Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Standing
Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 13, 1997
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:04 a.m. to begin its study on the present state and future of forestry in Canada as it relates to the boreal forest.
Senator Doris M. Anderson (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: We have with us today Mr. Jacques Carette, Director General, Natural Resources Canada.
As an introduction for our witnesses, let me say that four members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry visited three western provinces last November on a fact-finding tour in connection with Canada's boreal forest. We visited three large pulp mills in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and we held hearings in Edmonton, Prince Albert, Winnipeg and Swan River on forest management issues.
We were told that in Athabasca forest management is not sustainable; that the Alberta Pacific Mill is buying logs from great distances, even from Saskatchewan; and that the annual allowable cut is too high in Alberta. We heard that forest development in northern Alberta has been a tremendous economic boom, but we also heard from members of First Nations reserves far north of Edmonton that the Métis were left out of the Alberta forest conservation strategy. A member of the Alberta Fish and Game Association told us that his group was strongly opposed to the federal government giving responsibility for fisheries to the provinces.
In all three provinces we heard a great deal about clear-cutting, selective harvesting, silviculture plans, and contaminants in water. We heard about the networks of centres of excellence funded jointly by the federal government, the provincial government and NSERC.
We also heard that there is no database relative to forest practices. For example, there is little data available on whether 40-hectare or 200-hectare cutting lots are better as far as sustainable forest management is concerned. The forest industry cuts down a lot of trees, affecting animal and bird habitat.
We learned that both the Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments own approximately 50 per cent of the two largest pulp mills in their respective provinces. Some people question such a partnership. We heard that data on biodiversity in Canada is scarce or not available.
Please proceed, Mr. Carette.
Mr. Jacques Carette, Director General, Policy, Planning and International Affairs, Natural Resources Canada: Madam Chair, it is a pleasure for the Canadian Forest Service to provide information on issues which the committee has asked us to address.
The Canadian Forest Service welcomes the open and transparent reviews of the state of forest and forest management in Canada. A number of such reviews have been conducted in the last few years, one of which was the recent review by the OECD as part of their environmental performance review of various countries. I took the liberty of bringing with me English and French copies for the members of the committee. It is a good example of third-party examinations of forest and forestry practices in Canada.
Such a review provides a forum for members of the forest community to exchange points of view, and it also provides forest agencies other points of view vis-à-vis the values that Canadians attach to their forest. Such insight helps shape forest policies in Canada at various levels as well as to direct research to those areas where values are the most misunderstood or unsupported by hard data.
We were asked to respond to six questions, the first of which asked for a short description of Canada's forest.
Canada is steward of 10 per cent of the forests of the world, and essentially 50 per cent of Canada's landscape is forest. Canada's forests are unique in the sense that 94 per cent of the forests in Canada are publicly owned -- 71 per cent by provinces, 23 per cent by the federal and territorial governments -- and only 6 per cent is privately owned.
Forests in Canada are biologically unique in the sense that they are natural forests. Contrary to many countries of the world which have to deal with plantation forests or artificial forests, we have the unique situation in Canada of managing natural forest. One thing that is not widely known is that only about 57 per cent of our forests are considered commercial forests.
Senator Taylor: Do the percentage figures you are referring to now relate to the total forest in Canada or only to the boreal forest?
Mr. Carette: These are total forest figures.
Fifty-seven per cent of our forests are classified as commercial in that they have the capacity to sustain commercial operation; however, in reality, only 28 per cent of the forests of Canada are managed for commercial purposes. When we review the state of forest, we often tend to focus on the commercial forest, but we should remember that it represents less than one third of the total forest in Canada.
Senator Spivak: Do the figures you are quoting take into account all the recent commercial development in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which involves almost the entire northern parts of those three provinces?
Mr. Carette: Yes, these numbers take into account the current situation.
Senator Spivak: In 1997?
Mr. Carette: No, the latest numbers that we have are for 1995-1996. I understand that your study is focusing on boreal forest, which makes up about 55 per cent of Canada's total forest land and about one-third of the boreal forests in the world. Unfortunately, we do not have separate numbers relating to boreal forest, but we could try to provide some in-house calculations if the committee has questions relating specifically to boreal forest.
Another issue the committee asked us to address is the federal role in forestry.
Essentially, the role of the federal government has been to protect and promote Canadian forest interests at home and abroad. Domestically, the federal government manages a variety of forest issues relating to the economy, jobs, the environment, fisheries, climate change, and social issues. As you know, several federal departments such as Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Industry Canada, and Human Resource Development are involved to various degrees in forestry issues. The Canadian Forest Service acts as a leader in consulting with those various departments regarding forestry matters.
Internationally, the federal government addresses issues related to trade and the development of international agreements such as the biological diversity and climate change conventions that were signed five years ago. While these issues are the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian Forest Service works closely with that department.
The next issue the committee asked us to address is the role of NRCan and the Canadian Forest Service in the national forestry community.
Our mandate is to promote the sustainable development of Canada's forests and the competitiveness of the industry. One of the challenges we face is to balance the various economic and social values that underlie the notion of sustainable forest management. Because the role of our organization and its staff tends to be of a scientific nature, we try to bring scientific expertise to the issues and to integrate science and policy by providing an innovative approach to forest management.
We try to develop technologies and systems to collect and integrate information, such as the national forest database. We also provide information to the general public through the state of forest report and various scientific and technical reports.
We have been structured for three years now as a series of 10 national science and technology networks. These networks are based on strategic policy issues such as pest management, biodiversity, climate change, et cetera, and are managed from five centres. Each network operates from a national perspective and works closely with universities, industry, centres of excellence, provincial research organizations, and so on. I believe some information has already been provided on the structure of the networks.
One exception is what we call product research, such as research on pulp and paper and lumber products, including harvesting research. This is done in partnership with institutes like Forintek, FERIC and Paprican. Our department, through the Canadian Forest Service, provides funding and also policy direction to those institutions.
The CFS also works through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers which brings together all of the provincial and territorial forestry ministers. I am pleased to say that this council has undertaken a series of fairly significant projects over the last few years. One of them is the definition of criteria and indicators for a sustainable forest management framework in Canada, and we will be producing the first report on that project very soon. We also have a series of other initiatives about which we could provide information later, if required.
Canadian Forest Services maintains a high level of consultation with all forest stakeholders in Canada. For example, recently we were involved in international discussions at the global forestry level, and in preparation for those we had consultations with aboriginal groups, with environmentalist groups, with industry, and with provinces.
The same applies to defining the direction of our research program. We have an advisory committee in which all the stakeholders in the forest sectors are included, and hopefully we have heeded the advice and opinions that they have given us.
The committee next asked for a quick overview of forest economy.
The forest industry is a major employer in Canada, providing a total of 800,000 jobs, of which roughly 370,000 are direct jobs. Between 1975 and 1995, the total direct employment in the forestry sector was fairly constant at about 340,000 jobs. Between 1992 and 1995, employment increased by a total of 59,000 jobs in the forestry sector, mostly in the sawmilling, strandboard and particle board sectors.
