Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Environment and Parks
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $162,410,000 (continued).

Trevor Halford: I want to thank the minister and the minister’s staff for engaging today.

I just wanted to talk about public reporting and consultation. There are a few kind of outstanding plans. I understand that some of them may have shifted ministries. We just want to get an update on the status of those individual plans. If they have shifted ministries, then we can defer some of those questions to the respective ministries.

This one I don’t think would have: the B.C. Parks future strategy. Get an update on that plan and then an update of the climate adaptation strategy — those are the first two to start.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

For the B.C. Parks future strategy, this was a product of the previous government. I can confirm, since 2017, we have invested in maintenance uplifts, continued in recreation expansion programs and also have made a commitment to inclusion. For the climate adaptation strategy, that is an across-government strategy which is being led by the Environment and Climate Solutions ministry.

Trevor Halford: Sorry, did the minister want to follow up on that again just before I ask my next question?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Yeah, sorry. That was Energy and Climate Solutions Ministry.

Trevor Halford: Just on the B.C. Parks future, I may have just missed that. What is the current status of that report?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

For the B.C. Parks strategy, the current status of that, it was a one-time strategy that has helped inform us of ongoing initiatives that we are continuing today. We don’t anticipate developing another strategy.

[2:50 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I just want to switch back to the EAO, and I want to talk about compliance.

Not sure if staff need to change out for a second there. I’ll continue on that.

In the service plan, previously we’ve talked about targets and compliance targets. In terms of the EAO and the targets that have been set out, can the minister list the targets that have not been met that have been listed by this ministry?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We’ve looked through the service plan. We don’t have any targets that are directly in the service plan, but we do have a number of strategies that are in the service plan related to compliance oversight under objective 3.2. For example, last year we did do approximately 50 inspections on project specific compliance.

Trevor Halford: That kind of alludes to my point that if we’re not able to have specific targets when it comes to compliance, we’ve now…. Yesterday we came to the conclusion that we’ve seen a reduction in staff at the EAO. Prior to that, we had 118 FTEs. Today, as of right now, there are 111 FTEs.

My question to the minister: is that going to result in lower inspections, on-site inspections? Is it going to be a diminishment of targets in terms of compliance? And forecast that on to the fact that we now have wind farms that are having to forgo or getting to forgo an EAO process. Is that a result of the lower staff as well? Is that how the ministry is justifying having a lower FTE count at the EAO, because now wind farms are exempted from the process?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

As I stated yesterday, the funding that we have received for the EAO has increased year over year. We have been already working closely with the other ministries to look for efficiencies in permitting but also looking at different areas where we can streamline processes.

[3:00 p.m.]

Inspections have not diminished. They do fluctuate year over year, due to the complexity of each project. There has been no change in the compliance staff from last year and we also don’t anticipate the staffing to change for this year.

Trevor Halford: Can the minister give an update of where PRGT is in the EAO process as of right now?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

The environmental assessment office will soon be reviewing their reports about the substantial start, at which point it will then be referred to the decision-maker for a decision.

Trevor Halford: My information…. I think that was put forward by the proponent, TC Energy, around either middle or end of October, so we’re a few months into that. I know previous…. I think there was a mine where there was a definition of substantial start, and that was done.

I guess there’s not a legislative time frame in terms of when that decision is going to be made. I understand there’s not a true definition of substantial start. I am assuming that that is kind of a project-by-project basis, but I assume there’s probably a policy in terms of what substantial start is.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, I’d ask that you be respectful of the other members trying to ask questions. Thank you.

Continue.

Trevor Halford: With that, and then in terms of substantial start, what criteria is being met for that specific project? Right? We’re talking about a multi-billion-dollar project at a time we’re talking about trying to promote our own…. In this case, it would be natural gas coming in. Obviously, there’s First Nations support. I’m sure there’s some First Nations opposition to that as well.

[3:05 p.m.]

In terms of that criteria, how is that communicated to the proponent? Substantial start — is it different per project? Or is there kind of, under that policy, a one-size-fits-all, “this is what you need to complete”…? If so, is there an actual timeline that the minister or the EAO try and keep to, in terms of when that application is made and when the proponent actually will receive a decision?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you for the question.

Determining that the project is substantially started is done on a case-by-case basis. There is an environmental assessment office policy, and it’s also being informed by jurisprudence and administrative fairness principles. The process includes information received by impacted First Nations. On-site evaluation is completed by the environmental assessment office compliance and enforcement officers and information that is provided by the proponent.

There is no timeline for the decision.

[3:10 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: I think in the past, we’ve seen the mine that I spoke of…. I think that was roughly about six months between the time the application was made and when the decision came. Again, when can we, roughly, expect a decision from the EAO or the minister, in terms of the substantial start on the Prince Rupert gas transmission project?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member. As I’ve said, the report is currently being finalized. Once it is submitted to the decision-maker, then the decision will be made.

Trevor Halford: In this case, for PRGT, who will be the decision-maker?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In the legislation, it is the minister or the delegated chief executive assessment officer. That has not been determined yet.

[3:15 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: What would, I guess, predicate the minister on abdicating that authority to the EAO and not being the signatory on PRGT, in terms of its “substantial start” definition? Under what circumstances would the minister delegate that authority to the EAO for this particular project?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In the legislation, it states that the minister is the decision-maker, and it is my discretion on whether or not to delegate this.

Trevor Halford: I understand that once a project receives its environmental assessment approval, there are compliance checks that happen while they’re in construction, and even post-construction.

So a very simple question to the minister: given that their decision has been made now to exempt some wind farms for that, will there be compliance checks during construction of those projects and after completion of construction of the projects?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member. Once these projects are exempted, the regulations are now outside of my ministry. What I can tell you is that we are committed to sustaining our high environmental values, and whatever regulatory process is determined will absolutely reflect those values.

Trevor Halford: I wasn’t intending on asking a follow-up, but I will take the chance to do that.

The Chair: You’re welcome.

Trevor Halford: Thank you.

My understanding is that through the construction phase of these projects…. These are big projects, right? We’ve seen, and gone through, Tumbler Ridge or anywhere. If you go to California — I won’t be doing that anytime soon, but when you go out there — you can see the wind farms out there. They’re huge.

Is the minister saying that there are going to be no compliance checks, nothing to make sure that environmental standards are being met during that construction? That’s what I just heard the minister say now.

Is the minister saying post-construction…? I know there are concerns about birds and other things. There are set regulations here, but the minister just said that there’s no compliance, no enforcement. So it’s kind of the Wild West for construction and post-construction.

[3:25 p.m.]

Does the EAO, Ministry of Environment, have no oversight whatsoever on these wind farms?

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I’m sorry that the member was left with that impression. There will be a robust environmental regime, as there is for every single major project in this province.

If the member wishes to follow up to ask questions, I would recommend that the questions be directed to the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions. They have the responsibility for the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Jeremy Valeriote: I will assure the minister that not my entire hour of questions will be about the Prince Rupert gas transmission line, but I will start off with an easy one, so that I can decide where to go from here.

Would the minister be able to tell me who is the statutory decision–maker on the substantial-start decision for PRGT?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The question was asked earlier. The legislation does determine that I am the statutory decision-maker, and it’s at my discretion if I choose to delegate.

[3:30 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Apologies for the repeat question. Next time I’ll be here earlier.

Can the minister tell me: how does the government intend on addressing nations that have rejected or no longer want to be bound by impact-and-benefits agreements with the province regarding PRGT? What is the planned approach with nations that have openly rejected the project?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

The province takes its obligation to consult with First Nations very seriously. The environmental assessment office has been engaging with First Nations with overlapping interests to gather additional information from them relevant to the substantial start determination.

Impact-benefit agreements, which are government-to-government, are negotiated by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. If the member has further questions regarding those agreements, he would need to follow up with that ministry.

Jeremy Valeriote: Is PRGT allowed to continue construction after the environmental assessment certificate expired on November 25 of last year but before the minister or a delegate makes the substantial start determination?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

I can confirm that there has been no active construction since prior to November 25, 2024, and it is our understanding, based on communication with the environmental assessment office, that the proponent has no plans to undertake any construction prior to the substantial start decision.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister.

Does the government plan on having any public process on the substantial start decision — public consultation or engagement?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

The substantial start determination is an administrative decision. It is based on the assessment of material evidence from the project site and from project documentation, as well as relevant information from First Nations.

As an administrative decision, public comment periods are not held during a substantial start determination process. However, evidence provided by non-governmental organizations and members of the public who wrote to the environmental assessment office to provide additional information regarding the substantial start determination will be included in the EAO’s report to the decision-maker.

Jeremy Valeriote: I have a question about Ksi Lisims. Can the minister tell me what role the ministry or environmental assessment office has in substantiating the project’s asserted global climate benefits?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

The role of the environmental assessment office is to assess the potential environmental, economic, social, cultural and health effects of major projects proposed in British Columbia. The assessed impacts on climate can be found in the assessment report, and we are happy to offer a briefing to the member on the report.

Jeremy Valeriote: One last question related to the EAO. The budget estimates suggest about a $270,000 increase to the EAO, about 1.6 percent — so, roughly, inflation. Given the direction in the minister’s mandate letter to develop measures to expedite authorizations, can the minister tell me how the EAO can expedite without increasing its budget or, presumably, staff complement?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

Currently, we are completing cross-ministry work, and one of the key strategies that we are employing is to move to concurrent permitting instead of consecutive permitting. This can reduce timelines up to a year or more.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to ask a couple of questions about air quality.

Does the ministry plan on examining the current state of regulation of outdoor air quality and the effectiveness of the existing regulations to protect British Columbians from current air quality–related health risks?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

In the current fiscal year, ministry staff are evaluating the effectiveness of recordkeeping requirements under the Open Burning Smoke Control Regulation.

In addition to the regulation, it’s important to mention that the ministry has a robust monitoring and reporting system to protect British Columbians from air quality–related health risks, including a system of air quality advisories and a Smoky Skies Bulletin to inform British Columbians when air quality is degraded.

Ministry staff also support partners in communities and local government to identify steps that can be taken locally to improve air quality.

B.C. has an extensive air quality monitoring network which provides real-time air quality data and the Air Quality Health Index, which can be found by googling “air quality health index” online.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister. I’ve used the monitoring network several times, usually in the summer during wildfire season. It is quite effective.

I appreciate that the recordkeeping and monitoring advisories are there. I will just try again to find out if the ministry has any plans to update the regulations that set advisory limits around outdoor air quality, particularly in response to wildfire smoke.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

For British Columbia, we adhere to the federal Canadian ambient air quality standards. We have no plans on developing our regulations as we adhere to the federal ones. However, while wildfire emissions are difficult to manage, the ministry and partners have a robust warning system to warn British Columbians when poor air quality is expected.

The ministry works with multiple partners, including health authorities and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, to ensure all British Columbians have access to air quality and health information and advice during times of high wildfire smoke. We set up temporary sites with the Ministry of Health to make sure that the temporary stations are there to be monitoring the smoke.

[3:55 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: With regards to parks and parks access, provincial spending for the maintenance of parks and trails has not kept up with the need for years. Despite volunteer groups organizing to assist with maintaining parks and trails, it’s been a struggle to find a long-term solution.

Will the minister explain the ministry’s plan to fund and support the maintenance of our vast parks and trails so that British Columbians can continue to enjoy the beauty of our province for years to come.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

We know that there is a high demand for campsites, especially as more people choose to live in B.C. every year and continue to travel to our campsites.

We are committed to strengthening our incredible parks and recreation sites, which draw visitors from across the country and around the world. That’s why this government has invested over $45 million in expanding campgrounds, including campsites in Chief Provincial Park, Golden Ears, Chilliwack Lake, Cultus Lake and Garibaldi. There has been $21.59 million invested over five years for the recreation site strategy, as well as $23.8 million in base capital, $1.2 million for accessibility, $7.1 million in maintenance and $3.34 million in maintenance for rec sites and trails.

Jeremy Valeriote: As the minister knows, the rapid population growth in the Squamish Valley has put pressure on local parks. I appreciate that Stawamus Chief and Garibaldi Park, that the minister just mentioned, are both in my riding and have benefited from those expansions.

In the Squamish Valley, however, overtourism has threatened the peaceful enjoyment of the Squamish Nation’s members’ territory.

[4:00 p.m.]

I note in the estimates commitment for a park enhancement fund, and I appreciate the expansion and other strategies. If I understand correctly, there previously was a parks acquisition fund which has come to the end of its program life. I’m wondering from the minister whether there’s any prospect of re-initiating that. I understand there was a possibility of acquiring land in the Squamish valley that fell through, but I’m hoping that that, subject to budgetary constraints, may come back.

Are there any plans to resurrect that acquisition fund?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The member is correct; we did have a one-time uplift for park acquisitions. We do maintain $2 million in the budget for land acquisitions, but we also do continue to work in partnership with the B.C. Parks Foundation and other conservation organizations, as well as other partners on future land acquisitions.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that; that’s encouraging.

On a similar vein, with regard to conservation officers, I visited a remote community on the side of Lillooet Lake, with a rec site nearby. They’ve recounted to me that, over the last two summers — well, at least one summer — with a fire ban, there were campers with huge bonfires, and that they’d called the conservation officer service. The closest conservation officer was three hours away, and the RCMP wouldn’t respond.

We’ve had several grizzly bears come through both Whistler and Squamish, and the discussion of late has been on the scarcity of conservation officers. I don’t believe there are any resource management officers — if I’ve got my terminology correct. There are five officers between West Vancouver and north of Pemberton to N’Quatqua.

Are there any steps being taken to bolster the conservation officer service and increase the number of conservation officers to keep up with the demand of calls?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. This is an important one.

The conservation officer service is a professional law enforcement agency. They really do handle a lot of the human-wildlife conflicts, so we do understand the importance of having them in communities, especially in rural and remote communities such as I live in.

For the conservation officer…. We did increase the number of officers last year. We included ten more officers, and we are up to 167 now.

The conservation officer service…. They look at several factors when they’re determining where conservation officers are posted, including officer safety; call volume; zone coverage; geographic location; call demand for public safety and enforcement concerns; population size; level of industrial, commercial and recreational activity; number of existing officers within the area; and emerging environmental trends and partnerships.

We do look at the needs within the communities, and then we do try to look for the areas that we can provide that coverage.

Jeremy Valeriote: I will just flip back to the question about parks acquisition.

The residents in the same community made the observation that if the rec site where the ignoring of the fire ban was taking place were to become a park, perhaps there would more resources allocated to it.

In addition to parks enhancement and parks acquisition, has there been any consideration given to converting any rec sites, now that they’re all within the same ministry, to parks?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The member brings up an excellent point. We recently went through a reorganization, as many know, and the rec sites and trails were moved from the Ministry of Forests into the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

Absolutely, we are always looking for more parks and more ways to enhance campsites and to build more. We’re definitely going to be looking at some suitable rec sites that we could contemplate, and it’s something that we’ll continue to look for.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’d like to ask a question about Indigenous protected and conserved areas. In the 2025 budget, the government reiterated their commitment to protecting 30 percent of B.C. terrestrial areas by 2030.

