Bulldozing Rights: The Fast Track becomes the Main Track
The Infrastructure Projects Act undermines First Nations rights and environmental protections under the guise of efficiency
Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act (2025) is a blatant power grab by the BC NDP. It ignores Aboriginal title and rights, the Crown's duty to consult First Nations, the minimum standards in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and guts the Environmental Assessment Act.
This bill is a disturbing policy shift, sacrificing consultation for political convenience and expediency, at the expense of First Nations and the environment.
There is no requirement in the bill to uphold constitutionally protected title and rights or meet the human rights standards in the UN Declaration. Rather, and despite public statements by the NDP government, there is only a superficial protection for engagement requirements in enactments––which are minimal, and not the same as the constitutional and human rights of Indigenous peoples. In other words, the bill enables the province to bulldoze First Nations rights under the guise of streamlining.
Bill 15 doesn't just offend First Nations constitutional, treaty, and human rights, it offends environmental protections as well. The expedited track created for undefined infrastructure projects gives the Minister and Premier the ability to sidestep the Environmental Assessment Act.
It is enabling legislation, meaning it creates the ministerial powers, but leaves the definition to the regulation-making process—or Cabinet orders—that are done later, and in some instances in secret. It allows hand-picked professionals to sign off on permits in the place of regulators and empowers the Minister to override constraints and fast-track approvals. Every proponent will argue their project is an essential project, demanding access to the fast track. The fast track is now the main track.
We may as well shutter the Environmental Assessment Office, because this bill has rendered them meaningless. Bill 15 sidelines the environmental assessment process in favour of speed, not substance—leaving our terrestrial and marine environments defenceless.
This bill is not democratic governance, it is autocracy dressed up as efficiency. It shifts total control to the Premier and Cabinet Ministers. It removes checks and balances from First Nations, local governments, and regulatory bodies. It overrides municipal zoning, local planning, and independent approvals, allowing politicians to masquerade as experts and qualified professionals. It is dangerous. And it will lead to even more uncertainty, chaos, and conflict.
I call on Hon. Christine Boyle, as the Minister responsible for Indigenous Relations & Reconciliation, and Hon. Tamara Davidson, as the Minister responsible for Environment & Parks, to demand Hon. Bowinn Ma (Infrastructure) withdraw this bill.
There is no doubt we need to stand united against external threats to our sovereignty, but we cannot lose ourselves in the process.
I think there is broad agreement that we need schools, hospitals, electricity generation, but we cannot sacrifice safety, a healthy environment, and the progress we have made on reconciliation in the name of expediency. This hyper short-term thinking is dangerous, and no-doubt will cost British Columbia billions in the Courts.
This is not reconciliation, it is regression. Let's stand united and demand the BC NDP repeal Bill 15.
Thanks Adam for speaking the words that need saying. The NDP is turning us back in time to the 1960's, when the Socreds made all such decisions behind closed doors with no input. It led to massive mistakes which are still controlling the dialogue in this Province.
I think the first thing that needs to be put forward is that some projects can not go forward. Some projects are just too damaging to the environment and Indigenous rights to be allowed to proceed. There is no need to speed up resource extraction when it is already going at breakneck speed and in the process breaking our necks. Our grand children and great grand children need a viable and sustainable place to live, more than the extraction industries need another windfall.
I want to begin by acknowledging Adam Olsen’s voice and leadership on this issue. His perspective as an Indigenous leader, former MLA, and committed advocate for responsible governance and environmental stewardship is deeply valuable and resonates with many across British Columbia. His concerns about the Infrastructure Projects Act are serious and well founded — and I share his alarm about any erosion of meaningful consultation, Indigenous rights, or environmental protection.
Where I may offer a respectful counterpoint, however, is not in dismissing those concerns, but in seeking a way through the impasse that Bill 15, and indeed much of our current infrastructure and decision-making paradigm, presents.
British Columbia faces undeniable and urgent needs:
- Climate resilience and decarbonization demand rapid infrastructure upgrades.
- Health care, education, and housing pressures require accelerated delivery of essential public projects.
- Global economic and political volatility—including increasing trade pressure from the United States—makes local self-reliance and readiness more critical than ever.
In this context, the call for "speed" is not merely political expediency. It reflects real risks if delays become systemic.
At the same time, Mr. Olsen is right that speed cannot come at the expense of Indigenous rights, title, or environmental responsibility.
- UNDRIP, which BC has committed to uphold, makes clear that Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) must guide our actions.
- The Duty to Consult and Accommodate, enshrined in Canadian constitutional law, ensures that Indigenous voices must be central in decisions affecting their lands and ways of life.
- Environmental stewardship, too, is not optional — it is an intergenerational obligation that Indigenous teachings have long guided, and from which all British Columbians benefit.
This presents a profound challenge:
* How do we meet urgent public needs without repeating the colonial and extractive approaches of the past?
* How do we avoid reducing consent to a mere yes/no binary — a veto or a rubber stamp — which too often leads to either injustice or deadlock?
There is a pathway forward, and it may lie in redefining consent not as simple approval, but as an evolving, collaborative process grounded in respect and the resolution of serious objections.
In governance models like Sociocracy, consent means not the absence of dissent, but the absence of unresolved, reasoned objections. This approach encourages proposals to be improved collaboratively, until all participating voices — including Indigenous Nations — can say that while a decision may not be perfect, it is safe enough to proceed and respectful enough to honour everyone’s paramount concerns.
What this model offers is profound:
- Indigenous Nations would become co-creators of project designs, timelines, and mitigation strategies, not simply consultees.
- Projects would not proceed until paramount objections have been addressed.
- Regulatory and environmental processes would be integrated, not bypassed, to ensure that short-term expediency does not compromise long-term well-being.
This approach respects UNDRIP and Section 35 while also addressing the real-world need for timely decisions. It requires governments, Indigenous Nations, and communities to engage in deeper, more transparent dialogue. It asks proponents to see Indigenous participation not as a hurdle, but as a source of wisdom and improvement.
Bill 15, as written, does not provide this model. The fears raised by Adam Olsen and others are valid, and the risk of eroding trust is high. However, rather than seeing the need for speed and Indigenous consent as irreconcilable, we can — and must — reimagine how decisions are made.
By reinventing what consent means — as co-created, objection-resolved, and inclusive — we can meet the needs of this moment without abandoning the commitments that define us.
Respectfully, this may be the bridge we need between the imperatives of progress and the imperatives of reconciliation.