Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests
(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 for the Ministry of Forests.

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

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Lots that we didn’t get a chance to touch on before we had to break for lunch, so I’ve got a few things for the member to be able to touch on, and then we can take the questions wherever he’d like.

Maybe in terms of where I’ll start is specifically around some of the questions he had with regards to the forest service roads budget. Because we had a chance to break for lunch, we got some numbers for him. For the engineering program, there’s about $17.6 million for maintenance, $23.3 million set aside for capital. For B.C. Timber Sales, which were, I think, the numbers he was specifically looking for: $14.9 million for maintenance and $49 million set aside for capital.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that these are, obviously, large numbers, but in the context of 60,000 FSRs and the roads that B.C. Timber Sales has, as the member opposite noted, there are a lot of responsibilities — certainly with B.C. Timber Sales, one of the largest, if not the largest, licensee holder in the province.

The maintenance work that is being done is being done in a number of different areas. The maintenance includes brushing and vegetation control and the removal of dangerous trees. That was something the member noted prior to breaking for lunch. We talked about how for B.C. Timber Sales, that kind of review is done annually and, I would also argue, as needed, too, in terms of the work necessary.

There is grading work that is done, ditch clean-out and shaping, ditch block repair, culvert inlet and outlet repairs, seeding, exposed soils, frost heave repairs, winter maintenance — so just your general snowplowing and sanding just like what happens all across British Columbia, less so here on the Island; southern Island, I might add — spot surfacing, dust suppression and locating and constructing water bars and cross-ditches.

The capital dollars that I read out — the $14.9 million for maintenance, $49 million for capital in the case of BCTS; for engineering, $17.6 million, $23.3 million — are used for major crossings. And any other major work under $100,000 in value in that lifespan for the 40 years could be a large project that includes elements that would not be considered capital if done separately, like a small culvert.

So I just wanted to provide that information just at the outset to start.

I think anytime I get an opportunity to be able to stand in the House and talk about tree planting and general reforestation is certainly very exciting for me.

[1:10 p.m.]

I’m not sure how much time we’re going to get a chance this afternoon to talk about reforestation, but I agree with the member opposite, before we broke for lunch. There is a huge, huge opportunity. We talked a bit yesterday around stewarding our land base and how there is an opportunity to create good-paying jobs in rural communities throughout British Columbia, in getting young people, Indigenous people out on the land and doing that good stewardship.

Tree planting is a part of that, and I would argue that here in British Columbia, we are doing a great job. We are exceeding the country. I would say we’re exceeding North America in terms of the work.

I want to acknowledge John Betts and so many others who have been leading this work over the course of the last number of years. I want to acknowledge so much work that’s happening within the ministry. B.C. Timber Sales, as the member can imagine, plants a lot of trees — millions, in fact.

It’s one thing to think about planting trees. I think the member obviously will agree. Just the concept of tree planting is very popular all over the place. People love the idea of just planting trees. But there are a number of reasons why we plant trees. One is just for the regenerative ecosystem that we are trying to build. But also, tree planting supports the long-term success of our forest sector. It’s about thinking 100 years ahead.

I shared with the member yesterday that a big priority for me, in terms of the work that I want to accomplish as Minister of Forests, is not thinking in four-year cycles. My mandate objectives that I’ve been given by the Premier are about taking us away from a boom-and-bust forest sector economy that has been a focus point of this province for quite a while and moving us towards stability and towards thinking 100 years ahead, or, in the case of many nations, seven generations ahead.

In fact, we have the Syilx First Nations, the Okanagan group that have come together and developed a seven-generations-ahead forestry plan that, I would argue, is provincial leading in many ways and something that we’re excited to be able to work with them on.

As it relates to reforestation, I want to let the member know that there’s a lot of pride within the Ministry of Forests — within the Forest Service, in particular, and the office of the chief forester — on the work that we’ve done on reforestation.

As the member noted, provincial reforestation in 2024-2025 is estimated at about 281 million trees, compared to 246 million and 265 million trees in 2023-2024 and 2022-2023, respectively. The breakdown of the 2024-2025 numbers, just for the member’s benefit, is…. For licensees, that was about 173 million. For B.C. Timber Sales, it was 34.5 million. For our forestry investment program — those are dollars that are operated out of the chief forester’s office — 52 million. Then section 108 and other was 21.6 million. We can get into the specifics that have to do predominantly with wildfire damage as well.

As of January 2025, the estimated planting request for the 2025 planting season is 221.5 million. Again, I’ll just give a bit of a rough breakdown, acknowledging that these sorts of numbers can change as we get into the season and that these are, of course, a couple months old: licensees, roughly 140 million of the 221.5 million; BCTS, 31 million; that similar program that I was referring to — the forest innovation program, FIP — is 42.1 million; and then the section 108 and other, being after fires, is 8.4 million.

The member will know well that reforestation in British Columbia has declined slightly because of the decrease in harvest levels. But I again want to reiterate that there is an opportunity for us to be able to work together to ensure that there is more reforestation work happening. I think there’s a role for the province, and I think there’s a role for the federal government as well.

The member across the way will know that last April, British Columbia celebrated the ten billionth tree planted since the reforestation programs began in the 1930s. Two billion of those trees were planted in the past seven years. That’s a sense of pride for us on this side of the House in making sure that we are leading in this effort. Again, I just want to reiterate that since the 1930s, ten billion trees planted in British Columbia, two billion of those ten billion planted since we formed government in 2017.

[1:15 p.m.]

As the member opposite likely experienced in his time working in forestry, the species listed as acceptable and preferred were fairly narrow and depended on the biogeoclimatic zone being reforested. We’ve made changes in the past number of years to modernize our forest legislation, which has allowed more species to be accepted in our recommended stocking standards.

We commonly plant about 13 different species across the province: three variants of spruce, interior and coastal Douglas fir, western red cedar, ponderosa and lodgepole pine, western white pine, western larch, western hemlock, trembling aspen, red alder.

We’re also starting to see more species being planted as we incorporate Indigenous knowledge into our reforestation practices. That is critical. The work that First Nations communities, Indigenous peoples have been doing since time immemorial needs to ensure that it’s reflected in our practices as a government. So we’re seeing cottonwood and birch, shrub and berry species, whitebark pine. That one, in particular, the whitebark pine…. This mountain ecosystem species is currently in decline, at the risk of extinction, so that’s obviously an area of importance for us.

I’ll also add that it’s really important for us to continue to partner across ministries to deliver more reforestation — as an example, planting for habitat restoration, work that’s done with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship — and we’re also exploring ways to be able to grow this. The member, being at COFI, will have heard me talk about, and I’ve talked about it during estimates, the examples with the Cheslatta First Nations.

What we know about reforestation and planting is that this is an expensive venture. It’s required. It’s needed. I’d love to see a commitment from the federal government to invest more dollars into their program outside of just the program funding that they have set aside and the work that we have to do in terms of our legal obligations to planting trees. But I’d love to see the federal government invest more dollars in this. I think this is an opportunity for us to be able to work with the federal government. British Columbia is a proven partner as it relates to that.

I would also add that there are some potential opportunities out there as it relates to carbon offsets for reforestation. If a billionaire company from the U.S. wants to come in and plant trees for offset purposes, then that’s something we’d be interested in having conversations on. Obviously, we would have checks and balances in place. I’ll let the member know that we’re just in the early days of exploring that, like many other jurisdictions, in regards to how we can do that work. I’m really excited and happy to chat more about tree planting if that’s of interest to the member.

As it relates to his comments on wildfire salvage, the impacts of recent wildfire and salvage progress is something that we’ve been doing a lot of work on. In 2024, wildfires damaged approximately 20.3 million cubic metres of valuable timber as part of our timber harvesting land base, which obviously impacts that land base and, as I’ve touched on yesterday and earlier today, impacts the overall land base as well.

Of that amount that I had touched on — the 20.3 million cubic metres — only an estimated 2.9 million cubic metres, or about 14 percent, is considered available to harvest due to environmental and economic factors. Again, the member, working in forestry, will understand what I mean by that, and I’ll certainly touch on that in a bit.

The post-wildfire salvage harvesting is an important tool in both protecting the land base and community economic recovery as a whole. Wildfire salvage, when planned and conducted carefully, can contribute to repairing the damage caused by wildfires on soils, watersheds and ecosystems, accelerating reforestation and reducing forest health issues.

I’ll share with the member that we’re working with First Nations communities and other partners to be able to expedite this work. Of the trees that are identified as appropriate to salvage, it is important to maximize economic value and provide a source of much-needed fibre for primary and value-added wood manufacturers.

I think there are huge opportunities for us to continue doing this work. We’re moving harvesting operations away from non-burned forest and into burned dead stands, which also means less impact on healthy forests and the benefits that they can provide.

To expedite the planning work and administration of wildfire salvage, in 2023, we developed and established the wildfire salvage leadership committee in partnership with industry and the First Nations Forestry Council, which is led by Lenny Joe.

[1:20 p.m.]

The leadership this committee has developed since 2023 has led to some really great solutions. I’m going to try to see if I can get through as many of them as I can.

Publishing the new wildfire salvage planning and administration guide, which outlines five key phases of salvage to support a more consistent and efficient salvage process. New tools for process, for determining the net area available for harvest to better measure salvage progress and success rates, enabling better transparency on salvage operations. We’ve also expedited burn severity mapping as a tool to be able to provide critical information to better enable faster salvage planning.

The last piece I’ll share, as well, is kind of a combination of introducing wildfire salvage opportunity agreements, working with nations to be able to enable forest licences to be directly awarded to First Nations in fire-damaged areas which enable nations to actively manage salvage within their territories to provide that additional economic benefit.

We’re making several timber-pricing changes to better reflect the reduced value, and the increased costs, of wildfire salvage. We’re introducing the ability to use ribbonless boundaries to expedite salvage planning. Forest Enhancement Society — 40,000 truckloads that were taken from British Columbia’s forests out to facilities, much of our pulp and paper and a whole host of other things.

We’re also doing great work as it relates to some areas. The member mentioned Adams Lake. I actually had an opportunity to be able to be at that community and actually walk through some of that forest and see some of those piles.

I think I’ve talked for too long, so I’ll sit down in the hope that I can get back up.

Macklin McCall: Thank you to my colleague for carving out some time for me to ask a few questions.

What I’d like to do is just ask some questions regarding wildfires, particularly before, during and after, so I’ll get right into it.

My question for the minister…. The Minister of Forests committed $1 million toward fuel mitigation efforts in West Kelowna–Peachland during meetings with local officials. Can the minister confirm if this funding is included in Budget 2025? If not, what role will this minister play in ensuring this commitment is delivered? The same ministerial meetings also referenced the possibility of a provincial pilot project based in West Kelowna. What pilot project is being considered? What are its objectives, and how will this ministry be involved in coordinating or supporting it?

