https://ancientforestalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Screenshot-2026-10-22-at-4.54.32-PM.png
952
1684
TJ Watt
https://ancientforestalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Ancient-Forest-Alliance-logo.svg
TJ Watt2026-10-22 16:54:062026-10-22 16:59:41NEW Video: BC Election 2026: Nature & Old-Growth ProtectionRelated Posts
https://ancientforestalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Screenshot-2026-10-22-at-4.54.32-PM.png
952
1684
TJ Watt
https://ancientforestalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Ancient-Forest-Alliance-logo.svg
TJ Watt2026-10-22 16:54:062026-10-22 16:59:41NEW Video: BC Election 2026: Nature & Old-Growth Protection
BC Election 2026: Where do Parties Stand on Nature & Old-Growth?
As we approach the BC election on Saturday, October 24th, 2026, here’s where BC’s major political parties stand on nature and old-growth forest protection.

Where do BC’s Major Political Parties Stand on Nature Protection?
Here's where BC's major political parties stand on nature and old-growth forest protection ahead of the BC Election 2026.

Nat Geo Travel Features TJ Watt’s Photo of Flores Cedar
National Geographic Travel has featured AFA photographer TJ Watt’s image of a record-sized cedar tree on Flores Island alongside Ahousaht Hereditary Representative Tyson Atleo!
Take Action
Donate
Support the Ancient Forest Alliance with a one-time or monthly donation.
Send a Message
Send an instant message to key provincial decision-makers.Get in Touch
AFA’s office is located on the territories of the Lekwungen Peoples, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.
Copyright © 2026 Ancient Forest Alliance • All Rights Reserved
Earth-Friendly Web Design by Fairwind Creative
Earth-Friendly Web Design by Fairwind Creative
Authorized by Ancient Forest Alliance, registered sponsor under the Election Act, 250-896-4007
Letters: B.C. forests, Steve Thomson, Ben Parfitt, Bob Simpson…
/in News CoverageMinister’s account is ‘pure fiction’
In response to Ben Parfitt’s op-ed about the B.C. Liberals’ intention to introduce legislation to rollover replaceable volume-based timber licenses to area-based tenures, the forests minister claims as a “fact” that the legislation stems from a recommendation from the special committee on timber supply that toured B.C. last summer.
That is pure fiction.
According to a leaked cabinet document, the “rollover” of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures was recommended to cabinet in April as an option to enable the rebuilding of the Burns Lake sawmill — a month before the committee was formed and five months before it made its recommendations public.
The committee did not “in fact” recommend the conversion of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures. Rather, it gave significant and thoughtful cautionary recommendations “if conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable.” The committee found there is still no consensus on the relative merits of area-based tenures and significant concern about the potential privatization of our largest public asset.
The minister also gave Hampton Affiliates a “letter of intent” in September committing to the conversion of this U.S. company’s volume licenses to area-based tenures — a full month before he publicly released a response to the committee’s recommendations.
The fact is: the Liberals were on the rollover path long before any public process.
Enabling legislation will not guarantee in law any defined public process in the rollover decisions. It is used to give politicians “flexibility” to take actions without the constraints of law or guiding regulations. Used inappropriately, it can be a very “sneaky” instrument indeed.
We must oppose giving politicians the unfettered right to radically alter forest tenures or to privatize our public forests. I certainly intend to do that in this upcoming session. It would be nice to know if the NDP will join me in this fight.
Bob Simpson, MLA, Cariboo North
Prove me wrong
Forests Minister Steve Thomson takes issue with the “highly speculative” nature of my recent op-ed in which I suggest that the provincial government intends to grant cabinet open-ended powers to give forest companies de facto control of public forestlands.
He does not quibble with the fact that legislation is, in fact, coming, but says that government will be open and accountable by “ensuring” that the public is consulted.
But will public consultation be enshrined in law? That’s the question. If Mr. Thomson wishes to end speculation that the interests of First Nations, communities and other stakeholders could be circumvented in the upcoming bill, he should simply publish the contemplated legislation. I would consider it a public service and a small price to pay to be proven wrong.