Can the minister give a status update on recognizing IPCAs in the province and explain how much they will contribute to the province’s commitment of 30 by 30?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The role of my ministry is to manage the parks once they are established. The IPCAs are a part of the Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship, under the broader land use planning mandate, and I suggest that you canvass the minister responsible for that.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m still learning the lay of the land.

I have a question about the circular economy and solid waste, since I’ve done some work in this area. I note that per-capita solid waste disposal targets are fairly modest.

It’s my understanding that there are some federal regulations around single-use plastics. My question around that: if those were to change, can the minister comment on whether B.C. would stay the course on single-use plastic regulation and minimization?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

At this point, we have no intention of reversing our course on single-use plastics, and we want to continue to support the circular economy.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: About 12 years ago I was involved with extended producer responsibility related to packaging — Multi-Material B.C. at the time. The reason I was engaged in that and interested in it was the possibility of increasing EPR fees for hard-to-recycle materials. Last I heard — I’m a little bit out of date — that process hasn’t necessarily taken place.

I’m wondering where the ministry is on moving towards punitive EPR fee, mostly for packaging that is more damaging to the environment, harder to recycle and more hazardous in landfills.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The EPR five-year action plan outlined the pathway to identifying a policy approach to address non-residential packaging in 2025 and beyond. Our ministry released a discussion paper on non-residential packaging and engaged on the topic between April and July of 2024. An engagement summary was recently published on March 25, 2025.

We’re currently identifying and prioritizing the policy approaches and considering the feedback that we received from the engagement.

Jeremy Valeriote: In my last couple of minutes, I’ve got one or two more questions. I’ll flip back to PRGT. I think I have time.

The minister probably knows there is some evidence suggesting that B.C. LNG is facing a global market in decline and already facing a glut of LNG supply. Given the risk that some of these projects — specifically, PRGT, Ksi Lisims — become economically non-viable and present the risk of stranded assets, does the province have a mechanism to absorb liability and risk from the Nisg̱a’a Nation or other nations that have been promised economic benefits from these projects?

The Chair: At this time, I’m going to call the committee on recess for five minutes. I ask that everybody be back in their seats in five minutes’ time, please.

The committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, Ministry of Environment and Parks, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

So this question would fall under the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, so I would say that the member should canvass that ministry.

[4:25 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Can it possibly be in the public interest to let PRGT be built after so much delay without an updated assessment of the impacts of the project on all the communities along the route and with no approved terminus?

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

The environmental assessment certificate was granted after years-long, comprehensive environmental assessment, and it took into consideration all of the mitigating measures. The substantial start determination is an administrative decision. It is based on the assessment of material evidence from the project site and from project documentation, as well as relevant information from First Nations.

In addition, the EAO, also, is currently carrying out assessments of two amendment applications, where changes to the project are proposed.

Jeremy Valeriote: Last question. I will just flip back to extended producer responsibility.

I've seen firsthand in a number of smaller communities the kind of tragic consequences of our consumer society, and that is mattresses in landfills. So, with apologies for not having examined the action plan, I'm just wondering if the minister or staff can tell me if there's a deadline there for bringing mattresses under an EPR program and seeing them properly recycled.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, I request that individuals who have their devices on mute them so that there isn’t additional noise in the background. Thank you.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member.

The action plan outlines the Ministry of Environment and B.C. Parks proposal to expand the recycling regulation to include such things as mattresses. At this time, the ministry and the government were still considering how to proceed or when to proceed with that.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and to staff for thoughtful answers. That concludes my questions.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Dallas Brodie: Madam Minister, my first question is: what were the total expenditures associated with the closures of the Joffre Lakes parks last year and in the year previous? Please include in your answer, if possible, a breakdown of lost revenue from park fees, the cost of ministry enforcement and all expenditures related to engagement, negotiations or other discussions with local Indigenous bands in relation to Joffre Lakes Park for last year and the year previous.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you for the question.

Notwithstanding that these are estimates for 2025-26, the expenditures from past years…. This is not what we’re here to discuss today. We simply don’t have that information broken down. I’m happy to consult with staff and provide that to you at a later date.

Dallas Brodie: Madam Minister, can you please provide the projections for this year?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Could the member please provide more information about her question? Projections for what, please?

Dallas Brodie: Madam Minister, the projections for basically the same things — if the Joffre Lakes Park is going to be closed again, the expenditures associated with that closure, like the breakdown for revenue from park fees. The same questions I had — revenue from park fees, the cost of ministry enforcement of that closure and expenditures related to negotiation or engagement with First Nations in relation to the Joffre Lakes Park closure. So that would be…. What are the estimated costs for this year and 2026 then?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The Joffre Lakes Park has one back-country campground. The actual closure dates that would be in effect for this upcoming season are still being finalized. The only revenue from that is the one campground and is approximately $20,000. Total cost of the closure is unlikely to exceed $20,000.

Dallas Brodie: What about the other expenses I asked about in terms of the…? Is there any enforcement required, going forward, to maintaining that closure? Or is that the entire expenditure for dealing with this one park that has been closed off?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: For Joffre Lakes, we have in place a day use pass system for that park, and there will be no significant incremental costs for closures.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Seeing none, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: First of all, I would really like to thank all of my staff that have been here with me over the past two days. I want to thank all of the staff that have put in all the work that they do outside of here and for the support that they give me. The public service is an important part of the government and public service work that we do, and they should be applauded for the work that they do, each and every day, on behalf of British Columbians.

I want to thank the opposition and the Green members for their questions and for the time that we've been able to spend talking about my ministry. I'm incredibly impressed by what we have been able to accomplish, and I'm excited to build upon this work in my role as B.C.'s Environment Minister.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members. Seeing no further questions, I will call the vote.

Vote 24: ministry operations, $162,410,000 — approved.

Vote 25: environmental assessment office, $17,343,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We shall now take a recess for the next ministry — of five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

The Chair: Okay, I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $412,584,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Sure do.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to be able to be here to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. Welcome to my critic, the MLA across the way. I look forward to the next few hours, having the opportunity to be able to engage on some really important issues and opportunities associated with forestry right across British Columbia.

It was a few months ago that I had the honour of sitting across from the Premier and asking for this job. It’s been quite a whirlwind experience getting a chance to be able to visit communities right across this province, to talk about the challenges but also the opportunities ahead and how we can work together to restore confidence in the sector, stand up for workers and families in forest-dependent communities each and every day. And, of course, make sure that we’re fulfilling our commitments to the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and a whole host of other things that we’ve been working on ever since we formed government back in 2017.

Of course, I’m not doing it alone. I want to recognize the people that I have here in the room today and those that are joining virtually from all over British Columbia.

I’ve got, to my left, Ian Meier, acting deputy minister; to my right, Sonia Martins, assistant deputy minister and financial officer; Melissa Sanderson, ADM of timber range and economics; Rob Schweitzer, ADM of B.C. Wildfire Service; Jamie Jeffreys, ADM of the south region; Mike Hykaway, ADM of the north region; Jessica Coster, acting assistant deputy minister of the coast region.

[4:55 p.m.]

Matt Austin, ADM of the integrated resource operations division; Jillian Rousselle, ADM of the forest resiliency and archaeology division; and Shane Berg, my favourite chief forester here in the province of British Columbia.

Also, joining virtually from all over the place, we have Janna Jessee, Al Powelson, Al Bennett, Peter Jacobsen, Danielle Cuthbertson, Norah White, Albert Nussbaum, Julie MacDougall, Gustavo Oliveira, Ted White, Lori Borth, Jevan Hanchard, Karrilyn Vince, Perry Grilz, Mark Walker, Jen Reid, Russ Laroche, Josh Pressey, Lesley Fettes, Allan Johnsrude, Sharon Hadway, Kurtis Isfeld, Cliff Chapman, David Greer, Breanne Hill, Dave Fleming, Gordon Asselin. Apologies to you, Gordon, if I butchered your last name.

I’ll keep my comments brief because I know we got lots of questions ahead of us. We’ve got a big crew here in the Forest Service ready to answer the questions ahead.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Ward Stamer: No, that’s fine, Madam Chair. I’d just like to appreciate the Forest Minister and all his staff being available for this. I believe we have six hours in our estimate budgets. We’re going to be covering a lot of ground.

I can give you a quick summary so that we have an idea of what we’re going to be covering. We’re going to be talking about the tariffs, U.S. tariffs and jobs. We’ll be talking about anti-dumping duties. We, of course, will be talking about the B.C. Timber Sales review. We’ll be talking about allowable cuts and harvesting. We’ll be talking about mill closures. We’ll be talking about things like forest access, forest service roads — you know, all those kinds of things that revolve around the forest industry. I’d like to get right into it, if I may.

When we talk about tariffs and forest jobs, the government has mentioned that the tariffs may result in a recession similar to 2008. That was the Premier speaking. We know that B.C. is responsible for 50 percent of the softwood lumber exports. And looking at the numbers, 2021, it seemed we had about 55,700 direct jobs in our industry — with the spin-offs, probably 100,000 jobs. Current data now states that we’ve probably lost 10,000 jobs in three years, which is a significant amount.

So a couple of questions that I have to the minister: does the ministry have a plan going forward if these tariffs last for the foreseeable future, and what are those plans in regards to making sure that we don’t have any more mill closures and reduction in the workforce?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member opposite for the first question.

I think at the outset, as the member opposite mentions software lumber duties, it’s important for me as the Minister of Forests to be able to once again condemn the actions taken by the United States, by the Trump administration.

As the member will know, this has been a long-standing issue for a number of years. I often joke that it’s been going on longer than I’ve been alive.

As the member will know, this has been a long-standing issue for a number of years. I often joke that it’s been going on longer than I’ve been alive. It’s certainly been a learning experience over the course of the last number of months, because it’s not been the normal process.

We expected our countervailing preliminary duty rates, typically, to be in May. They came earlier, which I think speaks to the focus the President has put on our lumber sector, and on tariffs as a whole, as finding ways to be able to decimate other industries. Also, I think it’s important for us to recognize that softwood lumber duties are devastating to British Columbians, as are all tariffs to Canadians. This is bad news for Americans as well, many who are just looking to rebuild their homes from devastating wildfires, from hurricanes in North Carolina.

I had an opportunity to be in California speaking directly to lawmakers about the decisions their President is taking. I had an opportunity to be able to meet with Dan Dunmoyer, who is the head of the California Building Industries Association, the equivalent of a homebuilders association, and really make the case that I needed Dan and others to step up and make the case to the President.

To the member across the way, when I became the minister, the first action I took was to send a letter to my federal counterparts making sure that they were aware that they needed to do everything in their power (a) to take this issue seriously and (b) to ensure that they were coming to the table with supports, that they were coming to the table willing to work with British Columbia and other provinces, like Ontario, Quebec and Alberta and the east coast, on solutions. What we can do to get to the table, but what can we do to be able to prepare for the challenges?

As it relates to the member’s question, we’ve been advocating to the federal government really for three key pieces.

One is specifically making sure that the Prime Minister makes this a priority. I think the member across the way will appreciate that it’s a big deal when the Prime Minister is talking about softwood. It’s why the Premier, in his first face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister, raised softwood as a top priority for British Columbia.

Secondly, we’re looking for a loan guarantee program to be able to support this industry through the challenges ahead and keeping operations going.

Thirdly, a couple of years ago the federal government made the decision to cut funding for trade diversification, which makes absolutely no sense to me. I don’t think it makes much sense to anyone, if you go out and talk to British Columbians, why the federal government would cut trade diversification dollars at a time when we should be investing more in trade diversification. Those cuts went to organizations like Canada Wood, B.C. Wood, our Crown agency Forestry Innovation Investment, and really are a backward step.

As it relates to the overall challenges this sector is facing, as the member knows, we are not just dealing with tariffs and duties. We are dealing with the end of the beetle-kill harvest. We are dealing with wildfires. I assume we’ll get an opportunity to chat about wildfires, at some point, over the next few hours. In 2023, worst wildfire season on record, we lost 20 years’ worth of harvestable fibre just in that one year.

That, compounded with certainly other challenges we face, has led to some challenging years. Not just in the last three years, not in the last five years; I would say in the last decade, two decades, as well. We’ve seen mill closures and curtailments that have hurt communities.

I’ve taken a number of steps on this side of the House in terms of making sure that we’re standing up for forestry sector workers. Just about a week ago I announced the establishment of a forests worker bureau, built on the principles of the job protection commissioner in the 1990s. We’ve got a manufacturing jobs fund, with significant announcements made all across the province, including in the member’s own constituency.

I recognize that we face big challenges. It’s why we have a Softwood Lumber Advisory Council formed to be able to help provide me advice and guidance. It’s represented by workers, by industry and a whole host of other individuals, including First Nations leaders like Dallas Smith, the chair of the Na̲nwak̲olas Council, to help advise me on the steps we need to take as a government, as a ministry, to ensure that we’re meeting this moment and providing support to workers and to forest-dependent communities as well.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answer.

When we talk about the tariffs and potential tariffs…. Again, there are two separate conversations when we’re talking about the tariffs. We have the ongoing softwood lumber duties that have been going on since 2015, as the minister has alluded to.

[5:05 p.m.]

And yes, that announcement last Saturday is just reinforcing what we already knew that was coming down the pipe. The initial projection was around 15 percent, and now it’s going to be 20 percent, with a number of about 34½.

But as the as the minister alluded to, we had mill closures way before we had any threats of tariffs or any other economic uncertainties that are going on amongst us. And that’s what I wanted to bring to the minister’s attention when we start looking at some of the revenue numbers and a direct correlation between the amount of jobs that we had in our industry even back in 2021, which is only three years ago…. You’re looking at the numbers of a $5.9 billion GDP and a revenue stream of $1.9 billion directly to our provincial coffers, not including income tax and sales tax and the carbon tax at that time.

But in three short years, without tariffs, that number has dropped to 32. We’re trying to figure out how this all works out, when we’ve heard in January that both the Premier and the minister guaranteed a drive for 45 or whatever the saying is now. We’re just trying to find how that works out into the math because, again, in the budget of 2025 that we’re actually going to be debating, the budget line items are 30, 30 and 29 for subsequent years. It isn’t 45. It isn’t 52.

I have some fairly specific questions when it comes to numbers so that we can try to figure out exactly where we are in the budget estimates, including some of the changes that are coming up that were announced last week by the minister in regards to BCTS. We’ll get to that as we get through our process.

I had a couple of questions to the minister. Now we’re in April, so now we’ve gone past Q1. Where are we at with these targets in harvest levels? If last year we only did 32, and we can ask the question with BCTS that they only did 12.2 percent of what it was supposed to be…? My question would have been: was it 3 million cubic metres last year? Was it more? Was it less? I’d like to know that number.

