Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Heather Maahs.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I have not been able to locate him in the House yet, but joining us all the way from McLeod Lake Indian Band is Chief Harley Chingee. I had an opportunity, as I know some of my colleagues, to be able to meet with Chief Chingee, an outstanding partner, a strong steward in the forest sector.

Would the House please join me in making him feel very welcome here today.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Today in the gallery, we have two representatives from the Gastrointestinal Society here to meet MLAs. Joining us are CEO Gail Attara and the health policy and outreach manager, Jaymee Maaghop.

The G.I. Society supports people in B.C. who are living with digestive and liver diseases, through evidence-based education, advocacy and collaboration with their health care system. You can learn more about them at badgut.org.

Would the House please help me make them feel very welcome.

Ward Stamer: I’d like to welcome the entire board of the Truck Loggers Association, members that were here earlier today. I know that they met with the Minister of Forests, and they met with our caucus.

I’d like to recognize their new president, Bob Marquis, and their general manager, Peter Lister.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I have the honour of not introducing any dignitaries but people who are incredibly important to me.

Would the House please make welcome my parents, Bill and Cindy Brooks.

Stephanie Higginson: I stand today to help recognize members of Innovative Medicines Canada, who are joining us in the gallery. Innovative Medicines Canada represents Canada’s research-based pharmaceutical sector and plays an important role in advancing innovation, supporting clinical trials and improving patient access to new therapies.

Please help me welcome their delegation to the Legislature and thank them for their ongoing partnership in supporting a strong, sustainable and innovative health care system in British Columbia.

Claire Rattée: I hope you’ll indulge me, because it’s not very often I get this many people from my riding here in the chamber. I have quite a few that I’d like to introduce.

I’d like to start off by introducing Cyril Bennett-Nabess. He is the Deputy Chief of the Kitselas Nation. Unfortunately, Chief Councillor Glenn Bennett was not able to be here today, so he is here in his place.

We also have Gerald Nyce, Jericho Collison, Jorden Squires and Cheryl Campbell — they are all Councillors for the Kitselas Nation — as well as Dr. David Try, who is a Kitselas Elder and senior negotiator; and Linda Morven, who is also a Kitselas Elder and their CAO.

Sean Bujtas, who, I said yesterday, of course, is the mayor of the city of Terrace.

We also have Stan Bevan from the Kitselas Nation; Roberta Quock from the Kitselas Nation; Susan Bevan, George Chinn, Angeline Chinn, Anne McDames, Crystal Wright, Mercedes Seymour, Marissa Seymour, Audrey Bennett, Sharon Bennett, Stella Wright, Freda Wright, Matilda Henry, Bonita Young-Mercer and Debbie More — all from the Kitselas Nation as well. Many of them are staff members with the Kitselas Nation, and I appreciate all of their hard work for their community.

We also have some members from Kitsumkalum here today. Troy Sam is the Chief of the Kitsumkalum. Then we have, from their council, Anona-Marie Budden and Wayne Bolton; and from treaty communications, Julie Nyce and Jenniefer Bolton.

I would ask that the House make them all feel very welcome, please. I appreciate having them here today.

Anna Kindy: I rise today to welcome, as well, the representatives of the Gastrointestinal Society who are in the gallery today. It is a pleasure to recognize Gail Attara — she is the chief executive officer of the G.I. Society and president of the Canadian Society of Intestinal Research — along with Jaymee Maaghop, who is the health policy and outreach manager.

Gail made an excellent presentation to our caucus this morning that was very informative. I want to commend Gail and her team for their strong advocacy on behalf of those living with inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis. The G.I. Society plays an important role in supporting patients and advancing practical solutions to improve care across our province.

Please join me again in making them feel welcome today.

George Anderson: I rise today to recognize Brian McFadden, the president of Vancouver Island Military Museum, who was fittingly honoured with the city of Nanaimo’s Honour in Heritage Award yesterday. He is a former member of the British Royal Navy Reserves.

[1:40 p.m.]

Brian has given decades of service to the museum since first volunteering in 1998, through his leadership; hard work; and true, deep sense of duty. Alongside the commitment of past and present volunteers since the museum’s founding in 1986, the museum stands as a testament to this community’s enduring commitment to remembering our veterans.

I hope that the entire House will join me in congratulating Brian McFadden.

Hon. Randene Neill: It is my pleasure today to welcome the incredible folks from the B.C. Watershed Security Coalition to the House today.

Water, as we know, is the cornerstone of our province. It powers our economy. It feeds our fish, our forests and our wildlife. Our food, our crops and the very health of each and every one of us depends on the safety and security of our watersheds in this province.

I want to welcome to the gallery today Coree Tull, Tim Morris, Roberta Webster, Abby Morris, Tricia Brett, Aaron Hill, Dave Zehnder, Kat Hartwig, Andrea Barnett, Kyle Visvanathan, Vickey Brown, Oliver Brandes, Neil Fletcher, Zita Botelho and Rosie Simms.

A big round of applause for all of the advocacy and work you do to protect our watersheds.

Scott McInnis: I’d also like to welcome in the gallery today several members from the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, which we had an opportunity, in opposition, to discuss some issues with yesterday.

I would like to welcome here to the House today Mr. Garry Reece, Mr. Rodney Henry, Ms. Tammy Dudoward, Mr. Ted White, Mr. Vernon Alexcee, Mr. Andrew Tait, Mr. Stan Dennis, Mr. Stan Dennis Jr., Mr. Rob Hughes, Mr. Don Wesley, Mr. Kelly Sampson and Mr. Joey Wesley.

Thank you all for the opportunity to discuss and meet yesterday.

Would the House please help me make them welcome today.

Gavin Dew: On the precinct today, we have a group from Innovative Medicines Canada, led by Charles Brown, director of government affairs.

The work of Innovative Medicines Canada focuses on building strong partnerships, supporting effective policies and improving Canada’s regulatory environment. They’re committed to ensuring Canadians can access the treatments they need while helping to strengthen and sustain our health care system for generations to come.

I would ask members of this House to please join me in making them very welcome.

Donegal Wilson: I would like to welcome on the precinct today Mayor Johansen, here from the town of Oliver, advocating on behalf of his community for work on the agricultural canal in his region, as well as for some expansions at his local airport.

I appreciate the time of the ministers and the meetings that we have today.

Members’ Statements

Medical Laboratory Week

Susie Chant: First of all, I would like to acknowledge today that I’m speaking on the lands of the Songhees and xʷsepsəm People.

When I’m in North Vancouver–Seymour, I live and work on the lands of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations. I’m always grateful for the opportunities to walk alongside, learning as I go.

I’d like also to welcome our health care system partners and their guests who are with us today. I’m glad to see you here. This week we join communities across Canada in celebrating Medical Laboratory Week from April 12 to 18. Here in British Columbia, we are especially proud to mark the fifth year of formally proclaiming this week, recognizing the essential role that laboratory professionals play in patient care.

This year’s national theme, “Every patient, every test, every stage of life,” speaks to the profound role that laboratory professionals play at every point in a patient’s health care journey. Across the lifespan, from prenatal and newborn screenings through infectious and chronic disease management to end-of-life care, laboratory tests and results inform between 50 and 70 percent of all clinical decisions.

In B.C., more than 290 laboratory facilities are approved to provide publicly funded services under the Laboratory Services Act. These services, whether provided in our hospitals and emergency departments or in the 200-plus outpatient collection sites, rely on the expertise and dedication of highly skilled laboratory medicine professionals.

[1:45 p.m.]

In 2024-25 alone, more than 63 million outpatient laboratory claims were processed in B.C., demonstrating the enormous volume and critical importance of the work.

The celebration of Medical Laboratory Week also aligns with the province’s commitment to strengthening and sustaining a resilient health care workforce, care that can meet the growing and evolving needs of people across British Columbia.

Congratulations and happy Medical Laboratory Week.

Rutland Community Cleanup in Kelowna

Gavin Dew: I rise today to recognize an outstanding example of community spirit in Kelowna, the Rutland Spring Community Clean-Up. On March 29, dozens of volunteers gathered at Rutland Lions Park, rolled up their sleeves, picked up garbage grabbers and got to work serving their neighbourhood.

In advance of the main event, organizer Chris Bocskei and a small group of volunteers had already removed hazardous debris from an area west of McCurdy Road, including hundreds of needles, tents, bikes and other discarded items.

What stands out about these cleanups is not just the work itself but who shows up to do it. In Rutland, community cleanups are regularly attended by councillors, the mayor, the MLA and Members of Parliament — all of whom put in honest work alongside local residents.

What I find especially meaningful about these cleanups is that they reflect two truths at once.

First, people are frustrated and rightly so. They want help from government. They want safer streets, cleaner public spaces and a basic sense of order.

Second, the people of Rutland do not simply wait for someone else to fix things. They take matters into their own hands. They show up. They help their neighbours. They remind us that strong communities are built not only by government but by citizens willing to act.

For me, personally, I really like doing it. It’s real work. It’s redemptive work. It is a reminder of what my constituents in Rutland put up with every single day. In fact, I’m quite proud that my first intergovernmental meeting after being elected as an MLA was cleaning up garbage in Rutland with the mayor.

I want to thank Chris Bocskei, every volunteer and every local leader and resident who took part. Their work made a visible difference, and their example deserves recognition in this House.

Canada Book Week
and Indigenous Authors

Amshen / Joan Phillip: I rise today in celebration of Canada Book Week, because reading is what? Fundamental.

British Columbia buys more books per capita than anywhere across the country. Canada has a 99 percent success rate, but we can’t rest on that success alone, because better is always possible. Having a lower literacy limits your ability to find secure, well-paying jobs, with some notable exceptions.

Now, the very first book I ever read from cover to cover was called The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck. But I’d like to celebrate the work of Indigenous authors from across the country. As you may be aware, I come from a long line of talented artists and authors.

My grandfather, Chief Dan George, wrote works of poetry. My older sister, Lee Maracle, wrote multiple books, including Bobbi Lee Indian Rebel, an autobiography as a political and politicized Indigenous woman. Jody Wilson-Raybould wrote a book, “Indian” in the Cabinet: Speaking Truth to Power, a very powerful memoir. There are so many talented Indigenous writers in this country, and Canada’s culture is richer when we can appreciate their work.

It is difficult to find a time to read, but it is worth it. I would encourage everyone to read a book by an Indigenous author. It may even change your outlook a little bit.

[1:50 p.m.]

Okanagan Forest Task Force
and Action on Illegal Dumping

Kristina Loewen: The Okanagan Forest Task Force began ten years ago, simply and powerfully. A group of outdoor enthusiasts refused to accept the growing crisis of illegal dumping in our forests. At their very first cleanup, just 15 volunteers removed over three metric tonnes of garbage from a single site.

Today this entirely volunteer-driven organization has grown into a movement. Over 1.3 million pounds of garbage and scrap metal from the Okanagan backcountry — waste pulled out of forests, lakes and natural spaces that should never have been polluted in the first place.

They are restoring ecosystems, protecting wildlife and preventing forest fires by removing flammable debris and hazardous materials left behind in our backcountry. They are safeguarding communities across the Okanagan. Their impact is so profound that wildlife has returned, and places are safe, clean and thriving again.

Through their documentary, What Lies Behind the Trees, they are shining a light on what many people never see: the hidden environmental damage in our forests and the power of everyday citizens to step up and make a difference.

There’s a dark side to this story: the fact that the housing crisis and the opioid crisis has pushed some of our homeless into the forest. It sounds wonderful, in a way, but the truth is that housing is far below adequate, and they leave behind abandoned vehicles, trailers, garbage, clothing, sewage — so much waste and destruction, born out of very real need and desperation. One couple chose to squat in the forest in order to afford their medication. She drove out daily to work.

OFTF volunteers give up their weekends to haul out garbage. They care deeply about the land we all share. They are driven by responsibility. They show us what is possible when a community comes together with grit, grace and heart. They aren’t just cleaning up forests. They’re bringing awareness and telling the story with compassion and authenticity.

Thank you to Kane Blake, David Ouwendyk, James Mayers, Eli Coburn and the many, many volunteers.

Sookarama Community Connection
Event in Sooke

Dana Lajeunesse: Each year the Sooke Lions Club brings the community together through one of their many well-organized and much-loved events, Sookarama. It’s a celebration of community and a powerful reminder of what’s possible when people come together with a shared purpose.

This year Sookarama takes place this coming Saturday, April 18, and I can’t think of a better way to spend a weekend afternoon. Nearly 100 local non-profits, community groups and businesses will be on site, each with their own booth, proudly sharing the incredible work they do in the community of Sooke and the surrounding region. It’s a chance to connect, to learn and to be inspired.

I’ve had the pleasure of attending Sookarama for the past two years, and both times I’ve been truly inspired by the dedication of volunteers, by the creativity of local organizations and the deep sense of care that people have for one another in the community. Sooke is often referred to as the “Volunteer capital of Canada,” and this event certainly lives up to that reputation.

Sookarama isn’t just about displays and information. It’s about relationships. It’s about discovering a new cause to support, finding a way to get involved and strengthening the connections that make the community so resilient and welcoming.

As the MLA for Juan de Fuca–Malahat, I’m proud to share that my constituency office staff and I will once again have a booth at this year’s event. I warmly encourage you to stop by, say hello, share your ideas and let us know what’s on your mind.

If you’re looking for something meaningful to do this weekend, I invite you to drop by the SEAPARC Rec Centre, located at 2169 Phillips Road, between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to support local organizations and experience firsthand the heart of the community at Sookarama. I hope to see you there.

Tumbler Ridge Outdoor
Recreation Association

Larry Neufeld: It gives me pride today to stand in this House of honour and speak of the beautiful jewel of a community of Tumbler Ridge. This is a positive. They deserve it, they need it, and here it comes.

There is a wonderful organization in my constituency of Peace River South that is, in fact, headquartered in the beautiful town of Tumbler Ridge. It is in fact called the Tumbler Ridge Outdoor Recreation Association, TRORA.

[1:55 p.m.]

During my most recent time in the community last week, I had the opportunity to spend a significant amount of time with residents, speaking with community leaders, this time not about politics, not about tragedy but something equally important — connection, community and positive momentum of the path forward.

TRORA is a non-profit organization that plays a unique and essential role. It does not replace local recreation groups; it unites and strengthens them. It brings together snowmobilers, mountain bikers, Nordic skiers and ATV users under one coordinated vision in order to provide sustainable outdoor recreation. It supports tourism, and it promotes safe access to our back country. Most importantly, it fosters stewardship, ensuring that our natural landscapes remain protected for future generations.

Beyond infrastructure, TRORA is about people. It’s about youth engagement, volunteerism and building a sense of pride and belonging in this beautiful rural community. This spring TRORA is launching a bike bus, bringing children together to ride safely to school, promoting health, confidence and connection. That is one of the many things that they are involved with this summer.

I am proud to recognize the extraordinary work of the Tumbler Ridge Outdoor Recreation Association and the positive impact that it is having, which is exactly what the Tumbler Ridge area needs now more than ever.

Oral Questions

Government Position on
Oil Pipeline Proposal
and North Coast Tanker Ban

Kiel Giddens: An October 2025 internal briefing note was recently obtained by the media. The FOI revealed internal government documents that showed a secret, coordinated effort by the B.C. NDP to stop a new Canadian pipeline project.

These documents show that while this government was publicly dismissing a proposed northern pipeline as fictional, staff were privately directed to mobilize opponents to the project. Many of those opponents, I’m sure, are friends of many members of the government benches.

Can the minister confirm: is this government mobilizing staff to kill a pipeline while, at the same, time telling the public that it doesn’t exist?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s always good when you get your question period material from the Western Standard.

I’ll just say this. The pipeline proposal doesn’t exist, at least not yet. There’s been a lot of talk of it. B.C. has expressed its position. The member will know that we’re opposed to the lifting of the tanker ban on the north coast and that we’re, of course, working closely with other jurisdictions in all of these matters.

But it seems to me reasonable, when people put forward a project that will greatly affect British Columbians, that the British Columbia government be informed and develop evidence with respect to that project. That’s precisely what we’re doing.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens: The NDP has spent decades blocking pipelines and other energy infrastructure that will make Canada and B.C. more prosperous and more secure.

The Prime Minister; the Premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador; and even Wab Kinew, the NDP Premier of Manitoba, all support pipelines because they are in the national interest. And 65 percent of British Columbians support a pipeline, yet this Premier and the NDP government are the ones who oppose it.

When will this government do the right thing, align with the rest of Canada and support a new Canadian pipeline?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As the member will know, there is no proposal. There is no proponent. There is no route. There is, as yet, no plan. British Columbia has put forward its views on this question because we’re frequently asked our views.

Obviously, the province of Alberta, which in its MOU with the federal government on broad energy issues missed a number of deadlines on April 1, has its own issues and is engaging in its own strategy.

[2:00 p.m.]

I would say this, though. As a member from the North, I’d like to ask why the hon. member is against the North Coast transmission line, which will unleash the economy of the North.

They are against real projects. They’re against mining projects. They’re against bringing electricity to the north coast.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: They’re against clean energy projects. They’re against projects that will build the economy of this province and create jobs in the North, real projects.

They talked about LNG. We deliver projects, in partnership with First Nations. The party of zero, the party of no, over there, is opposed to real projects. We’re driving real projects forward — working, yes, with the federal government; working, yes, with First Nations; working, yes, with business — and we are succeeding.

Energy Supply and Costs

Larry Neufeld: B.C.’s vulnerability to global energy price shocks did not arrive without warning.

For years, this government has had opportunities to expand pipeline capacity and build critical infrastructure, including additional refining capacity that would have diversified our supply. They chose ideology over prudence. Now British Columbians are paying the price.

Will this government admit that this price crisis was preventable?

Hon. Adrian Dix: In the course of this legislative session and past legislative sessions, I’ve heard the opposition blame the government for lots of things.

The member will be aware that the most recent spikes in the price of gas are related to the terrible circumstances in the war between the United States and Israel and Iran. They are affecting British Columbians as they’re affecting many countries around the world.

It’s why, here in British Columbia, we have developed renewable energy sources that the opposition opposes, that they’ve made clear that they’re opposed to, over time. It’s why we’ve seen to upgrade the value of our natural gas so we can export it and diversify our markets around the world. We’re going to continue to do so.

People talk about pipeline proposals. The member will know that since 2022, the amount of oil transported from Alberta through British Columbia has increased fourfold because of the development of the TMX pipeline. There are other opportunities on that line to increase capacity for the province of Alberta.

We have been working with other jurisdictions on realistic, real proposals to see that that happens. I think that’s the right approach — to go from zero LNG projects to six and to build clean energy around B.C., which everybody in the world, with the exception currently of the Trump administration, is doing.

I hope the opposition will start to support these efforts.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Larry Neufeld: Yes, I’m very aware of what’s affecting gas prices. My question was addressing what this government has done to address that on behalf of British Columbians.

What I will suggest further, for my next question, is that a task force will not lower gas prices. It will not harden supply chains that are already under pressure. It will not reverse years of obstruction that we’ve just discussed.

What specific action — not study, not coordination, not consultation — will this government take in the next 30 days to protect British Columbia from energy price volatility?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Hon. Speaker, as you know, I’m looking forward to debating legislation that’s before the House now that will provide assistance to many British Columbians. In that respect, we’ll have the opportunity, the hon. member and I, to debate that shortly.

What British Columbia needs to do is take what we have been taking, which is changes that were brought in by this administration — five conditions for LNG development, for example — that focus on the needs of local communities, of First Nations, of the economy of the province, addressing issues of climate change and giving alternatives to British Columbians.

We’re going to continue to expand opportunities to save energy, to save electricity and to reduce household costs through Power Smart programs that are available through….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: You know, hon. Speaker, we hear this every day. They claim they want to have a debate, but they don’t really want to have a debate or a discussion of issues that I take very seriously.

There’s a global energy situation, which the opposition has asked exactly no questions about. They’re opposed to clean energy. They’re opposed to giving people alternatives. They don’t understand that B.C. has the lowest electricity rates in the world because we have a public B.C. Hydro system. We are going to continue to take steps to give British Columbians alternatives.

If anything, with the intermittence of fossil fuels as a result of what’s happened in this terrible conflict far away from us, we should be doubling down on clean electricity. Why are they opposed to it every single time?

Woodfibre LNG Project Expansion
Proposal and Wastewater Regulation

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m so glad to be on topic today and present a different perspective on the fossil fuel debate from my riding.

Since Woodfibre LNG was first proposed more than ten years ago, communities in Átl’ka7tsem–Howe Sound have worried that it would be larger, dirtier and more damaging than advertised. Now it looks like Woodfibre has been planning from the beginning for much more than the two-megatonne export it was permitted for, a classic Trojan Horse strategy.

Fortis and B.C. Hydro seem to have known for a while, because they’re overbuilding pipeline and electrical infrastructure to accommodate greater capacity. Then, three weeks ago, the federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister lets the cat out of the bag, speaking in Texas, of all places, about a potential doubling or tripling of gas exports. More tankers; more water, air and climate pollution than were ever discussed with those affected.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. How long has this government known about this gas export scope creep?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It appears that all of the opposition parties are asking about projects that don’t currently exist.

I’m interested in that discussion, but the member will know that B.C. Hydro is building a transmission line. They made that known to residents in his riding in January. They briefed the hon. member. We had a public meeting at the end of March — I think it was March 31 or around there — where we heard from more than 100 local residents about that issue.

We’re talking, in that case, about ensuring that electricity, clean electricity from B.C. Hydro, fuels that plant, resulting in the lowest-emission LNG in the world. That process, the process engaged by B.C. Hydro on a real project that’s necessary — I think everyone in the area would say is necessary — to increase the amount of electricity in the area, is going ahead. It’s going ahead with full consultation.

If the member wants any briefing on that question, he’ll certainly have it. I encourage him — I think he has — to visit Woodfibre LNG and to see the work they’re doing, including work with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation on the project. That’s an open public process. I invite the member and his constituents to take part.

B.C. Hydro is working hard to respond to questions from people in the area about an important transmission project by B.C. Hydro.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: We talked quite a bit about B.C. Hydro, although that wasn’t my question.

Meanwhile, FortisBC is building a pipeline from Coquitlam to supply Woodfibre and has been exceeding its wastewater permit for over a year, discharging high levels of contaminants into Átl’ka7tsem–Howe Sound. Instead of fixing the problem, they’re now asking to amend the permit to allow higher discharge volumes and weaken water quality protections. This is how we deal with rulebreakers. If they have enough lobbyists, we just change the rules to suit them.

I’ll be at the semi-annual Howe Sound Community Forum on Friday. It’s a remarkable gathering of local leaders from over 20 jurisdictions and First Nations surrounding our southernmost fjord, which is also a UNESCO Biosphere region and the site of an LNG plant.

My question is on their behalf and the thousands of residents who deeply value Howe Sound and its recovery from a century of water quality abuse.

The B.C. Energy Regulator answers to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Will he instruct them to reject any further permit amendments and ask FortisBC to figure out the water treatment under their existing permit?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, the B.C. Energy Regulator is an outstanding regulator. It takes its job very seriously. It’s represented not just in Victoria and in Vancouver but all over the province. It continues to work on issues. If people want to seek amendments, they have to go through a legal process that is strict and highly regulated.

[2:10 p.m.]

I encourage the member and his constituents to engage with the B.C. Energy Regulator. I don’t give direction to the B.C. Energy Regulator. If I did, that would be a problem. They’re an independent regulator, as the member will know.

They do an outstanding job. I encourage him and his constituents to engage with the Energy Regulator and, certainly, would be happy at any time to meet with him and his constituents about the issue myself.

Energy Supply and Silversmith
Power Generating Station

Bruce Banman: Silversmith Power and Light, Canada’s longest continually operating green hydroelectric facility, for 129 years, is at risk of closure in less than five months. They are a locally owned, run-of-the-river hydroelectric utility in Sandon, British Columbia, yet today they are being pushed rapidly toward shutdown due to a series of government-controlled policies and decisions that have left them with no sustainable path forward.

This is not just about one facility. It reflects a broader and growing problem in British Columbia’s electrical system.

At a time when B.C. faces electrical shortages and is increasingly importing power from the United States, why is this government forcing out local clean, green energy producers like Silversmith Power and Light?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member, as usual, is late and inaccurate in his analysis.

As the member will know, water levels are very strong this year for B.C. Hydro. We’ll be exporting more power than we import, to the benefit of British Columbians — in fact, as has been the case in nine of the last 16 years. So when you premise your question on inaccurate information, I think it’s important to bring accurate information to the table.

There are a number of projects, and presumably, the member is talking about electricity agreements.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I am answering the question. The member made a number of incorrect assertions, and I’m simply correcting them, which is part of my role in his life.

But with respect to the project, absolutely happy to meet with proponents.

B.C. Hydro’s task, I think, is to act in the public interest and the interests of people in B.C. That means, with respect, for example, to projects, many projects, that were contracted some decades ago, when their time of the contract is over, to renegotiate those contracts. That, presumably, is the process that’s underway.

That’s a process as between an independent power producer and B.C. Hydro, and I presume that it’s desirable for everyone that it continues to be that way.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Bruce Banman: Thank you for that long-winded response, which really didn’t answer the question.

I want to show the minister how the policies are affecting this producer. For April, they are being offered 0.06 cents per kilowatt for their electricity. It’s a small fraction of what B.C. Hydro customers pay and far below what is required for sustainability. The minister will try to say that this rate is independently determined.

However, to make matters even worse, the province agreed to sell the land the powerhouse sits on, which is former CP property, way back in 1996. Thirty years later they’re still waiting. In the meantime, they could have expanded five times the size, but because they don’t own the land, the banks won’t lend them a penny. It’s a never-ending cycle of bureaucratic idiocracy.

They are now one of the very last locally owned hydroelectric operations remaining in the province — a historic one, 129 years of proud service. The current system does not support local producers, and without immediate change, local green generation in British Columbia will disappear.

So I’ll ask the minister one more time: why is this government prioritizing American energy over local, clean Canadian producers?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is we’re not. We have….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, you have finished asking your question. Let the minister answer now.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member, one, refers to B.C. Hydro customers, who pay the lowest electricity rates in the world, along with Manitoba Hydro and Quebec hydro. They do that because we run a serious Crown corporation at B.C. Hydro that does an excellent job for the people of B.C.

Two, the members are opposed to this, but we are increasing the amount of electricity produced in B.C. through energy purchase agreements with independent power producers.

Three, as I noted in my first answer, I’d be happy to meet with his constituents and people any time.

Four, B.C. Hydro….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member can take up his issues with Gordon Campbell later.

I would say that B.C. Hydro does an outstanding job, that they’re building the province. This is a critical moment for us to develop our energy independence, and B.C. Hydro is leading the way, in spite of the opposition from the B.C. Conservative Party, and will continue to do so.

As I noted in my first answer, happy to meet with anybody at any time on electricity issues.

Government Energy Policies
and Attendance at Oil and Gas
Industry Conference in Houston

Gavin Dew: The minister has rightly said that it’s a critical time for us to develop our energy independence, and it’s critical how international capital markets see us.

The Premier has said: “Projects like LNG Canada are the reason that B.C. will be the economic engine of a more independent Canada. It creates good jobs, opportunities that let young people build a life here in the North, and generates the revenue we need to improve public services everyone relies on.”

If natural gas is so central to the government’s economic vision, why were they absent from CERAWeek in Houston, the largest and most influential oil and gas conference in the world?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’m always interested. When members of the government travel to conferences, they frequently get attacked in this House for travelling to conferences. And now when we don’t travel to a conference, people in this House, in the opposition, are attacking us for not going to those conferences.

Of course, I’ll be looking….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll be looking forward to a third option that I’m sure the member will propose in his supplementary question.

Members of the House will know about the commitment we have to working with energy partners everywhere. They’ll know about my frequent trips to Calgary to meet with the industry there and the meetings I have on a regular basis with the industry everywhere.

The Houston conference is an important conference. We decided not to go this year because we have issues that we’re delivering on the ground, that I’m delivering on the ground. I thought that the most important thing for us to do right now is not to travel to the United States at this time but to defend British Columbia and advance British Columbia projects here in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Gavin Dew: I have to admit I’m a little confused about the ever-changing position on travel to the United States when we have cabinet ministers travelling to Boston and New York and spending $6,000 on limousines. I just don’t understand it. Look….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, shhh.

Gavin Dew: Market signals matter, and industry notices when you don’t bother to show up. We’ve heard the government even directed B.C. energy regulators not to attend CERAWeek. I wonder if that’s because nobody from the government wanted to face hard questions about pipelines or listen to why international investors are losing confidence in B.C.

Leaders from around the world attended the conference, including the Premiers of Nova Scotia and Alberta. Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources spoke. Alberta’s Minister of Energy spoke.

Why wasn’t the Premier or the Energy Minister there as a champion of B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There you have it. They’re in favour and opposed to ministers’ travel.

You can have it your way, but you can’t have it both ways.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Oh, there they go.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Minister has the floor.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Our commitment to growing our industry here in B.C. is evidenced by results. Under the minister’s former party…. He’s one of the members of the make B.C….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member is one of the “make the B.C. Conservative B.C. Liberals” faction of that party.

He’ll know that when the NDP took office in B.C., there were exactly zero LNG projects. There are now six because our five principles and our approach are working. That is hundreds of thousands of construction jobs and revenues to the province.

He’ll know that we are engaging in the most significant expansion of B.C. Hydro’s resources since the 1960s. He should know, because he’s against it. We’re not against it.

Our results — electricity purchase agreements, an advancement for B.C. Hydro and building the province and transmission lines and new LNG plants and production in the northeast. That’s the record of a government. That’s what matters to people, not who’s at a conference but the results that we’re delivering every day for the people of B.C.

Government Position on
Pipeline Projects

Misty Van Popta: On this side of the aisle, we’re opposed to $6,000 limo rides, not to growing our industries.

Increasing pipeline egress for Canadian oil and gas to export ports is one of the ways for Canadians and British Columbians to benefit financially from a world that wants more responsibly produced Canadian oil and gas. Oil and gas can substantially support our social investments, and it can be a wonderful opportunity for Indigenous economic reconciliation. But when it comes to economic reconciliation, this government has missed the mark.

Will the minister get out of the way and support the prosperity of all British Columbians and engage in more discussions to get more export pipelines to B.C.’s coasts?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, that is exactly what the North Coast transmission line supports, which is the diversification of B.C.’s natural gas markets.

They’re against it for reasons that I do not understand. They represent most of the area along the line and most of the constituents who directly benefit from it. Yet they’re against it because they prefer right-wing marginal ideology to making progress for the people of B.C. That’s the reason why that happens, unfortunately.

We are delivering at every level here in B.C. And we’re talking about pipeline development. They’ll know that the current TMX pipeline has increased from the previous maximum now to the current maximum. It was 880,000 barrels a day. There were about, on average last year, 770,000 barrels a day.

There’s an opportunity on that line, as everybody knows, to optimize that project. We are not standing in the way. In fact, we’re working with TMX on that question. We’re actually improving the situation, not just bringing up rhetoric in the House about projects that don’t exist yet but delivering for people in B.C.

People in B.C., though, also understand the economic value of the tanker ban on the north coast. People in B.C. understand the economic value to the people of B.C. of growing our economy in consultation with First Nations. People in B.C. understand that we need to continue to grow our economy. We are for that, and they’re against it.

Extension of Contract for
Health Care System Adviser
and Health Authority Review

Trevor Halford: Another day, another contract extension for the government’s friends and insiders. Today we learned that Penny Ballem, who has actually billed taxpayers for over $2 million in the past five years, has just received another contract extension for $180,000 to provide strategic advice on health care to government. Imagine that.

You would think that a nearly $200,000 contract would be full-time. Not according to this government. Her contract work is part-time. Imagine that, finding a part-time job for $180,000 in this climate.

Ms. Ballem was originally contracted due to a review of the health authorities. An extension of her contract signals that review will not be completed any time soon.

[2:25 p.m.]

My question is simple. Why are the taxpayers being billed $180,000 for part-time advice from Ms. Ballem when this government still has nothing to show for her work already?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I am so glad to have the work of Dr. Ballem continuing to advise government and work with us on the incredibly important work of streamlining the administration, reducing it, eliminating the duplication and redundancies in the health care system so that we can redirect resources to the front line.

Dr. Ballem is a well-respected health administrator, physician and Order of B.C. recipient who has decades of experience under different administrations of different political stripes, providing advice and working with the health system here.

Dr. Ballem has been working most recently as the interim CEO of the Provincial Health Services Authority. She has helped with the review of that organization. She has been helping to guide and advise government as we establish a shared services organization, one that was stood up on April 1.

But the work under the health authority review started well before then. Already 1,100 positions within the health authorities have been eliminated, left vacant or unfilled, at a savings of $60 million a year. Further, the health authorities have undertaken work in their cost-management exercises, finding $260 million further of savings.

The new shared services organization will find hundreds of millions of dollars more to redirect to the nurses, to the doctors, to the medical lab technologists, to the radiographers that we need in the health care system delivering health care today.

I am glad to have Dr. Ballem’s assistance and to continue working with us on this part-time basis for a year.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Trevor Halford: If it’s convenient for the minister, I’ll ask her a question here.

You would think that we would know all the things that the minister just cited if there was actually a report that the minister was able to table on the work that Ms. Ballem has assumingly done, but there’s nothing to show for it.

At a time when we have multiple ER closures all over this province, we have maternity wards all over this province…. We have people that can’t access family doctors. We have people….

The Speaker: Member, just ask a question now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

The member will ask a question.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: Unless you’ve got to go work on your leadership campaign, we’ll wait for the question.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Trevor Halford: How does the minister justify the fact that taxpayers have already paid $2 million to this individual, nothing to show for it? And this minister says: “You know what? We’ll top you up with another 200 grand.”

