---

Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest

Issue 9 - Evidence - Afternoon sitting

---

ROUYN-NORANDA, Wednesday, October 28, 1998

The subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 1:20 p.m. to continue its study on the present state and future of forestry in Canada as it relates to the boreal forest.

Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.

The Chairman: Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Henri Jacob. He represents the ecologists of Val-d'Or and district. Please proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Henri Jacob, President, Regroupement des écologiste de Val-d'Or et des environs (REVE): First, I would like to thank you, senators, for inviting us to take part in this information session.

To start off, I would like to introduce myself and the people I represent. I am an ecologist, by which I mean an environmental activist; because there is a difference in English: an ecologist in English is a professional; in French, he is an activist. That distinction has to be made.

I have been working in the environment with environmental groups since 1972. I started in Kitchener, Ontario, and have worked steadily since that time. Today, I represent the Regroupement des écologistes de Val-d'Or et des environs, a small group founded some 10 years ago to defend the public's environmental rights and to enable people to speak out on environmental issues and in environmental debates.

I am also the President of the Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes, a network uniting the various Quebec environmental groups. I am also the outgoing Joint Chairman of the Canadian Environmental Network, a service organization for environmental groups which represents more than 2,000 environmental organizations across Canada. That sums up who I am.

When I say thank you for allowing us to speak, I do so because environmentalists here in Quebec no longer have a right to speak, at least not as freely. Governments have decided that Quebec environmentalists merely criticize. And when we speak out, we're called radicals, and we're also considered as radicals just for wanting to speak.

For example, at the socio-economic summit two years ago, the only citizens group not represented, despite numerous requests, was the environmentalists. Mr. Bouchard specifically made sure that environmentalists would not be allowed to speak.

The Quebec government has also decided to create parallel representation structures for environmental groups from which we are excluded. In other words, to increase the number of environmentalists taking part in the debate, the Quebec government has institutionalized what we call the Regional Environmental Councils, from which we are excluded, we the grassroots environmental activists, who do not share the Quebec government's opinion. That in a nutshell was my presentation.

As regards the forest issue, first of all, we have not prepared a brief as such because we did not know exactly what form it should take. We did not have enough information. We just learned last week that you were coming to the region.

Since we live in Abitibi, in the boreal forest, our view on the forestry issue is that it is the most important issue in Quebec, but also one of the issues given the least public attention. We cannot necessarily tell you the real reasons why this is so, but we believe that the government does not really want it to be discussed in public.

We believe that Quebec's forest is in a lamentable state. We believe the resource has been over-exploited for many years. Until the 1970s, even the government reports talked about Abitibi-Témiscamingue as the great clear-cutting and out-of-stock region.

At that time, they said we were harvesting 13 per cent of the forest capital, more than the interest rate at the time. In the early 1980s, someone had the brilliant idea of pushing the timberlines to the north, as a result of which those regions that had been out of stock miraculously had stock again.

Forests are now being harvested between the fiftieth and fifty-second parallels, something that was not previously done. Harvesting used to stop at the forty-eighth parallel, but is now being done up to the fifty-second.

The consequence of this is that the trees from James Bay are what we call "bonsai trees," which, in some instances, are 150 years old, but are only six, seven or eight inches in diameter.

For this kind of logging, there are no studies proving that artificial regeneration will really work in such northerly regions. And since 1970, Quebec has been harvesting virtually the same number of cubic metres of timber as it is today.

Since that time, we have been harvesting roughly the same quantity, but cutting trees that are much smaller and more spread out. As a result, for the same number of cubic metres, we must now cut approximately four or five times the area as we harvested in the 1970s. The forest is thus very quickly receding.

Yesterday, the Tourism Office representative said that one company had gone beyond the fifty-second parallel. This is the Kruger company, which, under an agreement with the government, can cut north of the fifty-second parallel in the region of Manicouagan, the Manicouagan Reservoir.

What is special about the Manicouagan Reservoir is the island in the middle of it which was given to the Kruger company for logging purposes, even though there is a Quebec statute prohibiting logging on islands. However, in this specific case, permission was given to Kruger to log this forest.

We believe that what is currently being cut in Quebec represents twice the province's forest capacity. We base this statement on the fact that logging companies and governments state that the forest regeneration cycle is approximately 60 years long. We are saying that at least twice that time is needed to achieve good natural regeneration.

The natural cycle of forests, particularly the boreal forest, is one in which, once a forest is cut, so-called colonizing species appear: raspberry trees, alders and mountain maple, followed by the so-called shade-intolerant species, birch and aspen, with so-called merchantable timber, spruce and pine, the sought-after species, growing in the underbrush.

What the industry and governments are trying to do, when they talk about sustained yield -- and now increased yield -- is to replace the so-called undesirable species, because they are not commercially profitable, with a much more profitable species, spruce.

Today, logging is compared with agriculture. However, in agriculture, for those who know a little about it, if you grow cabbages one year, there is a strong chance you will have problems with cabbage the next year. And in the third consecutive cabbage crop, there will only be cabbage maggots and all the cabbages will disappear.

Exactly the same thing is true in forestry. Without rotation, in our view, soils will be depleted. We often find depleted soils, for example, in plantings following insect epidemics. This is the natural cycle that was discussed here this morning to try to rebalance the ecosystem.

We are currently getting ahead of ourselves and are therefore headed toward soil depletion. According to one study done at Laval University, in a second planting generation, yields are not as great as in the first planting.

Despite all the comforting words of governments and logging company representatives, we believe we are truly headed toward disaster, just as the environmentalists contend.

In fact, the logging companies are trying to skip stages which, in our view, are vital for the ecosystem. When they talk about increased yields, they are talking about increased yields for the industry, not increased yields for the forest.

We believe that an ecosystem can produce a certain number of living species, be they birch, spruce or moss, but to plant more fir, spruce or pine, they have to remove other so-called undesirable species.

One forest engineer recently told us that, to obtain more spruce trees in one location, they should now be planted every metre rather than every two metres. The only problem is that we will have to tell the moose to walk with their heads turned to the side because their antlers are often more than a metre wide, and, if the trees are planted every metre, they are going to have problems walking around!