But having said that, where are we at now today in Q1 in our harvest levels? Do we have a realistic chance of hitting 45 this year, or have we already lost that opportunity because of what’s been able to transpire in the last three months?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Lots to dive into there. Maybe just at the outset, I’ll just mention for the folks listening at home that these softwood lumber duties are staggering.

[5:15 p.m.]

The preliminary rates that we’re now aware of, the member opposite will probably know these numbers by heart by now. AR5, the final rates for most were 14.40, slightly higher for Canfor at 16.58 percent, a little bit higher for Tolko at 17.27 percent.

When we look at the preliminary rates for countervailing and anti-dumping, that’s when you have the significant increase that we’re contending with: Canfor, 46.48 percent; everyone else, except West Fraser…. I’ll come back to West Fraser. Everyone else is 34.45 percent, and then, of course, West Fraser is a little bit lower. It’s another one of the respondents, similar to Canfor, at 26.05 percent.

And, certainly, if the member doesn’t have the exact numbers, I’m happy to provide them in terms of the breakdown between countervailing and the anti-dumping duty rates as well.

I think the member rightfully has pointed out the significant impact that the forest sector has had on British Columbia for the last 100 years and will have for the next 100 years. We are not going to let Donald Trump destroy our forest sector. We are not going to let Americans take away paycheques from hard-working British Columbians who are doing their level best to get ahead each and every day.

I think it’s important, not just for me as the Minister of Forests, not just for the Premier but for all members of the House — and I would encourage the member opposite — to condemn the increase of these softwood lumber duties, the continued threat of tariffs on all of our wood products and, of course, the section 232 investigation pertaining to national security that is ongoing right now. I’m happy to continue the conversation in regards to that.

Getting into the second aspect of the member’s question, the annual allowable cut right now is 61.6 million cubic metres for the year of 2025. I think it’s important for the member opposite to know that we’ve had a significant decline. In 2008, it was 87 million. To have dropped from a high of 87 million in 2008 to 61.6 million here in 2025, that is going to have an impact on the forest sector here in British Columbia.

We’ve certainly seen that over the last number of years — I would say over the last two decades and even longer. There’s, really, three key reasons for that, but there could be a number that I’m sure we can debate and discuss.

One is the pine beetle harvest that is coming to an end. There are overall forest health challenges, like insects, that are certainly causing challenges for our forests in all parts of British Columbia.

Then, of course, there’s wildfires, as well, and the impact that that has had on our land base over the last number of years.

Again, I just want to reiterate, as the member opposite said, this is a major job-producer in our province, especially in rural communities and forest-dependent communities. I remember being in Fort St. James and meeting with folks just after spending some time at their new sawmill — the Hampton Lumber Mill that opened up last year — chatting with people and seeing not just those that are directly employed in the sector, whether they’re working in a mill, whether they’re working in the bush, whether they’re working in administration supporting directly the sector.

But I think, as the member rightfully has pointed out, I’m not going to debate his numbers, because I think they’re correct. We’re looking at about 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. This is a major sector of our economy. It brings in revenue to government, and it feeds families, helps build up the services and the infrastructure our province has had and will continue to have.

The member mentions the mandate. I think he’s referencing the mandate that I’ve gotten from the Premier to ensure that we’re building a sustainable timber-harvesting land base that gets us to a harvest of 45 million cubic metres. For the member opposite, we had roughly 31 million cubic metres harvested last year, and as part of that, roughly 4.2 million came from B.C. timber sales.

For the member opposite, I would say a couple of things. One is that my mandate is my mandate for my time as minister. You know, the challenges we face in forestry are not going to be fixed overnight. This is going to take hard work.

[5:20 p.m.]

There are a number of steps that were taken, that I’m happy to guide the member through as it relates to FLP tables and a whole host of other things, to be able to create the certainty and predictability that industry is looking for, while also contending with the challenges that we have.

The end of the pine beetle harvest, wildfires, continued forest health challenges…. That work is going to take time, and it’s work that the Forest Service, the ministry, is committed to doing not just in silos but with the entire sector. It’s one of the reasons why I was at the COFI talking about this important work.

I’ll just end with saying that pertaining to the member’s question around harvest levels for this year, all of that information comes through scaling, and we just don’t have that information at this time, but happy to provide it to the member when we have it, which very well could be later this month or into May.

Ward Stamer: Thank you to the minister for his response.

Just to back it up a little bit, I think that the mention at the convention was a guarantee of 45 this year, not over the length of the mandate of the minister’s tenure, but we can discuss that at a later date. But, I think, that the impression that most of the people in the room took from that initial discussion was that if we have an allowable cut at 61, regardless of what’s happened in the past, and if we do have a sustainable forest industry, we should be able to hit 45, knowing that that’s three-quarters of the cut of what has been identified as what’s available.

That leads me to a couple other things, if we want to continue on the tariff side of things: that our party has put an idea to the government in regards to these tariffs and potential additional duties that could be coming down the pipe.

I’d like thoughts on what the minister thinks on our thermal coal example of putting a tax on thermal coal of the U.S. deliveries that go through the border and come through our port and then are exported to Southeast Asia. We understand that’s about 180 million metric tons of coal. That could be a tax that is something that could be identified and put on provincially, not a federal responsibility, even though the softwood lumber agreement is a federal responsibility.

Does the minister believe that that would be an effective tool in getting the Americans back to the table when it comes to softwood lumber agreement and even a threat of such?

And the second part is: does the minister support an opportunity to discuss and negotiate with the Americans, knowing that we have $10 billion right now in that escrow account that’s been sitting there since 2015-2016 in his building, and all the Americans have to do is appeal any ruling that comes along and that money still stays there? Does the minister believe that that is a negotiating tool that we could be using to get the Americans and President Trump back to the negotiating table on the softwood lumber agreement?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the questions.

Just on the first part, the member opposite has my mandate letter. There’s a number of items there that the Premier has given to me to work on. The task of securing that sustainable timber-harvesting land base that allows for a harvest of 45 million cubic metres is going to be a mandate objective that we’re going to be working very hard on.

The Premier, as the member opposite may have been aware…. I’m not sure if he was there for the Premier’s speech at COFI, but the Premier reiterated that there’s a deputy ministers committee, that my deputy sits on, that is working very hard on a number of projects — 18 projects. I’m pleased to share with the member that this project of getting to 45 million cubic metres is the 19th project.

It's really important to recognize that the work of the Ministry of Forests is integrated all across government. This is not just something being done solely in this ministry. I would say that the member will know well, working in the forest sector for a number of years, that this mandate can’t be done alone. This is not something that simply falls upon government and myself. This is going to be something the entire sector needs to work towards.

This is something that I’ve spoken to COFI about, the Truck Loggers Association, the Interior Logging Association. We’ve got FLP tables set up across the province having discussions around certainty and predictability. First Nations communities are at these tables having this.

I joked at the COFI table: “Well, this is a big challenge before me.” This is really British Columbia’s challenge. And I welcome the entire sector to join me at tables, including the member opposite, on how we can reach this out, how we can ensure that we’re creating that certainty and predictability and meeting the moment and addressing those challenges.

Going back to tariffs, I think the member opposite will agree with me in terms of his comments around this being a federal responsibility. In terms of the role the federal government plays, obviously, we want to support the federal government to the best of our abilities in providing the information they need to continue to make the case.

I can let the member know that, as much as I can understand completely…. I’ve heard across the province people’s frustrations around rising softwood lumber duties and the threats that the President continues to make each and every day, whether it’s the Trump tariff or the section 232 investigation.

One thing that I think we all should be proud of is that Canada has continuously won every time we’ve appealed. We’ve been very successful in our efforts, and that’s something that, I think, is really important as we do this work — making sure that we’re doing that.

[5:30 p.m.]

As it pertains to the member’s question around the idea of the thermal coal, the member might not be aware. I’m not sure whose idea, who should take credit for it in the opposition benches, bringing it forward.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Maybe it was the Leader of the Opposition, but Christy Clark brought forward a similar idea back in the day — so different party or same party, who knows? I think it’s important to once again say that when the Leader of the Opposition shared this with the Premier, the Premier shared this with the federal government. This really is a federal government responsibility, and they have authority over the proposal as it pertains to thermal coal.

As it relates to negotiations, I want to share with the member — I know that he was at the truck loggers convention — that I reached out to the U.S. Lumber Coalition to ask for a meeting. We actually had a meeting scheduled, the date and time picked out, and they cancelled it at the last minute, which I think was really unfortunate for a body that proclaims to advocate for its sector.

They were in Vancouver; they could have met with me. I’m not sure if they’ve met with a Forests Minister before. It might have been a historic meeting, an opportunity for two opposing sides to come together and have a conversation, but it was unfortunate that that couldn’t land. I have reached out subsequently and put the offer on the table that whenever they’re ready to chat, I’m happy to do so.

As the member will know well, working in this sector, the reason I mentioned the U.S. Lumber Coalition is that in many ways, they seem to call the shots in the U.S. That’s why I had made it a priority. As it relates to the negotiations, I would say — and I would reiterate the comments in my first answer — that it is so critically important for the federal government to make this a priority. I hope the member and I can agree on this.

I don’t think the federal government has made this a top priority. We certainly made it a priority on our side. It’s why, again, I sent a letter to my federal counterparts — I asked for meetings; I was able to have those meetings — and it’s why the Premier reiterated to the Prime Minister, again, in the first face-to-face meeting between the Premier and Prime Minister Carney, that this has to be a top priority.

When we are talking about the auto sector in Ontario, it just seems that because it’s in Ontario, billions of dollars are thrown on the table. I think it’s important for me, and I hope the member will join me in this advocacy, in saying that auto workers in Ontario matter, but so do our forestry workers. They matter just as much. If you ask me — I’m a bit biased — they matter more, because that’s who we’re fighting for. That’s who the member and I are fighting for each and every day in the work that we’re doing as a minister and, certainly, as a critic.

I’ve assembled a Softwood Lumber Advisory Council that’s represented by workers, the three major unions that make up the forest sector. I have industry leads, like the former president and CEO of the Council of Forest Industries, Linda Coady. I’ve got Dallas Smith, the chair of the Na̲nwak̲olas Council, someone who is quite integrally involved in forestry on the coast and, I would say, is a force to be reckoned with in the advocacy he has been doing not just on forestry but a whole host of files.

As it relates to the work that I’m going to have over the course of the next number of days, weeks and months, I’m going to continue engaging with my Softwood Lumber Advisory Council. There are good people on there, with great ideas.

I understand the member may have had an opportunity to meet with some of them, maybe at COFI, and met with the Steelworkers to talk a little bit about their ideas as well. I welcome the member to continue reaching out to any of those members, providing his advice and guidance to them, and listening to them as well.

We’re hoping that once this federal election is over, the federal government, whoever is the Prime Minister, will make sure that this is a top priority for them. How I will be leading that conversation in British Columbia is by engaging with my counterparts, as I said, to take on the role of chair of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.

I can let the member opposite know that when I become chair, this is going to be my top priority. I’m going to be engaging and have been engaging with my counterparts in Alberta and other provinces, making sure that we’re working together on this very big challenge.

[5:35 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers on that.

Staying with tariffs again — just looking through my notes here — the minister mentioned a couple, like the Softwood Lumber Advisory Council. I believe that there was a preliminary result on January 25, and I look forward to hearing what they’ve come up with in the last couple of months.

Also, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council said in a statement that the decision to increase the anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber is unjustified and will harm forestry workers and communities in Canada.

How does the minister plan to support B.C. forestry against these protectionist tariffs? The minister talked earlier about the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund. We know that that fund has been operating for many years. Those are taxpayer dollars. I believe the number is up to $97 million. That has incentivized our forest industry producers to invest over $650 million of their own money, used as leverage. Unfortunately, November 15, 2024, was the last intake in that fund. That fund is now closed.

So a couple of questions that I will be asking the minister on that portion of the file: is there going to be an extension? Is there going to be a reopening of the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund in 2025 to help assist in these investments that our industry desperately needs?

The second part of the question: what other measures is the minister planning on doing to provide for stricken forest communities? As I mentioned, mills had already closed before tariffs. We know that the increase in duties is not going to be welcome. When we get to August, and it’s at 34, 35 or 40 percent, there’s a pretty good chance that there will be additional curtailments or closures. That’s a fact.

My other question to the minister on the same topic is: has he considered freezing our stumpage rates? Last year, at 32 million cubic metres, we brought in $501 million in direct revenue, and this year in the budget, it’s pegged at 30 million cubic metres and $639 million. That’s an increase of $138 million, on less volume, and it says right in the document that it’s going to be a direct result of higher stumpage rates.

I think the minister would agree with me that we know that we’re the highest-cost producer in North America. We don’t need an increase in our stumpage rates. What is the minister able to offer today in being able to try to help not only stabilize this economy but in making sure that our costs don’t go out of control and we have more mills closed down?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the questions and comments.

I agree with him fully in terms of the impacts that these tariffs are having and, again, would welcome the opportunity to see him and members of the opposition condemn President Trump as it relates to these increasing duties, the threat of tariffs, the section 232 investigation. I think it’s important for all British Columbians to see us united in condemning President Trump for these actions and the threat that he is posing on our forestry sector.

I agree with the member opposite: the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund has been a huge success. It’s something that I had an opportunity to work on as a staffer. The Minister of Finance has done incredible work leading it. When she was the Minister of Jobs, it was launched, in February of 2023. As the member may be aware, to date it has committed nearly $146 million towards 132 projects.

I think this is a key piece that has unlocked over $1 billion in other private and public investments, creating and protecting thousands of jobs and strengthening manufacturing supply chains. While it has been open to all manufacturing sectors, obviously there has been a clear focus as it relates to the forest sector and, really, the work that I think we can all be doing to getting the most value out of the log.

It’s one thing that my constituents raise as a priority: reducing raw log exports, making sure that we’re getting every use of that fibre, and creating world-class wood products. I think of Kalesnikoff Lumber in the Nelson-Slocan area. I’m going to be visiting Ken Kalesnikoff in the weeks ahead. It was one of the projects that we funded.

Before I get to that, I’ll just share with the member today that $97.3 million has been committed to 73 forest sector projects, leading to 3,500 forestry jobs created and protected. I’ll share with the member opposite a number of projects: Massive Canada Building Systems, a $10 million commitment, in Williams Lake. There’s A-1 Trusses, $9.5 million, in Langley.

Tolko Industries — I had an opportunity to meet with Tolko not too long ago: $8 million in Heffley Creek. There was Kruger Kamloops, $5 million, in Kamloops, as members will know well. S and R Sawmills Ltd., $4 million, in Langley. PowerWood Corp., $3.4 million, in Agassiz. The Power family has been doing great work.