This does not mean there were no changes in employment. There were two types of change. One was a change in labour productivity. With the introduction of high technology and better techniques in mills and also in harvesting, we have been able to increase the unit of output per worker and also to keep our cost structure down from an industry point of view.
Senator Spivak: When you state "1 in 15 jobs," are you talking about direct or indirect jobs?
Mr. Carette: Total, direct and indirect.
Senator Spivak: Could you tell us what you mean by "indirect jobs," and how you calculate those.
Mr. Carette: Basically, the term comprises all of the service sector, the equipment sector, the people who basically obtain their livelihoods from the forest. It is a ratio calculated by economists. My understanding is that it is about 2:3 or 2:4.
Senator Spivak: I should like to see the data and the assumptions that you used. I should like to see that in written form, if you do not mind.
Mr. Carette: The first change was in labour productivity. The second change is that over the last few years people working in the forest industry have to possess a different set of skills because they have to handle high-technology equipment. I think, also, it is fair to say that the forestry sector, both in the forest and in the mills, provides a safer and healthier work environment.
We also have had, over the last few years, a change in the product mix. The industry used to market a relatively high volume product and, over the last few years, we have seen a change to higher-value products such as printing and writing paper, different types of paperboard -- more of what we call engineered products.
The forests in Canada are important at the community level. There are 337 communities which are classified as heavily dependent upon the forest in that more than 50 per cent of their economy is based exclusively on forest-related activities. Additionally, there are approximately 1,300 communities which are moderately dependent on the forest for their economic base, "moderately dependent" meaning between 10 per cent and 50 per cent of their activities are forest-dependent.
As far as contribution to the national economy is concerned, the forest sector contributes $20.3 billion to the national GDP and, as you know, Canada is one of the world's major exporters of forest products.
The committee asked specifically about private land forestry.
As I mentioned before, only 6 per cent of the forest land in Canada is privately owned, by two groups of people. We have large industrial owners in New Brunswick and British Columbia, for example, but we also have approximately 425,000 non-industrial landowners, mostly farmers and fishermen, who derive supplementary revenue from their forestry lots.
Although private land forestry accounts for only 6 per cent of the total commercial forest land, it provides approximately 18 per cent of the annual harvest. The reason for that is twofold. One is that private lands are located on some of the most productive lands in Canada, usually agricultural lands. Second, their road networks are the most developed because they are situated in populated portions of the country, rendering access much easier. Those two factors have resulted in a high level of harvesting from private forests.
The management of private land forests rests solely with the owner. Neither the federal nor the provincial government has a right to oblige people to manage their forests in a certain way; however, certain provincial governments have offered incentives to private woodland owners to manage their land according to provincial standards. These incentives are either by way of some form of financial assistance or some form of taxation credit.
The Canadian Forest Service interacts with the private woodlot owners primarily through dissemination of the results of our research in science and technology. Hopefully, we provide them with good advice on how to manage their woodlots. We also include them in our various consultation processes, including consultation at the international level because private woodlots play an important role in other countries of the world, and their opinions are beneficial to us.
Private woodlot owners are also heavily involved in our Model Forest Program, which is one of the unique and important programs offered by the Canadian Forest Service. I understand that some information has been provided to your committee on the Model Forest Program.
Turning to the issue of aboriginals and forests, one statistic we have provided is that 52 per cent of reserve land is forested. That 52 per cent represents 1.4 million hectares, of which roughly 1 million hectares are considered to be productive forest land. Although forests comprise a small percentage of most Indian reserves, some reserves are large enough to sustain commercial operations for timber, recreation, tourism and other types of non-timber activities.
Aboriginal treaty rights are being discussed at the moment through various processes led by the Ministry of Indian Affairs and, in many cases, by the provinces. I do not feel I have enough expertise to provide comments on that aspect, so I will essentially limit my comments to the forestry aspect.
Some provinces now have legislation in place which requires that the values and interests of aboriginal people be taken into account when preparing a forest management plan; some provinces have enacted heritage legislation to protect aboriginal sacred sites.
From a federal perspective, we have two programs. One is First Nation Forestry Program, which was announced in April 1996 and is administered jointly with the Ministry of Indian Affairs. Essentially, that program is aimed at enhancing the ability of aboriginal communities to manage sustainably the forest on reserve land and to increase those communities' opportunities to participate in forest-based businesses. The program is managed jointly with the aboriginal communities and has received funding of $24 million over five years. The various activities so far have dealt with the development and updating of forest management plan, silviculture training, marketing of forest products and feasibility studies for business ventures.
The other federal program is the Model Forest Program which I have already mentioned. First Nations are partners in five of our ten model forests.
Recently the Canadian Forest Service sponsored a study on traditional forest-related ecological knowledge. A report was prepared by the National Aboriginal Forestry Association which set out six case studies on traditional values of aboriginal people relating to forests. I did not bring a copy with me today, but I would be happy to send one to the committee. The results of that study was released in Geneva at the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests and was welcomed by many communities of the world as a somewhat unique perspective in the traditional, ecological knowledge debate that exists worldwide on forestry issues.
I turn now to the issue of protected areas.
Traditionally in Canada protected areas have been established to preserve the diversity of wildlife in their habitat, to provide opportunities for scientific research, to provide base lines for assessing and improving the sustainability of the ecosystem, to provide wilderness experience, et cetera.
Canada has approximately 12 per cent of the global forest area that is protected currently either through legislation or through regulation and policies. Those that are protected by policies are, for example, buffer strips and various environmentally sensitive areas, and what have you.
The problem is whether those areas are representative of the ecosystem or the ecozone that exists in Canada. We do not have the answer to that yet, but we are in the process, through one of our networks and through working jointly with the provinces, of defining the representativeness. Hopefully, within the next few months we will have a better appreciation of that.
In closing, let me like to read two quotes from a News Release which was produced by the World Resources Institute on March 4 in Washington. We have three copies of the report here that we will leave with you. The News Release states:
Three countries -- Russia, Canada, and Brazil -- house more than 70 percent of the world's remaining frontier forest, and half of this forest lies in the far north where resource-extraction costs are high.
What they refer to as frontier forests are large tracts of undisturbed forest that can sustain the aboriginal population, and so on.
The other statement I will quote here is:
The critical point is that the countries whose forests are in good condition... offer a tremendous opportunity for responsible forest management... With a turnaround in policy, these countries have a real chance to keep most of their original frontier forests.
WRI is a non-profit, independent scientific group which has done an assessment of various forests in the world using certain criteria. That group is saying that there is still plenty of forests in Canada, that they are not disappearing, and that the real challenge facing Canada is to manage the forests in a sustainable way. We have a lot of elements in place to do that, including the National Forest Strategy, on which we will report. We are in the process of doing an evaluation now, and we will report in May 1997. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers has already decided that there will be a successor strategy.
Canada has also done work on the international scene to develop an international forest convention. I am sure you have seen the press report on the results of the last meeting of the UN-supported Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in New York two weeks ago. More than 60 countries now support the negotiations and the forest convention. We also favour implementation of the action program that has already been agreed to at the UN meeting. As you know, there is a lot of activity in the forestry sector. I think by and large in Canada we do a fair job compared to what is happening in other countries.