[1:25 p.m.]

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

I had an opportunity to be in his community maybe three or four weeks ago. I had an opportunity to meet with the Westbank First Nation. They were kind enough to be able to fly me over their community forest, much of the territory. I got a chance to see a bit of the impact of the MacDougall Creek fire as well. It was certainly a learning experience, not just for myself. But a really good conversation ensued afterwards.

I just want to correct the record on a couple of things, and then I’ll touch on the members comments. Firstly, there was no commitment to the $1 million that the member referred to. What I’ll share is the meeting that I had with his mayor, which was very positive, centred around acknowledgment of the fact that West Kelowna, because it’s had to, but also because…. The local government there has really stepped up, again, because they had to, but also because they recognized how important this is to ensure that there are further funding opportunities for them in the future.

What I mean by that is that right now, much of our program is built around supporting communities in terms of where they’re at. The majority of communities, in terms of their wildfire mitigation work, are just in those early stages. The member should be proud that his community is not in that stage. They are very well advanced.

We made a commitment to want to work with West Kelowna to better ensure that our funding programs truly are meeting communities where they’re at, where it’s not just focused solely on communities that are developing their planning work, but also moving towards ensuring that we’re supporting communities that are well advanced, have resources on the ground and have the ability to take on more work.

I think the member will agree that his community of West Kelowna is, in many cases, leading the province in those efforts. We made a commitment to the mayor to find ways to be able to support communities like his that are well advanced. We’re looking at investment opportunities.

I’ll share with the member that the community resiliency investment was a one-year program. You would apply every year for projects. We’ve made that now a multi-year initiative. That was in recognition, again, of communities like Kelowna that have done great work.

I’ll also share with the member just the specific dollars as relate to Kelowna. The city of West Kelowna has been approved for $606,000 in funding since 2018. Of this approved amount, $91,932 has been used for fuels management.

I’ll just share with him that I want to continue working with the mayor, the fire chief there, to be able to find solutions. I really enjoyed the conversations I had with the mayor and look forward to continuing those in the weeks ahead.

Macklin McCall: I have actually already completed my four-hour estimates with the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. I had several questions, quite a few, that I was specifically directed by that ministry to speak to the Minister of Forests. In the interests of time, because I know we’re getting pretty short, I’d like to just submit questions to the minister in writing for response after the fact.

The following questions are submitted under advisement to the Minister of Forests for written response as part of the 2025 budget estimates for the Ministry of Forests. Submission made by Macklin McCall, MLA for West Kelowna–Peachland.

Interjection.

Macklin McCall: Is it possible to submit them to the Clerk? I don’t know what the procedure would be, but I just want to make sure I can minimize the time.

The Chair: It would be best if you could read them into the record.

Macklin McCall: I can do that. Thank you.

First, given that wildfires, since 2016, have burned an area larger than Vancouver Island, devastating timber supplies and ecosystems, why does Budget 2025 allocate only a modest $8 million increase for wildfire management?

[1:30 p.m.]

What is the ministry’s plan to bridge the gap given the record-breaking costs of wildfires — over $1 billion spent in 2023?

Two, how will the ministry ensure robust wildfire pre-season planning when Budget 2025 funds focus predominantly on reactive firefighting measures? Specifically, what proactive strategies — for example, firebreaks, equipment and training — are being funded to prevent mega-fires, rather than merely respond to them?

Three, with B.C. having spent a record $1.1 billion on fire management in 2023, exceeding the budget by $401 million, what safeguards does the ministry propose to avoid such under-budgeting in 2025? Does the ministry anticipate relying on the $10 billion contingency fund for wildfire costs? Or will core budgets be adjusted to reflect true firefighting expenditures?

Four, Budget 2025 shows the Forests Ministry’s spending falling from $1.4 billion to $891 million, partly due to lower forecast wildfire expenses. How can the ministry justify this reduction after 2023’s worst wildfire season, and what risk assessments support the assumption of significantly lower firefighting costs in ‘25-26?

Five, in light of year-round wildfire threats, how is B.C. Wildfire Service’s staffing and training being enhanced? Specifically, given record recruitment interest, 1,700 applicants for 200 crew jobs in 2025, will Budget 2025 accommodate more full-time positions or training programs to leverage this surge and improve wildfire response capacity?

Six, experts note B.C. must revolutionize forest practices by reinstating preventative burns and forest thinning. What dedicated funding in Budget 2025, beyond the $20 million per year noted for prevention, is earmarked for controlled burns, fuel management and cultural burning initiatives, especially near high-risk communities?

Seven, the Tyee highlighted that New Jersey, with less than 1 percent of B.C.’s area, conducts more preventative burns than B.C. How does the ministry intend to up its fire mitigation game in 2025? Are there new targets or interjurisdictional partnerships planned, to scale up prescribed burns and firebreak projects to match best practices in regions like Australia and the United States?

Eight, given that each dollar invested in wildfire mitigation can yield $7 in benefits, especially by protecting watersheds and communities, why does Budget 2025 continue underinvesting in prevention, relative to suppression? How will the ministry measure the cost-effectiveness of any FireSmart and Crown land wildfire risk reduction, or CLWRR, projects funded this year?

Nine, after the catastrophic 2023 fire season, many communities have millions of dollars in unmet wildfire prevention needs. How is the ministry addressing the funding shortfall for local mitigation projects, such as fuel removal and prescribed burns? Will Budget 2025 increase community resiliency investment grants, given one fire chief’s comment that current funding covers only one-fifth of the needed work?

Ten, cultural bans are a proven tool to reduce wildfire risk and involve Indigenous expertise. What progress will Budget 2025 enable for the cultural and prescribed fire program? How many hectares are expected to be treated through cultural burns in 2025? Are any First Nations partnerships or training programs expanding to integrate these traditional practices more broadly?

Eleven, as major wildfires sterilize soil and increase erosion, reforestation becomes more urgent and complex. What earmarked funding or programs in Budget 2025 will tackle post-wildfire replanting, land rehabilitation and erosion control in severely burned areas? Please detail any specific allocations, or lack thereof, for such recovery work in response to the 2023 wildfires in places like the Okanagan, such as the Westside complex.

Twelve, experts warn that burned watersheds lead to debris torrents and sediment in drinking water. In Budget 2025, what resources are allocated to protect water quality after wildfires? Is there funding for catchment rehabilitation, such as reseeding ground cover or installing silt traps in areas such as the Shuswap and Cariboo, where community water systems are affected by the 2023 fires?

[1:35 p.m.]

Thirteen, given that smaller communities and First Nations without big filtration plants are starting to see post-fire boil-water advisories, how will the ministry work with Emergency Management and Health to address these risks? Are there interministerial funds or programs in 2025 to assist in upgrading water infrastructure or providing interim clean water supplies in wildfire-affected areas?

Fourteen, the Forests Ministry’s mandate includes land-based recovery. Does Budget 2025 fund any wildfire land-based recovery program pilots aimed at maintaining or restoring water quality — for instance, replanting stream buffers or stabilizing slopes to prevent ash runoff? If yes, please detail; if not, why was this critical aspect overlooked, despite known wildfire impacts on fisheries and drinking water?

Fifteen, in 2024, a one-time recovery uplift of $100,000 was offered to six local governments for post-wildfire debris clearing and rebuilding. Will this recovery uplift program continue or expand in 2025? Will its scope include measures to specifically safeguard water sources, like removing charred debris around reservoirs or repairing damaged water intakes?

Sixteen, with extensive staff demands from wildfire seasons, hundreds of B.C. Wildfire Service personnel and support staff in emergency operations, and simultaneous needs to advance policy — old growth deferrals, landscape planning — is the ministry properly resourced in staffing levels? Did Budget 2025 authorize any increase in full-time-equivalents, or FTEs, for the Ministry of Forests or the B.C. Wildfire Service, to manage these dual pressures? If not, how will the ministry avoid burnout and ensure both emergency response and strategic planning mandates are met?

Seventeen, in summary, does the minister believe the 2025 NDP budget failed the Forests portfolio? Please address how this budget shortchanges the ministry’s ability to prepare for climate impacts, such as wildfires and floods, and to support an industry in crisis. What commitments can the Ministry of Forests make to British Columbians that, despite the limited new funding, it will innovatively leverage every tool available to protect communities, sustain our forests and preserve jobs in the year ahead?

Those are my questions, Clerk.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: If there’s one thing that I think we could take from those lines of questions, it’s how come we’re only talking about forestry for six hours? We should double it next year. We’re ready to go on this side of the House.

Good questions from the member opposite — lots there. I’d love to be able to dive into all of those. I’m not sure if his colleague would want me to do that, because it’ll probably take time away from his issues. But maybe next year we can spend a little bit more time on forestry and prioritize forestry and B.C. Wildfire Service as part of the overall estimates.

What I will say is that I am proud to be the minister responsible for the B.C. Wildfire Service. As the member opposite will know well, we have two votes, counts, as part of these estimates: one that pertains to the overall ministry budget and one specific to the B.C. Wildfire Service.

I want the member opposite, and all British Columbians, to know that we will spend whatever we need to, to keep British Columbians safe. We will spend whatever we need to, as we have in previous years, to ensure that we have the teams we need to be able to protect British Columbians in every part of this province. B.C. Wildfire Service makes that commitment to British Columbians each and every year. We continue to add resources.

I would encourage the member opposite to go back into the Hansard records over the last day and hear about some of those specifics. Again, I’m happy to touch on his questions and write back to him with some specifics on the work that we’re doing.

Macklin McCall: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

Ward Stamer: Yes, I ran into Keith Baldrey just a little bit earlier. He said that in the past they had a time when there were over 90 hours to forestry. He said it was a little bit carried away, but I agree with the minister. Six hours isn’t enough.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, I’d like to spend a little bit of time, and I’m not going to dive into it too much, and I would request the opportunity…. There are a couple of things that I’m going to be asking, and if the minister isn’t able to answer them to what his satisfaction would be in the amount of information that is in that, in the questions — if we have the opportunity to have it in writing.

What it does is come back to what I mentioned yesterday. It’s this joint compilation of forest biodiversity principles that was released to industry back in, I believe, the middle of March. I don’t really want to get into it too much. There’s a lot of language. There are some assumptions made. There are things that I’m going to touch on a little bit, but I don’t really want to get into the meat and potatoes, because I don’t think we really have enough time, and I’d like the opportunity, in the future, to be able to have this conversation with the minister on some of the things that this is pertaining to.

But I just want to read this part of the summary that was made, just to put it into the context of, really, what we’re talking about. Again, it comes back to certainty of supply. It comes back to a sustainable supply of fibre in this province.