How does this minister justify that to taxpayers?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’ll easily justify that through the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being saved in health authorities, that are being redirected to the front lines of health care in this province.

Investment is required sometimes to do this work. That’s why we went to the U.S. with a recruitment campaign that that side of the House opposed. A recruitment campaign…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …that has brought over 500 health care workers who have already accepted job offers. They opposed it.

The Minister of Energy started off our oral questions today telling us all…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …they are the party of no. They have proved it once again. They are the party of no.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m just rising on a point of order.

I know that you enforce the rules around no electronic devices in this place. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson was caught on Hansard video using his device — it looked like taking photos — during this chamber. I’m hoping that you can reinforce to this House that that’s not a practice. That is prohibited.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member, for advising us.

Ward Stamer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did take a picture.

What it was, was that it seems, very conveniently, that when Hansard is taking pictures of this side of the House, conveniently where the person is doing this and showing the hearing-impaired thing, it’s blocking out our pictures but not on the other side.

The Speaker: Member, no justification is needed because taking pictures in the chamber is absolutely not permitted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Given the acknowledgement that pictures were taken, I would request that you request anything that was taken against the rules be deleted.

The Speaker: Yes, I was going to say that. Thank you, Government House Leader.

Member, the Chair asks you. Any picture taken, any recording taken, must be deleted, not to be used in any way, shape or form.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Could you rise and state that?

Ward Stamer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Members, the House will now be in recess until 2:45. We’ll come back after a short period of time. Thank you.

The House recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: I call the House back to order. Please take your seats.

Please rise as we welcome Diane Sam of the Songhees Nation and Elder Tax’ayee and Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Nabess-Bennett of the Kitselas First Nation into the chamber.

Thank you. Be seated.

I invite Songhees community member Diane Sam to offer a territorial welcome.

Blessings and Acknowledgements

Diane Sam: [lək̓ʷəŋən was spoken.]

Good afternoon, everybody. I just introduced myself as səwəyələq and [an Indigenous language was spoken], and those two names are very important to me. They came to me from my late grandpa Pally here from Songhees and my late grandma Sarah from Ahousaht. It’s really, really important for me to share those names so that I can ground myself and also just in case I might have some family in the room. That has happened.

I’d like to send regrets on behalf of Songhees chief and council.

I’d also like to take a moment to acknowledge Skip Dick’s family and Bangus George’s — sorry, Frank George’s — family. Songhees has gone through some incredible loss of some tremendous Elders in the last little while, and I think it’s really important to acknowledge that leadership within our community.

I’d like to welcome all of you to the lək̓ʷəŋən territory on behalf of my community; my leadership; our Elders; but, more importantly, my ancestors. I do acknowledge our visitors here today. I know that we have a community here from Kitselas, and I really hope I pronounced that right.

Welcome to our territory.

Translated, lək̓ʷəŋən is “place of smoked herring.” Historically, protocol…. In the words of my uncle Skip, he would say: “Protocol is not a new thing.” Historically we would have the canoes come into the harbour, and we would know whether or not people were coming in with good intentions in the way that their canoes were facing.

So I invite the Kitselas community to come in and tie your canoes and celebrate this momentous milestone with your community. I’m very honoured to be part of it, and I thank the organizers for including me.

I’ve been learning my language for about ten years now and instilling it with my granddaughter. I have to share this one because my daughter talks about it. The one word that we use often is ləléʔn̓əŋ’. Can you try and say that? ləléʔn̓əŋ’. It means “listen.” My granddaughter is six. So there’s your lək̓ʷəŋən language for today.

həysxʷq̓ə for allowing me to be here, and I welcome all of your guests. I also just want to acknowledge that Songhees is continuing to do the good work that we’re doing, much like our other relatives and our visitors here today.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’d also like to acknowledge the leadership and the other Elder that’s here today.

Again, thank you for allowing me to be here. həysxʷq̓ə.

The Speaker: Thank you, Diane Sam, for acknowledging the territory and the land that we gather on. Thank you so much.

Now I invite Elder Tax’ayee of Kitselas First Nation to offer a welcome song. Please stand.

Elder Tax’ayee / Anne McDames: Before I sing this song, the song I’m going to share with you is the “Peace Song.” The “Peace Song” is very sacred to our community, our members.

We think of those that are hurting right now. It could be you. It could be you, but you’re holding it in. This is the “Peace Song” for you to know that you’re not alone. You’re not alone. We are here for each other. We uplift each other. We give each other strength.

With this “Peace Song,” I think of all of you and the ones that we have lost in our communities. We think of the families. So I share this peace song with you.

[“Peace Song” was sung.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Elder Tax’ayee. Thank you so much for this “Peace Song.”

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Kitselas Treaty Act

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Kitselas Treaty Act.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I move that the Kitselas Treaty Act, 2026, be introduced and read a first time now.

I wish to recognize the Kitselas delegation here today. I want to thank Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Bennett-Nabess, on behalf of Chief Glenn Bennett, for being here with us. I want to thank all community members, Elders, negotiators, everyone who has put your heart and soul into bringing us to this day — Senior Negotiator David Try, treaty team leadership members.

I also want to acknowledge the late Mel Bevan and his family for their commitment to this process, and the Bennett family, who I know are grieving a loss in their family right now.

I want to acknowledge Chief Councillor Troy Sam, Jenniefer Bolton and Julie Nyce with the Kitsumkalum, who are here, who have walked in this long path together with their neighbouring nation, Kitselas, at the same negotiating table, and soon will have their treaty introduced to this House for ratification in the future.

I want to thank, of course, as I mentioned, Sm’ooygit Satsan. I want to acknowledge his son, who joined us here today, and the many who have dreamed of this who may not be with us anymore.

Everyone watching at home, hello. Congratulations.

We’re joined by representatives, staff and the good people of the city of Terrace; the mayor of Terrace; the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine; our friends at the B.C. Treaty Commission, who worked so hard with us, with Canada, with Kitselas together, to find our path together. I want to thank them, honour them and, of course, my team with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as well.

[2:55 p.m.]

And of course, many other ministries have had a hand, have had involvement. Ministers as well.

We’re here today because of all of you.

This moment is a historic moment that I hope becomes more common here in this House. But to this day, it has not become common enough. That is the introduction of treaty, a path of honour, a path of trust, a path of togetherness that will lead to prosperity for all of us here in B.C. and Canada.

I want to thank the team at Kitselas. This act establishes the legal status of the treaty and, if fully ratified, will be one of the first, along with K’ómoks, comprehensive treaties to come into effect since ɬəʔamɛn in 2016. It secures a bright future, and it recognizes the long-sought-after rights and responsibilities, title, that Kitselas have known they’ve had since time immemorial and have worked so hard to get governments here and in Canada to recognize and acknowledge.

I’m proud to take this stand with all of you, to take the next big step with Kitselas to build that long, bright future together. We all benefit when we see each other, respect each other, lift each other up and focus on that hard work and joyful work of togetherness.

It’s my great honour to rise to put forward the first reading of this legislation.

The Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, pursuant to Standing Order 25C(1)(a), I invite Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Bennett-Nabess of the Kitselas First Nation to address the House.

Address by Indigenous Leaders

Cyril Bennett-Nabess: Wai, sm’gheghyet, sig’idimhanok, lik’eghyet, kabba’walsik, Luust’biixnoots di’whi’uu, gitaws Gitselasu dis’idzu, na waaps Dz’wilaaks Ganhada, ada na waaps Laktiil.

[Sm̓algya̱x text provided by Cyril Bennett-Nabess.]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Cyril Bennett-Nabess, and I am honoured to speak here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Our people are watching. Our people are here. On behalf of our community, I would like to thank and acknowledge the hard work of the province in carrying out this work, not only on behalf of Kitselas but on behalf of all British Columbians.

What this treaty does for our people, what this treaty will do for our people…. It will provide a means forward, a path forward, a path that will be followed by our community — and when I say “community,” I mean Kitselas, British Columbia and Canada — a path that we can carve together and move forward together as one, as I believe our forefathers intended.

I really want to thank and acknowledge the hon. members of the House and especially those who contributed so much to our work over the years. When Kitselas signed our agreement-in-principle in 2014, the individual that initialled our agreement-in-principle was the hon. member, Mr. John Rustad. I raise my hands to you. I thank you for your work.

[3:00 p.m.]

I also thank the work of Minister Chandra Herbert, for continuing that work, because that showed to our people that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is willing to move forward with our people in a good way and move forward and carry out these negotiations in good faith.

We are seeing that result today. We are seeing the positive change within our communities. As we work toward the second, third and the future final readings, Kitselas, we welcome your questions. We welcome your inquiries. This will not only be a document that will be used to define our future relationship, but it will spell out how we will move forward together as one, a community, a people, not only as Kitselas but citizens of British Columbia, this great province in which we live.

When Kitselas began this work in 1993, it was initially led by not only Sm’ooygit Satsan but also Winnie Wells, whose signature is on the Kitselas statement of intent. Many of our people who began this process, just like within the province of British Columbia, have, unfortunately, passed on. They have begun their next journey.

The sombre note in my voice recognizes and acknowledges the losses within our communities, the losses within Kitselas, most recently my sister. I am fortunate today to have the support of my community, of my council, of my friends to help carry out this important work on our community’s behalf.

Our people see this as a means forward, a means of progress, a map which we as a people can follow together, that we have drawn together.

I want to acknowledge our people that are here as well as the people that have moved on and the people that have passed on and continued to their next journey. It is because of those people we are here and you are here. They are also your constituents. They are also your citizens of this great province.

What our treaty has done today and what it will do in the future — it will continue to bring us closer together. It will continue to help guide our work together. It will continue to help us to create and establish a strong economy together — not an economy for Kitselas, not an economy for northern British Columbia but an economy for us all, something that we can help contribute to now because of the work that has been carried out.

I look at the faces in this room. I think about the people you represent, and I thank you for carrying out the work that you do on behalf of the province.

My grandfather, the late Wilfred Bennett, Sm’ooygit Gitxon, talked about government, and he talked about working together. But he also said that in government, there has to be an opposition. There have to be two parties, because, if there’s not, then something’s going wrong.

[3:05 p.m.]

So I appreciate all of the work collectively of not only one party but all of the parties and the independent MLAs that are represented here.

Your work, your people are important. We are watching, and we thank you. From the bottom of my heart, from the people of Kitselas, I thank you. I raise my hands to you and your honourable work that you have carried out today.

Nt’oyaxsn. Thank you all.

The Speaker: Thank you, Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Nabess-Bennett. On behalf of all members, please accept our sincere appreciation. We are honoured that you are able to address this House today on this special occasion. Thank you so much.

Now, Members, pursuant to Standing Order 25C(1)(b), I will recognize the leader of each recognized party or their designate to offer remarks.

Ministerial Statements

Kitselas Treaty Act

Hon. David Eby: It is a great honour for me to rise today in the Legislative Assembly in this historic moment of a recognition of a formal agreement — a treaty act, the Kitselas Treaty Act — between the province of British Columbia and the Kitselas First Nation.

First and foremost, I want to offer my congratulations. Congratulations, Kitselas First Nation, for your work, more than 30 years of work, to get to this moment.

So many people involved. It’s difficult to know where to begin, but thank you, Deputy Chief, for your very moving words this morning. Thank you for being here on behalf of Chief Bennett.

Thank you to the senior negotiator and the entire negotiation team for enduring, persevering and delivering this agreement for the provincial government; the federal government; and, of course, for the nation.

Thank you to all the Elders, the Hereditary Chiefs, the councillors who served over the many years, all the community members, the treaty team, past and present leadership. It is your strength, determination and commitment that brought us to this state.

Thank you, Diane Sam, for the welcome to the territory. It’s so good to see you. Thank you for the language lesson.

Thank you, of course, to Elder Anne for the beautiful “Peace Song.” What a wonderful way to start.

This was 30 years in the making, but of course, for the Kitselas People, the path to this day has been much longer than that. Kitselas People have lived in the Kitselas Canyon area for at least 5,000 years. Their nation is rightly proud of their heritage and achievements. They define resiliency and strength.

They have continued to fight for their rights, for their land, for their title for generations. They have continually sought agreement with the government to be able to move forward together. We heard about that today from the Deputy Chief. Today, as in every year past, the people of the canyon stand strong and united, and it is an honour to stand with you.

The Kitselas treaty is the second treaty in as many days to reach this important milestone, with the introduction yesterday of the K’ómoks Treaty Act. This marks a significant step forward for both nations, for the province and for the treaty process as a whole.

I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again. This is what reconciliation means. It is the way forward to certainty, to shared prosperity, to the best future for all people in British Columbia. This agreement is a major step forward in repairing damaged trust and building a foundation that we can grow together.

Once it’s ratified by all parties to the treaty…. It doesn’t begin and end there. It is a living agreement. It can be updated so that it remains current, innovative and inclusive.

When it is ratified, this provides the foundation for the revitalized relationship between the Kitselas First Nation, the provincial government, the federal government, local governments and a government-to-government relationship that will create jobs, opportunity and prosperity for not just the Kitselas People but for the entire region and for our province.

[3:10 p.m.]

It will provide certainty. It will provide a framework for sharing the land. It will create a foundation for cooperation and partnership.

I’ll say it again. This is the way forward, and I thank the Deputy Chief for reminding this House. I thank the former Leader of the Opposition for his work in 2014, helping set this path as part of its 30-year journey.

Unlike other parts of Canada, most of our land in B.C. was never covered by treaty. This was a deliberate decision by the governments of the day. There were some historic treaties, but they were the exception, not the rule. That was the case until about the year 2000, when the Nisg̱a’a treaty began the work of the provincial government to see modern treaties as a way to find a path forward.

In the absence of treaty, courts have consistently recognized First Nations rights and title in this province, rights and title that cannot be erased by any government. Despite this, we have seen successive governments fight against this reality. That has resulted in conflict, in uncertainty and in what feels like endless court battles.

This modern treaty is indeed the path forward. Once fully ratified, Kitselas will join eight other modern treaty nations in British Columbia. This makes a path of healing and relationship, an affirmation of the rights of the people who always insisted those rights be recognized. This is the path towards lasting and true recognition and reconciliation.

It is my honour, on behalf of the government, to stand up and speak in support of the Kitselas Treaty Act. May we continue the path together. We have much work to do in the years to come, government to government, building a stronger future for all British Columbians in this amazing province we call home.

Claire Rattée: It’s an honour to rise in this House today to speak to the introduction of the Kitselas treaty.

I want to begin by acknowledging the Kitselas Nation, their leadership, their Elders, their negotiators and all of the community members who have worked so tirelessly over the course of decades to bring us to this moment, many of whom are in the gallery today.

I really don’t think that it can be overstated how long of a process this is. I think my math on this is correct. I’m pretty sure I was one when this started, and Cyril there probably was just born, so it’s a very long time in the making. This is not just a milestone that’s built over years but is the result of generations of vision, perseverance and commitment.

I also want to acknowledge the profound loss and grief that their community is grappling with, the loss of Randi Mae. I know that some of her family is here in the chamber today, and I want everyone that has been affected by the painful loss of this young woman to know that I am grieving with you. I know your community has experienced a great deal of tragic loss, and my prayer is that today is the first step towards a brighter future for your community to address the inequities that you and all northern communities have faced for far too long that have contributed to these tragedies.

I want to tell members of the House a little bit about the Kitselas Nation. Kitselas means “people of the canyon” in the Tsimshian language of Sm̓algya̱x. There is a long history being keepers of the canyon. I’m not going to pretend that I can recite it verbatim, because Chief Bennett does a much better job than I do. But I would really encourage that anybody that ever has the opportunity to go there and visit do so.

I was very fortunate over the last summer that I was able to come out there with a number of my colleagues, and members of the Kitselas Nation very graciously toured us around and actually took us by boat down into the canyon. I think it was one of the most remarkable days of my life. I think it was for many of my colleagues as well. We really appreciated the opportunity to be able to experience that, to go through the longhouses, to see all of the tradition and the history — and just the most gracious hosts.

Today represents something profoundly important, not just for the Kitselas Nation but for our entire region. For those of us who live in the northwest, this work has never been abstract. It has been real, it has been local, and it has been built on relationships.

I’ve had the privilege of working closely with Kitselas leadership, and I’ve seen firsthand the strength of the partnerships that they have built, not only with myself but with the city of Terrace, the regional district, neighbouring nations and partners across both the provincial and federal governments.

[3:15 p.m.]

These relationships matter. They are the foundation of what makes agreements like this meaningful and lasting.

Kitselas has also demonstrated, time and time again, their commitment not only to their own community but to the broader region, through initiatives like the K5T program, or the Kitselas Five-Tier approach, which provides employment and skills training for our entire region — it’s so desperately needed and places focus on things like agriculture, which have long been overlooked in our region and are desperately needed — or their persistence in recruiting a doctor for their community and their tireless joint efforts with other nations and municipalities to finally see our first clinical treatment centre open in our region.

They have made real investments in people, in opportunity and in long-term prosperity that extends far beyond their nation, and that kind of leadership strengthens all of our communities.

I want to talk a little bit about how hard the Kitselas Nation worked on this. I don’t think there was a single event that I attended throughout our riding where they didn’t have someone present, often multiple people, making sure that they were connecting with their membership, making sure that they were aware, making sure they were educated prior to the ratification vote.

I think that’s really a testament to the fact that they had 86 percent ratification. They had a far better turnout than we typically get in any of our elections, and it’s really a testament to the hard work and the perseverance and the entire Kitselas treaty team. Again, I know many of them are here in the gallery today, and I really do praise the hard work that they put into this entire process.

I remember at one point, just leading up to the ratification vote, I was listening to a podcast, and there was an ad that came up about the Kitselas treaty ratification vote. That’s how hard they worked to make sure that they had an excellent turnout. They knew full well that this was something that their people wanted and supported — very high levels of engagement. Like I said, this has been going on for over 30 years now.

This moment is also one that carries reflection, because there are many people who have worked towards this day who are not here to witness it — people who have dedicated years, decades, of their lives to this process. I want to specifically acknowledge the late Mel Bevan, and I know that his son is here today as well to witness this. Mel Bevan’s contributions and commitment to this work will not be forgotten.

Today stands, in part, as a testament to his efforts and to the many others who walked this path before us. This is what makes today both meaningful and emotional. It is a culmination of the past but also a foundation for the future.

That future extends beyond Kitselas. It extends to Kitsumkalum, whose own treaty will come forward in time. It extends to the broader northwest. It extends to every community that benefits when we build strong, respectful and collaborative relationships that are grounded in certainty, mutual respect and shared opportunity.

I want to take a moment to express my personal gratitude. The Kitselas community has been incredibly welcoming to me. They have made me feel that I belong in their community, and that is something that I do not take lightly. It is a reflection of who they are, a nation that is grounded in strength, generosity and leadership. To be here today to witness this moment is a privilege.

I offer my sincere congratulations to the Kitselas Nation, to their leadership, to their members and to all those who helped make this day possible. This is a significant step forward not just in process but in partnership, and as your MLA, I look forward to continuing to walk that path together.

Rob Botterell: Colleagues, honoured guests, it is a true honour to bear witness as the Kitselas Treaty Act is introduced in this House.

Today is a proud day for this province. With this modern treaty, we are choosing collaboration over conflict. We are addressing the past wrongs of the Crown, establishing a new, living agreement that will bring prosperity and a brighter future to everyone who lives on these lands and for everyone throughout the region.

As we’ve heard, work on the Kitselas treaty began in 1993. It has taken over 30 years of careful work, public consultation and respectful conversation to bring us to this historic day. I offer my gratitude and congratulations to all those who have dedicated their lives to this process.

[3:20 p.m.]

I won’t by any means be able to name everyone, but I’d particularly like to recognize Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Bennett-Nabess, the B.C. and Kitselas treaty teams, the B.C. Treaty Commission and everyone in the Kitselas community who has supported this process over many years.

I have borne witness to the incredible hard work of nations and treaty teams when building a bright future for your people, so I want to congratulate you all on reaching this milestone.

This work, though, takes us away — all of us, when we do this treaty work, when you do this treaty work — for days on end from our families, our partners, our children, our loved ones, everyone who are the most important people our lives. I want to especially thank them for supporting Kitselas and the teams that worked on this so hard so this can be done through all those years.

Treaties are a path forward. With these modern treaties, we’re establishing a new process for structured decision-making, consent, cooperation and a bright future. We’re showing the world what good neighbours can be and what good neighbours can accomplish.

To the people of the canyon, congratulations.

The Speaker: Thank you all the speakers. Again, I want to thank Songhees community member Diane Sam; Elder Tax’ayee, also known as Elder Anne McDames; and Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Bennett-Nabess and the many guests who have joined us here today.

Thank you so much for each and every one of you who are coming here today.

The House will take a brief recess now, and we will be back soon. Five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: I call the House back to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call, in this chamber, continued second reading on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply for the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

[3:30 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. Now that we have quorum, we will get underway here in the chamber. We are contemplating Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Ward Stamer: In British Columbia, people are used to working hard for their money. They expect the government will do the same. But Bill 14 asks them to believe in something difficult — that the government can take on more responsibility and deliver better results than the private sector can.

Now, over the course of the next two hours, I’m going to be able to, in my opinion, delve into what BCTS is being asked by their task force and the 54 recommendations that the government is now in the process of implementing and the reasons why the Forests Minister believes it’s necessary to bring forth amendments to the Forest Act, specifically Bill 14.

Again, as I said yesterday, there are many good parts of what BCTS is going to be looking forward towards in the future — everything from reforestation; enhanced forest management and forest stewardship; and wildfire interface opportunities, possibly, whether it’s an integration with B.C. wildfire service or some of the FESBC funding that has been occurring in the past.

So there are many good objectives in what BCTS is doing, and they have dedicated people that have worked in that organization for many years. I know that they do their very utmost to be able to move that organization forward.

My focus, in my two hours, will be looking at the specific questions on why we are looking at changing the law, the Forest Act, when, really, all that’s necessary in moving BCTS forward is specific costing changes to allow BCTS other ways to invest in their business. There’s other language in this bill, and we will be able to discuss that once we get to committee and, possibly, with opportunities for amendments because, in some cases, it is not very clear on what the reasoning is behind these legislative changes.

These are laws. This affects the Forest Act. Yes, we know, as the minister alluded to, the Forest Act goes all the way back to 1912. The last major work that was done was 30 years ago. I agree that was a long time ago. During that time, there was also the introducing of the Forest Practices Act, which made significant changes to our environmental assessments and standards in this province that, as we would all agree, are some of the strongest environmental standards in the world.

As I mentioned, the minister talks about the transition in the forest industry, but unfortunately, not a whole lot of planning is being explained on how we’re supposed to be able to achieve that in the BCTS world. There are expectations that simply don’t hold up. I’ll use examples of what the minister and the ministry has shown us because it’s very short on detail on how this is actually going to occur.

[3:35 p.m.]

One of the main things that we can see in this legislation is there will be a total shift from B.C. Timber Sales being designed and the mandate of deriving income from our forests to more of a forest stewardship role where there isn’t really a lot of emphasis on costing.

That has many members in our industry concerned because you’re going to be competing on a world market where margins are incredibly tight, and now, all of a sudden, you’re going to be introducing a new way of doing business in the forests without a plan, without any cost certainty, no determination on how a lot of this work is going to be described or even paid for.

Again, the Ministry of Forests is continually being subsidized by taxpayers’ dollars. The Ministry of Forests is no longer self-sustaining like it used to be in the past, so many of us have concerns on how much it’s going to cost, going forward, with these initiatives.

Bill 14 is built on a series of assumptions: that outcomes will improve, that efficiency will increase, that additional fibre will be made available again. Lofty numbers thrown out there — 800,000 cubic metres, 500,000 cubic metres of wildfire salvage, thousands of truckloads of wood, but no real, tangible timelines or ways that that’s even going to be delivered. And nowhere do we see clear evidence that these assumptions are actually grounded in reality.

We’ve seen this pattern before. Government has set ambitious goals, expectations are raised, costs to government and taxpayers go up, timelines are non-existent or constantly changing, and again, there’s no accountability. The plan was based on what sounded good, not on what was achievable. When we hear expectations are unrealistic, the consequences, unfortunately, are predictable.

This is what we’ll hear if we don’t get those outcomes: “Unfortunately, we didn’t meet these expectations. Unforeseen challenges were experienced. Market conditions limited our effectiveness. Circumstances out of our control.” Those are going to be some of the buzzwords that we’ll hear if there isn’t success at the end of this tunnel.

Forestry is where policy meets reality fast. There is no buffer. If the numbers don’t work, mills don’t run. If the supply isn’t there, jobs disappear. We hear that time and time again — certainty of supply. That’s what we need in this industry. And if decisions are made without understanding the full picture, entire communities feel that impact.

We’ve already seen mill closures — 21 since 2023 — and 15,000 jobs lost. Reduced fibre availability. We’ve gone from 51 million cubic metres harvested in 2021 to just over 31 in 2025. We’re also seeing shrinking investment, specifically over the existing timelines that we’ve had in the past.

And yet, policies have continued to assume that government knows better. Transition would be seamless, impacts would be temporary, and outcomes would improve quickly. But that’s not what’s happening, because these expectations are not grounded in the operational realities of forestry. Bill 14 carries the same risk, setting expectations without demonstrating how they align what’s actually happening on the ground.

Again, let’s talk about the costs, because that’s what’s critical. Bill 14 assumes that the government can take on a greater role in delivering outcomes. But when government takes on work that is typically done by industry, local operators or experienced stakeholders, not only do costs not go down — they go up — but competition is affected as well.

Because government doesn’t operate the same as private industry, it doesn’t have the same efficiency, flexibility or cost discipline. So what we end up seeing, as we’ve also seen in Bill 14 — we’ll talk about that a little later — is that there are more layers of administration. There are more rules and regulations. There are going to be higher overhead costs going through this process. Really, in forestry, that matters, because, again, margins are extremely tight.

Let’s again remember that some of these things that are being proposed in this proposal from BCTS, as I mentioned yesterday, have been tried before.

[3:40 p.m.]

Unfortunately, they failed miserably, particularly when it comes to sort yards and marketing logs.

Again, we haven’t seen anything in the literature that has been provided that shows us anything that’s been different and any learning from the past in a plan, moving forward, just assumptions. That lack of experience can amplify the problem, because, in forestry, decisions require precision, timing, practical knowledge. Without that experience, mistakes can be made, resources can be misallocated and the cost can escalate exponentially. What might just seem like a small miscalculation on paper can add up to millions and millions of dollars.

As I mentioned just a little while ago, the Ministry of Forests is being subsidized by the taxpayers of British Columbia. It is no longer self-sufficient. We have many concerns on this side of the House on exactly how we’re supposed to make this work when we are constantly subsidizing this ministry.

Then we talked about timelines or lack of timelines. I’ll show a flip chart here that was brought out. It’s a request for legislation on B.C. Timber Sales, and we’ll go through that. Again, the timelines are kind of negotiable, but it’s not really etched in stone. In forestry, we can’t shortcut harvesting cycles or the transportation logistics and also the readiness in the workforce.

Forest communities’ high costs and failed expectations translate to fewer jobs, reduced economic activity and increased uncertainty. When government policies don’t deliver as promised, communities are left with the consequences. When government costs drive are risen, it makes the entire sector less competitive, which puts even more pressure on those communities.

The government and the minister say that these changes will allow communities to create more economic opportunities with more public engagement, and these were identified through BCTS. However, we are also discussing changes in the Forest Act, and that’s really what we want to talk about today.

It also comes down to credibility. As long as the government continues to set unrealistic expectations and possibly take on roles that they cannot efficiently deliver and underestimate the costs, then public trust erodes. People begin questioning whether the government truly understands the industry that it regulates, the communities that it affects and the consequences of its decisions. That puts all of us in B.C. at risk.

Now, the minister has talked about adding more value to the marketplace. The minister talks about the value-added sector, especially the value-added sector portion that does not have tenure — that they don’t seem to have access to the fibre they require in this province.

Now, I know many of them are having extreme pressures in getting fibre from not only the B.C. Timber Sales program but also from primary manufacturing. But it was only a year ago when B.C. Timber Sales changed their value-added category from cat 2 to cat 4 to increase this. It’s only been one year. So now is the minister saying that this isn’t being effective, that this isn’t working? That’s what this was intended to do.

The minister talks about the amount of volume that has gone through the B.C. Timber Sales program. He mentions that from Q3 a year ago to Q3 the next year, we’ve got a rise of 30 percent. But again, BCTS isn’t even coming close to their targets. Whether you use the one set of 20 percent of the allowable cut or even the expectation of 20 percent of the harvesting cut, they are significantly less than what should be achievable. And this has been for many years.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’d like to shift gears just a little bit and talk about why we’re here. It relates directly to the BCTS task force review and the need for that review. I just want to bring this up because I have time. A lot of people don’t understand the history behind it. So I just want to read a couple of things, if I may. It’s in direct result of Bill 14 and why it’s necessary for the government to change some of the laws.

B.C. Timber Sales has faced significant undercutting in its annual harvest targets over the past five years. That’s from 2019 to 2024, long before President Trump and his tariffs and additional tariffs were put on this province. Culminating in a projected underachievement of its five-year business cycle goals, performance reports indicated that by the end of year 4, BCTS had only sold 72 percent of its rationalized appointment, with significant shortfalls driven by reduced harvest volumes; lower market demand for certain timber types; and operational challenges, which are not specified.

In 2023-2024 fiscal year shortfalls, BCTS reported massive revenue shortfalls, including being $45 million under budget on $130 million worth of revenue by the end, due to a decline in harvest volume. There was another noted $60 million shortfall in revenue and significant undertarget expenditures due to lower activity. This has been happening for years.

One of the main reasons listed in this…. Again, it goes back to certainty of supply, as these are the key factors that they listed as a direct result in why they were not able to bring enough fibre to the marketplace.

Old-growth deferrals. The establishment of deferrals for high-risk old-growth forests has significantly restricted the timber volume that BCTS can develop, auction and harvest.

Market and operational issues — lack of demand for specific products, i.e., mountain-pine-beetle-impacted wood; First Nations treaty obligations; and species-at-risk decisions — have reduced the available land base.

Then this one, log arounds, whatever that means. Increased environmental and social constraints have reduced the overall area available for logging.

In response to these challenges and the need for a more resilient forest sector, the BCTS model is undergoing review and transition. Through it all, they’re saying that there are new targets. The province has set ambitious targets, including expanding the volume to nine million cubic metres by 2029. There’s no plan on how that’s actually going to occur, but that is what their goals are.

Now, when we like to talk about numbers…. It says right here, right off their website: “B.C. Timber Sales manages 20 percent of the B.C. public timber harvest.” That’s supposed to be 20 percent of the allowable cut. We know that the cut is incredibly undercut, about 50 percent. Realistically, you would hope that it would be 20 percent of the harvestable cut, which would be about $6 million. Consistently it has been around $3½ million. Now, I think last year it was $4.2 million, significantly less than what is actually mandated in BCTS.

Again, no reduction in operating expenses and a significant drop in revenues. Many of us on this side would hope that it would be run as a business. It may not necessarily be so.

This leads me to some of the information that we’re receiving along the way. When I talk about costing, I’m a little bit disappointed, inasmuch as one year ago, in my first year of estimates, I specifically asked the Forests Minister about some changes that we’d heard about in forest stewardship with BCTS. I asked the minister, specifically: “How much is this going to cost?” The minister said he wasn’t sure, because they hadn’t finalized the plan. I said: “Fair enough.”

Then this year in estimates, I asked the same question to the Forests Minister. If there are going to be changes to the forest stewardship plan, how much is it going to cost? Is it going to be coming off the existing budget? Is there going to be new money spent? What actually is going on in the budget?

[3:50 p.m.]

The minister said he didn’t have any idea. He didn’t have any updates to offer me. Then the very next day, after estimates were completed, we got Bill 14 on our laps.

Why is that? I would have hoped that the Forests Minister would have at least told us that there were some significant forest stewardship plans coming down the pipe. And even if the minister didn’t have the opportunity to actually finalize what those costs were, he could have told us that it would mean significant changes to the budget of BCTS. Now, after estimates are over, I can’t even ask specific questions on how much it’s going to cost.

Just yesterday the minister mentioned that this was all going to be internal money, money that was going to be redirected in his ministries. Yet we have no idea of what money is coming from where because, again, my estimates are over, and I don’t get the opportunity to ask those questions.

This is what I have. This is the next piece I’d like to talk about. I could punch up a two-hour speech, but I’d rather get into the nuts and bolts of this just to be able to explain what we’ve got for information and try to figure out how the government is planning forward in these changes, because they are significant changes.

Again, BCTS is the largest licensee in the province. They’re larger than any of the majors. They’re supposed to represent 20 percent of the allowable cut.

As the minister alluded to yesterday, our First Nation partners have already got 20 percent of the tenure in their possession, and that’s great news. We want to be able to move forward. But if BCTS, which is a government entity, is going to continue to move forward, we’ve got to have accountability and transparency on how this government is being run and this entity of the ministry is being run.

This was a request for legislation, so this was the flip shot that we got just after we got handed Bill 14. It shows a flow chart of when…. It starts back in January 2025, when the review was announced, then the task force engagement, policy exploration, recommendations last summer, a roadmap and then the September recommendations announcement at the UBCM.

It talks about their mandate. “B.C. Timber Sales is a trusted, transparent organization that stewards British Columbia forests for the long-term benefit of all people.” There’s a flow chart. Then there’s a background on their mandate.

These are the four cornerstones of BCTS: thriving communities, manufacturing diversity, strong partnerships and resilient forest ecosystems. “For this successful work to be undertaken, we are proposing legislative changes to the Forest Act and the forest ranges act.”