There’s Richmond Plywood Corp. Ltd., $2.3 million. This is a company that I’m getting to know. I haven’t had a chance to get to Richmond yet, but the $2.3 million investment led to, if I’m not mistaken, close to a $20 million investment in total from that company. The family and group there have just been doing an absolute, outstanding job.

[5:45 p.m.]

I had an opportunity to visit my first plywood mill in Salmon Arm. It’s actually where we announced some dollars for a new kiln for the manufacturing jobs fund. What was really exciting was to see the excitement of the workers and how fast the kiln was working.

I’m sure the member opposite has probably been in a plywood mill once or twice over the years; I hadn’t. Boy, was that an experience — highly recommended if anyone hasn’t been in a plywood mill. It was such fast-paced. And I joked that if politics doesn’t work out, maybe I can go work in a plywood mill. It was quite something, and I think the member opposite would agree, something that more British Columbians and Canadians should know about as it relates to the hardworking men and women who work in those facilities.

But a whole host of others. There’s Downie Timber, $825,000 in Revelstoke. That is the largest employer in Revelstoke and so a pretty significant investment from our government there. Advanced Lumber Remanufacturing at $800,000 in Surrey.

Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd., just under $1.1 million in Barriere. The member opposite will know it well. I think he should be very proud, not just as a critic, but as the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson that he’s got an outstanding company in his constituency that does incredible work. I really enjoyed — I think I was there for almost two hours — the opportunity to be able to meet with the team there to tour the mill they’ve got and really talk about a number of things.

One is their relationship with the Indigenous communities, in particular the Simpcw Nation. If I get an opportunity I’m going to say Chief Lampreau’s name over and over again — world class human being and someone who, well, clearly I look up to, because I think he is doing outstanding work and is someone who I’m really looking forward to continuing to work with on a number of projects in the weeks, months ahead. But just the partnership they had with Gilbert Forest Products, a long-standing family company business in that region, was fantastic.

Again, to the member opposite, lots of investments. If he’s interested in learning more about the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund as it pertains to the future, I would encourage him to take those questions to the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation because the actual program itself lives, the line item lives within that ministry, and I’m sure the minister will welcome the questions that he may have with regards to renewal in the future of that program.

The member opposite mentioned the B.C. Lumber Trade Council. The executive director, the lead for the council, Kurt Niquidet, is someone whom I’ve been speaking with quite regularly. The member opposite, maybe he’s had an opportunity to be able to engage with him as well. Kurt is certainly working very hard these days, trying to address concerns in the media pertaining to the softwood lumber duties but also representing a number of members of COFI and others in terms of the advocacy, not just here in the province but the federal government as well.

Kurt and I chat regularly. We’ve got prescheduled monthly meetings, but as the member will know, what comes out of the President’s mouth means that he and I chat much more regularly than just once a month. Our focus and our work is going to be on the continued advocacy of the federal government, ensuring that there are loan guarantee programs, bonding support, liquidity, trade diversification dollars. What the commitment the Premier has made is making sure that we are getting the leadership from the federal government on this trade dispute challenge as it pertains to the softwood — not just the softwood lumber duties but the Trump tariff as well.

Again, we have not gotten the support we need from the federal government on the softwood lumber duties over the last number of years. So here is an opportunity for us to work together in a bipartisan way to be able to continue that advocacy.

But again, I think it’s important for us to get that advocacy and then, of course, do what we need to. I can share with the member that we’re having some really great conversations at my Softwood Lumber Advisory Council around the steps we can take to be able to protect the sector and make sure that during these challenging times we can keep people working.

That’s really the message that I’ve heard loud and clear and I’m sure he’s probably heard from workers like Scott Lunny, Gavin McGarrigle and Geoff Dawe. Their members want to ensure that they can work. They don’t want to go on EI. They don’t want worker supports. They’ll obviously need worker supports if their employers are not continuing to operate, but that’s their top priority. Those are the issues that they’re raising with me, not just at the council but the workers that I’m meeting on the ground as well.

[5:50 p.m.]

As it relates to stumpage rates, I’m happy to dive into some questions from the member opposite on stumpage. They’ve certainly thrown out some stats as it relates to it. One thing I would share with the member opposite is my predecessor, Minister Bruce Ralston, did some work not too long ago on a stumpage responsive project that led to the ministry moving from a quarterly system to a monthly responsive system. This is something that industry and the entire sector has been calling on for quite some time. So that is something that I’ve heard loud and clear that industry supports.

I think it’s important for me to share with the member opposite that stumpage rates adjust to market conditions. While the budget, as the Minister of Finance has said a number of times, is built in the moment we live today, we don’t necessarily know what market conditions are going to look like two months from now, six months from now, a year from now. And so our market pricing system, stumpage rates, are built to market conditions.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his reply to the questions.

Let’s talk a little bit about what the industry has been asking for. First of all, they’ve been asking for a return up to those more historical 45 or 50 million cubic metres of wood. Time and time again, the number one thing that we hear is certainty of supply.

The minister referenced the COFI annual report that just came out this month, and so I’d like to spend a little bit of time now in talking about some of the things that they have determined and asked me, through this process, on some answers, particularly when the minister is talking about investment. And yes, thank you for that information that Jobs and Innovation is now responsible for that fund.

I asked specifically if there were any new programs that were coming up, and the minister said…. Obviously there weren’t, because he didn’t mention any for the forest industry.

But when we look at investment numbers, the B.C. Pulp and Paper Coalition came out with their report back in 2023, identifying $10 billion in investment that they thought was necessary to keep their industry going in British Columbia. They specifically identified $2.9 billion that has to be invested now.

So my question to the minister is: what mechanisms does this government have and what programs does this government have for 2025, when it relates to the pulp and paper industry? When we’re trying to determine not only the certainty of supply but also any other opportunities for investment in these industries, what is the government offering in ways of…? Whether it’s grants, whether it’s subsidies, whether it’s other opportunities other than the manufacturing fund grant, is there anything else that the government can provide?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I've got lots of papers in front of me. I'm already making a mess, but there's lots to talk about.

First of all, I really appreciate the kinds of themes that the member has. It makes my life a lot easier in terms of how he groups questions. So to other opposition members: take note, this guy knows what he's doing.

But maybe just to start on forest sector industry investments. As we have faced challenges these last number of years with the end of the pine beetle kill, wildfires…. Again, it's a staggering number — 2023, worst wildfire season on record, 20 years worth of harvestable fibre eliminated just like that. To be able to see investments in the province of British Columbia is really important. These are investments that companies are making, large and small, many of which the Forest Service is a part of in terms of supporting, providing advice and guidance as well.

In 2025, as an example, Stella-Jones, which focuses mostly on pressure-treated-wood product manufacturing, such as utility poles and rail ties, has confirmed that it's going to be establishing an operation in the tournament capital centre of the world, Kamloops. That's a Quebec-based company, again, in the final stages of setting up a peeling facility in Mission Flats. That's just in January 2025.

Kruger, in 2024, made a pretty significant investment, approximately $22.5 million in funding to commission a new pressure diffusion washer with an AI-powered control system, the first technology of its kind in Canada. This is something that we worked together through the manufacturing jobs fund and investments from the federal government.

[6:00 p.m.]

Richmond Plywood Corp. unveiled its new $17.4 million Con-Vey Argos panel repair system, funded in part by a $6.7 million investment from the federal government but also $2.3 million investment from the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund. This is again value-added at its best.

The Kitsumkalum First Nations in Terrace took over the old Skeena Sawmills and Skeena Bioenergy plant, getting all the assets for just over $14 million. This I’m going to remember for a long time. This nation, the Kitsumkalum First Nations, showed leadership not just for themselves but for that entire region. When that previous investment didn’t work out and the property owners foreclosed and went bankrupt, Kitsumkalum stepped up and supported not themselves in terms of making that investment but supported that entire community.

I want to thank the Chief and the council for their leadership, the vision they’re showing, the mayor up in Terrace and so many others. It’s a fairly significant investment. We’re excited to be able to work with them.

Kalesnikoff Mass Timber, we announced not too long ago, alongside them, the construction of a third mass timber facility in the West Kootenays with an investment of $34 million. It’s pretty significant.

West Fraser replaced one of their three dryers at the Williams Lake plywood facility, which cost over $5 million. I could go on and on: Western Forest Products, $35 million investment and two continuous dry kilns.

The reason I mentioned just some of these — again, I could go on and on; I’ve got lots of pages here — is that there are investments happening in our forest sector. There are companies that are stepping up and even in tough times making an investment in British Columbia and, I would say, not just investing in British Columbia, the province; they’re investing in their workers. They’re creating job opportunities for their workers. They’re protecting jobs for their workers. I think it’s important to be able to recognize that.

As it relates to the member’s comments pertaining to the pulp and paper sector, a very important sector here in our province…. We’ve had an opportunity to be able to meet with many different companies: Kruger, RiverCity Fibre, the member opposite will know well, which works quite closely alongside Kruger in terms of supporting the plant in Kamloops. I met with Domtar recently. So many others…. Mercer — I’m looking forward to visiting their plant in the Kootenays in the weeks and months ahead.

I think the member and I could both agree that the pulp and paper sector is an integral part of our forest sector and the overall supply chain that we’re trying to build that supports thousands of families in every corner of this province. Sawmills rely on pulp companies buying wood chips to maintain their operations. They go hand in hand.

Pulp companies have reported that they face five million cubic metres of economical fibre shortfall in future years. We’ve made a commitment to work with them to be able to address those challenges.

I want to share with the member that the pulp fibre supply task force, which was assembled between my ministry and…. My assistant deputy minister, Melissa Sanderson, sits on that task force as the lead for the Forest Service alongside Joe Nemeth. I’m not sure if the member opposite has had an opportunity to engage with Joe yet. This is comprised, again, of senior pulp sector leadership alongside ministry staff. They had an ambitious goal of three million cubic metres of residual fibre and low-value timber in 2023 and 2024, and they set their 2025 target for three million cubic metres.

In the past years, because of the hard work of the Forest Service and the pulp sector, we’ve met our targets. That’s good news. It shows that when we put the work in, when we work together…. I think if there’s one thing that I want to accomplish in my time as Minister of Forests…. It is so important that we work together on these big challenges. Again, I want to commend Joe and his entire team, Melissa and the team here in the Forest Service for the work that they’ve been doing.

A lot of this work has been driven by investments that our government has made. We’ve implemented two key task force recommendations. We provided $80 million to the Forest Enhancement Society of British Columbia to increase the utilization of low-value fibre until the end of fiscal year 2027. We also increased pulp sales from the B.C. Timber Sales program to support the utilization of residual fibre and burnt timber as well.

I’ll just touch on the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. If the member opposite is interested in learning more about this organization, I’m happy to provide him with a briefing and more information.

[6:05 p.m.]

It’s a great organization that does great work all across this province — incredible projects. I could spend six hours talking about just the projects themselves. The member opposite probably wouldn’t appreciate that, so I won’t. But what I will say is that this is an organization that has been a proven partner time and time again in delivering projects on the ground that benefit communities, benefit workers and really put the health of our forests at the foresight.

I want to recognize Dave Peterson, who’s the chair; Trish Dohan; John Massier; Ken Day; Mike P. Kelly; my acting deputy minister, Ian Meier; and our outgoing assistant deputy minister for the coast region, Sarah Fraser, who have served as the board for the last year.

With an investment of $20 million per year from the province of British Columbia over the next two years — year one was 2024-25 — the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., FESBC, is going to be able to continue to fund projects to conduct wildfire prevention, planning and fuel mitigation treatments near higher-risk communities and be able to support critical infrastructure. The funding is also going to be able to support projects to increase the use of low-value residual fibre left on site after logging that would otherwise be burned in slash piles.

The member opposite is from rural B.C. I think he will understand more than most people the frustration that people have with seeing slash piles being burned. A top priority for me is finding ways to be able to address that. We’re doing some work within the ministry. I’ve engaged with the member’s colleague, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I know it’s always been a priority for him, not just in this term but for a number of years, going back to his time even before he became an MLA.

I look forward to any ideas and solutions that the member opposite has as they pertain to that, because this is really important work. Any time I drive through rural B.C., I see less slash piles than I did six, seven years ago when I was first a staffer in this ministry, so I think we have been making some progress in regard to that. Certainly, the funding that we receive from the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. plays a key role in that.

Other stuff that we’ve done, as well, I just want to recognize again. I’ve touched on the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund. The ministry also provided $1.5 million a year, fiscal ’24-25, for the First Nations–led biohub projects, lignin and cellulose research projects that are going to help the pulp sector increase the incremental fibre and get more value out of that fibre as well.

This is a huge opportunity when we look at the bioeconomy operation here in British Columbia. Europe is leading the way in this. I want to catch up to them in terms of the work. The chief forester is leading a great team focused on this. The ministry has also been doing work over the last number of years in terms of developing policies to reduce waste and improve access to residual fibre, like the coast fibre recovery zones that have taken place.

I think in the last year, through FESBC, we have taken 70,000…. I’ll get the exact number for the member. I don’t want to get this number wrong, but it’s a significant amount of logging trucks’ worth of fibre out of the bush to pulp facilities, to biomass facilities. That’s certainly very important, and the coast fibre recovery zones have certainly helped in reducing raw log exports as well.

I would also add, because this was a very detailed question from the member, that there has been a significant amount of work being done in the Forest Service as it pertains to overall support of the forest sector and also some of the work that we’re doing on commercial thinning. The member was at COFI and heard some of my comments in my speech as regards to that. I understand…. I wasn’t at COFI the previous year, but this was a big priority that was talked about quite a bit. So I’ll share with the member that Joe Nemeth and the pulp and paper sector coalition is actually actively working with our team on developing guidelines and policies as it pertains to commercial thinning.

And as I announced last week, on Friday, at COFI, we’ve got four pilots in business areas all across the province through the B.C. Timber Sales review. I will get a chance to dive into that in a little bit. Part of that and all of that work is making sure that we’re supporting our pulp and paper sector while also making sure that we’re getting fibre to our sawmills, primary manufacturers and to secondary manufacturers as well.

Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

[6:10 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister. We went over a lot of information in a very short period of time from the questions that were asked. I appreciate the minister for trying to put a whole package together, because there’s a bunch of different things that the minister touched upon. I appreciate him talking about some of the ongoing investment that especially our value-added sector is continuing to do to try to keep themselves in business.

He also mentioned FESBC, and I would like the opportunity to talk about that at a later time as we go through the presentation and some of the different things that come from that, whether it’s biofuel, biomass, some of the things that they’re doing on the land base, particularly when it comes to wildfire mitigation and commercial thinning.

But the one thing that the minister didn’t touch on, and this is the one that keeps coming back and forth, is that when we look at the COFI report and all the other reports that we’ve been compiling over the last two and three years, the number one item of concern is certainty of supply. That’s the number one item that is causing the most amount of lack of investment and the opportunities in this forest industry. Even when we look at the numbers of the AAC of 61, we have a drive to 45, and we only had 32 last year, the reality is we’re not getting enough fibre to our facilities in enough time.