I think it’s important for us to realize that when the minister talks about forest landscape plans, we need to have everyone involved in this process from the beginning to the end and not just start having different segments being responsible for certain areas. I think that we need to have everyone at the table so we can come up with a collaborative approach. I think the minister would agree that that’s the proper way of doing it.

There are some things in here, again, with this document, and I believe it’s kind of a draft in as much as that it’s going to look at some of the law around Bill 23 that was enacted on October 20 of 2021. Bill 23 was a bill that amended the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the forest practices code of British Columbia.

These amendments established a framework for an approach that is more focused on ecological and cultural values: “A key part of this will be replacing forest stewardship plans, which are currently developed by industry, with forest landscape plans developed by the province with First Nations, local communities and other partners, which will create new opportunities for shared decision-making between the province and First Nations.”

That’s the province of B.C. That’s right off the website.

Now, here’s a letter that I’d like to read to talk about some of the challenges that we can see, going forward, in implementing the joint stewardship plan.

When this plan was originally produced, it was basically a meeting. It was a meeting between the Ministry of Forests and licensees. So this plan had already been developed — this draft — without the input of any of the licensees or any of the companies involved. It was the Ministry of Forests and First Nations. And that was what was explained to us at the beginning of the process. Even with FLPs, it was going to be government-to-government between the province of B.C. and our First Nations, and then there was going to be a process as we go through it.

So this is what they had to say, and this is what I support:

“We understand that the province of B.C. is working together with First Nations to further reconciliation, and we support this initiative. Granted, the manner that these standards were rolled out is not really acceptable and contrary to the consultation-based regime that forest professionals uphold — forest professionals that are employed by our licensees in the province.

“By excluding these licensees and practitioners, it appears the province does not acknowledge the significant investment and employment that these companies contribute to our province. There’s also a concern about how the forest landscape planning process may unfold, where the province of B.C. and the First Nations develop a plan and then only bring the industry stakeholders to the table to inform them about how the plan will work when the ink is already dry.

“I, as many others are, am very proud of our professional foresters that work in the Kamloops region and all the regions in British Columbia, and they strive to implement complicated plans that manage all of the arrays of the values on the land base.

“It is my opinion that not engaging with these forest professionals that represent all of the various stakeholders is a significant missed opportunity.”

From that, Mr. Minister, I have three requests.

One, prior to implementation, invest the appropriate time and resources in a professional and defendable assessment of the timber-harvesting land base AAC impacts, including any potential socioeconomic impacts resulting from implementation of any plan. This is particularly relevant in our current and looming trade dispute with the U.S. Department of Commerce and has measurable impacts to our forest industry and our provincial economy.

[1:45 p.m.]

Two, develop an industry engagement process for the draft QSFBF standards, where we suggest two to three industry representatives have a seat at that table, along with QS, to redefine the standards which we intend to ensure the values of the importance of the QS that can be achieved, including the research and science to support the strategies to achieve the desired outcomes.

Three, in advance of the proposed implementation date, develop and approve timber pricing policies that support the QS objectives and adequately recognize the operating cost adjustments for this industry to continue to support and implement this plan.

Further, I’d like to ask the minister, when we start talking about the joint stewardship program and the understanding of how we’re going to be moving this forward…. I’m trying to understand how that’s supposed to work.

I’m going to have follow-up questions, but I’d like you to be able to respond to what I’ve asked so far.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member opposite. I appreciate him and his team sharing a copy of the document over the break.

The biodiversity principles that the member refers to are in draft format, and I would share with the member opposite that the document is confidential in the nature that it’s now being shared with licensees, which is probably how he got his hands on it.

The principles were developed by First Nations and the Forest Service in a G2G setting and build on stewardship standards that many of the First Nations involved have already developed and have already been working with licensees on. The First Nations that we have been working with are very proud to have had the opportunity to be able to develop them, provide input and begin this important engagement work.

We are now in the process of sharing that with licensees only, and it has not been shared publicly. I’ll share with the member that we have had meetings over the last couple of weeks, including this week, with individual licensees. We are receiving comments on the draft principles. In fact, as we are meeting right now, there is a meeting occurring with licensees, the Ministry of Forests and First Nations on this.

I’ll also add that I want to provide clarity on the piece around FLPs that the member refers to. Forest landscape planning tables begin with a government-to-government conversation and lead to all of the partners coming in. There are no intentions by my ministry to preclude and make decisions without industry, without local governments, without workers at the table.

Again, to reiterate, it starts with a G2G and then leads to everyone coming to the table and having these conversations, including modelling, which the member, I think, referred to in one of his questions.

I’ll share with the member that the work that is beginning as part of this is exactly the work that needs to happen — G2G, bring in licensees. Again, the member may have heard from one licensee. He referenced a letter. I don’t have a copy of the letter. If he feels comfortable sharing it — happy to. If he wants to ask that licensee to reach out to me, I’m happy to have a conversation with him.

But this work is what FLPs are all about. It’s about bringing people together, and in no way is this ministry going to just go out and make agreements without having everyone at the table. That defeats the purpose of forest landscape planning tables.

Ward Stamer: Yes, I appreciate the minister’s commitment to the process and allowing that timeline and those opportunities for engagement, because I think we both agree it’s very important to not only get the buy-in from industry and all the stakeholders but for the public to understand that they’re part of the process.

That leads me to my next question. I’m hoping to get a little bit of clarity as we go forward with this, because, again, it goes back to our certainty of supply and some of the challenges that we seem to be having with that.

[1:50 p.m.]

When we talked earlier about whether it’s 40 days or 25 days to actually get a cutting permit, we know there are so many other factors that are in play in developing those forest harvesting plans. And I think from what we’ve heard — I’ve heard; I’m sure the minister has heard as well — those timelines are stretching out. Instead of shrinking, they’re stretching.

We’re hoping that, as the minister alluded to in the last two days, this ministry is working and trying to speed up that process to make it less complicated and less onerous for everybody included, particularly when we’re talking about forest health or fire recovery, burnt timber, those kinds of situations where we need to be able to act as quickly as we can to get the maximum value out of that wood while the clock is ticking.

To get back a little bit on the joint stewardship, I just need to have a little bit more clarity from the minister. When I look at Bill 23…. I read it again last night. I’m trying to figure out, if we’re going to have joint stewardship going forward with our First Nations, what mechanism is in place if one of the two parties can’t agree as we move forward in situations.

As it is currently now, the chief forester has the authority through law to be able to make those decisions when it comes to authorization to cut. Now, if that is going to change, is there going to be a change in the law? Is there going to be another amendment to Bill 23?

How are we going to be able to get through that process where, for whatever reason, the two sides can’t come to an agreement? How are we supposed to have a mechanism to get through that? Who ultimately makes the decision? Or do we just say: “No, it’s another protected area, and we’re not going to even think about harvesting”?

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

A couple things that I would add as it relates to the member’s comments and questions, specifically around the agreement. I just want to clarify, because I neglected to in my previous answer, that the documents the member refers to are just guidelines. They’re not legally binding documents by any means. And it’s all about a collaborative approach. That’s what FLPs are all about. It’s about getting people together to be able to have conversations and having a starting point.

So as it relates to the member’s question around Bill 23 and the role of the chief forester, the member is right. Our work is to get to consensus, but currently the chief forester signs off on those forest landscape planning tables and the forest operation plans.

One of the things, as part of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, is section 7, as the member will know well, where there may be some nations that want to move towards a section 7 shared-decision-making framework. One nation is doing that work right now, and there may be more in the future. Again, those will be broader conversations, nation by nation.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’re working, as I shared with the member yesterday, with over 90 First Nations right now at 15 FLPs.

But again, as it speaks to the member’s comments around these biodiversity principles, the draft document is about bringing people together. It’s about doing this in a collaborative approach, and it’s about making sure that those nations have an opportunity to be able to share their perspectives, their expectations, and then for industry and government to come in and have just as important conversations, and for us to share our perspectives, as well, and try to reach consensus.

Ward Stamer: Thank you to the minister for that. Just to expand a little bit on what he’s saying, I agree with the minister that these are frameworks and these are opportunities for us to be able to come up with partnership agreements and collaboration. Some of the challenges that many of the people that I’ve talked to see in this process is when you have overlapping territories, you have overlapping jurisdictions, that is what’s creating some of the uncertainty in this industry.

Right now, today, the chief forester in the province of British Columbia has the authority, ultimately, on harvesting levels and where it’s being harvested. If there are going to be transfers of forest or there are going to be transfers of tenure to First Nations, which has already been described in the Forest Amendment Act of 2021, there is supposed to be compensation provided to any replaceable licences.

I believe the minister will remember the conversation at the Truck Loggers Association when it was specifically asked to the Premier and there was a quip about: “Is it a replaceable or non-replaceable licence?” We’re not going to get into that today because I don’t think that was really a fair comment.

Having said that, there are mechanisms in place for compensation if there are licences or existing licensees that are going to be compensated or should be compensated for areas of fibre that are going to be transferred or changed or reduced, for a wide variety of issues, whether it’s our First Nations, protected areas, old growth management strategies or whether they’re in the TSAs or not. Those are discussions that we should have.

My question is: as we work forward towards a joint stewardship, who ultimately makes these decisions? Who ultimately has the authority to be able to say…? Okay, if the two sides don’t agree, even though they’ve got written agreements and they’re working in collaboration, who ultimately is going to be making these decisions on behalf of the province of B.C.?

Are we going to have the same system in place where we have regulations, we have environmental concerns…? We have the tightest regulations in the world, but ultimately, are we going to still have the chief forester responsible for the majority of the Crown lands in British Columbia? Or, as we work forward and we start transferring some of these rights to our forests, to our First Nations, does that change the parameters on who ultimately has the authorization? That’s my question to the minister.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to clarify a couple of points that the member has raised as it relates to his question. As I touched on in my previous answer, the member is absolutely right, from a couple of questions ago. It is the chief forester. He, within legislation, has the authority to be able to ultimately approve and also establish forest landscape planning tables. Again, the exercise that….

I should add that with DRIPA, there is also the section 7 piece, but the nation has to ask for that. There’s a whole process you go through. Once that’s in place, it’s the chief forester from our side and whoever on a nation’s side. We don’t have any FLPs in place. We don’t have any section 7 agreements in place in the context of forestry. But there is a nation that has requested that, and we’re working our way through that.

The chief forester, in terms of being that statutory decision-maker, doesn’t referee, allows the table to be able to come together to get to consensus, get to what we can. The member will note — well, in his question — that when you bring people that make up the forest sector in a community together, not everyone agrees. There are some challenging conversations. As someone who has actually sat at a couple of FLP tables myself, I’ve seen a couple of nations express displeasure with the viewpoints of another nation, industry, you name it.