I believe we must stop considering the forest as merely a harvestable sector. Instead we have to see it as a place that really supports us and supports life. We must adjust to nature and to its rate of production rather than try to over-exploit it.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jacob. We will now hear Mr. Yvan Croteau, since your presentations are similar, although not the same, and then, following that, we can ask both of you questions.

Mr. Croteau, you were with us last night and I am sure senators will remember what you said then, but perhaps you will tell us something new today. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Croteau, Forest Engineer and Representative of Les Citoyens des lacs Gendron, Vaudry et Joannès: Mr. Chairman, I would like to describe for you the particular situation of a group of citizens who have been mobilized to defend a small piece of forest where they have cottages near a lake. They are the citizens of Gendron, Vaudry and Joannès lakes.

This is not an unusual situation, but rather an increasingly common one. More and more citizens groups are speaking out and saying: We clearly do not have a say in forest management because what we hear does not meet the expectations we have as citizens and, more particularly, as forest residents.

The case of Gendron, Vaudry and Joannès lakes involves a forest of approximately 124 square kilometres near Rouyn-Noranda, a forest that is characteristic and provides a fairly comprehensive picture of the forest in the Abitibi region. There is nothing really exceptional or unusual about what one might encounter in these forests, but what is particular about them is that the last cutting done in the area dates back to the thirties, and thus was done with horses and methods very different from those used today.

Today, what you have is a forest very near or at maturity, which thus provides a picture of a forest similar to what existed prior to the colonization of Abitibi. The citizens of these lakes wanted to stop the logging because the lakes form a north-south front. All the forest to the east of the lakes has been cut. There's absolutely nothing there. In addition, as there was recently a fire, there is no longer any mature forest.

The western section of the lake, however, is in a full growth phase or at various stages of maturity and is of considerable interest to the local population. Consequently, there is a concern to protect and develop this pocket and to avoid repeating what was done in the eastern sector of the lakes. We do not want any clear cutting or massive industrial intervention, as was previously done.

We are asking you to consider whether, in accordance with industrial logging techniques and methods, there would be a way to keep pockets in his forest as examples of the old forest. Because some of that forest still remains.

There may not be 124 square kilometres of old forest, but there definitely is some. The fire map of the University of Abitibi leads us to consider this question. And since there is some old forest, it may be a good idea to protect it for two reasons: first, because old forests are increasingly scarce, particularly near populated areas, and, second, because it could be used for educational purposes.

The other fact that we submit to you is that citizens are complaining about industrial logging methods. They clearly see the results of logging operations. These are people who live and move around in this environment and thus see the methods that are used and say they are dissatisfied with them.

I recently obtained a world resources guide for the urban environment which provides a resources status report. In the chapter on boreal forests, the guide states, and I quote:

In a 1995 study, the Institute for Sustainable Development states that North America has lost 20 percent of its original forest coverage and the countries of the former Soviet Union approximately 35 percent.

These figures would be much higher if we excluded the percentage of forests that are not boreal forests, but rather deciduous forests. The line between the two is not hard and fast.

What is disturbing about these figures is that the 20 per cent figure refers to areas much further south. This means that logging operations have really moved toward the northern limit of the boreal forest. And within the northern limit of the boreal forest, one of the problems is permafrost. This means that the ground does not thaw completely during the summer; it remains frozen. These are forests that have developed on cushions of ice. Only a few centimetres thaw so that trees can grow. However, when this forest is logged, the ground and humus are disturbed, and the ground thaws. When it thaws, the soil becomes completely saturated and prevents successful reforestation.

We have reached this limit. This obviously disturbs us a great deal because there is no magic solution for reforesting the lake. It is not possible, except that we know that this is an ecosystem that has developed in extremely difficult conditions. We have no technological tools today to guarantee reconstruction of the forest.

Citizens are also disappointed by the strategy that the industry and the Quebec government are using to manage forests. There is only one strategy, not 50. Bill 150 establishes only one model for developing the resources of the Quebec forest. There could have been 10, 20 or 50. There is virtually no limit to the number of forest management models that could have been adopted, but they have adopted only one.

We find this completely unacceptable. We cannot imagine why all Quebec and even Canadian ecosystems can respond to only one logging model. None of the nice growth curves have been proven. We are pioneers in this field.

We are not being prudent because we are pushing what is possible to the limit. We have left no room for fires or epidemics, or even climate change, which might disrupt the ecosystem itself. We have no room to manoeuvre and we're always yielding the maximum amount of timber.

Last year, at the conference of the Order of Forest Engineers, and in the survey document by the Department of Forests, it was noted that 90 percent of five-year, annual and general development plans must be revised three times before they are accepted. This is because much of the work has been poorly done and must be redone and standardized because everything operates in accordance with norms. This causes major concern among the public because the companies appear to be hiring specialists to do the work.

We are also concerned about the buffer zones. In Quebec in general, these buffer zones are 20 meters along waterways and lakes. If there is a particular habitat, they may be increased to as much as 60 meters.

Over time, we have learned that the studies that serve as a basis for the determination of these 20-meter zones -- rather than 100, 120 or 300 meters -- are conducted simply because they are required for salmon rivers along the St. Lawrence River. A 60-meter zone was suggested by wildlife specialists, among others, but it's 20 meters for all other Quebec rivers.

Based on the 60-meter figure, it was calculated what that would represent in timber volume, and it was concluded that the industry would lose too much timber. Accordingly, the decision was made to leave 20-meter zones.

And another point: Perhaps we could have had 40-metre zones if we had agreed not to have visual screens because logging companies are going to keep a 20-metre zone along main roads and certain secondary roads. This 20-metre zone is just for show to prevent citizens, the general public and visitors from seeing the extent of the logging concealed behind the 20-metre zone. This 20-metre zone serves absolutely no purpose.

If the government wanted to save timber, it should have taken these 20-metre zones and added them to the 20-metre zones around the lakes and sensitive areas. That would have been a much more coherent approach.

