David Broadland

February 2, 2023

2 hours ago, Guest Brian L. Horejsi said:

As long as diversion of authority, money and assets to special interest like Indian bands is a dominant political agenda (look at who new Premier Eby now has as insiders / advisers in his office), divisive and diversionary agendas, like land giveaways under the name of social justice, will cripple land and forest reform and hamstring the management and conservation science behind it.

Just to be clear, Brian, the courts have recognized Indigenous land title and rights and the BC government has to abide by those court decisions. You might be right that the government led by John Horgan delayed implementation of the old growth strategic review panel's recommendations on the basis of the need to consult with First Nations governments, but we can't blame Indigenous governments for that, which it sounds like you are doing. Correct me if I am wrong.

We are not going to get "forest reform" without that reform being led by Indigenous people and Indigenous wisdom about the land. That's now settled. It was their land, it was stolen, and over time they are going to get it back, or at least the right to decide what happens on their lands. We all need to work within that reality. I am looking forward to it.

The only interest group we really need to worry about is that tiny segment of settler culture in BC who see forests strictly as a commodity to be traded. Unfortunately, right now, that 19th century mode of thinking is still powerful enough that it is allowed to continue to degrade whatever land it touches.

January 31, 2023

Well said, Anthony.

Does anyone know of any other industry in BC that would so readily receive multi-million dollar subsidies from government when economic conditions go south? I don't.

The construction industry, which is much larger than the logging-milling industry, is expected to downsize itself during unfavourable market conditions in BC. Construction workers migrate to other locations when the real estate market in BC slumps.

The same expectation applies to all other forms of labour in BC.

But for the logging industry, corporate welfare always kicks in, and quickly. This has the long-term result of exhausted forests and workers that end up believing— wrongly—that they must be foundational to the province's economic well being. Only 10 to 20 percent of what's logged in BC ends up being used in BC.

This history of unrealistic and unwarranted support for the logging-for-export industry by government seems to make those working in the industry super aggressive about their right to access "fibre", and we now know they will push this sense of entitlement right to the last commercially attractive tree.

I have summarized the less obvious subsidies government provides this failing industry here. Without these subsidies, which no other industry in BC could ever expect to receive, we would have a logging industry just large enough to meet the actual need for forest products in BC.

January 18, 2023

They weren't listening Fred. A government press release today announced $90 million over three years in new subsidies for the industry. The government is calling this one the "BC Manufacturing Jobs Fund".

The fund "will support high-value industrial and manufacturing projects to drive clean and inclusive growth in rural, remote and Indigenous communities." But only for the logging and wood products milling industries.

The kinds of hypothetical manufacturing jobs being subsidized are described in a paragraph: "For example, the BC Manufacturing Jobs Fund may provide funding to a forestry company that needs to buy new equipment to support new product lines, such as mass timber production or paper packaging, or smaller-diameter tree processing and manufacturing, or a company that wants to build or expand a plastics-alternative manufacturing facility in a rural community."

The release noted that "The fund is in addition to the $185-million support package announced in Budget 2022 to ensure that co-ordinated and comprehensive supports are in place to offset any economic impacts from a changing forestry industry."

That's another $275 million in public money to enrich the shareholders of logging companies just because the market value of wood products went back to normal.

February 23, 2022

13 hours ago, V Thompson said:

Can Van Andruss or someone from Evergreen Alliance clarify or unpack the statement in Van Andruss' critique of Bill 23 quoted below:

Hi Virginia,

Good question. Seems evident that the provision in question is aimed at blockades of forestry roads. The actual wording of Bill 23 can be found here: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/2nd-session/bills/first-reading/gov23-1

Yves Mayrand has an in-depth critique of Bill 23 here:

In that analysis, Yves notes:

with respect to a forest service road or forest resource road, requirements for a person who uses a forest service road to provide notice to the minister or a prescribed person in relation to the person’s use of the forest service road, authorizing a person to close a road, restrict the use of a road, and/or remove property from a road, including but not limited to removing vehicles or animals, and/or requirements for the owner of property removed from a road to pay a person who removed the property the costs of the removal;

Here's the pertinent portion of Yves analysis:

