The provincial government is postponing the introduction of proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) that had originally been anticipated for spring 2026.
Last year, it was announced that legislation determining how British Columbia’s heritage sites are protected would be updated. The Heritage Conservation Act applies to more than 64,000 protected sites on the provincial registry – 90 per cent of which are of First Nations origin. The act, that was last revised 30 years ago, regulates how these sites are protected when work is done at the locations.
Under current legislation, development often requires the need for multiple permits which can average 300 days for regulatory review. A hope for the new legislation is to speed up this process, which would allow for communities to rebuild faster after natural disasters like wildfires and floods. In addition, those involved in the revision process want to see the new act align with UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The decision to postpone the proposed amendments to the act is a result of needing more time for engagement, after a request came from the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
“We were on a timeline to get legislation through this spring sitting,” said Judith Sayers, co-chair of the joint working group on First Nations heritage conservation. “When UBCM asked, and the minister granted an extension of the engagement time period, we had to then target the fall sitting (2026).”
“There is near unanimous concern that the proposed changes are rushed, policies are underdeveloped, and future implementation processes potentially unfunded,” stated a submission from the UBCM to the Ministry of Forests in November about the proposed changes to the Heritage Conservation Act. “Local governments expressed deep concerns about financial burdens, private and public project delays, and the potential for negative public reactions regarding the impacts of the proposed changes on private property rights.”
The UBCM submission noted that many of its municipalities “support shared governance and Indigenous-led protection frameworks,” but that some “worry that expanding First Nations’ authority, particularly over private or local government lands, could lead to jurisdictional conflict, legal challenges or duplicated permitting.”
Sayers said the B.C. legislative process is long and involved. She said the delay is a disappointment but that it’s better for everyone involved to get the chance to contribute feedback rather than “feeling left out and objecting to the much-needed amendments to the legislation.”
The new legislation has been in development for several years with more than 300 organizations consulted to help inform how the act should be updated, including municipalities, the archeological branch, real estate associations, construction companies and resource industries.
In a press release from the provincial government, it was stated that input received to date has confirmed the importance of streamlining the permitting for major projects on Crown land and private residential development, ensuring quicker community rebuilds following a disaster. Input has also stressed the need for better protection of heritage and significant First Nations cultural sites.
The working group and the province have agreed on 53 of the 57 items proposed.
“We agreed to put those four (remaining) items off until after we get these amendments through,” Sayers said. “We felt it better to get all these other items through and not be delayed further while we try and agree on the remaining four. Making wrongs right to heritage sites and objects is not part of this working group. We are focused on making the HCA consistent with UNDRIP.”
The Ministry of Forests will continue to engage with industry, project proponents, First Nations, local governments and other interested parties. Specifically, the province will be inviting industry partners to a cross-sector meeting in the coming weeks to discuss the permitting process.