Packed meeting room.
Public meeting panel (left to right): Kevin Davie, Sunshine Coast Forest Coalition chair; Cam Reid, Sechelt Mayor; Ray Parfitt, Sechelt District Planning Director; and Brian Smart.
Large maps in meeting hall show Chapman and Gray Creek Land Act Watershed Reserves in long term (25-99 year) forestry plans.
Their titles as "Watershed Reserves" are obviously not indicated on the maps, nor referred to as such in the Tenure application.
Sunshine Coast Regional District Director, John Marian: "There are representatives here from Roberts Creek, from Area E and Area F. A total of 23,000 people rely on this watershed.... I guess the bottom line is, as a member of the Regional District, as sitting on the Board, that has an agreement with the Sechelt Indian Band, that includes very specifically, no logging, no industrial activity within the watershed, which Sechelt is a signatory to, and at the same time being asked to accept on faith that Sechelt will adequately represent the interests of the other 16,000. My experience leaves me absolutely no confidence that that will be the case. You have no support from the SCRD, despite claiming on television that you did. You have no agreement with the Sechelt Indian Band.... Why should we have the slightest faith that Sechelt's stance on this issue, when it is unilateral, when it is disrespectful of the vast amount of people that depend on that watershed."
Sechelt District Mayor Cam Reid (right), and Kevin Davie (left), answering but avoiding questions. Reid: "I am not asking you to trust me. We are setting up a corporation and we are setting up partnerships. Regulations have been set up to manage the watershed lands, the forested area... I will not be one of the people that goes on after me that does it. It will be done by a Committee established by the partners, directed by the corporation, and will be reported back to the community for input. And that has to be signed off by a registered forester.... I am sorry you feel that way. You had the opportunity, we think, to do something really great for the area here, especially the watershed. Or we could just abandon it and walk away." (Much applause to last statement.)
Bob Darcy, representing the Sechelt Community Association Forum, a discussion and policy group made up of the Community Associations. "The first real [public] consultation was not until two years into the project with the public meeting of January 29th, 2005... Your application for Community Forest License states that your application has received "broad-based community support", citing the January 29th meeting, which we all know was one of questions rather than unqualified support.... It is our position that the project cannot proceed unless a true broad-based consultation has been pursued. It is our strongest recommendation that any application be withdrawn or delayed indefinitely."
Michael Davidson, member of a newly formed group called the Sechelt Electors Association. "Many speakers here will no doubt question the wisdom of accepting an offer to log a land base 46 percent of which comprises our drinking watersheds, as well as designated parklands. Others are upset by the prolonged secrecy and the sudden urgency surrounding this application. Therefore, as a non-partisan electoral association, we will focus on a lack of accountability surrounding the proposed Board of Directors..... Since the area to be administered is almost entirely outside the Sechelt Municipal boundaries, and is a primary source of drinking water for much of the Coast ... democratic representation is essential to avoid serious conflict.... Let it be understood that the Sechelt Electors Association is opposed to the Community Forest as this one is currently proposed."
Dan Bouman, Exective Director of the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association. "I think it is quite reasonable to expect that the District of Sechelt and the Regional District will work out their differences and come to an agreement, because the Regional District has the legal liabilities of providing water, and we are talking about a logging license in an area that they provide water from. So the first question is, why have you not been able to produce an agreement with the Regional District about the management of the watersheds? That's part A of the question. Part B of the question relates to the Sechelt Indian Band.... We want to see that the relationship between local government and the Sechelt Indian Band is honourable, and we are not always privy to the meetings that sometimes occur, like the one today ... It is the law of Canada that First Nations consultations have to be honourable and must accomodate through meaningful consultation with First Nations. I was a little surprised about a week ago to get a copy of a letter from the Sechelt Indian Band in which they state that they do not support the Community Forest proposal at this time, and that their concern has to do with the watershed. So Part B of the question is, why have you not been able to make the kinds of concessions and make an agreement with the Sechelt First Nation that would bring them on board?"
Cam Reid: "In order to make the application, we would like an agreement, and we would like support. But we are making the application, and we are trying to continue for our partnership and develop a plan that this community will be proud of and support. We are working on it. But at this point the first step is to apply for a Community Forest Tenure."
Dan Bouman: "Sounds like you don't have the support of the Regional District and the Sechelt First Nation."
"When will you remove this arbitrary deadline for submission, Mr. Reid?"
Reid: "We may not remove it... We are looking for information, feedback and comments."