Another scandalous fact is that there is increasing talk about social economy. Government wants to put increasing numbers of people who no longer have access to the job market back to work. We think this means there will be programs to encourage these people to find a second occupation. In these programs, they are going to be asked to do silvicultural work.

If you look at the average wages paid in these programs, they vary around the minimum wage. What does that mean? It means that, to repair the industrial damage done, people are going to be put into a program to do just that. In general, people who have been asked to work in this kind of training do not do it a second time. They do it for a year or two, but do not start a third year and definitely don't make an occupation of it.

These are facts are have greatly disappointed citizens, who now wonder who the forest belongs to? Does it belong to interests outside Quebec, outside the region, or to those who live there?

This issue is often discussed at regional round tables, for example, because there is a realization that, when a company decides to open a market at a particular place on the planet, there is a direct impact on the region and on the rate at which the forest is logged.

There is no bridge between the two. If the company decides, that is the way it is done; we have nothing to say about the strategy for liquidating forest resources.

I will give you an example. There is a plant in Lasarre which spent approximately $26 million to make waferboard. They use aspen, which they cut into pieces to make enormous panels. Approximately 50 percent of the production of this plant is shipped to Japan to make packaging for snowmobiles and Seadoos and all kinds of motorized gadgets, which in turn are shipped back and put additional pressure on the forests.

In this $26 million plant, there are 16 workers per shift. Twenty years ago, in a similar plant, there were perhaps 150 workers. But this also means that there may be only 16 workers who can afford snowmobiles. If they want to sell packaging panels for snowmobiles, they will have to find a way to create jobs so that people can buy snowmobiles because otherwise they will not be able to sell their products.

There is a kind of vicious circle or something incoherent about the present market where products are liquidated at any price without advance notice. It is like the serpent eating its tail.

So in response to the question, to whom does the forest belong? we feel it must belong mainly to those who live in it, to those who are closest to it. Gradually, those who are the farthest away can obviously offer their ideas. However, by doing the reverse, will be helping Abitibi. Abitibi will simply become a second Gaspé, and we believe it will happen soon.

One idea that we think is valid and that can partly solve the problem is establishing good planning tools. The Regulations respecting standards of forest management of the Quebec Department of Forests contain some 100 regulations. Most violations of these regulations have been due to a lack of planning. If planning had been better, the problems would have been avoided.

For example, a forwarder is a machine that carries, rather than drags, timber. It is a fairly heavy piece of equipment. Last winter or the winter before, a forwarder north of Lasarre travelled across a very wet area of the forest and sank. It took five forwarders to get it out because the second, third and fourth forwarders sank in turn on the way. This resulted in a huge mess in this area where these five forwarders were used to remove the first forwarder that sank.

Information on sensitive areas and solid areas in the region already exists. We already have the information to plan in this area. We must avoid putting excessively heavy equipment in very fragile areas. Companies refuse to use it on the grounds that time is money and planning takes time, and they offer a lot of reasons to avoid planning, knowing full well that the planning has been in existence in Quebec for 20 years.

The government recently issued a map called the "Ecoforestry Map." This map provides some of the information necessary for good planning. On a large development project, the Ecoforestry Map could indicate, for example, if 30 percent of the land in my area has good bearing capacity.

It could indicate the most solid ground and the ground that will cause problems for road construction. This is established in advance, even before going into the field or taking an aerial photograph. A great deal of information can be obtained.

However, in managing its development plans, the company delegates everything. There is virtually one chief forester per company. Approximately five chief foresters alone manage all of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, while all the rest is subcontracted.

The subcontractors are selected from among firms that prepare development plans or among the contractors that do the logging. The whole thing works on a bidding system: The lowest bidder always gives its lowest price. In so doing, it gets an increasingly cheap product which cannot respond to the requirements of the land or the fragile nature of the ecosystems.

This is an extremely important aspect. If no ecological planning goes into the way forests are logged, we will just be making mess after mess.

One of the myths perpetuated by the industry is that it engages in reforestation, that it repairs the damage it does. This is false. Reforestation is a mistake. We are forced to reforest because we have planned poorly, and the social cost of reforestation is enormous. A tree that has been used for reforestation purposes will ultimately cost $2,000 to $3,000 per cubic metre in social investment.

I have done development work on private lands and you quickly exceed $1,000 per hectare to develop private forest. So this is an enormous social cost and no one should claim that reforestation is the solution. No, it is not the solution. Reforestation is simply a palliative because we have made such a big mistake that we now have to save face.

So this is one part of the picture. We will increasingly be seeing citizens groups rising up to state their views. When they confront industrial concerns and demand guarantees respecting the way those concerns log the forest, the latter are incapable of delivering the goods. Why? Because the Canadian and Quebec forest strategies are not developed in a way that benefits the forest, but rather one that undermines ecosystems and the forest itself.

[English]

Senator Stratton: My question relates back to the previous witness, Robert St-Amour from Tembec corporation. He, of course, has a different view. He believes that they are doing sustainable forestry. He showed us a rather interesting chart on future harvesting, looking outwards for a period of 95 years, indicating how the incorporation of plantations into reforestation will overcome the problems we are currently experiencing.

By way of example, he cited a case in the southwest of France, where they have been tracking the forest for 120 years. They have been able to develop plantations within that forest and become virtually self-sustainable. They can reap the benefits of that forest. It is 85 per cent privately owned and can be harvested and kept going, based on the model that was developed over the 120 years.

With that kind of perspective, you have to realize where we stand. We are trying to find out the best approach to take. We have heard his side and the company's side. How do you respond with respect to the issue of these forests which are being regenerated in France?

Mr. Jacob: They are talking about sustainable forestry. We are talking about sustainable forests. There is a big difference. It is either one or the other. If you make a plantation such as in Sweden and Norway, there is a lot of nice forestry but you do not have a very nice forest. Biodiversity is not very great, and you have many kinds of problems when you carry out that kind of forestry.

I understand that it is preferable for the industry to speak about sustainable forestry than about sustainable forests. When you speak about sustainable forests, you have to speak about the equilibrium in the forestry system, which means you have to take into account all kinds of species. You have to talk about the little mushrooms that are part of the ecosystem, which are very important, and the micro-organisms that help trees survive and nourish themselves.