It says the BCTS special account…. And this comes back to the reasoning behind the changes to the law — the expenditure of budgeted funding. There are many things that are being asked of now in the BCTS organization that are not currently approved by law, so that’s why we’re changing the law, because we need to be able to spend money in other places. And we understand that.

This is what it says about BCTS’s special account. “It’s a self-funded program and revenue generated by auctioning timber.” Well, it’s not self-sustaining, because we know that it’s at a deficit every year, especially for the last five years.

“The Forest Act governs revenue generation into and expenditures from the BCTS account and a special account under the general revenue fund. If revenue sources and expenditures are not outlined in the Forest Act, section 109, then BCTS is not authorized to expend those funds.” Hence, Bill 14.

“Currently, the spending authorizations granted in S105 of the Forest Act impacts the BCTS’s ability to achieve the government’s objectives.”

So then this is the plan.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Ward Stamer: I’d like to go over the plan a little bit if I can.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’d ask that you not show it as a prop. You’re certainly welcome to explain what it is, but I would prefer that you don’t show it as a prop.

Ward Stamer: All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the clarity. It’s just that this is a government publication, and this is the information that was provided as a follow-up on Bill 14. There are no other summaries other than Bill 14 and some of the work on the clauses, but I certainly trust in your judgment, and I’ll continue to use this as a guide because, really, that’s all we’ve got in the plan.

[3:55 p.m.]

We have got no costing on what contract logging is going to be. We have no costing on reforestation costs. We have no costing on thinning. We have no costing on anything. Basically, we have to guess on what it’s actually going to cost this fiscal year in what BCTS is trying to accomplish.

In this guide, it says it enables BCTS to direct harvest operations to sell more logs as opposed to standing trees. So that’s the purpose of the contract logging. It’s that instead of allowing somebody to turn around and purchase that block and determine the merchandising of that timber on that block, we’re now just going to hire a contractor.

Again, I’m trying to figure in my mind — and I’ve got 40-plus years of logging operational experience, from stump to dump — trying to determine what that work is actually going to look like.

In most cases, whether it’s a logging block through a licensee or a logging block for the B.C. Timber Sales, there’s cruise data. It shows all the fibre that’s there, what is going to be logged, what is going to be left, all the environmental challenges. It shows you a breakdown of the species of wood, the quality of the wood and the products that you may or may not be able to make with that wood. That’s what occurs in the bush. It’s basically an outdoor manufacturing facility without a roof. That’s really what logging is all about.

In some cases, you may totally manufacture that log from a tree to logs, so the entire tree is utilized. In some places, it may not be, depending on availability of length of logs that can be transported, steepness of grade. There are a whole bunch of variations to that.

This is a significant shift in what BCTS currently does. Trying to determine revenue from a block after looking at this cruise data, looking at what the timber is and what they feel it’s worth, and then putting it out in the open market, with an open bidding process, with an upset stumpage. Then it’s a bonus bid on top of that, and having some costs occurred through BCTS, possibly in the layout, possibly with some temporary roads.

But as we mentioned yesterday, they don’t do a lot of roads anymore. It’s very expensive, and it’s something that they’ve gone away from in the development phase.

Now we’re going to be switching over to a contractor that has no authorization in the logs themselves. Their own purpose is to cut the tree down and then do something with the tree, with the main purpose of trying to merchandise that tree better than the industry is doing today.

Now, there are many on this side that disbelieve that that’s even going to occur. Again, it’s under the auspices of getting more value to our value-added sector, and I get that. I know there are challenges out there in different species, different values and what the market is willing to bear on some of this stuff.

At the same time, I’m unsure what the government is actually wanting to do with that logging contractor. Even if you took that full log length at 75 feet, you’re going to have to cut it off at 55 feet to put it on a highway, so there’s already going to be additional manufacturing.

Then when you bring that log in, is it going to be absolutely clear at the butt? Is there going to be any rot in that butt? Are you going to eliminate the rot? And by doing that, you’re sacrificing other opportunities with the first piece of that log, that could be a pulp log. I mean, there are a lot of unknowns when you’re trying to maximize a stand.

I was on the Island two weeks ago with Mosaic, and they were doing a piece of private land. They had 24 customers for the products that were being manufactured on that block — 24 customers. And they were doing it efficiently.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m very curious to hear from the minister how he expects BCTS to be able to market in the same way as the private industry does and to be competitive and to not have extended waste because of interruptions in the fibre flow of that.

And where that tree that’s 55 feet long may go to a sort yard, then what are you supposed to do with it? When the value-added person comes along and says, “I would like something that’s 16 inches at the butt, and I want it 20 feet long,” what do you do with the other 35 feet?

If the answer is just sell it to the primaries, well, the primaries may not be interested for a couple of reasons. It may not be the right length. It may not be the right quality or the right species. It also may not be of the right grade, because maybe that log sat there for too long a time. So there are all these factors that go into play in our industry.

When you’ve got margins that are razor thin, my question to the minister is: what makes you think that you’re going to be able to do a better job than what the private industry is doing right now? That’s really what we’re talking about at the end of the day.

By removing the clause in Bill 14 that specifically says that BCTS’s responsibility is revenue, now, all of a sudden, the parameters are gone. BCTS’s focus isn’t making money. It’s doing all these other things that weren’t originally part of their mandate.

So if that’s true, then the minister can admit to that and say, “Yeah, we’ve totally changed it. We don’t really care if we make any money now, because that’s beside the point. It’s all about forest health, it’s all about forest stewardship, and it’s about having this for seven generations to come,” instead of not looking at the other part of the industry that is already doing that.

The minister talks about rotating crops. He talks about the full rotation of the cycles. Well, that’s already a legislative requirement from all the licensees in the province to do that. If the minister wants to enhance that, that’s great. There are other licensees that are doing the same. But to say that isn’t going on right now in this industry is disingenuous, because it is. I can show him many advantages — that that’s actually occurring. So that’s not really the real reason why they’re doing this.

There are always those little buzz words too. I love this one: “The right log to the right mill.” We’ve heard that about a dozen times in the last couple of weeks. Absolutely, we want to be able to get as much value as we can in every single piece of fibre in this province. We all know that we’re not getting enough for a wide variety of reasons. But it’s only a slogan, because, at the end of the day, we have to be able to incentivize our licensees to be able to get the right log to the right mill. That’s what it’s all about.

That’s in the first proposal. Proposal 1 is to change the law so that BCTS can now do contract logging and spend money in other areas.

Then the second part of it, and this is proposed legislation 2, is to be able to expand everything from silviculture treatments, share data. There are requirements to be able to go beyond the free-growing obligation, as the minister has alluded to. Again, enhanced reforestation, which I totally agree with. That also includes some of the other work that’s being done through other funding models — thinning, spacing, pruning, brushing and fertilization.

Then again, the ultimate goal is to grow resilient future forest ecosystems, wildfire risk reduction around communities and stable and valuable wood fibre in the future, 100 percent.

Also in this document, and one of the things the minister alludes to, is that they have projected targets of an additional 500,000 cubic metres of fibre to be recovered from wildfires. In our estimates, we talked about wildfire salvage regs, and we looked at the wildfire salvage manual. There are already the rules in place. We don’t need any changes to laws so that we can get an additional 500,000 cubic metres from our wildfires. All we need is a change in direction from the Forests Minister to actually make this happen.

[4:05 p.m.]

From my perspective, only recovering 10 percent from our wildfires is totally unacceptable. We should be able to salvage considerably more. Many things that have been released by the ministry, talking about speeding up the process with Bill 14….

Bill 14 has nothing to do about speeding up the processes, unless I’m missing something in the language. If I’m missing something in the authorizations, if I’m missing something in possibly who’s actually behind and approving these authorizations…. Nothing right now is stopping the minister from making this happen.

Then, at the end, it talked about the engagement and the opportunities with consultation throughout the province. Again, yes, I believe that everybody on the list was consulted. But in just about every single instance, there is one group that seems to be left out just a little bit less than they used to be in the past, and that’s the major licensees.

I know the minister and I have talked about this at length — that without our primary manufacturing, we don’t have any secondary manufacturing in this province. So any significant changes to the Forest Act can negatively impact those industries as well.

Now, when we got the notification from the minister that this was coming down the pipe, B.C. Timber Sales released a summary. I want to read from the summary and then respond to it. This is the summary.

“New timber sale licences will provide a wider range of fibre-generating and forest stewardship activities, supporting jobs for logging contractors and increasing harvest volumes by moving local logs to local mills.” There’s that “right log to the right mill” again. “Salvage licences will speed up harvesting of damaged trees and create economic opportunities while building a wildfire-resilient land base.”

These legislative changes would empower B.C. Timber Sales to manage working forests for multiple values, building on B.C.’s position as a leader in the highest-quality sustainability and environmental practices of the world.

It says that these legislative amendments will empower B.C. Timber Sales to improve access to fibre, create more opportunities for loggers and contractors and deepen partnerships with our First Nations and strengthen stewardship roles in B.C. forests.

So again, this is where we get into the slogans. “Our path forward means that B.C. Timber Sales will be able to move fibre faster, create more opportunities” and, again, local logs going to local mills. There’s also what they had to say, that changes matter. “They matter to the workers grinding it out every day in the bush. They matter to the worker on the mill line. They matter to the local economies.” Of course they matter. Absolutely, they matter.

There isn’t anything in this documentation that actually shows a path on how it’s going to unlock more fibre for our industries. These are lofty goals. But does it talk about streamlining process in permitting? Does it talk about reduction in bureaucracy and red tape? Does it talk about streamlining the approval and consultation process with First Nations?

All these things have been asked for in the industry to try to not only reduce our costing in this province, which everyone knows is the most expensive in North America, but to streamline the process so that we can actually get more fibre moving. Instead, the minister is basically putting more regulations in place for this to occur, because they’re adding more stringent regulations to the laws.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ll get into that a little bit later, asking the minister why that is necessary.

When we talked about additional fibre to value-added…. We talked about changes to category 4. Category 4 is now, from what the minister said, up to 22 percent of the total harvesting in B.C. Timber Sales. That’s great. That’s excellent news. But again, we are still way behind the mandated targets of 20 percent of the harvest levels.

All the other licensees have reduced their harvesting levels as well, because, as a reminder, we’ve gone from 51 million cubic metres, with an allowable cut of 61…. Now we’re only cutting half of that, at 31. So BCTS has still not shown us how they’re going to even get to their mandated target of 20 percent, at least 20 percent, this year or next year. All they’re saying is that this may or may not increase fibre supply.

Another part of this, in this handout, after seeing the right log to the right mill three times, is full rotation. So these are some of the opportunities BCTS has mentioned that could help strengthen the business model of the British Columbia Timber Sales program.

Commercial thinning. Again, the minister…. We were talking yesterday, and the minister now says that there are up to six licences, six permits that are coming along — three that have already been approved, three that are coming into the bidding process for commercial thinning. Yet nowhere does it say that we’re going to continue with just bidding on these projects. Nowhere in any of this documentation that I’ve seen are we going to continue to be even looking at straight bidding on any of the work.

My question would be: why is that? Why are we going away from cost certainty, where we know approximately what the wood is worth, the work is worth? Why are we going away from having certainty in our costing to now making it totally discretionary on BCTS and the Forests Minister to determine how that work is going to be done?

I think it’s a legitimate question, and I’d like the opportunity to be able to ask that question to the minister further on, because I certainly don’t see cost certainty when that’s going to occur.

The other improvement that the minister has mentioned is wildfire risk reduction. Now, we already know that in many of the prescriptions already — whether it’s thinning; whether there is spacing, commercial thinning — many of the wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation efforts are already transcribed into our operating plans today. Whether it’s at a licensee level or whether it’s at a BCTS timber sale level, that planning is already occurring. So why is this very specific that now we need to change the law so that we can continue to do this? This work is already continuing.

As I mentioned yesterday, many of the assumptions and many of the plans that the minister is planning in BCTS don’t need to change any laws. It’s already under the existing Forest Act, and it’s under the authority of the Forests Minister to be able to change those policies and those regulations without looking at wholesale changes to the law.

When we talk about full rotation, because that’s the new buzzword, we want to be able to enhance not only the free-to-grow, which is where the tree is determined to be able to grow by itself and doesn’t need any other assistance…. That frees up a lot of liabilities to the licensee — whether it’s a major company, whether it’s a community forest, whether it’s BCTS.

There’s money always set aside in the piggy bank, in the bank account, in case there has to be additional reforestation, there has to be thinning, there has to be brushing. Those obligations already have a target. And once that regrowth is to a certain level, it’s being predetermined that we don’t have to do anything more with it, and we’ll continue through that.

[4:15 p.m.]

Now, obviously, when we get to a certain point in that reforestation life of that block, as we’ve seen now in blocks that are 40 and 50 years old, many of the trees are starting to slow down in their growth because there are too many trees. So by commercial thinning not only will we be able to increase the health of that forest; we’re able to retrieve volume and be able to utilize that volume through our manufacturing facilities.

That’s already occurring on the land base. As the minister alluded, I think it was December when the first one came out, so this year is the start of BCTS being able to offer bidding on commercial thinning projects so that that will occur.

We talked about fast-tracking salvage of damaged trees. Changes to the timber sale licences will make it easier for the forest sector to quickly access timber that was damaged by wildfire or natural disturbance, such as windstorms or insect outbreaks.

So they’re talking about a new streamlined licence opportunity. Well, again, where is it? I know we’re supposed to be talking about the bill in here, but where is this new streamlined licensing opportunity?

The minister talks about undeveloped licensing opportunities to be offered along with the changes in Bill 14. Well, we’ve already had that in the past. Maybe not through the BCTS program, but we’ve certainly had it through the Ministry of Forests. We’ve had undeveloped areas that have been damaged by wildfire that were offered up for sale on a bidding process, either a non-renewable forest licence or a SNRFL — there were about three or four other acronyms that were used — where exactly what the minister is asking to do has already been done in the past.

So my question to the minister would be: what’s different now than what was able to be done in the past? If you’ve already had the authority to do it before, what changes to the law are necessary for that to occur, going forward?

One of the parts that the minister identifies in the wildfire salvage is the opportunity for pulp blocks. We would both agree that, unfortunately, that is one of the downfalls of our wildfires — the amount of time a tree will deteriorate until it is no longer a sawlog or a value-added log, and it becomes a pulp log.

Unfortunately, the way it works today is that in many of our areas that are being burnt, if it isn’t logged, it isn’t replanted. That’s the cost structure we have. By speeding up and having more opportunities for salvage, of course, that’s going to give us more opportunities for replantation and reforestation. But again, the tools are already in the toolbox for the Forests Minister to make this happen. We don’t need legislative changes for that to occur.

Now, I mentioned earlier that I had a heading for this bill of unintended consequences, because normally, if you’re going to change a law, there has to be a really good reason to change the law. So I’m hoping to be able to spend some time and be able to talk about some of the parts of the bill that in committee, again, we’ll have an opportunity to flesh out.

Obviously, there is some housekeeping in this bill. I’ll agree to that. We are certainly going to be looking forward to those opportunities, when we get to committee, to be able to ask very specific questions on the changes and hopefully some amendments that the Forests Minister and the government would accept in defining the language and some of the language changes in this act.

When you look at the original Forest Act, 270 pages, and you’re looking at the specific sections where these changes are going to occur, there is specific language that has changed. In some cases, it’s changed the intent of that statute or that section of the law.

[4:20 p.m.]

The contract logging authorization, as an example — there are no explanations on the terms and conditions. Again, we can change the law for the authorization to do the work, but no explanation on how the work is going to be done.

In the B.C. Timber Sales world, there’s a bidding process, and there’s a determination of what work is actually going to happen on that licence. Again, if there have to be development costs, those costs are determined on the legal document. And then the person that is successful in that licence, that is their responsibility, and that is their cost. Now we’re going to totally change how that occurs.

Now, it hasn’t been explained what the percentages are going to be. Many in our industry are asking the minister and the ministry: is it 10 percent? Is it 20 percent? Is it 30 percent? Is there going to be a negative impact to the existing contractor base that is currently bidding on B.C. Timber Sales?

And now, all of a sudden, you’re going to change the parameters, and some of those sales will no longer be bidded sales. They’re going to be controlled by B.C. Timber Sales, and there will be a separate contractor that’s going to be doing work on that sale. Then that fibre will flow somewhere, somehow, and that will be marketed differently than it is being marketed today.

There are significant concerns in our industry on what that plan is, related to the amount of volume that B.C. Timber Sales is currently offering for sale this year, because it’s significant. There are many operators that run their livelihood with B.C. Timber Sales. Now, all of a sudden, the parameters are changing on the work that’s actually going to occur on that sale.

Again, I totally understand why BCTS would like to get more volume or more value out of some of the volume that they offer for sale. I understand that. The industry understands that. We all understand. We want to get more value per cubic metre in this province — particularly if, through sustainability, our allowable cut, including all the other constraints that I mentioned earlier with the old-growth deferrals, protected areas, First Nation concerns…. If we’re going to be going down, we, obviously, want to be able to get more value for that fibre.

At the same time, we had a mandate letter a year ago, from the Premier to the minister, that talked about the drive and path to 45. Even in some of the acceptance replies after the announcement came out, with certain organizations, that was foremost in the congratulations: “You’re moving BCTS forward, but please don’t take your eye off the ball, because we still need 45, not 31, not 35. We need 45.”

That’s important when we’re asking the question…. If BCTS is going to change some of their focus away from revenue…. I’m not saying all. I know that he’s changing the language in the law. What are those percentages? There are, obviously, concerns out there on how that is going to be addressed.

There is another one that I’ve got a question for, and I am hoping that somebody on the government side of things can spell it out for me. When I look at the Forest Act and I am looking at all the definitions in the Forest Act, I do not see a definition for “standard-making bodies.”

Now, that may seem trivial, but unfortunately, when I google it, it’s very vague in the determination on what actually is a standard-making body.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I’m hoping that the minister or the government can bring us a little bit of clarification, because I think it’s important, in the documentation on what specifically is a standard-making body.

[4:25 p.m.]

The reason I’m saying that is because there are going to be some changes in the parameters on, I believe, authorization. I’m going to find it right now, and we can discuss that a little bit at length.

Now, in one of the handouts that we received from BCTS, they showed a section in there about First Nations engagement. There’s a line in there that specifically says “as directed by First Nations as needed.”

It also says, in the language in the changes to the law, when it comes to the timber sales manager, the timber sales manager needs an operational plan before he can authorize the contract harvesting. It’s mentioned three or four times in this bill, so there’s obviously a reason around why it’s important to have that operational plan before authorization goes forward on the actual work on the ground. Again, no specifications on what determines the operational plan.

In the BCTS documentation, it describes what an operational plan is. My question to the minister will be: are there changes in that operational plan because of the fact that now we’re changing the parameters on who’s actually doing the work? It’s important. It’s also important to determine the focus of the work and whether there can be changes while the work is occurring.

Again, in the bill, there are specific references to additional stringent requirements and restrictions. I would ask the question: why is it necessary to put more restrictions into the existing law? Again, no explanation — and, hopefully, we’ll get that when we get to committee — why it’s necessary to be able to put that language in this document.

Another part, if we can. When we talk about the stringent rules and the operational plan for the contract logging authorization…. And the reason why I keep bringing the contract logging authorization up is because that’s going to be a major component of the changes to the cost authority with B.C. Timber Sales, not only if they are going to be developing a block.

Again, in most cases, a lot of these timber sales are basically undeveloped on the ground with infrastructure. There’s still all the layout work, all the determination of what’s going to be logged, what’s not going to be logged, what’s going to be left, any environmental constraints, repairing areas. All those kinds of things are already costed in, because they do cost money.

In most cases with B.C. Timber Sales now, there isn’t a lot of development like there used to be in the past. We mentioned there are not a lot of roads that are built. There aren’t a lot of bridges that are being put in. So again, these are things that are going to have to be costed out and paid for by BCTS, and then they’re going to have to be recovered by BCTS as they go forward in manufacturing that tree, that fibre.

That’s why it’s such a significant shift in the operational focus of B.C. Timber Sales. From just going to, basically, an undeveloped area block that somebody buys and turns around and manufactures a wide variety of log products, we are now saying that the government is going to be responsible for all phases of that, not only the development costs but the implementation and infrastructure costs, the harvesting costs, the marketing costs. All those costs will now be assumed by BCTS, where in the past most of those costs were assumed by somebody that bought that timber sale. That’s significant.

[4:30 p.m.]

Again, we have no indication whatsoever on what accountability there will be when it comes to those costings. At least with most of the work at B.C. Timber Sales, there’s a bidding process. That’s tied to our market-based system. We notice in the documentation that BCTS, obviously, is going to want to keep a fairly good chunk of the work in the bidding process, because without it we wouldn’t have a fair market value of our timber, and we wouldn’t have an ability to be able to set our stumpage rates. That’s already been described in it.

The falldown in not describing the work is where the cost could end up getting out of control. Back to the contract logging authorization, there’s no determination of how that work is going to be done. Is it going to be done by a bidding process, where it’s open market, and the highest bidder gets the work? Is it going to be a direct award, so that whether it’s going to go to…? At the minister’s discretion, it can go to anybody?

Is it going to be part of the unharvested amounts that haven’t been realized in the totals in the last few years? Is that going to be part of it, where the minister has the discretion to direct award that volume? Is it going to be by the hour?

There are a lot of unknowns. We can certainly go off base, offside in a hurry without the certainty of costs. The intentions are good. The work needs to be done. How it’s going to be implemented is what has me concerned.

As a contractor with my father’s operation…. My dad was pretty sharp when it came to determining how we were going to be able to log these blocks, and with advisement with our family, our workers, we were able to have a competitive edge because of not only the workforce that we had but the experience that we had to understand the challenges that were on each and every block and to be able to make it work.

Sometimes it was a break-even situation. Sometimes you lost a bit of money, but, hopefully, you had better days than bad days so, at the end of the year, you had a few bucks to pull you over to the next year. That’s really what the logging industry is all about. As we’ve seen in the last year and a half, it’s been definitely on the red side.

Then talking about the operational plan, again, looking at the statutes, looking at some of the changes to the language, even the standard-making-body portion of it, who’s actually determining these operational plans? Is it going to be continuing under the BCTS program? Is it going to be the people that are in the BCTS program? Is it going to be in combination with our First Nation partners?

Ultimately, it says in the documentation that the Forests Minister has the authority to be able to approve those operation plans that end up going through the timber sales manager. Again, it says in the law that the timber sales manager has to have the operational plan before the work can occur. In clause 7, it talks about waiving fees and taking the ability of that authority from the timber sales manager to the Forests Minister, so ultimately, the Forests Minister has those opportunities to waive those fees.

Then the other part about it that they’re making significant changes with…. Again, it’s a direct correlation from BCTS being set up to actually make money to now not having to make money. In clause 8, it adds the purposes for which money in the B.C. Timber Sales account may be expended. It clarifies that provisions of the Financial Administration Act do not apply in relationship to expenditures from the B.C. Timber Sales account.

[4:35 p.m.]

It says that isn’t their main focus now, to derive revenue and put that into the provincial coffers. That’s not really the focus anymore. The focus is more about forest stewardship and possibly getting more value on the value-added chain and, hopefully, more fibre as well. But there isn’t the focus anymore on trying to recover revenue as the purpose of the business.

There is another section. Again, it directly results in the work that’s going to be prescribed. In clause 13, section 2.46, it says: “On or before December 31 of each calendar year, a timber sales manager who holds a forest operational plan must publish on the website a forest development schedule that shows each location that will be included, (a) a timber sales licence for which the timber sales manager intends to invite applications in the next calendar year and a contract logging authorization that the timber manager intends to issue in the next calendar year.”

There’s that change where, with a timber sale licence, you have to bid for it. Now that is no longer required. It’s totally, I would say, at the discretion of the timber sales manager and/or the Forests Minister to determine who actually gets the work. That’s why many on this side are concerned.

Again, the name of the bill is unintended consequences. If the purpose of this is to free up more fibre, to grow our logging and contractor base, that may not necessarily happen because of who actually gets the work in the first place. We may not have a fair competition process to be able to determine that work. By just doing that alone, that’s going to drive the prices up. That’s a fact.

I want to thank the BCTS task force for the work that they did last year. On their work, there’s a lot of good information in this report. There are a lot of ways that we can improve not only the sustainability but the forest health in this province.

But I don’t necessarily agree that we should be running BCTS as a business if we don’t have a clear business plan. Now, I understand that we need to make regulatory changes to be able to change the parameters of the way money is spent from a budget in BCTS, but I would’ve hoped that there would’ve been a description before this bill even came out to determine how that is going to occur.

Without accountability and transparency in this process, BCTS may end up having unintended consequences in the marketplace because of the way they’re going to be doing this work, and they may find out in a hurry that this is going to be counterproductive to many in the industry.

Now, if BCTS wants to get into wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation, if there’s a desire to shift from some of the work that the B.C. wildfire service has been doing and have it under the umbrella of BCTS, then I’m certainly open to all opportunities when it comes to expanding those throughout the province, particularly in the interface in our communities. At the end of the day, we still have to determine what that’s going to cost and how we’re going to be able to deliver those services to our communities.

[4:40 p.m.]

Again, who’s going to be doing the work? Who’s going to be supervising the work? Who’s overseeing that work on the ground? BCTS, not long ago, was telling us that they had a significant staffing shortage with the work that they’re doing today. Hopefully, BCTS will be able to rise to the challenge and implement what the minister is asking them to do. Optimistically, I’m hoping that much of this does achieve what it wants to achieve.

We’re debating a bill that’s going to change the Forest Act, entirely change the parameters of how BCTS is set up in the first place. And there may be unintended consequences because of this that haven’t been fully explained.

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: Yes, thank you very much for that. I like that.

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: Anticipation. That’s right.

Another issue that comes up is that when we talk about some of the challenges in the forest industry…. We talked about certainty of supply. There are some significant challenges with this because, again, it doesn’t necessarily address the issues that I just mentioned a few moments ago — streamlining the process.

Now, on one hand, the minister is saying that with these changes to Bill 14, it will be able to streamline the process of wildfire salvage. It’s going to speed up the opportunities. I think the minister was using an example the other day where, in a matter of about a month after a fire had been put out, they were actively salvaging on the ground where the fire had occurred.

Well, in my logging career, we’ve actually done it a lot sooner than that. We were able to do it where there were industrial fires on existing blocks. Sometimes those are unintended consequences too. You can actually light a fire in the summertime, even following all the parameters that are out there not for that to happen…. Just a piece of steel can come off a rail. Just a nick from a rock can start a fire.

There was enough flexibility in the existing Forest Act that after it was all said and done and the fire was put out, and we were still in the area, we were able to go back and log that without even having to mob and demob out of that area. So there are already existing laws right now that allow us to speed up the process.

The forest wildfire salvage manual, which I had in estimates, has clear targets and timelines on how this is supposed to occur. Yet the minister isn’t suggesting that we’re going to change the wildfire salvage manual. He’s just suggesting that by changing the law, we’ll enable BCTS to speed up this process, even though the tools are already there for that to occur.

So I don’t understand why the minister would say that, because, as the Forests Minister, I could just do that.

Part of the issue is…. As soon as there is a wildfire, the emphasis is now taken away from the primary licensees in that area, and it goes directly over to the government and First Nations. That’s where many of the delays can occur. It’s in that process. We’ve seen it time and time again — even in my riding, where we’ve been impacted severely negatively with forest fires in the last five years — where certain areas have been able to be salvaged very quickly and other areas have not.

[4:45 p.m.]

Now, the Forests Minister has the authority, after all is said and done, to be able to go in there and do that. But, in many cases, he has not. He has offered up many reasons why they haven’t done that. He has talked about synchronizing districts and district managers in how they operate in their operating areas. They’ve talked about lack of planning in those areas. That may be part of the reason why he’s trying to look at undeveloped salvage opportunities.

But again, we’ve already got the laws in place for that to occur. We don’t need any new laws for that to happen. We just need the Forests Minister’s direction to actually make that happen.

The other point I wanted to make on the wildfire salvage is that currently, without us going in and being able to harvest or salvage that fibre, replanting doesn’t occur, and that’s unfortunate. I believe that we should be looking at other initiatives when it comes to our wildfires. If we were able to speed up that process in the salvaging, there would be more money and more opportunity for us to reforest more of that landscape.

Again, there shouldn’t be excuses on why we can’t do it currently, because the laws are already on the books for that to occur.

There are also some assumptions about the increase in fibre availability with these changes to the act. The minister has mentioned that up to 800,000 cubic metres could be realized with the changes to Bill 14. He also mentions an additional half a million cubic metres of fibre to be offered up with salvaging of B.C. wildfire-damaged trees and fibre.

The reality is that even if those numbers came true, BCTS would still be below their mandated targets in the first place. So I would hope that the minister would have additional opportunities to encourage BCTS to offer more timber sales to be able to make up for the shortfall and not rely on a program that hasn’t even got started yet.

In all reality, this law, if and when it’s passed, will not come into effect…. Probably closer to the end of our session. It probably won’t even really be implemented much this year. So I would offer that much of that volume that the minister is optimistically saying is going to be offered to our industries won’t happen this year.

Another point. If that fibre is available currently to the bidding process and the licensees, then regardless of who logs it, that fibre should still be available.

Now, the minister said that part of the reason why much of this fibre isn’t coming to the market is that it’s too expensive. So why does the minister think, then, that by having BCTS marketing, that’s going to lower the cost?

That’s what he said. He said one of the reasons why many of these sales are not coming to market is because they’re too expensive. How is BCTS going to be in control of all the costing in developing that block, that fibre? How is the government going to be able to do it more efficiently than the private sector?

Does anybody on this side know? I don’t know. I don’t know how that’s going to happen. That’s what the minister said — that one of the reasons why BCTS has not been able to hit their targets for the fibre access is because it’s too expensive. So how on earth is it going to be less expensive if the government controls it?

[4:50 p.m.]

I’ve enjoyed this last hour and a half speaking on Bill 14. I’m sure many on the other side have enjoyed it as much as I have.

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: I’ve been reminded that…. We can still delve in a little deeper if you would like.

I’d like to finish up, if I may, and allow my colleagues the opportunity to speak as well, because there are many that are lined up to say what they have to say and question about Bill 14.

In all honesty, I don’t know of too many industries in this province that touch forestry…. Logging our forests touches this province. I believe that it touches our communities and our First Nations communities more than anything else that we do in this province.

It’s a natural, renewable resource that we are all extremely proud of, that many of us have spent our entire livelihoods in. It’s hard work. It can be dangerous. Not only does it put foods on the tables of our families and the families around British Columbia, but it is a foundation of this province.

I know many of us, including our First Nations, many First Nation communities, are concerned. We’re concerned about climate change. We’re concerned about the negative effects that climate change is having on our forests. It’s not the logging that’s negatively impacting our forests. It’s our climate. And in some cases, we’re not able to get ahead of what Mother Nature has in store.

In the past, Mother Nature might have just had spot fires. Those fires went out, we had regeneration, and there was just that endless cycle of life. But I think what we’ve seen in the last ten years is a tendency of hotter, drier conditions that make our forests explosive.

If the one thing I can leave people with about the predictability of a fire is its unpredictability…. If you’ve ever been on a fire line, like I have, you’ll have tremendous respect for a fire — even though as a kid, I might have got my fingers burnt a little bit playing with fire — because you get to realize that you’re not in control of the circumstances on a fire.

You may think you are. You may have that triangle — oxygen, fuel and heat. By removing one of them, that puts the fire out. But those three things you can’t necessarily control. And that’s what’s happening in our forests today.

Many of our forests are at the end of their life cycle. Many of our forests need a renewal. There is an opportunity, as the minister stated in his documents about what he’d like to see BCTS do, with increased reforestation, more of an opportunity to put emphasis on the full rotation on that tree’s life. The other existential values that we get from the forest…. That’s not just taking the natural resource from the forest, because, in all reality, what we’re actually doing is being concerned about the forest health.

If we aren’t proactive, in many cases, we’re going to lose what we have. Instead of having these small spot fires, we’re going to see these massive valley fires sweep over and take it all out. And not only is it for generations to come…. It’s a shame that we haven’t been able to at least have that opportunity to be more proactive with the tools that we have, with the amount of education and training that is going into our forests these days.

I’m incredibly proud, and everyone here, of being involved in the forest industry, and we want to be able to continue to do that. But one of the main concerns I have standing here today is Bill 14 significantly changes the parameters of what BCTS was originally designed to do.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now, if they want to enhance what they’re already doing in the reforestation side of things, in the pruning and the thinning — possibly looking at commercial thinning, and that could be on a bidding process — increase wildfire salvage, absolutely. We should be doing a better job of that, trying to get in there quicker before we lose that fibre’s value, as it deteriorates so quickly.

To just change the law and everything in it on this section because of…. Just changing the parameters on how we do our business doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to change the entire law and change the entire business plan of BCTS. I don’t personally believe that BCTS will be able to do what the private sector does on a cost-effective basis. They may, in certain instances, be able to drive some extra value out of what they’re trying to achieve, but I would suggest the overall scope will be significantly less and cost us significantly more in the end.

I look forward to the opportunity when we get to committee on this. I thank everyone for their time. I yield the rest of my time to my colleagues.

Stephanie Higginson: I just want to start out, before I get into my response to the bill, by recognizing what a momentous couple of days we’ve had in the Legislature. It’s made me really proud to be a member of the Legislature at this time, to have the introduction of the K’ómoks and the Kitselas Treaties. And I am a little emotional from it. We all know I cried yesterday. Maybe I’ll cry today.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill 14, the Timber Sales amendment act, also known as the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Forestry is something that I know a little bit about. Not as much as the member opposite that just spoke, and I appreciated the lessons from him. It wasn’t something that I knew a lot about for a lot of my life. I call myself sort of a recovering suburban tree hugger because I married into a forestry family. And I was so fortunate to marry into a forestry family that was so patient with my narrow, uneducated views on what forestry was.