Council of Canadians representative. "I understand that this has happened in Kaslo, and has split the community in half. I am starting to feel this already happening here. Because we are having people concerned, SCRD people, people who are concerned from the Indian Band. I think we have been told time and time again that there should be no logging in the watershed.... There should be no moratoriums, there should be no logging in the watershed. You talk about a reasonable distance [away from a stream] - I don't think so. Don't log the watershed. We had a 5,000 signature Petition a couple of years ago that said no to that."
Ministry of Forests's District Manager Greg Hemphill.
[The following are notes from a February 22, 2005 public meeting held in the Sechelt District Community meeting room. "Kevin Davie reported that he had posed the idea of excluding the Chapman/Gray Creek watershed from the Community Forest Licence to the Ministry's District Forester G. Hemphill. Mr. Hemphill indicated: * the only areas available to the Community Forest are from the 20% takeback from major licence holders, * the watersheds are part of this area of the working forest, * if the watersheds are not included in the Community Forest, they would be assigned to BC Timber Sales, * the Ministry believes it would be in the community's best interest to include the watersheds so that the community has greater control over the forest activities in the area."
Ministry of Forest's District Manager Greg Hemphill - pondering photos during comments from public against including Chapman and Gray Creek Watershed Reserves in Community Forest Tenure application.
Doreen Bartley, from Elphinstone. "Our watershed will be fouled up for the sake of ten jobs, ten loggers will be having jobs up there. You don't seem to get it you people. I don't want my grandchildren doing the same thing I have been doing for decades - we are always fighting for our watershed here for clean water. And you just don't seem to get it. We don't ming logging. We just don't want it in our watershed. We don't care if its Weyerhaeuser, or Mac&Blo, or the community forest people, or Mr. Hemphill and his Ministry of Forests. We just don't want you in our watershed. We want clean water. Under the jurisdiction of Mr. Hemphill and the Ministry of Forests, we've already had our water fouled up before, and we don't trust him to do this again. I'm sure its going to happen again. He's going to go in the watershed and its going to foul up our water, and we don't want it."
A silent panel.
A despondent Ministry of Forest's District Manager Greg Hemphill - photos during comments from public against including Chapman and Gray Creek Watershed Reserves in Community Forest Tenure application.
Michael Maser. "You have an option for an extended 30 days on the extension from the Ministry of Forests and I suggest you do that, for the benefit of Sunshine Coast residents to solicit the input that you say you are genuinely receiving.... I know something about corporations ... and there is something that doesn't add up for me here. There is a corporation that has been formed to oversee this process to act as the license holder. There will be two elected representatives on the Board of Directors for this corporation.... My question is, because I am quite cautious of this wariness right now, based on the track record for the last several years for this process. What are the means of public disclosure that this corporation will be relied to live up to, because all I know is there will be private Board meetings, and private to the public. I find that absolutely alarming, that we are going to be turning over the rights of our watershed to a private corporation, living with the results of that partnership, that corporation and the Province of British Columbia."
Claude Boisvert: "What we didn't know at the time [in January 2005 at the first public meeting] is what the actual plan would look like at the time, so we were being asked to support the concept of a community forest, which is something I would support.... I just wish this meeting would have been held back in September , rather than five weeks prior to the application deadline. That would give the community time to have a feel for it, rather than getting pressured into this .... The only thing I have a problem with this plan is that I find it extremely provocative that the watershed will be included, when the express wishes of the community has been for years, for ever, not to have it in. I find it mind boggling that the Ministry of Forests would even consider this as part of a Community Forest application, given the history on the Coast here, of 88 percent opposition to the concept of logging of the forest. My question is, is there a possibility if the District of Sechelt got more cooperation from the SCRD and the Sechelt Indian Band, and had more consultation with exactly what the community would like to see on ther forest for a long period of time, would the Ministry be able to offer other areas outside the watershed for us to do 20,000 cubic meters and still have a communty forest on the Sunshine Coast?"
"My first intution is, are you sure you know what you are doing?... A wise man gave me a definition between a politician and a statesman. A politician, he said, is someone who wants results NOW, in his lifetime. A statesman is someone who is ready to plant a tree for someone else to sit in its shade. I am asking you, will your grandchildren see you as a politician or a statesman?"
Jason Hirtz. "Seems to me this should be called the Community Roast rather than the Forest initiative.... Under "forms" in your governance (section), , it indicates that shareholder meetings, which is the meeting that involves the finances, generally, it states that two shareholders, with an aggregate of five percent of the shares, is a quorum. That seems to be a low five percent of decisions to be made by only five percent holding...."