But the reality is that that happens in everyone’s circles, at home, in the workplace, and I don’t mean that to make light of it. But the important thing is that we’re coming to the table having these conversations.

To get to the premise of the member’s question, at the end of the day, it’s the chief forester that makes the final decision as it speaks to in the legislation that he referred to.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for answering those questions.

We only have half an hour left. I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground in this ministry. I think we can both appreciate the importance of this industry. I think people out there are starting to appreciate that there’s a reason why this is one of the four pillars of this province. We’ve been here for a very long period of time, and we want to be able to be here for, as you mentioned, at least seven generations to come.

When we talked yesterday about some of the challenges with the tariff, and that is…. We’ll talk about the duties first, because we don’t have a necessary tariff yet. But that could happen. I’d like to know a little bit more…. When we talked about some of the programs that have occurred in the past, particularly with the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund….

Again, as the minister alludes to, currently $97 million of taxpayers’ funds have actually been allocated to our forest industry. That’s through the jobs and innovation ministry. That has encouraged more than $650 million of industry money. So that is a significant leveraging tool, and it’s also a significant investment by the government. I will agree to that.

Having said that, what new policies is the ministry contemplating when we start looking at this uncertainty, knowing that we’ve got to be able to, as I mentioned at COFI, survive. Many of our industry partners are right on the brink. Many of them have not invested for many years. There have been arguments that when there were profits made, they invested in other jurisdictions.

[2:05 p.m.]

I would suggest that part of the reason for that was because of the uncertainty in this market and the fact that, without investing in other markets, there may not even be that facility still remaining in British Columbia.

Having said that, going forward, what other programs have the minister and his ministry come up with when we talk about reduction in stumpage fees? We know that those fees are going to be going up. We know it’s a market-based system. Some of us in the room will agree that it’s a flawed system. It’s not working the way it should be working in relationship to the actual price of lumber.

Other jurisdictions in Canada, I believe, have better systems. I know the minister says we’ve gone to a monthly stumpage system now, but unfortunately, we don’t have enough volume coming through BCTS to really actually have a proper way of determining what that number should be. When you’re not at 20 percent of the volume of the harvest, you have a skewed number. You don’t have a collection point of data that is more in tune with what the costings should be in this industry.

My question to the minister is: what other new programs are they planning in the next six months, knowing that we have a BCTS review coming? What other programs can the minister help this industry with to survive? Or can we look at stumpage reductions? Can we look at freezing some of the stumpage before those logs are being processed so if they don’t go across the scales, they can sit there without having to be paid until the time those logs get into the manufacturing facility and are made into lumber or plywood or whatever they’re making?

Are there any other cost saving methods? The minister mentioned about loan guarantees from the federal government. Are there any loan guarantees that the provincial government can offer to some of these companies?

I look forward to any other initiatives that the minister has to present to us.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Lots to be able to dive into. I appreciate the member bringing us back to the topics as it relates to the softwood lumber duties and tariffs. I think it’s important — that we could spend just six hours on this topic, and I think we would be well served.

I also appreciate the member’s acknowledgement in support of the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund. It has been extremely successful. I think it’s shown how government can work with the federal government, other partners, other investors to be able to create and protect good-paying jobs here in British Columbia. I know that his community has benefited from that as well.

I also want to at the outset just remind the member that even in the challenges we face with the end of the pine beetle kill, wildfires, softwood lumber duties that are increasing, the threat of the Trump tariff, we are seeing investments in our communities.

[2:10 p.m.]

The member is right. There are some companies that have made strategic decisions based off of their shareholders to take resources down south. I would add that, at the same time, there are companies, many of them family-based companies, that are making investments here.

I think of Tolko that is investing nearly $90 million with the support of the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund in Heffley Creek. I can’t remember if that is in the member’s riding or maybe just outside, but that’s a pretty significant investment there by Tolko and a company that I’m proud to be working with.

I mentioned Stein Lumber in Salmon Arm; that’s a community where Teal-Jones closed their facility. Jack Gardner from Stein Lumber came in, opened it up, 30 years old, put everything on the line, and I’m really honoured to be working with him.

Last year in Fort St. James, Hampton Lumber invested in a brand-new mill — that is the most brand-new mill in British Columbia. If the member opposite hasn’t had an opportunity to go and tour that mill, I highly recommend it. It’s not like your grandfather’s sawmill. It is high-tech, it is super clean, and it is very efficient.

So, you know, respect that companies have to make decisions based off of what their shareholders want.

I’ll give another example. Carrier Lumber spent $10 million paving their log sort yard. Bill from Carrier and the team there are outstanding people; they have outstanding relationships with First Nations. Those are the companies that I’ve got a lot of time for.

And there are a lot of companies that have benefited from British Columbia, benefited from our resources, have made billions in profits and have made decisions to go down south. And I’ll leave it to them to answer for that because, I’m sure the member opposite can agree, there are a lot of frustrated British Columbians out there that feel that the social license has been broken and that decisions pertaining to their communities are made in boardrooms, not at communities. I’ve been a strong believer since day one that workers should always be at the table when we’re having these discussions.

As it relates to the programs that the member is talking about, there’s a number that I can touch on. Just the overall work that we’ve been doing on reducing raw log exports is critical — 60 percent reduction. Prior to that, they were climbing, under the previous government. It’s a big priority for us to be able to get the most value out of the logs that we have here in British Columbia.

This government has been leading not just British Columbia, not just Canada, not just North America, but the world in mass timber. We have more mass timber buildings in British Columbia per capita than anywhere else in North America with more work to go.

My friend from Kootenay-Monashee’s riding benefits from that with Kalesnikoff Lumber. I’m looking forward to visiting Kalesnikoff in the weeks ahead and also making more investment opportunity announcements in the future, as it relates to supporting more value-added facilities through the manufacturing jobs fund.

One of the other things that I did was, as part of the B.C. Timber Sales review, on day one, I announced that the category 4 program which we had brought in just about a year prior — the B.C. Timber Sales value-added manufacturing program, known as category 4 — actually doubled it from 10 percent to 20 percent, which means that there’s more dedicated fibre going to value-added operators.

This is in line with the work that Premier Horgan had done previously, that the current Premier has carried, in terms of making sure that we are supporting our value-added sector with the value-added accelerator initiative in partnership with the First Nations Forestry Council, the Value Added Wood Coalition and the Council of Forest Industries.

As it pertains to the member’s question around stumpage, the member may know that the Premier touched on in his speech at COFI that we are actively exploring a stumpage billing pause. This is something similar to what we did during COVID.

We are exploring those options, and I’m getting advice from my Softwood Lumber Advisory Council on that and also engaged with the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, with COFI and other partners as well. And that’s, obviously, to be able to prepare for the initial shock.

But I do want to go back to one of the calming points we talked about earlier this week and what we talked about in the main House in question period is: where is the federal government in all of this? It was nice for the Prime Minister to come here. It was nice for him to reference his housing plan and how mass timber is a huge opportunity, but our forest sector needs help right now.

I think the member and I can both agree that it’s time for federal politicians to step up and make the commitments they need to. I haven’t seen a commitment from any of the federal parties.

You know, the leader of the Conservative Party federally, Pierre Poilievre, was in Nanaimo at a Western Forest Products mill, and it said “Stop crime” on his billboard that he was standing in front of, and he was at a mill, and he didn’t talk about forestry in the context of just saying that he would get a softwood lumber deal. Well, how is he going to do that? How is he going to support forestry operations here in British Columbia?

[2:15 p.m.]

Again, same question to the Liberals; same question to the federal NDP as well.

Here’s an opportunity, with the challenges we have, to be able to lay out your plan. I’m actively listening. I’m sure the member opposite is actively listening, as well, for federal leadership on this. We’ve made it very clear that we are looking for a loan guarantee program to be able to provide supports. We are looking for trade diversification dollars. We can never be put in this position again where we are just reliant on one jurisdiction in this significant amount. We have to look at growing the opportunities here at home and also in other jurisdictions. We’ll be leading trade missions in regards to that in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Of course, as it relates to the overall stumpage system, it adjusts to market conditions. But diversification is going to be a key piece, and I know that we in the province here are going to ensure that we get as much out of the feds as we can and complement their programming with whatever type of programming we need to be able to keep workers working and keep this sector going to the best of our collective abilities, because the member opposite is right. This sector has provided for the last 100 years. We are going to work our butts off to ensure that it provides for the next 100 years.

I would also welcome the opportunity, to the member, to see him stand up and condemn Donald Trump for the softwood lumber duties, for the threat of tariffs and the duties that he has increased. I’ve not seen that from the Conservative Party, and I would welcome the opportunity to hear the member stand up and say that.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much to the minister.

Well, absolutely, I disagree wholeheartedly about what President Trump is doing, not only to our province but also to our country and the rest of the world, with his flip-flopping on his economic policies, and these tariffs aren’t helping anyone, particularly our American cousins to the south.

To further what the minister had to say about some of our main licensees and the level of investment, I’m not going to speak for Tolko. We were a large replaceable contract harvester with them many years ago. I’ve consulted with Tolko. They’re a strong company. I have deep admiration for the Thorlakson family, but I would not want to try to guess what they lost last year in capital versus what they’re planning on spending on investment this year.

I think it’s unfair to make that assertion that there’s nothing but money out there, because I know there’s not. Many of these companies are continuing to make investments in our industry knowing that they’ve been here for a long time. They see a future in this industry. But right now, with some of the policies and things that are going on with our government, that isn’t happening. I hope that we can have the conversation, going forward, that the minister alluded to, looking for federal dollars for job support. Well, we should still be looking at provincial dollars as well.

He mentioned the stumpage freeze or a partial stumpage freeze. I look forward to an announcement of a timeline on that. That would be good news.

I agree with the minister that we should have a federal forest minister. I don’t know why we don’t. We should have, especially when you think of our First Nations across our country, how intricately they’re connected with the forests and the land. I think the minister and I would agree that one of the most important parts in this whole discussion is, when we move forward with economic reconciliation, that we actually mean it and don’t just say it.

I know Chief Lampreau has said before that action speaks louder than words. I would like to be able to move this forward in this province and make it something that we can all be proud of.

I’m just about out of time, but there are a couple of questions I’d like to go back to again with what COFI had to say with some of the investment side of things in our industry.

How confident is the minister…? When we start talking about fibre, start talking about a shrinking land base, we talk about the drive for 45. How confident is the minister that we’re actually going to be able to attain 45, allowing the marketplace to determine whether they can actually sell that fibre or not? We know that value-added is an important segment of our industry. They account for one out of two forest jobs now, but again, without our primary manufacturing facilities, we do not have value-added in this province.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’d like the minister to articulate a little bit more in detail how exactly we’re going to be able to speed up the process and certainty of supply, how we’re going to be able to cut through the red tape and the bureaucracy and some of the extra referrals that we didn’t have in the past and why we shouldn’t be able to tighten it down a whole lot tighter than it is right now. Also, when we start looking at stumpage relief, is that something that’s going to happen in the next 30 to 60 to 90 days? Or is it something that’s just going to be fluid and we’re going to have to be just constantly reacting to what goes on in the world and not trying to…?

