B.C. cities and businesses reject secrecy around Indigenous heritage law reforms | Daily Hive

B.C. local governments and businesses reject secrecy around Indigenous heritage law reforms

David Eby (Government of B.C.)

Municipal and industry organizations in British Columbia are publicly rejecting confidentiality agreements tied to the BC NDP-led provincial government’s proposed overhaul of the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA), arguing the process lacks transparency and meaningful consultation.

A rare broad coalition formed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), Urban Development Institute (UDI), Association for Mineral Exploration (AME), Mining Association of BC, and Independent Contractors and Businesses Association (ICBA) jointly announced they will not sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) offered by provincial officials following a recent consultation period on changes to the legislation.

The groups contend the provincial government moved too quickly toward drafting legislation after consultations ended on April 23, 2026. According to the organizations, government representatives offered select stakeholders access to a “three-column document” outlining anticipated legislative amendments, but only if participants agreed not to disclose its contents.

You might also like:

The HCA governs the protection of archaeological and cultural heritage sites across British Columbia, including locations associated with pre-1846 human habitation. The law was first created in 1977 to protect heritage sites on both Crown and private lands, regardless of whether sites were known or as-yet unrecorded. As of 2025, the provincial heritage register had over 64,000 protected heritage sites, with 90 per cent of these sites being of First Nations origin.

The proposed changes to the HCA are highly controversial because they could make it much harder and more expensive to build housing, transportation and utilities infrastructure, and natural resource projects across the province. The amended legislation is meant to protect Indigenous archaeological and cultural sites, but critics say Premier David Eby’s administration is rushing major changes without properly consulting municipal and regional governments, builders, and industry groups.

Many fear the new rules could create more uncertainty around permits, land use, and construction timelines — adding to the other economic and jurisdictional uncertainties with the BC NDP’s broader approach to Indigenous reconciliation, including other strategies relating to First Nations, which are similarly secretive, and the provincial government’s approach in defending private and public land interests in Aboriginal title court cases. More recently, adding to the concerns, Eby reversed course on amending or suspending parts of B.C.’s controversial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) — a move that sides with the expressed interests of First Nations.

Opponents argue that B.C. already has some of the slowest and most expensive approval processes in Canada, and they worry these HCA reforms could add even more delays and costs at a time when the province is struggling with a housing shortage and weak investment confidence. Supporters of the changes say stronger protections are needed for Indigenous heritage sites, but business and local governments say the provincial government needs a much clearer and more transparent process before moving ahead.

In March 2026, in an attempt to address the concerns raised, the provincial government first indicated it would make changes to the proposed legislative amendments by not providing First Nations with new direct enforcement powers and expanded shared decision-making under the law. This reversal would help to uphold the provincial government’s authority, along with other changes that lack clarity and create confusion.

However, the provincial government has not yet publicly released draft legislation related to the HCA reforms.

“A significant risk to the provincial economy”

Municipal and regional governments and business organizations assert they were largely excluded from a two-year co-development process between the provincial government and First Nations representatives. They have repeatedly called for a broader working group that would include municipalities, industry, and Indigenous communities in discussions over reforms to the legislation.

“UBCM has asked the Province to bring First Nations, local governments and industry together to address the numerous shortcomings that have been identified in its most recent policy paper. Signing a non-disclosure agreement when the Province has already determined its course would only serve to silence UBCM and limit our ability to communicate with our members,” said Cori Ramsay, the president of UBCM, in a statement.

“This legislation has implications for all British Columbians, and poses a significant risk to the provincial economy. It needs to be updated based on meaningful input from local governments and businesses, and done so in a way that is completely transparent.”

The organizations also questioned whether stakeholder feedback submitted during consultations would materially influence the legislation.

“AME has serious concerns about the lack of transparency in the development and reform of this legislation. In Fall 2025 we conducted town halls across the province with our membership and we heard serious concerns. It is unclear how these plans to reform the Heritage Conservation Act would speed up the process or reduce costs for our members,” said Todd Stone, the CEO of AME and a former B.C. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

“Additionally, the recent technical paper talks about issues we have raised, but ultimately leaves a backdoor open on many of those issues. AME has rejected the NDA requirement and will continue to call for a fair, transparent process.”

“Uncertainty is the enemy of investment, and right now B.C. is manufacturing it”

Building development sector representatives warned that uncertainty surrounding heritage regulations could further discourage investment in B.C.

“The government is contemplating significant changes to the Act with virtually no consultation with the people who will be most affected. That is not how consequential legislation gets made. We agree with the Premier that the underlying DRIPA issues are real and need to be resolved, which is exactly why rushing changes to the HCA before those issues are settled is the wrong approach,” said Mike Drummond, the interim president and CEO of UDI.

“Uncertainty is the enemy of investment, and right now B.C. is manufacturing it. Builders, lenders, and investors need to know the rules before they commit capital. Before any amendments proceed, the government should commit to piloting these changes with willing partners. That is how you build confidence in consequential legislation, not by rushing it through.”

Meanwhile, the ICBA accused the BC NDP of moving toward finalized legislation before fully reviewing stakeholder input.

“Within just a few days of the consultation closing, the Ministry was already shopping a document that accompanies a formal request for legislation to Cabinet,” said Chris Gardner, the president and CEO of the ICBA.

“Nobody believes dozens of detailed submissions from local governments and business groups were read, synthesized, and reflected in a final policy in that timeframe — the decision was clearly made before consultation closed. This was not a serious or good faith engagement effort. Builders, property owners, and local governments deserve a heritage law that delivers a clear process, not a failed permitting system that’s been rebranded but not reformed.”

Mining industry leaders echoed those concerns, arguing that the proposed reforms could affect the province’s broader economic and resource development goals.

You might also like: