Municipal leaders across British Columbia have delivered a stark verdict on the province's proposed overhaul of the Heritage Conservation Act, declaring the extensive changes a premature and poorly conceived rush job that threatens to inflate costs and cripple development timelines.
Extended Consultation Fails to Address Core Concerns
Despite Premier David Eby granting a six-week extension for feedback, local governments emerged from the process more concerned than ever. The Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) conducted a thorough review, which included webinars, workshops, and a detailed survey of its members. This process culminated in a comprehensive 19-page submission to the Ministry of Forests, the body overseeing the first major rewrite of the act since the 1990s.
The participation rate was significant, demonstrating the high stakes for communities. The vast majority of the chief administrative officers from B.C.'s 189 municipalities participated in the outreach. About a third provided written survey responses, nearly half attended informational webinars, and others made individual written submissions.
A Consensus of Opposition and Worry
The collective feedback, summarized in a UBCM executive summary released on November 13, 2025, revealed near-unanimous concern. Local governments reported that the provincial consultation was vague, rushed, and overly complex.
Key criticisms from the UBCM report include:
- An inability to give informed input due to limited information.
- A lack of plain-language explanations and real-world examples.
- Over 50 proposed amendments presented without clear prioritization.
The UBCM's summary was blunt, stating, "There is near unanimous concern that the proposed changes are rushed, policies are underdeveloped, and future implementation processes potentially unfunded." It concluded that the overwhelming majority of members did not support the province moving forward with the changes based on their current understanding.
Tangible Risks for Projects and Property Owners
Beyond the flawed process, municipal leaders identified concrete risks embedded in the proposed legislation. They expressed deep concerns about financial burdens and delays for both private and public projects.
The UBCM submission highlighted several potential negative outcomes, including:
- Increased administrative burdens and legal uncertainty for local governments.
- The risk of inconsistent implementation across different regions.
- Potential for negative public reaction due to impacts on private property rights.
This widespread opposition echoes the sentiment voiced at the UBCM convention in September, indicating that the extended consultation period did little to alleviate the fundamental problems identified by the municipalities who would be tasked with implementing the new rules.