I will stop at this point. I hope I have answered the questions that the committee gave us.
Senator Gustafson: What percentage of forest operations and cutting rights is controlled by foreign ownership?
Mr. Carette: I do not have that data. Most companies have agreements of from five to twenty years with the provinces in terms of forest harvesting rights and reforestation obligations. As far as foreign ownership of the industry itself, of the mills, et cetera, I do not have that data with me, but I can provide it to you.
Senator Spivak: We would like that, and as well a list of all the forestry companies in Canada?
Mr. Carette: There are about 5,000 of them. That might be cumbersome.
Senator Spivak: It must be on microfiche or something where it can be accessed. We would appreciate having that.
Mr. Carette: What we could do easily is provide a list of the 40 to 50 largest companies.
Senator Spivak: Thank you.
Senator Gustafson: As a person with an agricultural background, I am concerned that our local people are not getting much out of the operation. Especially at the operations that we saw in Manitoba and in Alberta, it would appear to me that the people who are doing the difficult jobs, such as harvesting which is no easy ride, do not seem to get too much out of the operation in return; whereas, these foreign companies are taking the major benefits out of some of these operations -- big dollars as is indicated here by our exports and balance of trade, et cetera.
When our committee was in Washington, we were told by congressmen, "It is not our business to deal with what the companies get out of your country." Of course, that discussion was concerning grain. However, it seems a bit unfair to me that we are becoming haulers of water and hewers of wood and not getting too much out of the operation for Canada.
You might say that there are jobs, but we were told at Alberta Pacific that they have about 35 jobs to keep that mammoth plant going. The hard work, from my observation, is done by the people who are out in the forests doing the cutting, riding these machines over rough terrain. It is a major job. The trucks out there are usually beat right up, and there might be reasons for that. I just wondered if you had any statistics on these areas.
Mr. Carette: First of all, there was a time when companies handled all the harvesting themselves, and people would work for the companies. Over the last five years there has been a dramatic shift there. Most of the harvesting is now done by small local contractors. Most of the transportation from the harvesting site to the mills is done by local entrepreneurs. The mills are increasing productivity by high technology and, once they do that, normally you see fewer people per unit of production and much more equipment by unit of production.
I hope the congressmen in Washington told you that the northwest United States exports more logs to Japan annually than we export finished products, year after year after year. We do not export the logs the way they do. We try to keep a certain amount of jobs here. I think Canada did a great job in promoting timber-framed housing in Japan, for example, but timber-framed housing requires two-by-fours and two-by-sixes. If you export that technology to a foreign market, then you provide the raw material that goes with it.
From a salary and wages perspective, in 1993 the forest industry paid close to $10 billion in salaries and wages. How much of that goes into the various small communities, we do not know.
Senator Gustafson: We did not get much of a look at small operators who are trying to survive. It would appear to me that it would be very difficult for them to survive against major companies like Alberta Pacific or Louisiana in Manitoba. It would seem that they do not have a hope of surviving.
Senator Spivak: No, they do not.
Senator Gustafson: Then the whole area of quotas comes in. It seems that the system is that the large companies are very closely tied to the provincial governments; the provincial governments, for their own interests as well, have a stake in it, so it is important to keep these major companies operating. Is there any protection at all for these small operators?
Mr. Carette: Unfortunately, I am not that familiar with the Alberta situation because I am more of an easterner than a westerner. In Quebec and Ontario there is protection for the small mills. I know, for example, that British Columbia has an allocation of wood that must go to small- and medium-sized companies. In Quebec and Ontario, where there is legal protection for small- and medium-sized mills. The problem there is to what extent the government intervenes in the market forces.
In relative terms, from a global market perspective, Canada is a junior. In spite of the fact that you have seen large mills here, we have relatively small companies compared to those that exist elsewhere in the world. We are junior players on the worldwide market. To be a major player we would need larger companies. That is the global forest market situation.
Senator Gustafson: That is difficult for me to comprehend, because Alberta Pacific controls 10 per cent of the land where they have the quotas. Am I right that 10 per cent of the land surface of the province of Alberta, including agricultural land, is owned by Alberta Pacific?
Senator Taylor: Larger than New Brunswick.
Senator Gustafson: Larger than New Brunswick. And they have 150 trucks hauling 24 hours a day. I think that plant cost was close to $5 billion. It is hard for me to comprehend that forestry industries in other parts of the world would be exceeding our harvest. If they are, they are not going to have much left.
Mr. Carette: I think the land base that they have is probably there to secure a continuous supply of wood over the life span of the mill. Normally those companies intend to be there ad infinitum; they are not there for five years. Normally, a forest management harvesting cycle matches the regeneration of the forest, and in boreal forests you are probably looking at between 80 and 120 years, depending on the species. The land base that Alberta Pacific has there is probably sufficient to permit them to operate on a continuous basis, which is not unusual.
Senator Taylor: You mentioned management of the forest, but you did not mention the aboriginal people. We hear pious words about them whenever a presentation is made but, when it comes to concrete facts as to how they are knit into the development of concessions and forest, it does not seem to be anything except maybe a little advice as to where the deer or the moose are. There are no actual joint management efforts being made by either the federal or provincial governments to manage that which is essentially their home.
They are told, "Do not worry, the birth rate is not too high and, if you are nice, you might get a job with a chain saw." They do not seem to have any significant input, particularly now when we are looking at self-government. Self-government brings with it a certain necessity to generate your own capital, because it does not do you any good to govern yourself if you have to depend on somebody else for the money to operate. Therefore, there has to be some sort of system of knitting the First Nations into the actual development and rewards, not only in respect of forestry but with respect to biodiversity. I do not see what the federal government is doing, outside of pious words -- and this goes for the last number of governments -- when it comes to First Nations people and joint management. I do not mean consulting; I mean joint management. Do you have an answer to those criticisms?
Mr. Carette: I think I mentioned earlier the study on traditional-related forestry knowledge that we conducted with the National Aboriginal Association. One of the six case studies deals essentially with what is happening at the Alberta Pacific Mill and how the aboriginals have developed working relationships with the ALPAC Management and how they integrate the values of each. We will provide you with that report, and I think you will find good information there.
On the second aspect of your question, the basic fact is that forest management is a responsibility of the provinces. The federal government has responsibility for reserves.
Senator Taylor: The federal government has entered into treaties and agreements with the First Nations people, which predate the provinces and which the Supreme Court has ruled extend far beyond the reserves in the field of hunting, for instance. If the hunting rights were considered to extend over a broad area outside the reserve as necessary for the sustenance of First Nations people, surely the forests would fall into the same category.
You mention ALPAC. Nice as it is, it still has a very paternalistic attitude of having a little better quarters for the slaves rather than allowing them to be joint managers of the plantation.
The federal government, I think, has abrogated or deserted or ignored or neglected a field for which it is responsible. Self-government for First Nations means nothing if they do not have joint management of the resources.