As my mom used to say: “Don’t worry about what somebody else is doing. Let’s worry about what we’re doing.”

I’d like the minister’s comments on that, if I may.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member will know very well my mandate letter speaks to ensuring that we’re enabling a sustainable timber harvesting land base that gets us to 45 million cubic metres. Commercial thinning is one of the ways in which we will do that, just one of the tools of how we’ll do that.

We’ve talked for some number of years around these Nordic countries in terms of the practices that they have. Juan Carlos from Mercer talked a bit about that in the panel that I was on with him at COFI. We have an opportunity here in British Columbia to do that as well. That’s the commitment that the Premier has given to me over the course of my mandate, to be able to do that. And no surprise to anyone who’s been listening to us for the last few hours over the last couple of days, FLPs are going to be a way that we address that.

But I recognize, and the member’s absolutely right, we have to find ways to be able to expedite permits. It’s why the Premier has made this the 19th project in terms of the list of priority projects that he has — that it requires this not just be something that the Forest Service looks at, but this is an all-of-government approach.

A number of steps that we’ve taken that I’ve mentioned: bundling consultation for permits in the Skeena district office with archaeology and cutting permits, as an example, to try to speed things up, and that internal commitment, 40 to 25 days. The member’s right. There’s a lot of pre-work that happens. Here are some ways that we can address that.

FLPs are great; they’re the future. They also take too long. I recognize that, got to find ways to be able to streamline those. Our friend Chief Lampreau, I think, will give us some guidance on that. I think he can play a big role in regards to that. I’m looking forward to his leadership because I know that he is very keen on that.

And one thing I didn’t get a chance to touch on when we first got back after lunch, related to wildfire salvage, is just some information for the member. One of the things that has been relatively new for our ministry is rapid ecological assessment teams that work as part of the B.C. Wildfire Service. We’re integrating this into our ministry operations through district offices as well. This is a situation in which you have a team that is on the ground immediately after a fire has happened, and their job, as part of that job, is to get that burnt fibre that is accessible economically, environmentally, to where it needs to go. So they can be a part of wildfire salvage opportunity agreements, all of those different pieces.

The Cal Fire model has been quite successful. It’s a bit more challenging because California doesn’t really have much of a forest sector anymore. But there is, I think, a huge opportunity for us to be able to build this resiliency and land-based piece in where — the member’s absolutely right — when a fire occurs, we’re not going in six months later. We are actively assessing the land base immediately afterwards and building that system in with it.

Moms are awesome. I agree with your mom completely. We have to focus on what we can control. It’s clear to us the President may say something tomorrow. In fact, in the couple of hours that we’ve been up, he may have sent a tweet out that we’re not aware of.

We have to prepare for the increasing softwood lumber duties. We have to prepare for whatever the section 232 investigation will lead to. Again, it’s crazy to think that our softwood lumber industry here in Canada, here in British Columbia, could somehow be a national security risk. Like, how ludicrous is that?

I want to thank the member for condemning the duties, because it’s important. What the President is doing is devastating to our sector here in British Columbia, here in Canada — Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, the east coast, other provinces that have a forest sector — but also the added costs that he’s putting on his own constituents. For someone who ran on a campaign of building more housing….

[2:30 p.m.]

How can you have a President who is, basically, adding a new tax on middle-class Americans — makes no sense to me — for those that are looking to build new homes but also for those who are simply looking to rebuild their homes after devastating wildfire seasons?

Being in California, chatting with lawmakers, I think they truly understand the challenges ahead. It was interesting. A lot of people that I spoke to that…. It’s hard to imagine a large democracy like the United States where there were people…. There were industry organizations that were fearful of standing up because they didn’t want to get their head cut off by the President. How crazy is that?

Here in Canada, we are fairly critical of our politicians. The member opposite has been a local mayor. I’m sure he’s met some constituents that have maybe not been happy with the decision he’s made. Same here. We have email in-boxes for that. We have community offices. We have opportunities to be able to have dialogue and conversation.

But to have heard in the United States that there are Americans, American organizations and businesses, that would love nothing more than to join us in making the case to stand up for the forest sector — for their building sector, rather, in the case of the Americans — but are afraid to do so because they’re afraid of what the Americans are going to say is deeply concerning, and I think something that….

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

I don’t know what to say. It doesn’t bode very well for the democracy down in the United States, but I hope that people will have an opportunity to stand up and make their case known, especially young people. Young people in the United States are not going to be better off than their parents are. They’re not going to be able to afford the homes that they need. They’re not going to be able to rebuild homes in communities in southern California, in North Carolina and elsewhere. Now more than ever, there is an opportunity for them to stand up and make their voices heard.

The President of the United States has a duty and an obligation to be able to represent the people of his country. I note that he was duly elected, but all the steps that he’s been taking over the course of the last number of weeks and months have been alienating his largest and most successful trading partner and friend, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

This entire battle, whatever you want to call it, on softwood lumber has been deeply frustrating to British Columbia. I want to ensure over the course of the next number of days and weeks, immediately leading to right after the federal election, that British Columbia is well positioned to have those conversations.

I was supposed to speak to my counterpart in Alberta today, but because of our estimates, I had to delay that conversation, I think, to later this week. But I’m looking forward to meeting with the minister there. I’m looking forward to engaging with my counterparts all across the country.

I’ve actively reached out to people that have been working on the softwood lumber file for a number of years. It’s a bit of a unique time for us in British Columbia.

This allows me an opportunity to pay homage to the late John Allan, former deputy minister, former CEO of COFI, if I’m not mistaken, as well, former chair of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council — a gem of a guy. One of the first deputy ministers that I ever got a chance to work with, he was a bit intimidating. I don’t know if the member opposite ever had a chance to work with John, but he was always our softwood guy here in British Columbia.

But we’ve got more resources. I think of the likes of Rick Doman, Ric Slaco and others that are now providing advice and guidance to us. I’m sure there are many more. I acknowledge James Gorman from West Fraser, who I think met with me on day 2 of my time as Minister of Forests to brief me on the softwood file. He’s a former deputy minister in government, vice-president of West Fraser and provided me some good insights and good advice in terms of the work that’s ahead. And obviously, Kurt Niquidet from the B.C. Lumber Trade Council is doing that work as well.

So on the overall softwood lumber duty file, there is a lot of work ahead. I look forward to working with the member across the way on this important work. I look forward to working with members of the Softwood Lumber Advisory Council and the entire forest sector to make the case. I look forward to leading our efforts to be able to diversify our economy in terms of the forest sector.

The member will know well in question period and other conversations that we often talk about how we are less impacted here in British Columbia as it relates to diversification compared to other provinces. That’s true. Not exactly the case with our forest sector. It’s challenging because they’re right there. They’re right below us. Maybe there are opportunities to be able to find ways to use more value-added products. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement in terms of prioritizing mass timber within the national housing plan.

[2:35 p.m.]

If I remember correctly, I think about 500,000 housing starts every year. We’ll see. That’s a pretty lofty goal. Again, in order for us to be able to get there and be able to support that sector, we have to support the sector right now. We have to ensure that the same supports that are in place for our auto sector are in place for our forest sector. The federal government hasn’t stepped up. They need to step up. I encourage anyone watching at home to contact your local candidates and ask them what they’re thinking about as it relates to the forest sector.

And what a great idea. I think we have a Minister of Natural Resources, but maybe it’s time that we had a minister…. I’m not sure if they…. I don’t think they have ministers of state federally. An associate minister of forestry — maybe it is its own item. I think that’s a really good point, and maybe that’s something we could work together on in terms of some advocacy.

Because, again, when you talk to some of these ministers, they’ll be first to talk to you about the auto sector, they’ll certainly talk about other natural resources, but sometimes it feels like forestry is not necessarily a priority in Ottawa.

I hope to be able to change that. I hope to be able to work with the member across the way to make the case to all Canadians how valuable our forest sector is to the future of this province. Because we have world-class projects with made-in-B.C. wood manufacturing happening. In my community, we are building a brand new post-secondary institution being built with mass timber from Kalesnikoff.

In fact, Kalesnikoff is represented in Langford twice because not only is there a brand-new university that’s being built, we’re also building a new elementary school — same thing. And what’s great about it is the project has been able to be streamlined because of the use of mass timber. It’s like putting Lego pieces together. It’s incredible the work that goes on in that space.

I want to just conclude with a couple of remarks as I know that we’re ending our time. The member opposite talked a bit about the work that we have before us in terms of certainty and predictability, the work that we have before us in terms of our cost structures. All of those pieces are on the table. All of those pieces are things we’re looking at.

We know that we need to ensure that our pricing and appraisal manuals reflect the challenges and opportunities that exist today. The Forest Service is doing incredible work to be able to meet this moment. I’m not doing this in a silo — involving industry, involving the sector.

I welcome any ideas and suggestions from the member opposite. I mean it when I say that him coming from the forest sector means something to me. I’ve got a lot more time for him than I do for his leader, who watched 45,000 jobs leave this province. But he didn’t. He wasn’t there. So if he’s got ideas, if he’s got suggestions, I welcome those.

This is a real tough challenge that we have before us, and there’s a huge opportunity for us to be able to work together, to be able to ensure that we are building for the next 100 years, building for the next seven generations ahead.

But there is a strength that we are building from. We have the highest safety standards in British Columbia, protecting our workers each and every day. And we can’t stop there. We have to do more. I want to recognize the B.C. Forest Safety Council and so many other partners, our union partners that are doing the work in terms of that accountability.

We have the highest environmental standards. The member and I will agree both that there are groups out there that would love nothing more than to shut down this industry. He and I are not going to let that happen. We’re going to fight for this forest sector each and every day. We’re not going to let organizations that believe that we should just leave the trees be…. We are going to actively steward our lands.

Again, I didn’t get into politics to create provincial parks just to see them burn down. I didn’t get into politics to protect ancient trees just to see them burn down. We have a reputation here in British Columbia with high-quality wood products. We have a reputation of being the best in the world, best lumber you can find, and that’s something that I think we should be proud of.

And so often when we talk about the challenges that we face in our forest sector, let’s not forget about the strengths that we have. We are not starting from zero. We are starting from a very strong point. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and I’m looking forward to working with the member on that.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much to the minister. I’d like to reserve the rest of my time to my caucus if that’s the procedure. My time is done here, so what is the process?

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if he would like to make any closing remarks.