We are talking about a kind of forestry that is a bit like the agriculture we are doing out West. I know, and you probably know, that it is not very successful, because in the West they have already lost 50 per cent of the good soil by erosion, and all that sort of thing, because they do monoculture. That is exactly what they do with forestry. They practise monoculture. It is either pine or spruce trees. Like I said before, you have to remove many other species of trees and animal life to have that kind of sustainable forestry. That is the big difference.

What I know about the situation in France is that the forestry is very weak in diversity compared to what it was a few hundred years ago. We are trying to prevent the same kind of pattern, because that causes a lot of problems in the long term.

Senator Stratton: Reverting to the comparison to farms in the West, there is the argument about erosion, of course, but they seem to be able to sustain the land and grow crops and still have biodiversity. It is not the same as it was in the time before we hit the land. There is only a very small portion of that left in its natural state. However, the deer survived. Rabbits, foxes, coyotes -- they are all still there. The pressure comes into play with man himself, just because of the sheer numbers. The prairies seem to be surviving and the animals seem to be surviving, except for bison of course.

If we did that to our Prairies, and it seems to be self-sustaining -- I stress "seems to be" -- then surely we could have plantations in our boreal forests in designated areas. I am not talking about the entire area, but designated areas. You could then use those plantations as a basis of comparison with your sustainable forests. Is there not a marriage there somehow?

Mr. Jacob: As my friend said, the plantation is like putting a band-aid on a scar that we have incurred on the land. I think if they want to have plantations, especially here in Abitibi, there is a lot of room for that. You have been in Mistissini and you have seen the big clearcuts. You can fly for at least a good hour by plane and you will not see any trees. If they wanted to play with that kind of soil, they could go there, but I will tell you why they do not go there. After they clearcut that land, it is not as productive as it was. It is not only a matter of the trees being gone. In the spring, the snow melts so fast that all the soil goes with it into the rivers and lakes. Therefore, there is no good soil for plantations to ensure a good result. That is one of the problems with the plantation model of forestry.

That is why we say plantations should be used only when you make a mistake, to try to rebuild a system, but you should not have it as some kind of tool for forestry. It should only be there as some kind of replacement when you have made a mistake.

What Yvan was telling you is that we now have a tool in Quebec that has been developed for 20 years, but the industry does not want to use it. The government does not want to use it, because it keeps too much power in the hands of the people. We know in advance that, if you go to a certain area with this type of ecosystem and you clear-cut it, nothing will grow back on that land for many years. They do not want to use the tool, though, because people will say you should not cut it then.

The way they prevent us from using it is by making sure we do not have that kind of map. They have developed a new map that is more general, and they say that we do not take care of all the little details that may prevent us from doing that kind of exploitation.

Senator Stratton: I would like to go on but I will pass.

[Translation]

Senator Gill: Mr. Croteau, you mentioned earlier that you were against massive clear cutting and so on. I therefore assume you are not completely opposed to rational logging and so on.

Mr. Jacob, you said you were not listened to at the economic summit.

Mr. Jacob: We were not invited.

Senator Gill: You were not invited at all.

Mr. Jacob: Even though we asked to be invited. The only citizens group that was not represented was the environmentalists. Mr. Bouchard said he did not want to see us there.

Senator Gill: My question is mainly related to communications because I also come from a region. All of us, I believe, started out in some region of the country. If I understand you correctly, in Abitibi and elsewhere, people with a certain degree of interest communicate among themselves to a considerable extent. We can cite the ecology groups, logging groups or Aboriginal groups and so on, in which people exchange considerable amounts of information. This is what I call horizontal communication, not even horizontal because it is done by groups. There is an enormous amount of discussion within these groups, but they all do the same thing. There is also a great deal of vertical communication.

The proof of this is that you are here today and are explaining the situation as you perceive it to the senators. So there is a great deal of similar types of communication, some horizontal communication by groups, but never enough communication among groups.

I understand that some communication is starting between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals, particularly as regards the environment, but do you think there might be a little work to be done here between the citizens of a single region and between regions as well to achieve a certain form of mutual understanding so that interests are interrelated and a set of interests is respected or coordinated?

Do you think that work is being done or not, or whether work should be done? I am talking about communication between the various interested groups.

Mr. Jacob: A great deal of this kind of work has been done in the past. I would say that this kind of communication was increasingly being done in the environmental sector until 1992, until the Earth Summit.

Starting in 1992, at the Earth Summit, things began to take another direction. In Western Canada, in British Columbia, logging companies began to subsidize an anti-environmental group called the Share Movement for the purpose of fighting the environmentalists. This movement also exists in the United States.

Here in Quebec, the government got involved by deciding to subsidize groups that claim to be focus groups, but reject groups such as ours, characterizing us as radicals because we do not share their opinion. They even object to our presence. I have submitted a number of written requests to attend a meeting of this regional environmental council, but I have not been given permission to do so.

I work on environmental issues in Quebec within the Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes, which will be 16 years old this year. It is an organization that was founded by environmental groups to promote communication with all other sectors. We communicate with all the other sectors, including aboriginals, unions and, previously, with people in the various governments.

Since the government has decided to take the environmental sector in hand, it has decided to eliminate those groups that did not share its vision. It is possible that we may be too critical of government initiatives, but things are being organized so we cannot take part in the various debates.

In Quebec, there are no subsidies at all for independent environmental groups, despite the battles we have waged on the subject. The result has been that, when they decided to give out money, they gave it to another structure.

It's as though the unions were being told: "We're tired of talking to union representatives. Messrs. X and Y will now speak on behalf of the unions."

This is exactly what the government has done: it has decided who the environmental stakeholders are in all the regions of Quebec.

Senator Gill: But, despite all that, you have no hope of any chance of achieving some form of communication that will enable you to exchange information in a given region, such as Abitibi, for example, with groups and people you know?

Mr. Jacob: Yes, but that is simply because people want it that way. It is not at all because governments want this kind of communication to occur. We are talking with aboriginal communities; I'm working with them across Canada. We even have a First Nations network concerned with the environment which is affiliated with the network.

