Just before the snap provincial election call, the BC NDP-led provincial government was developing changes to provincial forestry laws that would allow some logging rights to be removed without compensation, reducing the cost of transferring public land to First Nations.<\/p>\n
Confidential B.C. Ministry of Forests documents outline four proposed changes to the Forest Act, alongside a disclosure that approximately 400 Crown land parcels have already been committed for transfer through treaty and reconciliation agreements.<\/p>\n
Today, B.C. legislative reporter Rob Shaw<\/a> was the first to report and reveal the documents for the Northern Beat<\/a>.<\/p>\n This matters economically because logging rights help determine a forestry business\u2019 timber supply, future earnings, and ability to invest. Reducing those rights without compensation would shift more of the financial burden of land transfers from the provincial government to affected businesses, potentially leaving them with fewer resources to adjust their operations and sustain jobs. Those effects could extend to contractors and small communities that depend on forestry.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the provincial government would face lower compensation costs, while the transferred land could support new economic opportunities for First Nations.<\/p>\n A ministry presentation dated Sept. 10, 2026 \u2014 less than two weeks before Premier David Eby\u2019s snap provincial election call on Sept. 22 \u2014 lays out a schedule for creating legislation with First Nations, with a bill targeted for introduction in Spring 2027.<\/p>\n The accompanying backgrounder identifies compensation for lost harvesting rights as a financial obstacle to completing the land transfers.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven ongoing fiscal constraints, these provisions create substantial barriers to completing land returns,\u201d reads the provincial government\u2019s confidential document.<\/p>\n Those \u201cfiscal constraints\u201d come as the BC NDP-led provincial government projects annual budget deficits of $13.8 billion in the current 2026\/2027 fiscal year, $12.7 billion in 2027\/2028, and $12 billion in 2028\/2029.<\/p>\n The historically large deficits reflect elevated provincial spending, stagnant and dwindling provincial revenues, and rising interest payments on the province\u2019s growing debt. If those annual interest costs were a ministry budget, they would rank third behind healthcare and education. Total provincial debt is expected to reach $181 billion by the end of this fiscal year and nearly $236 billion before the end of the decade.<\/p>\n Neither document identifies the approximately 400 parcels, their combined area, or the anticipated savings from changing the compensation rules.<\/p>\n The parcels are already committed to First Nations under existing agreements. The proposals would change the compensation rules for removing existing logging rights so those transfers can proceed.<\/p>\n Currently, reductions in harvesting rights associated with these transfers generally require compensation. The main proposal would allow the provincial government to reduce a licence holder\u2019s annual timber allowance by up to five per cent without payment, using the same allowance already applied to parks and conservation areas.<\/p>\n Reductions would accumulate over a set period, including earlier cuts in that category, rather than resetting each year. Compensation could be owed for losses above the five per cent limit. Sharing that allowance could also affect future parks and conservation projects.<\/p>\n A separate five per cent allowance covers access purposes, such as highways, pipelines, and power lines. The combined maximum would remain 10 per cent. Compensation would still apply to harvesting reductions caused by directly granting or expanding First Nations forestry licences.<\/p>\n The ministry claims that the changes would make land transfers more predictable and align compensation rules with other public uses, while supporting reconciliation\u2019s cultural, social, environmental, and economic benefits.<\/p>\n Two further proposals address scenarios where a First Nation or company loses logging rights, but also benefits from the same provincial government decision. Currently, a First Nation holding those rights directly can have its compensation reduced when it receives the land, while a separate company it controls may still qualify for payment.<\/p>\n The changes would account for benefits received by related businesses, including partners in joint ventures. In one example, a First Nation\u2019s company would receive no compensation for logging rights removed from land transferred to that First Nation, while unrelated business partners would still be compensated. The backgrounder notes that 80 per cent of First Nations\u2019 total annual harvesting allowance is held through affiliated businesses, with 20 per cent held directly.<\/p>\n Certain First Nations and their affiliated businesses would retain compensation for all affected harvesting rights when land goes to another First Nation. This could include logging rights originally granted to address impacts on Indigenous rights, even where losses fall below five per cent. Exceptions would also preserve compensation needed to honour existing agreements or negotiated commitments.<\/p>\n The fourth proposal would remove expiry dates for special purpose areas, which are used to prepare Crown land for transfers and other uses. These designations currently last up to three years, with one extension allowing up to six years in total. The change would apply to all purposes covered by the designation.<\/p>\n The ministry says some agreements take longer than six years to complete. Removing expiry dates would reduce repeat approvals, protect land while agreements are finalized, and reduce potential additional compensation costs arising when a designation expires.<\/p>\n The documents also provide a glimpse of how far the work had progressed.<\/p>\n A timeline in the September 2026 presentation identifies July 2026 as the cabinet decision stage, followed by consultation and cooperation with First Nations in Fall 2026.<\/p>\n That positioning indicates the process had moved beyond initial policy exploration and the scheduled cabinet decision stage. However, the documents do not include the cabinet decision itself or a completed bill.