FAQs
On this page:
- How does intangible cultural heritage apply to the current HCA? What would be different if proposed legislative changes are enacted?
- What parts of this package will make permitting faster?
- What is a heritage management zone? How will these be developed? Who will approve them? Are they evidence-based?
- Will there be additional processes or costs for explorers as a result of this proposed package?
- What does the proposed requirement for a record of engagement entail? This seems duplicative of requirements for Notices of Work.
- What is being considered regarding delegating compliance and enforcement activities to First Nations?
- Is there capacity to do this? Within government and within First Nations?
- What stage of the process is this project at? Has the legislation been drafted? Will stakeholders have an opportunity to review draft legislation?
1. How does intangible cultural heritage apply to the current HCA? What would be different if proposed legislative changes are enacted?
Contrary to misinformation being spread, intangible cultural heritage is not a new addition to the HCA, it has been considered under the current act for decades. However, as it is not defined in the current act, this leads to a lack of certainty for all involved. We are working to bring clarity to this term.
Intangible cultural heritage can be protected under the current HCA (through an agreement with a First Nation (s.4) or a formal designation (s.9)). This requires significant process (impact analysis, engagement with affected parties, consultation with First Nations) and the approval of Cabinet.
The proposal being considered during this consultation is to add a definition of intangible cultural heritage to the HCA to explicitly acknowledge/recognize this aspect of culture. Including a definition of intangible heritage will not automatically protect more land or change the existing process/pathways to protect intangible cultural heritage. It will add clarity to the legislative interpretation.
There is consideration being given to changing the Provincial decision-making authority for these decisions from Cabinet to the minister responsible for the HCA to help streamline the process. It is not being proposed that this decision be available for delegation down from the minister.
2. What parts of this package will make permitting faster?
A core goal of this work is to speed up permitting and deliver faster decisions, as we work with partners to protect heritage. Examples of this include:
- Moving from a three-permit model to a single project-based permit, with a single intake, that supports a project from start to finish – meaning a streamlined process for proponents, First Nations and ministry staff.
- Enhanced provincial oversight for the archaeology profession and updating standards and guidelines for archaeological work to ensure that the standards and guidelines for permit application development are clear and applications are clear and complete to reduce the back and forth with ministry staff and speed up decisions.
- Enabling a regulation to modify permitting requirements in certain circumstances (for example, low impact activities) – as opposed to the current model where the permitting requirements are the same regardless of the impact level of an activity, resulting in overly onerous requirements in some cases.
- Including a proponent’s record of engagement with First Nations with an HCA permit application to ensure that provincial decision makers do not have to waste valuable time tracking down this information, and which may provide information that can streamline the Province’s consultation and decision-making processes and deliver a faster decision.
- Codifying statutory decision-making criteria to support greater transparency, consistency and durability in HCA decisions, including consideration of public interest to provide the Archaeology Branch with greater clarity for decisions and speed up decision-making
- Enabling a framework for heritage management plans as a new option in cases where it may be helpful. They could be negotiated between multiple parties, including a proponent and First Nations, and allow for considerations of heritage to be agreed upon up front within a particular area/project, providing greater certainty and potential to streamline the Province’s decision making processes
3. What is a heritage management zone? How will these be developed? Who will approve them? Are they evidence-based?
Currently, there is confusion around how site boundaries of protected heritage sites are defined and how site boundaries determine permitting requirements. It is proposed that this be clarified in legislation.
In some cases, the presence of heritage sites likely extend beyond areas with known, recorded evidence. To reduce the risk of inadvertently damaging protected heritage sites — which in turn leads to project delays — the establishment of “heritage management zones” is being proposed.
An example of a heritage management zone is shown in the picture below. The orange represents the known boundaries of protected heritage sites and the yellow represents what could be a heritage management zone. Heritage management zones would be used to denote where heritage sites are highly likely to extend.
Hypothetical example depicted on satellite imagery sourced from ESRI imagery
It is proposed that the authority to establish heritage management zones be enabled when the legislation is passed but not brought into force until regulations are developed to prescribe requirements associated with these zones (e.g. what is required to establish a heritage management zone and what requirements may come with working within them- this could include requirements to undertake archaeological work in certain circumstances). The enabling legislation has not yet been drafted. There will be more policy work and consultation and engagement done on this to inform regulations.
4. Will there be additional processes or costs for explorers as a result of this proposed package?
No. Proposed changes under the HCA will not result in net new additional processes or costs for explorers.
The HCA currently applies to Crown and private lands and automatically protects heritage and archaeological sites that meet certain criteria (e.g., burial places, sites that pre-date 1846), whether they are known or as-yet unrecorded. A heritage site cannot be altered without an HCA permit issued by the Archaeology Branch. This will not change.