That patience is something that is the number one character of my father-in-law. He’s this kind, patient man who would look at me when I would say things and just say: “Oh, Stephanie.” Then we’d go for a walk in the forest, and he’d correct me in this very gentle, incredible way.

My in-laws own a woodlot, and they practise sustainable silviculture. My father-in-law learned a lot of what he knew about forestry from the infamous Merv Wilkinson of Wildwood forest.

His three sons — my husband and his two brothers — all grew up loving their time in the forest with their dad, learning proper falling techniques, understanding how to properly choose trees that would be thinned in order to let light in to just the right spots so that new trees could thrive, learning about hitching and winching windfall to the logging arch, dragging it through the forest to ensure it gets out of the woods in time for sawyering.

All of this was done so that he could grow a forest for his grandchildren. Those were his words, that he was growing a forest for his grandchildren. My children are so lucky to have this person be an influence in their lives.

One of his sons loved his time so much in the forest that despite his best efforts to push away his farming and forestry roots by becoming an investment banker — dealing in commodities markets, by the way, which also means we know a little bit about how the forestry cycle works in our family; it’s a commodity market — he eventually stopped ignoring the calls of the trees and returned to the Island and now he owns his own sawmill. That is my husband who owns his own sawmill.

Interestingly enough, I learned today at the Truck Loggers Association lunch that the timbers that my husband milled are actually in the home of Peter Lister, the CEO of the Truck Loggers Association. Small world.

[5:00 p.m.]

Lastly, my oldest son has just started working for one of our forestry contractors locally. So from the fibre supply side all the way through to the building and trades production side, my family is deeply embedded in this industry.

The reason I told the story of my father-in-law, other than it’s a good story that he’s growing a forest for his grandchildren — how amazing is that? — is because this bill, these amendments reflect what my father-in-law has been practising for over 50 years on his own woodlot. Trees come down at Discovery Farms for very few reasons: disease, windfall or damage, support or sustainability for the rest of the forest and light for Shirley’s garden. If you have seen the size of Shirley’s garden, you could very easily argue that that’s what’s called commercial thinning. It feeds an army, her garden.

The tenets of this bill — fast-tracking salvage of damaged trees, long-term full rotation, forest stewardship, recognition of resilient forest ecosystems and a forest economy that delivers economic opportunities far and wide — reflect those forestry practices that my father-in-law has cultivated over the 50-plus years that he has been growing the forest for his grandchildren.

Bill 14 is the start of a recognition that forestry can be done in a sustainable way, in a way that allows the sector to flourish, support families and communities, while also growing forests for our grandchildren. This bill is one brick in the necessary road of reshaping forestry to recognize that we can do two things at once. We can have a thriving sector that supports workers and their families, and we can also grow forests for future generations. It isn’t easy work, but because of people like my father-in-law, like his friend Merv Wilkinson, we know it can be done.

These amendments to the B.C. Timber Sales mandate bring us closer to achieving that necessary balance. This legislation comes before us at a moment of profound transition for British Columbia’s forest sector, one that recognizes the need for a shift to long-term sustainability. This transition is driven by a recognition of fibre scarcity, scarcity that is driven by climate-related disturbances, historic wildfire seasons, insect infestations, global market volatility and, yes, long-standing structural challenges in how we manage, allocate and move timber to market.

But the old ways of doing things like sparking up a chainsaw, cutting the closest and most accessible tree — no matter what its age or how it matters to the local community, including the local nation — simply do not work anymore, and we are committed to finding new ways forward. This bill is one of those new ways. It’s not all of the ways. It’s one of the ways.

We must do this while recognizing that forestry remains a cornerstone of our provincial economy, supporting tens of thousands of workers, like my family, three generations of people participating in different parts of this industry. All those workers live in communities across this province, supporting those communities in so many ways, like my family business does, by sponsoring sports teams, making donations of wood to local artisan groups, creating good-paying jobs to benefit the communities.

We can’t forget about the value-added manufacturing sector that is essential to building homes, infrastructure and low-carbon products right here in British Columbia.

Bill 14 is not about increasing harvesting at any cost. It is about modernizing the tools we use, although my father-in-law would say, and his woodlot buddies would tell us, that this is just good practice that they have been doing for generations. It’s about improving stewardship. It’s about moving fibre more efficiently and ensuring B.C.’s forests deliver maximum public value economically, environmentally and socially.

That is what British Columbians deserve when it comes to managing B.C.’s forests. This triangulation is at the heart of forestry reform — to run B.C.’s forests for social good, for the environmental good, for the economic good, for all British Columbians current and future.

[5:05 p.m.]

Too often people view forestry through just one of those lenses, either the environment or the economic or the social. But government’s job is to thread the difficult needle of doing all three, and this bill is a path towards that. Many British Columbians look through just one of those lenses, but I know that we can do all three, because I’ve watched my father-in-law live this triangulation.

It’s not easy, and it requires thoughtful and careful attention, like the thought that was put into creating this act, a recognition that we can’t just keep trying to do the same thing despite all the chaos occurring in the industry. We can’t just bang on tables and demand a return to the old way, because the rapidly changing world around us tells us that we need to do it differently. We need to do it better. We need to do it with care and with thoughtfulness.

This bill strengthens the ability of B.C. Timber Sales to operate as an effective market steward while upholding the highest standards of sustainability and accountability.

In order to help strengthen and stabilize the sector, we are focused on creating stability in times of economic uncertainty. This economic uncertainty can most certainly be linked to the current trade wars that our largest economic partner has put on us, but we can’t ignore that this industry is a commodity industry. That means it’s especially susceptible to global markets and has been part of a boom-and-bust cycle for generations.

No government can control the commodity cycle, and it would be foolish to believe any government that tells you they could. What we can control is how we support the sector before and during those cycles, how we support the workers during those cycles and how we support communities during those cycles.

On this side of the House, we are committed to digging deep, to getting creative, to thinking outside the box to make necessary structural changes that will create stability for workers and communities while also having long-term sustainability for our forests.

We’ve seen what the other side does when they’re in power during these market cycles. They change legislation to eliminate appurtenances, allowing fibre to leave the communities that it was harvested in, opening the door to corporate profits over community stability. They give bailouts to corporations with no community benefits conditions, so those corporations then use that money, British Columbians’ hard-earned money, to buy mills in the U.S., and then they export eight million cubic metres of raw logs to cut in those mills. By the way, under our government, raw log exports have dropped 80 percent in our time.

Year after year, the other side set unsustainable harvest levels with no consultation with local communities and First Nations, leading to decimated forests and inadequate accessible supply and fractured relationships.

But we’re committed to doing it differently. It isn’t easy, because we know we cannot control those cycles. They are out of our hands. We can do everything possible to lessen the blow of these cycles and to support the companies, their workers, their families and their communities through these transitions by putting people in front of profits.

Geoff Dawe, the president of the Public and Private Workers of Canada, also recognizes the need to support workers and their families during these cycles. He supports these changes and stated: “These changes to B.C. Timber Sales are a positive step forward for workers across the pulp and paper sector. Streamlined salvage logging and commercial thinning means more fibre for local mills, more opportunities for workers. I commend the government’s ability to listen to the sector.”

This cyclical stabilization starts with the expanded mandate for B.C. Timber Sales to include four key cornerstones: thriving communities, manufacturing diversity, strong partnerships and resilient forest ecosystems. These cornerstones show where our priorities are: in stability, in sustainability, in supporting communities, in partnerships with communities, in industry and First Nations. We are doing things differently, and that’s what Bill 14 demonstrates. It allows us to take those long-learned lessons from sustainable forestry and put them to work to support communities.

It means we can unlock existing fibre that we have not traditionally been harvesting, including timber damaged by wildfire and windstorms and insect infestations, and by supporting non-traditional fibre-generating activities like commercial thinning and wildfire risk reduction, all things that my father-in-law has been teaching his sons and his grandchildren as a natural part of sustainable forestry practices, all practices that have allowed him to grow a beautiful forest for his grandchildren.

[5:10 p.m.]

At its core, Bill 14 and the related statutes give B.C. Timber Sales greater flexibility and clarity in how timber sale licences are structured, awarded and managed.

There are a number of key elements to these amendments, but my most favourite is long-term, full-rotation forest stewardship. BCTS is being empowered to manage timber sale licences through its full rotation, from initial harvesting to replanting to long-term stewardship to future harvest. This full-cycle approach will strengthen long-term planning and support a healthier, more stable and predictable working forest for the future.

This is how my father-in-law has managed his forest for over 50 years. He took a scrubby piece of land that had some trees in some places and too many trees in other places and nurtured it into a working forest where, in his prime, he took out a logging truckload every year.

That doesn’t seem like much, I know, and we’re only talking about 70 acres of forest here, but when you scale up the practices to create sustainable working forests across British Columbia, those are forests that can still be enjoyed by our grandchildren.

He grew his forest through careful planning, through walking the forest, watching for signs of disease, responding to windfall and the occasional request from my mother-in-law to thin the stand that blocked the noon sun for her vegetable garden. This is what harmonious working forests look like. It’s possible on a large scale with long-term, full-rotation forest stewardship.

By shaping future timber sales harvest areas for resilience, health and timber quality, BCTS strengthens long-term fibre availability and economic opportunities and supports investment certainty while maintaining strong stewardship in public interest outcomes. This is the triangulation that I talked about earlier in my speech of economic value, of environmental value and of social value.

This bill introduces and clarifies contract logging authorizations and enables BCTS to auction a broader range of contracts focused on commercial thinning, wildfire risk reduction, salvage of damaged timbers and restoration-oriented fibre recovery. These types of activities support access to fibre not available through traditional sales models, particularly for small and medium-sized value-added wood manufacturing companies. They provide contractors with a broader range of opportunities for bidding. This means building more in B.C., supporting jobs and getting wood products to market.

These new licence types build on existing work by BCTS to provide a wider range of contract types that better reflect regional conditions, project scopes and diverse skill sets, increasing participation within the forestry sector. By expanding BCTS’s work to deliver a more diverse set of contracts and support a more reliable fibre supply, these new contract opportunities strengthen competitiveness in the forest sector, help grow jobs and ensure the right log goes to the right mill in B.C. — the right log to the right mill.

Brian Menzies, executive director of the Independent Wood Processors Association, said these changes will enhance access to market-priced wood fibre, foster innovation, support well-paying jobs and represent an important first step in implementing the BCTS review recommendations to boost value-added manufacturing in British Columbia.

These new licence opportunities clearly support getting the right log to the right mill, allowing local communities that depend on that fibre supply to maintain critical access.

Changes to B.C. Timber Sales licences will make it easier for the forest sector to quickly access timber that was damaged by wildfire or natural disturbances, such as windstorms or insect outbreaks. This is a well-known silviculture practice, and these amendments bring BCTS in line with good forest stewardship and allow us to monetize that fibre.

The new streamlined licence opportunity will increase the amount of recoverable wood and speed up access to better support mills throughout the province, especially the pulp sector. This will provide more fibre and create more opportunities for contractors, while reducing wildfire risk and contributing to healthier forest conditions.

New salvage licences have the possibility to deliver, I’ve read, 800,000 additional cubic metres of fibre, which is roughly 15,000 truckloads to market.

[5:15 p.m.]

As we heard from the previous speaker talking about his involvement in forestry, forestry is about people and places. It includes my father-in-law, my husband and now my son. I know it. I see it. I feel it.

It’s not just in my own home but in my community that’s supported by this industry. Harmac Pacific pulp mill, Coastland forest products, Western Forest Products, Saltair and Ladysmith mills, Mosaic forest products, Otter Point Timber, Raven Feather Contracting, Pro Cut Lumber, Sawmill Sales Direct — these are just a few. Never mind all the associated folks who fix their equipment, sharpen their blades, and so on and so on goes the path. When the industry struggles, my community notices. When the industry thrives, my community thrives.

These changes will allow for more predictable work for logging contractors, improved supply certainty for mills, greater opportunities for small and medium-sized value-added manufacturers and the stabilization of employment in forestry-dependent regions.

Todd Chamberlain, the general manager of the Interior Logging Association, said these changes are critical to providing contractors with the stability they need to invest in their workforce, to modernize their equipment and to sustain the communities that depend on forestry.

They also create important opportunities through undeveloped timber sales and fire salvage to manage our timber resources in an environmentally responsible way. Importantly, these gains are achieved not through over-harvesting but through better utilization of existing fibre and smarter forest management, just as my father-in-law taught his sons and his son is now teaching my son.

No modern forestry policy can succeed without meaningful partnerships with First Nations, and Bill 14 supports reconciliation in practice, not just in principle but by enabling collaborative approaches to forest stewardship projects, wildfire risk reduction, local economic development initiatives. The expanded contract and licence tools under BCTS create more entry points for Indigenous-led and Indigenous-partnered forestry activities and align with shared goals of environmental responsibility and community prosperity. This flexibility is essential as we move toward shared decision-making and long-term forest governance models that respect Indigenous rights and knowledge.

Some may ask: does Bill 14 weaken environmental protections? The answer is, unequivocally, no. In fact, Bill 14 enables long-term forest stewardship, supports proactive forest management, reduces wildfire risk through thinning and fuel management and encourages the salvage of damaged timber before it becomes a carbon liability. By improving how we manage working forests, the bill strengthens B.C.’s position as a global leader in sustainable forest management and in climate-responsible forestry.

I’ve watched and learned clearly from my father-in-law that it is possible to do two things at once, to grow beautiful forests in the same place where commercial forestry occurs. This helps us transition this industry to one that embodies these practices, and it helps us support the sector through the cyclical nature that is inherent in it.

B.C. Timber Sales plays a critical role in price setting and market balancing as the price-setting and market-balancing arm of our public forest system. With these changes, Bill 14 equips BCTS to better fulfil that mandate by responding quickly to changing conditions, offering diverse sales types that reflect regional realities and ensuring transparent competitive access to public timber.

This is good governance. It protects the public interest by ensuring Crown resources deliver fair value while also meeting social and environmental objectives. Social licence cannot be ignored in this sector.

I remember door-knocking during the campaign in a very small apartment complex. At one door, I knocked on the door, and someone was very frustrated with our actions to support or, in their view, not support the forest sector. In that same small apartment complex, on the same floor, someone was really angry with us because we were cutting down too many trees. That’s the social licence that can’t be ignored in this sector. This issue is complex, and social and environmental licence cannot be ignored as we go forward.

Bill 14 represents a pragmatic, balanced reform — the kind of incremental but meaningful change that improves systems without abandoning values.

[5:20 p.m.]

In closing, Bill 14 moves us closer to growing working forests for our grandchildren. It creates working forests managed for multiple values, communities supported by sustainable jobs and Indigenous partnerships grounded in respect. Environmental stewardship of forests is strengthened and not compromised.

This legislation is just one step forward in preparing our forest sector for the realities of the 21st century. It isn’t all the steps at once. It’s just one step. This work is hard. It’s complex. It requires thoughtful solutions that improve stewardship, move fibre more efficiently and ensure public timber delivers maximum public value — economically, environmentally and socially.

This bill equips us with better tools, clearer authority and greater flexibility to respond responsibly and effectively to the issues that are facing forestry in the 21st century. We know that there is more work to do, and we don’t claim that this is the entire fix. This is just one step.

On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting workers, communities and forests. This bill helps put B.C. forests on that path.

Kiel Giddens: It’s always a privilege to speak in this House, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 14.

I did listen, with interest, to the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside. I, too, married into a forestry family. My father-in-law, as well, manages woodlots, so we do have a lot in common. It goes to show that forestry families, whether they’re on Vancouver Island or whether they’re in northern British Columbia, are a part of the fabric of our communities.

I met with the Truck Loggers Association this morning. We talked about the fact that forestry, of course, is one of the murals in the rotunda and one of the founding industries of this province, the province that we know today.

It’s so important and critical for our past. But I believe that in places like Prince George and Mackenzie, the communities that I represent, forestry is and still should remain a part of how people make their living. It supports families, small businesses and entire communities.

We heard previously the Forestry critic talk about his deep knowledge of the industry. For an hour and a half, we heard him speak about the details of this bill. I’m going to get into some of those details, probably not quite as in depth as he did. I don’t have that much time.

I also want to paint a picture. I want to explain a little bit about what’s going on in Prince George–Mackenzie because I think it’s important for folks to understand what’s actually happening on the ground right now.

Obviously, in the last number of years, the foundation of the industry has been under real pressure and tough times. In my community, that has been felt very, very hard. We’ve seen the closure of the Canfor mill in Mackenzie in 2019; 130 jobs lost. The Canfor Isle Pierre mill near Prince George — that’s 115 jobs lost. The Polar mill near Bear Lake, another 180 jobs lost. That’s over 400 sawmill jobs between those three processing facilities. It’s devastating for those families.

But there’s more. In 2024, about 220 jobs were impacted at the Northwood pulp mill, plus all of the spinoff jobs related to that closure. Vanderhoof has seen massive impacts with the closure of the Plateau mill in 2024; 200 jobs lost.

Mayor Kevin Moutray from Vanderhoof, who is a good friend, outlined the impact clearly to his community from that closure. He said: “The longer-term financial effects are now becoming evident and will directly influence the district of Vanderhoof’s 2026 taxation and financial planning. The mill closure is expected to result in a substantial reduction in district revenue for 2026. Estimates indicate an approximate annual revenue impact of $580,000, equivalent to 11 percent of our taxation.”

That is devastating. That is so difficult for a community like Vanderhoof to be able to manage that for their community members. They’re really struggling right now, and forestry communities are struggling.

[5:25 p.m.]

It doesn’t end there. I hate to go down all of this doom and gloom, but I want to show the reality of what we’re facing. Last fall Sinclar Forest Products, based in Prince George, announced a 40 percent curtailment across their three mills in Prince George, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James, impacting roughly 350 workers. They kept their operations going, fortunately, but it has been the equivalent of shutting down an entire mill.

I want to quote directly from that announcement because I think it says a lot about where the sector is at right now and where the state of forest policy is in this province. They said: “This decision comes in response to a confluence of external pressures, from an unsustainable provincial policy landscape and persistent uncertainty around fibre supply to deepening economic challenges, all made worse by punitive duties and additional tariffs on Canadian lumber entering the United States.”

That’s not the opposition saying that. That’s a forestry company from my community that’s not saying it’s only about the underlying boom-and-bust cycles. It’s not saying that it’s only the tariffs. Yes, those absolutely play a part, but there are some deeper problems that we’re facing here.

That’s a company in my region making decisions that affect hundreds of workers and their families. It’s hard on workers trying to support their families when they’re only going to work three or four days a week now. Greg Stewart and the leadership at Sinclar don’t want that. I don’t want that. But it’s the reality when we have a government that has created an “unsustainable provincial policy landscape and persistent uncertainty around fibre supply.”

I think we can all agree that unjust duties and tariffs are an impact, but clearly, this government’s policies are a massive part of the problem. So when we talk about this bill in context, we need to look at the full picture of what is going on in the sector right now — what was going on in the past many decades but, certainly, in the last decade of forest policy in this province.

When people back home, where I live, are looking at Bill 14, they’re going to be looking at it through the lens of what they’re actually experiencing, and what they’re experiencing, unfortunately, is instability.

We know how important this sector is. The stakes are high. We need to put an end to this disastrous period of job losses that I’ve just described because communities like Prince George, Mackenzie, Vanderhoof, Houston and also the communities on the Island that the previous speaker just spoke about can’t keep taking hits like this. Neither can the overall rural B.C. economy.

Certainly, in a time when we’re facing over $13.3 billion deficits, debt-to-GDP to reach 37 percent, from only 15 percent a decade ago, and total debt rising rapidly to over $183 billion this year, supported by taxpayers, our economy needs our economic base, and forestry has always been a critical part of that economic base.

Forestry still supports…. It was 100,000 jobs, but most recently, the industry has said 95,000 jobs, and they still contribute roughly $17 billion to B.C.’s GDP. In many parts of the Interior and the North, though, it’s one of the main economic drivers, and certainly for a community like Mackenzie.

We also know what has been happening. Harvest levels have been declining since 2019, and that decline is directly tied to job losses. That’s tied to reduced economic activity and less revenue for government overall, and we know that from what the provincial government budget documents have said.

I’ve challenged the minister, of course, on this in question period several times now. That 20-million-cubic-metre harvest, well below the 45-million-cubic-metre mandate from the Premier, is set to lead to more decline. At the same time, costs are going up, investment is becoming harder to attract, and companies are making tough decisions. That’s the context this bill is being introduced into.

[5:30 p.m.]

I don’t disagree with the goals the minister has outlined. “More fibre to mills,” he said, “fast-tracking the salvage of damaged trees, better long-term stewardship.” All of those are good goals.

I have to ask: which specific tools in this bill will achieve more fibre to our mills, and how will the effectiveness of that actually be measured? Because results are actually going to matter.

The government needs to address the fact that B.C. Timber Sales has actually had the worst record of undercut. I’m not sure that these amendments are necessarily going to change that. This bill will be giving more discretionary power to an agency that has not actually been a strong performer. The industry has actually performed much better when given the tools.

The line ministry, in the ministry versus the agency of B.C. Timber Sales, is under-resourced compared to that agency. Now we’re giving them more power rather than supporting more permitting.

When we talk about fast-tracking the salvage of damaged trees, again, yes, I agree with that, but that depends on dealing with the permit backlogs that have piled up in many regions under this government. That salvage has to happen quickly, but this bill, as far as I can tell, doesn’t address permitting.

The bill doesn’t deal with the lengthy, complex and expensive requirements under DRIPA to consult and obtain consent from First Nations. BCTS also has exactly the same obligation to consult and obtain consent from First Nations. So how will Bill 14 make any difference to expediting access to fibre?

As I’ve said, BCTS has not been a strong performer in the industry. First Nations want to be part of the logging opportunities as well. My community, Lheidli T’enneh First Nation, is also frustrated by these same permitting backlogs, especially from BCTS.

On that long-term stewardship goal, again, I agree with this in principle. But will empowering B.C. Timber Sales necessarily change their operations? I can’t tell clearly from what the government has said so far.

We absolutely support, on this side of the House, additional reforestation, wildfire mitigation in the forest sector as well, but it needs to be done cost-effectively and not with a blank cheque.

So the question is whether this bill actually addresses the core problems that we’re seeing, because, when I look at Bill 14, I see new tools. We’re talking about contract logging authorizations; expanded discretion; and, ultimately, more centralized control. What I don’t see is a clear plan outlined of how to deal with the issues that companies like Sinclar are talking about — fibre uncertainty; rising costs; and a policy environment that is making it harder, not easier, to operate here in British Columbia, the highest log cost of any jurisdiction in North America.

This morning I met with these logging contractors, but I’ve also met with contractors, trucking companies, licensees in my communities. Many of them prefer that this government actually just does nothing, because they make a mess of forest policy when they do. This government has brought in over 50 new policies and regulations, and the ministry itself can’t keep up to get clarity that the industry needs to actually move forward. The industry is always struggling to figure out what exactly this government is trying to do, what exactly they’re trying to achieve.

Now, in this bill, we want to give more authority to B.C. Timber Sales, even though, again, I’ve said that they’ve had one of those worst records of undercut. We’re giving them more authority to be log marketers.

The government needs to explain. Are they going to be setting up their own log yards and marketing arms for this, and how is that actually going to work in practice? Because the province, for those who may not be aware, has already gone down that road decades ago. They did that in Port Alberni, and it was not effective. In fact, it was a disastrous failure, because I don’t think government is necessarily the best arm to be the control of log markets.

The pace that government moves at is too slow compared to the private sector, and I don’t want to end up seeing logs rotting on these yards like they did in Port Alberni the last time this was tried because we took too long.

We absolutely have to reform B.C. Timber Sales and make it more productive, but let’s get the amendments correct for that long-term availability of fibre.

[5:35 p.m.]

I’ll use Mackenzie timber supply area as an example. It’s one of the more complex TSAs in the province from a supply chain perspective. Much of the transportation of logs uses Williston Lake, the largest man-made reservoir in Canada. The logging and hauling operations function similarly to a lot of the coastal logging operations, actually.

Well, much of the BCTS cutting permits have been in the southwest of the TSA, ignoring more of the northern and harder-to-reach areas. Planning for the long term requires use of the entire TSA, not just a small corner, and BCTS needs to do that. They’ve been part of the problem in overharvesting in this southwest corner.

So I want to ask the government: will this bill actually help to avoid that? I don’t know, but I’m hoping that the government will clarify. We need much bigger harvest in the other parts of that Mackenzie TSA.

I’ll give the government some credit that there have been some bright spots recently with blending that was authorized through an OIC. The minister and I have discussed that in detail. But we need to make that permanent, and we need BCTS to actually be part of the solution as well. Mackenzie TSA is a large fibre basket and, I believe, is critical to getting to that 45-million-cubic-metre harvest and, I hope, beyond that as well.

I digress, but my point is that I want to see results from forestry legislation when it’s brought before the House. Competitiveness matters. Forestry companies don’t just operate in one place. They can invest in other provinces, other jurisdictions and other countries. So when they look at B.C., they see a jurisdiction with high costs; credit downgrades; and new taxes, like the PST on many professional services.

If the cost of business keeps rising and if uncertainty around fibre continues, investment will go somewhere else. And when that happens, we don’t just lose production; we lose jobs. We lose families from communities, especially small communities. We lose the economic base that supports everything else — the small businesses in those communities, the health care workers, everybody that makes that community thrive.

I’d say that Mackenzie is a perfect example of a community hanging on by a thread. It was once a booming forestry community with high socioeconomic indicators, and it has seriously struggled in recent years. The community is down to one sawmill with a bioenergy plant operating less than capacity, Conifex. It’s so important for them that we get this right, so that they can hang on and remain competitive.

The only other processing facility, a reman facility, in Mackenzie is East Fraser Fiber, a great employer making finger joints for home construction. Our building codes actually prevent us from using East Fraser Fiber’s products in B.C., so they’re totally reliant on the U.S. market for 98 percent of their exports, which is a huge challenge.

I think the government should actually deal with things like that in our building codes so that our remanufacturers, our value-added sector, can have opportunities in B.C. COFI’s recent economic report pointed out that there are real opportunities ahead in those value-added opportunities — whether that’s in reman, whether it’s in mass timber, other value-added manufacturing or growth in global demand in other markets.

But those opportunities depend on a strong primary sector. They depend on Conifex operating, and other regional sawmills, like the one Sinclar operates. The value-added sector, a reman facility like East Fraser Fiber, depends on these primary facilities. They depend on mills operating. They depend on fibre flowing. Right now that’s exactly where the main pressure is.

So the question becomes: how does Bill 14 change any of this? How does it increase fibre availability in a meaningful way? The minister says that it does, but I want to see better answers from the government on how it’s going to work in practice. How does it improve certainty for workers and contractors, and how does it make British Columbia a more competitive place to invest?

Those are the issues that are driving the decisions we’re seeing, decisions that are costing jobs in communities like mine. It’s up to government to answer these questions, and I hope their members will stand and do that.

[5:40 p.m.]

People in Prince George and Mackenzie understand that forestry is not simple. This is a very, very complex landscape. They understand there are environmental considerations and global pressures. They also expect that government policy should help and not actually make things harder.

Right now the message from industry is that the policy environment is part of the problem, and this bill doesn’t clearly show how that’s going to change. So my message for the government members is this. If Bill 14 is going to deliver better outcomes, then show us how. Show us what B.C. Timber Sales’ mandate will be. Is it about market pricing, as it was, and timber delivery, or is it now turning into a land management agency? That is some of what we’ve heard from the government. What’s the mandate?

At the same time, show us how this stabilizes fibre supply, show us how it improves competitiveness, and show us how it leads to more jobs, not fewer.

I’ve met with workers in my region, of course. They’ve gone through the closures that I’ve raised in my remarks. They’ve been hit the hardest. Their families have been hit the hardest. They want to know whether forestry has a future for their families. I don’t think this bill deals with the concerns that they’ve come to my office and raised with me directly.

Workers have asked why the province continues to deactivate roads after logging. In BCTS areas, this also matters because those are their decisions. Too many roads, bridges and culverts are removed. Not only does this impact future opportunities for some of the small-scale opportunities — even, for example, the Christmas tree licences referenced in Bill 14 discussions — but it also impacts our ability to fight wildfires. We need access to those areas.

We have areas in the Mackenzie region that are completely cut off, actually, private properties that are cut off. Because of that, we’re not seeing economic activity. We’re having people cut off from the back country, and they’re cut off from the north of the community, which is actually an area that they may need for evacuation, if that ever happened, god forbid.

Workers are also concerned about fibre utilization, which I don’t think this bill is going to help to a great extent. We’re still burning way too much slash in the bush. Workers are concerned that permits are taking too long. They’re concerned with the DRIPA constraints, that they are too onerous. We have not yet heard about how government is going to be dealing with those.

The workers that I’ve talked to — whether that’s PPWC, from Unifor or from Steelworkers — they’re concerned that sawlogs are not making it to the right mill. Pellet producers, for example, are harvesting sawlogs. That’s not getting the right log to the right place, as an example.

Workers want more logic to the constraints on the land base. When does wildlife habitat become habitat again? This government isn’t dealing with the old-growth deferrals that don’t necessarily make ecological sense in the northern interior. This bill says nothing about any of those issues.

These concerns from workers matter. There’s a lot more that needs to be done to restore competitiveness of the industry. There’s a lot more that needs to be done to protect family-supporting jobs of these workers. They are very, very concerned about their ability to pay their mortgages, to put food on the table, to send their kids to college. All of that matters.

I’ll continue to listen to the debate, but I know from the minister’s comments, from what we’ve heard…. They’ve talked about the fact that this is going to create a working forest, but it does not do those things, because it’s not dealing with the broader constraints that the government has put on the land base.

At this stage, I want to see more from this government and what their plans are for actually addressing the most pressing challenges that we’re facing on the ground in forest-dependent communities. It matters for the constituents that I represent.

This is at a crisis situation. With the amount of job losses I’ve just talked about, we can’t keep going down this road that we’ve been in. We need to break this. Yes, the global situation is going to be a part of it, but that policy landscape that the industry is now calling out is such a huge part of it.

[5:45 p.m.]

With that, I will yield the rest of my time, and I look forward to hopefully hearing some of the answers from members opposite. I look forward to hearing, in committee stage, very, very direct and clear answers to these questions, the questions that the forestry critic has raised, the questions that the truck loggers and many others have raised.

I recognize that the industry is really desperate to look for something for change, But so far what the government has provided when they’ve had policies that they’ve brought forward…. It’s made things harder for the industry, not easier. I don’t want to see that happen with this bill, so I’m going to look at it with skepticism.

I look forward to listening to more of the debate today. Thank you very much for the time to speak.

Dana Lajeunesse: I rise today as a third-generation forestry worker. I grew up in Jordan River, where forestry was the main job and revenue source for families and community.

Both my grandfathers worked in the bush to put food on the table in the early part of the last century. My dad was a woods foreman for Canadian Puget Sound Lumber and Timber, a subsidiary of Rayonier Canada, later acquired by Doman Industries, which then became Western Forest Products, a position my younger brother holds today for what is now Keystone Forest Products.

I have fond memories, as a child, going to work with my dad back in the day and learning about the work that fed our family. While I was still in high school, I spent my summers working as a tree planter and in other aspects of silviculture. Subsequently, before I sustained a life-altering injury in 1989, I too spent the first eight years of my working life employed in many aspects of the logging industry.

So when I speak today about the future of forestry in British Columbia, I’m not speaking from a boardroom. I’m speaking from a lifetime, several lifetimes, in the industry, from paycheques earned in the rain, from early mornings on logging roads and from watching towns cycle through boom and bust with every shift of the market.

The world has evolved since, and what I want to say is simple. These legislative amendments to the B.C. Timber Sales matter. They matter to workers, they matter to contractors, they matter to First Nations, and they matter to rural communities. They matter to the future of forestry in this province, an industry that for multiple generations has made it possible for us in British Columbia to enjoy services such as public education and health care. Let us not forget that.

Anyone who works in forestry knows the truth. We’re under pressure like never before — wildfires; changing climate; forest health challenges; roller-coaster lumber prices; and, yes, international trade instability like Trump’s ongoing softwood lumber war.

Here’s the problem. While the challenges have changed, the system hasn’t kept up. We have situations where trees that were burned last summer are still standing this spring, value disappearing every week, because we don’t have a fast enough way to salvage them. We have mills desperately needing fibre, contractors ready to go, communities trying to hang on, but the slow, rigid structures of the past keep holding us back.

That’s exactly why these amendments to B.C. Timber Sales are so important. They aren’t about reinventing forestry. They’re about modernizing the industry and making it more sustainable, given today’s realities.

These amendments let B.C. Timber Sales do what forestry workers have needed for years. At its core, the legislation does one essential thing. It gives B.C. Timber Sales the ability to develop and auction a wider variety of licence types faster, with more flexibility and in ways that match what’s actually happening in the forest. This includes commercial thinning, wildfire risk reduction, projects with First Nations and community partners, salvage of damaged or at-risk timber, new fibre opportunities that fit modern needs.

[5:50 p.m.]

These are not radical ideas. They’re everyday, commonsense activities that forestry crews have been asking government to support for decades. When you’re out in the bush and you see a stand halfway dead from beetle kill, nobody needs a multi-year cutblock plan to figure out what should happen next. What you need is a green light, a clear mandate and a licence that fits the situation. We’re confident that these amendments will finally begin to deliver that.

