What changes are proposed to BC's Heritage Conservation Act?

The Province's own summary of what it heard is one sentence: "Engagement to date has been clear: the current HCA is not working well for anyone."¹

Read everything below as intent. The paper repeats, in each section, that "all policy proposals outlined in this section are subject to final decision from the Province."¹ Amendments are anticipated in the fall 2026 legislative session, and until a bill is tabled none of this is law.

The four stated goals

Government says it hopes to:¹

1. Make permitting faster and easier;
2. Help people and communities rebuild quicker after disasters such as wildfires and floods;
3. Protect heritage more effectively, reducing the risk of accidental damage to sacred or other significant sites; and
4. Strengthen the role of First Nations in decision-making about their own heritage and ancestors, in alignment with the Declaration Act.

The second is unusual in a heritage statute, and it is why this file matters to anyone rebuilding.

Three permits become one

Today a single project can need Heritage Inspection, Heritage Investigation and Alteration permits in sequence. The paper proposes replacing all three with "a single project-based permit model", with permits that are "modular, providing flexibility through the permit process to align with development phases", and simultaneous authorizations to support project continuity.¹

Three further permit types are proposed alongside it: a conservation and research permit, which B.C. First Nations knowledge holders and university researchers could hold and lead; a multi-project permit framework codifying the existing Notice of Intent process; and a disaster response and recovery permit.¹

The change a homeowner would feel

Under a proposed regulation-making authority for modified permitting requirements:¹

If rebuilding a house on the same footprint or on imported fill atop a heritage site, no archaeological assessment work would be required and an HCA permit would have simplified requirements

The worked example says a proponent could proceed by filling out a form. The same relief is repeated under the disaster-recovery proposals. This is covered in full on its own page, including why it will not take effect when the Act does.

A registry of archaeologists

The paper proposes a framework to regulate the sector, which "may include" a public-facing registry of qualified archaeologists, registrant categories defining which activities each may undertake, professional standards and standards of conduct, continuing professional development requirements, a formal compliance framework covering complaints, auditing and remedial actions, and recognition of equivalent knowledge and experience held by First Nations.¹ The stated example is a residential developer selecting an archaeologist directly from the register with confidence they meet provincial standards.

Two things are worth noting about what is not in that list. Charging fees to registered archaeologists was proposed in the earlier 2025 Session Primer and does not appear in the paper's updated proposals. The paper does not say it was dropped, so read it as absent from the current list rather than as ruled out. And the framework itself is subject to the same sequencing as the rest: "The authority to make regulations to regulate the profession is proposed to be in legislation. There will be more engagement before regulations are developed."¹ Legislation first, registry later.

One new obligation, pointing the other way

Not everything reduces requirements. The Province proposes to require local governments and subdivision approval officers to see proof of an archaeological data check before issuing development and building-related permits or subdivision approvals.¹ Feedback was broadly supportive, with real estate industry opposition to mandatory checks at point of sale.¹

How to read the paper without misquoting it

Each proposal in the document has two layers, and mixing them is easy. A block headed "What was proposed in the Phase 3 Session Primer" reproduces wording from the earlier 2025 primer. The block beneath it, "Further details on the proposals", is the current position, and it opens "Based on feedback received from Phase 3 engagement and further analysis, the following policy changes are proposed". The paper says so itself in its preamble.¹

The earlier block is quotable and specific, which is exactly what makes it misleading: it reads as authoritative while describing a superseded document. Everything on this page is taken from the current block, except where it says otherwise.

Five proposals that have been withdrawn

Worth knowing if you are reading 2025 material, because these are all out:¹

The consent-seeking withdrawal is the one most likely to be misread. Removing the language does not remove the constitutional duty: the paper says the intent was to reflect existing consultation requirements under section 35 rather than create a new obligation, and that the Province "will continue to use existing processes to fulfill the Province's constitutional duty to consult."¹