On April 16, 2026, the province of British Columbia passed Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026 (Bill 15), to amend the dispute resolution processes in the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). The changes seek to strengthen consensus-seeking in environmental assessments by introducing a new issue resolution protocol and limiting the matters eligible for dispute resolution. Further, Bill 15 limits participation by United States tribes in environmental assessments by prohibiting their inclusion as a “participating Indigenous nation.”
Background
Dispute resolution is a right exercisable by participating Indigenous nations at key decision points in the environmental assessment process with the aim of supporting consensus-seeking between the province and First Nations. Since its introduction in 2022, dispute resolution has been initiated pursuant to the EA Act eleven times in respect of three projects. Both First Nations and proponents have been critical of the process, which has done little to streamline assessments or provide certainty to proponents, and has been a major source of delay in completing timely assessments on major projects.
The province has been engaged in consultation with First Nations and proponents on revisions to the dispute resolution provisions of the EA Act, and this engagement has illustrated demand for clear, structured processes for addressing disagreements, avoiding reliance on formal dispute resolution, and clarity on which decisions are eligible for dispute resolution.
The changes introduced by Bill 15 aim to strengthen consensus-seeking and clarify the scope and availability of dispute resolution in environmental assessments.
The New Issue Resolution Protocol
A key change is the introduction of “issue resolution protocols,” a process by which participating Indigenous nations and the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) can engage in ongoing dialogue to address issues or concerns in parallel to an environmental assessment, rather than through the dispute resolution process set out in the EA Act.
Participating Indigenous nations will now have the ability during the first phase of the environmental assessment process to develop an issue resolution protocol with the EAO. At minimum, the protocol will be required to include terms that establish the following:
- A technical table: The technical table provides a forum for the EAO and the participating Indigenous nation to discuss and attempt to achieve consensus regarding matters of a technical nature
- A leadership table: The leadership table will be composed of at least one senior representative of the EAO and one or more representatives of a participating Indigenous nation
- An escalation process: A process for escalating matters of concern from the technical table to the leadership table, which would then seek to achieve consensus in respect of those issues
If a participating Indigenous nation develops an issue resolution protocol, it will be available throughout the environmental assessment. However, Bill 15 provides few details on the process for issue resolution protocols and does not include timelines for the resolution of issues pursuant to such protocols.
Changes to Dispute Resolution
Bill 15 includes changes to the stages at which dispute resolution is available and seeks to clarify the scope of matters eligible for dispute resolution. These changes are intended to complement the issue resolution protocol and provide clarity for other parties participating in the environmental assessment.
Notably, Bill 15 prevents dispute resolution at the later stages of an environmental assessment. Dispute resolution will no longer be available to participating Indigenous nations in relation to the effects assessment and recommendation phases of the environmental assessment. At those stages, the issue resolution protocol is intended to replace dispute resolution to support consensus-seeking.
Dispute resolution will remain available to participating Indigenous nations at the following stages of the environmental assessment:
- Notification of a First Nation to participate in an environmental assessment
- Notification to a First Nation, which has requested to be a participating Indigenous nation, that the chief executive assessment officer has determined there is no reasonable possibility the Nation or its Aboriginal rights will be adversely affected by the project
- A pending recommendation of the chief executive assessment officer to issue an exemption order or a termination order regarding the project, or a recommendation that the project proceed with an assessment
- A pending decision by the chief executive assessment officer regarding the issuance of a process order
Bill 15 also limits matters eligible for dispute resolution. To this end, dispute resolution cannot be initiated if the matter has already been a subject of dispute resolution between the same parties. Additionally, a dispute may not be referred to dispute resolution unless it was brought to the attention of the chief executive assessment officer by the participating Indigenous nation during their attempts to achieve consensus regarding the matter.
Restricting United States Tribes’ Participation in Environmental Assessments
In addition to the changes regarding dispute resolution, Bill 15 introduces measures to limit United States tribes from participating in environmental assessments. In particular, Bill 15 prevents United States tribes from being “participating Indigenous nations” and from providing notice of their intention to participate in issue resolution protocols or dispute resolution. It will also terminate any existing dispute resolution processes already brought by United States tribes and deem any United States tribes that are currently participating in environmental assessments to no longer be participating Indigenous nations.
The restrictions regarding United States tribes respond to the decision in Lummi Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), in which the Federal Court enumerated a test for determining whether a duty to consult is owed to an Indigenous group located outside of Canada, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Desautel (for additional information, see our previous bulletin). In particular, the Federal Court explained the duty to consult is triggered when such group provides credible claims that it (i) is an Aboriginal people of Canada, and (ii) holds specific Aboriginal rights or title protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Crown is not, however, required to adopt a different approach to the duty to consult for Indigenous groups based outside of Canada, as argued by the Lummi Nation.
Bill 15 limits the province’s obligations with United States tribes to meeting the Crown’s duty to consult and avoids the much broader consensus-seeking and other procedural rights afforded to the participating Indigenous nations pursuant to the EA Act.
Commentary
Bill 15’s changes could have significant impacts on First Nations and project proponents (including Indigenous project proponents). The issue resolution protocol is intended to operate as the primary mechanism through which parties will address issues or concerns, with dispute resolution supplementing this process where necessary.
The issue resolution protocol will provide participating Indigenous nations with more opportunities for ongoing engagement with the EAO throughout an assessment. Frequent and structured communications should support those parties in identifying issues earlier than under the previous iteration of the EA Act. However, it remains unclear whether the issue resolution protocol will provide the tools necessary to resolve disputes (while avoiding the dispute resolution process) and lead to meaningful improvements in the timeliness of environmental assessments. Additionally, while Bill 15 aspires to reduce the reliance on dispute resolution, the changes seem to introduce more complexity and may not support the objective of completing more timely assessments.
Revisions to the dispute resolution process will be welcomed by many; however, Bill 15 has some notable omissions. For example, it does not introduce new processes to expedite dispute resolution, nor does it provide clear opportunities for proponents to participate in those processes.
For more information, please contact the authors or any other member of our Environmental group.
