Become a Member

Request for Member Feedback – Heritage Conservation Act Technical Policy Paper

Back to All News

Background

As a part of the DRIPA action plan (2022) the BC government committed to align the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) with the UN Declaration on Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples by Spring 2026. This plan stalled and legislation was put on pause in January 2026 after significant industry and municipal government backlash.  

AME has been a key advocate for industry in both pushing back to create more time to consult and in the technical critique of the reforms. AME also conducted a Fall tour of the province where we sought member feedback through six town halls on the HCA changes. In our letter from October 2025, AME suggested three principles: 

  1. Final authority must rest with the province
  2. Science and facts are foundational
  3. Enforcements must remain the sole responsibility of the province

Update

On March 26, 2025, unprompted and in the midst of confusion of substantial DRIPA amendments, the Ministry of Forests published a Technical Policy Paper that integrates some key industry feedback. The paper appears to have named several key items from our advocacy and explicitly removed them, specifically:

  1. Intangible Heritage 
  2. Heritage Management Zones (HMZ) 
  3. Consent-Seeking Language
  4. Enforcement Delegation to Nations
  5. Mandatory Disclosure of Records of Engagement 

However, the document leaves several of these items open-ended through government-to-government agreements that currently take place outside of public view. AME is concerned that the new path will create a patchwork regulatory environment which works against providing consistency and predictability for proponents.

Ongoing Issues

  • Intangible heritage – 4.1 removes the words “intangible heritage,” “cultural landscapes,” or “mortuary landscapes,” but goes onto say that definitions may be rewritten. Government must ensure that the rewriting of definitions will not expand the scope of what is protected under the HCA. Broader cultural concepts such as oral histories, language, and traditional knowledge are proposed to be reflected as “cultural practices” and be eligible for recognition under the HCA. While the Technical Paper states that this will not result in land-based protection and that the recognition tool “would not protect land or pose any obligations on any party,” the practical scope of “cultural practices” is undefined. Further, the Technical Paper notes that “definitions in the HCA may be re-written,” which introduces material uncertainty as to the final legislative text.
  • Consent-seeking – The document changes the language from “consent-seeking” to “consultation and co-operation” in alignment with section 35 of the constitution which appears to be a major win. However, it goes on to declare that First Nations’ inherent right to self-determination, including self-government, recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes jurisdiction/law-making authority/responsibility in relation to the protection, management, and development of their heritage”. If the document is meant to recognize some jurisdiction, law-making authority, or responsibility – Forestry must expressly lay out what they mean, or it will be determined by the Courts. The document also leaves the door open for consent-making decisions under section 6&7 agreements and is vague about operational agreements and jurisdictional agreements that could be signed.
  • Enforcement delegation – 4.15 – explicitly details what enforcement from nations could look like, should side deals be signed. Additionally, there is no explicit confirmation that Guardians programs and similar initiatives will not function as de facto enforcement, and that enforcement authority will remain exclusively with provincial officers.
  • Public Interest – The inclusion of “public interest” as a statutory decision-making criterion is positive and is notably absent from the current HCA. However, the document frames the public interest not as the overarching objective, but as one of four alphabetically ordered criteria with no indicated hierarchy or weighting.

While AME is appreciative of changes that completely remove Heritage Management Zones (HMZ), and mandatory disclosure of records of engagement, the document still leaves many questions to be answered. At the present time it remains inconsistent with the principles that we set out in the Fall and more detail is required.

Additional concerns will be outlined in our final submission and AME will continue to call for consultation on draft legislative language as this process proceeds.

Member Feedback

AME is seeking member feedback to inform our submission to government about the technical paper.

We want to hear from you. Please send feedback to [email protected].

Or RSVP for a virtual information session on the HCA on Tuesday, April 21, 12 PM – 1 PM. This session will provide an overview of the proposed changes, and an open discussion about what it might mean for our members. Your feedback is important for our formal submission due at the end of the month.

Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2026

Time: 12 PM – 1 PM

Location: Online – calendar invite with link will be sent after RSVP.

RSVP Now