Senator Spivak: The federal government has responsibilities in terms of land claim disputes. Provincial governments also have fiduciary responsibilities, which none of them has lived up to, having to do with the 1932 delegation. I do not have it in front of me, so I cannot be more precise than that.
You are the Director General of the Canadian Forest Service. What is your understanding of the federal mandate in this area? As Senator Taylor has pointed out, we see a lovely PR job on the native situation, that we want to involve the natives. However, most of the land in question is, in truth, their land which we have given away to third parties, and then we say to the natives, "You deal with them."
What is your understanding of the legislation in terms of forestry as it relates to the aboriginal people? What is your answer to that?
Mr. Carette: The mandate of the Canadian Forest Service deals primarily with science and technology, information generation, and trying to work with various partners to develop a consensus towards sustainable forest management. Our mandate is not to deal with aboriginal rights, or whatever.
Senator Taylor: You feel that it is not your mandate to co-ordinate forest management with First Nations. You keep saying that.
Senator Spivak: Is that your understanding?
Senator Taylor: We are just trying to pin the tail on somebody around here.
Mr. Carette: Our understanding of our mandate <#0107> and I think it is best expressed by the Indian forest program that we have developed jointly with the Ministry of Indian Affairs -- is that we have a science-based group whose job is to provide information to all the citizens of Canada, including aboriginal peoples. We have developed a program jointly with them to do that.
As far as rights, obligations, provincial/non-provincial issues are concerned, the Department of Indian Affairs has direct responsibility for those matters. I think you should ask them those questions, not the CFS.
Senator Spivak: Basically your answer is that the Canadian Forestry Service does not see it as its responsibility, nor has it been given the responsibility, to determine whether forestry companies might be contravening the federal mandate vis-à-vis aboriginal rights. Would you say that is an accurate statement?
Mr. Carette: It is a very long statement of a simple situation, from a CFS perspective.
Senator Spivak: That is what we want to know. You have answered that.
Senator Taylor: What coordination is there in the environmental field relating to current research being conducted, for example, on the Amazonian forest or on our boreal forest which is considered the lungs of the earth and necessary for clean water, clear air, and so on? Environmental input around the world is huge.
We have heard pleas that the only issue about which the federal government wakes up at all is fisheries, and even there it has a tendency to be pretty hard to wake up. They are talking about retreating, and they are worried about stepping on provincial toes. Do you see your organization having any input Canada-wide or world-wide relating to environmental impacts of forestry management, or do you leave that to the Department of Environment? Do you only look at the harvesting?
Mr. Carette: This may seem redundant, but the responsibility for managing forests in Canada lies with the provinces. The federal government has some joint responsibility on issues such as fresh water and fish protection. Fundamentally, forestry management is the responsibility of the provinces.
Senator Taylor: Therefore, your view is that the federal government can intercede only on issues relating to fish and water. You do not see the federal government interceding in issues relating to air quality and other environmental issues relating to forestry.
Mr. Carette: Your question seems to be premised on the assumption that there is something bad going in forests in Canada at the moment.
Senator Taylor: I am just saying that , if there have been any advancements as a result of the so-called "green revolution" of the last ten or fifteen years, it has been the recognition of the importance of forests to the well-being of the world ecology and the world environment. You say that the federal government has responsibility for the environment relates only to issues which flow across borders. We would worry if you put up a sulphur smoke stack in Alberta or in Manitoba and then did not worry about it until the pollution came down in Saskatchewan or Newfoundland.
Forests contribute to clean air for all Canadians, and I was wondering whether your department had a watching brief on environmental conditions and climate change and how they tie in with the forests.
Mr. Carette: Yes. In fact, one of our science networks is involved in the effect of forests on climate change. My understanding is that your committee will be meeting with our lead scientist on that specific point, and maybe you should get that information from him.
Senator Spivak: I have a specific question. Would you mind telling me what your background is, Mr. Carette? What is your training? Is it basically forestry?
Mr. Carette: I have a degree in Forestry from Laval and a degree in Administration from Laval.
Senator Spivak: So, basically, your background is in forestry?
Mr. Carette: Yes.
Senator Spivak: You have referred to protected areas and the environment, but I understand that your key focus is on forestry. Forestry is an industry, and the Canadian Forest Service in Natural Resources Canada is basically geared toward the industry.
In terms of conservation and preservation, what statutes do you see as governing your activities? How do you deal with those issues? What is the staff complement? It is fine to say that you have made a commitment to protect 12 per cent of the total forest, but what legislation enables the Canadian Forest Service to do that?
Do you what is the annual allowable cut? What do you see as the amount of forest that is cut in Canada? You are saying there is nothing bad happening in the forest. I hope that is true. However, with the ecosystem management that is being proposed -- and everyone we met said they did not know what that was -- we can see that there are going to be huge areas of clear cuts, not 10 acres or 40 acres.
I should like to know more about the annual allowable cut, the size of it, the amount of it, et cetera, and also how you monitor it. What is your staff complement to monitor the situation or, if it is totally in provincial hands, what is their staff complement to monitor ecosystem management?
I should also like to know what you consider your role to be in the preservation of old growth forest, particularly the temperate rain forest in British Columbia. What is your legislative mandate in that regard, and what is your staff complement?
You talk about productivity, and that sounds great, but what it really means is that people are losing their jobs. I have some idea of what the job loss numbers are in British Columbia over the last five or six years. Perhaps we could have an indication of the number of jobs lost in the forestry industry due to technology over the last ten years.
The auditor general has commented in various reports about not sufficiently restocked land. How much of the forest land are we losing? Does the federal government have a role to play there and, if so, what is your staff complement? In terms of restocking, how do you know how much is growing back? Manitoba, for example, has no capacity to monitor new growth because of budget cuts. I am sure recent cuts have done the same to your department.
As a percentage of the GDP, how much is forestry and how much is exports?
A few years ago, we did not have a complete inventory of our forest resources. Do we have a complete inventory now?
Those are some of my specific questions. I do not really expect you to have all that information today, but we need answers to these questions. Hopefully, you are the source to give us those answers.
Madam Chair, we also have a number of questions in our background document. Perhaps we could present that document to the witnesses so that they could get back to us with answers to those questions.
If you can address any of the questions today, we would be interested in hearing your answers.
Mr. Carette: First of all, let me address your impression that the Canadian Forest Service is working for the industry.
Senator Spivak: I did not say that.
Mr. Carette: Or has a bias towards the industry.
Senator Spivak: No, I did not say that either. I said that you are directed towards the industry. That is what I meant.
Mr. Carette: Is geared toward industry.
Senator Spivak: I did not mean that in a pejorative sense. I am saying that your job is to work with the industry and to assist them with either doing their job in a proper fashion or in promotion.
A few years ago, I believe, the federal government contributed some $5 million to help forestry companies sell Canadian forestry products abroad. That is what I am suggesting. That related to the forest industry, not forest management.