Ian Paton: Excuse me. Just a point of order. You wanted to pass on some more questions from some of your colleagues? Okay, that’s how I took it.

[2:40 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: If I may, Madam Chair, I was hoping that these were the minister’s closing remarks so that we could now go to the next set of estimates.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, Minister, are there any further closing remarks you’d like to make?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I was a little excited that the member for Delta South was going to pivot from Agriculture to Forestry there. Maybe next year.

I guess those remarks kind of were my closing remarks, but let me just end by saying that I get the opportunity to stand up and answer questions, but it’s these people and those people back there and the literally thousands of members of the Forest Service that work for us — not just today but have worked for us for hundreds of years — that do the incredible work. There are so many people that I’ve met along the way in this role that I just want to commend.

We have my former deputy, Rick Manwaring, who I just had a short amount of time to work with. I’m looking forward to working with my new deputy minister, Makenzie Leine, who’s starting in a couple of weeks, and the entire team. The executive that we have here is such a great group of people to work with. They are committed, they are excited, they are innovative. I hope I am not exhausting them too much in terms of my expectations, but we’ve got a lot of work to do. We have an opportunity to do big things.

So I just want to take this opportunity to be able to thank the hard-working people of the Forest Service for the work they do each and every day, whether you work as part of B.C. Timber Sales, whether you work here in Victoria as part of the executive team or whether you’re part of our natural resource service, formerly the compliance and enforcement officers, scalers.

I got asked a question in one of the district offices that I visited: “What job would you want?” And I feel like I would want to be a scaler. That’s a pretty cool job. I had a little bit of fun at RiverCity Fibre seeing how the operation works there, in terms of being a scaler. But there are so many things.

I think it should be a source of pride that we have so many hard-working men and women in the B.C. Forest Service and also the B.C. Wildfire Service that are working their butts off each and every day to meet the moment, to meet the obligations we have be able to serve British Columbians. It is an honour, a profound honour, for me to be the Minister of Forests and to work with this incredible team.

I’ll just conclude by also thanking the member opposite. I’ve really enjoyed the conversation. Obviously, in the big House in question period, things can be said. But I think this is an opportunity, through estimates…. It’s my first time going through estimates; his first time going through estimates. I hope this can be a model for all of our colleagues, in terms of how you can have really positive dialogue, some disagreement from time to time, but good engagement. I look forward to doing it again whenever we get an opportunity to do it again. Thanks very much.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 30: ministry operations, $412,584,000 — approved.

Vote 31: fire management, $238,047,000 — approved.

Vote 53: Forest Practices Board, $4,162,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members, and thank you again, Minister.

The committee will now take a ten-minute recess while we prepare for the next ministry. We will reconvene at 2:55 pm.

The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:57 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Mining and Critical Minerals

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call the Committee of Supply, section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $61,012,000.

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

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I would like to start by acknowledging that we are all here today on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ First Nations.

I am joined today by staff from the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. It has been a real pleasure to get to know my executive team over the past few months. I am grateful for their dedication and hard work to ensure that British Columbia has a thriving mining sector.

Let me say this: I’m lucky that the Premier has given me the best ministry.

With me today, we have Tania Demchuk on my left, assistant deputy minister responsible for mining and competitive division. We have Laurel Nash, assistant deputy minister, southeast initiatives secretariat. We have Raman Dale, chief financial officer. We have Tejinder Parhar, executive lead on critical minerals office. We have Lowell Constable, chief permitting officer.

[3:00 p.m.]

Shortly, I think, Deputy Minister Nate Amann-Blake is going to join us as well.

It has been my honour to be appointed by Premier Eby as the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. The Premier sent a clear message to industry and the international community by creating a stand-alone ministry to support economic growth in our province and reform B.C. as a tier 1 mining jurisdiction. We do this by continuing to advance reconciliation and upholding our strong environmental standards.

Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to meet with the mining sector association and individual companies, from exploration to mining operations. My message has been simple. I want to be their champion to help the sector grow and be prosperous.

We need to do this together while we uphold our environmental stewardship priorities and continue to build our environmental, social and governance standards that set us apart from other competitors. It is a key focus for investors looking for jurisdictions with strong ESG principles.

Since 2017, employment in the mining sector has increased to 40,000 jobs, a 10 percent increase. They are good-paying, family-supporting jobs, with an average annual salary of $130,000, careers like heavy equipment operators, geological engineers, health and safety specialists and more.

This isn’t just jobs and investment in the Interior or the North but across B.C. Each job at a mine or smelter in B.C. supports at least two jobs in supplies and services. The thriving supply chain is benefiting6 thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses across the province, including a lot of people in my city of Surrey.

A ministry devoted to mining and critical minerals shows B.C.’s commitment to the sector. My mandate letter takes this further and gives clear direction to work with industry, First Nations and other ministries to establish fixed timelines for mining permit decisions.

Providing clarity and predictability related to the regulatory process is essential for the industry to feel confident and to attract investment.

Working with our northwest neighbouring provinces and territories to build a critical mineral strategy demonstrates integration and collaboration to promote growth from the upstream to downstream opportunities.

Lastly, we are working to ensure that mining permit decisions remain competitive and to reduce permit wait times for mining-related projects.

With rich mineral deposits and a thriving mining industry, B.C. has a generational opportunity to drive growth and create jobs for people across the entire value chain of critical minerals, from mining to manufacturing to recycling. Critical minerals such as copper, nickel, molybdenum and rare earth elements are essential components to products used for clean energy, like electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, electrical transmission lines and batteries.

With the international demand for critical minerals expected to grow sixfold by 2050, attention is increasingly focused on the development of critical minerals resources and establishing secure, resilient value chains for the digital and low-carbon economy.

B.C. has the highest concentration of all of these minerals, including 54 percent of Canada’s copper. We are the highest producer of copper in the country. Metals and minerals are increasingly in demand globally. B.C. has a lot to offer and is taking action to direct investment and support good jobs for the people of British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

B.C. will continue to invest in community while supporting a vibrant mining sector. Last summer, we announced $195 million in joint funding to support updates to Highways 37 and 51. This will help ensure safe travel for people and better access for critical mineral development.

B.C. recently announced 18 resource projects that we’re working on as priorities, four of which are mining projects. B.C. will continue looking to expand, grow, develop and diversify our economy.

To meet this generational opportunity and meet the demand for our critical minerals, we must expand First Nations partnerships, shared decision-making and reconciliation. We have introduced new tools and guidance to support the changes to B.C.’s mineral tenure system required to address a 2023 court ruling.

The new mineral claims consultation framework, known as MCCF, ensures that the claim registration process includes consultation with First Nations while enabling mineral resource development opportunities. We are committed to working with First Nations and industry to align with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act while advancing key critical mineral projects and supporting sectoral competitiveness.

Now more than ever, our economy needs to adapt to new realities through expedited permitting, to make sure that our natural resource sector is competitive. On that front, we have already reduced permitting timelines for the major mine application review process by 35 percent.

Our efforts are showing results. Investment dollars in mineral resource development are up 50 percent over the ten-year average and are the second-highest in ten years. Total mineral sector employment has increased by 10 percent since 2017 — now over 40,000 workers — and total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent, from around $12 billion in 2017 to $17 billion in 2023.

By diversifying our trade partners, making sure that we are in a position to respond and to replace U.S. customers that we may lose for our exports as a result of the tariffs, we will further widen the scope of our trade diversification strategy and build stronger economic partnerships globally to support the goals of B.C. businesses. We will also look at ways to enhance trade with other provinces to support B.C. businesses and Canada’s united approach in addressing additional tariffs.

To the member for Kootenay-Rockies, who belongs to a very important mining region of the province, congratulations for being appointed the critic for such an important ministry. Thank you in advance for your feedback and questions. I look forward to having a fruitful and very meaningful dialogue.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Kootenay-Rockies. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Pete Davis: I would.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Pete Davis: Before we dive into estimates today, I just wanted to take a moment to speak from the heart about something that’s very important to me: the region that I’m from in British Columbia and its really, really large mining industry. The Elk Valley brings in over $1 billion in revenue to this province every year. Mining is not just a sector in our economy; it’s the very bedrock upon which our province was built.

From the wild rush for the gold in the Cariboo, to the coal seams in my home riding in the East Kootenays, to the copper mines that have powered towns and paycheques for generations, mining is woven into the fabric of who we are as British Columbians. It’s a story of grit, perseverance and innovation.

It’s also a story about people, people who work long hours in tough conditions far from home so that we can all benefit from the materials that fuel our homes, our technology and our economy here in British Columbia. These workers — engineers, geologists, drillers, truck drivers, millwrights — are the unsung heroes of B.C.’s economy, and they deserve our full respect and our full support.

[3:10 p.m.]

Mining remains absolutely vital to British Columbia, not just for the jobs it creates and the revenues that it generates, but for our future. Critical minerals will define the 21st century. They are essential for everything from electric vehicles to semiconductors to clean energy technologies. If we want to build a strong, secure and sovereign future for Canada, it must begin with a strong and secure mining sector right here in British Columbia.

This industry feeds families, builds communities and keeps our province globally competitive. But it cannot thrive in uncertainty. It needs clarity. It needs predictability, and it needs respect for both the people who work in it and the communities that are affected by it.

Today, as we go through the ministry’s spending plans and some questions that we have, I’ll be asking questions not to score points with this minister but to make sure that we’re doing right by the people who depend on this industry: the workers, the innovators, First Nations partners, small-town mayors and entrepreneurs staking claims with hope in their hearts, the steel-toed boots on their feet.

Before we begin, I also want to thank the minister for his time today. I’m genuinely looking forward to spending the next four hours with him and having some good conversation with the minister. I think we’re going to have some fun and learn some great things today.

Let’s ensure we keep B.C.’s mining sector not just surviving. Together we can do this and make sure that it thrives.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Would you like to proceed with a question?

Pete Davis: Let’s start with an easy one, just to get us going here.

As of today, how many projects are being reviewed for mine permits?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: It was not as simple as you thought.

First of all, I want to clarify this. You, of course, know this, being right in the area where a lot of mining is taking place. In the mining cycle, there’s not one permit; there are different permits. At this point in time, when we talk about the regional permits, which are exploration permits, and also the sand and gravel permits, that number is 479. When it comes to major mine applications, at any given time, there are roughly about 50 applications. We don’t have the exact number right now, but I will be happy to get back to you with the exact number on that one.

I want to highlight, though, we have four major mine projects right now that are on the priority list of 18. That includes Highland Valley Copper mine, Red Chris mine, Eskay Creek mine, and Mount Milligan mine. Those are the four on the priority list of 18 projects we have.

The Chair: A reminder to all to please direct remarks through the Chair.

