From roadblocks to roll‑outs: Unpacking the implications of BC’s infrastructure project approval reform

BC’s response to the need for expedited approvals

In an effort to overcome bureaucratic gridlock and multi-layered approval systems and accelerate the delivery of projects governments consider essential for geopolitical or economic reasons, a number of Canadian governments are introducing mechanisms to streamline approval processes. In the case of British Columbia, the “Infrastructure Projects Act” (the “Act”) received royal assent on 29 May 2025 and became law in British Columbia. The Act vests significant potential authority in the Province’s Ministry of Infrastructure. The Act does not clearly delineate what projects it will apply to, nor how the extraordinary powers provided under the Act will be exercised in a manner consistent with existing provincial and local government regulatory approval processes and the duty of meaningful consultation with relevant Indigenous groups. The resolution of these matters will need to be addressed by regulation.

The Act gives the Ministry of Infrastructure centralized authority to coordinate project delivery. In doing so, the legislation allows the Minister to make decisions that would otherwise fall to other ministries or levels of government, if such decisions are necessary to prevent delays. Specifically, the Act empowers the Minister of Infrastructure to expedite a project’s completion (if authorized by regulation passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council) by: (a) designating that a certification from a qualified professional may be relied upon in lieu of an approval, permit or licence; (b) requiring regulators to prioritize provincial permits for designated projects; (c) expediting environmental assessments; or (d) varying requirements in certain otherwise-applicable local planning laws. For “Category 1” projects, the Act also permits the Province to step in as project owner, acquire land, hire contractors and push the project forward directly.

Under the Act, projects can be designated as either “Category 1” or “Category 2” by regulation. Category 1 projects can be designated individually or as a class; Category 2 projects can only be designated individually, and only if they are “provincially significant” — a phrase the Act does not define. Outside of the requirement that Category 2 projects must be “provincially significant”, the Act does not impose any restrictions on what projects can qualify for designation. While Category 2 projects are reserved for those that are “provincially significant”, the term remains undefined in the legislation. In the absence of a clear definition, the Province has indicated that:

• Category 1 projects would include core infrastructure projects such as schools, post-secondary housing, hospitals, and health-care facilities — in other words, core public infrastructure that government entities (such as school districts or health authorities) would normally build and operate; and
• Category 2 projects would include specific projects that provide “significant economic, social or environmental benefits” and align with provincial priorities (regardless of whether the proponent is a Crown corporation, local government, First Nation or private organization).

These statements may reflect the Province’s intention, and how the Act will eventually be operationalized, but the Act notably does not limit the Province’s ability to designate projects in accordance with these statements. The Act confers broad powers to the Province to designate its effective scope by regulation, pursuant to the Government’s exercise of discretion, rather than through specific statutory requirements.

The Act’s mechanism whereby a qualified professional can provide a certification in lieu of approvals, permits or licences otherwise provided by existing regulatory authorities is novel. While there is precedent for regulatory authorities to rely upon professional opinions by qualified environmental professionals in the granting of environmental approvals and establishing conditions to those approvals, in this case the professional certification appears to replace governmental approval.

Indigenous rights and consultation

The Government has emphasized that nothing in the legislation overrides or replaces the Government’s obligations toward Indigenous peoples. The Act explicitly requires that measures to replace or forego requirements that would otherwise apply cannot be made “in relation to provisions of an enactment respecting engagement with Indigenous peoples”. However, there has been a mixed reaction on just how this will operate in practice.

From the inception of this Bill, critics have voiced concerns that the Province might bypass the input of Indigenous peoples in the name of fast-tracking development.The Government insists this is not the case — it remains to be seen how the Province will reconcile more expeditious project approvals with the need for appropriate consultation with affected communities. The Minister of Infrastructure has stated that the new tools will help accelerate projects “while maintaining our commitments to advancing reconciliation”. Notably the Nisga’a First Nation, who are also project proponents of industrial infrastructure, have come out in support of the legislation.

Effects on local governments and development permits

The Act does not automatically remove core powers of local governments under the Local Government Act, nor the Community Charter. Municipalities and regional districts will generally retain control over zoning, development permits, and building permits. These remain key tools for local land use regulation, and the Province has made clear that it is not wholly eliminating municipal requirements in these areas.

The Act purports to establish a collaborative mechanism to address significant delays on designated projects. If a local permitting or planning process causes delay, the Province must first consult with the affected local government. If a resolution cannot be reached, the Act allows for the development of alternative authorization processes or other measures through the appointment of a facilitator by either the Minister or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but only after good faith efforts at cooperation, although no clear indication has been provided as to how long cooperation efforts must be pursued before alternative processes can be authorized. In short, municipalities keep a seat at the table, but the Province will be able to remove local government barriers to infrastructure projects that Cabinet has designated.

The right to implement alternative processes has been met with immediate concerns from the Union of BC Municipalities, particularly with respect to its potential to undermine local authority. Since the Act empowers the Cabinet to override municipal regulations, it is unclear how local processes will be respected in practice. The lack of consultation with municipalities in the drafting of the Act has also led to uncertainty regarding how responsibility will be shared between levels of government in the event of oversight on expedited projects, and whether municipalities will be compensated for financial impacts resulting from provincial intervention.

Conclusion

The Act represents a significant regulatory change in how British Columbia plans and delivers major public infrastructure projects and regulates and grants approvals for private industrial and infrastructure projects. By centralizing authority under the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Province seeks to accelerate project approvals and reduce delays in support of community development. While the Act introduces new mechanisms to streamline permitting and procurement, it does so by vesting relatively undefined breadth of authority in the Province. The emphasis on prioritizing vital infrastructure such as schools and hospitals is promising; however, the legislation as drafted is not reconciled with existing regulatory approval regimes or consultation protocols with Indigenous peoples. The drafting of the regulations in support of this Act will need to address these concerns.

In a broader national context, British Columbia’s initiative aligns with concurrent efforts by other Governments in Canada to accelerate infrastructure delivery and dismantle internal barriers to commerce. In Ontario, for example, the recently enacted Bill 17 (Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act) empowers authorities to streamline the construction of new homes and infrastructure by standardizing approval processes. At the federal level, Bill C-5 (One Canadian Economy Act) has been introduced to remove federal barriers to internal trade while fast-tracking “nation-building” projects through a unified “one project, one review” approval framework. These parallel reforms at the provincial and federal levels reflect a concerted move across Canadian jurisdictions to expedite project approval regimes, reinforcing the notion that the Act in British Columbia is part of a wider movement to streamline infrastructure development and to strengthen the Canadian economy.