Mr. Carette: I have to disagree with you. One of the things I keep telling my staff is that the advocate of industry is Industry Canada, the advocate of the environmentalist movement is Environment Canada, and that the role of the Canadian Forest Service is to use its scientific base to provide the best information, the best tools, the best practices that we see and to try to build consensus amongst the various groups. This is, in our view, the definition of sustainable development. I do not think we are an advocate of, or geared toward, the forest industry.
On the issue of the $5 million contribution, I do not know where you got that figure. Neither the Canadian Forest Service itself nor Natural Resources Canada has ever provided a cent to the industry to defend forest practices.
We did have a joint program, under the auspices of the Canadian forest ministers, involving federal, provincial and territorial governments. Believe it or not, under that program we invited Europeans and Americans, who were criticizing the Canadian forestry program, to visit Canada, at which time we showed them what was happening with forests in Canada. We provided them the opportunity to meet with aboriginal people, environmentalist groups and anybody else they wanted to meet with, to form their own opinion.
That money was never used for public relations. We felt that bringing the Europeans here to see for themselves was a more powerful tool, to allow them to see and to talk to people, and to allow them to make their own mind up about the real state of Canadian forests.
I was in Brussels a week ago meeting with some of those people who had been to Canada, and I am pleased to say that they now have a much better understanding of what Canadian forestry is all about. As well, they are less subject to what I would say is slightly biased information that is provided by groups who sometimes do not necessarily have the same interests.
You made a number of requests for numbers and percentages. Obviously I do not have all of those numbers at hand. Hopefully we have them somewhere.
Senator Spivak: Let us just take one. Let us take not sufficiently restocked land. Do you know what that number is?
Mr. Carette: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Let us take multi-use of the forest. Perhaps you could tell me the legislation and the number of staff you have that are specifically devoted to looking at conservation and preservation issues of old growth forest. I could go on to other things, but let us just stick with that.
Mr. Carette: Our staff are essentially science people.
Senator Spivak: How many do you have, and what legislation do they administer? For conservation, as Senator Taylor stated, you have to look at what is happening to the streams and things like that.
Mr. Carette: Basically two pieces of legislation govern our activities directly. One is the Natural Resources Department Act, and the second one is the Forestry Act. Neither of those acts have what you would call enforcement powers.
Senator Gustafson: How many people work in the department?
Mr. Carette: At the end of the program review we will have 800 staff equivalent.
Senator Gustafson: What boggles my mind is that you have 800 people and no powers, and the province is running the forest management. You indicated earlier that the provinces make all the decisions and operate the program; yet. you have 800 people.
Mr. Carette: Who are, again, mostly scientific people.
Senator Spivak: Could you give us a summary of what the mix is, what kind of scientists, and what other skills? We would like to know that. That can come to us in written form.
Mr. Carette: What we have is obviously the traditional biology, ecology, best management people, biochemists, et cetera. We also have a new socio-economic network to deal with what we call non-traditional, non-timber values such as the value of recreation, and so on.
Senator Spivak: You are not interested in forestry, but you talk about timber and non-timber. What does that tell you?
Mr. Carette: What that tells me is that traditionally in Canada -- in fact, I will send you a study that we did recently of the evolution of forest legislation in Canada which indicates that the notion of sustainable management is relatively new in the world. Luckily for us, Canada was implementing sustainable forest management at the time of the Brundtland Commission. Traditionally in the forest sector in Canada, going back to the time of the first settlers, the issue was one of timber/economy/timber, and over the years it has evolved.
Now we are looking at all the values, but this is not to say that we know how to do it everywhere. As a matter of fact, nobody knows how to do it everywhere.
Senator Spivak: Or anywhere.
Mr. Carette: Or anywhere, for that matter.
Senator Spivak: That is what they told us in the west. They do not know.
Mr. Carette: We do not have good data on all the socio-economic aspects. For example, we are talking about participation of the public. How do we measure that? How do we measure significant participation of the public? We do not know. We are doing research on that. Provinces are working with us on that aspect. Under the National Forestry Strategy we have 30 organizations in Canada committed to working toward those goals.
Biodiversity is now an issue. Nobody knows how to measure that. How do you modify that?
Senator Taylor: I want to comment on biodiversity. Apparently Canada has pledged to set aside 12 per cent of our land to be protected or excluded from harvesting. Is that 12-per-cent figure an international figure?
Mr. Carette: Canada is at 12 per cent; we did not pledge 12 per cent. The number came from the Brundtland Commission on Sustainable Development. Recently the Worldwide Fund for Nature wrote to a number of heads of state, including Canada, asking for 10 per cent. There is no absolute number. What you protect is more important than how much you protect.
Senator Taylor: That is what I was going to ask you. I used to be on a planning commission which required land developers to set aside 4 per cent of their land for recreation. It was always 4 per cent on the side of a hill or down in a gully. Some people complaint that the 12 per cent in Canada is the scrap timber in the valleys or in places that the timber people could not reach, and we call that biodiversity.
If the 12 per cent means that you are just taking waste spots, then it should be mapped out better. What is your opinion on protecting for biodiversity?
Mr. Carette: Biodiversity, like timber, like recreation, is one value among many. The real challenge at the moment is trying to balance all those values including economic values and biodiversity.
We in Canada are fortunate to have a huge land mass. The fact that you harvest trees in certain areas does not mean that the wildlife will disappear. It does not mean that at all. In fact, if you want to expand the population of some kinds of wildlife, it is best to harvest.
There are techniques to do that. I am not saying that we try to replicate Mother Nature. Mother Nature has much more drastic management techniques than we humans have invented.
Senator Spivak: It is sustainable.
Mr. Carette: On the front of this report there is a beautiful coloured map, which only some non-profit organization could afford to print, and it shows a large strip of forest across Canada. Picture that as one immense fire. Most of that forest was generated following fires. It is all the same age. When you say that harvesting or clear-cutting is harsh on the forests, nature is much harsher.
Senator Taylor: You bring up an interesting argument, as a fellow engineer or scientist. The forestry people get away with suggesting that we have to emulate fire and, therefore, it is okay to clear-cut. It is like going to Japan and saying, "Normally, earthquakes would have knocked down those buildings, so let us get a bulldozer and knock them down; it will help the economy." We use the notion that, if a natural hazard is a good hazard, then we should imitate it. Earthquakes, however, are a natural hazard that we do not want to imitate.
What is your opinion on emulating fire with clear-cutting as a method of harvesting a forest?
Mr. Carette: To come back to your earthquake example, I was a member of a group some years ago which tried to develop safer housing for the Japanese. What we are trying to do is build a forest management system that will withstand the natural disturbances.
Senator Taylor: You like the idea of imitating fire; do you?
Mr. Carette: No. What I am saying is that most of Canada's forests originate from major disturbances. We have a situation in Canada where our forests are getting older and where fire could become a greater danger than it has been in the past.
Senator Spivak: Because of climate change?
Mr. Carette: No. A report is available on this aspect of ageing forests. It points out, among other things, that a build-up of dead material on a forest floor will facilitate fire. When you have frequent fires, because there is a small amount of combustible material in the forest, the fire goes through a stand very quickly, and it does not kill the trees. If you are successful at extinguishing a fire in the forest, then you create another problem. We are starting to see those problems. We will have an insect problem because of the age of our forests.
