BURST
The province announced Monday it is further postponing changes to the Heritage Conservation Act that could increase Indigenous oversight over development and expand what should be protected.
Forests Minister Ravi Parmar said he “heard loud and clear” from municipalities and business owners worried the changes could increase costs and lead to delays for infrastructure projects.
Parmar said more consultation will be conducted before proposed amendments are drafted into a bill and presented to the legislature, but did not say when that will happen.
He also said there will be no new definition of what constitutes “intangible cultural values” after concerns that protection for Indigenous songs, ceremonies, food and traditions could extend archaeological assessment requirements to numerous properties. Instead the government will only use wording already in the existing version of the law.
“We heard people from the business community, their concerns and confusion around the term intangible heritage,” said Parmar.
“The direction that I provided to my team is for us to propose to instead use wording that is already in the HCA. … Hopefully that provides a little bit more comfort to industry.”
The forests minister said it has been made clear to him that the current Heritage Conservation Act, passed by a previous NDP government in the 1990s, is not working for British Columbians, pointing to issues like the years-long delay for Lytton residents to rebuild after the catastrophic 2021 wildfire.
Judith Sayers, co-chair of the working group on First Nations Heritage Conservation and president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, said the further delays are disappointing.
She said there has been plenty of misinformation around what the changes mean for development and municipalities, but hopes more consultation can clear that up.
“We’re not in any way trying to stop development. We’re just trying to protect heritage , and what is the best way about going about that,” said Sayers.
The government argues the legislation, which it intended to introduce last fall, would streamline permitting for development.
Municipalities and businesses were on board with those changes but warned the expanded definitions for heritage protections could lead to increased costs and delays on infrastructure developments such as housing, community centres, and natural resource projects like mines.
Those concerns plus a perceived lack of public consultation on the proposed changes resulted in the Heritage Conservation Act becoming a major point of contention during the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference in September.
That led Parmar to initially push the changes to this spring and promise that more consultation would be held.
The initial proposals would have been unworkable, said UBCM President Cori Ramsay.
“The proposal to expand the concept of heritage to include intangible cultural aspects like songs and stories was very problematic for our members,” said Ramsay. “This change would greatly expand the application of the legislation to more properties.”
Trevor Koot, CEO of the B.C. Real Estate Association, welcomed the further stalling of the changes and the commitment to back away from the expansion of what constitutes “intangible cultural values.”
He said that his industry is looking for certainty in a time of global upheaval and the changes would have compounded its challenges.
“We suggested the main point was to put a hard pause on the consultation, to take the time that needed to be taken, to do the full in-depth look at the unintended consequences,” said Koot.
“Anytime we’re introducing new variables that create uncertainty, it just compounds the challenges that the business community is facing.”
The problem is that successive governments and First Nations have been having conversations since 2007 about ways to change the act, and it is clear that what currently exists is deeply flawed, said Brian Thom, chair of anthropology at the University of Victoria.
Thom says the current permitting process is incredibly cumbersome and doesn’t work well in emergencies, as in places like Lytton where archaeological requirement created years-long delay for residents.
“It’s almost impossible to deal with in a rapid, urgent response, kind of way. There are multiple different kinds of permits, extremely long lags between the time you apply for permits and time you get a permit,” Thom said of the current law.
“This idea that the (act) is somehow this monster that’s brewing that’s going to take over private lands and, just like the Cowichan title decision, make private landowners not have control anymore is pretty preposterous.”