Let’s talk about salvage, because it’s the heart of the issue. The biggest win in these amendments is the creation of underdeveloped timber sales, a type of salvage licence. Plainly speaking, salvage is what keeps contractors working between major projects. Salvage is what keeps pulp mills supplied when sawlogs get scarce. Salvage is what helps loggers protect their towns from wildfire risk. And salvage is what prevents valuable wood from rotting on the stump.

Right now we lose huge amounts of fibre because we simply can’t move it fast enough. We’ve seen stands that burned hot two months ago, perfectly good salvageable timber, but by the time the approvals come through, the value is gone.

A diverse, made-in-B.C. wood manufacturing sector, forest economy that provides opportunities….

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you. Can I just ask you to reserve your place and adjourn the debate? We have a report from the committee.

Dana Lajeunesse: Okay, thank you.

Deputy Speaker: So I’d just ask you to reserve your place and adjourn the debate.

Dana Lajeunesse: I reserve my space.

Dana Lajeunesse moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Act, in Section C.

In here, we continue debate on Bill 14.

Deputy Speaker: We’re all on track. Terrific.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Dana Lajeunesse: As a former forestry worker, these values mean something to me. Generations of my family have spent their careers working forests that my grandfathers and father logged before me. That’s the real definition of sustainability, taking care of something so future generations can use it too.

These amendments give BCTS the tools to plan and manage forests not in five-year cycles but in full rotations. They allow for long-term investment, they support contract logging, and they make room for alternative sale models that reflect local needs rather than blanket policies. This is a shift away from quick hits towards stability, the kind of stability our sector hasn’t seen in years.

Speaking as someone who has worked alongside Indigenous crews, community forest operators and industry partners, I’ve seen firsthand that forestry works best when everyone is involved early. For too long, BCTS processes were rigid. The same template applied everywhere, regardless of who lived there or what the local priorities were.

These amendments help fix that. First Nations have been clear. They want earlier involvement. They want transparent roles. And they want approaches that reflect rights, title and community priorities. This legislation finally gives BCTS the flexibility to respect that.

[5:55 p.m.]

Longer-term relationships become possible. Shared stewardship becomes the expectation, not the exception. Communities get more say in how local forests are managed, and the work is designed to reflect the values of the people who depend on it. This isn’t just good policy. It’s how reconciliation moves from words on paper to real-world action, a working forest model that actually works.

Some people hear the term “working forest” and think it means cutting without consideration, but anyone who’s spent time in forestry knows that’s not what it means.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

A working forest is a forest that is managed for long-term health, harvested responsibly, regenerated carefully, protected from fire and pests and able to support communities, generation after generation.

Right now BCTS is responsible for about 20 percent of the province’s allowable harvest, a huge role. But until now, their tools haven’t matched their responsibilities. These amendments allow BCTS to finally step into a full forest stewardship role, not just auctioning blocks but planning, managing, thinning, salvaging and partnering in ways that create a healthier working forest.

This model helps us respond faster in emergencies, protect communities from wildfire danger, generate employment for contractors, provide predictable supply for mills and support a truly sustainable future for our forests. This is what every forestry family I know has been asking for: jobs, certainty and the future of rural B.C.

Many of us grew up in towns where the mill whistle signalled everything — the start of the day, the lunch break, the end of shift. It told us whether families could pay their bills that month. It told us whether a contractor could hire more people or lay them off. When forestry slows down, everything slows down — the gas stations, the restaurants, the equipment dealers, the grocery stores, the school enrolment, the tax base, the ability for a town to survive.

These amendments are expected to increase fibre supply by up to 800,000 cubic metres, about 17,700 truckloads of wood. That’s not an abstract number. That’s real work for contractors. It’s real shifts for mill workers. That’s real economic support for rural B.C. BCTS’s performance already increased 30 percent in the third quarter last year, after the initial mandate expansion. These changes build on that momentum.

For the first time in years, forestry workers can look ahead and see opportunity rather than uncertainty. Critics may say: “Why change now?” I say: “Because we can’t afford to wait.” Some have said we should pause the transformation of BCTS. Some want to go back to the old model — the slow, rigid structure that couldn’t respond to wildfire, didn’t reflect local needs and wasn’t built for the climate realities we face now.

Let me ask you this. Should we let burned timber rot while our mills run out of fibre? Should we ignore First Nations’ calls for earlier involvement? Should we use 30-year tools to respond to 2026 challenges? Should we watch contractors go idle while salvage sits untouched? Should we risk more towns losing their mills because we couldn’t act fast enough? We all know the answer is no.

These amendments are not about politics; they’re about practicality. They’re about building a forestry system that matches the world in which we live today. This legislation respects our past and builds on our future.

[6:00 p.m.]

I carry a deep respect for the people who came before me. They built this sector. They built our communities. They built a way of life. They also taught us something important. Forestry must evolve if it’s going to survive.

My grandfathers worked in a world without wildfire seasons like the ones we see today. My father worked in a world without global competition and the trade battles we face now. And today we live in a world where climate change demands new thinking, new tools and new approaches. These amendments honour the tradition of forestry in B.C., but they also acknowledge that the way we managed forests 30 years ago will not be enough for the next 30 years.

In closing, a stronger forestry future for everyone. Let me finish with this. Every forestry worker I know — every faller, every truck driver, every grader operator, every scaler, every millwright — wants one thing: a future for their kids and grandkids in this industry.

We don’t want band-aid solutions. We want a system that works; a system that protects forests and protects jobs; a system that values partnerships and long-term stewardship; a system that keeps local logs in local mills; and a system that moves fibre efficiently, sustainably and responsibly.

These legislative amendments to B.C. Timber Sales help make that future real. They help us salvage more wood, respond faster to wildfire, work in true partnership with First Nations….

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, might I suggest we just pause for one second.

That was exactly it. Maybe a little bit longer.

Thank you very much, Member. Carry on, Juan de Fuca–Malahat.

Dana Lajeunesse: Okay, I’ll wrap this up. Where was I?

We want a system that values partnerships and long-term stewardship; a system that keeps local logs in local mills; and a system that moves fibre efficiently, sustainably and responsibly. That may sound familiar.

These legislative amendments to B.C. Timber Sales help make that future real. They help us salvage more wood, respond faster to wildfire, work in true partnership with First Nations, support contractors, strengthen communities and build a resilient forest industry. They give BCTS the tools we’ve needed for years, and they give forestry workers, families like mine, a fighting chance.

At the end of the day, forestry isn’t just an industry in British Columbia. It’s a way of life. It’s a legacy. It’s a livelihood. As I said, it is a way of life. In the interest of all British Columbians, forestry is an often-overlooked component to the preservation and funding of our social programs, such as education and health care, that we all rely on.

With that, I will reserve the remainder of my time. Sorry, that’s all I have.

Sharon Hartwell: I rise today to speak to Bill 14, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, a piece of legislation that, while presented as a modernization effort, raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, economic stability and the future of forestry in British Columbia.

At its core, this bill proposes sweeping changes to how timber is harvested, how contracts are structured, how authority is exercised and how public funds are spent. Yet despite the scale and significance of these changes, we are being asked to approve them without the level of clarity, detail and consultation that such changes demand.

[6:05 p.m.]

Forestry is not just another sector in this province. It’s foundational. It is woven into the history, identity and the economy of British Columbia. It sustains families, supports communities and provides livelihoods in regions where fewer alternatives exist. Because of that, any legislative changes affecting forestry must be approached with caution, with respect and with a deep understanding of its real-world consequences. As it stands, this bill does not meet that standard.

One of the most significant changes introduced in this bill is the creation of what are called contract logging authorizations. Under this new model, contractors will be permitted to harvest Crown timber, but they will not own that timber. This represents a fundamental departure from the existing timber sale licence system, where the licensee who harvests the timber also owns it. That distinction matters, because ownership is not just a technical detail. It is whatever drives accountability, efficiency and economic incentive.

Under the current system, companies take on risk. They invest capital, they manage operations, and they’re responsible for the outcomes. Under the proposed contract logging model, that dynamic changes. The contractor becomes a service provider. The government, through B.C. Timber Sales, becomes more directly involved in the harvesting process without necessarily being subject to the same market pressures or financial discipline. That raises serious concerns, because when you separate the act of harvesting from the ownership of timber, you also risk separating responsibility from incentive.

This new contract logging authorization model raises several critical questions that remain unanswered in this legislation. How will these contracts be awarded? What criteria will be used to select contractors? Will the process be transparent and competitive?

The system already has implemented 50 policy changes since 2018. The industry is struggling with continuing regulatory changes. Every time the government implements or changes policy, it affects contractors and operators and introduces additional costs.

How will these contracts be supervised on the ground? Who will have the authority to make operational decisions if conditions change? And, perhaps most importantly, who is accountable when things go wrong?

Without clear answers to these questions, we are not creating certainty. We are creating confusion. And confusion in a sector like forestry, where operations are complex, capital-intensive and time-sensitive, can have serious consequences.

Another deeply concerning aspect of Bill 14 is the expansion of authority to impose rules and conditions that go beyond what is already required under the existing legislation. Through amendments to sections governing timber sale licences and forestry licences to cut, this bill allows the minister or a timber sales manager to impose additional terms and conditions that they consider appropriate.

Let us be clear about what that means. It means that even if a company is fully compliant with the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act, they can still be subject to additional requirements that are not clearly defined in this legislation. It means that licences can be made tougher than the law.

That is a profound shift because laws are meant to establish clear, consistent and predictable standards. They are meant to provide a level playing field. But when we allow decision-makers to go beyond those laws without clear limits, we introduce uncertainty, we introduce inconsistency, and we introduce risk. We must consider this in context. The forest sector in British Columbia is already struggling with declining fibre supply.

The actual cut gap. Industry groups like the Council of Forest Industries note that while the official AAC ceiling is 60 million cubic metres, the actual volume harvested has dropped significantly lower, roughly 30 million to 35 million, due to economic factors and policy changes.

Mill closures in B.C.’s forest sector have counted 21 permanent or indefinite mill closures since 2023. According to the Council of Forest Industries, since 2022, the organization has counted some 15,000 job losses in this sector.

Rising operational costs and the cost of fuel and repairs have increased. In 2025, a licence holder forced a contractor to have a rate cut just to keep the contract. Who makes these decisions?

[6:10 p.m.]

Increased regulatory burdens. At a time when industry is calling for greater efficiency and reduced red tape, this government is moving in the opposite direction. It is adding more rules. We have seen more regulatory complexity adding more conditions, including significant delays in approvals and permitting. We do not need any more regulatory hurdles.

More uncertainty. There is less access to fibre, including rising stumpage costs. That is not how you support an industry that is under pressure. That is how you make it harder for that industry to survive.

One of the most concerning financial aspects of this bill is the expansion of what the B.C. Timber Sales account can be used for. Currently, the BCTS account is tied largely to revenue-generating activities. Bill 14 changes that.

We also heard from another colleague that this has happened before, and it didn’t work out very well, so I don’t know why they would go back there.

It expands allowable expenditures to include planning and operational assessments, road and bridge construction and maintenance, forest protection activities, administrative costs, silviculture beyond minimum requirements and costs associated with contract logging authorizations, including harvesting itself.

Let us be very clear about what this means. This is a significant expansion of spending authority. Does this mean that the government will create a new ministry to administer these changes? Yet we have not been provided with clear budget projections. We have not been given detailed cost estimates. We have not been shown how these expenditures will be tracked, reported or controlled.

In fact, the bill explicitly allows these expenditures to override certain provisions of the Financial Administration Act. That should raise alarm bells for every member of this House, because public money must be spent with transparency, it must be spent with accountability, and it must be subject to clear oversight. This bill does not provide that.

Let me be clear. We support investments in forestry. We support reforestation. We support wildlife mitigation. We also support responsible forest management. But those investments must be made responsibly. They must be cost-effective, and they must be transparent. What we cannot support is a blank cheque. That is what this bill is creating, an open-ended ability to spend public funds without clear limits, without clear reporting and without clear accountability.

Another critical concern is a shift away from revenue-driven forestry operations. Under the traditional model, timber sales generate revenue. That revenue creates discipline. It ensures that operations are efficient, and it also ensures that decisions are made with cost in mind.

But under this new model, where the government is more directly involved in harvesting through contract logging and where expenditures are expanded beyond revenue-generating activities, we risk losing that discipline. We risk creating a system where decisions are made without the same financial accountability, and that is not sustainable.

When we examine this bill, clause by clause, these concerns become even more apparent.

Clause 1 introduces a definition of contract logging authorization.

Clause 5 establishes the framework for these authorizations, allowing contractors to harvest timber without owning it. This is not a minor administrative change. It is a structural transformation in how forestry operations are conducted.

Clauses 2 and 3 amend the contract for timber sale licences and forestry licences to cut. They explicitly allow additional terms and conditions to be imposed, terms that can exceed existing legal requirements. This means that compliance with the law is no longer sufficient. Operators must also comply with potentially variable discretionary conditions. Who makes those decisions?

Clause 6 further reinforces this by allowing terms and conditions that are stricter than the law, again without clearly defined limits and without standardized criteria or without guaranteed consistency.

Clause 7 shifts authority from timber sales managers to the ministry in key areas, including decisions about fee waivers. This centralizes power. Who has access to the minister, and under what conditions? Does the minister hold an RPF licence? Is he able to make those decisions?

This is a position for a highly trained expert responsible for managing forests, ecosystems and resource sustainability. It reduces the role of experienced professionals and increases the risk of politicized decision-making.

[6:15 p.m.]

Clause 8 significantly expands what the B.C. Timber Sales account can fund, including moving away from the forest stewardship plan to transition to FLPs. The province is moving away from a model where licensees primarily define their own plans to a model where the province, in partnership with First Nations, sets the operational direction through FLPs. This is a transition to forest landscape plans.

Infrastructure development as of April 2025. BCTS is expanding its role in active forest stewardship, including leading road development and planning in several business areas across the province.

Contract harvesting costs in the forest industry. In British Columbia’s Crown land system, the forest tenure holder or licensee, such as the large forest company, is generally responsible for contract harvesting costs. They hire independent contractors to perform harvesting, roadbuilding and hauling and are responsible for paying these contractors. Does this mean that this will eliminate independent contractors?

It also allows these expenditures to override existing financial legislation. That is not a minor change. That’s a major shift in fiscal governance.

Subsequent clauses amend the Forest and Range Practices Act to fully integrate contract logging authorizations into planning, mapping and operational frameworks. This will include requiring forest operation plans to include contract logging areas, mandating public maps and schedules showing these areas, treating contract logging authorizations similar to timber sale licences. While this may appear administrative, it reinforces the scale of the shift being proposed.

The bill also introduces new requirements for planning and mapping. Timber sales managers must now include contract logging authorizations in forest operation plans, forest operation maps and also annual forest development schedules. These maps must show planned harvest areas, road construction and areas subject to contract logging.

While transparency and planning are important, we must ask: are we adding clarity or complexity? Are we improving efficiency or increasing administrative burden? Every additional requirement has a cost, and those costs are ultimately borne by industry, by government and by taxpayers.

We cannot lose sight of the people who will be most affected by these changes, forest workers. How will this affect independent contractors who have been working in the industry for decades? Small businesses are the foundations of our northern and rural communities, and they are key in supporting our people. These are individuals who operate in challenging conditions, who take on significant financial risks and who depend on stability.

What this bill offers them is the opposite of stability. It is uncertainty — uncertainty about contracts, uncertainty about rules, uncertainty about who makes decisions, uncertainty about the future. And that uncertainty has real consequences. It affects hiring decisions. It affects investment. It affects livelihoods.

Perhaps one of the most concerning aspects of this legislation is what it does not include. It does not include a clear implementation plan, nor does it include timelines. It does not include detailed guidelines, and it leaves critical details to regulation and future policy decisions. That is not good legislative practice. We should not be asked to approve a framework without knowing how it will be implemented.

Opposing this bill does not mean opposing change. It does not mean opposing innovation. What it means is demanding better — better planning; consultation; and, obviously, transparency. It means ensuring that changes to harvesting models are clearly defined and justified; rules are consistent and predictable; public spending is transparent and accountable; industry is supported, not burdened; and workers are given stability, not uncertainty.

Forestry has built this province. It has supported communities for generations, and it has provided livelihoods, opportunities and stability. It deserves legislation that reflects that importance.

Bill 14, as it stands, does not. It introduces uncertainty where we need clarity. It expands authority without sufficient safeguards. It increases spending without transparency and accountability. It adds complexity where simplicity is needed.

Being born and raised in the North, Bulkley Valley is my home. My father was part of the forest service government at that time, and he worked hard in the forest service.

[6:20 p.m.]

My children were in forestry. It has been part of my life for a long, long time, and seeing communities devastated by the downturn in the forest industry and all the mill closures is heart-wrenching.

One of the members on the opposite side spoke about all the mills and all the forestry that was happening in her community, and I thought: “Well, lucky. Isn’t that great?” What I’d like to get back to is all our communities having that same opportunity, all of them having that same stability in the forest industry.

For those reasons and for the workers and families in communities who depend on forestry, I simply cannot support this bill.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Here in B.C., we are proud of our forest sector, but we know we cannot keep going without addressing the pressures facing the sector. Our path forward for forestry means a B.C. Timber Sales, BCTS, that moves fibre faster, creates more opportunities for workers and contractors and ensures local logs go to local mills.

It is an honour to speak today about something that is deeply woven into the identity of the Cowichan Valley — our forestry sector and our forestry history. For generations, forests have shaped this region, not just our economy but our communities, our working lives and our sense of place. The forests of the Cowichan Valley have long been a source of livelihood, local industry and pride. They have supported families, built towns and connected us to the land in a way that is both practical and profound.

Our forestry history is part of the story of how this region grew. From early logging camps and mills to the transportation of lumber through places like Lake Cowichan, forestry helped establish the foundation of our local economy. Entire communities developed around the industry, and the knowledge, skill and hard work of loggers, millworkers, foresters, truckers and small business owners helped build the Cowichan Valley into what it is today. That legacy deserves recognition.

The forest sector has never been just about trees. It has been about people — people who worked in difficult conditions, adapted through change and passed down a strong ethic of resilience and craftsmanship.

It has also been about innovation. Our local forestry has evolved over time to include better management, community forestry and a growing understanding of sustainability and stewardship.

We should also be proud that in Cowichan Valley, forestry is not only part of our past but still part of our present and the future. North Cowichan municipal forest reserve is one example of how forestry can be managed for long-term public benefit, balancing economic value, recreation and environmental responsibility. That kind of approach reflects the values of our region — hard-working, practical and forward-looking.

At the same time, we know that the story of forestry in this valley is not only one of industry. It is also a story of land stewardship and relationship. The forests here are part of the heart of Quw’utsun territory, and any honest reflection on our forestry history must recognize the deep culture and environmental significance of these lands. Our responsibility now is to honour that history while ensuring that future forest practices reflect respect, sustainability and shared responsibility.

So when we say we are proud of our forestry sector, we are saying more than that it has contributed to our economy. We are saying that we value the generations who built it, the communities it supported and the lessons it has taught us about working with the land over the long term.

[6:25 p.m.]

We are proud of the skill in this region. We are proud of the history. We are proud of the people who made this industry strong. And we are proud to be part of the valley that understands that forestry done well can be a source of jobs, identity and stewardship for generations to come.

Here is a quote from Geoff Dawe, president of the Public and Private Workers of Canada. “These changes to B.C. Timber Sales are a positive step for workers across the pulp and paper sector. Streamlining salvage, logging and commercial thinning means more fibre for local mills and more opportunity for our workers. I commend the government’s ability to listen to the sector, now ready to make BCTS work for our needs. I will watch these changes closely, and I’m optimistic they will result in noticeable improvements for workers in our pulp mills and beyond.”

We are putting forward targets, legislative changes to support the next phase of the BCTS review and strengthen its ability to provide a wider range of fibre-generating and forest stewardship activities. These amendments enable B.C. Timber Sales to develop and auction a suite of new timber sale licences and provide a range of different fibre-generation and forest stewardship activities.

BCTS managed 20 percent of the available harvest in B.C., planning a vital role in delivering timber sales auctions to the forest sector and providing credible data for B.C.’s market price systems. These new licence types build on this work and provide a wide range of contract types that better reflect regional conditions, project scope and diverse skill sets.

Salvage licence types known as “undeveloped timber sales” will make it easier for the forest sector to quickly access timber damaged by wildfire and natural disturbances. BCTS will now be able to move into a greater full rotation, a stewardship role, supporting a healthier, predictable working forest into the future.

Legislative changes empower BCTS to manage working forests for multiple values, building on B.C.’s position as a leader in the highest-quality sustainability and environmental practice in the world. The legislative amendments support jobs for logging contracts, deepen partnerships for First Nations and increase harvest volumes by moving local logs to local mills at the right time.

Our path forward for forestry means a BCTS that moves fibre faster, creates more opportunity for workers and contractors and ensures local logs go to local mills. The work toward a working forest model is rolling out to support a balanced approach to the sector that incorporates conservation and harvesting values. These legislative changes give BCTS the ability to operate differently than in the past, moving away from rigid approaches towards working together in a new and better way.

I would like to read another quote, from Lenny Joe, CEO of the B.C. First Nations Forestry Council. “The forestry council supports the current BCTS legislative amendments, as they align with First Nations long-term stewardship and enable more flexibility within the program. The legislation emphasizes full rotation management and a stronger accountability. These changes are a positive first step towards rebuilding social licence, and we look forward to BCTS better reflecting the needs of First Nations and forestry communities.”

First Nations have emphasized the need for earlier involvement, clearer roles and approaches that better reflect rights, title and community priorities. These changes respond directly to the feedback by enabling more adaptable long-term relationships that support community stability, capacity-building and shared stewardship outcomes.

[6:30 p.m.]

For our region, this is not an abstract forestry policy debate. It is about jobs, local mills, wildfire resilience, community partnerships and the future of working forests that have shaped life in the Cowichan Valley for generations.

These changes are meant to improve fibre access, create more opportunity for contractors, deepen partnerships with First Nations and strengthen stewardship of the B.C. forests. That matters here because forestry is still part of the economic and social fibre of the valley.

The amendments are designed to move local logs to local mills faster, to increase the amount of fibre available to the market and to create new opportunities through commercial thinning, salvage, wildfire risk reduction and community partnerships. In practical terms, that means more work for logging contractors, more reliable supply for mills and more chance to keep forestry dollars circulating in our communities.

One of the clearest benefits for the Cowichan Valley is the support for local employment. The changes will increase fibre supply by as much as 500,000 cubic metres, and this would support fast fibre delivery and stronger local economies. For a region where forestry jobs and trucking, milling and value-added manufacturing all affect family incomes, that kind of supply improvement can help stabilize work and support local businesses.

The amendments also support smaller and mid-sized manufacturers, which is especially important in communities like ours. B.C. Timber Sales say that the new contract types are intended to improve access to fibre for value-added manufacturers in ensuring the right logs go to the right mills. That could help local businesses that make specialty wood products, housing materials and other high-value items instead of simply shipping raw logs out of the region.

Another major benefit is wildfire resilience. The legislation makes it easier to salvage damaged timber from wildfire, windstorms and insect outbreaks while also supporting commercial thinning and wildfire risk reduction. In a time where climate change is making forests more vulnerable, that is not just good for forest management; it is community protection. Healthier, more resilient forests can lower risk, improve long-term planning and reduce the chance that future fires will threaten homes, roads, watersheds and businesses in the Cowichan Valley.

There is also an important reconciliation dimension. B.C. Timber Sales say its work is increasingly tied to partnerships with First Nations and local communities, and the province says that the amendments will deepen their partnerships. That is especially relevant here, where forestry decisions intersect with Indigenous rights, land stewardship and shared responsibility for watersheds and surrounding forest lands. Stronger partnerships can help create more legitimate, local-rooted decisions that better reflect the people who live, work and steward this land.

The changes are also supporting long-term stability. B.C. Timber Sales is being empowered to manage timber sales licences through a full rotation, from harvesting to replanting to the long-term stewardship and future harvesting. That matters because the Cowichan Valley needs a forestry sector that is not just reactive to crisis but planning for the long haul. A stable, predictable working force supports investment, jobs and healthier ecosystems over time.

We should also be honest about the challenges. These amendments will not solve every problem in forestry. They will not, by themselves, end mill curtailments, resolve every land use conflict or fix all the pressures facing rural communities. But they do represent a step forward toward a more flexible, more responsible and more community-focused forestry system.

[6:35 p.m.]

For the Cowichan Valley, that means more than timber. It means local work for contractors. It means better chances of keeping the logs and jobs close to home. It means more support for First Nations partnerships. It means stronger wildfire resilience. It means a forestry system that is better aligned with the needs of the community that depends on the forest, that lives beside it and cares about its future.

If we want a Cowichan Valley that is prosperous, resilient and respectful of the land, then we should welcome reforms that help local fibres stay local, support good jobs and strengthen stewardship for the next generation.

I’m looking at the time. I do have a little bit more time. I would like to end with a quote. It’s a quote from Kelly Marciniw, chairperson, B.C. Wood Specialties Group association.

“B.C. Wood is pleased to see the continued evaluation of B.C. Timber Sales moving forward on the recommendations from the BCTS task force. Increasing opportunities to access fibre in B.C. means we can build more in B.C. for housing to world-class wood products sold locally and internationally. Local fibre supply is part of the modern value-creating ecosystems that include good-paying jobs and locally paid taxes.”

Donegal Wilson: It’s always a privilege to rise in this House to speak to a bill. Forestry is close to my heart, so Bill 14, the Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, is something I’m looking forward to speaking to today. For me, forestry is not just another sector in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, if you go out to the rotunda here in the building, it is one of our pillars of what this province was built on.

It is everything for rural B.C. and, honestly, for the cities of B.C. as well, who depend on the economy that forestry does build. For me, it supports families, it sustains communities, and it creates careers that have spanned generations. There are many people in my community that have worked in the forestry sector over three, four generations, sometimes longer.

For many rural regions like mine, Boundary-Similkameen, it’s not just a part of our economy. It is the anchor of our economy. For some communities, it is the economy.

Any legislation that we’re considering has great impacts for my community, and with this particular piece, I want to be optimistic. I want to believe what the minister shared when he introduced it — that this is going to get more fibre to our mills, that we’re going to reduce wildfire risk by doing some mitigation, that we’re going to get those silviculture crews out. I want all of those things, and I’m hopeful that we can see, in committee, how this bill is going to help that.

From the conversations I’ve had with industry, there are a lot of concerns in this bill and specifically concerns around adding more regulation, more statutes, more steps for forestry to get through in order to move forward.

For me, it supports contractors. It supports truckers, silviculture crews, equipment operators. It also supports mechanics, welders, our dental hygienists, our doctors. Many of the people in their families also work in the forest industry. Our schools, many of our teachers, many of our nurses are all supported by the forest industry. So when the fibre moves, our communities move. Also, when fibre slows, communities feel it immediately.

My community of Grand Forks this last fall felt it immediately. Our mill closed for a short period of time due to a number of compiling problems — most of them relating to costs and policy to get to the mill as well as, obviously, markets outside their control. I’m thankful that that curtailment over Christmas was lifted.

[6:40 p.m.]

They were able to get the crews back to work, and I’m optimistic that that mill will be able to continue. But we need to do everything we can in this House to make sure that happens. We need to make sure that those jobs stay for Grand Forks, because immediately we lost three businesses in Grand Forks just with that curtailment.

I know that there are other MLAs in here from 100 Mile and other areas that have experienced similar. Those business closures are immediate. So I’m hoping that this bill is everything the minister said it would be and that this is going to help our forest sector, because they really need our help.

The framing of Bill 14 from the minister is as a modernization bill. It has been presented as legislation that’s intended to improve flexibility within B.C. Timber Sales. It’s intended to improve access to damaged wildfire timber and support wildfire risk reduction, specifically near communities and infrastructure. These are really important objectives that I do support. I believe that we need to get, especially, the wildfire risk reduction.

Previous to being an MLA, I never understood why we’d wait till we’re on fire to get out into the forest and try to contain it, rather than working on removing fuel ahead of that risk. I’m hoping that this particular bill will help us get out into the forest and make our forests healthy again.

Anyone who’s travelled through Manning Park recently can tell you how tinder-dry that park is and how much dead standing timber exists within that park. We had a small wildfire in it last year, and my concern is that we are going to have a much bigger wildfire.

I believe this legislation is trying to meet those outcomes, and I’m looking forward to committee, where we can get into the consideration of it. I also think that this is more than a technical modernization exercise. I believe that it introduces structural changes to how B.C. Timber Sales is going to operate long term. Because of that, I think those changes really need to be looked at and clearly understood by everyone in this House.

B.C. Timber Sales plays a unique role in our forestry system in this province. It’s not just another tenure holder. It provides access to timber, it supports market pricing benchmarks, and it plays a critical role in supplying fibre to our mills across British Columbia, including the mills in my own riding.

I want to acknowledge the input I’ve received directly from industry as I prepared to speak to this bill. Their message was clear. Their number one concern is fibre access at a competitive market price. It wasn’t tariffs. It wasn’t U.S. It was none of those things. It was access to fibre at a competitive market price.

That is not a theoretical concern, and it is also not a concern outside of our control. That is something that this House could make some significant moves on, and I hope that this bill supports that.

The concern from within my riding is how we also emphasize the importance of prompt utilization of timber that’s damaged by fire, pests, disease and blowdown. I believe this bill intends to do that, and I support that. I know that when we’ve had forest fires in my riding, that wood today is still standing, burnt. We never did get to it in time to log it and benefit from that fibre. It is just sitting there now as, actually, a landslide risk for many areas in my community.

They also emphasized something else that I think this House needs to hear clearly. Active forest management and timber harvesting can coexist and do coexist with environmental objectives. Our logging companies on the ground, our mills, our contractors are doing great work in the forest, and we need to figure out a way to enable them. We need to manage our forests for water, wildlife and old growth. It does not have to mean a complete harvest stop.

I’m the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. I believe strongly in our beautiful British Columbia and what we need to maintain that. We can do both. We can harvest our timber and have beautiful British Columbia.

I think that these are practical realities from people that are working in the sector today. I challenge everybody in this House to go talk to your industry. Go home and talk to your logging companies, understand what this bill is proposing, and bring what you hear back to the committee stage, because I think all sides of the House could contribute to some changes in this bill.

I think one of the most significant changes introduced in Bill 14 is the expanding of the contract logging authorization.

[6:45 p.m.]

Traditionally, B.C. Timber Sales has operated by selling our timber standing. We operate on stumpage fees. Licensees harvested the timber, they held the risk, and they figured out how to make money with it. They figured out what their bids were, how they were going to make the roads, the bridges, the culverts, the environmental things. They did all of that in their bids, and they made sure that they could make money. If they didn’t, the risk was theirs.

This shift brings the shift to government. This bill is proposing that we will harvest the timber under contract logging authorization and retain that timber right. So we will not be collecting the stumpage fee. We will, actually, as government, contract-log and retain the timber.

I look forward to the minister explaining to me more how he thinks that this is the direction that we need to go for British Columbia and the wins he sees. He didn’t speak to it extensively in his opening remarks for this bill, so I’m hoping in committee that we can get into it.

It does represent a real, meaningful shift in how we do business in B.C. It puts us in a direct operational role in harvest activity, in roadbuilding, in bridge maintenance. I think that raises important questions that we need the answers for in committee. I also wonder: under what circumstances will contract logging replace a traditional timber sale? When will we be using this tool versus our traditional tool?

Stakeholders have also asked how contract logging authorizations will function in practice. What does this look like on the ground? If the Crown retains the timber after harvest, what are we doing with it? Where are we marketing it? How will that pricing transparency be maintained? Who ultimately carries operational responsibility for those sites? How will these structures interact with existing tenure systems? I think these are really reasonable questions. I hope that as this legislation proceeds, we’re going to get the answers to that.

Consistency between districts has been brought up as a real concern. This bill provides the ability for decision-makers regionally to add further curtailments and/or predictability around what that looks like on the ground.

What is the framework for that, going forward? How will we ensure that it’s consistent between the South Peace and the Kootenays? How do we ensure those regional managers aren’t putting unnecessary and unreasonable things into the permits that’s not consistent? Will groups be investing more in the North or in different regions because they have a regional manager that’s making different decisions? I have some concerns around that.

Obviously, mills plan around predictability, and I feel like this adds a real element of unpredictability into the operations of the mills and the people that are logging. If we no longer know clearly what the rules are around it and they can be different from block to block, how does that feed into forest landscape plans? How does that feed into operations plans?

We’ve heard that it’s already very hard to go block by block on approvals rather than having your whole plan approved, so I think that this could add even further into that.

I think another provision under this bill that deserves some attention is directly related to the language around revenue-generating timber activity. Historically, B.C. Timber Sales has served two primary purposes. It’s to deliver timber to market — which, obviously, assists our bottom line here in the province — and it supports market-based pricing for the benchmarks.

Removing that linkage raises important questions about whether the role of B.C. Timber Sales is changing. Is it being repositioned as a broader land management delivery agency, or are we still just talking about wood? What does this mean for mills that depend on predictable access to timber supply?

If that shift is intended, it should be clearly explained, and I hope that the minister is able to provide us some details in committee. Communities like mine are depending on that fibre reaching the mill, and they need it both timely and affordably.

[6:50 p.m.]

I think there’s also a capacity issue that needs to be discussed within this bill. The operational scope of B.C. Timber Sales, in its existing format, is struggling to meet its mandate. The minister’s own letter says that he’s to get to 45 million cubic metres. Our chief forester says we should be at 60 million. Here we are at 27 million, I think, as the current forecast. So we’re not hitting half of that, and we’re not heading towards our goal. We’re actually getting less.