The principle of forest management is to harvest the forest before it starts to diminish in value, and then you have a new forest coming up. One of the characteristics of our forests is that they grow back.
Senator Spivak: You cannot say that clear-cutting imitates fire; it does not. It does not leave seeds. Furthermore, you need those old pieces to rot on the ground to produce the right soil conditions for new growth. Nobody knows very much yet about those soil conditions. It is true that we are attempting to gain that scientific knowledge, but in the meantime we have massive clear-cuts going on in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which is where the boreal forest is. In fact, every square inch of that land has been leased or practically given away for any commercially valuable timber. At the same time that we are attempting to gain this scientific knowledge, we are cutting like mad.
I go back to my earlier question: What about these annual allowable cuts and what about the not sufficiently restocked areas? What is the situation? What are we doing and how do you know it is sustainable? How are you monitoring them? In the meantime, companies are out there doing whatever they want and, as far as I can see, there are not many enforcement people out there.
Mr. Carette: First, the principle of sustained yield means that it is continuous, which is not new in Canada. It has been around for many years.
Senator Spivak: There is a big difference between sustained yield and sustainable development. Sustained yield is to cut enough timber so that you can keep your mills going. Sustainable development is to treat the forest properly. There is a big difference.
Mr. Carette: What I am saying is that the principle of sustained yields has been around for many years. As you say, sustained yields also mean that you keep the mills going, which, in turn, means that you have to replenish the forest. The forest is not disappearing. Even under the old principles, the forest was not disappearing.
Senator Spivak: That is not what the auditor general has said. I do not know what his 1995 and 1996 reports say, but a few years ago the auditor general was blowing the whistle at not sufficiently restocked, and saying that Canada was losing a huge amount of forest every year.
Mr. Carette: The NSR notion is purely a commercial forest notion. What you are identifying there are pieces of land where you have commercial species coming back or not. A number of those lands are not NSR because of harvesting. They can be NSR because of natural causes.
That notion of NSR was invented at about the time I was in forestry school, where I was taught what we call the Swedish model, where you had to define the desired species. And I remember having to plough balsam fir to plant spruce because that was the desired species. That land was classified NSR because it did not have the proper commercial species. We do not do that any more. If it is fir land, fir will grow.
As far as numbers related to NSR and what have you, they are in the State of Forest report here. We will give you a copy, and you can highlight the numbers. You mentioned AAC, the annual allowable cuts.
AAC is a concept where, after you have discounted for the potential loss, you say, "This is what I am allowed to cut," because that represents the growth of the forest. You discount for everything that can go bad. For example, you discount for mortality by insects and fire and disease, and you apply safety factors, and so on. Then you say, "This is what I can harvest because that is the net growth." Canada has not exceeded AAC in softwoods, and in hardwoods we still have a long way to go.
Senator Spivak: What does that mean? How much is being cut compared to what? I do not understand that.
Mr. Carette: I have numbers here.
Senator Spivak: What is your opinion of that insofar as it relates to sustainable development, and what is your proof?
Mr. Carette: We could quote you numbers here or give them to you.
Senator Taylor: Further to the questions by Senator Spivak, right now the AAC, as I understand it, is set on scientific principles. You mentioned discounting for insects, fires and so on. I think a lot of people wonder whether First Nations claims should be discounted as well when determining the AAC.
What is your opinion on opening up the AAC process to public hearings so that it does not appear that a few scientists are back in a corner working it out? You mentioned that social implications for AAC are becoming more and more important. If that is so, what do you think about having social input through public hearings on establishing AACs?
Mr. Carette: In fact, it is happening now. Most provinces have public hearings and public consultations when determining not only the AAC but also the management regime of the forests. Most forest management plans are proposed by companies. Interested groups, including scientific groups, can comment on those plans. That process of public scrutiny vis-à-vis forest management plans, harvesting, restoration of sites and silviculture is already in place.
Senator Taylor: Do you think it is growing at a proper rate?
Mr. Carette: Yes.
Senator Taylor: Then let me ask you this. Does the federal government, either through your organization or any other, ever appear at these public hearings to put forward the national interest when it comes to setting the provincial AAC? Or do you dare?
Mr. Carette: Our scientists participate in various of those committees. Our scientists have provided their expertise in various provinces, including Manitoba, on the determination of AAC.
Senator Taylor: That is not the same thing. My question related to whether the federal government intervenes at public hearings to represent its interests in environmental issues and First Nations issues, not whether they act as a consultant to provincial governments.
Mr. Carette: In the forestry field, no.
Senator Adams: A couple of years ago the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources visited areas in Nova Scotia where clear-cutting had occurred. We talked to some of the local people who were concerned about environmental issues and the fact that some wildlife species were leaving the forests. We heard from government officials that Nova Scotia controls only 30 per cent of the forest in Nova Scotia and that the remainder is leased out to companies.
I do not know whether your department is aware that 7 per cent of the forest in Nova Scotia is owned by the Washington Post and that some of the companies do clear-cutting. We took a trip by helicopter to the site and saw how the system worked.
We saw trees that had been growing for more than 100 years and how much of the land was developed. Would that operation be controlled by Natural Resources Canada or would it be the provincial government that is managing the forests and doing the clear-cutting?
Mr. Carette: Provincial lands are managed by the provinces. Federal legislation applies on federal lands. On private lands there is no regulation per se other than the pride of the owner in good forest management.
Senator Adams: If a province controls 30 per cent of the forest and 70 per cent is controlled by companies, how does the federal government enforce environmental regulations? Do the provinces report to the federal government in that regard?
Mr. Carette: Responsibility for forestry on federal lands is divided amongst various departments. The CFS does not have a mandate to oversee forestry operations on federal lands. A large chunk of the forest on federal lands is in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, which is managed by local authorities. The Department of National Defence and other departments have responsibility for some federal forest land. We have agreements with those departments to provide technical support for managing their forest land, but the control is vested within the various departments or the territorial governments.
Senator Adams: The western part of the territories, in particular, experience a lot of forest fires. As well, clear-cutting is done in some parts of the territories. If a forest fire occurs, is the allowable annual cut reduced accordingly for that year? How does the system work? Do you have figures for the number of forest fires that occur?
Mr. Carette: No. We have forest inventory systems and a formula to calculate the AAC. Fires and insect outbreaks, for example, are automatically deducted in the calculation of the AAC. We also have restoration programs where we harvest trees which have been killed by fire or insects so that we do not lose the fibres.
Those elements are taken into account at the provincial level or at the level of the authority that is directly managing the forest.
Senator Adams: When a forest fire occurs, does the company which controls that land reduce its number of employees accordingly? Is that the way the system works?
Mr. Carette: No. Because of the size of Canada and the size of most provinces, the companies move around. They do not necessarily get their wood from the same place all the time. About three years ago there was a big wind storm on the Quebec North Shore; and all companies were diverted, under regulation, to that area. We had a similar situation in British Columbia a number of years ago where there was a major insect infestation on what is known now as the clear-cut you can see from the moon. That was a salvage operation of wood that was killed by insects. Basically, the harvesting is shifted to avoid a bigger problem.
