​

City of Kelowna staff are also criticizing the BC Government’s proposed amendments to the BC Heritage Act, featured in the Vancouver Sun.  Columnist Vaughn Palmer reports the changes would:

 

• Require local governments and private landowners to pay for costly Indigenous archaeological assessments before any development.

• Expand “heritage” beyond physical sites to include “intangible cultural values.”

• Impose new and greater consultation and accommodation obligations with Indigenous nations.
  
  For example, in Kelowna (2025):

  • 53 capital projects referred to a local First Nation. Of those, 52 required archaeological assessments.

  • Only one minor artifact was found, on a known archaeological site. Costs weren't provided.
     

• Additional concerns raised by Kelowna staff:

  • Some First Nations are allegedly insisting archaeological work be done by preferred, single-source contractors.

  • Greater independence was needed, stating work should not be done by First Nation-owned companies or directly appointed contractors.
     

• Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West told the Globe and Mail:

  • The BC Government's proposed amendments would require a heritage permit for nearly any ground-breaking activity, including roads, utilities, pump stations, playgrounds, and recreation centres.

  • Unlike the Cowichan court decision, these changes are provincial policy, not court-imposed.

  • He warns of severe economic impacts, slowed development, and reduced investment to the province.
     

• Homebuilder Kevin Layden (President/CEO Wesbild) advised:

  • He supports heritage protection but argues the amendments will increase complexity, delays, and costs, adding to months of existing provincial delays. Vaughn Palmer rightly asks how Premier David Eby can reconcile: broader, costlier heritage regulations while promising faster approvals for housing and development.
     

• Legal expert Tom Isaac, speaking to the Globe and Mail:

  • Says the amendments could affect every property owner, knowingly or not.

  • Warns they undermine certainty, stability, and predictability, essential for investment.

  • Criticizes expanding heritage from physical sites to intangibles like stories and spiritual connections.

  • "Prior to the amendments, if you found a midden site or a site where there was a campground, or bones, or artifacts, they’re physical. The proposed amendment apparently is to include intangibles, like stories, and spiritual connectedness to the land for Indigenous peoples. How can you possibly ask private landowners to protect stories and other spiritual connections to land on their private property?"