Municipal Leaders Push Back Against B.C.’s Heritage Act Overhaul
Discussions around B.C.’s sweeping changes to the Heritage Conservation Act are growing more intense, with the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) warning the province that the proposed overhaul may create significant, unintended consequences for communities across the province.
UBCM President Cori Ramsay says local governments still have unanswered questions — even after the extended review window — and want the province to pause the process before legislation is finalized.
Concerns Over Enforcement, Clarity and Timelines
The Heritage Conservation Act dictates what landowners must do if archeological or cultural artifacts are found on their property.
The province has introduced 53 proposed changes, developed through two years of closed-door consultations with First Nations.
When those changes were presented to municipalities this summer, local leaders immediately flagged concerns, saying they were not included in the consultation process. UBCM has now outlined those issues in a 19-page submission released Nov. 13.
Ramsay warns that without clarity, the act could produce confusion over enforcement, pressure on property owners, and shortages of qualified archeologists needed to implement new rules.
“We’re asking the government to pause,” Ramsay said, adding that municipalities worry the new framework could unintentionally escalate regulatory burdens.
Province Promises Continued Engagement
Forest Minister Ravi Parmar, freshly returned from a trade mission to Asia, says he will review UBCM’s recommendations and meet with local officials.
“I believe there are steps we can take to resolve concerns and make sure we get this right,” Parmar said, noting that no final decisions have been made and that engagement with stakeholders will continue.
However, key determinations — including what cultural objects or lands fall under the expanded definition of heritage — will ultimately be made by the minister or cabinet.
Property Owners Fear Restrictions
UBCM’s submission also highlights widespread concern that expanding the definition of “heritage” will automatically extend the act to more private properties — something the province denies.
“But that doesn’t make sense to our members,” Ramsay said. “If you expand the concept of heritage, how does that not expand the number of properties included?”
The conversation is unfolding as private landowners across B.C. express broader anxieties over recent land title rulings, including the high-profile Cowichan Tribes case.
Calls for Balance Between Heritage and Growth
B.C. Conservative MLA Scott McInnis, deputy critic for Indigenous Relations, says the proposed changes have prompted worries about property rights and future development.
“There’s language in this act that could potentially infringe on people’s property,” he said, adding that while heritage protection is vital, the province must balance it against housing needs and infrastructure development.
UBCM, First Nations, archeologists, and local governments are all pushing for a more collaborative process to ensure the legislation supports reconciliation while remaining workable on the ground.
As the province reviews the feedback, municipalities are waiting for assurances that the updated act won’t add new barriers for communities already navigating complex development and land-use challenges.
Stay updated instantly — follow us on Instagram | Facebook | X
Leave a comment