But we are doing it without any help. The governments do not really like seeing us talk to or work with aboriginals because we share a fairly similar point of view as regards the exploitation of resources.

The positive points have been scored by people who have taken action. However, in each case, the government tries to divide people again. It is like the example I cited earlier: the government has created a new structure. As a result, the general public becomes confused and does not know who the environmental groups are. It always takes a few years before anyone realizes that the people involved were opportunists who simply wanted to make money and prevent the real environmental groups, the real grassroots groups, from taking part in the various debates.

Senator Gill: We could continue talking, but our time is limited.

[English]

The Chairman: I have a supplemental question along the lines you are talking about. The government may not invite you, but have you been approached by the lumber companies or the forestry companies themselves? They are busy now putting together advisory groups and such things. Have you ever said, "Here I am" or do they say the same thing as Bouchard, "Get lost"?

Mr. Jacob: We have contact with the different companies. We have contact with Domtar and we have different meetings with them. I am sitting on a board with the Waswanipi Model Forest. There is a forest company sitting on that board, too. Even there, they do not like me to sit on the board with the First Nations. They have said it to the company. I proposed another environmentalist to sit in, and the Donahue company said, "No, we do not want to have this person; he speaks too much on the environmental side."

Some companies are a bit more open, but it is always on a personal basis. It is not the company that is more open; there is an individual in the company who is more open. We have contact with those individuals who want to speak with us, but the company does not have very much contact.

I was listening to the representative from Tembec. He said they have the Fond environnemental, which is supposed to give money to the environmental group. We tried it. We wrote a proposal applying for those funds, but we were turned down even though our proposal met all of their criteria. That is the way it is.

The same thing happened with the government of Quebec. They have a fund for projects of the environmental groups, but all the groups who have raised comment against the government or were not friendly with the government were refused. I have the list at home and I can show it to you. It has been like that for many years.

At present there is this tendency to put people who think exactly as they do in front of them instead of having people who do not think like them. They pay them, of course.

The Chairman: I will shoot a short question at Mr. Croteau. You mentioned that job creation is pushing a lot of development, and yet we have heard from some of the native peoples and others that they do not hire enough people locally. I do not quite understand; if you say job creation is pushing this development, what is wrong with that? In other words, if you are creating jobs in the community, is that not the way you have to go -- creating jobs, keeping the ecology right there? You cannot make it just an untouchable park, can you?

[Translation]

Mr. Croteau: I never proposed intervening in the entire boreal forest. What I said a moment ago, in response to Senator Stratton, concerning Tembec, is that they have an approach to reforestation that might be an interesting compromise.

We are saying that the Forestry Act, the industrial strategy that we want to apply to all forest ecosystems, is not consistent with the reality of those ecosystems. It is a matter of improvisation and speculation.

We believe that our industries have every interest in putting a great deal of energy into their ability to process resources that the forests can produce naturally, and not do the reverse.

Industrial leaders never address this question. Why not have more flexible companies, with a more appropriate marketing plan, to comply with trends in a given area? If the forest produces birch in a certain area, the company should adjust to process, market and sell birch instead of forcing nature to produce exactly what a particular company wants in a given area in a given region of Quebec.

We're saying that this is enormously expensive because the ecosystem is forced to produce something other than what nature has always produced for the past 10,000 years.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. We found your presentations most interesting. I want to thank you very much for coming out. I am not so sure that the government of Quebec will pay any more attention to a Senate committee than it does to Henry Jacob, but we will be out there putting our viewpoints forward in the next few months. You can be sure of that.

Next on the agenda is a witness from the Cree Nation of Waswanipi, Mr. Allan Saganash, who is the project manager of the trapline forestry project.

Mr. Saganash, just so I understand, when you mention managing trapline forestry projects, are you speaking for all nine nations of the Crees or just the one?

Mr. Allan Saganash, Project Manager, Trapline Forestry Project, Cree Nation of Waswanipi: No, just one.

The Chairman: You are talking about just one particular nation?

Mr. Saganash: Yes, I am talking about one particular nation, the Waswanipi. I do not know if you realize that there are nine Cree communities across Quebec. We are from Waswanipi. Mr. Samuel Gull will give the introduction, and then I will try to explain the project we are doing with the forestry companies.

Mr. Samuel Gull, Director General, Cree Nation of Waswanipi: Good afternoon. My name is Samuel Gull. I am the Director General for the Cree Nation of Waswanipi. First of all, I wish to express a word of appreciation in being able to come forward to this committee to do the presentation as to the impact of forestry on the lifestyle of the people in the community of Waswanipi. We are not as prepared as our other partners were earlier this morning, as time did not allow for us to prepare a text. A written text will be prepared once we get back and we will forward that to you.

We feel that a brief history of the logging operations within Waswanipi should be mentioned to give you a better understanding of what the community of Waswanipi has been going through for the past years.

In the early 1970s, as the forestry developed and progressively moved north, an increasing number of companies started to gain a larger land base in the territory where Waswanipi has a trapline system. At one point there were 11 forestry companies operating within the area of the territory of the traplines. Gradually, over the years, the smaller companies more or less merged with the larger companies. As of now, I believe there are somewhere around seven to eight companies operating in Waswanipi.

We do not wish the context of our presentation to be within the same scope as that of our previous fellow Cree members who were witnesses this morning, though certain similarities might be evident. We wish to focus more on putting emphasis on the attempts made at establishing a more direct working relationship between the hunters and trappers and the forest industry. All of this is in relation to a consultation process more directly involved with the model forest that we have in Waswanipi, which we initiated in recent years in developing a concept of making better known the interests of the hunters and trappers and what they expect in terms of the territory affected by the forestry operations.

What we are looking for is a concept of coexistence between the trappers and hunters and the people from the industry. We wish to share with them the various interests and expectations of the Cree hunters and try to incorporate that within the forestry operations and the way they are handled within the territory.

That is more or less the concept of what we will be presenting to you. I will let Mr. Saganash run through the concept of the consultation process. Mr. Saganash was hired in July 1997, when we started this process. A few months later Mr. Saganash gained an assistant.