Pete Davis: Since you were talking about those four mines, I just want to get a little bit of clarity from them. We’ve got the Eskay Creek gold-silver project. We’ve got the Highland Valley Copper expansion. We’ve got the Red Chris expansion. Then we have the Mount Milligan copper and gold in Fort St. James. My question to the minister is: why was Mount Milligan included in the list, as it’s already fully permitted?

[3:20 p.m.]

What’s the measurable outcome the minister hopes to achieve by including that in your report?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Mine expansion is as important,sometimes, as a new mine.

This project, when we talk about the Mount Milligan, would increase the operational mine life by seven years, until 2035. The mine currently sustains 575 full-time jobs, 56 percent of them from local communities and 17 percent self-identified Indigenous community members.

To create a more efficient and streamlined approval process, the environmental assessment office, Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and Ministry of Environment and Parks, in collaboration with Centerra and First Nations, developed a fully combined Environmental Assessment, Mines Act and environmental act process led by the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

The fully combined process includes a single set of information requirements, one application and a single review and consultation process. The fully combined EA, MA and EMA approach is anticipated to cut the timeline in half, compared to the standard approach to EA and permitting, and the provincial agency continues to seek efficiencies throughout the application review process.

[3:25 p.m.]

So the extensions sometime bring or, of course, create or continue the jobs which are available in the area. Otherwise, if we don’t provide the extension, they will disappear, those jobs. And of course, that will impact the local community, big-time.

Pete Davis: Thank you for that answer. If they’re expanding that, that makes sense.

What I’m wondering is if you guys are saying that you’re expediting the process for these four mines. Is that going to be…? I mean, right now we’re looking at 15 years to get a new mine approved. So if these mines are being expedited, and they’re being pushed through quickly, my question is: is this something that’s going to be…? Are these mines going to be approved by the end of our spring sitting or in the next six years?

Can you give us a timeline on when these are actually expected to be approved?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

We have reduced the overall permitting time by 35 percent. The last mine that went through the permitting process was Cariboo Gold, and Cariboo Gold received its environmental assessment certificate and its permit in less than five years.

We are projecting the Mount Milligan permitting process will take about 12 months. Let me tell you this: if the standard approach of completing the environmental assessment certificate amendment followed by the EMA amendment was followed, the project would have required at least three and a half years to all decisions. So in a standard process, if we could have gone through that way, it could have taken almost three and a half years, but now, under the new streamlined process, it will take about…. I’m saying about 12 months.

Pete Davis: So you just mentioned the Cariboo Gold mine. Can the minister confirm that they’re not still waiting for a permit under the Environmental Management Act?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. I can confirm that the Environmental Management Act certificate was issued on December 11, 2024, but I will be happy to check with the Ministry of Environment if there’s any other outstanding issue around it.

Pete Davis: Thank you for that answer. I’d like to pass it on to the member for Prince George–North Cariboo for a couple of questions.

Sheldon Clare: This question is regarding timelines for claim decisions and permitting. The Premier, on December 10, 2024, at an event hosted by the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce stated: “So, specifically on mining, we have committed to work with the sector to deliver guaranteed timeline for a permit review and decision.”

This week, on April 8, 2025, the minister, addressing the Kamloops Exploration Group conference, again committed to “firm permitting timelines.” Yet the understanding of industry is that under the new mineral claims consultation framework, the ministry is offering flexible targets, not firm guaranteed timelines.

Can the minister clarify if the ministry has shifted from guaranteed timelines for claims decisions and permitting to unfixed timeline targets?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I want to start by saying that the mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy. There would be no mines without the exceptional work of free miners, and there will be no stability in the mining sector without true reconciliation. That’s why we are supporting a responsible, sustainable and globally competitive mining sector.

[3:40 p.m.]

The member is talking about the new mineral claims consultation framework. We have developed the new framework in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months, and we have subsequently worked with the First Nations and also consulted the industry, particularly the membership of the Association for Mineral Exploration.

I’m pleased to say to the member that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the leadership of AME. But we will continue to review that and make improvements. In that one, Member, we have targeted a timeline, which is 90 days to 120. This is a complete new process than the fixed timelines we are talking about.

On the other side, the Premier has given me a responsibility in my mandate letter to provide exactly what the member is saying, the fixed timelines to provide more certainty to the industry, more stability to the industry. We are working on that, Member. The government has made a full commitment to working with the industry, First Nations and across ministries to establish fixed timelines for mining approval permits across British Columbia, including for mineral exploration projects.

Permitting improvements, such as this, will enhance competitiveness and help provide clarity to attract more investment from the global community. My ministry staff, at this point in time, are having regular meetings with the industry associations to share permitting information and data, providing permitting workshops at industry events to remain accessible and transparent about the process, developing digital tools to share information about the location of applications with the public and with Indigenous nations. So that work is on.

When we talk about the fixed timelines, we will continue working on that. We are committed to providing the fixed timelines when it comes to permitting process to create stability and certainty to the industry so that we can have more investment. We can create more jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow the economy.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your answer to the question.

It has been noted by First Nations leaders, including Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, that “under the framework, mining companies can no longer simply register large swaths of land for mineral exploration. They must now notify First Nations of their intentions and allow a 30-day period for responses. This shift may result in an influx of approximately 10,000 additional placer and mineral applications annually, overwhelming often understaffed and under-resourced First Nations offices.”

How much funding is committed to First Nations to help with their lack of capacity to consult with the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals on placer and mineral applications? In the absence of funding to do this, will the minister hold to a fixed timeline of 30 days for that process to take place?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Member, once again, I want to make it absolutely clear that the new framework has been developed in response to our B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months, and we consulted First Nations as well as the industry. I am pleased to see that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the industry to us. We will continue to review and make improvements as we go forward, consulting both First Nations as well as the industry.

Historically, Member, for your question, we get about 5,000 to 8,000 claim applications. At this point in time, it’s too early as to what the impact of the new framework will be. It is speculative. But we have a checkpoint after six months. We are going to review the commitment we made, both to the industry as well as to the First Nations, and we will see, at that time, the impact and how many applications there are. We have received modest capacity funding, and we are working with the impacted First Nations to help them in this process.

Pete Davis: Thank you for the answer.

Your government has had 18 months to develop a comprehensive consultation framework for confirming mineral claims. Yet during that period, your administration controversially attempted to align the Mineral Tenure Act with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or DRIPA, before ultimately retracting. According to documents released by your ministry, you are now planning to push forward with this alignment by 2026.

To the minister: why is there such a persistent push to align with DRIPA in a manner that industry experts have expressed concern about, and how does this proposed alignment serve the interest of attracting and retaining investment in British Columbia’s mining sector?

Is this aggressive pursuit of alignment with DRIPA contributing to the growing perception that B.C. is becoming a less attractive jurisdiction for mining investment?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: A strong mining sector is achieved through certainty and stability. We are all very clear about that, and that’s what the industry has been asking for. You know, it brings the industry and First Nations together. It brings more investment to the province. It’s good for the people of British Columbia and, of course, helps us create more jobs.

My mandate letter from the Premier outlines his expectation that I progress on updating the Mineral Tenure Act, as you mentioned, in a manner that engages directly with and is respectful of First Nations rights and interests and also protects mineral resource development at the same time, opportunities in the province to deliver prosperity for all British Columbians.

[3:55 p.m.]

That process is going on. My staff is having a meeting. I’m having a meeting with both the industry and First Nations. We want to bring everybody together so that we can move forward on this one.

I’m very certain about that, that we can move forward on the mining sector to bring together the First Nations as well as the industry, and we can create certainty by doing that and stability in the sector. That way, we can, of course, lift more mines and lift more mines faster than we are doing otherwise and also create more jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow our economy moving forward.

Pete Davis: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Since we’re talking about the mineral claims consultation framework and the new way that the minister, and this ministry, is looking at doing business…. In the documentation your government provided during the introduction of the mineral claim consultation framework, there is a statement buried within the details suggesting that consultation requirements now apply to private property in addition to Crown land.

Could you provide further clarification as to whether this implies that your government now intends to require consultation for all mineral claims on private property? How do you envision these policy changes affecting private land owners and their ability to engage in mining activities?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member once again for the question.

Member, first I want to clarify that the private land question you asked…. It’s not a new thing. It has been going on before. And it’s not a secret thing. In the Q and A we provided on the same website you saw the information, one of the questions on that one actually addressed this question. I’m going to read that question.

It says: “Are private land claims subject to consultation?” This is on the website.

[4:00 p.m.]

The answer is:

“Yes, courts have indicated that the duty to consult applies to Crown decisions that can adversely affect First Nations rights and title on private lands. Given that claim registration can impact surface and subsurface aspect within a claim area, consultation is required before registering claims on both private and public land. This is in line with consultation that occurs for other proposed activities on private land, such as under notice-of-work applications, so this is not new, and this is not secret.”

Sheldon Clare: Businesses and investors require certainty in timelines, and it’s very clear that short durations of permits do not attract investment. I’ve experienced this with miners in my own riding who’ve told me that they’re taking their business elsewhere, going to the Yukon or to other provinces or to other jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. And I’m thinking of a major mine that just is leaving, likely.

Will the minister commit to increasing the length that permits are valid, for placer and mineral operations, up to 20 years, from what they are now?

‘George Anderson in the chair.]

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: To the member: for regional permits at this point in time, the duration is generally about five years. I appreciate the suggestion the member made. We will take this suggestion back and consider it, with a six-month review at that time. I really appreciate your suggestion.

We have to, of course, talk to the industry and talk to other stakeholders as to what kind of support there is, but thanks for the suggestion, and we will consider it at the time of review.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the forthright answer to the question. I much appreciate it, and so will the miners.

British Columbia is seeing year-over-year double-digit decreases in mineral exploration expenditures — decreases in investment in junior mining exploration companies and projects and in metres drilled in this province.

Due in no small part to the development of the MCCF, from a peak exploration expenditure of $740 million in 2022, exploration expenditures fell to $552 million in 2024, representing a 25 percent loss in an environment of favourable, high commodity prices. The ministry’s own data, from the MCCF news release on March 26, states that mineral claims fell by 190 between 2023 and 2024, and placer claims fell by 384 between 2023 and 2024.

How is the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals planning to address capital flight from the province?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

The first thing I want to say to the member is that the new mineral exploration consultation framework has nothing to do with the exploration expenditure going down. It was introduced just a few weeks ago.

There are reasons as to why we have the exploration expenditure down. One is, of course, that it’s a global trend. Because of inflation, it has gone down everywhere. It’s not only in the province of British Columbia; it’s every province. Other provinces are facing the same situation, even other counties are facing the same situation when we talk about exploration.

[4:15 p.m.]

