The tools under the IPA could lower BC’s environmental standards. The IPA enables proponents to bypass constraints imposed by local governments to protect the environment (s 12) and gives broad powers to the Cabinet/Minister to force the issuance of provincial permits (ss 7-8) and exempt projects from environmental assessment requirements. This could mean a project doesn’t assess greenhouse gas emissions or impacts on future generations, weakening environmental standards.

The regulations must ensure that none of the tools in the IPA including the tools in ss. 6, 7, 8, and 12, can exempt projects from or weaken applicable environmental standards, including under the Environmental Management Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, Forests Act, Environment and Land Use Act, Heritage Conservation Act, Water Sustainability Act, local government bylaws and plans, Indigenous-led land, marine and watershed plans, and any associated regulations and policies.

The government’s promise that this legislation does not change environmental standards can only be upheld if fast-tracking only allows prioritization of some projects over others but does not allow bypassing of environmental requirements.

It is unclear how BC will determine what is a “low risk” permit when streamlining approvals. The IPA has left the door open to any permit being deemed “low risk”. Regulations must set out how the risks of a permit will be transparently assessed by experts before deeming the permit as “low risk” and how people potentially affected by the permit will be able to participate in this process.

To promote confidence in decisions by qualified professionals and prevent the erosion of environmental standards, the qualified professional reliance model in s. 6 should include a mechanism for statutory decision makers to review and overturn qualified professional certifications, as well as an appeal mechanism for affected parties to challenge qualified professional certifications.

Streamlined approval processes, the use of qualified professional reliance, and automatic permits all have the potential to limit opportunities for consultation with First Nations.

Clearer definitions of public interest would limit time spent reviewing projects with high public opposition and no compatibility with BC’s environmental goals. For example, BC is undermining our climate targets and breaching international rights obligations by continuing to expand fossil fuels. If BC were to determine that no new fossil fuel projects were in the public interest, we could re-allocate resources to reviewing projects like renewable energy that support a sustainable future.