I believe it is worth mentioning that this project is largely at the expense of the community. Although we have had cooperation from some of the forestry companies, which have contributed financially, nonetheless, the amount we receive does not cover the costs of the expenses to carry out the work that is being done on this project. However, I will leave it for Allan to provide you with the specifics.

Mr. Saganash: Thank you very much. I work for the Waswanipi Cree Nation Council. I am project manager, working on forestry and trying to minimize impacts on our Cree traplines.

First let me elaborate on the system of the Cree traplines. There are 52 traplines in Waswanipi. We have 52 registered traplines that are recognized under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The Chairman: Is that just Waswanipi?

Mr. Saganash: This is just the Waswanipi community. For each sector, we have 52 traplines. We have a person who is responsible for each sector to manage the trapline with respect to wildlife, in giving out the amount of animals that are taken by each hunter.

The Chairman: Would that be a tallyman?

Mr. Saganash: Yes, these are tallymen. There are two tallymen per trapline. Other traplines share only one. Please bear in mind that there are five or six families living on each of these 52 traplines. It is not the case that there is one person who is hunting in that area, but a designated person is responsible for the management of that trapline.

In working for the trapline forestry project -- just to explain the trapline side of it as against forestry aspect -- what I am doing, basically, is trying to minimize the impacts of forestry activities on those traplines. We have in our office a map that came from the Quebec Ministry of Lands and Forests in 1993. That map shows all the camps. Using an acetate layer we drew the traplines and superimposed them on those camps, thereby identifying what trapline is affected by what company. Do you understand? As a result, we know which company will be cutting on which trapline, and that is the company with which we will do consultation with the tallymen.

Of our 52 traplines, 48 of them have been currently affected by forestry activities. There are only four traplines that have not been affected. In the early 1970s, as Mr. Gull mentioned -- I think it is earlier than that -- forestry activities were carried out not by machinery but by manual operation. By that I mean chain saw operations. At that time those operations were not as devastating as the machines that are working on those traplines now.

Some of the traplines were depleted back in the early 1970s, when the machines first came out. They were no longer usable, which disrupted and even displaced some of the Cree way of life in hunting, fishing, and trapping. Some of the tallymen had to move from one sector to another to continue their way of life, which is hunting, fishing and trapping.

It takes approximately 20 years before that trapline can be reused. It is 15 to 20 years before wildlife can return to that area to sustain the use of that trapline.

Going back to the project, basically, we have talked with the forestry companies and convinced them to work with the trappers in consulting them with regard to their forestry activities. In doing so, we have agreed to compile basic land use and occupancy information on the areas that will be affected. I brought along one of the maps as an example of the project.

One company that affects most of the traplines is Domtar. Domtar will affect 32 out of the 52 traplines. The whole area that I have just shown to you has an area of 35,000 square kilometres. The land is divided into various categories. Category 1 lands cover 369 square kilometres. Category 2 has 4,640 square kilometres, and Category 3 has 29,990 kilometres, totalling 35,000 square kilometres.

The Chairman: While your assistants are getting the map up, can you tell me whether any of the companies are better to get along with than others? Is there any pattern? Are they better or worse inside or from outside the province? Are the U.S. companies better or worse?

Mr. Saganash: We only deal with the forestry companies from Quebec. Their opinions are different in what they agree upon during consultation with the trappers. The forestry companies have agreed to produce maps using a scale of 1 to 50,000 for each trapline, on a trapline-by-trapline basis.

I want to explain something to you. These maps were produced by the forestry companies. The maps contain five overlays as agreed by the Waswanipi Cree Nation. The first layer emphasizes the boreal forest stands. That is the green area I am pointing to there. We are talking about one trapline. The trapline number is up there. It is W 03.

The Chairman: What is the blank area?

Mr. Saganash: That is not Domtar's camp. It is outside their camp. The information they produce is just for Domtar. As you can see at the bottom, it says "Domtar" there. We will get other maps from other forestry companies that have taken that certain area. That is one trapline. It is W 03. That first layer emphasizes the boreal forest, the height of the trees, the planting, commercial thinning, seeding and commercial work to be done by Domtar. It also shows all the swamps, which are the yellowish parts there.

The second layer there shows all the road network. It categorizes the roads into Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. It shows all the existing, planned, gravel and winter roads and the bodies of water on a specific trapline. We are talking about the same trapline here.

The third layer is intended to show the five-year cutting plan. However, W 03 does not show the five-year cutting plan because Domtar does not plan to cut in that trapline for the next five years. I brought along another trapline which Domtar will be cutting and that one shows a five-year cutting plan. This trapline, W 24D, belongs to Mr. Clarence Blacksmith. That is the third layer which shows Domtar's five-year cutting plan. Each year is marked off by colour codes on the side for the next five years. Each colour will stay the same for a year. The blue will be 1998, and so forth.

The Chairman: Before you leave the five years, the circle will probably come right back again.

Mr. Saganash: Yes. Each year, the colour codes will change. Let us take this example. Last year, 1997, was blue. This year, 1998, will be blue and 1997 will not show there, but it is there for the next five years.

The fourth layer, which is produced by the forestry companies, will show what I just showed you of layer 1, 2 and 3 all on one map. This is given to the trapper.

The fifth layer, which is an important part to the trapper, is the map that is used for documenting their culture, land use and occupation information. That is blank. The work is done by the trapper or the tallymen or the users of that sector of land. It is documented. When it is complete, one copy is kept at the files of my office at our department and the other is sent to the forestry company, which Domtar will look at. Then the consultation process begins.

Domtar brings back the map and consults with the trapper. We enter into the file on those areas all the camps -- both semi-permanent and permanent camps, all the burial sites, sacred sites, moose yards, beaver habitats, and all the conservation zones that the trapper does not want affected by the forestry companies. All of that is marked off.

Then the forestry companies look at that and they come back with an agreement. After the consultation process with the trappers, Domtar will come back with a permanent coding on that map. This is what it looks like at the end. Mind you, all agreements with the forestry companies are made only on a temporary basis. They say that they will come back within five to six years and renegotiate, if they have agreed to protect a zone.