Senator Adams: Senator Taylor was asking you earlier about aboriginal people, especially those in Ontario and British Columbia. I have heard of areas where they were clear-cutting with some of the natives, and they found out that 400 or 500 years ago that land was a native burial ground. How does Natural Resources Canada deal with that situation?
Let us say a big forestry corporation in B.C. finds out that a century ago or maybe 1,000 years ago there was a native burial ground on their lands. How do you deal with that? Do you go to the House of Commons, through the Department of Indian Affairs, and say that where they are clear-cutting was once a burial ground with graves? How does that work?
Mr. Carette: What you are talking about, essentially, is an off-reserve problem. On reserves, the native communities can do whatever they wish. If it is off-reserve, then it is Crown land that is generally managed by the provinces. As I mentioned briefly in my presentation, some provinces now have enacted legislation to protect those heritage sites. In some cases there is a consultation process among aboriginal peoples, the provincial authorities and the companies to protect those sites.
There is no uniform recipe across Canada. Such lands are subject to all the issues of treaty rights and land claims, and I think the Department of Indian Affairs is better equipped to respond to that question.
Senator Gustafson: You state that the forestry industry accounts for one in 15 jobs. Is that true for all of Canada or just for the communities involved? Are you saying that one out of every 15 jobs in Canada is forestry-related, directly or indirectly?
Mr. Carette: It is total employment. The figure of 15 relates to total employment in Canada.
Senator Gustafson: Your department is also responsible for the trade aspect of forestry. You mentioned that trade in 1995 amounted to $34 billion. Is that the total trade?
Mr. Carette: In forest products, yes.
Senator Gustafson: That is exports?
Mr. Carette: It is the value of exports.
Senator Gustafson: What would the value be in Canadian consumed product?
Mr. Carette: That is the difference between the value of shipments and the value of exports, so it would be approximately $16 billion.
Senator Gustafson: That is $16 billion that is used in the Canadian economy?
Mr. Carette: Yes.
Senator Gustafson: We are told that there is $1 billion of trade a day across the U.S. border. Even if you used just that figure, to say nothing about trade with other nations, that would represent about 10 per cent of our total trade. Have you a number on that?
Mr. Carette: No. Of the $32 billion in exports, 68 or 69 per cent of those are going to the U.S. The remainder is going to the Asian and the European markets.
Senator Gustafson: I am thinking in terms of the total Canadian trade package.
Mr. Carette: We do not have those numbers.
Senator Gustafson: In 1994-95 the value of shipments was $58 billion. Why was there such a major drop between 1994 and 1995? Was it related to American restrictions?
Mr. Carette: Are you quoting numbers from this document?
Senator Gustafson: I am quoting numbers from this page headed "Forest Economy."
Mr. Carette: The $58.7 billion is the value of shipments. That includes all shipments from the industry, including domestic. The $32 billion is the exports. To come to the value of domestic consumption, you just subtract the two numbers.
Senator Spivak: Do you have figures here today on how many jobs have been lost? We are particularly interested in those as they relate to the boreal forest in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Also, could you provide us with the figures on the annual cuts there and how those are enforced.
I know that Environment Canada intervened in the Louisiana Pacific licence in Manitoba in relation to nesting birds and so forth, but there is not a single enforcement officer going out there. Is that true for all the other provinces?
Do you have a policy with regard to old growth forests? You talk about Canada's natural forests. They are not going to be natural for very long if we do what was done in some parts of British Columbia, which is to turn them into plantations. They do not look anything like natural forests -- and I have been there; I have seen them.
Canada does have a convention on biodiversity. What is our focus in the Forestry Department as a federal government in terms of biodiversity? The federal government does have responsibility for conventions and trade. It seems to me that we cannot always back off and say, "That is a provincial responsibility." It simply is not true.
The forest is not just a resource to the timber industry. It is a resource for many other things in Canada. We have not talked about tourism or fisheries. Surely, in the forestry department you must be cognizant of this.
I should like to know what your powers are, what your policies are, how many people you have on staff in terms of those particular issues which are of concern to all Canadians. If you have looked at the polls, you will have seen that Canadians are interested not only in the jobs in the forestry industry, but also in maintaining the forests for all kinds of other uses. It seems to me that the forests have uses other than the supplying of timber.
Those are the questions. If you do not have the answers now, perhaps you could provide them later in writing.
Mr. Carette: On the question of employment, Ms Myre has some of the numbers.
Ms Pauline Myre, Director, Policy and Planning Division, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Branch, Natural Resources Canada: I can provide you with some of the numbers with regard to direct employment. You asked earlier for a 10-year average.
Senator Spivak: What the drop was.
Ms Myre: It was not a drop. There was an increase over a ten-year period of 2 per cent in the total forest industry. Direct employment increased by 2 per cent over a 10-year period.
Senator Spivak: It is just in British Columbia that all those jobs have been lost?
Ms Myre: In certain areas of the country there has been a decrease in certain parts of the industry. There has been an increase in the wood industries, as Mr. Carette explained earlier, and an increase in the logging industry. There has been a decrease from 1994 to 1995 in what we refer to as the forestry services sector, particularly in the silviculture industry. There was also a slight decrease in the paper and allied industries. However, overall, there has been an increase of 2 per cent over 10 years.
Senator Spivak: The other figure I should have asked for is the number of jobs per unit volume, which is higher in the northwest United States than it is in Canada, by a considerable factor. Again, it would depend on the industry. A breakdown of those figures would be valuable.
In terms of exports, I know that telecommunications, for example, represents a greater percentage of the GDP than forestry and agriculture combined. I am not sure what percentage of exports it represents. This was true a couple of years ago.
Could you provide us with figures as to the relative value of telecommunications, agriculture forestry, et cetera, as a percentage of exports and the GDP.
Mr. Carette: Some of those comparisons are in the State of Forest report, but not all of them.
You asked also about old growth. Old growth is not a forestry notion. In the forestry world you have young trees, growing trees, mature trees, overly mature trees. "Old growth" is not a forestry notion.
Senator Spivak: You started out by saying, "Oh, no, we are not just forestry here. We are forests." Old growth is a very important notion relating to forests -- in biodiversity, in sustainable development, and in conservation. I understand that it is not a forestry notion. In fact, one forestry minister told me that a good tree is a dead tree.
Mr. Carette: What you have are various stages in the age of a forest. Those various stages have evolving wildlife and plants, and what have you. It is an evolving system. Old growth is just one stage in the entire process. Why would you want to highlight that aspect? The forest is comprised of the entire life cycle of the forest, not only one stage.
Senator Spivak: You are quite right about that. The Alberta Pacific pointed out that aspect in terms of forestry. That is not generally what the advocates of maintaining old growth forests, original forests, natural forests are talking about.
First of all they say that, unless you preserve enough old growth forest, you do not know how to regenerate it.