Ben Parfitt, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Link to online article: https://blogs.theprovince.com/2013/01/30/letters-b-c-forests-steve-thomson-ben-parfitt-bob-simpson-post-office-sun-media-protesters-public-sector-pensions/
Response to Minister Thomson – The Real Facts about the Proposed Tenure Legislation
/in News CoverageIn response to Ben Parfitt’s op-ed about the B.C. Liberals’ intention to introduce legislation to rollover replaceable volume-based timber licenses to area-based tenures, the forests minister claims as a “fact” that the legislation stems from a recommendation from the special committee on timber supply that toured B.C. last summer.
That is pure fiction.
According to a leaked cabinet document, the “rollover” of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures was recommended to cabinet in April as an option to enable the rebuilding of the Burns Lake sawmill — a month before the committee was formed and five months before it made its recommendations public.
The committee did not “in fact” recommend the conversion of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures. Rather, it gave significant and thoughtful cautionary recommendations “if conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable.” The committee found there is still no consensus on the relative merits of area-based tenures and significant concern about the potential privatization of our largest public asset.
The minister also gave Hampton Affiliates a “letter of intent” in September committing to the conversion of this U.S. company’s volume licenses to area-based tenures — a full month before he publicly released a response to the committee’s recommendations.
The fact is: the Liberals were on the rollover path long before any public process.
Enabling legislation will not guarantee in law any defined public process in the rollover decisions. It is used to give politicians “flexibility” to take actions without the constraints of law or guiding regulations. Used inappropriately, it can be a very “sneaky” instrument indeed.
We must oppose giving politicians the unfettered right to radically alter forest tenures or to privatize our public forests. I certainly intend to do that in this upcoming session. It would be nice to know if the NDP will join me in this fight.
[Original Bob Simpson article no longer available]
Privatizing Our Public Forests
/in News CoverageAlthough the timber supply does not exist to allow the Burns Lake sawmill to be rebuilt without negatively affecting other mills, communities, and jobs on Highway 16, the government has chosen to ignore this reality and appears intent on getting the Burns Lake mill rebuilt at any cost.
“Any cost” includes the commitment to introduce legislation this spring that will enable Cabinet to give Hampton Affiliates, an American company, exclusive rights over specific areas of our public forests in the Lakes Timber Supply Area in a manner that will open the door to the broad-scale privatization of our public forests.
In their dying days, the BC Liberals will introduce enabling legislation that will allow politicians to give forest companies exclusive rights over our public forests without the checks and balances of governing laws or regulations, or the guaranteed scrutiny of a transparent public process.
The Social Credit Party attempted a similar “rollover” of replaceable volume-based licenses to area-based tenures in 1988. The Socred Forests Minister of the day estimated their legislation would put over 60 percent of BC’s public forests under the exclusive control of private companies. The NDP Forest Critic at the time dubbed the legislation “privatization on a massive scale,” and it was squashed by significant public backlash.
Twenty-five years later, our forests are under assault by pests, disease, and fire. As the Auditor General pointed out, we have an appallingly weak forest inventory. And only a few large companies now hold replaceable volume-based timber licenses. Yet with the BC Liberal Party on the verge of losing the May election, they’re going to ram legislation through the BC Legislature that will do what Social Credit could not obtain the social licence to do in 1988.
As last summer’s Timber Supply Committee found out, the social licence still doesn’t exist to support the wholesale rollover of renewable forest licenses to area-based tenures. That’s why the Committee did not recommend this action. Instead, it gave some cautionary provisos to government for consideration “if conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable.”
I plan to oppose this legislation when it is introduced this spring. We’ll be posting more information this week to our website so you can learn more about the significant implications of this change to our public forest tenure system. Then, decide for yourself whether it ought to be supported or opposed.
Link to Bob Simpson’s online article: https://www.bobsimpsonmla.ca/privatizing-our-public-forests/