I’m worried that if B.C. Timber Sales is struggling now…. What does it look like, going forward, if we’re expanding the scope of this agency? The ministry’s own budget does not identify any significant new staffing or operational funding to support these expanded responsibilities, and I think that raises some practical questions.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

If B.C. Timber Sales is already struggling to get wood out the door under its existing mandate, how will expanding that mandate improve fibre delivery outcomes without additional resources? Legislation alone does not move timber. People move timber, capacity moves timber, and operational support moves timber. Those are questions that remain unanswered.

But noting the hour, I reserve my spot and move to adjourn the debate till tomorrow.

Donegal Wilson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 15 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Section C reports progress on Bill 11 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jodie Wickens moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:38 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment
Amendment Act, 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Would the minister like to introduce her staff or make opening remarks?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m pleased today to bring forward the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, for consideration by this committee.

I’d like to thank my colleagues from across the way for their considered comments and questions on the proposed legislation. I was pleased to hear that we share an understanding of the important place the Environmental Assessment Act holds in communities across the province. I also appreciated hearing that members understood not just the importance of the act but the positive intent of this proposed legislation.

Your comments and questions reflect the significance of more effective consensus-seeking, predictability and timelines in decision-making and meaningful environmental protections. I look forward to your questions today and having the opportunity to address some of those important issues.

I’d like to start off by providing the clarity members were seeking. We heard questions about the what-we-heard report that came out of the early engagement phase of our legislative review of the act. Members asked whether there would be further legislation brought forward under that review. The answer is yes.

[3:40 p.m.]

In 2024, the EAO initiated the review of the Environmental Assessment Act, which is a statutory requirement of the act itself. The EAO conducted extensive engagement with multiple groups that participate in environmental assessments, including First Nations, industry and local governments. The goal of that work was to understand what improvements to the act may be necessary.

The legislation before us today does not address the full scope of that review. It prioritizes a critical issue identified by both First Nations and industry. The EAO will continue the review process to address additional challenges that we heard during the engagement in a phased approach. We anticipate bringing forward further legislative proposals to improve the act as we move through the review.

Another important theme raised by the members opposite was the importance of the predictability of process and timelines. This is also something we heard from communities, industry and First Nations in our engagement. That’s why increasing process predictability and timeliness is a central purpose of this bill.

I will draw your attention to some critical aspects of the legislation that focus on this outcome. The members opposite raised concerns that the proposal for an issues resolution process does not have legislated timelines attached. Let me assure you that timelines are addressed. The issues resolution protocol will be used within the existing legislated timelines. Legislated timelines are a key feature of the act. They help keep the process on track and create better certainty for all those participating in the process.

The existing legislation has five decision points in an environmental assessment where dispute resolution is available. Each of these points, if triggered, could delay the assessment process by 90 days or more.

This bill removes potential dispute resolution opportunities from the end of the assessment in favour of the new issues resolution process. The tool will help to identify and address issues earlier in the assessment and, as stated earlier, occurs within the legislated timelines. This change will create greater process predictability and improve timelines.

I also heard questions about whether the bill creates opportunities to delay project assessments with issues that might not be in the scope of the act.

Under the existing framework, dispute resolution is initiated unilaterally by a participating Indigenous nation. It does not allow for an opportunity to first determine whether the substance of the dispute is appropriate for dispute resolution.

The bill before you proposes an alternate approach, one that requires agreement by the parties first to determine if the matter under dispute is within the mandate of the environmental assessment office to resolve. This, too, will yield additional process and timeline certainty by ensuring that only matters under the mandate of the environmental assessment office will enter that process. The issues resolution protocol being proposed under this bill will provide the tools required for parties to address issues early and, in some cases, redirect issues to more appropriate processes.

Members asked about matters of discretion and whether some matters would be addressed in regulation or policy. In particular, we heard interest in the issues resolution template that I referred to in my opening remarks.

At this time, I want to note that we are actively consulting and cooperating with First Nations and engaging with industry to inform the issues resolution protocol. An early draft of this template, which was based on our engagement in the fall, was included in the intentions paper posted publicly in January of 2026. We anticipate completing our consultation on the protocol in the next few months.

I’d also like to speak to the discretion available to the chief executive assessment officer on the use of the issues resolution protocol and dispute resolution.

During the EAO’s extensive engagement to develop the bill, the EAO set out potential criteria governing the use of the chief executive assessment officer’s discretion. This received broad support. The ongoing engagement will support development of the policy for the proposed changes in the bill.

[3:45 p.m.]

This policy will set out the criteria in detail, the timelines for decision-making, as well as what the chief executive assessment officer must include in their reasons for decision, should they choose to use their discretion in relation to these tools.

Finally, I heard important points raised by the involvement of community members and proponents in resolving issues in the environmental assessment. Questions were raised about the potential role of these parties in resolving disputes. I want to assure the members that the proposed bill includes provisions to allow for impacted parties to become involved through agreement by the initiating parties.

They also require that all documents are posted onto the environmental assessment office’s project information website. This provides for transparency in the process.

I appreciate the commitment of the members for the insightful inquiries, and I look forward to our further discussion today.

Sheldon Clare: I look forward to today’s engagement. I want to thank the staff and the minister for being here today to respond to questions from the opposition.

Bill 15, 2026, appears to amend British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act to formalize structured dispute resolution processes and clarify participation rules for Indigenous nations in environmental assessments.

Its most consequential feature is the explicit exclusion of United States tribes from participation mechanisms otherwise available to Indigenous nations.

The bill appears designed to streamline project approvals while maintaining a framework of consultation and cooperation with Indigenous nations. However, it introduces significant constitutional risk, particularly in light of evolving jurisprudence on section 35 rights, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition of cross-border Indigenous rights in the Desautel decision.

The central legal vulnerability lies in whether excluding U.S.-based Indigenous groups unlawfully infringes constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights.

With that, I have some questions.

For clause 1, can the minister please explain why the definition of “dispute resolution facilitator” is being changed in this bill?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The dispute resolution, or clause 1 that you talked about, and offering why we were changing it from “dispute resolution officer” to “dispute resolution facilitator….” This is to correct a drafting error from 2018. The use of the “facilitator” wording is consistent with section 5 of the act.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister.

What practical difference does this new definition make compared to the previous one? I understand that there is a wording difference, but I’m wondering if perhaps, we can have a little bit more of a fulsome explanation of exactly why that matters in terms of making this parallel with other legislation. I’d like to know exactly what the reason was. They clearly had purpose for phrasing it this way when it was originally drafted, and I’m just wondering why that change would be necessary.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: To go back to the answer previous, this was a drafting error that was done in 2018. We are making sure that we are correcting that error and that this is consistent with other areas within the act.

Sheldon Clare: As I understand it, there is no expansion or narrowing of the role of the dispute resolution facilitator within this change. Is that correct?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Yes. There is no expansion within the role.

Sheldon Clare: To the minister: thank you for the response.

Why is the referral authority now specifically tied to section 18.5(6).

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is a change. Previously it was a unilateral referral to the facilitator, and now it only happens when there is agreement between the participating Indigenous nation and the chief environmental assessment officer.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her response.

As I understand it, this change limits when the facilitator can be engaged. Is that correct?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Basically, it means that we are moving from when the participating Indigenous nation can unilaterally refer. Instead, we’re moving to agreement between the participating Indigenous nation and the chief environmental assessment officer.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her response.

My next question is probably partially answered by your earlier response, but who determines who qualifies as a dispute resolution facilitator?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. Qualifications are under the dispute resolution facilitators regulation, 2024. This was developed in cooperation with both First Nations and industry.

Sheldon Clare: Were there any other parties that had ability to participate in determining these qualifications?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In addition to First Nations and industry, we also consulted with professional facilitators.

Sheldon Clare: Were members of the general public consulted on this particular matter of the qualifications for facilitators?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: No.

Sheldon Clare: Are these qualifications publicly available? As you said, they’re in regulation, so are they publicly available? If not, when will they be made so?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This regulation has been publicly available since July 2024 and is available publicly on the website.

Sheldon Clare: What is an issue resolution protocol in practical terms?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The issue resolution protocol is an agreement on how the participating Indigenous nation and the environmental assessment office set out a structured process on how issues will be resolved, with a focus on early resolution.

Sheldon Clare: Is the issue resolution protocol legally binding on the parties? Does it carry with it force and effect as a clause of the treaty or part of the agreement? Is this protocol…?

Say, in contract negotiations, when you set out a protocol, the parties agree on the protocol. They sort out their details — what colour paper they’re going to use and that kind of thing. Is this an item that has a legally binding feature associated with it?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: No. The result of the issue resolution protocol is a recommendation that would then go to the statutory decision–maker.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

I wonder. When one party or another violates a protocol, that’s usually a problem. It demonstrates a breach of matters. I just wonder if you could tell me a bit more about what happens if one party or the other does not follow an aspect of an issue resolution protocol.

If there’s some sort of a breakdown in that process, what does one party or the other do? Do they have another…? Do they have to get together? Is there someone who referees? What happens?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In terms of the issues resolution protocol, currently we are consulting with First Nations and industry on the draft of that protocol. The purpose of it is really to address the issues and the governance in terms of escalating issues to a higher leadership governance. But if the protocol fails to get a result, there are no legal ramifications.

Sheldon Clare: If the protocol fails, there are no legal ramifications. Does the process continue without a protocol? That can happen, I suppose, in some circumstances. Do you have means to correct and fix this problem in the absence of an agreement on protocol?

I find it interesting that you’re still consulting on this process. Of course, the legislation, as we can see before us, is still in process. But I just wonder. Is that sufficient to be able to come to an understanding of what happens if there is no protocol?

Usually, if there’s no protocol…. My familiarity comes with contract negotiations because I did a fair bit of that over 13 years. I just wonder. Where do you go from there? Often negotiations stop when you can’t agree on the base elements of protocol and how people will be addressed and who sits where and what else happens.

So I just wonder. Is that sufficient to keep it moving?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The standard protocol that we are currently developing…. If there is no specific issues resolution protocol with a participating Indigenous nation, then the standard protocol would apply.

Keep in mind that this is just one of the many tools throughout the act that we have to try to seek consensus. First, participating Indigenous nations still have access to procedural rights, including to give or not give consent to the project.

During consultations with First Nations, the EAO heard that there is a need to strengthen consensus-seeking throughout the environmental assessment process without resorting to third-party facilitation. Some First Nations shared their experience with such protocols under treaties, reconciliation agreements and other government-to-government agreements, suggesting that they may provide a strong model under the act.

Sheldon Clare: This standard protocol…. Is this protocol still under development, as I understood? Is that what you were saying?

If that’s the case, will this protocol form part of regulations? Will it be published on the website? What will this look like? How do you ensure that the standard protocol applies if somebody doesn’t like the standard protocol when you go into agreement?

[4:15 p.m.]

If you come in with a fait accompli and someone says, “well, I don’t like your fait accompli,” then you don’t have agreement on protocol. So I don’t see how the standard protocol would be able to be applied if there isn’t agreement on that. I just wonder how you respond to that particular problem.

I recall having to negotiate and discuss protocol at great length, sometimes over months, before we were getting into the meat of discussions and negotiations. Sometimes protocol is one of the biggest hangups on getting to what otherwise is viewed as a serious problem.

I’m not really sure I comprehend or understand the minister’s answer.

So if you could clarify that for me, I’d appreciate it.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: For the issues resolution protocol, it’s an opt-in option. Participating Indigenous nations can opt into this.

Now, they have the choice on developing their own. That includes their own governance, their own issues that they see. The standard protocol that we are currently consulting and cooperating on…. An early draft is currently available on our website. When the final draft is completed, it will also be publicly available on our website. It will be captured in policy, not in regulation.

[4:20 p.m.]

Really, just to go back again to the participating Indigenous nations, they choose whether or not to go into this. Some of the First Nations have already shared that such protocols already exist under treaties, reconciliation agreements and other government-to-government agreements.

Sheldon Clare: Which First Nations have already recognized those particular protocols?

You specified that some had already done so, and I just wondered which ones.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: During the consultation and cooperation process, we consulted with 46 First Nations. Many of them identified the use of such protocols in existing collaboration agreements.

Sheldon Clare: Could I get a list of those particular 46 First Nations who were consulted and indicated those particular existing protocols, please? Perhaps if I could also get copies of the particular protocols that they referred to, that would be helpful.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: If you go back to the website and the intentions paper from January 2026, you will find a list of the First Nations that were consulted with. That list is publicly available on the website, and you’re free to go in and check that out.

Also, we were not provided copies or samples of the protocols. We just heard it during our consultation.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response.

[4:25 p.m.]

Is there any thought about how to obtain copies of these protocols, given that you’re formulating a protocol to use? Is it not useful to consider existing ones?

I just wonder if there are efforts being made to make use of these particular, at least, 46 protocols that are possibly out there already to help develop and craft a standard one and perhaps to be useful in formulating any negotiated protocols that may come up in the process of negotiations.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Right now we’re doing the consultation in cooperation with industry and with First Nations on developing the standard protocol for this particular piece of legislation.

When we began the engagement process with the communities and with industry, we didn’t want to be prescriptive. We wanted to hear from them. We wanted to build on their expertise, and this was information that they were providing to us. This makes sense for us. We’ve done protocols and other agreements. We would like to bring that here.

During our consultation and cooperation that we’re doing right now to build the standard protocol, we’re going to rely on our partners and industry to bring forward those.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response. It seems like a reasonable approach to developing protocol, which can be a very sticky process all around.

My next question is about technical tables and leadership tables. I wonder why it is necessary to formalize technical tables and leadership tables in legislation.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The definition that has been included for “technical table” has been put in place to provide a minimum structure to help with the step-by-step scope of the issues resolution protocol.

Sheldon Clare: When I’m looking at decision-making bodies such as technical tables or leadership tables being formalized in legislation, the question that comes to my mind is whether or not these tables are decision-making bodies or if they are advisory bodies. I would like to hear what the minister says in regards to that particular question.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: For the leadership table, you asked the question on whether it was a decision-making body. This is, as we talked about in previous answers, an advisory body, and it’s to provide the minimum structure within the issues resolution protocol that will then yield a recommendation to the statutory decision–maker.

Sheldon Clare: I got part of the answer to the question, but I wondered about the technical tables. What role do they have? Is their role one of providing consent? Is it a consulting role? Is it advisory? Is it decision-making? What roles do this and the other table have in that regard?

There are all sorts of circumstances around how this kind of a forum could be made use of. I think it’s important for clarity to have a good picture of exactly what the roles of these two enshrined tables in this legislation would be.

[4:35 p.m.]

If we’re going to be making these changes and having this legislation in place, I think we need to have a very clear understanding of the role of any bodies established under this legislation.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Both of these tables are advisory tables. The technical table exists to try to resolve the issues, the technical issues, and the leadership table is there to assist when they are unable to find resolution to the issues. But again, it goes back. It yields a recommendation to the statutory decision–maker.

Sheldon Clare: I wish to thank the minister for her comments in that regard.

So it’s a recommendation to a statutory decision–maker. The leadership table doesn’t have any statutory authority then. Is that correct? It doesn’t have authority to make a decision or to provide consent or to withhold consent. It makes a recommendation, but this is not a binding recommendation. Is that the case?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: To be clear, there is no statutory decision–making at either of the tables. However, just a reminder that participating Indigenous nations can provide their consent or non-consent within the act.

Sheldon Clare: With regards to consent or not, and with regards to what happens at a leadership table or technical table, is consensus part of that particular process?

If that is the case, is consensus something that, if it fails…? What happens at that table if we have a breakdown in consensus?

[4:40 p.m.]

As I understand it, consensus is an important aspect of First Nations decision-making processes. Many years ago I was teaching policy- and procedure-manual writing for First Nations in the central Interior. I taught some courses for participating First Nations in that regard. I remember the role of consensus and the need to understand governance structures. I think I learned probably more from them than they picked up from me in that regard.

It was quite an interesting process, turning a chain-of-command chart and a standard org chart, which I was going from, and being schooled that, in fact, the circle works better, with inclusion of things like Elders and the potlatch and the role of the clan system and everything else that’s incorporated into that decision-making process intended to reach consensus.

When you have consensus, you have a unified front, and it’s a much stronger face to present. I just wonder if that plays a role in this process.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This will be just one of the many consensus-seeking tools that are available under the act.

We know that during the whole process, we are seeking to receive consensus. We know that when we are seeking consensus, it does lead to more durable decisions for all parties.

[4:45 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: One of the great things about consensus is that it shows unity and it shows commonality of goals and purpose. However, what happens when someone disagrees? Does that, in effect, provide a veto? Does that lack of consensus kill it, if someone says no?

We heard in the treaties that the votes were very, very strong, but they were not unanimous. I think that represents more of a democratic process of voting and everything else like this, secret balloting, perhaps, depending on how such votes were made.

I know in my experience, sometimes we had votes taken on contract matters. Although it was prescribed how that voting was to take place, the decision was made by consensus before a ballot was ever printed, which is a remarkable achievement nonetheless.

What happens if there isn’t consensus?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The purpose of the issue resolution protocol is so that we can identify, early on, what the issues are and try to reach resolution on those particular issues. Again, the recommendation goes to the statutory decision–maker.

Sheldon Clare: Why is the definition of “participating Indigenous nation” being changed?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The change in the definition to “participating Indigenous nation” is only to exclude the U.S. tribes from participating Indigenous nation status.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for that response.

I wonder what policy objective is achieved by excluding a United States tribe. I mean, there’s clearly some sort of a concern or issue about the ability of United States tribes to participate in the process. Why is it the case that they’ve wanted to participate? What policy objective is there in excluding them?

And what…? Well, that’s probably fine for that. I’ll let you respond to that before I go further.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The policy objective is that they support the EAO’s ability to differentiate consultation between U.S. tribes and B.C.-based First Nations on environmental assessments.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. On environmental assessments.

Now, when we’re looking at matters that cross the border…. I mean, it’s well known that the weather knows no line like that. It certainly can be a thing across…. Climatic zones can be across borders. Rivers, creeks, forests, the composition of these various natural elements, the Rocky Mountain Trench, the coastal mountains — all of these are geographic features.

Like that, it has certainly been the case that many First Nations groups have conflicting problems with borders, which they may see as not being something that they participated in establishing. Notwithstanding things like the Quebec Act and the changes in the Royal Proclamation and the results of the American Revolutionary War, which basically threw a lot of that into the bin after that war was established and the British view of the world was changed….

How does the government justify excluding certain Indigenous groups based on geography?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The EAO has a current and long-standing practice of engaging with potentially affected Indigenous communities in the U.S. where there are potential transboundary effects associated with proposed projects located in British Columbia. The duty to consult with U.S. tribes will continue. We are not excluding them from the consultation, only from certain procedural rights which will be available to B.C. First Nations.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

I guess my next question would be this reference to the United States list. Who determines what entities are included in the United States list, and how does that affect the deliberations with regards to the consultation process?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is determined by United States government agencies.

Sheldon Clare: Why is it that a foreign publication, the United States Federal Register, is being incorporated into provincial law in British Columbia? It is a feature we have no control over. I doubt that we are consulted on the composition of this register.

I don’t know that we send delegations to the United States to advise them on anything that might be a pressing need or affect our own legislation here, and I would be surprised to learn if they have any such inclusion of anything of our provincial law in their particular laws. But maybe I could be corrected on that, of course.

I just wondered. Why is that foreign publication being referenced in provincial law?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The reason we are including this is that it provides the most definitive list of the U.S. tribes.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the information.

The most definitive list? Are there other lists of U.S. tribes, and are any of these lists in dispute? Are there arguments about who should be on this list? Are there disputes within U.S. tribes themselves about who should be included? And are there overlapping issues and disputes with them affecting this particular process?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This is the most official and recognized list that has been established under federal statute.

Sheldon Clare: By federal statutes in the United States, not by Canadian or British Columbia statute. Is it based on any interaction with border states to British Columbia? I mean, British Columbia does border more than one state, and as this is an international aspect, it’s certainly the case that the federal parties would be the ones doing these kinds of chats, I would expect.

I think the division of powers in the Constitution Act in section 91 talks about how the division of powers for international agreements would be the purview of the federal power, not the provincial power. So I’m just wondering. In that regard, is there some sort of a process for this list that engages not only the federal authority but also our border states, as well as any interaction with Canada or British Columbia in order to establish the content of this list?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I would like to just read out the definition of the United States list. It means “the most recent list published by the United States Secretary of the Interior and the United States Federal Register under section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, United States, as that list is updated from time to time.”

Sheldon Clare: I thank the minister for her response and drawing my attention to the United States list in the clause. I see that part of the clause.

But my question was more about how that is changed or updated. It says “updated from time to time.” How does that happen? Do we have any say in that whatsoever?

[5:10 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: For the list, the publicly available list, it is recognized that it is appropriate for the U.S. government to be updating that list. I believe that within the definition, it says that it is published by the United States Secretary of the Interior in the United States Federal Register.

I think that it is appropriate to rely on the U.S. government list to determine who is officially recognized as a U.S. tribe. However, within the Environmental Assessment Act, it is still a requirement that we consult with U.S. tribes on their section 35 rights.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her response.

The Chair: The committee is going to take a ten-minute break, and we will return back at 5:30.

The committee recessed from 5:18 p.m. to 5:32 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, back to order.

We’re on clause 1. I believe the member for Prince George–North Cariboo was about to ask a question.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am a great admirer of your memory.

Through you to the minister: thank you for your answer with regards to the United States Federal Register and the information with regards to that being utilized.

I have a few other questions about clause 1 that I’d like to get into now.

My first question, more of a general one: could the minister outline which new definitions introduced in clause 1 materially change how projects enter or move through the environmental assessment process?

What is happening in this bill that causes things to change, if anything, and if so, why is that the case? What material changes are we seeing in how projects are moved through the environmental assessment process?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The definition for “issue resolution protocol” will enable a new tool to identify issues early and improve timelines and process predictability.

The definition change for “participating Indigenous nation” will provide greater clarity on who has access to procedural rights, and, again, it will increase the predictability of the project.

Sheldon Clare: Are any of these new definitions intended to expand the number of projects captured by environmental assessment requirements?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: No. They are not.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your clear, concise answer. I always like those clear, concise answers.

My next question to the minister is: were the proponents of this bill consulted specifically on the wording of these new definitions prior to the drafting process?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: For the definitions related to the issue resolution protocol, yes, the proponents were consulted.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your response.

Further, does the minister anticipate that any existing projects currently underway could be reclassified as a result of these definitional changes? Would you think that anything that’s happening now might have a material change in its potential outcome or how it’s assessed or how it’s looked at or how it’s examined?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: For existing projects, the changes are intended to increase predictability and reduce timelines, and this will have a positive impact on some that are underway.

Sheldon Clare: Okay, so for some of these projects which will have a positive impact…. Are there any that will be negatively impacted or could be perceived in that regard, depending on how these changes apply to them?

I’ll let you answer that one.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: At this time, we anticipate that it will have positive impacts on assessment outcomes.

Sheldon Clare: Which projects are these? How many of them are there? How long have they been in process?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: There are 17 projects that are currently within the environmental assessment process, and currently the names and information of these 17 projects are available on the public website.

Sheldon Clare: Can the minister identify whether any of the updated definitions introduced in clause 1 require further clarification through regulation before they are operational?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: No.

Sheldon Clare: Will there be any interpretation guidelines for any aspect of these changes in the bill? Will there be any interpretation? Have you got something published on the website already about this, or are we still working on things?

I believe the minister mentioned earlier that there was a bit more discussion underway for a number of aspects of how this would roll out.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We are currently consulting on the policies that will guide the implementation, and once those are completed, they will be publicly available.

Sheldon Clare: Will any of these guidance documents be available before this comes into effect? I’m taking it that perhaps they won’t be, and I’m wondering if those guidance documents will be purely advisory or if they will be binding.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We’ve already published some of the draft policies under the intention paper from January 2026, and policy is not legally binding.

Sheldon Clare: I guess I want to try to do a little bit of a scenario and see how things would affect a particular project.

[5:50 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister could walk the committee through whether the definitional updates in clause 1 would change how, for example, a mid-size mine expansion project enters the environmental assessment process, compared with the current framework. I wonder if any additional mine expansions would now fall into assessment thresholds as a result of these definitional changes.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I just want to remind the member that we are on clause 1 and that we’re looking at the definitions. The definitions enable the implementation of the bill, so we need to stick to that.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Sheldon Clare: Why is section 5 being repealed in its entirety?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: For your question, in this bill, we are introducing new language around the dispute resolution process. As a result, section 5 is being repealed.

Sheldon Clare: What mechanisms previously existed under section 5 that are now being removed?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: In section 5, that section aligned the process to be referred to a dispute resolution facilitator.

Sheldon Clare: So that took the clause through to a dispute resolution facilitator. Who would have been involved in that particular process of dispute resolution? Would this involve people from First Nations, industry and other interested parties?

If so, which interested parties in particular would have been involved in that dispute resolution process under the clause as it currently exists and is proposed to be repealed?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: To be clear, this only described the process that the dispute resolution was being referred.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

Does that repeal reduce access to dispute resolution in any way?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This does not reduce who has access to dispute resolution.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

I wonder, perhaps, if the minister could guide me as to how ongoing processes will be affected by the repeal of this section. For example, say, if you were to have a large municipal drinking water treatment upgrade enter assessment, would it change when this entered assessment? Would it change how it was affected with dispute resolution in that regard?

The Chair: Just a reminder to members to keep your electronic devices on silent.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The impacts on existing projects that are being assessed will be dealt with in later clauses.

Sheldon Clare: Sometimes when we repeal statutes, we’re taking them right out and we’re not considering, perhaps, that maybe there could have been an issue resolved by amendment. I just wonder why this particular clause was chosen to be fully repealed instead of amended.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As we talked about in clause 1, we are introducing a new tool and a new process. As a result, we need to incorporate new language, so the previous language was no longer relevant.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. So if this clause was no longer relevant, does this clause change in any way when First Nations enter the assessment timeline?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: There is no change in that regard.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister.

I understand that the minister indicated that there’s a new tool, and when you have a new tool, you throw out the old tools, I guess, and you have a new way of doing things. However, I’m not really clear what the problem is in the existing early engagement phase that the removal of this clause is intended to solve. I’m not sure how that relationship works. Perhaps that’ll come up in later clauses to some extent.

I’m just wondering. What is the problem that this is supposed to be looking after?

Well, I’ll let you get to that, and I can answer my other thoughts.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: This new process is outlined in the upcoming clause 4.

The Chair: We’re on clause 2.

[6:10 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for pointing that out.

I’m wondering. It may well be that we have to dive into clause 4 a great deal as we move through this. However, because of this repeal and because this is this particular clause, I do want to concentrate on this clause to get a better understanding of why it’s removed, new tool and all this notwithstanding.

Part of the means of examining a statute is to evaluate that statute to see how effective it is and if it is being successful in its intended purpose. So if we’re looking at this particular clause, how are we to determine whether repealing this clause leads to a successful outcome after implementation?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Asked and answered in the previous question.

Sheldon Clare: With all due respect to the minister’s response, I don’t feel that I have the answer as to how success will be measured.

If that’s just going to be referred to clause 4, I think I want to have a better understanding of the effect of clause 2, because this is the one that’s being repealed. I want to really dive into why this is being repealed and why that’s necessary.

I know it’s a short space on the paper when we’re looking at the bill. It just has a little spot here. Clause 2: “Section 5 is repealed.” That looks very simple, but clause 5 has a little more substance to it. I think I want to understand that a little bit better, about why we’re changing the tool, why this is new, and how that’s going to be looked at, evaluated for success.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Again, with respect to the member, in a previous answer that I gave on this specific clause 2, I said that in this bill, introducing new language around the dispute resolution process…. It will be replaced, and we are coming up to that in clause 4.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

I do understand that there’s going to be some explanation of that in a subsequent clause. Again, I just don’t want to gloss over what was an important part of this particular act. Is there anything being taken out of this clause that is not being dealt with in subsequent clauses?

The Chair: That’s not going to work, unfortunately. That won’t work. The minister has already provided an answer to this question, and I know you’ve tried to reframe it. The minister, again, has stated that your question will be better responded to in a future clause.

If you have a different question, I would suggest you pose that to the minister. Otherwise, I’m not going to deem your question in order.

Sheldon Clare: Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the clarification.

When considering this clause for repeal and when crafting subsequent matters — or without reference to subsequent matters; pardon, Mr. Chair, if you’ll indulge me — were there specific elements of this clause that were somehow problematic and could not merely be amended?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As I talked about earlier, this clause described a process. That process has now changed, and we have new language that is coming up in additional clauses.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Sheldon Clare: Why is subsection (1.1) being added to exclude U.S. tribes?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: To support the environmental assessment office’s ability to differentiate consultation between U.S. tribes and B.C.-based First Nations on environmental assessments.

Sheldon Clare: What consultation occurred with affected Indigenous groups with regards to this clause?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The environmental assessment office conducted consultation and cooperation with B.C.-based First Nations on these legislative amendments.

The environmental assessment office sent notification letters to 67 B.C.-based First Nations whose territory overlaps with areas where U.S. tribes have asserted or established section 35 rights.

The environmental assessment office also sent notification letters to 20 U.S. tribes.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the detailed response with lots of good information there.

Does this particular exclusion raise any concerns under section 35 of schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The province will continue to consult U.S. tribes where appropriate, but outside of the participating Indigenous nation framework. The amendment does not impact the EAO’s ability to discharge any constitutional obligations it may owe to U.S. tribes in relation to major projects.

Sheldon Clare: Besides section 35 of schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982, are there any other sections of the Constitution Act which were considered in the changes to this clause?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: These are procedural rights that are established under the Environmental Assessment Act and in no way impact our obligations to consult.

Sheldon Clare: How does the minister reconcile the duty to consult and exclusion of U.S. tribes with reconciliation commitments?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The amendments will support reconciliation with First Nations by maintaining the distinction between B.C. First Nations’ and U.S. tribes’ participation in provincial environmental assessments.

Some B.C. First Nations have expressed significant concerns about extending participating Indigenous nation procedural rights to U.S. tribes, including that this could affect their governance roles and treaty rights. These amendments support the notion that the province’s commitments to reconciliation are with B.C. First Nations.

Sheldon Clare: Are there projects in which U.S. tribes have historically participated in this regard? Could we have a bit of a survey of that to see if this affects that kind of participation in any way?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We have and will continue to fulfil our duty to consult outside of the participating Indigenous nation framework.

Sheldon Clare: I think I’ve got a bit of a partial understanding of this, but I’m not really fully cognizant of the effect of this. What happens to cross-border Indigenous interests under this provision?

I mean, there are places in Canada where there are reservations and reserves that are on the border, and there are cross-border situations that are fairly hot in that regard. I’m wondering if there are any situations that are likewise capable of causing any issues in British Columbia.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The environmental assessment office has a current and long-standing practice of engaging with potentially affected Indigenous communities in the U.S. where there are potential transboundary effects associated with proposed projects located in British Columbia. The environmental assessment office considers all information that may be brought forward during the environmental assessment process, including in relation to any potential impacts on Indigenous nations and their rights.

The EAO’s approach to consultation with U.S. tribes is determined on a case-by-case basis and is consistent with the law and the province’s constitutional duty to consult.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the comprehensive answer.

What sort of legal advice was this exclusion based upon? What level…? What types of legal considerations were made in making this decision, and what sort of references to authorities were made? What sources of law were considered in making this exclusion of U.S. tribes?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Unfortunately, I cannot disclose privileged legal advice because it is subject to client-solicitor privilege.

Sheldon Clare: I respect the answer about legal privilege. I just wonder what considerations were made in a legal sense. I know I’ve asked this, and you can’t release legal advice. But I think what I’m trying to understand here is…. There must have been some significant criteria on which this was based.

Without getting into anything that would compromise the legality or the advice provided, could you, perhaps, explain a little bit of the factors that were under consideration with regards to making this exclusion and how you came of a mind that this was a necessary part of what had to happen here to make these changes?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I know we’re getting late in the day, and it’s tough for these questions.

[6:40 p.m.]

I will just go back to an answer that I did already give, and that is that the amendments support the province’s commitment to reconciliation with B.C. First Nations.

Sheldon Clare: Does the effect of this change create differential treatment between Indigenous groups?

If so, what is the difference in that treatment, and how is it manifested?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: To support the environmental assessment office’s ability to differentiate consultation between U.S. tribes and B.C.-based First Nations on environmental assessments, therefore, U.S. tribes will not have access to procedural rights under the Environmental Assessment Act, and we will still fulfil our constitutional obligations outside of the PIN framework.

Sheldon Clare: I think I want to understand a little better about the potential for litigation arising from the exclusion of U.S. tribes. I wonder about any risk analysis that has been done with regards to potential litigation.

Has there been any litigation started? Is there anything out there that is potentially a problem for enacting this with regards to a U.S. tribe or any other Indigenous group, for that matter, asserting rights that they feel may have been infringed upon with the operation of this clause?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The amendments seek to clarify U.S. tribes’ participation in environmental assessments for all participants, including proponents.

Lummi Nation and SEITC have filed petitions challenging their lack of PIN status. I cannot speculate on potential litigation.

I move now that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 3:33 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Agriculture and Food
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of budget….

I’d ask everyone to take…. We’re going to take the volume down a minute. Thank you.

We’re in a meeting today to continue the consideration of budget estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $108,012,000 (continued).

Ian Paton: I’m going to start off with talking about what we went through yesterday. Unfortunately, I’d have to say that with government being in debt to the tune of $185 billion, the deficit being $13.5 billion, the government and the Agriculture Ministry…. If they were baseball players at bat, their batting average would be zero. I’m going to read out why.

Yesterday I heard no increase to the Agriculture Ministry budget. I saw $5.5 million, zero increase to the ALC budget, and the ALC is going to have to cut off six staff members.

