ARE WE THERE YET ?

This is a letter I wrote to Bruce Hyer, MP Thunder Bay-Superior North, House of Commons, Ottawa

on July 16, 2010  I was trying to understand where the Federal Government control was, of our Crown Boreal Forests from coast to coast.

Dear Bruce,

As you know, I have been researching and writing about our Boreal Forest.

I have been able to find a statement that defines the Role of the Federal Government.

In co-operation with the Provinces and Industry they will promote Canadian Forest Products.  One of the Federal government's primary responsibilities is to ensure that the international community is well informed about forestry policies and practices in effect in Canada and to spread the word of Canada's pursuit of sustainable forest management. (HCSC 1999) House of Commons Standing Committee =HCSC

In co-operation with the Provinces and Industry they will DEFEND Canada's Interests on International Markets.

The House of Commons Standing Committee hearings of May 14th, 1999, in Vancouver, heard a lot and said a lot:

"As a major forestry nation we have a history at the forefront of international initiatives to improve forest practices and cooperation." (Canada's presentation, Paris, 1999 )
"... that the  forest practices in Canada and in particular in B.C. ( British Columbia ), are clearly in the forefront of the practices worldwide."
"Many preservationists are of the view that Canadians have inherited a global treasure and that it is our responsibility to safeguard it over the long term."

The Standing Committee realized that the ENTIRE Canadian Forest Industry would be affected by campaigns which targeted our forest practices.  Witnesses to that hearing in Vancouver stated that, " ...if one steps back they see the TARGET is Canada not just British Columbia."

GRIM PREDICTIONS, 1999

GRIM REALITY, 2010

From reading the Boreal Forest Conservation Framework:

 Their tenets:

"Ensure sustainable economic benefits to Northern Communities and the viability of commercial interests."

"Seek creative solutions to mitigate any negative impacts on communities, business and labour from establishments of protected areas."


Just by putting those two planks in their framework they knew that what they were building was going to have a negative effect  on our economy, industry, and way of life.  I know they were going "... to initiate a voluntary declaration by each Framework supporter on Specific Actions to be taken, within their scope of responsibility, to implement the Framework."

Have they?

The Chronicle-Journal, Thunder Bay, July 13, 2010  page A1: By Carl Clutchey -

A Veteran Northwestern Ontario logging company operator says existing federal loan agencies like FedNor should be tapped to help struggling "mom-and-pops" get back up and running.  The "mom-and-pops" companies have families in our communities and kids in our schools.
Eric Rutherford says, " It seems like the banks don't want to have anything to do with anything that has forestry in it."

And then I looked at some signatories of the Boreal Conservation Framework:

• Tembec, sales of $3.5 billion dollars ( also a signatory to the Boreal Forest Agreement of May 18, 2010)
• Dejardins Funds of Canada  $12 billion in assets
• Domini Social Investments LLC $1.5 billion
• BATIRENTE pension system $740 million

When they build a new baseball stadium, they don't demolish the old one until the team can walk out onto the new turf.  Why were the people of the Boreal not treated to such a transition?

From Boreal Futures, State of the Debate: p. 102/116

"The Federal Government has known that Civil Society Organizations have taken a boreal -wide approach with the influx of significant charitable funding from the United States. The funding led to the creation of the Canadian Boreal Trust which evolved into the Canadian Boreal Initiative."  "The Initiative has channeled funding to other Canadian Organizations that have then been able to step up their Boreal Conservation efforts." ( Civil Society is what the Environmental Non-government Organizations want to be called now)
So, the federal government knew that Pew (U.S. based) provided the pass-through funds.

From the National Forest Strategy, 2003-2008: page 8/15  Section 5.3

MARKET PRESSURE

"Market campaigns are aimed at specific Forestry Companies as well as major Retail Chains that are especially vulnerable to risk of "brand damage".

"Market campaigns typically impose certain demands ("asks"), accompanied by implicit or explicit threats of damaging action if the demands are not met."

"While the specific demands vary, they usually involve some sort of commitment to refrain from logging in (or purchasing wood products from) "endangered" forests, and typically include a commitment to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification."

From Forest Conservation in Canada A summary of Issues and Opportunities, January 2004:
Section 3.2

• The Federal Government has legal jurisdiction in certain areas relevant to: Forest Conservation  and Trans Boundary Issues such as Migratory Birds, fish and fisheries and navigable waters
• The Federal Government has responsibility for : International Environment and Trade Agreements which have implications for Forests

From the Senate Subcommittee "Competing Realities":

"They want a strong federal government in Canada's Boreal Forests."

Are we there yet?