Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

12/3/2025

Membership Change to Children and Youth Committee

Bill 23, Regulations Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

13 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

12/3/2025

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 23, Regulations Act.

11 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

12/3/2025

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

The committee on Bill 23 reports the bill complete without amendment.

11 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

12/3/2025

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

I call the committee to order on Bill 23, the Regulations Act.

12 words

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

BC NDP

12/3/2025

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23.

9 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

10/22/2025

Bill 23 — Regulations Act (continued)

Seeing no further speakers, I call the question on second reading of Bill 23 intituled Regulations Act.

17 words

Hon. Josie Osborne

BC NDP

10/22/2025

Bill 23 — Regulations Act (continued)

I call continued second reading on Bill 23.

8 words

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

BC NDP

10/9/2025

Bill 23 — Regulations Act

I call second reading on Bill 23.

7 words

Hon. Ravi Parmar

BC NDP

4/10/2025

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

Thanks again to the member for the question. A couple things that I would add as it relates to the member’s comments and questions, specifically around the agreement. I just want to clarify, because I neglected to in my previous answer, that the documents the member refers to are just guidelines. They’re not legally binding documents by any means. And it’s all about a collaborative approach. That’s what FLPs are all about. It’s about getting people together to be able to have conversations and having a starting point. As it relates to the member’s question around Bill 23 and the role of the chief forester, the member is right. Our work is to get to consensus, but currently the chief forester signs off on those forest landscape planning tables and the forest operation plans. One of the things, as part of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, is section 7, as the member will know well, where there may be some nations that want to move towards a section 7 shared decision–making framework. One nation is doing that work right now, and there may be more in the future. Again, those will be broader conversations, nation by nation. We’re working, as I shared with the member yesterday, with over 90 First Nations right now at 15 FLPs. Again, as it speaks to the member’s comments around these biodiversity principles, the draft document is about bringing people together. It’s about doing this in a collaborative approach, and it’s about making sure that those nations have an opportunity to be able to share their perspectives, their expectations, and then for industry and government to come in and have just as important conversations and for us to share our perspectives, as well, and try to reach consensus.

297 words

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

Yes, I appreciate the minister’s commitment to the process and allowing that timeline and those opportunities for engagement, because I think we both agree it’s very important to not only get the buy-in from industry and all the stakeholders but for the public to understand that they’re part of the process. That leads me to my next question. I’m hoping to get a little bit of clarity as we go forward with this, because again, it goes back to our certainty of supply and some of the challenges that we seem to be having with that. When we talked earlier about whether it’s 40 days or 25 days to actually get a cutting permit, we know there are so many other factors that are in play in developing those forest harvesting plans. And I think, from what we’ve heard…. I’ve heard, and I’m sure the minister has heard, as well, that those timelines are stretching out. Instead of shrinking, they’re stretching. We’re hoping that as the minister alluded to in the last two days, this ministry is working and trying to speed up that process to make it less complicated and less onerous for everybody included, particularly when we’re talking about forest health or fire recovery, burnt timber, those kinds of situations where we need to be able to act as quickly as we can to get the maximum value out of that wood while the clock is ticking. To get back a little bit on the joint stewardship, I just need to have a little bit more clarity from the minister. When I look at Bill 23…. I read it again last night. I’m trying to figure out, if we’re going to have joint stewardship going forward with our First Nations, what mechanism is in place if one of the two parties can’t agree as we move forward in situations. As it is currently now, the chief forester has the authority through law to be able to make those decisions when it comes to authorization to cut. Now, if that is going to change, is there going to be a change in the law? Is there going to be another amendment to Bill 23? How are we going to be able to get through that process where, for whatever reason, the two sides can’t come to an agreement? How are we supposed to have a mechanism to get through that? Who ultimately makes the decision, or do we just say: “No, it’s another protected area, and we’re not going to even think about harvesting”?