The following should be duly understood and noted with respect to the expanded powers of the executive government of British Columbia in section 155 of the FRPA, as amended:

there is no provision in the FRPA, as amended by Bill 23, respecting the determination of, or the disputing of, the costs of the removal of property from roads;
regulations under section 155 of the FRPA, as amended by Bill 23, may be issued by order in council setting their effective date and published in the Gazette without prior consultation or comments;

no exception, accommodation, variation or reservation is made in the FRPA or the FA, as amended by Bill 23, for forest roads located within the unceded traditional territories of First Nations in British Columbia, their aboriginal rights, the application of their treaty rights, or the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act of British Columbia (DRIP Act);
the explanatory note in Bill 23 with respect to the proposed amendments to section 155 of the FRPA only states the obvious: they expand the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (executive government) to make regulations in relation to roads; it does not provide any explanation as to their actual extent, why they are necessary, how, under what circumstances and for what period of time they will be used, or subject to what criteria and safeguards;
this set of new executive powers may well be used with a view to legalizing and court-proofing the forcible seizure and removal of vehicles and other private property on forest roads by forest tenure agreement holders (such as, for example, Teal Cedar Products Ltd. in TFL 46), other industrial resource extraction licence or permit holders, infrastructure builders or operators (such as, for example, CGL in Wet’suwet’en traditional territory), their agents, contractors and subcontractors, and police enforcement bodies (such as, for example, the RCMP) at the unregulated and arbitrary expense of the owners of such private property, thus preventing or impeding the free circulation of the public and the media on these roads and the monitoring and reporting of controversial industrial logging or other industrial activities and enforcement measures within forested provincial Crown land.

In short, the proposed amendments to the FRPA in Bill 23 will provide that:

forest roads are essentially reserved for industrial uses (forest harvesting, sylviculture and natural resource development) by industrial users;
Non-industrial users of forest roads, including BC residents, hikers, monitors and members of First Nations, may eventually be required to pay expenses to government, a holder of a permit or licence, other persons who meet “prescribed requirements”, or a person responsible for maintaining a forest road;
forest tenure holders, road permit and timber cutting permit holders, other natural resource extraction licence or permit holders, pipeline owners or operators, their respective subcontractors, agents, or representatives, or police enforcement officers may be empowered by government regulation to control access to, ingress to and egress from forest roads and their related rights of way (37.5 metres each side from the centre of the road), including by lawfully blocking forest roads to members of First Nations, peaceful protesters, the press, monitors and legal observers;
exclusion zones may be applied under the authority of new forest road regulations, and the courts effectively hindered or prevented from protecting freedom of the press and the constitutional rights of peaceful protesters in these exclusion zones; and
vehicles and other private property may eventually be seized and moved to discretionary remote locations with or without prior court order or injunction, and their owners required to pay discretionary or arbitrary removal costs to regain possession of their property, thus targeting and arbitrarily penalizing peaceful protesters, members of the press, monitors and legal observers present on forest roads.

Content Type

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Events

Journalism: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of forest-related employment

Journalism: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Journalism: Loss of primary forest

Journalism: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Other notable forest-related writing and reports

Noteworthy writing and reports from the forest-industrial complex

Forest News

Library: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Loss of primary forest

Library: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Make conservation of the hydrological function of forests a higher priority than timber extraction

Library: Loss of forest-related employment

Library: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Transition from clearcut logging to selection logging

Library: Increase in forest fire hazard

Journalism: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Journalism: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Library: Creating a new vision for BC forests

Forest industry public subsidy calculator

Manufacturing and processing facilities

Forest Trends

Investigations

Community Forest Mapping Projects

Area-based calculations of carbon released from clearcut logging

Journalism: The increase in forest carbon emissions

Library: Increase in forest carbon emissions

To protect biodiversity, transition away from clearcut logging

Peachland Watershed Protection Alliance

Library: Loss of future employment resulting from exporting raw logs

Mapping old forest on Vancouver Island

Mapping old forest in Omineca Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Skeena Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Northeastern Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Cariboo Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in South Coast Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Thompson-Okanagan Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Kootenay-Boundary Natural Resource Region

Forest Conservation Organizations

Mapping old forest on Haida Gwaii

Mapping old forest on the central coast

Library: Ecologically damaging practices

Journalism: Ecologically damaging practices

Critical Issues

Analysis

Comment

Listed species: Cascades Natural Resource District

Listed species: 100 Mile House Natural Resource District

Listed species: Campbell River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Cariboo-Chilcotin Natural Resource District

Listed species: Chilliwack River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Fort Nelson Natural Resource District

Listed species: Haida Gwaii Natural Resource District

Listed species: Mackenzie Natural Resource District

Listed species: Nadina Natural Resource District

Listed species: North Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Peace Natural Resource District

Listed species: Prince George Natural Resource District

Listed species: Quesnel Natural Resource District

Listed species: Rocky Mountain Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sea-to-Sky Natural Resource District

Listed species: Selkirk Natural Resource District

Listed species: Skeena Natural Resource District

Listed species: South Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Stuart-Nechako Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sunshine Coast Natural Resource District

Listed species: Thompson Rivers Natural Resource District

Listed species: Coast Mountains Natural Resource District

Action Group: Divestment from forest-removal companies

Fact-checking mindustry myths

First Nations Agreements