I’ve got a couple of fairly specific questions to the minister in regards to permitting. One of them is…. There was a mention the other day — I believe it was in COFI — of the fact that the government is speeding up the process with cutting permits from an average of 45 days to 25 days. Well, I can ask a question. What is the total time in that permitting process?

The Premier mentioned that that isn’t a factor, or that isn’t a factor that is calculated. I would argue that is the most important part of the whole equation. It’s not the end of the time. It’s the whole time in developing these permits. We’ve been told time and time and time again that these permits are taking way too long.

These are in timber supply agreements. These are in total harvest land-based plans. All of a sudden, there are new plans that are coming up that are affecting the overall operating areas. It seems like, for whatever reason, nobody wants to get to the bottom of it and try to determine what is causing this problem.

Now, we can offer up some of the suggestions in that the approval process is getting too long and too onerous. We can look at what’s on the books right now when it comes to laws and how we go through the process. But I’d like the minister to tell me: what are we going to do to try to simplify this process? Instead of stretching it out as long as it’s taking now, anywhere between three and four years, why aren’t we able to look at ways of changing that whole process to simplify the process? That’s number one.

The second part of that question is…. When you look at investment — and back to the COFI report — it says right here that in attractiveness for investment, B.C. has the lowest rating of all the other peer groups. That’s Europe. That’s Brazil. That’s the United States. So there’s a significant correlation between the certainty of supply; our taxation, which is uncompetitive — we’re down at the lowest rate of 1.7 — and also all the other factors that are coming into play, including the duties.

That’s part of it. We were able to survive at 14 percent. Now, of course, when it gets up to another 20 percent, that’s going to be a significant hit, and we’re not entirely sure how that’s going to work out. But in the meantime, we still need these facilities to continue to keep operating.

So my question to the minister is: what efficiencies is he able to achieve in the next 30 to 60 to 90 days to be able to speed up this process, which has been on the docket for the last two to three years?

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the questions as they pertain to permitting. This was certainly a timely topic at COFI last weekend and, certainly, something that’s been discussed, I think, for quite some time.

Certainly, the member opposite will know that the Premier has made this a priority across government. That’s why we have a deputy ministers committee responsible for speeding up permitting, finding ways…. We’ve got a number of projects, and getting that sustainable timber-harvesting land base is one of those major projects. I’m looking forward to working with my colleagues across government in regard to that.

The member opposite talks a bit about the time as it pertains to submitting a permit. What he referenced were internal goals that the ministry has, with regard to 40 days, and how as minister I’ve directed the deputy minister to set a new goal of 25 days, which the Premier talked about at COFI.

I just want, again, to clarify that in the data that we track, we only track the time from when the permit is submitted to when it is approved. The member has noted the work that happens prior to a permit being submitted, but we’re certainly finding ways to be able to find efficiencies within that period. We’re excited to be able to work with industry on that. We are working with COFI, with other partners, loggers, contractors and also First Nations around creating efficiencies, streamlining the process.

In one particular case — the member may be aware, because it was touched on in my speech at COFI — we’re actually bundling archaeology and cutting permits in the Skeena area as it relates to First Nations consultation. If it’s successful, which I expect it will be, we’ll look to roll that out across the province at all of our offices. Those are the types of innovative measures that we’re taking on, on this side, to be able to address the opportunities ahead.

The other thing I want to chat a bit about, as it relates to the work around certainty and predictability, is the great work that has been happening for some time now — and that I get the opportunity to be a part of as Minister of Forests — with regard to forest landscape planning tables. FLPs have been a top priority for our government. Premier Horgan first announced the concept of FLPs at a COFI Convention some number of years ago.

The Premier has reiterated the importance of this, right up until his speech last week. FLPs continue to remain a key priority for my ministry and, really, I think, are a vital pathway to certainty and resiliency in British Columbia’s forest sector, which will certainly benefit communities all across the province — on the coast, in the Interior, in the North. FLPs identify where and how, if the member is not aware, forest management activities can occur.

What I love about FLPs is the opportunity to be able to bring people together — First Nations, industry, workers, the entire sector — at these tables to be able to have these types of conversations. Again, this is the type of work that needs to happen. It’s aligned with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

[6:25 p.m.]

This is not a ministry that wants to go backwards, where we’re fighting people. We’re doing meaningful consultation. We’re engaging with people in a respectful way, at the table. I’m really proud of the work that our teams are doing, not just from the ministry side, from the Forest Service side, but at tables all across the province.

I’ve made it a priority to actually go and participate in FLP tables. I felt it was really important, as a minister, for me to be able to talk about FLPs. I should really have a better understanding of what the work is that happens on the ground. I’ve visited four FLP tables over the course of that…. Well, three and one that is just in the initialization period.

And there’s been incredible conversations. There are so many good people at these tables. I think of a young man, who was at the Quesnel table, who has been doing work in forestry for a shorter period of time but just brings such a great youthful perspective to forestry and support of the nation that he works for.

I just want to reiterate how important it is for First Nations to be at these tables, to be working with government leading these conversations. When the member opposite talks about certainty and predictability, that’s how we accomplish that, by working together.

We cannot go backwards to a time where we push people aside, where there is division. FLP tables are the best way to address that today. There are 15 forest landscape planning tables underway at various stages with more than 90 First Nations that are participating in these FLP tables. Forest landscape planning tables represent almost 46 percent of the land base here in British Columbia.

Again, I just want to reiterate how thankful I am to everyone, in particular as well to industry for the work that they’ve been doing at these tables. I've engaged with industry reps at every single one. I had dinner with a group at the Lakes Resiliency hall, and the same group have been doing incredible work.

I think of a guy named Miles. We have a bit of a joke. I gave him my cell phone number. The advice that we get when we become elected is don’t hand out your cell phone number, but he had a bit of a joke, because he said: “You’re number 13, lucky number 13.” I'm the 13th forest minister he’s dealt with.

I think Miles is probably going to be in his mid to late 70s, but I think of the commitment that Miles and his colleagues have doing this work at the table, and it was a real joy for me to be there just for a short period of time. I think it was with the Lakes Resiliency one for about three hours, getting the opportunity to see our incredible staff helping facilitate these conversations and to see the leadership shown by industry, by First Nations and so many others.

Again, when we were looking at creating certainty and predictability, this is how we do that work, and I’m excited to be able to continue that work as the Minister of Forests.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for his comments.

Part of the reason why I asked the question about certainty of supply, and I appreciate the minister talking about these FLPs, I can argue that there hasn’t been the level of consultation that many of us would hope has been going on.

As everyone knows, some of these new FLPs were initiated last spring only between the B.C. government and First Nations. There wasn’t anybody else in that original framework, and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but I'm pretty sure I’m right.

From that, there’s also been additional plans that have been released, including a joint agreement plan that was just released on February 28 of this year. It includes the Ministry of Forests and numerous First Nations, but nobody else. Industry was not consulted. I don’t believe community forests were consulted.

And so, there are significant challenges with those agreements when you look at timber harvesting land bases of reductions of anywhere between ten to 13 percent, increase in old growth protected areas. We have the shrinking land base with all these constraints.

So my question to the minister is, how are we supposed to be able to drive to 45 or even pretend that we have a sustainable forest plan, or forest industry in this province, if we continually keep changing the goal posts and not having the level of consultation that I believe everyone in this province deserves? Maybe the minister can maybe elaborate a little bit more on these because, quite frankly, we haven’t seen the level of consultation.

[6:30 p.m.]

We’ve basically been seeing changes in our access to a timber supply agreement area and now we need back that certainty of supply. We all believe that we don’t have that. So maybe the minister can clarify a little bit more on what the plans are in 2025 when it comes to land use management plans. When we have these joint agreements that are put out, where is that level of consultation? Even though there’s a draft across it — and I can get a copy for everybody if they’d like to see it — but there are some things in there that I would argue are unstatutory decisions, and they’re things that we really need to be able to discuss.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think it would just be helpful for us if the member could speak to what exact plan he was referring to when he was relaying his question.

Ward Stamer: I will get a copy for the minister from what I’m referring to as a joint agreement plan between Ministry of Forests and a significant number of First Nations in and around my riding. I believe that it was released March 14. I would certainly like to be able to come back — if we can’t do that today, we could certainly do it tomorrow — because I do have some significant questions in regard to some of the assumptions that are made in that document and how we move forward on those questions.

But having discussed a little bit about certainty of supply and knowing that we have some significant challenges in our industries and knowing, as we mentioned earlier about the pulp and paper industry, how critical it is for us to be able to maintain our primary manufacturing facilities, because without them we won’t have a pulp and paper industry, and we certainly won’t have our value added at the same time.

The minister mentioned a little bit about FESBC, and so that brings me to a new topic. That was what keyed my interest last week when we were at COFI, a dramatic change in what BCTS’s mandate is in regards to additional forest stewardship and wildfire mitigation, and a shift away from traditionally being a way of bringing fibre to the market — the original mandate of 20 percent of the available harvest to market. Our stumpage system is based on that new system and on the auction process. We can argue whether it’s a fair auction or not because of the way the system works, but that’s what we have today.

So my question is…. To the minister: can they provide us with up-to-date data, even though it’s a moment in time, on how this is going to change not only the harvest levels in BCTS…? Because last year there was only 12.2 of the harvest instead of the 20 percent that it normally is, and I think in the last previous two or three years it was below the 20 percent.

What is the minister’s plan going forward with BCTS if they’re going to start getting into things that the B.C. Wildfire Service is doing or emergency preparedness is doing or FESBC is doing? How do we determine from this year’s budget how much they’re going to spend? What work are they planning to do in 2025?

[6:35 p.m. - 6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I will start maybe just…. We may touch on this later, as the member wasn’t able to provide the document, but FLPs, forest landscape planning tables, start with a government-to-government engagement. But I just want to be very clear that industry, technical representatives and other stakeholders — which include community forests, local governments, and workers, labour — are at those tables. They are not individuals that are consulted. They are at the table having these conversations. Again, it’s why we’ve invested so much in FLPs in terms of dollars and resources and why they’re a top priority for us.

I’ll just highlight…. The member across the way touched on the B.C. Timber Sales review that I’m leading with an incredible team within the Forest Service, but also an incredible task force. I’ve got the likes of a former minister, former MLA from the B.C. Liberals, George Abbott. I’ve got Lenny Joe from the First Nations Forestry Council, their CEO; alongside another great local government advocate, Brian Frenkel, who the member may know well, certainly his leader will know well, as a councillor in Vanderhoof.

So it was really important for me to be able to pick three, what I would say, outstanding British Columbians, people who are focused on communities, focused on the opportunities ahead, and help advise me and guide me on the future of B.C. Timber Sales. This was a direction that the Premier put in my mandate letter, something that we campaigned on in the last election and something that I think was quite welcomed by the Council of Forest Industries, the Interior Logging Association and a whole host of other stakeholders.

There are a number of goals as it pertains to the BCTS review, but as the member touched on in his question, the piece that I spoke to in my remarks at the Council of Forest Industries Convention last week in Prince George was specifically around the challenge that we have in terms of wildfires and how this really needs an all-of-government approach.

The member named a couple of different agencies, FESBC, B.C. Wildfire Service, Ministry of Forests. I want the member to know that all of those organizations are working together. In fact, FESBC…. While it technically is an outside agency, Jason Fisher, the executive director, is closely working with our team. And the B.C. Wildfire Service is part of the Ministry of Forests.

There is an opportunity for us to be able to harness and lean in on building and expanding the role that B.C. Timber Sales has in complementing the work that the B.C. Wildfire Service has been doing for the last number of years in terms of risk reduction.

All of this comes back to the member’s earlier comments and questions pertaining to getting fibre to where it needs to go. When I spoke and I talked about the role of B.C. Timber Sales and expanding that, I heard from a lot of folks afterwards at COFI, as I spent some extra time in Prince George, how much they appreciated that, mostly because…. Here was an example where at the previous COFI Convention, commercial thinning, partial harvesting, selective logging, alongside overall wildfire mitigation work was talked about and was — to my understanding, because I wasn’t there — a pretty singular focus of the 2024 COFI convention.

And here was an opportunity, as part of the BCTS review, where we were able to take what was, I understand, great panels, great conversations, and actually start laying out a vision and plan for that.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

It’s still a little bit short on specifics because if BCTS is going to be getting more into the stewardship program and even if we start looking at some of the opportunities with fuel mitigation, commercial thinning, one of the drawbacks on that is a lot of that commercial thinning will be immature trees.

[6:45 p.m.]

It could be thinning in some of the plantations. There may be merchantable timber, but it’s not going to be the same as the mix that we have right now.

So my question is: is there going to be a shift in the deliveries of the fibre that BCTS typically is bringing to auction in the areas that they have today? If there’s going to be a percentage that’s going to be added or taken out because of these thinning projects, what are the targets on that?

More specifically, where is the money going to come from to administer this program? That was kind of my original question around BCTS and whether…. FESBC we know is a separate funded program.

My question was going to be asked on FESBC — if there’s more than a one-year commitment. The minister said there are two years, but I’m not sure if that was for this year and next year or last year and this year. So I’d like a little bit more clarification on the FESBC side of things. I would like to know if there have been any preliminary numbers determined, what is this going to cost?

If there’s going to be additional work that’s going to be outside of the scope of what BCTS originally has been doing…. Again, when you look at what their budget was last year, and they only basically produced just over 50 percent of what they normally would do in work in the scale of what was actually offered for sale.

I’m not criticizing what the organization and the people in it did. I’m just pointing to the fact that we only got half of what we normally would get out of that program or out of that service. So going forward, are we going to be getting up to that 20 percent of the harvestable levels? And if we aren’t, are we going to be subsidizing with some of these other works that have been mentioned? Are we still going to be able to hit 20 percent and do this additional work?

I’m still not quite clear on how this is going to be delivered to the people of B.C., if there’s going to be a change in focus in what BCTS does.

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll just touch on a few things as they pertain to the member’s questions.

First of all, the review is incomplete for B.C. Timber Sales. There is a window of, certainly, a few more months, but what I provided at COFI was some of the preliminary thoughts and perspectives that the task force, myself and the Forest Service have been working on.

That’s what led to the announcement around those four pilots in those four areas that are looking at commercial thinning, partial harvesting, selective logging and also wildfire mitigation work, cultural burning, prescribed fires — that sort of thing.

As part of the work, it’s a real focus that I have as the Minister of Forest to make sure that we’re leveraging B.C. Timber Sales to do more, get more access to fibre and, as we talk about getting more access to fibre, also making sure we’re getting more value from our forests, from our fibre. As part of that, I would also add that we have to look at the full profile of the trees.

[6:55 p.m.]

I think the member and I can agree that we have a very sustainable forest sector here in British Columbia, but there is an opportunity for us to be able to get more boots on the ground, more people working in the bush stewarding our forests.

