The British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act (HCA, RSBC 1996, c 187, as amended) provides the core legal framework for protecting heritage resources, including archaeological sites and human remains. This protection applies regardless of whether the land is public (Crown) or private, and whether the site is previously known/recorded or discovered accidentally (a “chance find”). Several key provisions directly relate to incidents like the Kamloops skull discovery, where human remains trigger immediate work stoppage, mandatory notifications, expert assessments, Indigenous consultation, and strict permitting requirements—often leading to significant delays and costs for landowners.
Automatic Protections for Archaeological Sites and Human Remains
The Act’s heritage protection section (primarily section 12.1) prohibits unauthorized interference with protected sites. Key subsections include:
- Section 12.1(2)(b): No person may “damage, desecrate or alter a burial place that has historical or archaeological value or remove human remains or any heritage object from a burial place that has historical or archaeological value,” except as authorized by a permit or order.
- Section 12.1(2)(d): Prohibits damaging, excavating, digging in or altering, or removing any heritage object from, a site containing artifacts, features, materials, or other physical evidence of human habitation or use before 1846.
- Section 12.1(2)(f): Extends similar prohibitions to archaeological sites (even if not pre-1846) for which identification standards have been established by regulation.
These protections are automatic and apply province-wide, including on private property. Human remains (intact burials, fragmentary bones, or disturbed) are explicitly safeguarded if they have historical/archaeological value, often presumed to be Indigenous in many contexts due to the province’s history.
Permit Requirements and Alteration Process
Any alteration, investigation, or removal requires provincial approval:
- Section 12.4 allows the Minister (or delegated Archaeology Branch) to issue alteration permits for actions that would otherwise violate section 12.1(2). Permits can include conditions like time limits, required consultations, reports, or mitigation measures.
- Section 12.2 covers heritage inspection/investigation permits (e.g., for archaeological assessments).
- Applications must provide detailed information, and the Minister may refuse if the action risks compromising heritage value or if more investigation is needed.
In practice, as outlined in provincial guidelines and chance find procedures:
- Work must cease immediately upon discovery.
- The Archaeology Branch and potentially the RCMP/coroners are notified.
- If remains are deemed archaeological, consultation with local First Nations occurs (minimum 30-day referral period for permit applications, often longer).
- A professional archaeologist (hired privately by the proponent/landowner) typically conducts assessments, with costs borne by the applicant—no provincial fees for permits, but expenses for experts, legal fees, and delays can be substantial.
First Nations Involvement
The Act includes mechanisms for Indigenous rights and reconciliation:
- Section 4 enables agreements with First Nations for conservation of sites/objects of cultural value, including scheduling spiritually/ceremonially significant sites (protected under section 12.1(2)(h)) and requiring consultation/consent in permits (section 12.5(1)(b)).
- Section 12.1(4) requires consultation with affected First Nations before defining or exempting site boundaries.
- The Act does not abrogate Aboriginal or treaty rights (section 8).
These provisions ensure meaningful First Nations roles in decisions about potential ancestral remains or sacred sites, aligning with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).
Proposed Amendments Context
Current debates (with amendments delayed as of January 19, 2026) focus on modernizing the Act to better incorporate intangible heritage (e.g., spiritual/cultural values without physical evidence) and strengthen First Nations decision-making/consent-based processes. This could expand protections but heighten permitting complexity for private landowners in chance find scenarios.
In summary, the HCA’s automatic, broad protections for human remains and archaeological sites—coupled with mandatory permits, expert involvement, and First Nations consultation—create a robust but often burdensome system. This directly explains why discoveries like the Kamloops skulls can halt development indefinitely, impose high private costs, and require extensive processes, even on private land with conflicting evidence about site origins. These rules prioritize cultural preservation and reconciliation but highlight the tensions fueling calls for balanced reforms.