Industry and Local Government Revolt Against NDP's Heritage Conservation Act Rewrite

For the second time in two years, BC's NDP is pushing forward with sweeping Heritage Conservation Act changes — developed in secret under DRIPA's co-governance model — while every major industry and local government body says the proposals will strangle development for years.

May 3, 2026 · Source: Vancouver Sun / Vaughn Palmer

The BC NDP is barrelling ahead with another attempt to overhaul the Heritage Conservation Act — and for the second time, it is doing so over the strenuous objections of virtually every industry group, business association, and local government body in the province.

Premier Eby shelved the first version last fall after it was rejected at the annual Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) convention. On March 26, 2026, his government released a revised "technical paper" claiming to have addressed the key concerns. The response: almost nobody believes them.

What the NDP Is Proposing

The revised Heritage Conservation Act changes would expand government co-management of archaeological and cultural heritage sites with First Nations, consistent with BC's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA). The province says it will speed up permitting and reduce approval timelines by 50 per cent.

But the Urban Development Institute — whose members regularly confront these permitting requirements on development sites — dismantled that claim in its submission.

"To fully understand the scope of the problem, 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."

— Urban Development Institute (UDI) submission to the BC Government, April 2026

The UDI also described the growing burden its members face: "funding multiple First Nation observers for archaeological work and having to obtain archaeological permits from multiple First Nations, in addition to provincial permitting." Under the proposed changes, it warned, those costs and delays would only worsen.

Developed in Secret — Then Presented as a Done Deal

Perhaps the most damning critique concerns how the proposals were created. The original amendments were the product of a two-year working group composed entirely of provincial bureaucrats and Indigenous leaders — operating behind non-disclosure agreements, completely hidden from local governments and industry.

The group identified 57 areas for change and reached consensus on 53. Only then were the amendments presented to UBCM, whose delegates rightly felt confronted with a fait accompli.

"If you want to know what DRIPA means in practice," one observer told Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun, "it is on display in plain sight with the government's handling of the Heritage Conservation Act."

Who Opposed the NDP's Heritage Conservation Act Changes

UBCM (Union of BC Municipalities): "Critical issues with the approach the province is proposing" — unclear permitting processes, poorly defined roles, lack of archaeological professionals
Urban Development Institute: Approval timeframes would still be "in the hundreds of days" even after promised 50% reduction; does not support changes proceeding
Independent Contractors and Businesses Association (ICBA): Challenged government's claim it removed "intangible cultural heritage" — said it was shifted to minister approval instead
BC Business Council: Still no direct industry participation; co-development with Indigenous people continues to exclude the private sector; detailed work left to post-passage regulations with no scrutiny

The "Intangible Heritage" Shell Game

One of the most contentious provisions of the original bill was an "intangible cultural heritage" designation that critics said could apply to nearly any site anywhere in BC. The government claimed it removed this designation from the revised paper.

The ICBA wasn't fooled. "We acknowledge the removal of intangible heritage as a defined term," they 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."

In other words: the category wasn't eliminated. The bar to invoke it was lowered, and the decision handed to a single minister.

The Government's Response: Full Speed Ahead

The government gave respondents only 30 days to review the revised technical paper — rejecting requests for an extension. Minister Ravi Parmar confirmed the NDP still intends to introduce Heritage Conservation Act amendments in the fall 2026 legislative session, regardless of the feedback.

The Pattern

"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." — UBCM letter to cabinet, April 23, 2026

The BC Business Council summed up the frustration: "There should be no confidentiality obligations or requirements for non-disclosure agreements, as there are no known legal, regulatory, or contractual barriers that would restrict full document sharing."

In a housing and economic crisis, BC's construction and development sector is telling the government its new rules will make project timelines even worse. The NDP's answer? More DRIPA, more co-governance, more secrecy — and full steam ahead to the fall sitting.

Sources: Vancouver Sun / Vaughn Palmer, "NDP's latest makeover of Heritage Conservation Act running into strong opposition," May 2026. UBCM letter to cabinet, April 23, 2026. Urban Development Institute submission, April 2026. ICBA submission, April 2026. BC Business Council submission, April 2026.