When Property Rights Become a Risk Factor

British Columbia is entering a period of escalating economic uncertainty driven by legislative changes that appear administrative on the surface but carry deep structural consequences. The proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act would enable Indigenous authorities to halt construction or land transactions based on claims of intangible cultural heritage, which encompasses cultural traditions, stories, or memories that do not require physical evidence, scientific validation, archival support, or archaeological confirmation. A remembered story or generational oral account could be enough to freeze a project.

This article draws on themes highlighted in the Rumble video titled “BC Is F*cked. New ‘Heritage Conservation Act’ Additions to Paralyze Property Owners,” which brought public attention to emerging concerns surrounding these amendments. The video can also be viewed on X in the post titled “BC’s ‘Heritage Conservation Act’ Will Paralyze Property Owners and Businesses Even More, NDP Strikes Again!” and on Facebook in the video titled “Shocking Additions Being Made to BC, Canada’s ‘Heritage Conservation Act’ to Paralyze Property Owners, Businesses, and Land Developers.”

The concerns raised in these videos mirror what many investors, developers, and municipalities have been warning about privately for years. 

This shift introduces a new level of unpredictability into provincial land management. Developments of every size, from housing builds to industrial expansions and municipal infrastructure, could be stalled for reasons that cannot be verified or assessed through objective standards. Investors rely on clarity of process and enforceable rules. When a claim without material proof can halt a project indefinitely, confidence disappears.

British Columbia’s economic foundation depends on a permitting system that was already strained before these amendments were drafted. Archaeological assessments and related permitting processes in many parts of British Columbia span several months and, in some cases, more than a year, before construction can begin. Builders who are already grappling with elevated financing costs and labour shortages face an administrative environment that cannot move at the pace required to keep projects viable. The new intangible heritage framework adds another layer of uncertainty to a process that is already slow, inconsistent, and overwhelmed.

The result is a growing loss of confidence in the rule of law. Investors can withstand regulatory complexity, but they cannot accept unpredictability. Once the connection between proof and authority is broken, the foundation of private property rights begins to erode. This is the environment now taking shape in British Columbia.

👉 Subscribe to The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ and receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, along with our white paper, Last Asset Standing™ and early updates on our forthcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

British Columbia has long depended on a combination of land development, infrastructure expansion, resource extraction, and external capital investment. When a jurisdiction introduces legislation that allows projects to be halted by undefined criteria, economic risk compounds across every economic sector. Construction timelines extend. Insurance underwriting becomes more difficult. Borrowing costs increase as lenders price in higher regional risk. Municipalities delay issuing permits out of fear that projects will be overturned midstream.

The Union of BC Municipalities, representing local governments across the province, has raised significant concerns. They were not meaningfully consulted during the two years in which the Act was drafted. Many municipal leaders learned of the scope of the amendments only as the legislation approached finalization. Some municipalities were required to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from informing their own councils or communities. Others found their questions unanswered until key decisions had already been made.

Submissions from across British Columbia’s business community reinforce these concerns. A widely circulated thread shows that industry groups, developers, and local organizations are unanimous in warning that the proposed amendments will be a disaster for the province. Reference: Caroline Elliott, X (Thread).

This created a climate of distrust around the legislative process itself. Local governments that must implement the Act and manage the consequences were effectively excluded from shaping it. As a result, the municipalities responsible for issuing permits, administering development, and maintaining infrastructure now face a framework they had minimal opportunity to influence.

The provincial government argues that the amendments will speed up the permitting process by providing a clearer path for engaging with First Nations. In practice, the opposite is occurring. Developers now face two parallel approval systems requiring both provincial and Indigenous approval for the same project, with overlapping and at times competing authority. Either system can introduce delays or halt progress entirely. The vague language surrounding intangible heritage claims raises the possibility of injunctions, court orders that temporarily halt a project, potentially interrupting construction at any stage, without providing compensation or a defined timeline for resolution.

The administrative reality is equally concerning. British Columbia is operating under one of the most severe budget deficits in its history. Ministries have been instructed to reduce spending, not expand it. The Heritage Branch is already understaffed and struggling to complete assessments within existing deadlines. Adding new responsibilities that require specialized expertise and investigative capacity will stretch the system further and slow it down even more. Investors, lenders, and developers understand this dynamic. Their modelling of financial projections used to assess project risk now reflects longer delays, higher risk, and additional cost burden.