425 words

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

Yes, I ran into Keith Baldrey just a little bit earlier. He said that in the past they had a time when there were over 90 hours to forestry. He said it was a little bit carried away. But I agree with the minister. Six hours isn’t enough. Now I’d like to spend a little bit of time, and I’m not going to dive into it too much, and I would request the opportunity…. There are a couple of things that I’m going to be asking, and if the minister isn’t able to answer them to what his satisfaction would be in the amount of information that is in that, in the questions — if we have the opportunity to have it in writing. What it does is come back to what I mentioned yesterday. It’s this joint compilation of forest biodiversity principles that was released to industry back in, I believe, the middle of March. I don’t really want to get into it too much. There’s a lot of language. There are some assumptions made. There are things that I’m going to touch on a little bit, but I don’t really want to get into the meat and potatoes, because I don’t think we really have enough time, and I’d like the opportunity, in the future, to be able to have this conversation with the minister on some of the things that this is pertaining to. I want to read this part of the summary that was made, just to put it into the context of, really, what we’re talking about. Again, it comes back to certainty of supply. It comes back to a sustainable supply of fibre in this province. I think it’s important for us to realize that when the minister talks about forest landscape plans, we need to have everyone involved in this process from the beginning to the end and not just start having different segments being responsible for certain areas. I think that we need to have everyone at the table so we can come up with a collaborative approach. I think the minister would agree that that’s the proper way of doing it. There are some things in here, again, with this document, and I believe it’s kind of a draft in as much as it’s going to look at some of the law around Bill 23 that was enacted on October 20 of 2021. Bill 23 was a bill that amended the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the forest practices code of British Columbia. These amendments established a framework for an approach that is more focused on ecological and cultural values: “A key part of this will be replacing forest stewardship plans, which are currently developed by industry, with forest landscape plans developed by the province with First Nations, local communities and other partners, which will create new opportunities for shared decision-making between the province and First Nations.” That’s the province of B.C. That’s right off the website. Now, here’s a letter that I’d like to read to talk about some of the challenges that we can see, going forward, in implementing the joint stewardship plan. When this plan was originally produced, it was basically a meeting. It was a meeting between the Ministry of Forests and licensees. So this plan had already been developed, this draft, without the input of any of the licensees or any of the companies involved. It was the Ministry of Forests and First Nations. That was what was explained to us at the beginning of the process. Even with FLPs, it was going to be government-to-government between the province of B.C. and our First Nations, and then there was going to be a process as we go through it. This is what they had to say, and this is what I support: “We understand that the province of B.C. is working together with First Nations to further reconciliation, and we support this initiative. Granted, the manner that these standards were rolled out is not really acceptable and contrary to the consultation-based regime that forest professionals uphold — forest professionals that are employed by our licensees in the province. “By excluding these licensees and practitioners, it appears the province does not acknowledge the significant investment and employment that these companies contribute to our province. There’s also a concern about how the forest landscape planning process may unfold, where the province of B.C. and the First Nations develop a plan and then only bring the industry stakeholders to the table to inform them about how the plan will work when the ink is already dry. “I, as many others are, am very proud of our professional foresters that work in the Kamloops region and all the regions in British Columbia, and they strive to implement complicated plans that manage all of the arrays of the values on the land base. “It is my opinion that not engaging with these forest professionals that represent all of the various stakeholders is a significant missed opportunity.” From that, Mr. Minister, I have three requests. One, prior to implementation, invest the appropriate time and resources in a professional and defendable assessment of the timber-harvesting land base AAC impacts, including any potential socioeconomic impacts resulting from implementation of any plan. This is particularly relevant in our current and looming trade dispute with the U.S. Department of Commerce and has measurable impacts to our forest industry and our provincial economy. Two, develop an industry engagement process for the draft QSFBF standards, where we suggest two to three industry representatives have a seat at that table, along with QS, to redefine the standards which we intend to ensure the values of the importance of the QS that can be achieved, including the research and science to support the strategies to achieve the desired outcomes. Three, in advance of the proposed implementation date, develop and approve timber pricing policies that support the QS objectives and adequately recognize the operating cost adjustments for this industry to continue to support and implement this plan. Further, I’d like to ask the minister, when we start talking about the joint stewardship program and the understanding of how we’re going to be moving this forward…. I’m trying to understand how that’s supposed to work. I’m going to have follow-up questions, but I’d like you to be able to respond to what I’ve asked so far.

1068 words

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

I can get you a copy. This was a draft proposal between the Ministry of Forests and local First Nations in our southern Interior ridings. I wanted to have an opportunity to be able to go through some of this. If the minister would like, I can put these questions further on this afternoon so that you have a copy of this, because this is basically a template in going forward with what I believe is the intent of Bill 23, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, with joint stewardship. This is a document that…. Yes, it’s in a draft form, but it has some very interesting assumptions made in this document. I’d like the opportunity to ask the minister specific questions to this, because this document, as said earlier, is a joint process with Ministry of Forests and First Nations. There has been no consultation whatsoever with existing forest licensees, community forests, any other stakeholders. This is fresh, right off the press, and I have specific questions on consultation. I have specific questions, going forward, when we talk about changes to statutory laws. If the minister wishes, I can certainly get a copy, and that way, staff has the same as what I have. Fair enough? [Interjection.]

207 words