BY MARK KUHLBERG
Viki Mather's column in the Jan 23 edition
implores readers to write to the minister of Natural Resources,
and I applaud her directive. In fact, I was so moved by her
"call to action" I felt compelled to write two letters: one to
the minister, and a second one to her.
In her article, she describes herself as a
"wilderness advocate," and it is Mather's use of this term
"wilderness" that would be the reason for my letter to the
minister.
Rather than calling for him to set aside more
"nature preserves," I would like to remind him humans are
integral parts of our ecosystems. It is this fundamental
reality that we deny when we set aside tracts of "wilderness"
in the hopes we are somehow improving the health of our
ecosystem. If the only parts of our planet we consider to be
truly healthy are those where humans cannot go, what hope does
that hold for our collective future?
This approach also ignores the simple fact
that nature is a living breathing entity, not a static work of
art - like a painting - that can be "saved" simply by placing
it in a hermetically sealed case. For these reasons, I urge the
minister to pursue a prudent policy in managing Crown lands so
they may
be key parts of our lives for generations to
come.
My letter to Mather would address the matters
she raised in her article. I would take issue with what she
decries as the advent of "the super-mills" and the "big
companies" and the decline of the family-owned operation, a
process she directly associates with a reckless transition
to
unsustainability and home-wrecking plants
that run "two or three shifts" (including one overnight).
I would remind her the biggest employers in
the Sudbury basin - Inco and Falconbridge - have run
"graveyard" shifts for decades as a normal part of doing
business. Moreover, thousands of doctors, firefighters, police
officers and others have worked night shifts for as long as
anyone can remember, and their schedules have nothing to do
with the advent of super-mills or big companies.
I would suggest to Mather that, if, as she
contends, working night shifts are not conducive to fostering
healthy communities, she should divorce it
from her environmentalist hyperbole and
devote the rest of her working life to mounting a campaign to
bring it to an end.
More importantly, I would remind her about
the success story that the Sudbury Forest represents. In this
area, an association of nine forest operators - nearly all of
which are family businesses - has remained largely unaffected
by the arrival of the super mills. As a result, small-scale
producers in communities such as Monetville and Hagar continue
to remain integral parts of Ontario's forest industry
landscape.
I would also point out the mill shutdowns
that were recently announced involved the consolidation of
existing operations by two firms; they did not affect the
operation of a single family-owned saw mill.
Finally, I would suggest to Mather's
generalizations about evil multinationals raping and pillaging
the forest have outworn their usefulness. In fact, recent
experience indicates that most of these "big companies" in
Ontario have learned a valuable lesson. It is far more cost
effective to pay to manage the forest responsibly up front than
it is to avoid this added initial expense and then have
protesters show up with placards at the lumber yard.
Tembec, the super-mill that announced its
plans to shut its mill in Opasatika, is the same firm to which
the World Wildlife Fund recently awarded its
highest certification of forest stewardship
for managing the very woodlands from which the mill in
Opasatika harvests its wood.
In other words, despite the mill closure, the
forest in this community will still be managed to the highest
environmental standards. And while no one likes to see mill
closures, Tembec will still process the wood from the nearby
forest in a sawmill a short drive from "Opaz."
In this economic climate, it simply does not
make sense to operate two saw mills within such close
proximity.
My letter would then ask that she recognize
that the issues about which she writes are not simple. Not all
"big companies" uphold the same forest stewardship standards,
and not all family-owned operations are benign. We need logical
discourse among the stakeholders so Ontarians are better
informed. Only in this way will we be able to find innovative
and creative solutions to address the challenges our forest
industry and northern environment face today.
I would close my letter to Mather with a
plea. I would stress we do not need another maudlin appeal
designed to elicit an emotional response. I would also urge her
to avoid the trap into which critics of the province's industry
have fallen, namely the tendency to make allegations without
feeling the need to find evidence to support them. While it is
much easier to paint a picture in which one side simply wears
black hats and the other white, the more noble challenge lies
in providing an accurate portrayal of the situation using the
whole spectrum of colours.
Mark Kuhlberg is an associate professor in the history
department at Laurentian University.