hoped that L'echo d'un peuple would draw thousands of tourists (and their money) to 
the area. If this meant opening the forest to any development so be it, seemed to be 
the prevailing attitude at the time. Certainly a decision in favour of Francoscenie 
Inc. would give the green light for other proposals. According to an Ottawa Citizen 
story of February 5, 2003, Francoscenie Inc. was convinced that their project would 
bring an annual income of $6 million to the area economy, which seemed then, and 
seems now, quite astounding. For more about the proposed development see 
Hanrahan (2004) or check out 
http://www.ofnc.ca/conservation/larose/laroseforesl.php. 
Evidence of how much Francoscenie Inc. wanted the Larose site is borne out by the 
revelation that over 20 other sites were offered but all were turned down. Some of 
these sites already had the necessary infrastructure in place, and several were along 
the Ottawa River, making them ideal for this particular project. It was these 
conflicting views, the desire to develop the forest and the desire to see it preserved, 
that led to the lengthy and costly OMB hearing. 
We must protect the forests for our children, grandchildren and 
children yet to be born. We must protect the forests for those who 
can’t speak for themselves such as the birds, animals, fish and trees. 
Attributed to - Chief Edward Moody, Qwatsinas, Nuxalk Nation 
Update on the OMB 
Initially expected to take only two weeks, the hearing began in December 2003, 
resumed in February 2004 for a short period and was completed in March 2004. The 
Friends of Larose Forest (referred to hereafter as the appellants) did a sterling job 
rounding up witnesses, preparing mountains of evidence, and hiring a lawyer to 
present their case for preserving the forest. The OFNC participated in this process 
through the Conservation Committee. Although the OMB is supposed to be 
impartial and unbiased, the presiding judge left no doubt which side he preferred. 
When the decision was finally handed down in December 2004 it was in favour of 
Francoscenie Inc. 
The ruling makes interesting, if not disturbing, reading. The language is extreme, 
vindictive, and pejorative. Throughout, those presenting on behalf of Francoscenie 
Inc. are treated respectfully, while both the appellants and their witnesses are 
castigated. To read the entire ruling please see 
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e%2Ddecisions/pl030382%5F%231920.pdf. 
However, this wasn’t the end of the story. Shortly after Francoscenie Inc. won the 
OMB, they served notice to the appellants that they intended to seek a Motion for 
Costs, this despite having almost all of their legal and other services provided pro 
bono. Equally upsetting and unforgivable was their truly nasty vilification in the 
88 
