Victoria – The Provincial Government is postponing the introduction of proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act that had originally been anticipated for spring 2026.
This decision reflects the need to continue engagement to gather and incorporate additional feedback from industry, local governments and First Nations. Input received to date has confirmed the importance of streamlining the permitting for major projects on Crown land and private residential projects, ensuring quicker community rebuilds following a disaster, and better protecting heritage and significant First Nations cultural sites.
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, and will continue to welcome feedback as the work progresses.
Progress updates from the Province and new information will be shared as it becomes available and posted to the project website.
REACTION:
From BC Assembly of First Nations: “The Government of British Columbia has paused controversial planned amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) — a law that governs the protection of archaeological sites, historic places, and other “heritage resources,” especially those in relation to First Nations.
In a bulletin released this afternoon, the provincial government said proposed changes to the legislation — which provides protection for many archaeological sites, including Indigenous sites that pre-date 1846, even on private land — will not proceed as expected in Spring 2026.
The HCA was first created in 1977, extending protections to heritage sites on Crown and private lands, regardless of whether sites were known or as-yet unrecorded. As of 2025, the provincial heritage register included over 64,000 protected heritage sites, with 90 per cent of these sites being of First Nations origin. Under the HCA, development or land alteration can be delayed or stopped if heritage resources are discovered, and permits are required before projects can proceed.
The BC NDP-led provincial government began the process of amending HCA in 2021 to align it with the legislature’s 2019 adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which is based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Public and stakeholder consultation on the amendments occurred in 2025, but according to today’s bulletin, the B.C. Ministry of Forests states it needs more time to consult with industry, local governments, and First Nations.
According to the Ministry, feedback gathered to date has highlighted the need to streamline permitting for major projects on Crown land and private residential developments, support quicker community rebuilding following disasters, and strengthen protection for heritage resources and significant First Nations cultural sites.
However, the provisions have made the HCA amendments through the lens of the DRIPA a flashpoint for controversy, with critics asserting it would unintentionally create the provincial government’s opposite stated effect. Regional and municipal governments, businesses, industry, and property owners argue it creates uncertainty and lengthy permitting processes that can delay housing construction, major infrastructure projects, and post-disaster rebuilding — driving up costs and, in some cases, reducing land values.
The proposed amendments called for joint or consent-based decision-making agreements applying to Crown land, ensuring First Nations are involved in decision-making, including for permitting decisions and potentially delegating the compliance and enforcement authority to First Nations. There would also be jurisdictional agreements to recognize First Nations’ heritage laws, which would enable varied application of the HCA depending on the First Nation. Additionally, the amendments called for operational agreements, which would apply to Crown and private lands and amount to an expansion of the considerations for existing agreements.
The proposed changes to the HCA could have major impacts on First Nations and on people trying to build projects, but it is still unclear how the new rules would actually work. The provincial government has outlined broad goals, but has not explained how the changes would be put into practice, creating uncertainty for anyone who has to navigate the permitting system. As a result, it is not clear how the amendments would achieve the stated goal of making approvals faster and simpler.
One major concern is how the changes would apply in areas where more than one First Nation claims the same land, which includes much of B.C. The amendments do not explain which First Nation would have decision-making authority in these overlap areas, how agreements with one First Nation would affect others, or who would be responsible for managing heritage sites. These unanswered questions raise the risk of disputes and could lead to extreme delays in project approvals.
Although the amendments are intended to streamline the process, critics say they could actually add more layers of complexity. That could increase administrative work for provincial staff and create less predictable outcomes for First Nations, developers, and other stakeholders.
Similarly, the provincial government’s previously proposed changes to the Land Act also drew immense controversy. Those amendments would have provided First Nations with more influence and authority over how Crown lands are used, which forms the vast majority of B.C.’s land area, with critics at the time asserting the changes would effectively provide First Nations with a veto. The provincial government cancelled the proposed Land Act amendments in February 2024, ahead of the provincial election.
The proposed changes to the HCA are lesser known compared to other controversial policies and approaches, and the recent court decisions related to First Nations reconciliation and Aboriginal title land claims.
This has unfolded against a backdrop of escalating concern that the BC NDP-led provincial government’s approach to reconciliation — based on the application of DRIPA, and its interpretation of UDRIP — has gone too far, based on recent surveys gauging sentiment and growing media commentary.
Public criticism has intensified over what some see as a highly secretive, undemocratic, and deferential posture toward First Nations on all aspects of governance, economic issues, and land ownership, including the government’s handling of public and private property rights in court — most notably in the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title claim involving land in Richmond. The provincial government is now pursuing a stay of the Cowichan Tribes’ case ruling impacts, and joining federal and municipal governments, several First Nations, and other entities in appealing that August 2025 court decision. There are concerns that the Cowichan Tribes case could set a precedent for other public and private properties elsewhere in B.C., where there are also First Nations land claims.
In October 2025, the provincial government also proposed new legislation that would enable secret discussions and negotiations between municipal governments and First Nations, as well as proposed changes to the Vancouver Charter related to the abolition of the Park Board. Those changes included a major exception that would remove the requirement for a public referendum when City of Vancouver parkland is transferred to First Nations, while requiring referendums for other parkland sales and transfers. The proposed Park Board-related bill has since been withdrawn.
Earlier this month, following another controversial December 2025 decision made by the B.C. Court of Appeal, which ruled the provincial government’s mineral claim-staking system is inconsistent with Indigenous rights and DRIPA, Premier David Eby committed to amending DRIPA to uphold the provincial government’s final authority over such matters, not the court system. The appeal court’s ruling found that DRIPA has immediate legal effect in provincial law — a decision with far-reaching implications, as it requires the provincial legal system and all laws to be interpreted in accordance with DRIPA.
Together, according to critics, these layers of controversial approaches, policies, and legal uncertainties create a high degree of legal and economic uncertainty in B.C.”
Christina Reid from Heritage Abbotsford emailed FVN: This process does not immediately impact Heritage Abbotsford, but we’ve been participating in the public consultation process as requested.
FYI
To learn more about the Heritage Conservation Act, visit: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96187_01
To learn more about the Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project, visit: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/heritageconservationact/
