To the editor;
The controversy triggered by Canfor’s plan to log in the Upper Clearwater will eventually touch nearly every person in the town of Clearwater, whether or not the plan proceeds. Unfortunately, the words being tossed around by Canfor and the Ministry of Forests don’t tell us how people will be impacted.
First, we had the forestry open house in which Canfor laid claim to all kinds of wonderful things: sustainability, respect for community values, respect for the environment, consultation and so on. This was probably the same message given to Canfor’s customers and its shareholders. Here, everything was glowing, without a fault to be seen.
Regarding consultation, if the document called the Guiding Principles, hammered out by residents of the Upper Clearwater, does not constitute consultation, then what does? After years of meetings, wrangling and give-and-take on the part of local residents, Canfor seems ready to ignore the way residents see the issue.
Indeed, Canfor, is rewriting the dictionary of the English language by assigning a new meaning to the word “consultation.” It now means, “We’re telling you how it’s going to be.”
Then came Mr. Baird’s letter to the Times (in the March 9 issue). Baird reiterated Canfor’s characteristic emphasis on jobs and dollars. Also, Baird sidestepped the real issues by describing some opponents of his company’s logging plan as being opposed to everything having to do with forestry. From this, I gather that Baird hasn’t actually read the Guiding Principles document for, if he had, he’d be aware that it’s all about sustainable logging practices.
In a more recent Times article (April 12), Canfor spokesperson Ms. Stavness was kind enough to inform us that the local timber supply is “extremely challenged.” But what message is Stavness trying to get across? Is she telling us that Canfor has badly over-cut and is running out of wood? Is she trying to assert her company’s right to cut every last tree, regardless of the consequences? Or, is she, in fact, giving notice that we may wake up, one day soon, to find that Canfor is no longer with us? Clearwater’s identity has been closely tied to vanishing lumber mills.
In the same article, the Ministry tries to reassure us that everything Canfor is doing is consistent with the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA). Unfortunately, this rings hollow. The NDP version of FRPA, enacted in 1995, is vastly different from the 2004 version now in force. In FRPA 2004, nearly every environmental concern, whether it be soils, community water supply or species at risk, was deregulated in favor of maintaining the timber supply – until the trees disappear, that is.
There’s more at stake here than Canfor’s short-term profitability. At the present pace of logging, it won’t be long before we wave local forestry jobs goodbye, regardless of what happens in Upper Clearwater.
Maybe it’s time to give some thought to preserving Clearwater’s wilderness link to Wells Gray Park – key to a growing economic driver that will bring in cash to support small businesses and put food on the family table long after Canfor has become a distant memory.
D. Simms
Clearwater, B.C.
