonable and untenable for meaningful participation
• The restricted scope of assessment is self-defeating, especially in the context of climate chaos. Excluding those broader considerations is a recipe for future complications, or worse.

At the same time, “preparedness” is best done within the EA process to prevent manipulation and corruption. Government oversight provides at least a veneer of impartiality and adult supervision (though, admittedly, the EAO has not always been able to provide even that).

There is also a risk that even with good intentions, government implementation of those rigorous preparedness standards may slip over time and under pressure from the industry. Serious concerns or risks could be given short shrift, with no opportunity under the abbreviated assessment process for the public, First Nations, or even regulators to get them addressed.

People who have done a lot of work in environmental assessment, as with many other processes that engage with communities and First Nations governments, often say the way to go fast is to go slow. In other words, taking the time to ensure that projects are well-grounded in the environmental and social reality of their location will also help prevent missteps, conflicts, lawsuits, white elephants, and environmental disasters.

Our friends at Organizing for Change have developed a resource to help guide people through the online survey. We encourage you all to fill it out – in particular noting concerns with this expedited process for mining projects (which arguably shouldn’t be on the list of “provincially significant projects”).