But there are also localized factors that we have. A couple of flagship projects have actually moved on from exploration to mining construction. So they are not spending money now on the exploration side. They’re spending money on the construction side. Like Blackwater mine, for example. Similarly, Eskay mine of Skeena — the same thing for them. When a flagship big project moves to the next level, of course the exploration expenditures go down in that situation.

I just want to say that even today, our exploration expenditures are still pretty strong. If we compare it to 2017, in 2017, it was only $246 million. Today we have $552 million — more than double, we have today, when it comes to these expenses.

Pete Davis: In 2024, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation was split into the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

The 2025 ministry service plan for the Ministry of Mines and Critical Minerals does not have any clear targets or goals. It does not include targets for permitting timelines, number of projects approved or any deadlines for the ministry itself. As opposed, the 2024 service plan for Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation had Canadian mineral resources development, they had number of mines inspections and relative annual investments, and they had all these other things. I’m wondering why….

Can the minister please explain why the service plan does not include any numerical targets or specific timelines, in contrast to the 2024 service plan that had all the information?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Once again, thanks to the member for the question. I’m pleased that the member has actually read the service plan very carefully.

The Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals is a new ministry with a new mandate. Having said that, the annual inspection number is 1,600. On page 7 of the ministry service plan, this is what the ministry service plan states: “Our ministry will continue to develop specific objectives and performance measures for inclusion in our 2026-27 service plan for Budget 2026. As this work proceeds, the ministry will maintain its inspection targets,” which is 1,600, “and advance work to attract more investment to B.C. for mineral exploration and mining.” That’s on page 7 of the current service plan.

Pete Davis: The current budget does not specifically allocate for additional staffing or resources aimed to ensure the timely process of mineral claims under the newly implemented mineral claims consultation framework.

To the minister: can you confirm how many staff members will be dedicated to the MCCF to ensure that the consultation and claim processing are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays? What measures are being put in place to ensure that the system has the capacity to handle the anticipated increase in workload without adversely affecting the pace of processing new claims?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The member raises a good question. What I want to say to the member is that, keeping in mind that we are going through a very tough budgetary situation at this point in time, we are fully committed within our ministry to reallocate the existing staff to support implementation of the MCCF, with the focus on reassigning staff where permitting will not be impacted.

We will continue to bring efficiencies in, of course, and reallocate the staffing to manage this change. You know, in an ideal world, I would have requested more of a budget for this. But we are going through a very tough situation right now. Keeping in mind the budgetary situation, we made the commitment to reallocate staff members and to manage this in a responsible way.

Sheldon Clare: Is the minister advocating with federal counterparts to ensure that mineral exploration tax credits, recently announced to extend to two years, become permanent? What does it mean for British Columbia if the mineral exploration tax credit does not receive federal support following the outcome of the ongoing federal election, which is a concern in many mining areas?

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

British Columbia has its own, of course, incentive programs to encourage more exploration in the province of British Columbia. British Columbia’s mineral exploration incentive program includes the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit and the B.C. mining exploration tax credit. Both programs are designed to encourage investment in mineral exploration, which is a critical part of discovering new mineral deposits that can lead to the development of new mines throughout the province.

Of course, the federal mineral tax program is very important to make it even more competitive. The only way the mining sector can succeed in this province or in this country is if it’s globally competitive. So we would, of course, welcome the support from the federal government. I will be happy…. We continue to advocate to make that mineral tax, federal tax, permanent. I will continue to do that with the incoming government after the next election.

Pete Davis: The implementation of the mineral claims consultation framework, or MCCF, on March 26, has raised considerable concerns within the mining sector, particularly from AME, or Association for Mineral Exploration. They’ve pointed out that the publication of prospectors’ names as part of the framework exposes intellectual property before a claim has been confirmed.

Given the industry’s clear concerns regarding confidentiality and the potential harm this could cause, why did your government proceed with a process that industry representatives have identified as detrimental to the interest of mineral explorers and developers?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

We have been having discussion about this issue for some time. I just want to say to the member again that the new mineral claim consultation framework has been developed in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months to develop the new framework. And we have, of course, had consultation with the First Nations as well as with the industry and, specifically, a member with the leadership of the Association for Mineral Exploration. I’m very pleased to say that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the leadership of the AME in this process.

At the same time, I want to say this to you that this is not the end of this process. We will continue to monitor and make improvements as we move forward. Protecting private property of the prospectors is a key priority for us. That’s why we put checks and balances in this new framework, to make sure the property of the prospectors is protected.

At this point in time, Member, we’re only providing the name of the company. The name of the company is going to be provided.

[4:40 p.m.]

Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor and make improvements, working with the AME and, of course, with the First Nations to make sure the new framework is fair and transparent and also protects the intellectual property of the prospectors.

Gavin Dew: Steel-making metallurgical coal contributed $4.6 billion to the province. It accounts for 13,000 jobs.

Will the minister commit today to supporting B.C.’s metallurgical coal production by adding met coal to our critical minerals list?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The member raised an interesting question. B.C. has chosen to rely on the Canadian critical minerals list at this point in time, but that does not take away from the significance of metallurgical coal in British Columbia’s economy.

Steelmaking and coal mining in the southeast sustains more than 12,000 family-supporting jobs in B.C., with 3,600 direct jobs and 7,200 indirect jobs. We will continue to support this sector moving forward.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the deference to the Canadian standard, but I hope that the province will look at creating its own approach that puts B.C. first — B.C. jobs first and B.C. opportunities first. On that note, Minister, precious metals play a vital role in B.C.’s economy. The long-term economic impact of precious metals is projected at $29.5 billion for B.C. and almost 100,000 jobs.

Will the minister, putting B.C. first, commit to adding precious metals to our critical minerals list and fast-tracking precious metal project permits?

The Chair: Members, I would remind you that you’re not to be eating in the chamber — specifically, the member for Surrey South.

Member. Member, Surrey South?

Brent Chapman: Yes.

The Chair: There is no eating in the chamber.

Brent Chapman: Okay, sorry.

The Chair: Thank you.

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. I would agree with the member that mining is more than critical minerals. That’s why I’m the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals.

I would like to inform the member that I’m pleased to say that the first mine that received their permit after I became the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals was a gold mine, Cariboo Gold. The first mine I visited as the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals was also a gold mine: Blackwater, which had just completed construction and was ready to pour.

We will continue to support, of course, precious-metal mining and critical minerals at the same time. Also, we need to look at the geology of the province. Sometimes we find both critical minerals and precious metals in the same deposit. That happens, too. At the same time, I want to say that we need to continue to support the mining sector — critical minerals, and of course, precious metals.

Critical minerals, as I said earlier, are important at this point in time because they provide minerals to support the low-carbon, green economy moving forward — that’s the transition we’re going through — and, of course, create good jobs for the people of British Columbia. It’s the same as with precious-metal mining, which also creates good jobs for the people of British Columbia.

So we will continue to support both, not one. We are, of course, working hard to make B.C. a key province when it comes to critical minerals.

Gavin Dew: This government has often struggled to reconcile the conflicting poles of reconciliation, environmental responsibility and organized labour. Several leading First Nations mining projects have noted that they do not consent to the government’s preference for a community benefits agreement model, and they prefer an open-shop model. Does the minister support Indigenous peoples’ consent when it comes to their preference for an open shop?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member once again.

Mining provides 40,000 good, family-supporting jobs to the people of British Columbia, across the province. Critical minerals are critical to the low-carbon economy, moving forward. Therefore, the mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy.

There would be no mining without the exceptional work done by the prospectors. There will be no stability in the mining sector without true reconciliation. That’s why we are supporting a responsible, sustainable and globally competitive mining sector to create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and to grow the economy, particularly the green economy.

[5:05 p.m.]

Having said that, Member, mining, of course, involves reconciliation, climate protection and labour issues. It’s complex work. I’m prepared to do that work. I’m actually excited to do that work, because that’s important work to do for the industry.

Industry is looking for…. I have had numerous meetings with industry, whether it’s the AME or the B.C. Mining Association or others, and they are looking for certainty and stability. The only path to the certainty and stability is that we need to move forward on reconciliation. We need to protect the environment, and we need to work with labour. That’s what we are doing, and that’s what we will continue to do.

I’m sure — I want to say that to you — that we will work with the industry, and the industry is willing to work with us to create that certainty and stability so that we have the best mining sector in the province to create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow the economy for the people of British Columbia.

Gavin Dew: I didn’t hear an answer to the question, but I did hear a commitment to working with industry.

I do want to flag the very serious concern of mixed signals being sent to industry by this government and by this and other ministries. I recall the Premier talking about wanting to hit the reset button with the business community after a near-death political experience.

I have seen lots of talk, lots of language about the need to hit a reset button, the need to work with industry, the need to be collaborative. And yet, mere months after that and hours after the release of the new MTA framework, many people in industry were, frankly, shocked and offended when the Minister for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation posted a report that they had slammed in the preceding days as deeply flawed and made the assertion that red tape was not a factor, or not “the” factor, in mining.

In subsequent days, I would note the minister then deleted that social media post after receiving very strong feedback from industry, and yet the minister then proceeded to the Natural Resources Forum, where she continued to make repeated assertions that red tape is not the problem in mining.

So a very simple question in order to provide clarity to industry. Does the minister agree or disagree with his colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, who has a role to play in mining and who sends a signal through what she says, loud and clear to industry…? Does the minister agree or disagree with his colleague the Minister for Jobs that red tape is not the problem in mining? Yes or no?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I just want to say that the Premier has appointed me the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. It’s a new ministry, and I am the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. I am working with this team to make sure we create stability and certainty for the industry, to make sure we bring in fixed timelines for the industry permitting process. I am in touch with the industry on a regular basis. I am in touch with the First Nations. I am in touch with the labour in this sector.

And I want to say to the member that our actions, our efforts are showing the results. Investment dollars in mineral resource development are up by 50 percent over ten years, average, and are the second highest in ten years. Total mineral sector employment has increased by 10 percent since 2017 — now over 40,000 workers. Total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent, from around $12 billion in 2017 to around $17 billion in 2023.

I will continue to do this. We are bringing efficiencies in the system to reduce timelines. We have already reduced the major mine application review timeline by 35 percent. We have also reduced the regional backlog by 52 percent. And we will continue to do so moving forward.

Gavin Dew: I’m shocked to hear the minister throw his colleague under the bus like that. Historically, the Ministry of Jobs had a role in expediting major mining projects. It sounds like he’s written his colleague out of that process.

Quick question: was it the minister’s office or the Premier’s office who encouraged the minister to delete her LinkedIn post?

The Chair: Members, I’d request that only the person asking questions ask their question and the minister be given the opportunity to respond. Thank you.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. I just want to make it very clear that I am the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. I will be happy to answer any question that is related to mining and critical minerals. I just want to say that to the member.

Having said that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and report progress on the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:16 p.m.