This is something I heard from Chief Lampreau, Chief Leween from the Cheslatta First Nation. I think of the Syilx First Nations, in particular the Westbank First Nation, who I engaged with — all who were developing these long-term plans. I learned from the nations where I call home — the Sc'ianew, Beecher Bay, the T'Sou-ke, the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ — that we often, in this building, get stuck thinking in four-year cycles.

In forestry, you can’t do that. You can’t have a five-year plan, a 10-year plan. You need a 100-year plan. You need to think seven generations ahead. That’s why we’re doing this work as it pertains to looking at the full profile of the forest.

As part of that, I would say that…. I’m sure the member is aware of thinning and commercial thinning and the role that that can play. But for the folks at home that may not be aware — may have not caught my speech at COFI — thinning is the cutting of individual trees from a stand to maintain or improve the health of remaining trees by providing space and resources for growth, like sunlight, water and nutrients. Commercial thinning refers to an intermediate harvest, where merchantable volume is removed earlier than the final harvest.

I would say this is a key part of the work that we’ve been doing over the last number of years as part of the old-growth strategic review and the action plan. And just, again, looking at the overall health of our forest…. The member will know that there are other jurisdictions that have been doing a good job in this.

Our chief forester has been engaging with other jurisdictions, and he’s leading a working group on commercial thinning that includes First Nations leadership, industry and a whole host of others. It’s a big priority, and I’m quite excited about it.

To the second part of the member’s question as it relates to the Forest Enhancement Society of British Columbia, I’ll just share with him, just to be clear: $20 million this year; $20 million next year; and then 2027-2028, $20 million. So $20 million over the next three years.

The Chair: Members, we will take a five-minute recess now. So please return at 7:02. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 6:57 p.m. to 7:04 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

Ward Stamer: Let’s ask a couple of specific questions in regard to part of the $58 million operating portion of the budget when it comes to road maintenance, rehabilitation and those kinds of questions.

[7:05 p.m.]

I have a couple of specific questions, and if we don’t get the numbers right back, that’s fine, because it’s going to lead into a couple of opportunities for my colleagues to be able to ask questions in regard to access.

First off, can you tell me how many roads were permanently deactivated under the ministry’s responsibility, BCTS and MOF? Can you tell me how many bridges were permanently removed under the same criteria, BCTS and Ministry of Forests? Can you tell me how many roads are going to be permanently deactivated, planned in 2025? Bridges as well.

To add to that, I’d just like to add a comment, in as much as we’re hearing an awful lot of push-back from the public right now on roads that have been used and maintained over generations, quite frankly.

And now we’re finding through successive Forests Ministers…. I brought it to Minister Conroy’s attention, Minister Ralston’s attention when I was a municipal leader, now Minister Parmar. Our belief was that even minimal maintenance standards were not being addressed on many of our roads that are owned by the public. That has caused deterioration of those roads. Their comment was: “We don’t have any money.” But that’s not the answer. The answer is that you have a responsibility.

Now what we’re finding is that these access roads that are being used not only for industry…. They may not be today. It might be two, three, five years in the future, because it’s depending on what timber supply is still left in those areas. But when we start talking about wildfires, we start talking about timing of access to get to those wildfires, those lightning strikes. We talk about other opportunities the public enjoys, whether it’s hiking, biking, fishing, camping, hunting, all these other kinds of things.

We’re hearing it from all over the province, not just in the southern Interior or the north or even down in the Hope area, down towards the Lower Mainland. We’re hearing it everywhere.

I’d like to know if there’s a cohesive plan, going forward? What’s actually going on? Or is it just reactionary to the fact that we haven’t been spending enough money — the ministry hasn’t been spending enough money — on maintaining these roads, and now we’re in an environmental situation where they would much rather deactivate them than maintain them?

I’d like an explanation, and I’d also like a list of kilometres and bridges that have been pulled last year and anything that is planned for this year.

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Maybe just at the outset, resource roads — the member will know well — do really provide a key and critical linkage for people that live in rural communities and for industry, as well as, the member noted, the public for access to recreation opportunities. It sounds like we’ll get an opportunity to be able to dive into that.

The Ministry of Forests is responsible for maintaining approximately 60,000 kilometres of FSRs, forest service roads, throughout British Columbia. Certainly, I want the member to know we’re committed to ensuring that these roads are designed, built and maintained and, when ready, deactivated as safely and effectively as possible.

I would say to some of the comments that the member made…. That provides me an opportunity to be able to thank the work that the ministry is doing, the Forest Service is doing and, in particular, engineers and those that work in the ministry that are responsible for this.

We do have a legal obligation to deactivate certain roads based off of inspections that happen. To the member’s particular question around the number of roads or bridges that will be deactivated in 2025, we don’t have a specific answer. You could have an inspection tomorrow that could lead to a conversation or a deactivation. Again, we have a professional reliance model and trust the hard-working staff within the Forest Service that look at that.

[7:15 p.m.]

But I would say that to the premise of where the member is going, and I presume where we’ll go into with some of these questions…. We are always looking at ways to maintain public access to roads while ensuring there’s public safety. That’s our legal obligation as the Ministry of Forests, and we’re always ready, prepared, to be able to have those conversations.

Of the 60,000 kilometres of forest service roads, roughly 12,000 are roads and sections of roads that we are actively maintaining. A lot of FSRs are sometimes just left to erode once they’re no longer used by industry and are eventually deactivated. There are 28,000 that are district manager FSRs. There are 20,000 that are BCTS FSRs as well.

I would say, to the broader question around funding, that it has been a big priority for our government to ensure that we have the resources to be able to do this work. Recent budget uplifts to the engineering program over the last several years have resulted in an annual increase of $13 million in funding being allocated to the forest service road maintenance. This funding is being targeted and will help mitigate the effects of industry rationalization.

However, there will be, certainly, some comments pertaining to how the ministry handles those dollars. Additionally, the forest employment program, through the engineering branch, has invested an additional $7.4 million into forest service road maintenance over the last several years. That was a program that the member may be aware of that was brought in to be able to support logging contractors to be able to do this work during challenging years.

I think the only other piece that I would add, in addition to those dollars, is that if the member opposite and his colleagues ever have conversations or questions, I welcome them. They can certainly reach out to my office on specific examples. We’ve got staff all over this province that are willing and ready to be able to support their queries, their questions, if any of their constituents bring these forward. It sounds like we might get a chance to dive into some of those.

Ward Stamer: I’d like the opportunity for members of my caucus to ask questions — I believe MLAs for Kelowna-Mission and Boundary-Similkameen. If I can allow that to happen, then I would please allow the opportunity for the member to stand.

Gavin Dew: I know that we’re all very concerned, particularly in light of recent conversations around the carbon tax, about reducing emissions. I would note, as a preface, that Canada produces about two to three times the emissions each year from wildfires as we do from all of human industrial activity. We accounted in 2023 for about 23 percent of global wildfire emissions, which was quite an outsized share.

In that context, I cast my mind back to the 2017 CASA that this government signed with the Greens, specifically to the Emerging Economy Task Force and even more specifically to a pilot launched in 2018 under a program called “not the new normal,” which was a pilot project using AI and machine learning to better predict the paths of wildfires so that we could save our scarce resources and be able to deploy those resources faster and better to address wildfires earlier.

Unfortunately, that pilot was cancelled by this government. I will ask again, to this minister, a question that I asked to the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, who referred the question to this minister.

I’m confused as to why she did that, because I’m actually looking at her mandate letter. Her mandate letter says that she is to ensure her ministry “continues to advance work that allows for the efficient and effective delivery of emergency services to British Columbians everywhere in the province, in times of crisis, by leveraging cost-effective technology innovations.” So the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness either was unable to answer the question, unfamiliar with her portfolio or unwilling to answer the question.

I would ask the minister whether he would agree that the unfortunate and untimely cancellation of this particular pilot initiative, the breaking of this commitment to the Green Party, set back the government of British Columbia’s ability to become more innovative, more fast and more nimble in addressing wildfires.

[7:20 p.m. - 7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and the opportunity I think I've now been provided to be able to talk about the incredible work that the B.C. Wildfire Service is doing each and every day all year round.

One thing that I'm proud of is our government made the strategic decision to make the B.C. Wildfire Service full year, all year round. I had an opportunity to be in Merritt, a place that's going to be quite busy next week as bootcamps begin, and see the results of strategic budget decisions to be able to make the B.C. Wildfire Service full year, all round.

I appreciate the member's questions around technology and innovation. I'm not familiar with the not the new normal program that the member is referring to so if he has more details on that that he could share as it pertains to the number of years. Happy to do that. But I was just chatting with my team, and we're not familiar with it.

As it relates to technology and artificial intelligence and overall innovation in the B.C. Wildfire Service, I think it should be recognized and I think there should be a sense of pride that we have here in British Columbia at the level of innovation that's happening in the B.C. Wildfire Service.

At the outset, I was in California a number of weeks ago. One of the reasons I was down there was not just to do with tariffs but was to be able to help ensure that we continue strengthening our relationships between the British Columbia Wildfire Service and Cal Fire. I can tell you how much those relationships are valued, how much work is happening to be able to strengthen those relationships.

British Columbians know all too well the devastating impacts of wildfires in our communities, and California knows that. I got to tell you, it was such a moving experience to be able to sit across from Joe Tyler, the chief down there. I had my deputy alongside me who's worked in the wildfire service. These were not conversations that pertain to just two separate jurisdictions; these were friendships, long-standing friendships.

Again, I just want to commend the work that the entire B.C. Wildfire Service has been doing the last number of years. There's a sense of pride that I have as the minister responsible for the wildfire service. When California called looking for our help, our folks…. Not only did they step up and head down, but unlike other agencies, they were on the ground helping within minutes of arriving. They didn't have to go through fulsome briefings and orientations because their relationships were already there. There's a sense of pride.

So if we have tough wildfire seasons, I know that California and Cal Fire are going to be there to support us as well. That was the commitment that the chief provided to us, and I'm looking forward to continuing that engagement and that relationship.

Going back to the member’s questions and comments pertaining to technology and innovation in the B.C. Wildfire Service, I'll just touch on a couple pieces that I think should be noted.

One is B.C. Wildfire Service is invested and it is expanding the use of new fire-predictive technologies to support fire growth modelling. This ensures that our incident management teams have the information they need to be able to make informed decisions, projecting fire behaviour on the land base, which really does allow us to be able to increase preparedness and provide quicker responses to fires.

B.C. Wildfire Service — the member will have some sense of pride from his local post-secondary institution — is partnering with UBCO to create a camera network for 2025, which will support earlier detection and ongoing monitoring of wildfires. I want to thank UBC Okanagan for the work they're doing in partnership with us in regards to this. We've got great partnerships with institutions, post-secondary institutions like UBCO. I think of the partnership we have with Thompson Rivers University, which I hope I get an opportunity to talk about as well.

One other thing that I'll mention is AI is starting to be used in inferring drones to better detect, map and notify B.C. Wildfire staff and crews of hotspots on existing fires. And this is really good information for our staff who are making these really tough decisions in terms of sending resources where they need to be.

But also, this is good information that ensures that we're able to better share what's going on, the land base, with British Columbians, encourage people with wildfire season already starting and certainly preparing for whatever the 2025 wildfire season brings.

If you haven't already, download the B.C. Wildfire service app. You can get it on your Android device or your iPhone. And I just want to commend the B.C. Wildfire Service for the work they've been doing based off of the feedback they've received from British Columbians on making sure there's a world-quality app that I know so many British Columbians rely on each and every day during wildfire seasons.

[7:30 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: There was a lot there. Very little of that related to the question.

So I will just come back to try to get the minister to actually answer the question. In fact, I’ll phrase it as a five-part question that he can answer in writing later, since it would appear that he’s not able to cast his mind back to a few years ago when that particular program was initiated and then cancelled. I’ll just ask him to answer these five questions — in writing later is totally fine. It sounds like the minister is nodding and agreeing that he will answer these five questions.

Question 1: would the minister agree that the cancellation of this pilot project was a broken promise to the Green Party?

Question 2: would the minister agree that cancelling that pilot project — which emerged from the Emerging Economy Task Force and the innovation commission, launched as part of the 2017 CASA commitments — delayed the implementation of the kinds of technologies that he is talking about in addressing wildfires?

Question 3 — I’m sure he’ll have no problem whatsoever in addressing it: would the minister agree that delaying implementation, which cost significant dollars fighting wildfires, particularly in seasons like 2023, increased GHG emissions, and increased damage to communities? If he wants to quantify that, he can go ahead, but I’ll settle for a simple: would he agree that cancelling the project led to those outcomes?

Given that I have just flagged that the minister for emergency response actually refused to answer a question in estimates which relates directly to the language in her mandate letter, written by the Premier, who’s sitting right over there….

Since the Premier has just entered the room, I will read back to him the mandate letter, which is that he asked the minister to ensure her ministry “continues to advance work that allows for the efficient and effective delivery of emergency services to British Columbians everywhere in the province, in times of crisis, by leveraging cost-effective technology innovations.” That is specifically in the mandate letter of the minister for emergency response, yet she refused to answer any question to do with this in recent estimates.

Question 4: would the minister agree that his fellow minister has outright denied her own mandate letter and failed to answer a question?

And just because I want to put a constructive note onto the end of this — since the minister referenced my local post-secondary institution, UBC Okanagan, and obviously will be looking for a way to save face and make up for the failure of his government to implement these technologies — will the minister commit to funding the proposed Okanagan wildfire lab at UBC Okanagan, as per the proposal advanced by the university?

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that you’re not to reference whether members are present in the House or, in this case, in the committee or not. Thank you.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member talked about how I didn’t answer his questions. Clearly, he didn’t listen to anything I just said.

I hope that he has a sense of pride, because I think British Columbians have a sense of pride in the world-class work that our B.C. Wildfire Service is doing. I just named a number of examples in which the B.C. Wildfire Service is investing and expanding its use of growth modelling to better inform the decisions it’s making, 24-7, during wildfire season.

I talked about the partnership we have with UBC Okanagan. We will continue to find other ways to be able to support the work of B.C. universities and colleges on this work, because it helps us as well, and it helps better inform the work that we need to do on innovation as it pertains to the B.C. Wildfire Service.

I’ve mentioned AI as it relates to drones, again, making sure that we’re able to make better decisions, but I’ll mention a couple of other things for the benefit of the member. AI is being piloted in B.C. Wildfire Service weather forecasting.

This enhanced weather information will be transformative for wildfire agencies, enabling proactive risk management for better preparedness, more effective real-time response to active fires, with improved resource allocation and the development of what, I think, is going to be really important in the work that we have in the years ahead as we continue to prepare for upcoming wildfire seasons: robust long-term strategies to minimize wildfire impacts. That ties back to the overall resiliency work that the critic and I have been talking about for the last number of hours.

[7:35 p.m.]

