Third Try, Same Problem: NDP's Heritage Conservation Overhaul Hits a Wall

The BC NDP has now tried three times to rewrite the Heritage Conservation Act — the provincial law governing development around cultural, archaeological, and heritage sites — and for the third time, it has run into a wall of opposition from the people most directly affected by the rules it's proposing.

The government's March 26 technical paper was supposed to be the clean version: the one that addressed the worst complaints raised at last year's UBCM convention, where Premier David Eby quietly shelved the previous attempt after a firestorm of objections from local government leaders. Gone, the government said, were the undefined "intangible cultural heritage" designations, the regional heritage management zones, and the proposal to hand compliance and enforcement authority directly to First Nations.

What the 30-day feedback period revealed — before the government shut it down and rejected requests for more time — is that the core problems remain. The regulatory uncertainty remains. The cost burden remains. The overlapping jurisdiction remains. And now, with DRIPA's co-management framework casting its shadow over every provision, the private property implications are more uncertain than ever.

UBCM: "Critical Issues" Remain

The Union of BC Municipalities did not pull its punches in its April 23 letter to cabinet minister Ravi Parmar.

"The 30-day feedback period continues a pattern the province has followed with Heritage Conservation Act amendments, wherein complex policy intentions statements are issued with limited periods for response," the UBCM wrote. "Nonetheless, UBCM has heard enough from its members to know there are critical issues with the approach the province is proposing."

The UBCM's specific objections: lack of clarity for permitting processes, poorly defined roles and responsibilities, unrealistic hopes for heritage management plans, and the chronic lack of archaeological professionals remains entirely unaddressed. That last point is not a minor bureaucratic complaint. There is a finite supply of qualified archaeologists in BC. Requiring archaeological reviews for more projects, over broader site definitions, without growing the professional supply, is a recipe for permitting paralysis.

Developers: Permits Still in the "Hundreds of Days"

The Urban Development Institute's submission to the government was equally direct — and included a damning statistical anchor.

UDI members, the submission noted, are already "facing a widening range and scope of requests related to archaeological work on development sites, such as funding multiple First Nation observers for archaeological work and having to obtain archaeological permits from multiple First Nations, in addition to provincial permitting. These types of requests are substantially increasing costs and delays to projects."

Then came the number the government has not been able to answer: "If the ministry did achieve its objective to reduce HCA approval timeframes by 50 per cent, the timeframes would still be in the hundreds of days."

Hundreds of days. For a 50% improvement. In the middle of a housing crisis the NDP has spent years claiming to be solving.

UDI was unequivocal: it does not support the proposed changes moving forward at this time, citing "tremendous economic uncertainty" made worse by court decisions on private property rights and DRIPA's uncertain reach. Proceeding, it said, would deepen that uncertainty — not resolve it.

The "Intangible Heritage" Shell Game

The Independent Contractors and Businesses Association took on what the government presented as one of its major concessions: the removal of "intangible cultural heritage" as a defined term. The ICBA read the fine print.

"We acknowledge the removal of intangible heritage as a defined term," the ICBA wrote. "However, the paper proposes to streamline the designation process for sites of spiritual, ceremonial or other cultural value to First Nations, by shifting approval authority from the cabinet to the minister alone. Reducing the approval threshold while expanding the universe of sites that may seek designation creates the same problem as before — just with different language."

Cabinet-level approval exists for a reason: it requires collective political accountability. Moving designation authority to a single minister removes that check — while simultaneously broadening the scope of what can be designated. It is, in effect, a power consolidation dressed as a simplification.

A Government That Won't Slow Down

Premier Eby put the previous Heritage Conservation Act overhaul on hold after the UBCM convention last year. That pause was politically forced — he had no choice. This time, despite the same quality of opposition from the same organizations, the government has rejected calls for more consultation time and indicated it plans to draft a revised Act for the fall legislative session.

There is no indication the NDP will step back from its co-management approach — the framework that gives First Nations authorities shared or parallel roles in archaeological permitting and heritage site management. That framework, embedded in both DRIPA and now in the proposed Heritage Conservation Act amendments, is what concerns developers, municipalities, and businesses most: not co-management in principle, but co-management without clear rules, clear timelines, or clear accountability when the process breaks down.

The NDP's theory of change appears to be that if it moves fast enough, opposition won't be able to organize effectively before the legislation passes. The theory worked with DRIPA, briefly, until the caucus revolt forced a retreat. It worked with Bill-9, which has advanced through the legislature with barely a headline.

The Heritage Conservation Act is different. It touches every development project in BC — housing, mining, resource extraction, commercial construction. The people opposing it have lawyers, lobbyists, and a direct line to the communities that vote. The NDP is betting they can be outlasted. The feedback from this 30-day consultation suggests that bet may not pay off.

Source: Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun, April 30, 2026. Read the original: NDP's latest makeover of Heritage Conservation Act running into strong opposition