Capital reacts to uncertainty. International investors who once viewed British Columbia as a stable and predictable market are beginning to redirect capital to jurisdictions with clearer legal frameworks. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and several U.S. states are already seeing increased inquiries from Canadian and foreign investors seeking alternatives. As confidence declines, capital leaves first, a process known as capital flight, when investors move money to safer regions. Labour and economic activity follow.

Real estate, construction, and natural resources collectively form more than a quarter of British Columbia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to Statistics Canada. These sectors are highly sensitive to permitting processes and regulatory delays. When administrative systems slow down or become unpredictable, economic output contracts. Jobs disappear. Municipal revenues decline. Consumer confidence weakens.

The introduction of intangible heritage claims is especially destabilizing because it replaces evidence-based standards with subjective interpretation. An Indigenous community does not need to present archaeological findings to assert cultural significance. Oral accounts or generational memory alone can be used to justify intervention. While an ancestral connection to land should be respected, this approach creates an environment in which material validation is no longer required to stop a project.

Developers can appeal decisions, but the appeal process itself carries uncertainty, cost, and delay. Even when a project eventually proceeds, the financial damage caused by extended timelines often cannot be recouped. In real estate development, time is cost, and cost determines viability. If a project becomes delayed long enough, the financing model collapses.

British Columbia continues to face some of the longest housing approval timelines in Canada, particularly for large-scale projects, despite recent permitting improvements in certain municipalities. Industry stakeholders report that large-scale project approvals in many British Columbia municipalities often exceed eighteen months, significantly longer than in jurisdictions such as Alberta. The new amendments could double these timelines again, creating conditions in which many projects become financially impossible.

The province’s housing demand continues to rise, but the regulatory structure is moving in the opposite direction. Developers are cancelling projects, laying off staff, and exiting the market altogether. Families face higher housing costs, reduced supply, and greater financial pressure. Businesses face the risk that new facilities, warehouses, or expansions will be delayed or cancelled due to untestable claims. The entire economic system moves toward stasis when uncertainty becomes the governing variable.

These structural delays are not temporary administrative issues. They form the early stages of a deeper economic shift now emerging across the province.

Capital Flight and the Emerging No-Growth Strategy

When development is restricted under the banner of cultural protection, economic output declines. The intention behind the Heritage Conservation Act may be reconciliation, but the operational effect is contraction. British Columbia’s alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), implemented provincially through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), introduces a requirement for Indigenous consent on resource use, meaning communities must formally approve projects before they proceed. While this is morally principled, the practical consequence in British Columbia is significant because Indigenous land claims cover the entire province.

Municipalities are aware of the economic implications. The Union of BC Municipalities has urged the provincial government to pause implementation until full consultation occurs. Local leaders understand that if land cannot be developed, capital will leave. They also understand that capital flight is not a temporary reaction. Once investment departs, it rarely returns in the same volume.

Concerns about the consultation process extend beyond the issue of timing. Surveys distributed to municipalities and other stakeholders appeared to be structured in ways that produced preselected outcomes. Key questions were framed in narrow ways that limited responses. Important areas of concern, such as municipal liability and taxation authority, were absent from consultation documents. This created an impression of broad support where significant and well-articulated objections actually existed.

The consequences of capital flight are predictable. When developers withdraw, local tax bases shrink. Infrastructure budgets become strained. Job losses increase. Even Indigenous communities that depend on revenue-sharing agreements that provide Indigenous communities with a portion of project revenues tied to resource development face reduced income as projects slow down or stop altogether. A no-growth policy may be marketed as progress, but its financial effects spread across the entire population.

British Columbia is not operating in isolation. Across the Western world, governments are experimenting with governance frameworks that centralize land use authority, restrict private autonomy, and elevate collective or supranational regulatory structures. The European Union’s Green Deal has imposed severe restrictions on agricultural land use. Australia’s proposed Indigenous Voice reforms would have granted regional councils significant influence over development decisions. The United Kingdom is debating heritage and environmental mandates that could limit private property use.

These policies share a common structure. Private ownership becomes conditional. Regulatory authority becomes more centralized. Land use decisions shift from individual control to collective or ideological oversight. These changes are often framed as social progress. The economic result is lower productivity, declining investment, and weaker property-based security.

