Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Even the Supreme Court of Canada can’t define this, and it leaves decisions like the one in Fort St John up in the air, wondering what the Minister will do


Yesterday, Doug Donaldson, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, released a statement regarding the transfer of a forest licence from Conifex to Fort St. James Forest Products.  In his statement Donaldson noted:




On Friday, Oct. 25, 2019, I approved the transfer of a forest licence and associated road permits from Conifex Timber Inc. to Fort St. James Forest Products, a subsidiary of Hampton Lumber Mills. After a comprehensive review of this public asset, I determined that this transfer is in the public interest and will benefit British Columbians”.

Continuing, Donaldson went on to say:

As a condition of the transfer, Hampton has committed to build a new mill in Fort St. James that will be operational within 36 months of closing the transaction with Conifex. It is my expectation that Hampton will continue to work closely with First Nations to develop business and capacity-building arrangements and hire local workers. In addition, it must meet with the United Steelworkers’ local, and continue discussions with Fort St. James Green Energy and local logging contractors”.

After reading the comments of BC NDP Forest Minister Doug Donaldson -- who has been under scrutiny for months now due to the severe economic downturn of the provinces forest industry -- I asked the Liberal’s Forest critic John Rustad what he thought of the transfer.


The commitment by Hampton to build a new mill in Fort St James is a very positive, and important, development. I’m happy to see this. I still question however, Bill 22 and the ‘public interest’ test. Even the Supreme Court of Canada can’t define this, and it leaves decisions like the one in the Fort (Ft. St. John) up in the air wondering what the Minister will do”, he indicated. 

Regarding the provincial governments Bill 22 legislation, their rationale was that prior to the Bill, government had little say when companies wanted to trade or sell tenure.

Stated Donaldson, “Now, those companies must be fully engaged with First Nations, workers and local governments before any tenure transfer would be considered. This is one sizeable step in making sure that the people who live near the forests are first in line to benefit from that resource”.

Furthermore, he indicated that, “We also ensured that the transfer was not detrimental to marketing fibre in BC”.

Still BC Liberal Forestry critic John Rustad has concerns, which are likely echoed by many through-out the province: 

The proponents, communities and First Nations are still waiting for the Minister’s decision around the Vavenby (mill closure).




He continued, “Even though this was first out of the gate, there seems to be no decision anytime soon -- being caught up in the minister’s desire for public interest to be met”. 

When Canfor announced their Vavenby mill was being closed permanently, Clearwater Mayor Merlin Blackwell told CBC News:

"This is 172 jobs that will be affected directly — and probably double that to triple that in contractors and other people — within the Clearwater, Vavenby, North Thompson valley that depend on this mill and their operation for their employment”. 

While Doug Donaldson is, as he says, ‘confident this approval will help the people of BC and support a vibrant and diverse forest sector’, men and women in communities like Vavenby, Quesnel, Chasm, Mackenzie -- and a dozen others -- wonder when they’ll again receive a paycheque ...

... or for how long they’ll continue to receive one.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Focus on the nine things I mentioned. That’s what will allow the Conservative Party to win the next election

IMAGE CREDIT:   Darryl Dyck, the Canadian Press. I thought I had already made up my mind who I would be ranking on my ballot, in the Conservative Party of BC leadership race; now I am not so sure.  That means that, at least for me, and perhaps many others, it’s a good thing voting hasn’t already taken place. There were initially only one or two of the candidates that I thought might be a little too right of centre for my liking, now it seems that list is growing. I consider myself more closely aligned with what used to be called a Progressive Conservative, regardless, I feel more than comfortable within the Conservative Party of BC.  Some, however, in messages to me on my political Facebook page, have been rather, shall we say, a bit mean-spirited in comments they’ve made about my ‘purity’ as a conservative. To tell you the truth, I really don’t care! Some leadership candidates, in comments made online, have also been raising the issue of who is a pure enough conservati...

WARD STAMER -- Those are REAL forestry numbers, not just made-up numbers

The following is a condensed version of remarks Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s made, regarding Forestry, in the BC Legislature, on Tuesday afternoon (02/24/2026)   Let’s talk a little bit, when we talk about Budget 2026, about the forest industry, which is near and dear to my heart. Forestry remains one of British Columbia’s foundational industries. It’s a pillar that built this province. Entire communities depend upon it. Interior towns, northern communities, Vancouver Island regions, the Kootenays, the Lower Mainland, with manufacturing facilities in Surrey and Maple Ridge, just to name a few — everywhere in BC is touched by forestry. One word that was not mentioned in Budget 2026 was forestry. That’s a shame, an incredible shame. It wasn’t an oversight – it was intentional. This government has driven forestry into the ground .... INTO THE GROUND! We can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forth, to try to resurrect ...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more