Where HCA permits are required (e.g., where land altering activity is within a protected heritage site), proponents would utilize the streamlined HCA permitting process.
The mineral claim consultation framework (MCCF), administered by the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals (MCM) does not proactively require a proponent to get an archaeological impact assessment (AIA).
If concerns were raised related to heritage during consultation with First Nations on a claim application, those concerns would be consulted on based on the provincial consultation procedures. If needed, accommodations would be considered, using available accommodation tools to mitigate the potential impacts.
More information about the MCCF can be found here.
5. What does the proposed requirement for a record of engagement entail? This seems duplicative of requirements for Notices of Work.
The aim of this is to speed up permitting times by ensuring that any engagement that has been undertaken by proponents can help inform and streamline provincial consultation and decision-making. The proposal is to create a legislative requirement to submit a record of engagement conducted by proponents as part of an HCA permit application. The Province recognizes that many proponents engage with First Nations in advance of applying for a permit. This can be to provide information, to agree how the work under a permit should be conducted, the involvement of First Nations and in some cases agreeing to arrangements or other compensatory conservation work to mitigate the impacts of a development. However, the Province is not always aware of these engagements and thus lacks the ability to take account of them when processing permits, sometimes leading to a duplication of effort for ministry staff and slower permitting times.
This proposal will not require the proponent to undertake any additional consultation; the record of engagement could state that no engagement was undertaken if that was the case. Any record of engagement that a proponent completes for another permit or authorization (e.g. NOW) which addresses heritage can be used to fulfill this requirement. A permit application with a record of engagement that states that no engagement was undertaken will receive the same prioritization as a permit with a fulsome record of engagement.
This process will not replace existing consultation requirements of the Province; however, if a proponent presents a strong record of ongoing engagement with First Nations, including documenting measures taken, or agreed upon, to address concerns raised, this can serve to support and potentially streamline the Province’s consultation and decision-making on a permit. For example, where there are no new, relevant concerns raised during the Province’s consultation process, this record of engagement may allow the statutory decision maker to move more quickly to a decision.
- The HCATP will continue to work closely with colleagues at the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals to consider how any changes will interact with MCM processes
- There may be opportunities to coordinate Mines Act and HCA processes and associated consultation.
6. What is being considered regarding delegating compliance and enforcement activities to First Nations?
Any delegated enforcement activities would take place under Provincial oversight. Delegations are proposed to be formalized through an agreement or arrangement with the Province, which would outline the parameters of the delegated authorities, adherence to existing provincial policy on compliance and enforcement, and certain training and reporting requirements, to ensure consistency in administration of these tools with the Natural Resource Officer Service.
Policy work is underway to determine the scope of compliance and enforcement authorities under the HCA that could be shared or delegated to First Nations.
The Province would retain oversight and remain accountable for how delegated compliance and enforcement authorities are being exercised. The Province would reserve the right to revoke a delegation if it was not being exercised according to the arrangement. The same mechanisms to review or appeal decisions (e.g., under the Judicial Review Procedures Act) would be available.
7. Is there capacity to do this? Within government and within First Nations?
To mitigate this challenge, we are phasing the work. Some changes proposed will come into effect immediately if legislation is passed in Spring 2026 and some tools will only come into effect at a later date through regulations (e.g. heritage management zones, tiered protections, some of the requirement for data checks, etc.) to allow more time for policy development and consultation and engagement.
Development of regulations will include engagement with stakeholders and your feedback will be an important part of that.
Additionally, some of the proposed changes associated with the HCA permitting process will eliminate time-consuming and/or duplicative administrative processes for Ministry staff and First Nations, freeing up capacity for more critical work (e.g. permitting decisions).
We are aware of questions about the number of archaeologists in BC. The proposed changes are not anticipated to add additional requirements/workload to archaeologists.
8. What stage of the process is this project at? Has the legislation been drafted? Will stakeholders have an opportunity to review draft legislation?
Phase 3 of engagement concluded on November 14, 2025. This phase included broad engagement with stakeholders and consultation and cooperation with First Nations. The focus of this phase was on receiving feedback on the proposals identified to address the issues/concerns raised with the HCA in Phases 1 and 2 of engagement and consultation. The HCA needs to work better for everyone and we appreciate the feedback we have received to ensure proposed changes will accomplish that.
Three key questions we asked in engagement sessions were:
- How does the proposed policy direction support or impact your organization’s interests?
- What unintended consequences of the proposed policy direction need to be addressed?
- What kinds of guidance, education, or outreach would be needed to support implementation?
Now that engagement has concluded, all feedback received will be carefully reviewed to inform the development of a Request for Legislation (RFL) for BC government’s consideration – incorporating feedback from this consultation. If the RFL is approved, draft legislation will then be prepared.