Updated January 2012
15 Minutes of Infamy!
For the record, this entire version of the story in Hansard by Randy Hillier is factually incorrect -- just in case you thought Randy might accidentally say something truthful.
Hansard excerpt (Randy Hillier on the Tenure Modernization Act):
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO / ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO Tuesday 17 May 2011 Mardi 17 mai 2011
"Of course, this government isn’t one to listen to anyone who isn’t a moneyed downtown Toronto lobbyist. Research by the PC caucus has shown that this bill isn’t a product of the McGuinty government at all. The root of this legislation was written by none other than a Toronto eco-lobbyist, Tom Clark, in a paper written for the Ivey Foundation. The Ivey Foundation funded Tom Clark to produce that report. We all remember the Ivey Foundation as being that organization which bragged about playing the government like a fiddle. Their mandate is to halt all forestry in the province of Ontario. It looks like the Ivey Foundation has done it once again.
The government is continuing to fiddle while the forest industry burns. Now Tom Clark has helped them create another piece of legislation which will send shockwaves through the industry. This bill is yet another nail in the coffin of the forestry sector. While the government claims this bill will help Ontario’s forestry, it was created by the very same people devoted to destruction of the forestry industry.
...
I would like the minister to stand up in this House and say, “No, it wasn’t because of Tom Clark and the Ivey Foundation,” which funded and came up with this idea. Stand up in this House and tell us that that’s not where the motivation for this bill came from, because we know that that is where the whole concept and the whole idea of creating these forestry LHINs came from: the Ivey Foundation.
HANSARD text at : http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2011-05-17&Parl=39&Sess=2&locale=en#P52_2949
New Tenure Legislation
The model chosen by the government is more bureaucratic than that proposed in our paper (See below attachments "21st century tenure"), but we consider it a step forward. The government needs to be encouraged to be bold, or risk being overrun by a quickly changing world.
The attachments below include our 2010 work entitled "Revitalizing Ontario’s Forest Tenure System: Foundation for a 21st Century Forest Economy. Jeremy Williams, Tom Clark and Chris Wedeles". This was supported by the Ivey Foundation (but is entirely our idea). This is a proposal for renewing the ownership and management of Ontario's forests. It has received wide review and been the subject of several presentations and workshops. If you are interested -- download a copy and send comments back to the authors (see "About Tom" for address). The file is "tenure 21st century..." For video of this see below!
The support for this idea has been overwhelming. People working for the forest industry were perhaps most supportive and most helpful in making improvements. Ironically many were not able to publicly comment because of the position of the companies they work for. One interesting response to this tenure proposal has been the hesitation of a number of community based groups to the idea of having a local and independent forest enterprise. Given the current locked up tenure arrangement, where most licenses are held by non Ontario companies, it is indeed a conundrum we have not been able to explain. Canadians, and particularly Ontarions, are very cautious.
Everyone we talked to really liked the word "enterprise". One respondent commented that the approach we propose is "private" and thus not acceptable to communities. The concept of private only applies to "for profit" companies with limited ownership. Although "for profit" is one small aspect of what is proposed, it is not central or even a significant part of the concept. Our "Not for profit" approach allows for membership that could (to use the extreme) include entire communities in Ontario (through a membership system). So the concept of "private" being associated with our framework was apparently confusing to people. Our use of the "corporate approach" is because corporations are a well regulated and understood idea. The Corporations Act defines a corporation as two or more people working towards a common purpose -- it is recognized as a company because it has a Charter issued by the government. If Ontario opts for a more constrained approach, involving government agencies, then there will be a period of determining precedents and establishng how the system actually works.
As the authors of the “Foundations” document, we were well aware of our lack of an Aboriginal perspective. We were fortunate to be able to have a conversation with Chief Keeter Corston of Chapleau Cree First Nation and Chairman to the Northeast Superior Regional Chiefs’ Forum (NSRCF). We have attempted to bring aboriginal ideas into our document, but we felt that a stand-alone annex may be better. Our thanks to Chief Corston and the NSRCF. (It is the document called "Chief Corston....". Colin Lachance helped to achieve this.
On May 12 we added an OPED that we have submitted to Northenr Ontario Business (File OPED...). This is partially in response to the government proposal.
We have also prepared our official response to MNR (File "Response...).
The most recent University of Toronto Tenure Session is available (see Broadcast below). The session was panned by a reviewer from "The Working Forest". They said there was no industry present at the session to give their perspective. So true. But then they have nver done this at any session, so the comment says more about the industry than it does about the conference. Apparently the Working Forest correspondent missed the irony of their own commentary.
Broadcast:
Tenure on Video --- University of Toronto and Canadian Institute of Forestry Evening Conference (verified Mar 2014)
http://mediacast.ic.utoronto.ca/20101125-FOF/index.htm
This includes a presentation by Jeremy WIlliams of our "21st Century Tenure" paper.