B.C. Wildfire Service is also monitoring other artificial intelligence projects related to wildfire and weather, with some showing promising results in accuracy and operational applicability. Overall, I would say that AI is playing a positive role, and increasingly, a significant role, in enhancing the accuracy, the speed and the efficiency of the work that the B.C. Wildfire Service is doing.

I had an opportunity, because I had House duty, to be able to listen to some of the questions the member posed. I would encourage him to go and look at the mandate letter for the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. I would encourage him to go and read the books, because the B.C. Wildfire Service is the responsibility of the Minister of Forests. If he has more questions, I welcome them.

Gavin Dew: I do believe I just read out the relevant section of the mandate letter, which is pretty darn specifically connected here. I realize that the minister probably isn’t very happy about being unable to answer this question.

I do hope that as he affirmed, he will, in fact, answer those five questions in writing. Is that correct? Is that affirmed?

Yeah, great. Super.

I’ll take it to an easier question, a dramatically easier question. The Friends of the South Slopes Society, or FOSS, is a volunteer-driven organization that advocates for and provides access to connected and well-maintained recreation areas across the south slopes of Kelowna and the Kettle Valley Railway by constructing and maintaining public facilities, trails and signs and working with government partners to protect and expand natural areas.

They have strong partnerships with B.C. Parks and, by all accounts, an excellent working relationship with the great staff in that ministry and, indeed, in this ministry. They have recently informed me that they are working with staff in the Ministry of Forests to secure permission for FOSS to improve and maintain a section of a quite substantially used forest service road in order to enhance access to parking for trail users, and they wish to do this at their cost.

The scope of work is quite limited, and there is no funding asked from government. However, the machinery of government can move slowly and can be confusing to groups attempting to partner with government. I’d really like to help them get this one done before the summer season is underway in earnest, both for local trail users and for tourists.

Can the minister please confirm that he is supportive of this kind of commonsense approach, with no cost to government, and whether he will direct his ministry teams to expedite this decision?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

A couple things that I would say at the outset is I’m always prepared and willing to be able to have conversations with FOSS, with himself and other organizations. This sounds quite interesting. I’m certainly interested in learning more, so maybe the member could provide me some more details. He mentioned trails and, as the member knows, rec sites and trails used to exist in the Ministry of Forests and have actually moved over to the Ministry of Environment and Parks. He mentioned B.C. Parks being a part of that conversation, but in order to be able to provide, I think, a more fulsome answer, I’d need more specifics.

But what I’ll end with is: by saying that as we talk about this work, it’s really important to acknowledge that there is a professional responsibility, a financial responsibility of the province to ensure, and a liability to ensure, that professional engineers are involved in this work. And we certainly have a great team within the Forest Service that can help advise and give guidance. If the member opposite wants to maybe provide some of that information, I can make sure that the Forest Service team in that area reaches out and starts those conversations if they haven’t already started.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I appreciate the answer.

This is definitely just as it relates to the FSR. They’re fully recognized in the scope of the other areas. I’ll follow up with the minister later in writing, and I appreciate that.

I’ll now turn it over to my colleague.

Donegal Wilson: Staying on the same theme around recreation and road access, and while we do appreciate that rec sites and trails are no longer within your ministry, just about every access to a park or recreation site in the province does involve a forestry road to get there.

What specific budget has the province allocated in this fiscal year for the maintenance and repair of forestry roads to provide access to recreation sites, trails and B.C. parks?

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and her participation in these estimates.

Maybe just at a high level: the work that the Forest Service does is supporting the work of industry but also a whole host of things. There’s a great amount of work that the ministry is doing in partnership all across government in, kind of, the integrated land base that we have — not just for recreation but for getting to First Nations rural communities, to remote communities and, of course, supporting the work of industry as well.

I would say at a core pillar, when we’re looking at dollars, safety is our top priority as we do our work. So specifically, to the member’s question: in our capital budget, the integrated resource operations division has $20.3 million set aside and B.C. Timber Sales has $47.83 million set aside for roads.

But again, I just want to reiterate that these are dollars not for rec sites or for recreation; rather, this is for that entire integrated approach, with safety obviously being a key priority — supports industry, supports remote communities, supports remote First Nations and a whole host of other things as well.

Donegal Wilson: While I understand that there is budget, I would love to know the actual priority list of where that money goes, because coming from the recreation sector in a previous hat, I can tell you that recreation is the bottom of the list. So I believe that this government’s process…. I know that’s not necessarily yours, but it is within FRPA, so it does live within your ministry.

These First Nations and volunteer organizations are spending countless hours to establish these recreation sites and trails. It now takes up to five years to get a new recreation site actually approved, let alone built. It’s built with volunteer money. And at the end of the day, that road to that trail is not protected or included in these budgets, and so that’s really disappointing.

B.C.’s tourism economy and the foundation of “Super, natural” British Columbia rests heavily on the contributions of volunteers and non-profit recreation groups. These organizations contribute thousands of hours annually to develop and maintain these outdoor recreation opportunities. They’re building infrastructure used by both residents and tourists.

While the province is investing significantly in promoting B.C.’s tourism experience, why does it continue to download responsibilities onto these groups without providing adequate financial support?

As an example, the McBride Big Country Snowmobile club is sustaining an entire winter tourism economy in their community. The province has not allocated the funds to replace a key bridge, jeopardizing not only club operations but the local economy of McBride. My office continues to receive urgent emails from businesses and residents who need snowmobile access restored.

I asked this of the Ministry of Environment yesterday and was brought here to the Ministry of Forests. I was told this bridge is yours. We need this bridge fixed, and I’m hoping it can be included in that $20.3 million that you’ve referenced.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question.

I just want to clarify that the engineers within the Forest Service provide engineering services to Rec Sites and Trails, so the trails that the member opposite is referring to are trails that live within the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

I'm not going to send the member back to the Ministry of Environment and Parks, but what I will share with the member is: I had a great meeting, at the end of COFI last week, with the mayor of McBride. I had an opportunity to be able to establish my relationship with him, and I heard from him the impact that this is having on his community.

It was the Ministry of Forests engineers that made the difficult decision to remove the bridges that the member is talking about, for obvious reasons as it pertains to safety. These are professional individuals. I’m sure the member will agree that…. I’m not an engineer. I’m not going to try to be an engineer. These are professionals that make these decisions.

The commitment that I made to the mayor of McBride was for him to come, virtually or to Victoria, to be able to have a conversation around: where do we go from here? This is obviously going to be a conversation that involves the Minister of Environment and Parks, but I’m also happy to share with the member that the Forest Service is happy to be a part of those conversations as well.

I recognize that this is a fairly significant…. The mayor shared with me, I think, one of the most popular snowmobiling access points, not just in British Columbia but the entire country.

I shared with the mayor that we’re more than willing to be able to have conversations. From what it sounds like, the mayor has got some interesting ideas to be able to potentially address and mitigate those concerns.

I understand for the previous season there was some work done between the Ministry of Environment and Parks to be able to mitigate some of those challenges as well.

Thanks very much to the member for the question.

Donegal Wilson: The question wasn’t whether the bridge needed to be replaced. It’s definitely a safety hazard and does need to be replaced. I didn’t hear a clear commitment that that was going to happen this summer. Snowmobile season, for some of us, isn’t very far away. The reality is that that bridge is going to take some significant time.

I feel that the mayor of McBride shouldn’t have to come down to tell the story. The story has been entered into the record. You’re aware of the story, and I would like to see some commitment to that bridge for the community of McBride and the businesses it depends on.

Their forestry sector is no more. They need to diversify, and this is their opportunity.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I agree with the member. I met with the mayor of McBride. He expressed his concerns, the challenges. I made a commitment to him that I would work alongside my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Parks.

To clarify, once again, this is a Rec Sites and Trails…. Rec Sites and Trails doesn’t exist in the Ministry of Forests. We have engineers that provide services to Rec Sites and Trails, and I am happy to work with the mayor to be able to address those challenges and work towards finding some long-term solutions.

The mayor could certainly come down here. I’m more than happy to pay a visit to him and McBride as well.

[7:55 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that, and I’ll pass it back to Kamloops–North.

Ward Stamer: Let’s pick up a little bit more on B.C. Wildfire Service if we can. I agree with the minister that we are incredibly fortunate and thankful for the women and men that work in our B.C. Wildfire Service. I’ve been on the fire line many times. It’s not a good job. It’s not a fun job, but it’s an important job.

This leads me back to a conversation that I had just a few hours ago with members of the minister’s staff. I have a couple of questions, specific questions with our B.C. Wildfire Service pertaining to this spring.

All indication, from what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard — and maybe the minister can back me up on this — is that our spring is looking to be drier than it normally should be. If we have a very quick memory of what happened in 2023, the similarities are striking, inasmuch as we could be in exactly the same scenario as we had in 2023. I think everyone in this room would agree how disastrous that was, not only for the province but for the people that live here.

So I have a couple of specific questions to the minister in regards to B.C. Wildfire Service and initial response.

The first one is: why did the B.C. Wildfire Service transfer the initial response team from Chetwynd to Dawson Creek? There was a statement made that the crew is only 20 minutes away from Chetwynd by helicopter. My question to the minister is: how many helicopters are stationed in Dawson Creek, and if they’re not stationed in Dawson Creek, what is the nearest helicopter in that area?

The second question that I have — and I brought this to the minister’s attention last week when we were in the House — is to do with the incident attack crew that used to be in Clearwater.

Just for a couple of points of clarity. Kamloops to Valemount is 322 kilometres, and Clearwater to Valemount is 200 kilometres. I would think that’s a fairly large forested area for us to be trying to protect in a fire season. I’m asking the question: why does it seem that the district of Clearwater is recognizing the need for an initial attack crew in their community to protect their area of the North Thompson Valley yet the B.C. Wildfire Service does not?

My question to the minister is: now that it looks like our spring is dry, is there an opportunity for the B.C. Wildfire Service to look at other opportunities in Chetwynd and Dawson Creek and also for Clearwater and any other areas that may be potentially impacted by a dry and hazardous fire season?

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

[8:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister or Forests.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn’t see you there. Welcome to this fun debate and discussion we’re having.

[8:05 p.m.]

This is a serious topic. I thank the member opposite for raising it.

I want him and his colleagues to know that as a coastal MLA, I haven’t fully appreciated — in my time, as someone raised in Langford, living in southern Vancouver Island — the impacts that wildfires have on rural communities, the Interior or the northern part of the province, but also the coast as well. I remember being the MLA for Sooke a couple of years ago and the impact of the Old Man Lake Fire, and that was an eye-opener for me.

So maybe just at a high level, I want to make a commitment to the members across the way that as we are heading into the wildfire season, we are in the wildfire season, a full commitment from myself and the B.C. Wildfire Service team to ensure that there are updates, there are briefings, that we provide the information.

I think there’s been a very good practice, no matter who is in power, to ensure that all members, whether they’re government, opposition, third party, even independents, have the information they need. At the end of the day, you folks are going to be the ones, the members across the way, getting calls from your constituents, and it’s really important for us to be able to provide that information.

I know in the past, the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and the Minister of Forests, responsible for the B.C. Wildfire Service, worked together in some cases to provide daily calls, daily updates. So what I’ll leave as a commitment is, in the weeks ahead, I’ll engage with my counterpart, the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, around developing a strategy to provide briefings and just set a bit of a schedule in terms of making sure that members across the way, also members of the government caucus, get the information they need and also provide some opportunity for them to be able to better understand the supports that the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness provides, also the work that the B.C. Wildfire Service provides as well.

I would also add, maybe just at the outset, that we’ll be providing some modeling updates and some updates as it pertains to preparing for the 2025 wildfire season. I want the member to know that every single year, we are preparing for the worst-case scenario. We have no choice but not to. The team in the Wildfire Service is doing that work right now. And again, we’ll be happy to provide more details, as it’s obviously a very fluid situation — always preparing for the worst-case scenario.

As it pertains to the B.C. Wildfire Service, we are on track to be fully prepared for the 2025 wildfire season and the freshet season as well. As I touched on, the B.C. Wildfire Service works with Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, with local governments and First Nations in preparation for wildfire season, and it’s really important for me to be able to share that we’ve always had a continued focus on key relationships, key partnerships and building capacity and preparedness in response.

And I would add the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association as an example of that. I met with the president of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association a couple of weeks ago when I was in Kamloops and talked a bit about, you know, from his perspective, the relationship between B.C. Wildfire Service and the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, and we’re starting from a position of strength. I think there are always opportunities to be able to grow that across industry and local governments as well.

I also want to recognize, as I have, the disproportionate impact that wildfires have on local governments, especially where the member represents in the Interior and the North as well. It’s always helpful to hear ideas and perspectives from local government leaders, community leaders on how best we can work together. I’m really proud of the work that the B.C. Wildfire Service has been doing for the last number of years, in particular the last couple of years, and just making sure that they’re rooted on the ground, hearing those concerns and providing that information as well.

Again, encourage folks to download the B.C. Wildfire app that provides a lot of information as well. The B.C. Wildfire Service has set up the FireSmart pilot program for regional district cooperative community wildfire response. Organizations are coordinated through UBCM, which provides funding to regional districts in B.C. to increase community resiliency and help build a cooperative pathway for wildfire response by undertaking training and purchasing PPE for local community members in areas that do not fall within a structural fire protection jurisdiction area.

I’ll also share with the member that B.C. Wildfire Service is continuing to expand the use of night vision goggle technology for aerial rotary night operations, including nighttime detection and tanking. B.C. Wildfire Service has expanded its long-term rotary wing aircraft for the 2025 wildfire season to ensure the availability and an increased response posture. This in addition to the aircrafts that are hired when required, based on hazard and response requirements.

[8:10 p.m.]

This is something that I’m really proud of in terms of the work of our government. B.C. Wildfire Service has grown its full-time staffing by 55 percent since 2021 to be able to better plan, prepare, respond and mitigate the impacts of wildfires, again, because of the work that we’ve done on this side of the House to be able to make the B.C. Wildfire Service full-time, all year round. It was why we were able to be in a position to be able to provide resources to our counterparts in Cal Fire.

I’ll also add that I was in Merritt a couple of weeks ago announcing that the 2025 wildfire season broke a record in terms of the number of new recruits that wanted to join the B.C. Wildfire Service — over 1700 applications by January 2025. I expect that there were some more that have come in, and boot camps are beginning in the next couple of weeks as well.

During the 2024 wildfire season, B.C. Wildfire Service also invested $16 million to expand B.C. Wildfire Service’s on-the-ground firefighting equipment. We acquired two additional mass water systems, we acquired additional structure protection units, and we also began the process of establishing a new equipment depot in Prince George, which I think the member opposite may have asked for an update from Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness in the other estimates. Happy to provide an update on that if they’re interested.

We also increased the number of First Nations partners for initial attacks for Indigenous communities to respond to wildfires and increased from 149 to 162 initial attack crews.