The second thing is that some of those forests, for example, the temperate forests, could be a thousand years old. You cannot really talk about life cycle and preserving. That is not a renewable resource, in our life span. There is certainly a concept there of old growth forest, although I know it is not a concept in forestry. Does the Canadian Forest Service have a policy in that regard, in view of its interest in biodiversity and conservation, as well as in the scientific aspect of how to regenerate those forests?
Mr. Carette: First, we do not have a policy relating specifically to old growth. We have a fair amount of scientific knowledge about old growth. The issue that you have mentioned seems to be more of a public debate on how much old growth should be preserved.
Senator Spivak: It is a conservation issue.
Mr. Carette: I think there is a difference between conservation, which includes the principle of wise use, and total protection.
Senator Spivak: There is a difference. That is true.
Mr. Carette: Public debate tends to focus on protection -- that is, leave it there, don't touch it. How much old growth do we want to preserve for posterity; how much of it do we need? As we said earlier, the 12 per cent figure in the Brundtland report is just a number. We have no scientific number in that regard. It becomes a matter of public values.
Senator Spivak: It is also an economic question. Forests like those in British Columbia or even in parts of the boreal forest do not exist anywhere else in the world, and people will pay good money to see them.
Mr. Carette: They exist from Alaska right through to the continental United States. There is a large strip there.
Senator Spivak: The question is: Should they be preserved? I understand that.
Mr. Carette: This is not a forestry question. It is not a biodiversity question. It is a public value question.
Senator Spivak: I understand what you are saying. I appreciate your comments. They do explain your policy.
Senator Taylor: I should like to know your opinion on the question of stumpage rates in Canada. As you know, we have an elaborate process of quotas in relation to our exports to the U.S., where we pay export taxes and then bring them back.
This committee was in the United States last week talking with agricultural people as well as forestry people, and they quite clearly argue that our stumpage rates up here are nothing more than an indirect subsidy to cutting. They point out, as have private people who have appeared before us, that the stumpage rates charged by governments in Canada are low -- and this is a provincial matter, so you may want to plead the fifth amendment. What is your opinion on stumpage rates in Canada? Are they so low that they are, as the Americans say, nothing more than a form of subsidization?
Mr. Carette: I do not think the fifth amendment exists in Canada. It is a U.S. notion.
Stumpage rates are a fairly complex issue. Unfortunately, I am a generalist, and generalists are expert in nothing. We do have experts in CFS on this issue.
Basically, the U.S. has been telling us that their system of auctioning forests generates a better price or a more market-oriented price than does our system of publicly owned forest with stumpage. The argument has been going on for 20 years now.
Stumpage is one element of what harvesters pay to the government. Especially over the last few years, with downsizing by most governments, the onus has been put on the industry to pay for everything. The companies now pay for everything, including fire and insect protection, reforestation, and plantation. In some provinces they have to pay for all the data collection. Pursuant to the last budget in the Province of Quebec, 50 per cent of all research will be collected from the industry. Stumpage is only one element of the costs paid by companies that are harvesting.
Softwood lumber is a complex issue. I would be misleading you if I were to provide some artificial comment on it. If you are really interested, we have experts in CFS on that issue and we can arrange a meeting.
Senator Taylor: We might, Madam Chair, think about that down the road, because softwood lumber is such a contentious issue. We could spend an hour on that alone.
Finally, what is your opinion on certifying our products for export to world markets as meeting environmental standards? Do you think such certification would enhance the world's interest in good ecology and environment or do you think it would interfere unduly with our management of the forest?
Mr. Carette: I do not think it would interfere with the management of the forests; it could assist. The notion of certification has been around now for a couple of years and has been considered by various groups.
The Canadian industry has developed a process in conjunction with the Canadian Standard Association. The environmentalist community in Canada is in the process of establishing a system under the auspices of the Forest Stewardship Council. Both systems have various principles regarding sustainable forest management. The two systems differ in terms of approach. The FSC has a specification-based system, whereby it will prescribe each of the steps one must follow in the forest management process, while the CSA has more of a performance-based system, whereby it will describe the intended use and leave the intermediate steps to you. The Canadian Forest Services works with the CSA and the SFC. We provide technical expertise to both groups.
We see certification as a potential tool for improvement, but tool which is dictated by market demand. At the moment there does not seem to be any real market demand for certified wood or people who are willing to pay the additional costs, if any, of certification.
We favour the two Canadian initiatives coming together. We feel they are complementary, not competitive. We feel we have the expertise in Canada to develop a Canadian solution regarding certification. Both the federal government and the provincial governments have invested a lot in developing criterion indicators and measuring criterion indicators. We would welcome certification initiatives within that framework.
I attended recently a meeting on certification in Germany. Some 60 companies participated in that meeting. The conclusion there was that there is no demand for certified timber at the moment; that certification should be encouraged, but that it should remain a market tool as between a consumer and a producer; and that governments should ensure that it does not become a technical barrier to trade or used by foreign governments to prevent trading in their own wood material.
Senator Gustafson: I have a question regarding sustainability and renewability, and the use of straw for making spanboard. I am wondering whether the day will come where the supply of straw, especially under continuous cropping, will become a problem. In the Regina area and on the flats around Winnipeg, at night you can see the fields burning. Are your research people doing studies in this area, in terms of costs? Where do you see this whole thing going? It seems to me it is moving very slowly.
The people we have talked to, particularly the mill people, say it will not be commercially viable, but I can see where they might not want the competition. In the building industry today, there seems to be a lot of pressboard, spanboard and chipboard used.
Do we have people researching this kind of thing, both from an environmental approach and a renewability approach?
Mr. Carette: As I mentioned earlier, the CFS works in partnership with the Pulp and Paper Research Institute, FERIC and Forintek, where we provide funding and some global direction.
In a previous life I was responsible for a product research lab, and I can assure you that one can make a lot of things with straw, such as panel, sodded lumber, and some grades of paper by adding clay. You can even produce board from whey, which is a by-product of cheese manufacture.
I can make a complete wood product out of agricultural waste. The technology is there. The problem is that no entrepreneur has used that technology to make a product for the market.
Senator Gustafson: Are there people in your department or in some other research department who could inform the committee about the potential here? I think that would be good information.
Mr. Carette: The market aspect of this is more the role of Industry Canada than of CFS. The committee may wish to invite someone from Forintek, for example, who would have that knowledge.
Senator Spivak: Are you saying that the pulp and paper industry is not looking at other sources of fibres and wood? There is a huge plant in Manitoba which is very competitive and which has received huge orders. Is this not a concern of Paprican, for example?
Mr. Carette: They have done some research recently on flax; I believe they have done some research on hemp as well. However, because they are paid by forest product companies, the bulk of their effort is on wood.
Senator Spivak: Is there an economic barrier to such research? I know what their interest is, but is it still cheaper to cut down virgin trees than to look into flax or straw or whey? Have they not done any studies on that?
Mr. Carette: I think there have been some studies done by what I call the science people. I am not aware of any study done by the industry itself on the pros and cons of those kinds of products.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Carette.
The committee adjourned.