This article originally appeared in the Vancouver Sun.
By Jerome Gessaroli, January 23, 2026
B.C.’s Infrastructure Projects Act was meant to accelerate major projects by cutting through delay. Yet eight months after becoming law, it remains stalled, caught up in the same consultations, jurisdictional disputes, and legal risks that routinely slow major projects.
That irony is not accidental. It points to a deeper issue in the province’s approach to large-scale projects. The main barriers are not administrative “red tape,” but legal duties, overlapping authorities, and the risk of court challenges.
Bill 15 responds by changing who makes decisions and fast-tracking a subset of government-selected public and private projects, rather than making the approvals system simpler and more predictable for everyone. That may shorten timelines in some cases, but it also risks replacing one source of delay and uncertainty with another.
When introduced last spring, Bill 15 was framed as a response to growing pressure to deliver projects faster. The government pointed to housing shortages, electrical grid constraints, hospital backlogs, and major economic projects as reasons that a different approach was needed.
The Act attempts to speed up projects by changing how decisions are made, including expanding Cabinet discretion, relying more on qualified professionals to certify compliance, and creating tools to coordinate or override overlapping approval processes.
Provincial reviews often require multiple ministries to approve the same project — such as water licences, transportation approvals, heritage inspections, and contaminated sites assessments — each working separately. When the province coordinates these processes, timelines fall.
The Cariboo Gold Mine illustrates this point. The province and the company agreed on a coordinated permitting plan and a single set of information requirements across key agencies, allowing the operating permit process to be completed in 13 months. Bill 15 aims to make that kind of coordination more routine.
Consider a proposed copper mine on traditional Indigenous territory. Bill 15 might save months by allowing permits to be reviewed concurrently. But it cannot shorten the time needed to negotiate an Impact Benefit Agreement, complete environmental baseline studies, or prevent court challenges over inadequate consultation.
Indigenous consultation requirements under DRIPA cannot be bypassed, as shown by the government’s own eight-month delay after initially engaging with only about one in four of the province’s roughly 200 First Nations. When approvals are rushed without resolving concerns, delay is not eliminated — it is shifted into litigation that can last far longer.
Bill 15 responds to delay by concentrating authority and creating expedited pathways, rather than addressing the legal duties, technical requirements, and shared governance that determine what gets built. Giving Cabinet the power to designate projects and override municipal decisions introduces risks that could outweigh any time saved.
First, the largest economic cost of uncertainty often appears before any permit is filed. Companies decide whether to invest, where to invest, and at what scale well in advance. Even small increases in perceived political risk can delay projects, reduce their size, or send capital elsewhere, leaving B.C. without the project or its wider benefits.
Second, shifting decisions to higher levels of government often moves conflict rather than resolving it. While Cabinet can override municipal decisions, projects still depend on local cooperation to move from approval to construction. When that cooperation breaks down, delays re-emerge during implementation.
Third, greater Cabinet control affects not only speed but project selection. When faster treatment depends on political designation, approval tends to favour political appeal over economic value. Projects backed by organized groups can crowd out stronger but less politically attractive investments. Over time, this steers capital away from more productive uses.
Firms with fewer political connections may be disadvantaged even when their projects are economically strong. Smaller and mid-sized companies often lack the resources to maintain sustained lobbying, which can tilt decisions toward larger, better-connected firms rather than the most productive investments.
While the government may point to a few projects that moved faster under the Infrastructure Projects Act, these gains could be offset by unintended consequences. Economic growth depends on projects moving forward, and projects move fastest when rules are clear, governments are aligned, and consultation happens early enough to avoid conflict later. The lesson of Bill 15’s stalled rollout is that speed cannot be legislated into existence for select projects within the broader system.
Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and leads the Sound Economic Policy Project.
