The head of the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) says local government officials are not satisfied with what they’ve heard so far from the B.C. government on changes to the Heritage Conservation Act.
“We’re asking the government to pause, we’re asking them to really spend a little bit more time on this,” UBCM President Cori Ramsay said, warning of “unintended consequences” if the province proceeds as planned.
The Heritage Conservation Act governs the rules landowners must abide by if archeological artifacts are found on their property. The province has introduced 53 proposed changes to the act, developed over two years in closed-door consultation with First Nations.
When these were presented to municipalities this past summer, local leaders cried foul, complaining they had not been given input. Granted more time by the province to review the changes in late September, UBCM released a list of concerns on Nov. 13.
Forest Minister Ravi Parmar, recently returned from an eight-day trade mission to Asia, said he will review a 19-page submission from UBCM and meet with local leaders to discuss their concerns.
“I believe, based off of the work that my team has been doing, there are some steps we can take to be able to resolve some of those concerns and make sure we get this right,” Parmar said on Monday (Nov. 18).
The UBCM report notes that local leaders want to fix the Heritage Conservation Act, but there is also “near unanimous concern” that the changes are being rushed.
And the “overwhelming majority” of UBCM members said they did not support moving forward with the changes based on their current understanding of them.
Ramsay highlighted unsettled issues, such as questions about who will be responsible for enforcement, the need for clarity on the impact of the new rules and how the province will find the needed archeologists to implement the changes.
UBCM wants local governments and archeologists to have a role in the development of changes, alongside the province and First Nations.
Ramsay called the changes “a real piece of reconciliation that’s being actualized,” but wants all interested parties to have input before the legislation is drafted.
Parmar says no decisions have been made yet, and the “engagement doesn’t stop” while he reviews the submissions from UBCM.
But ultimately, some of the changes, including the all-important question of what will actually be covered under the act, will be up to the province.
“That decision will rest with the minister or cabinet in terms of broadening the definition as well as looking at what could be included that’s not included today,” Parmar said.
Ramsay wants further assurances that changing the definition of what constitutes a cultural find won’t mean that property owners are suddenly faced with new restrictions.
The province has told UBCM this does not necessarily mean the act will apply to more properties.
“But that doesn’t make sense to our members because if you’re expanding the concept of heritage, doesn’t this also expand the number of properties that are being included in this?” Ramsay asks.
B.C. Conservative MLA Scott McInnis, the party’s deputy critic for Indigenous Relations, put this in the context of the broader fears of private property owners in the wake of the Cowichan Tribes land title decision.
“There’s some language in this act which would potentially infringe on people’s property moving forward,” he said. “That’s the ultimate concern I’m hearing from my constituents.”
McInnis, like the government and UBCM, wants changes made to the act — and even supports some of the proposed changes — but he also has doubts about others and wants the process paused to ensure they don’t add red tape.
“Heritage is important in this province,” he said. “But having said that, how do we balance heritage and progress with building housing and infrastructure? We have to find that balance.”