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.
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.
Today, B.C. legislative reporter Rob Shaw was the first to report and reveal the documents for the Northern Beat.
This matters economically because logging rights help determine a forestry business’ 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.
Ultimately, the provincial government would face lower compensation costs, while the transferred land could support new economic opportunities for First Nations.
- You might also like:
- B.C. business leaders overwhelmingly say DRIPA is undermining economic certainty
- Most British Columbians want all Aboriginal title negotiations paused amid Cowichan court case: survey
- Lorne Doerkson's B.C. Conservatives vow no new taxes or tax increases if elected
- Opinion: David Eby's BC NDP needs a better reason than Trump for a snap election
- Why voters are confused as Conservatives lead BC NDP in yet another poll
- How to vote in the 2026 provincial election, including advance voting
A ministry presentation dated Sept. 10, 2026 — less than two weeks before Premier David Eby’s snap provincial election call on Sept. 22 — lays out a schedule for creating legislation with First Nations, with a bill targeted for introduction in Spring 2027.
The accompanying backgrounder identifies compensation for lost harvesting rights as a financial obstacle to completing the land transfers.
“Given ongoing fiscal constraints, these provisions create substantial barriers to completing land returns,” reads the provincial government’s confidential document.
Those “fiscal constraints” 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.
The historically large deficits reflect both elevated provincial spending, stagnant and dwindling provincial revenues, and rising interest payments on the province’s 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.
Neither document identifies the approximately 400 parcels, their combined area, or the anticipated savings from changing the compensation rules.
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.
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’s annual timber allowance by up to five per cent without payment, using the same allowance already applied to parks and conservation areas.
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.
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.
The ministry claims that the changes would make land transfers more predictable and align compensation rules with other public uses, while supporting reconciliation’s cultural, social, environmental, and economic benefits.
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.
The changes would account for benefits received by related businesses, including partners in joint ventures. In one example, a First Nation’s 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’ total annual harvesting allowance is held through affiliated businesses, with 20 per cent held directly.
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.
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.
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.
The documents also provide a glimpse of how far the work had progressed.
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.
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.
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.
“This does help reduce pressure on the provincial budget, there’s no question about it.”
Asked about Shaw’s 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.
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.
“This does help reduce pressure on the provincial budget, there’s 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,” said the premier.
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’s previous BC Liberals government.
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.
“To characterise it as something that obstructs forestry is actually the complete opposite of what’s happening here. It is about minimising the impact on taxpayers, these kinds of agreements,” he said.
However, Eby did not provide an estimate of the anticipated financial compensation savings or the combined area of the approximately 400 parcels.
About 12 hours before Shaw’s reveal on the morning of Thursday, Oct. 15, during the one and only televised debate for the provincial election on the evening of Wednesday, Oct. 14, Eby was asked why he had not directly answered a question after the previous night’s debate about undisclosed land transfer agreements with First Nations.
“This sends a chilling message to business. Deals on Crown lands can’t be trusted, whether it’s forestry, mining or other ventures.”
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’s plans ahead of the election.
“Why won’t David Eby just come clean on his plans?” Once again it appears that David Eby and the NDP are telling British Columbians one thing, and making secret backroom deals that say another,” said Conservative candidate Scott McInnis today in a statement.
“A re-elected Eby NDP Government means just more broken promises and revelations – but only after election day. British Columbians have seen this act before.”
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.
“Voters have a right to know what a government intends to do before they give it a mandate, not after,” said Wes Mussio, a lawyer and retired registered professional forester, in a statement.
“Premier Eby should release all the details, lost jobs and revenue impacts before election day.”
Mussio argued that reducing compensation for existing logging rights could undermine businesses’ confidence in their agreements with the provincial government, with concerns extending beyond forestry to other resource industries.
“This sends a chilling message to business. Deals on Crown lands can’t be trusted, whether it’s forestry, mining or other ventures,” said Mussio.
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.
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.
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.
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’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) — the legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this province.
An Angus Reid Institute survey in May 2026 found 55 per cent of British Columbians believed Eby had handled the balance between Indigenous land rights and private property rights poorly.
A Research Co. survey in August 2026 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.
Meanwhile, Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer has repeatedly criticized the Eby’s administration’s secrecy surrounding highly consequential and permanent First Nations agreements and policy changes.
Advancing further changes through confidential briefings risks deepening concerns about democratic accountability, particularly when decisions involving public land could bind future provincial governments and carry lasting economic consequences.
The risks extend to investment, employment, control over resource development, and the provincial government’s revenues available to build, improve, and operate hospitals, schools, public transit, and other infrastructure.
The Business Council of British Columbia has already reported that respondents to its member survey were reducing investment and hiring plans amid concerns about DRIPA’s implementation.
For electing MLAs in provincial ridings and to help determine which provincial party will form the next provincial government, the provincial general election’s main voting day is Saturday, Oct. 24, 2026, with advance voting taking place over six days from Friday, Oct. 16 to Wednesday, Oct. 21.
The municipal election’s main voting day is Saturday, Oct. 17, a full week before the provincial election. This separate election will fill municipal government positions for mayor, City Council, and other local representatives.
- You might also like:
- B.C. business leaders overwhelmingly say DRIPA is undermining economic certainty
- Most British Columbians want all Aboriginal title negotiations paused amid Cowichan court case: survey
- Lorne Doerkson's B.C. Conservatives vow no new taxes or tax increases if elected
- Opinion: David Eby's BC NDP needs a better reason than Trump for a snap election
- Why voters are confused as Conservatives lead BC NDP in yet another poll
- How to vote in the 2026 provincial election, including advance voting