I saw $695,000 an acre being paid for ALR land for the new lab to be built on — an extraordinary price of $695,000 an acre.

We brought up the Trespass Act, which I bring up every year. There has been really no change or no movement on the Trespass Act, which I bring up every year.

[3:35 p.m.]

I bring up every year the $2,500 classification for farm classification. There has been no change to that.

The agricultural wildlife program has been cut from 80 percent payout to farmers to 51 percent payout.

I see no change to the issue with elk, which I bring up every year, going: “What is government going to do about the elk problem in British Columbia?”

Then I see that we’re adding PST to agricultural venues, such as architects, bookkeepers, engineers, different things like that. It has been added to agriculture.

Then, of course, we see that the lowest spending on agriculture per capita in Canada is right here in British Columbia. Once again, they’re first in that.

No change to the illegal dumping issues that we have in B.C. A $16.5 million drop in our crop insurance funding. Reducing funding for the farmer information program up in the Peace country.

The minister seems to be quite lukewarm on expanding food processing, yet it’s observed in her mandate letter that the Premier wants her to improve and move forward with more food processing in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, that’s the opening statement I’d like to make.

My first question will be back to production insurance. The minister said there has been a mathematical glitch — why? I’m not really seeing — even though the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the B.C. Dairy Association, the B.C. Agriculture Council, all pointed out that there has been a $16.5 million drop in our production insurance.

My question to the minister. If we go back to yesterday…. You’re saying that if, in the upcoming years, there’s more flooding, there’s more deep freeze to our crops, there’s more drought, there’s no more rain, like in 2010 where farmers couldn’t get potatoes out of the ground, there will be a full payout of crop insurance, if any of these things happen in future?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: We did go over this yesterday, but I don’t mind going over it once again. The member is concerned about the line item of production insurance in the budget for this year. I think it might be the way that I’m explaining it.

Every year this does cause some confusion and questions, because when it shows up in the budget, it doesn’t actually have a line item in our budget. We have to put it into our estimates to show that this production insurance account exists, but it’s a forecast.

It is a self-sustaining fund. If a farmer who signs up for production insurance pays their premiums and then submits a claim, and it’s an eligible claim, they will get paid out. It doesn’t matter if the number of farmers putting in claims and the number of claims exceed that line that the member is looking at. They will get paid out.

Just to go back over it, anybody who signs up for production insurance, pays their premiums and submits an eligible claim will get paid out, regardless of that number that the member sees.

I will say that the Cattlemen…. We did call the Cattlemen. They are fine with it. They understand. B.C. Agriculture Council understands it. B.C. Dairy understands it.

I think it throws people off because it does fluctuate. It’s a forecast that fluctuates every year. We could probably go back. I haven’t done this. If you go back, it’s a different number every year. But in the end, it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that the people who are signed up, paying premiums, submitted an eligible claim — they will be paid.

Ian Paton: Okay, thank you for that answer. This is exactly why I’m asking. If I have to talk to every farmer in this province about production insurance….

My next question is: is there a cap on the production insurance? If we get umpteen climate events all at once, is there a cap on the total payout?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I think that is a good question. I think the way to look at it is…. I don’t want to go too far into the weeds on this one, but it’s similar to ICBC. You buy insurance, you have a car accident, and you get paid out in a claim.

ICBC is self-sustaining, so it just kind of rolls along. The only limiting factor could be that there would be…. Whatever the insurance package that the farmer has signed up for, perhaps there is a cap within that package. But as far as the insurance line item goes, it’s self-sustaining.

I’ll just say that 2024 was a very significant year for claims, and then last year, not so much. So that’s why it most likely dropped this year.

Maybe I could send the member the line items that have happened every year over the last ten years and just see the fluctuation. But honestly, it’s probably easier to think of it like an ICBC situation.

Ian Paton: My next question will sort of stick around production insurance.

The production insurance account special account saw the largest decrease in the 2026 Ministry of Agriculture and Food budget, of $55 million to $41.5 million.

My next question is: will cuts to the production insurance account special account have any impact on the AgriStability program?

Hon. Lana Popham: The programs are not connected, and maybe I’ll just take the time to say that all of these programs are in partnership with the federal government.

We have a five-year agreement. Every province and territory signs on to the sustainable agriculture agreement. We’re working on the next iteration of that right now, as ministers, right across the nation. We have an allotment for the five years; we all work within it. Those programs are not connected to each other. They all have their own funding streams.

Maybe I’ll also just add that the member did open up today by discussing some of the really difficult times that we’re having, and I think he’s shone a very negative light on agriculture and the work that we’re doing. In fact, there has been a lot of positive investment, and I think the farmers really appreciate that.

We did…. It sounds like the member may not be in support of the new lab. I am really proud of the work that’s going to be done there to support agriculture and food in urban British Columbia and rural British Columbia.

The member does seem to be taking issue with the placement of that lab. I hope the member understands that if you’ve spent any time at our current location, you will see farmers, most of them coming from the Fraser Valley, coming in and out of that lab all day long. In fact, when I was just there, I chatted….

Interjection.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Okay. Well, there you go. I’m going to take the time, though, because the member did try to shine quite a negative light on it.

When I was there just a number of weeks ago, a dairy operator was bringing in two newly born calves that didn’t make it, and that testing needed to be done immediately. He was met by the folks at the lab, though there was an intake on those animals, and the testing was done over the next day or so. That information is so critical to know if there’s a disease outbreak in a dairy barn. The member will know that, because he has a dairy background.

The reason why I’m saying that is because the majority of farm owners and users of our lab, currently, are from the Fraser Valley area. We don’t want them driving in. The member offered his own property as a location for the lab yesterday. We don’t really want to have the farmers from the Fraser Valley going into Delta or another area that’s more inconvenient. They’re trying to drop samples off so they can get the results and get back to their farms.

Location is really important, and that is a location that I think we all agree is the most efficient for farmers. Obviously, other areas of B.C. also use that lab, but the majority of users come from the Fraser Valley. I hope the member understands that.

That is a half-a-billion-dollar investment that Agriculture, this government, is making on behalf of farmers and food producers. I understand that the member is a critic, but in this case, everyone in agriculture celebrated this announcement, and we are all looking forward to cutting the ribbon and getting that lab underway.

Ian Paton: You corrected the statement by saying I have, in past, taken deceased baby calves to that lab. I know all about that lab. And I’m not saying we don’t need a new lab. I’m saying that’s okay. We all celebrate it.

I’m saying that somebody stepped up and offered a group called the Panatch Group from Richmond B.C. that owns some ALR land in Abbotsford $695,000 an acre for a 40-acre farm, for a building that’s going to be concrete and steel. The minister keeps saying: “I don’t want to see processing on our good agricultural land.” But it’s okay to put this lab on a piece of agricultural land at $695,000 an acre?

A farmer in the Fraser Valley right now is lucky to get $150,000 an acre if he’s trying to sell his farm. That’s all I’m saying. I’m questioning the process and the cost of doing this.

I guess I’ll…. You know, I want to get on with some other questions, but I might as well skip ahead.

To the minister: where is the money going to come from to build this multi-million-dollar lab, and when will the start date and the completion date be?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe I’ll start off by just responding to what the member said about my views on food processing. I love food processing. I have never said I didn’t want food processing. Food processing is a permitted use in the agricultural land reserve, and we see a ton of it.

I’m going to a ribbon cutting in the next number of weeks for an egg-processing facility that is just outstanding. There are a lot of different food-processing projects coming down the line that will be housed in the ALR. So we could get the member a list of activities that are happening, but there’s a ton of processing going on. We just also have to have a balance between processing and our primary food production lands, and that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

It is hard to get the member’s take on what the member would like to see in the ALR because there have been a lot of different messages coming my way. I think that the member also wants to protect our most critical food-growing lands, but maybe he can make that point himself.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. Lana Popham: Then as far as attacking the site that we’ve landed on for the new lab, there were 70 sites that were looked at. Citizens’ Services goes through that process. We give them the criteria, and after going through 70 different sites, this is the site that they came upon.

One of the very important criteria was that it was outside the flood zone. We know that is a threat, and that’s why our lab is damaged the way it’s damaged. It’s because it has now sustained many different flood activities.

I’m happy to stand and be proud of that site. We will, over the next year, see activities around requests for proposals for builders. We’re going to be looking at a plan to come over the next year and a bit, breaking ground in 2028. These are all normal timelines for a project of this scale.

Let me also remind the member that I am happy to walk him and his colleagues through what this site will offer. It’s nothing that we’ve ever seen in British Columbia. It’s really meeting the moment as far as food production, different types of agriculture, different types of testing and, also, the diseases that are coming our way due to climate change and the fast-changing environment.

We’ve got plant diseases now that are moving across North America, and we will be set up to do the testing on that, be able to give that body of work and partner with academic institutions to try and come up with the most future-proofed breeds of plants, the best way to tackle the things that we’re seeing around avian influenza.

[4:00 p.m.]

I will say it every day, how proud I am of this investment. And, I think, as an agricultural province that produces over 200 land-based commodities and processes hundreds more, we should all be congratulating agriculture for getting this type of investment at this particular time when money is short.

The money is part of our infrastructure fund, and it comes through the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that.

Maybe one more time I’ll try and get this through to the minister. I completely agree that a new lab is wonderful for agriculture in B.C. The only thing I’m saying is: how do you justify…? No wonder your party has so much financial trouble right now if you’re paying $695,000 an acre for agricultural land in the ALR.

Let’s move on. It’s bizarre to me. I mean, I’ve got farmers in Delta on beautiful prime farmland that can’t get $100,000 an acre for their land right now. But apparently some company named Panatch…. I don’t think the Panatch company were farmers. I don’t know. They’re probably developers or investors. Boy, they hit the jackpot. They hit the 6/49 when somebody came along and said: “We need your 40 acres at $695,000 an acre.”

My next question is to do with production insurance. Will the current minimum deductibles for insurable crop losses remain unchanged?

Hon. Lana Popham: The answer is generally yes. But like other insurance programs, farmers can choose which program they want, and then the deductibles can vary depending on what they sign up for.

Gavin Dew: In March of last year, the Premier made a big show of removing red state liquor from B.C. liquor store shelves.

In April — I believe it was April 25 — of last year, a commitment or a signal was given to craft distillers that change was coming, specifically that there would be action taken to address production caps, to address VQA equivalency and to resolve shelf access.

I gather those were commitments that were made to industry. I can say that I stood in this room and downstairs, and I asked similar questions of ministers, and I was told that action was coming.

It’s now April of 2026. Can the minister clarify which of production caps, VQA equivalency and shelf access has been resolved?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s a topic I am also really keen on, and I was really thrilled to get this file last summer and took a short bit of time to get up to speed. I’ve also been involved, in my past life, with distilling and wine making, so I do love the liquor file.

There were outstanding issues when I came in as minister, and we are currently working through the internal processes to make some changes. We should have some announcements in the not too distant future.

I think who the member is referring to is the president of the craft distillers and probably the owner of Okanagan Spirits, which is a really fantastic business in the Okanagan. The discussions we’ve had with him; with the other distillers; and, of course, with the BTAP group have been critically important. Just met with them two weeks ago.

We’re internally keeping people up to speed, and we are working away to have some deliverables.

Gavin Dew: I won’t belabour the question on that. I would just point out that when I visited Okanagan Spirits in Vernon last Friday, I had the pleasure of seeing the new still that they purchased. It’s a quarter-million-dollar piece of equipment with another quarter-million dollars of adjacent equipment.

There are a whole bunch of people in that industry who have made significant capital investments on the basis that government would do what they said they would do last April. I hope that the minister will take action and get this done soon.

Let’s talk about another industry. B.C.’s cannabis industry is facing severe economic challenges due to excessive taxation, burdens from regulation and a lack of enforcement against illegal operators. Sales of regulated cannabis have reached or exceeded $6 billion. This is a really, really big industry.

I asked this question last year in estimates. I’ll ask it again. Where is the government’s economic development strategy for the cannabis sector?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Again, thanks for the question.

I think one of the signals that we are very hopeful about on the future of cannabis is that the Premier moved it into the Ministry of Agriculture. That is probably the most welcoming news that the industry has received in a very long time. It really shows that we are putting a fine point on the things that Public Safety just was not able to focus on in their capacity. I’m excited to have it. It’s a huge industry in British Columbia. We see huge growth happening in our export market, which, of course, is the medical cannabis side.

The member probably knows, but over 100 cultivators and six section 119 agreements with First Nations…. We are working on a number of things: supporting the export market, allowing cannabis to use the Buy B.C. logo and working on not just domestic marketing but international marketing.

One of the things that the cannabis industry brought to me almost right away was their concern around the excise tax. We’ve been working right across the country with our partner provinces and territories to ask the federal government to review the excise tax. I feel really positive about that. There has been a shift over the last couple months. We have a letter that was sent to the federal minister, signed on with our Finance Minister. We are making, I think, really good gains there.

We’ve also been working with our east coast partner provinces to harmonize the excise stamp, which is another thing that they have really been asking for. I feel like the cannabis file is really exciting, and it’s fun to watch it grow. It’s amazing how big it is for farm-gate sales in British Columbia, and I expect it to grow.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

It has been a decade since cannabis was legalized in this country, so it’s good to hear that, finally, the file has been moved to somewhere it can be treated as an industry. But it is disappointing that it’s taken this long. I hope that things will start moving at a pace faster than getting craft liquor on shelves.

I’d like to talk about wine. I’d like to talk about the vintage replacement program, which has been a source of considerable frustration for growers, as the minister is aware. The Olympic average component of that vintage replacement program, as the minister is likely very well aware, has created severely skewed incentives where fast-growing wineries have effectively been punished for their success.

To quote one winery operator in a letter that the minister is probably aware of in regard to — their characterization — the absurdity of the situation: “We’re given a Hobson’s choice. We can opt out, making the wines we have made illegal to sell as a land-based winery, or opt in, which will inevitably lead us to the same tax issues in 2026. Neither option will enable us to retain our employees and sustain our business after the devastation caused by the total loss of our crop in 2024.”

It really feels as if this particular program, while well-intentioned, has resulted in a situation where, effectively, wineries feel that they’re being punished or where selling more B.C.-based wine accelerates the loss of support and puts them in a situation where they’re effectively being punished for having taken the program.

[4:15 p.m.]

They’re extraordinarily frustrated. I’ve heard from many wineries on this. They feel as if the conversation has dragged on to the point where it is making things almost untenable for them as businesses.

I wonder if the minister can provide an update on how those issues are being resolved for the industry.

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. Yes, I’ve spent quite a bit of time on this issue and have been meeting with many, many wineries in the Okanagan, being very connected to the B.C. wine growers association.

Just so the member knows, the vintage replacement program was designed in collaboration with the B.C. wine association, and the Olympic average number was also done in collaboration with the B.C. wine association.

Interjection.

Hon. Lana Popham: Sorry?

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. Lana Popham: The other thing I think that is really important about this program and…. Two years. First year we weren’t sure it was going to continue a second year, but we understood that the wine industry needed a bit more time to recover.

I don’t have to tell the member that it is devastating what happened. As a former vineyard owner, winemaker, myself, to see those dead vines out in those fields was like getting a gut punch. It was so devastating.

That being said, going back up there now, there’s new life. Some of the plants that they thought were dead have come back. I’ve gone through, as I’m sure the member has, riding along in a little tractor through these vineyards. It’s a huge sense of relief this year when they started to come back, especially just seeing that recovery happen. It’s a message that the wine industry is so resilient, and it will continue into the future.

[4:20 p.m.]

I believe that this particular story that’s happened to us is part of the story that consumers want to hear, and I’ve been chatting and been very encouraging of winemakers, wineries, the tourism industry telling that story, because that is what really brings consumers to understand who we are as a wine region in the world.

Obviously, when this instance happened, it was devastating, and the role that we could see playing was to give some relief on markup. In the first year, that equated to $181.7 million in markup relief to the wine industry, those who signed up for the program.

There was a ton of conversation; communication; many, many letters; many industry round tables where it was communicated, I believe, very clearly that this was not a program for growth. This was a program to help you get through the disaster. I think that it was laid out very clearly on what you could and couldn’t do. The majority of people did what they were supposed to do.

Comes to the next year. I was the minister at that point. We reviewed what had happened in the previous year. We made a really hard decision. It’s tough economic times, but we made a very hard but, I think, important decision to carry it on for one more year. So it was a commitment of another $181.7 million.

We’re almost getting close to $400 million in supports, and again the same message was given. This is not a chance for growth. This is a chance to maintain, within this particular area of your business.

I know that there is a handful of folks that are not happy with it. The majority of the wine industry that I’ve talked to is happy with it, and, in fact, they don’t want the program to continue, because I think everyone has now found their confidence. They feel like, going forward into the future, B.C. grapes will continue, at this point, to be their main source.

I do understand that there have been some folks that have had some complications, and I feel confident that folks at the LDB are working through some of these problems with those folks.

I would be happy to have the member come to my office and to give the member a timeline of what went out and the information. It was very, very clear, but I also understand, in a moment when you’re very devastated…. Anybody who’s been through an agricultural disaster of any sort…. You’re really just trying to find your way through. So perhaps, there was some information that was overlooked at the time, and that’s understandable. That’s why we’re spending time with those folks to try and get them through this particular issue.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you to my colleague for allowing me to speak on the brewery file.

According to B.C. Business, B.C. is home to about 240 breweries. There were about $1 billion worth of sales between 2024 and 2025. And $769 million was from B.C. domestic breweries; $92 million from imports.

According to B.C. Craft Brewers Guild, since 2026, markup rates have favoured foreign-owned breweries. B.C.’s three largest are Labatt, Molson and Sleeman. On top of more favourable markups to foreign-owned breweries, they also have less production costs due to scalability in packaging, ingredient costs and overhead costs, resulting in larger profits going to foreign-owned breweries — profits which leave B.C.

For an example, foreign brewers can produce a can for about 36 cents. Domestic is up to 95 cents per can, so there’s quite a significant difference even on making the cans in which they sell the beer.

The more successful a B.C. brewer becomes, the more they’re penalized due to the taxation rates on hectolitres sold, and the threshold. Large brewers’ markups are reduced by 60 cents a litre on the first 50,000 hectolitres, which ends up being a markup that is lower than the markups charged on mid-size and small B.C. brewers.

In 2025, over 20 B.C. brewers closed. And we’re not talking breweries that are new start-ups trying to navigate a market. We’re talking substantial breweries that have been in existence for a very long time.

[4:25 p.m.]

I have an example of a long-established brewery in my area, which…. You know, we’ve got small businesses covering MSP coverage, the increase in sick days — all of those things that impact small businesses — and, on top of that, they had to pay out $300,000 of seasonal product that got stuck in the BCGEU strike sitting in a warehouse. They had to buy back their own product when margins are extremely slim right now for the industry, and that was just to be able to secure their shelf in the B.C. Liquor Stores.

I know that in September, the B.C. Brewers Guild was in communication with the Ministry of Agriculture advocating for a shift in how markups are charged, which would result in only a 1 percent increase to the foreign-owned breweries and would actually be revenue-neutral for the treasury. So this is not…. The taxation shift, or the markup shift wouldn’t actually cost; it would be revenue-neutral. It seems like a relatively easy thing that we can do to support B.C. businesses.

My question is: at a time that a record number of B.C. breweries are closing, why are we still giving deals to foreign-owned breweries over supporting local breweries?

And in light of the conversation that happened in September, when can changes to the markups be expected, at a time where time is critical for a lot of these businesses? How long before they see those changes, and how long are we going to keep supporting foreign-owned breweries over B.C. breweries?

[4:30 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m really glad to see the member and happy to have the question about craft breweries.

Craft breweries are just one of the real joys in our province, and we’ve seen many communities right across the province have success in supporting their local craft breweries. These are companies that…. Some of them are very, very small, but they have a major impact on the feel of the community. They’re like the heart of the community, a gathering space when people are really looking for that kind of thing. People really want to support local. Some of these microbreweries, literally two kilometres is their distance that they’re acquiring inputs, so they’re really, really important.

I know that there’s been a conversation on how to make life easier for folks like that. Maybe just as an overall global snapshot, alcohol consumption globally is declining. Beer consumption in the province of British Columbia is declining. These important businesses are still critical to not just urban British Columbia but rural British Columbia.

I recently had a group of them, just two nights ago, in my office, where the Craft Brewers Guild put forward a lot of the things that the members have been talking about. I’ve committed to doing a review of the markup. That seems to be the top issue for them, so we’ll be working through that over the next number of months.

There are other things, as well, that I think are really important. The craft brewers get money through Destination B.C. for the Ale Trail. We are supporting, through our liquor stores, Craft Beer Month. And just over the next number of weeks, there will be a reminder at our B.C. liquor stores to buy B.C. We’ll see some stickers outside and some window decor asking people to consider buying B.C.

There’s a lot of other things that can be done, but I know their top issue is the markup review, and we are working towards getting that done.

Misty Van Popta: I just want it for the record that they asked for this in September, and we’re seven months later.

Breweries are closing down every month, so time is of the essence. If we can get on public record when you expect to have this review done and these markup changes in place. We’re not talking just microbreweries. We’re talking ones that are selling in B.C. Liquor Stores which have the capacity to sell across Canada, so it’s not just the small, little guys. It’s the mid guys that are really struggling and starting to close their doors.

If we can just have it on record that time is of the essence for these industries, that would be appreciated.

The Chair: Sorry, Members. I would like to just ask for a little bit more moderation in our conversation.

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m not able to give a timeline on that issue, but I can say that we are in direct contact with the organization that represents those craft brewers. They are comfortable with the communication that’s happening right now, and they know that we’re committed to making sure we get on with that review.

I absolutely understand that time is of the essence. The conversations that I had with those folks really hit home. I understood this already, but the storytelling that they’re able to do about what they would do if they had a little bit of extra money…. They would most likely invest it back into their businesses, making sure that they can continue to be part of the community, hire more people.

I absolutely know their value, and we’re doing that work as fast as we can.

Ian Paton: I’ve got to say I’m so frustrated that, apparently, my four hours is up, and I’ve got so much more to bring up. It’s unbelievable.

I promised the folks in the horse-racing industry I’d ask this question on their behalf. The minister will know that the horse industry in British Columbia is huge — whether it’s recreational horses, show horses, horse racing, etc.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hastings Racecourse had operated for 133 years and supported hundreds of workers, horse owners, breeders, trainers and rural suppliers across B.C. Can the minister explain why her government allowed the closure of this historic agricultural and racing industry without a transparent process, without meaningful consultation with stakeholders and without a transition plan, effectively backstabbing an entire sector that depends on provincial oversight?

They want to know who was consulted, when the decisions were made and why the most affected agricultural workers and union staff were left in the dark.

I can say to the minister that I had a Zoom meeting with over 100 people in the Hastings Park racing industry that are desperately trying — I’ve connected them with the city of Vancouver, so Gary Johnson and Denise Praill — to put together a racing card for August and September of the upcoming year.

My questions to the minister are exactly that that I did. Who was consulted? Why was this decision made? They feel like they were not part of this decision.

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks to the member. I’m sorry our time is ending. We’ve had a great time, as always.

To the member’s question, I understand the concern around the folks that are involved in horse racing from an agricultural perspective. Actually, through this ministry, a few years back, we helped fund a study looking at the horse economy in British Columbia. It’s really significant overall, top to bottom. Right here on Vancouver Island, a huge horse economy is happening.

Interjection.

Hon. Lana Popham: Yes, exactly.

Specifically, the decisions around Hastings horse-racing track, those consultations and decisions came through the Solicitor General’s office. I would encourage the member to attend those estimates to ask the same question that he just asked me.

Horse racing falls under the independent gaming control office, which has become an independent office over the last couple of years. Originally, the same job was done through within the Ministry of Solicitor General. The gaming policy and enforcement branch has now changed into an independent office for gaming. That’s where horse racing and the game of horse racing would lie in responsibility. The member will have much more success going to the Solicitor General’s estimates.

[4:40 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister for your time, the last day and a half.

I just want to let you know that there are so many things I wanted to get into — the Premier’s task force, the select agriculture committee on carbon sequestration that I was on. I wanted to talk about tariffs. I wanted to talk about reconciliation, water issues, Bill 14, emergency response, carbon, all sorts of things I didn’t get around to.

The one thing, if your staff would like to make a note, is I specifically wanted to ask about elk, which we sort of got into. I want to be able to give some sort of an answer to our farmers in B.C. if the Ministry of Agriculture is doing something, whether financially or with fencing or with a cull program, to try and deal with the issues of elk. If we could get that in writing.

At this time, I think it’s my obligation to turn over to the independent member.

Hon. Lana Popham: Thank you to the member.

I know the member has a long list of things that he would have loved to have spent time on, and I would have loved that discussion, but the member knows that my door is always open. Always happy to have a conversation. The member can bring all of those topics into me at any time. Just because we’re in formal estimates doesn’t mean the conversation has to stop because our time is up.

Then as far as the issue of elk, I would invite the member to come to my office to have that discussion. There is work being done between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of WLRS on elk specifically. Happy to give more details. Let’s just have a meeting.

Jordan Kealy: I appreciate the questions asked. They’re all very important questions that my fellow colleague has brought up about agriculture.

I think elk is a very important question. I’ll tie into that right now. I’m kind of jumping into the questions as they come. In my region, this is a major issue when it comes to elk and wildlife damage to crops.

When you see the decrease between 80 percent to 50 percent in coverage, what is the minister actually going to do for the crop loss damages that our farmers are now experiencing without actually dealing with the wildlife, the main problem of the increasing numbers of the herds?

Hon. Lana Popham: Happy to answer this question. We actually did have the question yesterday, but now I am much faster at responding because I already did it.

It’s a $5 million dollar pot for this funding. It’s not getting any bigger. What we’re doing is we’re looking at how to make that program more effective.

There are populations that are on the increase. The actual containment or management of those animals falls under the WLRS Ministry, so I would direct the member to go to WLRS estimates to also ask that question, but I can reassure the member that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and WLRS are working together.

We know this is an increasing problem. We are not getting any more than $5 million, so we have to find ways to mitigate and also to be more efficient with that type of funding, because we know the claims are going up.

That’s the only answer I can give the member today.

Jordan Kealy: With the projected $13.3 billion deficit in taxpayer-supported debt rising sharply towards $143 billion, your ministry’s operating budget dropped by over $16 million to $134.721 million, driven largely by a 45 percent cut to the production insurance account.

[4:45 p.m.]

The three-year plan trends even lower, towards roughly $130 million, amid broader public sector reductions of 15,000 FTEs.

Agriculture is essential. It is the backbone that feeds British Columbia. Peace River North holds roughly one-third of the provincial ALR land, over 1.2 million hectares. Many farms here, including my own, were built from nothing through hard work.

Yet this budget shows restraint, flat non-insurance spending — industry competitiveness, $47.84 million; programs and sector resilience, $20.241 million — and continued emphasis on regulation and enforcement, rather than direct incentives for production, processing and new farm entry.

I will ask. Does this budget actually help farms produce more food, especially in the North, or does it add barriers through cuts, red tape and policies that favour large and established operations over small and new producers?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think the two members should join forces, because we’ve canvassed this particular question quite a lot. But I’m happy to…. Maybe he’s still happy to listen to this explanation.

Interjection.

Hon. Lana Popham: That’s right. Okay.

The production insurance…. Although it looks like it has dropped this year, that’s not actually true. The production insurance is a self-sustaining program. I’ve asked the member for Delta South to think of it like ICBC. You sign up for insurance, you have a car accident, you submit a claim, and you’re paid out. It’s basically how the production insurance account works.

Some years there are a lot of claims, and that particular line looks really high. And then when we have had better years, it drops down. We haven’t had as many payouts. It actually is different every year.

It’s self-sustaining. If a producer buys production insurance, submits a claim and it’s an eligible claim, they’re going to get paid out, no doubt. So there should not be any worry from producers who are buying production insurance that they are not going to get paid out because that number looks different this year. It just reflects a change over the years.

In 2024, we had a terrible year. Tons of payouts. In 2025, not so much, and that’s being reflected.

Jordan Kealy: Well, I’m sure that’s great that the government loves it when there’s no payouts in one year compared to another. If my neighbour ends up having a whole bunch of crop damage and he’s expecting at least to maybe get 80 percent coverage and only gets 50 percent…. That’s great that you think that you can explain it as like an automobile — that somebody else gets the insurance coverage, and you now get less. The math doesn’t work.

[4:50 p.m.]

What’s happening right now is that farmers in my region…. They’re dealing with large amounts of wildlife. They’re having this damage occur. They’re expecting 80 percent for their coverage, and they’re getting 50 percent. This is a huge loss for farmers.

What is the government going to do to try and help these grain producers? Eighty percent of the province’s grain comes from the Peace region.

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. Maybe just going to clear up…. It’s a complicated issue, but we have two different programs. The member is referencing two different programs and has overlapped them into one program. So I’m just going to….

We have one program, which is production insurance. This is production insurance that producers sign up for. If they have damage, they make a claim, and they’re paid out. Then we have another program, which is the ag wildlife program. You submit claims to this program. It’s not like an insurance program. It’s a compensation program. So two different streams.

This one, you make a claim, and you’re going to get paid out. There’s no problem there. Sometimes there are more claims; sometimes there are less. Our account moves around, but you’re always going to get paid out.

This other program, we only have $5 million. We only ever get $5 million, so it does have a cap. We have more claims coming into this wildlife program for compensation payouts, and we run out because $5 million doesn’t go that far. We have tried in the past to go into contingencies in our ministry to try and be able to give compensation payouts, but we’re not able to do that right now. So $5 million is where it sits. If there are more, we take the number of claims and….

It used to be 80 percent; now it’s 50 percent. But we take the number of compensation claims, and we divide it evenly with everybody who has asked for compensation. That’s why there is such a staunch decrease that the member is reflecting.

Do we need more money in that fund? Always. The wildlife situation and the effects on agriculture are becoming more prominent. We’re working with the Ministry of WLRS on that, trying to be more efficient with the money, trying to figure out if maybe the program itself could be tweaked to reflect what the member is saying. That’s a work in progress. But as it stands right now, we have $5 million for that particular program.

Jordan Kealy: I think the province will have to figure out how they want to balance wildlife management and agriculture, whether or not you want your food supply to be stable and how you deal with your wildlife that is destroying crops as well. I think it’s integral that our food supply system is put in as priority.

I’ll go to…. We need to produce end products here to improve our own food sustainability rather than exporting raw commodities. Where is the money that should support local processing infrastructure going instead?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Great question. Been in contact with the B.C. Grain Producers Association. They come from up in the member’s area. What a great group of people.

I’m actually going to be attending the AGM up in your neck of the woods in July, I think, so maybe I’ll see you there.

Been in contact with them for a number of years, in my time as Minister of Agriculture, and I maybe go back, I’m going to say, eight years. Could be off by a couple.

Back then we started talking about value-added, specifically around grain, and at that time the price for grain was up, and it was all good that it was going off unprocessed into different markets. This year we’ve had some pretty good discussions about what value-added looks like for B.C. grain, and we’ve asked them to come forward with ideas that they have on what type of value-added they would like. Really looking forward to discussing that in July with them.

We have a strategic fund that has $400 million in it, and food processing is included if a project comes through that meets the requirements in the strategic fund, so there are lots of ways that we can support our food processors and value-added. At this time, the grain growers have yet to show me one of the projects that they might like to do, but I’m sure it’s going to be interesting.

We have supported food processing since 2017 with our food hubs and investments in food processing all around the province. Happy to send a list over to the member, if he’d like it.

Jordan Kealy: ALC funding remains frozen at $5.5 million since 2019, despite rising compliance demands, leading to six staffing cuts and longer delays for permits like barns and expansions.

In Peace River North, where viable farms start at 160 acres and scale up to hundreds of thousands of acres, and many operations, including my own, where they were built from nothing…. How will these cuts avoid making red tape even worse for producers?

[5:00 p.m.]

When will the minister recognize the ALC with distinct regional zoning for the North so the immense differences between the North and the Lower Mainland are recognized?

Hon. Lana Popham: As far as how the ALC operates, it does operate on a regional panel system. Applications from the North are dealt with and processed and adjudicated by people from the North, and that happens all around the province. So there is a regional system right now.

Then as far as the pressures on the Agricultural Land Commission, I completely agree that it’s a tough time for the ALC. They are going to be prioritizing applications that have agricultural interests, but I think it’s probably not lost on any of us that the majority of applications that get submitted to the Agricultural Land Commission have nothing to do with agriculture. They’re different activities. It’s not necessarily even food processing. There are a lot of other things that people want to do with farmland that put a lot of pressure on the Agricultural Land Commission.

Under the pressures they’re under right now, they have committed to focusing in on agricultural applications. I think that’s really commendable. I have a lot of confidence in them to fulfil their mandate. But, as I said the other day in question period, I know it’s going to be a lot tougher for them right now.

Jordan Kealy: How much new funding is dedicated to unlocking productive ALR land in the North through faster, regionally tailored approvals for 160-acre-up operations versus ongoing enforcement that ties up small, non-viable parcels?

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m going to have to ask for some clarification from the member.

I’m hearing, maybe: is there a priority for larger-size agricultural lots over smaller scale? But maybe the member has a specific instance that he’s thinking about. I’m happy to hear those details.

Jordan Kealy: I’ll use a perfect example. We see a diminishment of the ALR land reserve. Right now we see that reduce more and more. A perfect example is when Site C was done, and the land was flooded. We lost approximately 7,000 hectares of farmland that was the best land of my region.

What is the province doing to actually open up more farmland, more Crown land, and turn it into ALR land?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m just going to go back to a previous question because I found some information. My staff, thankfully, did. It’s about the value-added or accessory to primary production. There’s $1 million in funding for two projects in the Peace region. North Pine Farmers Institute…. I’m wondering if that’s in the member’s riding.