For Canada, the economic repercussions of British Columbia’s experiment extend beyond provincial borders. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and several U.S. states are actively positioning themselves as alternatives for capital displaced by British Columbia’s uncertainty. Investors follow stability, and employers follow investors. The migration of skilled labour from high-regulation regions to jurisdictions with clearer property rights is already accelerating.

The larger concern is that the Western Allies share an economic dependency on secure property law. Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Australia rely on predictable legal frameworks to support lending, construction, investment, and long-term planning. When property rights weaken in one jurisdiction, international markets adjust their models for the entire region. If British Columbia establishes a precedent that uncertainty can be introduced without economic consequence, other governments may follow, and global markets will respond.

Investors now face a complex dilemma created not by market forces but by an uncertain legal framework. The language of reconciliation appeals to public conscience, yet the practical implications undermine the very prosperity required to support it. If private property can be frozen, delayed, or redefined without objective criteria or compensation, the foundational assumptions behind modern investment no longer apply.

Insurance companies cannot price the risk of intangible heritage claims. Lending institutions cannot model timelines when any project could face indefinite delays. Developers cannot structure financing if permitting can shift unpredictably based on subjective interpretation. Bond analysts have already started exploring regional risk differentials that could place British Columbia in a higher cost-of-capital category, meaning lenders will charge more to borrow money.

This uncertainty is intensified by the centralization of decision-making power within a single ministry. The ability of one minister to issue operational directives that change land use conditions introduces a type of administrative unpredictability that financial institutions cannot easily hedge. A single directive could alter development obligations, timelines, or compliance requirements in ways that invalidate existing business models.

Such unpredictability does not remain localized. When a province’s legal framework is perceived as unstable, international credit agencies adjust their outlooks for the entire nation. Canada’s borrowing costs could rise even if other provinces maintain stable land use systems. During the 2008 financial crisis, national borrowing costs rose due to financial market failures. This time, the trigger could be legal uncertainty originating from land policy rather than economic mismanagement.

Investors must therefore recognize that the risks emerging from British Columbia are not abstract. They directly affect project financing, municipal operations, and long-term regional stability. The question is no longer whether policy changes will impact investment but how quickly the economic effects will spread.

Municipal governments throughout British Columbia are sounding alarms that have not been fully acknowledged by the provincial leadership. The City of Richmond, now navigating uncertainty following the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title case, a ruling that recognizes long-term Indigenous ownership rights over specific lands, faces fundamental questions with no established legal answers. If flood dikes fall within overlapping land claims, who owns the infrastructure? Who is responsible for maintenance? Who is liable if the structure fails and properties are damaged?

These questions strike at the core of municipal governance. Property taxes fund essential services, yet land ownership disputes could undermine that revenue. Municipalities cannot plan budgets or maintain infrastructure when authority is unclear.

Local governments consistently report that they were brought into the discussion only after major decisions had already been made. Several municipalities signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from sharing information with their councils, planners, engineers, or residents. As a result, staff responsible for permitting and legal compliance were unable to prepare for the implications of the amendments before they were finalized.

A detailed letter submitted by the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association reinforces these concerns. The organization, representing more than 4,500 construction firms across the province, warned the government that the Heritage Branch is already operating at the breaking point, with Archaeological Impact Assessments often taking up to a year to complete. The letter states that introducing new obligations, including the regulation of intangible heritage and expanded enforcement powers, will add significant delays, increase project cancellations, and further strain a system that is already unable to meet existing demand. ICBA Letter to Minister Parmar on HCA Amendments (Sept. 10, 2025).

This exclusion has created significant institutional strain. Planners do not know whether they can issue certain types of permits. Legal departments cannot assess liability without clear definitions of authority. Engineering teams cannot plan infrastructure upgrades when ownership of the land is uncertain. Municipalities are not resisting reconciliation. They are attempting to maintain operational stability in the face of legislative changes that dramatically affect their responsibilities. 

These challenges highlight the economic consequences that extend far beyond development. When municipal operations become uncertain, every family and business in the region is affected. Infrastructure delays increase risk. Maintenance backlogs grow. Tax revenues fluctuate. Without clear jurisdictional authority, local governments cannot fulfill the basic functions that support a stable economy.

Foreign capital evaluates risk without sentiment. For decades, British Columbia has been viewed as a secure jurisdiction with a strong legal framework and high demand for real estate. Its geography and global reputation attracted billions in investment from Asia, Europe, and the United States. Now, international investors are re-evaluating their exposure.

