In the wake of yet more bad news for the forestry sector and forestry-dependent communities, B.C. Forests Minister Bruce Ralston delivered a very calculated statement addressing not once, but twice, the “business decision” of Canfor to shutter Polar Sawmill in Bear Lake, indefinitely curtail one line at the Northwood Pulp Mill, and pull the rug out from the District of Houston.
On the other side, you have Canfor blaming “the cumulative impact of policy changes and increased regulatory complexity” for impeding access to fibre and forced operation closures.
BC Council of Forest Industries president, Linda Coady, also said as much last month: “There’s been too much change happening at the same time.”
Canfor said it would need to see significant improvements to the way things work in British Columbia in order to proceed with operations, let alone invest in a new sawmill in Houston.
But even if government gave the company what it wanted, would Canfor really proceed in B.C.?
Canfor’s investment declined, but not its tenure
Canfor’s assets and interests in B.C. have been declining for more than a decade, leading to increased operations in the regulatory haven of the United States.
What hasn’t declined, at least to the level of their local employment and operations, is the tenure they hold. Tenure that should, according to our government, belong to the residents of British Columbia.
While industry steadily diminishes and the B.C. government shifts the rules of the game, the fate of communities throughout rural and northern B.C. hang on the outcome of this who-will-blink-first contest.
Not really what you want to see from the adults in the room.
If regulatory changes are not on the horizon, and “business decisions” are off the table, what recourse is there for B.C. forestry communities?
How about a complete paradigm shift in the forestry landscape.
Time to rethink who holds tenure
As we’ve seen from several First Nations in the province, and organizations working alongside nations, economic reconciliation is one of the most direct ways in which we can change pathways and opportunities.
If major forestry players want to play politics with our timber, and hurt communities, workers and families, then maybe we need to take their tenure and turn it over to First Nations and municipalities to manage.
Community forests are one way to make this happen.
If nations and municipalities partnered on community forests, we could create new revenue streams to mitigate downloading of services and responsibilities by senior government, create viable pathways to economic reconciliation, and ensure proper forest management by those accountable not to shareholders, but to residents.
Family-run businesses like Dunkley or Brink will make far better partners than conglomerates based in Vancouver. And community-owned forests would necessarily focus on meeting the needs of local communities, rather than the bottom line of internationally run corporations.
With a community forest model, we could create better management practices for wildfire mitigation; increase opportunities for land-based learning that respects traditional practices; elevate and activate Indigenous youth for future employment opportunities in forestry, and, most importantly, secure a healthy, sustainable forest sector for everyone in the years to come.
If we want to see changes to the forestry industry in B.C., then we need to start making those changes now.
If not, “business decisions” and “policy decisions” will continue to clash and B.C.’s rural and remote forestry communities will be the ones caught in the crossfire.