A recent rash of timber license agreements have been reached in the past week (29 September; 27 September). This is indicative of the influence of timber interests- labour and capital- whose support of the local UCP candidate will practically guarantee their election. These agreements purport to give long-term employment guarantees. These assurances however might not be entirely in accord with the actual tenure agreements.
Grande Prairie
The 29 September news release from Nate Horner, the Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Economic Development minister spoke to the future of the Grande Prairie region reads in part:
Over their lifespans, the renewed Grande Prairie and Pembina FMAs are expected to maintain more than 1,250 full-time, contract and seasonal positions, and will potentially contribute:
$12.2 million and $14.7 million in annual holding and protection charge payments,
$313 million and $277 million in timber dues,
$3.2 billion and $3.5 billion to Alberta’s gross domestic product.
The announcement referred to two renewals of leases with the large American concern Weyerhaeuser Company Limited. The chief beneficiaries of this renewal are area MLAs Tracy Allard and Travis Toews, first term UCP MLAs.
Forest Management Agreements
FMAs are public. Abpolecon.ca examined a 2011 agreement between the Crown and Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries. This agreement is public and is an Order-in-Council of the government (O.C. 320/2011). Disclosure of the contract is a victory for freedom of information proponents. The fact that these agreements are made public gives considerable leverage to the Crown. Making the FMAs public means no free giveaways by the government.
The preamble of “whereas” however clearly favour the company. The company is allowed to harvest for 20 years with minimal requirements for harvesting practices, indigenous employment, or general employment commitments.
The first whereas states that Alpac “has invested $1.3- billion” in capital in the region, employs about a 1,000 workers, and with approximately 70 per cent of the mill’s expenditures in Alberta and its considerable investments in “advancing forest management through research and innovative practices in order to maintain a healthy forest environment” The third recital is Alpac’s message to the constituents of neighbouring communities.
Whereas the Minister desires to provide for the fullest possible economic utilization of forest stands and employment in local communities, and to ensure a perpetual supply of benefits and products while maintaining a forest environment of high quality.
Whereas the Minister desires to enhance the capacity for bio-energy development in Alberta (emphasis added).
In the first instance the Minister is quoted as saying he/she “desires” certain things without anything reciprocal in the preamble from the Company. Is the company committing to guarantee employment or local purchasing? Doesn’t look like that. These recitals are merely feel-good intentions rather than a guarantee of a job for twenty years
A safeguard for the government in terms of forest management is the requirement that certain sections which give the Government the power to effectively modify some aspects of the agreement presumably to favor of the Crown’s (taxpayers’) interests. These apply to matters like scaling, timber management, dispositions and fees, geological or geophysical exploration, fire protection, and Alberta office requirements.
Section 2(3) gives Alpac the entitlement to renew the agreement so long as the company is “not in any default of any of the terms, conditions, stipulations, covenants, agreements or provisions of the Agreement.” Section 6 allows the Minister to “at any time withdraw parts of the forest management area after consultation with the Company.”
Section 7 of the Agreement (Rights over the Land) gives the Company rights to harvest timber, carry out silviculture programs approved by the Minister, and construct, operate and maintain roads, bridges, camps, timbering processing operations, wood concentration yards. and other installations necessary to harvest the timber. Section 9 requires Alpac to provide to the government two forest management plans in 2015 and 2025 and require the company to “conduct presentations” with “potentially affected First Nations.” Section 21 provides for a reforestation program to meet the standard specified under an Order in Council. Section 25 requires the Company to pay the expenses of suppressing a fire that occurs in the Forest management Area. The province under section 28 receives a $2-million annual payment as a forest protection charge and receives $0.25 per cubic metre per year for the cut by the company.
Nowhere in the Alpac agreement is there any reference to employment guarantees or commitments by the company.
High Level
On the 27th, Horner had good news for the community of High Level with the announcement of the 20-year renewal of the forest management agreement (FMA) with Tolko Industries, Norbord Inc., and La Crete Sawmills. The FMA is “expected” to maintain more than 1,200 full-time, contract and seasonal positions and “potentially” contribute $6.1-billion to Alberta’s GDP over the term of the agreement.
Dan Williams, one term MLA for Peace River was suitably pleased:
I am always excited to see job creation in our communities within anchor industries like forestry. Our government’s decision to renew this FMA supports Alberta’s Recovery Plan, and the 1700 jobs that this agreement is expected to maintain is a huge contribution to our region.
First Nations’ rights to consult
Later on 29 September a press release came out of Indigenous Affairs’ minster Rick Wilson’s office which suggests that consultation surrounding harvesting rights may become more difficult in the future. I did not know that First Nations and Metis had to qualify to be designated as a party to be consulted. The Government is calling this “credible assertion” of “harvesting rights.” The announcement means that the Lac Ste. Anne Métis Community Association (LSAMCA) had a right to be “included in Alberta’s consultation framework.”
Incredibly, this is only the second time the Alberta government has recognized credible assertion -the first being the Fort McKay Métis Nation. Credible assertion, according to the Alberta Attorney General, “means the community will be consulted by industry when land and natural resource management decisions may adversely affect their harvesting and traditional use activities.” Alberta is now recognizing this right now embedded in case law.
The Lac Ste. Anne Métis Community Association’s traditional territory spans west -central Alberta.
The Fort McKay Métis Nation traditional lands share a border with the Fort Mackay First Nation is one of the most successful indigenous resource developers in Canada.
Indigenous Relations Minister Rick Wilson Source: gov.ab.ca
According to Wikipedia, the traditional land of the Fort McKay First Nation is on the “historical voyageur route that linked the rich Athabaskan region to Hudson Bay. David Thompson and George Simpson used the fur-trade route via the Beaver River from the main Methye Portage route that reached the Athabasca River.”
A key issue is who gets jobs from these FMAs. First Nations and Metis communities have historically been frustrated about not getting access to good quality and higher paying jobs that non-indigenous employees routinely expect.
Given the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, companies like Norbord, Tolko and Weyerhaeuser will be extremely happy to have another 20-year extension of their harvesting rights. These recent government announcements seem to fly in the face of “free, prior and informed consent,” central to indigenous rights, The requirement to be designated credible assertion before decisions on resource development are taken is highly problematic and an affront to First Nations and Metis communities..