<\/p>\n The schedule anticipates legislation drafting this winter, with the draft bill shared with First Nations as confidentiality permits and revised following feedback, before it is introduced in the Spring 2027 legislative session.<\/p>\n \u201cThis does help reduce pressure on the provincial budget, there\u2019s no question about it.\u201d<\/p>\n Asked about Shaw\u2019s revelation of the documents at an unrelated press conference later today, Premier Eby rejected suggestions that his BC NDP-led provincial government had concealed the land transfer commitments. He confirmed the figure of approximately 400 parcels, but said some commitments were more than a decade old and arose from publicly discussed treaties and agreements, including those reached by the previous provincial government.<\/p>\n Eby said the proposed changes were intended to reduce the public cost of fulfilling those commitments, while supporting agreements that allow forestry operations to proceed.<\/p>\n \u201cThis does help reduce pressure on the provincial budget, there\u2019s no question about it. But it also enables forestry to go ahead in a number of different parts of the province because of those agreements,\u201d said the premier.<\/p>\n He also defended requiring participants to sign non-disclosure agreements, describing this as routine when consulting on proposed legislation. Eby claimed he had signed such agreements while working in the non-profit sector and discussing legislative proposals with Christy Clark\u2019s previous BC Liberals government.<\/p>\n Pressed on whether reduced compensation could worsen forestry job losses and mill closures, Eby argued that agreements with First Nations help prevent legal disputes from blocking logging. He also asserted that First Nations and community-held forestry rights can support local economic activity, jobs, and municipal government revenues.<\/p>\n \u201cTo characterise it as something that obstructs forestry is actually the complete opposite of what\u2019s happening here. It is about minimising the impact on taxpayers, these kinds of agreements,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n However, Eby did not provide an estimate of the anticipated financial compensation savings or the combined area of the approximately 400 parcels.<\/p>\n About 12 hours before Shaw\u2019s reveal on the morning of Thursday, Oct. 15, Eby and the Conservative Party of B.C. and Green Party of B.C. leaders participated in a televised debate for the provincial election on the evening of Wednesday, Oct. 14. During today\u2019s press conference, Eby was asked why he had not directly answered a question after the previous night\u2019s debate about undisclosed land transfer agreements with First Nations.<\/p>\n \u201cThese are parcels of land that date back, in some cases, more than a decade around commitments that have been made to First Nations. They\u2019re part of treaties that have been signed, but very public,\u201d answered the premier in an attempt to suggest that the general intent of the plan is already technically public.<\/p>\n \u201cThis sends a chilling message to business. Deals on Crown lands can\u2019t be trusted, whether it\u2019s forestry, mining or other ventures.\u201d<\/p>\n Of course, the documents also drew quick criticism from the Conservative Party of B.C. They accused Eby of keeping voters in the dark about his provincial government\u2019s plans ahead of the election.<\/p>\n \u201cWhy won\u2019t David Eby just come clean on his plans?\u201d Once again it appears that David Eby and the NDP are telling British Columbians one thing, and making secret backroom deals that say another,\u201d said Conservative candidate Scott McInnis today in a statement.<\/p>\n \u201cA re-elected Eby NDP Government means just more broken promises and revelations \u2013 but only after election day. British Columbians have seen this act before.\u201d<\/p>\n The Homes Not Bank Machines Coalition also called on the BC NDP to identify the 400 parcels, disclose their locations and sizes, and explain the financial and employment implications before voters go to the polls.<\/p>\n \u201cVoters have a right to know what a government intends to do before they give it a mandate, not after,\u201d said Wes Mussio, a lawyer and retired registered professional forester, in a statement.<\/p>\n \u201cPremier Eby should release all the details, lost jobs and revenue impacts before election day.\u201d<\/p>\n Mussio argued that reducing compensation for existing logging rights could undermine businesses\u2019 confidence in their agreements with the provincial government, with concerns extending beyond forestry to other resource industries.<\/p>\n \u201cThis sends a chilling message to business. Deals on Crown lands can\u2019t be trusted, whether it\u2019s forestry, mining or other ventures,\u201d said Mussio.<\/p>\n The coalition wants the provincial government to assess potential losses in resource revenues, effects on employment, and compensation or legal costs associated with the transfers. Mussio also questioned how any lost revenues would be replaced to maintain funding for public services.<\/p>\n The group is additionally demanding that confidentiality restrictions be lifted so affected companies and workers can discuss the proposals publicly. It wants the agreements and proposed forestry law changes disclosed and debated in the legislature before further deals are signed.<\/p>\n The documents suggest the BC NDP-led provincial government remained determined to advance its land transfer agenda despite growing public unease and sustained criticism of its reconciliation approach.<\/p>\n Although these proposals concern Crown land, they emerge amid a broader debate over private property protections, investment certainty, and provincial authority under the BC NDP\u2019s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) \u2014 the legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this province.<\/p>\n An Angus Reid Institute survey in May 2026<\/a> found 55 per cent of British Columbians believed Eby had handled the balance between Indigenous land rights and private property rights poorly.<\/p>\n A Research Co. survey in August 2026<\/a> found 61 per cent of British Columbians supported pausing Aboriginal title negotiations until the Cowichan Tribes case is settled, up nine per cent from November 2025. Meanwhile, 69 per cent believed property owners should be concerned about the ruling, and 53 per cent said private ownership under fee simple title should always take precedence over Aboriginal title.<\/p>\n