Institutional analysts at Fitch Ratings and J.P. Morgan Private Bank have expressed concerns that regulatory instability in British Columbia is beginning to influence their assessments of Canadian markets more broadly. Pension funds and global developers that once considered Vancouver a long-term anchor investment have begun diversifying toward Alberta, Ontario, and several U.S. states where land use authority is clearer.

British Columbia’s government has not acknowledged the scale of capital redirection already underway. By prioritizing ideological alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) over legal clarity and predictable governance, the province is signalling that property rights may be negotiable. This perception can have permanent consequences. Once global funds adjust their models and redirect investment, they rarely return unless conditions improve dramatically.

The shift in perception is particularly damaging because real estate development and resource extraction require long planning horizons and multi-year timelines before projects generate returns. Investors need confidence that projects initiated today will remain viable for years to come. When policy signals uncertainty, investment strategies change. The economic effects may not be immediately visible to the public, but they accumulate quietly until they reshape the investment landscape.

The consequences of British Columbia’s policy experiment extend into international markets because Canada often serves as a regulatory benchmark for other Western nations. The United States and Australia monitor Canadian land use policy closely, particularly regarding Indigenous rights and environmental regulation. European countries, especially those within the European Union, regularly reference Canadian precedents when debating heritage protection and land use mandates.

If British Columbia’s amendments result in administrative paralysis, a situation where government systems become too slow or uncertain to function, or declining investment, it will serve as a warning that similar policies may introduce economic harm elsewhere. The Western Allies cannot afford to weaken land use autonomy at a time when global competition for capital has intensified. Countries such as China, India, and several Southeast Asian nations are expanding property-based development rapidly. Western jurisdictions that impose unpredictability or ideological restrictions risk falling behind as capital flows to more stable environments.

The broader irony is that policies promoted as protective may ultimately harm the very communities they aim to support. When economic activity slows, job opportunities shrink, tax revenues decline, and public services weaken. Communities that rely on revenue-sharing arrangements tied to natural resources or development may see their income decline as projects are delayed or cancelled. Social outcomes worsen when economic engines stall.

The lesson is clear. Reconciliation requires prosperity, and prosperity requires predictable land management. If uncertainty becomes the governing principle, economic decline follows.

Economic crises rarely arrive all at once. They develop gradually, through a sequence of administrative decisions, reduced investment, and weakening confidence. British Columbia’s Heritage Conservation Act amendments risk initiating this type of slow economic suffocation.

If implemented as written, the amendments will create conditions in which property transactions stall, valuations decline, and development firms retreat. Municipalities will struggle to fund essential infrastructure. Businesses will hesitate to expand. Families will face fewer housing options and rising costs.

Developers are reporting an increase in insolvencies, layoffs, and project cancellations due to the existing regulatory burden. Adding a new layer of subjective criteria increases the likelihood that more companies will exit the market. Housing affordability will deteriorate as supply continues to fall behind demand. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation warns that British Columbia must sharply increase housing completions through 2030 to restore affordability. The current policy direction is moving in the opposite direction, creating a widening gap between demand and supply.

When land is no longer a stable store of value, the impact extends throughout the financial system. Mortgage markets weaken. Pension funds reassess risk. Municipal bonds become more vulnerable. The slow erosion of confidence has the potential to reshape the province’s economic future for decades.

Investors cannot control government policy, but they can control the structure of their portfolios. British Columbia’s experience demonstrates a broader truth about modern markets. When governments gain the ability to redefine property rights or impose new obligations without objective standards, the safest strategy is to shift toward assets that exist outside political systems.

Investors must now ask themselves how much of their wealth depends on government permissions. How much is vulnerable to regulatory intervention? How much can be taxed, frozen, delayed, or reinterpreted under new frameworks?

Those who take action can protect their capital. Those who remain passive may discover that their financial security was built on assumptions that no longer hold.

Periods of instability require investors to think structurally rather than reactively. A resilient financial strategy places the most secure assets at the foundation and builds outward toward assets with higher volatility and greater regulatory exposure. British Columbia’s trajectory demonstrates the importance of prioritizing certainty in wealth planning.

A modern defensive strategy must balance tangibility, diversification, and autonomy. This means emphasizing assets that can withstand regulatory shocks, political shifts, and economic volatility. It also means reducing reliance on systems that can be influenced or interrupted by administrative decisions.