I am sure you are having a hard time seeing this, because it does not show very clearly since it is transparent. It shows better when you explain the project on a table. It is very difficult to explain a map, when you are lifting it up.

In any event, Domtar comes up with their own symbols. They have a picture of the tallyman on the top corner. It was not my idea, it was theirs. They want to make sure there is no mistake. That acetate layer is sent back by Domtar. Then I am the one who is responsible to consult with that respective tallyman and tell him, "This is what Domtar has agreed to with regard to your documentation of the land use and occupancy information."

As I mentioned before, they do not totally agree with all the zones that we document. They come up with an agreement of some sort. For every trapline I complete, they come up with an agreement like this one I am showing you. It marks off the zones that are protected and indicates what the zones are for and what they agree to protect -- whether it will be 50 per cent or 60 per cent. They explain why they cannot protect the whole area. It might be because the trees are too mature there; they may have already done some planting on it, and having done some work on it they have to recoup the costs. It is things like that. However, they agree to protect it.

That is not the way we want the consultation process proceed. When we do the documentation on the land use occupation information, we would like to see Domtar agree to 100 per cent of it. When you look at it, I think we document about 25 per cent of the trapline, maybe less for some traplines, and we are releasing 75 per cent of the trapline to be cut by the forestry companies and they are still having problems with the ecozones that we are identifying. In that sense, I find that it is not a very good relationship to work with the forestry company in deciding this.

This is just a brief explanation that I am giving you. Normally, when I describe the project, it takes about two hours. I am just explaining it very briefly to help you understand what we are trying to do here. For each trapline map that we send out, we have to make 32 maps like those I just showed you with Domtar. We have to consult, for those 32 traplines, with maybe 100 to 200 people, depending on the people who use that sector of land.

For Donahue, we have to do 23 traplines; for Badachapais it is 13; for Norbord there is a minimum of 10 to 11. Then we have the five forestry companies from Amos that are having trouble with producing maps like that. It is mostly because they do not have a GI system in place.

You asked me, Mr. Chairman, what the blank space is there. There can be two or three companies operating on one trapline. Also, when you send those maps and the information back to the forestry companies, there is additional information that we cannot put on the maps, such as remarks or comments by the trapper on the uses of the land. When we do consultations with the forestry companies, we sit down with the tallymen and also the users of that land, so we have about three or four people there. We are not bringing in the whole family, the wives and the children. We involve only the people who are the main users of the land.

We write down additional comments and the forestry companies will read through those. Some of them are one page; some of them are three pages; some of them are five pages; it depends on the person and the kind of comments he will be making on the forestry activities on his trapline.

Senator Gill: If I understand correctly, the objective that you would like to reach with the companies would be a kind of compromise. Is it going to be done in both ways? Do you feel that the company is ready to give on some points? I know that you are probably ready, because at the beginning you were always giving up something. Do you feel there is hope there to come to a sharing of the resources?

Mr. Gull: What we are looking for here is coexistence. The objective has always been one of coexistence. If the industry can give up some of its needs, we will meet them halfway, if we have to. As Mr. Saganash mentioned, on the basis of the trapline itself, if the area where there is a request for protection is 25 per cent of the trapline, we are giving up 75 per cent. I think we are meeting them more than halfway.

Senator Gill: Do you feel that there has been some opening right from the beginning on the part of the companies?

Mr. Gull: Well, as I said, we have been doing this work for a year now, and there are some companies that accept this work to a certain extent but there are other companies that we still hesitate to deal with.

Mr. Saganash: I would like to make a further response to Senator Gill's question. When you are talking about the forestry companies agreeing to information that we put on the maps, there is a very minimum change within that one year when you are doing consultation with them. Most of the companies have preferred not to cut down on the volume of wood but to change the way they cut. They prefer to do mosaic cutting. I am not saying all of them are agreeing to that, but the problem is that the trappers and the tallymen are not actually in agreement with what the forestry companies are agreeing to. That is the basis of the information that is coming from the consultation process.

The Chairman: I want to add a supplement to Senator Gill's question. We heard from some other witnesses that the companies sometimes pay the tallymen or the trapline owners or families money for forestry, and that sort of breaks up the system. Has that happened here? Is there any exchange? Are any of those companies you are talking about paying the trapline people money in order to compensate them for losses or for their troubles?

Mr. Gull: We look at this as an interim solution, but we look for something that would go beyond the extent of where things are now. The approach in terms of compensation is the fact that once a forestry company goes into a trapline, the territory is very much open to everyone else. We look at the impact that has on a particular territory.

For example, where the location of a hunting camp is actually logged out, the individual who is there relies on timber for his wood stove for heating and everything else. This individual has to go further to go and get this timber. A great many of these people do not have vehicles. A few of them are starting to have all-terrain vehicles. This is where we say carrying out the day-to-day activities is more costly for the individual, as the logging operations are taking place. With the diminishing of the wildlife resources, the individual more or less has to rely on having to buy more food from stores rather than getting it off the land.

These are some of the things that we directly discuss with the companies, saying let us have an interim solution as to what we look at and to be later confirmed as to what exactly we would come to as a common goal.

Senator Mahovlich: When negotiations break down and you do not want to deal with certain corporations, do these companies just proceed without consulting with you? Do they just go ahead and clear the land? Does the Quebec government allow that?

Mr. Gull: For a few companies, like we said, we have not been successful to bring them to the table to discuss this, and the logging operation still continues on as it is.

Senator Mahovlich: It continues on.

Mr. Gull: Yes.

Senator Mahovlich: They do not have any communication with the trapper?

Mr. Gull: There might be some communication when they meet the trapper in the field, but it is not directed to the process that we are initiating here.

Senator Mahovlich: It is not what you are trying to accomplish.

Mr. Gull: Yes, it is not directed to that process.

Senator Gill: I understood you to say that, if there are damages or you have to build other camps and that costs some money, the company is trying to compensate for that. But there must be something which is not for sale. I am thinking of conservation, for instance, where perhaps the elders are saying that you cannot touch a given area because their "beaver house" is there. They have to keep the reproduction, and that kind of thing. I imagine that the company does not have any choice with that; they have to go along with that.