Jordan Kealy: Yes, it is.

Hon. Lana Popham: Perfect. Approved for $770,000 for a terminal bin storage expansion project, which is really great. That farmers institute is fantastic.

Then Optimum Grains Inc., a locally owned and operated agricultural retailer and seed-cleaning plant in Buick Creek. Same?

Jordan Kealy: Yeah.

Hon. Lana Popham: Okay, great. They were approved for $230,000 to invest in upgrades and an expansion of their fertilizer facility. Also approved in 2025, there was nearly $150,000 for seven projects in the Peace region that supported agricultural production and agrifood economy activity. We can get a list of those seven projects for the member.

There have been investments. We know that the Peace is an integral part of food security for B.C. Maybe we can meet for a coffee when I’m up there.

Okay. So agricultural land reserve. Maybe I’ll also clarify, just as a point of interest, that 54 percent of the ALR is Crown. I’m wondering if the member is thinking of opening up rangeland within Crown land. We can clarify that after.

Overall this past year there has been a net change to the ALR of 12.9 hectares, so we’re in the positive, as far as it growing rather than shrinking. That doesn’t take away from what the member said about the reduction in farmland because of Site C. I absolutely understand that. That was a very tough moment for farmers in the Peace, I know.

Moving forward, this past year there have been almost 13 hectares added.

Jordan Kealy: Okay. The 13 hectares…. That’s not very much. I think my chicken coops probably sit on about that much land.

What is the province’s plan for compensating for the fact that Site C took away that much prime farmland and flooded it out of 7,000 hectares, that diminishment of prime land? Where are they going to get new land for that?

It’s not like people are magically finding food somewhere else. We need farmland. Where is the province going to start allowing that to come from? That’s why I mentioned Crown land, bringing that into a viable farming practice.

Hon. Lana Popham: Agricultural land is limited. Although I said that 54 percent of the ALR is Crown and there are opportunities for that to have Crown leases for rangeland, etc., that’s a specific type of farming. The loss in the Peace was prime agricultural land. I think we all understand how difficult that was.

[5:10 p.m.]

There was a fund set up to help support farming and value-added with the agriculture Peace fund, $20 million. So that is there to support farmers to try and either bring other areas under production — whatever projects are agreed upon by the board that looks after that fund. We have seen some money released from that that I think went to some really good projects.

But no, we have 5 percent of land in British Columbia that is within the ALR. Probably half of that is viable land, and it comes in different types of classifications. So it is a precious commodity, and our plan is…. We have the agricultural land reserve. The commission has a mandate. It is the best land use tool that we’ve had for over probably 53 years now.

We stand alone as a jurisdiction with something that has been that effective at mostly protecting agricultural land. There have been instances over 53 years that we have seen good farmland be removed, but, generally, I’d say that’s a pretty effective land use tool.

Jordan Kealy: Well, going back to my wife’s side of the family, her great-great-great-grandmother was on the halfway of the land that just got flooded. They had a homestead there. The ferry came up the river, they came to their farm, and they got goods.

When you look at 7,000 hectares, $20 million is nothing when you think about what you can actually grow and make off of 7,000 hectares of land. Even when it comes to the tax base and the revenue that you generate off of that, it’s not practical thinking — the fact that you destroy that much farmland. And it’s just going to be turned into silt. You’re never going to get it back. And then you’re not opening up anything else.

Right now the province has to have a plan of whether or not you’re actually taking other Crown land that may not be as viable for cropping and allowing…. Right now it is not easy for farmers to be able to get into Crown land and turn that into farmland. It is not an easy process, and every farmer that I know of that’s tried to do that has gotten stonewalled.

The elimination of 7,000 acres is horrendous, in my mind, especially when…. Even when I have family ties to that land. It was the best growing zone in the whole region, and it was destroyed. So I’d say something different, but I’m not allowed to use those words in this room.

I will go to something different. I think that northern greenhouses and protected production face exponentially higher costs due to climate and energy realities, yet northward expansions are layered on more permits and compliance burdens. Does the budget include any targeted incentives or streamlined permitting for these high-cost northern operations, or is it more red tape simply being added on top of drought pressures?

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe just a clarifying question. I’m not sure what the red tape is, but maybe the member could tell me.

Jordan Kealy: When it came into the restrictions being put into…. The northern parallel being included into the greenhouse restrictions when it comes to the goods being grown and the red tape being applied.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I do understand what the member is referencing. This was some work that was undertaken by the Vegetable Marketing Commission. There have been additional consultations, and, I believe, a solution that made everybody happy has been the outcome of those consultations. That’s just very recently, but we’re going to get the Vegetable Marketing Commission to give the member a call.

Jordan Kealy: Yesterday it ended up coming up about the farmers outreach position in my region — of how her job got eliminated.

It got brought up by the minister that you could just easily reach out to the B.C. Energy Regulator, which had a similar program. However, the BCER is a primary regulator focused on permitting, compliance and industry oversight. It provides basic information and routes disputes to the surface rights board, but it does not offer proactive, independent, farmer-specific negotiation advice or advocacy tailored to protecting agricultural operations, soil, fencing, livestock management or long-term land productivity.

Local farmers and the Peace River regional district have stated that the BCER works more closely with industry and cannot replace the dedicated, agricultural-focused support the farmers information service provided.

With proposed wind farms adding new pressures on Peace River North farmland, why eliminate this independent farmers outreach support, and what specific comparative alternative, with dedicated funding and agricultural-focused expertise, exists in your ministry budget for landowners in my riding?

I’ll add right now that I had to deal with an abandoned oil lease on my property. And right now we’re having to deal with wind turbines. Just wait until those get abandoned, and you have a giant concrete pad sitting in your field. What is the government going to do to help you in that scenario?

Hon. Lana Popham: Let’s first talk about the farmers information service. I understand that the member is communicating that it’s a loss for the agricultural community, and he’s hearing that from constituents and farmers. We’ve been reassured that the attention that farmers will get through moving it over to the B.C. Energy Regulator will hopefully accommodate what they need.

[5:20 p.m.]

We learned a lot with the farmers information service when it was running, developing many different types of tools that farmers can use. Those aren’t going away. Currently it sits on the farmers information service website, but it will be morphed over into our ministry website. So those tools are still available for farmers to use, which means our ministry is available.

But really, the B.C. Energy Regulator is offering a service that they think will be comparable. If there’s any feedback that comes from that, I’d be happy to hear it. It’s definitely a change, and I know that is going to be hard for folks for sure.

If the member has more questions specifically on what’s being offered, I would direct him to the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions estimates.

Jordan Kealy: I would like to note that I think that her contract was $60,000, and no matter how you shift it over to the Energy Regulator, it will not be as efficient as that. It will end up costing more money. It just doesn’t make sense to try and shift over those services to another sector when she was already offering those in a very efficient manner.

I’ll move on to the next one. It came up to chickens yesterday — 20 chickens in farm status. I would like to let you know that in 2008, when I started my farm and I bought my farm…. The amount of investment that goes into buying the land and then the amount of money that goes into purchasing the equipment…. You buy a tractor, $100,000; bailer, another $100,000. You end up getting a whole bunch more supplies, tools, everything else. You end up getting all the animals.

Most of the time you don’t actually make money until several years down the road. So when you put a stipulation of…. Whether you say it’s $2,500, $10,000 or $50,000, all you’re doing is restricting people from getting into farming. You should be doing anything possible to allow them to get into farming.

I had to fight for three years, just for the fact I had cattle. The cows, when they had their calves, were heifers, and I wanted to hold on to them and build my herd. Well then, I don’t have steers to sell in the fall, meaning that I don’t have sales. How do I get my farm status? I actually had to work to be able to get my farm status. It’s not as easy as you think to just simply snap your fingers and get ten grand in sales.

Having that flexibility in those sales…. I don’t think it should move. I think you should keep them exactly where they are. I think if you shift them based off of just what commercialized farms want, well, then that’s all you’re going to have — commercialized farms. You’re not going to have versatile smaller farms that can adapt to a lot of different farming practices.

I just wanted to correct that the 20 chickens is never, no matter how you try and sell them…. My wife’s had some really expensive breeds. I don’t think you can sell 20 chickens to be able to meet your farm status. Unless…. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The Chair: Just for the member, being cautious with the use of the word “you” and making sure to keep comments as impersonal as possible.

Hon. Lana Popham: I think that it wasn’t selling 20 chickens. It was selling the eggs from 20 chickens. But that’s okay. The point is made, I think. You’ve made your point. Always looking for feedback.

Maybe just to clarify something. When somebody acquires new land for a farm and they are striving to get farm tax status, they work with B.C. Assessment. They submit a farm plan. There are a number of years that you have before you have to submit $2,500 or more. So I think that they do work to encourage new farming activities to happen. It’s quite a good system.

If you’re, for example, doing annual crops, they give you some time to kind of get your soil up and going, as long as you have a documented plan that you’re following. If you’re planting a new orchard, we know that it takes between four and seven years before production happens.

[5:25 p.m.]

There is a transition time that’s taken into account, but I take the member’s point, and it’s on record.

Jordan Kealy: I’ll jump on to another one. The list of PST-exempt items for farmers keeps shrinking, adding overhead when input prices, including volatile fertilizer, are high.

Farmers are the backbone that feeds the province. Will you commit to full PST exemption on all farm inputs?

Hon. Lana Popham: The member’s point is taken, and I would direct the member to have that conversation with the Minister of Finance.

Jordan Kealy: I just wanted to add to that one that when I started in 2008, the list of PST-exempt items was three pages long. It is now one page. It’s very difficult to try and get breaks on different things.

Farmers cannot reduce essential fuel use for crop production, livestock or other food-related activities. The carbon tax functions as a hidden industrial tax that raises food costs for everyone while leaving farmers with less money to invest.

Will the government provide a full carbon cap rebate or exemption for agriculture?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think I understand the question, but maybe I’ll clarify. Is the member asking for a carbon tax rebate for farmers for the time that the carbon tax existed?

Jordan Kealy: Before I used to get a carbon tax exemption with my farm status on the fuel or diesel that I bought, and now I don’t get that because it’s gone. Right now what got replaced was that we had a carbon cap that got applied to industry, and it made all the fuel prices higher. I’m asking if we can get that carbon cap amount removed for farmers off of their fuel.

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m going to have to direct the member to the Minister of Finance.

[5:30 p.m.]

Jordan Kealy: How much funding in this budget or through the $10.584 million liquor and cannabis regulation branch goes towards promoting cannabis and alcohol — a wide direct resource to vices — instead of incentives for actual food production, local processing, abattoirs and mills and making healthy food more affordable for families struggling at the grocery stores?

Hon. Lana Popham: Funds don’t go to promotion. They go to strong regulations and services to licensees who have licences to produce or sell cannabis or liquor. There’s also a lot of dedication towards public safety and responsible consumption, as far as promotions go.

Jordan Kealy: This pertains to the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board’s small-lot program supply management barriers. If the government and marketing boards truly care about small farms and new farmers, why do they not allow them to produce enough to earn a living without having to compete directly with large-scale operations backed by million-dollar corporations?

The B.C. Chicken Marketing Board’s small-lot program still limits producers to only 2,000 broilers per year, a number set around 2010 that has never been adjusted for inflation or rising costs. Small farms are told to buy quota, but there is no quota available. They must find a retiring farmer willing to transfer it. Even then the system is designed for barn-raised birds. Pasture-raised producers can be fined for not meeting strict quota production schedules every eight weeks.

In contrast, the USDA, under Public Law 90-492, allows small producers to raise and process up to 20,000 birds on-farm, with exemptions, enabling direct marketing and viable viewing.

My question to the minister: why does B.C.’s system preach about lowering food prices for British Columbians, while restricting small farms from scaling production to keep their own prices competitive and sustainable? How does this help new entrants or pasture-poultry operations in the North?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe first I’ll say that comparing the United States to Canada is like comparing B.C. apples to Florida oranges.

We have a supply-managed system here for eggs, for poultry, for dairy, and we fully support our supply-managed system. It is a system that creates a very stable working environment for farmers. It also is a stable environment for processors, and it really helps add to predictability on prices.

You can see that in the United States those prices fluctuate significantly. Prices of eggs were through the roof in the United States, where ours continue on at a supply-market price. I myself am extremely supportive of the system we have, and our government is also a supporter of supply-managed products.

The issue of how many broilers you can have — those decisions are made by the Chicken Marketing Board. It’s an independent organization, and government doesn’t weigh in on those decisions. I would direct the member to the Chicken Marketing Board if there are any queries there.

We, as government, do support small production and worked very hard to change meat regulations over the last decade. We have farm-gate and farm-gate-plus models that support small production anywhere you are in the province, and we’ve really made improvements on that.

When I first became minister in 2017, our government initiated, after a very long time of it being absent, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food. One of the first, I guess, assignments they had was to go out and do a tour of abattoirs to look at what is needed to support more meat production in B.C. I’m not sure any of those members ever wanted to be reappointed to that particular standing committee.

My official opposition critic was on it. Thank you for your service.

From that, we had an all-party list of recommendations that were presented. I think, at this point, we’ve accepted all recommendations and implemented all recommendations, so that was a really great use of the Legislature’s select standing committees to bring forward rules and regulations that support exactly what the member is talking about.

Jordan Kealy: I think I’m getting near the end of my time. Just for closing here, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the minister.

Producers of Peace River North — many of whom, like myself with my operation, built our farms from scratch with nothing — most of the time have had to work a full-time job at the same time that we’re trying to farm, on top of that.

We’re seeing cuts to production insurance and farmer outreach; flat ALC funding; staffing reductions; talk of raising farm status thresholds; higher property assessments — some, in my region, of over 100 percent, when it came to their property assessments; added red tape on greenhouses and energy regulations that might change, depending on when they phone me; restrictive supply management rules that cap small-lot poultry at 2,000 birds, while preaching lower food prices and funding for liquor and cannabis promotions — all providing no specific dollars for northern abattoirs, mills, value-added processing or targeted northern incentives.

The NDP preaches Buy B.C., but right now in my region, when I go to get my animals slaughtered, there is nowhere to really take them because the facilities are all completely booked up.

[5:40 p.m.]

Most farmers are forced into a scenario where you have to take your animals to the auction. Then from the auction, they go to feedlots in Alberta. Then they go to giant slaughterhouses that are normally foreign owned and that have temporary foreign workers. Then almost all the money goes out of this country.

Going back to when I was a child in B.C., there were over 100 small mom-and-pop slaughterhouses in B.C. Then the regulations changed, and they ended up having to shut down.

We need to build our infrastructure systems. And I would really love to know exactly what the long-term plans are for this provincial government as to what they’re going to do to build the main infrastructure backbones.

When it comes to apple processing in major ways, or fruit processing in major ways; when it comes to larger-scale abattoirs, allowing that growth to happen; when it comes to the larger mills for B.C. grain producers, these secondary processes are how we can actually really scale up the infrastructure for our food supply in Canada and British Columbia. I’m curious as to what the minister’s opinion is of what they can see happen in the next ten years for making us less reliant on buying from other countries.

Hon. Lana Popham: First off, the list of issues that the member has brought forward…. I think I’ve been pretty comprehensive in my answers and corrected a lot of the information that the member has put forward. I hope that the member will take into account the information that I’ve provided and maybe correct some of the opinions that he’s putting forward that I don’t actually believe are accurate.

I’m happy to run through those issues again with the member after estimates are done. My office is always open. But some of the statements that are being made are not accurate. These estimates are a place where we can have a more casual discussion than question period, and I’m putting forward the facts from our ministry. If that doesn’t change the opinion of the member, that’s one thing, but facts are facts.

As far as increasing infrastructure and value-added processing, it’s an absolutely excellent topic. We’ve been doing that since 2017. We have been investing money in food hubs for value-added processing, supporting food entrepreneurs, making sure that farmers have access to infrastructure, supporting things like….

In the Okanagan, significant investment has gone into helping a farmer who has an orchard create a drink for value-added that’s now seen all across North America. It’s called Karma Farming. There are so many examples of where government has been the wind at the back of value-added and primary producers.

It’s not an easy time for farming. There are a lot of difficult situations that have happened — climate change, etc., the cost of inputs. But I think government has put forward significant dollars to make sure that farmers do feel supported. Is it perfect? No. It never is. But we are absolutely doing our level best.

As minister, I’ve seen farmers…. When I first started in 2009 as Agriculture critic, I’ve seen young farmers with their families move off and start their own farms, especially in supply management.

Currently, this year, after just terrible years for our egg industry due to avian influenza, luckily, we have policies in place that have made some improvements there. There are new barns being built for egg production. There are new facilities being built that will do egg processing. If you ever go to a coffee shop and order an egg bite…. That type of facility is opening up. There’s a real renaissance in taking primary production from farmers and moving it into value-added.

I have to say that it’s the really difficult times that we’ve gone through that have led to that renaissance. During the pandemic, the supply chain issues were horrendous. Consumers are on board.

[5:45 p.m.]

Buy B.C. is an effective program. We have probably 12,000 goods with Buy B.C. labelling on them and hundreds of retail partners. But the pandemic — it showed consumers that we need to be more resilient and more self-sufficient.

The floods in the Fraser Valley were so difficult for our farmers, but they came out of that strong, and consumers again recognized the value of local food production. Every year that we face difficult times, our consumers become more loyal to what we’re doing here in B.C., and they’re spending money and looking for B.C. products, Canadian products.

It’s tough times, but I honestly believe that with continued work at it, we’re heading in the right direction. I’m happy to discuss any of the opportunities up in the North. I’m excited about that too. But farmers are resilient, food processors are innovative, and consumers want to support them. I think we’re on the right track.

The Chair: So we have reached the end of questions. Does the minister want to make some closing remarks?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks to everyone who has come in. Of course, my long-standing critic, and then it’s really nice to see an independent come in and ask questions as well. I really appreciate it.

I’d like to thank my staff, who has supported me through this. And just to say, maybe, that I’m always grateful to have this position. I love agriculture. It’s really what my whole passion is in my life, and to be able to work with a team like this, work with the farmers, work with other politicians who are just as passionate….

This is the moment for agriculture. I’ve said that for the last 17 years, but I feel like this is the moment for agriculture. And we have a lot to thank our consumers for. There’s been a big shift, and it’s a real pleasure. Thank you.

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

Vote 12: ministry operations, $108,012,000 — approved.

Vote 13: Agricultural Land Commission, $5,500,000 — approved.

Hon. Lana Popham: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 6:02 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026, to order. We are on clause 7.

On clause 7 (continued).

Claire Rattée: When we left off yesterday, we were discussing some of the issues around items being seized from units and brought to people if they’ve been temporarily evicted. I understand what the minister was saying is that basically it’s in the circumstance that somebody’s been temporarily evicted and they need access to a specific item.

My concern here is that it could stand to reason that if somebody has been temporarily evicted, they’re probably not happy about it. I don’t know what the process looks like, because it’s not clear here. I’m assuming some of that will be made clear through regulation, but I’m hoping to get a better understanding what that’s going to look like.

For example, I know it’s a little bit…. It’s an example. What if somebody was temporarily evicted? A couple of weeks later…. Let’s say they can come back in a couple of days, whatever it might be. They go: “I had a Louis Vuitton purse in my unit that is no longer there.” That’s kind of what I’m trying to get to.

I’m trying to understand what that process is going to look like, who is going to adjudicate that, what compensation is going to look like if somebody claims that they had an item in their unit that is no longer there, according to them, when they come back. It’s not like we’re taking inventory, when somebody moves in, of everything that they have in their possession in their unit. I’m trying to understand that process a bit more clearly, please.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Glad to be back here asking questions — or answering questions — on this. Maybe I will ask questions.

I thought it might be helpful to just walk through really briefly what the current state is in a similar type of situation and then speak to the amendment to 4.4.

In the current state, a landlord can restrict a tenant’s access to the residential property in reasonable circumstances. That typically happens in situations where the unit is temporarily unsafe from fire damage or such. The current RTA does not allow the landlord to restrict a tenant from accessing the property for longer periods.

As we discussed yesterday — was it just yesterday we were here? — section 26(3)(a) of the RTA states that a landlord must not seize any personal property of the tenant or, under (3)(b), prevent or interfere with the tenant’s access to the tenant’s personal property.

The amendment would provide new regulation-making powers related to 26(3) to enable temporary access restrictions. More specifically, the amendment to 4.4 we’re discussing now allows for exceptions, again as we discussed yesterday, to retrieve personal property where necessary.

There will be an expectation, and this is part of the purpose here, that tenants who are impacted by a temporary access restriction are able to access critical items like identification, bank cards, prescription medication, assistive devices or medical equipment, a mobile phone, etc. The process for accessing these items will be set out in regulation and operational guidelines. These rules will need to be carefully drafted to ensure that tenants have reasonable access to critical items and that the process considers appropriate risk mitigations to ensure that other residents and staff are kept safe.

Yesterday we heard similar questions from the member for Surrey–Serpentine River related to process around lost items. If a tenant’s access is restricted to their unit, the supportive housing operator would be expected to take reasonable steps to secure the unit, locking the doors and windows. Given that temporary access restrictions would only occur due to significant health and safety issues, it would be unreasonable to expect that an inspection and full inventory of items could occur in all circumstances before the person’s access is restricted.

We can expect that any entry into a unit would be for a specific purpose like securing the unit or retrieving personal items on behalf of the tenant, and if, beyond that, there were concerns about disturbance to the unit resulting in missing items, that concern could be brought forward through existing complaint pathways.

[6:10 p.m.]

Ministry staff, as well, continue to engage on how temporary access restrictions can be operationalized in a manner that respects tenants’ personal belongings and the operational realities of supportive housing.

Claire Rattée: I think we’ll move on to section 4.5. This is dealing with the prescribed purpose of entry. I’m trying to understand. I think that a lot of this is going to be done through regulation again. That is my assumption based on reading this.

I would like to understand what constitutes a prescribed purpose for entry under these provisions. Is it very specifically only meant to be used in the case of a temporary eviction to retrieve those items? Is that the only circumstance under which this would apply?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. Section 4.5 will establish when a supportive housing provider can lawfully enter a rental unit. Under the section, a supportive housing provider will be able to enter a rental unit for a purpose set out in regulation or for a purpose for entry specified in the tenancy agreement.

We expect that the regulations will be similar to what’s already outlined in the RTA in section 29, and I can read a couple of examples, but it’s also available.

One example is: “The tenant gives permission at the time of the entry or not more than 30 days before the entry.” Another is: “The landlord provides housekeeping or related services under the terms of a written tenancy agreement. The landlord has an order of the director authorizing the entry. An emergency exists, and the entry is necessary to protect life or property.” Those are outlined in section 29 of the RTA.

[6:15 p.m.]

Because Bill 11 is creating a new section of the RTA for supportive housing, this is being recreated. As I spoke to, additionally, a housing provider will be able to enter a rental unit if the purpose for entry is specified in a reasonable term in the tenancy agreement.

For example, a housing provider could include a term in their tenancy agreement allowing them to conduct wellness checks, and section 4.5 makes it clear that the housing provider could enter the rental unit in accordance with that term.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that.

Just really quickly, I’m assuming, then, the anticipation is that the only way in which this would likely be used is that the tenant is actually giving the building manager or the landlord permission because they are looking to retrieve an item after they’ve been temporarily evicted. Is that a correct assumption with that? That would be the most likely scenario as it relates to this.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Section 4.5 is not specific to temporary relocations. It will allow access for a landlord in situations where permission is given; also, like I spoke to in the examples, in situations of an emergency for life and safety.

Claire Rattée: Sorry, just to really clarify, then, why was section 4.5 necessary? I would assume this already exists within the legislation. Is it only because there is a new section that’s being created as it relates to supportive housing, so it was cleaner to make sure that that was specifically outlined and added into this clause?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Mostly yes, but let me give a little bit more information.

In February 2024, government exempted supportive housing from certain sections of the RTA to enable housing providers to conduct wellness checks and manage guests. In particular, supportive housing was exempted from section 29, which sets out when a landlord can enter a rental unit.

The 2024 exemption was needed to ensure that housing providers could conduct wellness checks and means that the RTA doesn’t currently specify when a supportive housing provider can enter a rental unit. So as you spoke to, we’re ensuring that that is clear in the supportive housing section of the RTA.

Claire Rattée: I’m sorry, another clarifying question. Does that mean that for the last two years, then, supportive housing providers have been able to access a tenant’s unit at any time?

Hon. Christine Boyle: That access would have had to be in accordance with their tenancy agreement or by permission from the tenant.

Claire Rattée: Does that mean that this is a request that’s come from the housing providers to narrow that scope back into being included in the RTA, or was that something that the ministry just decided?

I’m just trying to understand again what the purpose of that was. If we’ve been doing it through the rental agreements for the last two years, why bring it back into the RTA now?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: It was identified in drafting as an opportunity to provide clarity and consistency.

Claire Rattée: I’m going to jump ahead to 4.6 here a little bit. This section is one that I think requires a bit of conversation around because this is really, in my mind, the section that deals with that temporary access restriction.

Again, my assumption is a lot of this is going to be left to regulation. I understand why that needs to happen sometimes. I’m just leery of supporting a piece of legislation when I don’t know what may end up being in the regulations, so I’m hoping we can get some of what the ministry’s goal is, on the record, about what that regulation is going to look like.

To be honest, when this was first introduced and I was thinking about these temporary access restrictions, I had a lot of concern about how this may be implemented. I think that the intention behind it is good, but I do have a lot of concern.

In a situation where health and safety is at immediate risk, and I’m assuming that is really the only application of this, if the person in question that is being temporarily evicted or moved, or whatever it may be, is posing a threat to health and safety — whether that’s possession of a weapon, which is one of the areas that’s dealt with in this piece of legislation, or whether that’s, potentially, behaviours or anything like that….

I don’t know if anybody on the committee has ever had to deal with somebody that is really struggling with severe mental illness or struggling with…. They’re very high on drugs, they’re not coherent, and they’re not being reasonable. I think this could potentially open us up to a lot of problems.

I would really like it if the minister could…. Before I go through each of my questions, I would just really like a clear understanding of what this process is going to look like. What are the specific parameters in which somebody would be temporarily evicted? What is the process? Is law enforcement called in? Are we expecting workers in these facilities to handle this on their own? Are they going to be properly trained in de-escalation? Have we considered the WorkSafeBC implications of this?

Even when it comes to things like the weapons, do we immediately call the RCMP? Is there security on site that’s supposed to be called? Are we expecting the workers at supportive housing units to basically also be de facto security guards, potentially placing them in very dangerous circumstances?

My general concern is that when somebody is irate and causing a problem for the other tenants and for the staff, trying to de-escalate that situation by removing them from the situation when you’re not trained in how to do that safely and effectively could result in some really serious consequences — not to mention the potential for lawsuits and, like I said, WCB claims and all of that kind of stuff. I would appreciate it if the minister could just really clearly outline this portion for me so that I understand what the process is.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: There were a lot of questions in there. Let me try. You don’t have to be sorry. I’ll do my best, and then we’ll get back into it.

First of all, maybe I’ll just outline the higher-level piece by speaking to why supportive housing providers asked for this ability. Right now the only method available to a landlord under the RTA to deal with a tenant who poses a health or safety risk to the building, staff or other occupants is eviction, straight out. Eviction is, of course, not a desirable outcome as it’s a last resort. The goal of housing providers and the need of residents is to do everything possible to maintain tenancy.

Temporary restrictions of tenant access were recommended and can be used to de-escalate conflict and mitigate health and safety risks while preventing evictions and keeping tenants housed longer term. In addition, tenant restrictions are often beneficial in extreme cases where a tenant is posing an active health or safety risk to staff or other occupants and the landlord is seeking to address the issue in a variety of ways.

The use of this tool is intended to be limited. Section 4.6 establishes regulation-making authorities that will be used when establishing the temporary restriction process, including circumstances in which and periods of time during which, as we spoke to earlier, a landlord may restrict access to the residential property, whether the restriction applies to all or part of the residential property.

Again, I think we spoke about this yesterday or Monday, but as an example, a tenant could possibly be relocated to a different unit on the same property, if that helps to de-escalate the conflict, and establishing requirements, conditions, restrictions or prohibitions when restricting a tenant’s access.

I think it’s important to note that supportive housing providers already deal with situations where staff are attempting to de-escalate. I, to the member’s question, will say that I, in my years working as an outreach worker in the Downtown Eastside, spent time in SROs and supportive housing buildings and low-barrier shelters where, as a young 20-something, I was also working to de-escalate conflicts.

As I’m sure the member would assume, there are a variety of situations, and a variety of responses are needed. As is currently the case and would continue to be the case, supportive housing providers and the staff working there would phone different resources, whether it’s a car service, mental health and police service or whether it’s an ambulance.

Depending on what the situation is, if it is beyond the skill of a supportive housing staff member to de-escalate, there would be other response services who could be involved, as is currently the situation and likely would continue to be the situation as part of the process around a temporary relocation.

Claire Rattée: On that last point from the minister, then, I understand the concept that each situation is going to be different and there may be different people to call, but I am curious if there was any thought given to trying to establish some kinds of guidelines around it.

My concern would be: what if somebody thinks, “Oh I can deal with this,” and then, again, like I said, they get hurt? Then the taxpayer becomes liable for that, because obviously, they are a public service worker.

Would it maybe not be better to try and have some kinds of guidelines in place, establish what that protocol looks like and in which situations you call whom and that sort of thing, just so that we know that at least those processes have been followed to try and eliminate chances of somebody getting harmed?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: These are operational questions, but happy to do my best to speak to them now.

First of all, to say it wouldn’t make sense to have one provincewide approach in the RTA because the responses are different. The services are different if you’re in the Downtown Eastside or in your very rural community. Who you call differs, which is why supportive housing providers already….

As these are situations that can arise already outside of the amendments in Bill 11, supportive housing providers already would have existing escalation and safety plans for their staff, to support them in these situations. And Bill 11, in implementation, will include operational guidance that supports that implementation in collaboration with providers.

Claire Rattée: Thank you. That makes sense.

Going back to something that the minister had mentioned earlier, I think I’m still trying to wrap my head around what circumstances somebody would be temporarily evicted under, because it sounded a bit like the minister had said that in really severe cases, that would actually just be an eviction, not a temporary eviction. How are we determining the difference?

Really, the only wording being used here is “posing an immediate threat to health or safety.” An immediate threat is an immediate threat. So in what…?

I’m just trying to better understand. Is this something that’s just going to be left up to the landlord — to determine whether or not this is an immediate eviction or a temporary one? What circumstances would constitute something that should just be temporary? Is it just somebody raising their voice and yelling and being irate, versus if someone has a weapon or somebody assaults somebody, then it’s an immediate eviction? I’m just trying to wrap my head around which circumstance would constitute which.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The member raises important points, and details will be outlined in regulation. The regulations will prescribe circumstances intended to be limited to those involving serious safety and security issues.

For example, a temporary restriction could be used in cases where the tenancy can be preserved. A supportive housing provider could temporarily restrict access of the tenant to the premise for a cooling-off period. This tool could also be used in cases of sustained conflict or verbal abuse or harassment between tenants, or between tenants and staff, where tenants have not responded to warnings and other attempts to de-escalate the situation. It is, I think, worth repeating that a restriction and/or a longer-term eviction is a last resort here.

In more serious circumstances, where a tenancy must be ended quickly, the changes will provide new options for quickly removing an individual who poses a serious health and safety threat so the operator, staff and other tenants aren’t required to remain in an unsafe situation with an elevated risk of incident or injury or harm.

I just want to also outline that the temporary restriction is an immediate tool in the case of an immediate health or safety risk. Right now that doesn’t exist in the RTA. A permanent eviction would still require and allow for due process through the RTB.

Though the intention of the temporary restriction will be to de-escalate, to cool down and to maintain that long-term tenancy, there could be situations where a temporary restriction leads to an application for a full eviction, and that tenant would still have due process under the RTB. So they would be temporarily restricted from their unit but still have fair process that would determine whether they are able to come back or not in the long term.

That’s the balance we’re trying to get at here.

Claire Rattée: That does help. That starts to kind of help me wrap my head around it.

I do want to just qualify as well that I’m not disagreeing with this concept. I do think it’s important. I’m just also trying to balance thinking about a tenant that could potentially be taken advantage of in that situation.

I think the sad reality is that most people working in supportive housing are doing it for the right reasons, but we also know that there are a lot of bad actors in that space. This isn’t dealing with that aspect of it necessarily, but I know that the minister is aware that that’s a problem. I also don’t want to see anybody getting taken advantage of when they don’t deserve it.

Just to make sure that I’ve got this completely clear, then. A lot of these amendments seem to focus around the concept of a weapon. Even in the situation where a weapon is found, that still does not allow a landlord to immediately evict somebody. They would still have to go through the RTB to get that eviction.

What they could do in any circumstance that poses a threat to health or safety is immediately do a temporary eviction, and then during that time, they could apply to the RTB for that full eviction if it was something that was warranted.

Is that a correct assessment?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: We’re at the time that my boss here told me we should wrap. So let me answer this, and then I’ll read that.

Mostly true is the answer. Even in the case of a weapon…. For example, a tenant has a handgun. The housing provider could then put in place a temporary restriction if it’s deemed an immediate serious threat, and that temporary restriction could lead to a long-term eviction. There would still be a notice and process, and they could go through a process with the RTB to complain. So they could be immediately restricted from access for that immediate and serious risk, and it could lead to a permanent eviction.

Again, it is the goal for, as you know, the vast majority of situations to find a way to resolve the situation wherever possible. But the request has been for tools, where that’s not possible, to ensure that safety for staff and all tenants is upheld.

I will, again, thank the member opposite for a good discussion and really thoughtful questions.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:43 p.m.