As it pertains to the member’s question around the communities of Chetwynd and Clearwater and the specifics around Dawson Creek, I would say a couple of things. We don’t have crews in every community. We have provincial resources. They are pre-positioned, and these are decisions not made by myself. These are decisions made by the B.C. Wildfire Service based on the intel and planning that happens — a great team that does really important work. So I would say resources, inclusive of crews, will be pre-positioned in communities with forward attack bases.

To really respond to, I think, the premise of the member’s question, a couple of pieces. One is we are always going to be there to help communities impacted by wildfires. I want it to be very clear that we are not going to abandon any community. The B.C. Wildfire Service is world-class. I mean that. They will be there to support communities wherever we need to be able to better support the challenges that we will be dealing with as it relates to wildfires.

So just to reiterate, these are provincial resources, and so as we look at pre-positioning them, this is a decision made by the B.C. Wildfire Service. There may be a year a few months from now where, based off of the intel, the B.C. Wildfire Service may make the decision to actually pre-position an initial attack crew in Clearwater. It may make a decision to pre-position an initial attack crew in Chetwynd, in Clearwater. Those are decisions made. All of the resources we have are provincial resources. Where the fires happen, those are where the resources go.

I’ll just say, one of the reasons I went to Clearwater, besides to talk about forestry in Barriere and throughout the region and to engage with the Simpcw Nation, was to specifically go and talk to the mayor of Clearwater, who’s been quite vocal. And again, I fully understand and appreciate the challenges that his community faces as it relates to wildfires and Wildfire Service.

I brought along Jeff from our B.C. Wildfire Service team in Kamloops to be able to help support me in conversations, and it was a great conversation. The Simpcw Nation has an initial attack crew. The member opposite, I think, is well aware of that. They’ve been doing great work, we have a great partnership with them, and I welcome the opportunity for us to be able to work with the Clearwater volunteer firefighter department, with the mayor, to be able to help increase their capacity and to be able to work in tandem with them.

We’ve got a great working relationship. I have had a great working relationship with the mayor of Clearwater — actually, funny enough, with the mayor of Clearwater and Chetwynd. I met them at a UBCM probably six, seven years ago. They are outstanding representatives for their communities. I think the member and I will agree. I have, in many cases, chatted with them, sometimes weekly and biweekly, since I became minister.

And looking forward to ensuring that we have strong relationships and we continue to have strong relationships between the B.C. Wildfire Service, the Ministry of Forests and those communities.

[8:15 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: As representative for Peace River South, I would like to let the minister know that the communities of Dawson Creek and Chetwynd are both in my riding.

I’d also like to let the minister know that having driven through that area many, many times, I can recount an experience whereby driving to a vacation property in Powder King, my wife and I drove past a very small pilot of smoke — or a very small amount. By the time we arrived in Powder King less than an hour later, the entire valley was on fire.

I can further let the minister know that there are no helicopters permanently positioned in Dawson Creek. With the initial attack force being moved from Chetwynd to Dawson Creek — that would take over an hour’s drive in one direction — that hour’s drive, I would question…. At what point do we put lives at risk? That is my significant concern.

The Chair: Can you please repeat the question, Member?

Larry Neufeld: Will the minister consider reviewing the decision to move the initial attack force from Chetwynd to Dawson and return it to Chetwynd?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. I just want to reiterate: all of the resources we have are provincial resources. B.C. Wildfire Service makes decisions in preparation for every season. Being that these are provincial resources, there may be a year in the 2025 wildfire season where we decide, based off of the intel, based off of the modelling that we have, that it’s best-positioned to have the resource in Chetwynd, or it may be the best decision to have it in Clearwater.

But again, these are provincial resources, and even if they’re based to begin with in those communities, they may move as well. Again, it’s really important; these are provincial resources.

Ward Stamer: Yeah, and just as a point of reference, too, to the minister, it was way back in the beginning of our fire season 2021 when I was fortunate enough to speak at the TNRD and specifically asked for full-time firefighters. So that request went back a long way for municipal leaders. I’m glad that the B.C. Wildfire Service decided to do that in the spring of 2022, and I think we’ve all benefited from it immensely.

If I may, let’s switch over from B.C. Wildfire Service. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on that.

Can we get back to the BCTS? When we talk about certainty of supply, I’d like to offer up a couple of examples. What they relate to are some of the challenges that we have in our stumpage system. I think we talked about it earlier, about the challenges of the fact that we have the highest cost structure in North America. Part of that is our stumpage system and the system that we use to pay for the opportunity to harvest off of Crown land.

I just wanted to share this from one of the members of a First Nation group and just allow the minister to respond on some of the realities that are occurring in our BCTS system and see if there’s anything that the minister can add to this.

In a provincial BCTS stumpage model, and we’re just going to use some very simple numbers…. Let’s say a mill or a manufacturing facility offers $100 a cubic metre to broker for a BCTS block that has been purchased. The broker takes 5 percent, which is $5. The logger takes $60, which will be for doing the work and the transportation. That puts the BCTS bid at $35.

But when a First Nations forest company does it — and let’s say they use their woodlot, as an example — the stumpage is $35, because that’s set as the example from BCTS. The logger takes the $60 for the harvesting and the transportation. The broker takes $5, the mill buys the wood for $100 and the nation makes nothing.

As the nations are usually not the broker or the logger, and they don’t have mills to create profits, a change in the stumpage system is the only way to incentivize First Nations to harvest. They will not harvest trees if they cannot make any money. Therefore many nations are not harvesting and have created the economic benefits associated with this for their people. And obviously, allowing that fibre to flow back into our primary facilities and, again, without the primary facilities, we don’t have value-added in this province, because without making dimensional lumber they are not able to make those secondary products that we need just as much as the primary products.

[8:20 p.m.]

In addition, if the current provincial stumpage system is not flexible to allow for different or innovative harvesting methods — i.e., partial harvesting or commercial thinning, especially when working in the wildland urban interface…. When we’re working on a harvest on a reserve, the federal government dropped the stumpage in half to help offset the additional cost of partial-cut harvesting being used for the fire hazard abatement and ecological restoration.

My question to the minister is: is that an option that we can do going forward to help our First Nations and to be able to unlock more fibre to our mills and our manufacturing facilities?

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member for the question. That was a detailed question. I will do my best, respecting the time that we have, not to provide too long of an answer because I know the member’s got lots of other questions as well. I’m not as detailed. I don’t take as much time as maybe some other ministers.

At the outset, thanks very much for bringing this forward. I’ve said this at every speaking engagement that I’ve had: every idea is on the table. I’m looking for solutions.

You speak to the example that you shared, if that happens to be an example where First Nations would be interested in sharing that, I can make sure that they’re in touch with the pricing team, and we can have that conversation. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that we have a pricing system in place that doesn’t have barriers, and we’re certainly open to making sure it is working as intended.

I’ll share with the member that we have taken into account the cost of commercial thinning in the Interior. We don’t have enough data on the coast so that’s work that’s ongoing right now. We have taken into cost wildfire salvage. We’re doing quite a bit of that work.

But on a broader perspective, what I’ll also share is that one of the biggest components of work that we’re doing with First Nations is revenue sharing as well.

This was a priority that was shared, as the member will know, at COFI as well, which doubled revenue sharing with First Nations in 2022. I would say it’s a key part of our work as part of the BCTS review. It’s one of the reasons why I asked Lenny Joe, CEO of the First Nations Forestry Council, to be a part of this review based off of the relationships and experiences that he has on the ground.

One of the overall goals — as part of the BCTS review, the member may have saw kind of the seven pillars that I had laid out — was making sure that BCTS was a partner of choice.

I would encourage the member if he hears of folks…. If the example that he shared is a nation that may be willing to come forward, it’s important that we hear those ideas, and it’s certainly important that we’re listening to those and adapting as needed.

Ward Stamer: Thanks again to the minister for his response.

To add to that, when we talk about commercial thinning, and we talk about fuel mitigation and trying to equate them in some of the same equations, I guess as a word.… When we use FESBC as an example, it’s a very expensive model because it’s about $15,000 a hectare, as the minister is aware of.

I think, going forward, if we’re going to be looking at opportunities to be able to increase what we can do on the land base, we’re going to have to find cost savings and that means more recovery from those opportunities and particularly with partial logging contractors, like I was before in my previous life.

To be able to integrate some of those opportunities, particularly this time of year when we know it’s breakup, but the only reason it’s breakup is because anything over a thousand metres is still too wet. The ground is still saturated. That’s why we call it breakup, because we can’t go back.

But there are opportunities in the lower areas, particularly in the interface, where we could probably be doing a bunch of this work, with the existing workforce. The challenge will be, the minister will probably agree with me, that if we don’t try to keep this industry alive in the short term, we won’t have those contractors available in the long term.

So a question to the minister: when we talk about opportunities on the land base…? Up at COFI, there was another call by Community Forest to increase the opportunities and tenure throughout the province and in all of our community forests that we have.

Now I’m going to give an opportunity to thank the Lower North Thompson Community Forest, which was formed after the fire in Barriere in 2003, on the great work that they do. I’m not just patting myself on the back, because I was a director for a while. But they’ve done some amazing work with the ministry in being able to have a sustainable model of 20,000 cubic metres in an area.

[8:30 p.m.]

I can argue that with their intense management — with their RPF, Mike Francis, and his assistants and all the great work that the directors have done — that is a sustainable model that we would like to be able to replicate through all the province. And yes, there are opportunities to possibly grow those community forests in B.C.

My question to the minister: if it seems like we’re getting a shrinking land base, and we’re trying to work on a sustainable plan, how are we going to be able to increase the opportunities for community forests, knowing that those products are going to be going to the same manufacturing facilities that share in the licence in the same operating area as the community forests are?

If we’re going to be shrinking the total harvest land base on our major industries, how can we coexist with an increase to community forests, with an increase with the First Nations and with an increase and sustainability for our main forest industry partners?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: At the outset, maybe what I’ll say is that I agree with the member that it is so important that we steward our land base, that we make…. I think we already, to an extent, here in British Columbia….

[8:35 p.m.]

I don’t think we get recognition of — certainly at a government level or, more importantly, the workers on the ground — how much work is happening in sustainability, in stewarding that land base. If we can work together to deliver that message all across British Columbia, I’d be excited to do that.

There is also such a massive job opportunity here. I think many people think of forestry as just people working in mills. It is so much more than that. I have a vision for a forest sector that includes thousands of young people, not just working on planting trees, which is starting in the days and weeks ahead as we start our tree planting season, but going in and doing that commercial thing, going in and doing that partial harvesting and selective logging all over the land base.

As the member will know, during my COFI speech…. I believe quite strongly that when we look at areas of protection, we have to steward those lands as well. I flew over the territories of the Cheslatta First Nation and saw a nation that has been severely impacted by wildfires and floods over the last number of decades. But in particular, the Chief shared with me the continuous cover harvesting work that they want to do and how they want to work on that in areas like old growth management areas, making sure that we’re doing this work.

I’ll share with the member that we didn’t create provincial parks just to see them burn down. We didn’t protect old growth management areas just to see them burn down. So there is a massive, massive job opportunity here to be going in and doing this work. Obviously, the broader aspect of it is the job creation, but also the pricing that goes alongside it, because government can’t always be subsidizing this work. We have to find a way to be able to make the pricing work as well.

I’m really excited about it, and if the member has ideas on how we can do this work, I welcome them. Again, I was in his community. There was a really good discussion happening in Barriere by Gilbert Forest Products on it, and Chief Lampreau engaged on it as well.

I’ll jump into the second part of his question. The member is absolutely right. A key commitment in my mandate letter is expanding community forests. This is quite an exciting opportunity. Community forests do so much for British Columbians all across the province. Community forests pay for the infrastructure, pay for the services. So many communities have had an opportunity to talk to so many community forests.

I’ve also got a great working relationship with Jennifer Gunter, who is the lead of the B.C. Community Forest Association. The Ministry of Forests is working alongside the B.C. Community Forest Association on what an expansion looks like, some of the criteria. I know one key piece that Premier Horgan challenged the industry on was making sure there were more opportunities for First Nations tenure, not just First Nations woodlot and woodland licences, but also opportunities for partnerships with community forests.

I think the member may be aware there are tons of examples where community forests that were just operated by local governments are now including First Nations as partners at that table, and everyone is sharing in the wealth — sharing in the wealth because those fibres are going to mills.

I want to give some shout-outs. One is to Vanderhoof. Their community forest, because of the leadership of the mayor and council, I think is playing a critical role in supporting Nechako Lumber in that community. Nechako Lumber has gone through challenges over the years, but the community forest has always been there to back them up. The community benefits from it by having Nechako Lumber providing good-paying jobs. I had an opportunity to tour that mill a couple of months ago.

There’s another one. Burns Lake, which is one of the largest community forests in the entire province, is doing incredible work, doing incredible wildfire mitigation work. There are tons of examples. Frank Varga, who manages that community forest, I think could probably teach Community Forests 101 on the work that needs to happen. Frank also sits on one of our FLP tables up at the lakes resiliency table as well.

What I’ll just end with is saying that this is an exciting part of the mandate. Community forests play a critical role in our province. I think there is an opportunity for the ministry and the Forest Service to be able to work with the existing community forests, those that want to look at expanding community forests, those that want a new community forest. We’re going to be working in tandem across the province.

[8:40 p.m.]

Again, I really want to thank Jennifer and the team at the B.C. Community Forest Association for working in tandem with us to ensure that as we begin this work, as we work to fulfil my mandate, we’re doing so by looking at the entire province as part of that.

I thank the member for the question. And again, I’ll just reiterate on the first part. Stewarding our land base is something that First Nations, Indigenous peoples, have been doing since time immemorial, and it’s time for us to step up and do the same.

There is good work happening there, and anything we can do as a ministry, as a forest service, to increase that, to create more good-paying jobs — again, not just planting trees but doing the commercial thinning, doing all of the wildfire mitigation work that is happening, that could be happening at an even larger pace — is something that excites me.

And again, if the member across the way has ideas on how we can revamp our efforts and do more of that, happy to do so.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his response.

I’d like to pick up on what the minister just mentioned, and I’m wondering if we can expand a little bit on that. If we’re going to be talking about sustainability and we’re going to be talking about forest health…. Just a little while ago, we were talking about wildfires and the risks with those wildfires, and I believe the minister just mentioned park boundaries and old-growth management strategies.

Is the minister suggesting that maybe we should be proactive, along with our First Nations partners, and remove some of this fuel risk and mitigating efforts in our parks and our old-growth management areas?

I mean, is he suggesting that we go and identify those hazardous areas in those areas that have been roped off? Should we be looking at removing those fuels and those trees in a proactive way so that the entire park doesn’t burn down?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes, and I think we….

Do we have time for a couple more questions?

The Chair: Noting the hour, I think we should probably wrap up. We have about two more minutes.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Apologies to the Minister of Energy. I know he’s having a good time.

I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Parks and report progress on the Ministry of Forests and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:42 p.m.