This is where a structured, multi-pillar approach to wealth becomes essential.

At our firm, we help clients structure their wealth by following the principle of Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security. This approach prioritizes stability by placing the most secure, tangible assets at the foundation and shielding those that are most vulnerable. The strategy is built on four essential pillars, each serving a distinct purpose in long-term financial protection.

1. Gold and precious metals that hold real, tangible value. These assets have preserved purchasing power through centuries of political instability, war, and financial upheaval. They exist independently of digital systems and retain value regardless of market sentiment.
2. Alternative investments that reduce systemic risk. Private market opportunities can provide income stability, diversification, and insulation from the volatility that affects public equities and traditional financial instruments.
3. Private portfolio management that lowers counterparty exposure. Professional discretionary management enhances risk oversight and reduces reliance on structures vulnerable to institutional failures or market shocks.
4. Mutual life insurance instruments that protect capital and individuals. These instruments are owned and controlled by the policy owners, not outside shareholders. They support business continuity, estate planning, and long-term capital preservation by providing stability during personal or corporate risk events.

In “It Starts With Gold,” we show how these four pillars operate as a unified system designed to safeguard wealth during periods of economic and political instability. Each pillar has a specific role. Precious metals stabilize purchasing power. Alternative investments broaden the foundation of income and growth. Private portfolio management strengthens oversight and strategic coherence. Mutual life insurance adds long-term protection for families and business owners. Together, these elements form a comprehensive framework that helps investors remain secure even when economic conditions deteriorate or policy environments become unpredictable.

👉Book your complimentary review to learn how to structure your wealth around the principles of Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security.

Stay informed. Stay prepared. Act while choice still exists.

The themes in this article are directly connected to the insights explored in “It Starts With Gold,” co-authored by Peter J. Merrick, TEP, and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP. Within the book, we outline how to establish a solid foundation of tangible assets, assess security across various asset classes, and safeguard your wealth against systemic shocks while maintaining long-term autonomy. Visit www.ItStartsWithGold.com.

👉 Sign up today for The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ to receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, our white paper, Last Asset Standing™, and early updates on our upcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

Prefer a hard copy? Order It Starts With Gold™ on Amazon today.

1. Orlewicz, Odessa. “BC Is F*cked. New ‘Heritage Conservation Act’ Additions to Paralyze Property Owners.”* Rumble, 2025
2. Orlewicz, Odessa. “BC’s ‘Heritage Conservation Act’ Will Paralyze Property Owners and Businesses Even More, NDP Strikes Again!” X (Twitter), 2025 
3. Orlewicz, Odessa. “Shocking Additions Being Made to BC, Canada’s ‘Heritage Conservation Act’ to Paralyze Property Owners, Businesses, and Land Developers.” Facebook, 2025 
4. ICBA Letter to Minister Parmar on HCA Amendments (Sept. 10, 2025)
5. Elliott, Caroline. “BC Business Community Submissions on HCA Amendments.” X (Twitter) Thread, 2025 
6. Government of British Columbia. Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project. 2025
7. Union of BC Municipalities. Response to Heritage Act Consultation. October 2025
8. Vaughn Palmer. Vancouver Sun. “Heritage Act Changes to Have Sweeping Effect on Land Development in BC.” October 2025
9. Statistics Canada. British Columbia GDP by Industry. September 2025
10. Fitch Ratings. Provincial Regulatory Risk Outlook. November 2025
11. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Housing Market Insight: Appraisal Practices and Systemic Risk. July 2025
12. J.P. Morgan Private Bank. Regional Investment Risk Report. October 2025

This publication is for general information and educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide financial, legal, tax, or investment advice, nor should it be interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any financial product, security, or real estate. The views expressed reflect general opinions based on publicly available information at the time of writing and may change as market conditions, legislation, or economic circumstances evolve.

Readers should not act on the information in this article without first seeking advice from a qualified professional who can assess their individual circumstances. All investments involve risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance does not guarantee future results, and changes in government policy, regulatory frameworks, and economic conditions can materially affect outcomes.

The authors provide professional services through their respective regulated affiliations, and the content presented here is not specific advice to any individual or entity. No guarantee is made regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. For guidance tailored to your personal financial situation, please consult a licensed financial advisor, tax specialist, or legal professional.