Mr. Gull: As Mr. Saganash mentioned, after the identification of the areas that are considered sensitive, the company will come back and say that it is only to a certain extent that they would be able to accept what is proposed by the trapper. That is why we say there are some things that the trapper will have to decide on having to let go and keeping what other propositions there are.

Senator Gill: Or not let go.

Senator Stratton: He does not have a choice.

Mr. Gull: It is more or less a cooperative working relationship.

Mr. Saganash: When one talks to the trappers, the most controversial issue on forestry is buffer zones. Those are the areas of forest stands left along creeks, streams, lakes and around permanent camps. I know the forestry regulation for a buffer zone is 20 metres. It is about 60 feet. Many trappers have complained about these small buffer zones, because when you leave a buffer zone like that, it falls into the river. I am not talking about an everyday wind. I am talking about an unusual wind, a strong wind. In driving along the forestry roads, I have seen areas where the trees have been blown onto the road; the whole buffer zone has disappeared because what had been left as a buffer was so small to begin with. I do not know how many people have been out on the lake or driving alongside a road where you have seen fallen trees along the road even when the forest is still intact. That is because there is no shelter from the wind when they cut a road.

Senator Mahovlich: How deep should a buffer zone be?

Senator Stratton: Sixty metres.

Senator Mahovlich: Have the ecology groups come up with a number for what it should be?

Mr. Saganash: When I consult with the trappers, they talk about maybe 450 to 500 feet of buffer zone, or maybe even one kilometre. Some talk about one mile. Everybody thinks differently on the subject of buffer zones.

Senator Stratton: This is really an interesting presentation. I did not realize that level of micromanagement was taking place -- or at least an attempt at micromanagement in a good sense.

Is what is happening on the traplines having an effect on the future? Are younger people saying that they see no future in hunting and trapping because it is viewed as an area of diminishing returns? Are they saying that they do not want to have a future as a trapper because of the effect it is having on the family's trapline or the traplines in the region?

Mr. Saganash: I do not understand your question. Are you asking if the consultation we are carrying out is having an effect?

Senator Stratton: No. What I am asking is if the logging in your trapline areas is having an effect on the decisions that your children will make in continuing that way of life.

Mr. Saganash: That is the idea behind the whole project. We are trying to create sustainable forest management with regard to the land-use documentation information. By using the project itself, we will know in the future how well the forest has been preserved for future use. That is going to tell you how effective the consultations have been. Right now it is too early to tell what effect this consultation process will have with the younger generation. Mind you, there are still people out there who are continuing to hunt, fish and trap, such as the young trapper I brought along to assist me. He is a full-time trapper.

Sixty per cent of our people still practise a way of life of hunting, fishing, and trapping. It is their way of life. We cannot take that away from them. We have to understand each other. Cultural awareness is what I am talking about here, and it is why we live so differently. If you talk to the elders, the ones who never felt the effects of forestry when they were hunting, fishing and trapping, it is different. The younger generation hunts differently from the way they did a long time ago, if you are talking about the elders.

Senator Stratton: Is logging having an impact on the current trappers? Is there an impact on the amount of money they make, on their way of life? Surely you must know or have an impression of what is happening there. Is there an impact?

Mr. Gull: There are quite a few different associated problems that stem from this, especially once the logging operations actually extend into the trapline. Weighing both sides, there are, for example, pros and cons to opening access. A typical example of the negative effect of access is an incident where a trapper has left his hunting camp for a while. When he returns to the camp, he discovers that his hunting gear has all disappeared. That happens because of the access to the territory. It is open to everybody else.

We have no idea who goes in and who goes out and, of course, there is very little in terms of monitoring of the people who come in and go out even on the roads that are open year-round. I think that is one part of the impact.

Other impacts are more directly related to the forestry activities themselves, such as the presentation that was made earlier this morning when they gave the percentage as to the overall cut within certain traplines. Wildlife in those areas is actually diminishing; it is disappearing from those areas.

Senator Stratton: That is really what I am interested in.

Mr. Gull: With the policy of the Ministry of the Environment of Quebec with regard to the Zone 17 hunting territory, the Cree people have to cope with the sports hunters coming up and they have to cope with a smaller number of moose that a trapper can kill within a trapline because of the fact of the decrease in the moose population. Right now, I believe that what we have agreed to is that a trapper can come up with two moose per trapline per year. That is about the lowest that we can accept. That is notwithstanding the guarantee of harvest within the James Bay Agreement itself.

There is actually no real information that that is an impact of forestry, but in some cases I believe it is denial on their part. Like we say, the moose population has been decreasing over the years in Zone 17 where the Crees themselves are asked to cut down their harvest as well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Saganash and Mr. Gull. We look forward to your written submission. Thank you for taking the time to come down and see us. It was most interesting.

Fellow senators, our last presenter today is Mr. Armand Plourde, Director General of the Syndicate of Producers and Loggers of Témiscamingue-Abitibi.

Mr. Plourde, I take it that you represent the labour union. Is that correct? Are you representing all of the lumber workers?

[Translation]

Mr. Armand Plourde, Director General, Wood Producers Syndicate of Abitibi-Témiscamingue: No, I represent the private woodlot owners of Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

[English]

The Chairman: You just represent the private woodlot owners.

Mr. Plourde: Yes, the private woodlot owners.

The Chairman: There are such things as private woodlots around here? What is the variation in size of woodlots? How many hectares are the small ones and the big ones? What is the size of the woodlots in hectares?

Mr. Plourde: About 1 million hectares to 2.5 million acres.

The Chairman: How many woodlot owners are there?

Mr. Plourde: There are 7,500 private woodlots.

The Chairman: Please proceed with your presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Plourde: I have been the Director General of the Wood Producers Syndicate since 1981. My position with the Syndicate is that of Secretary to the various boards of directors. Our mandate is to manage forest resources and to negotiate timber sales agreements with logging companies.

My mandate is also to popularize forest science for the benefit of owners and to help prepare development assistance programs for private properties.

We are affiliated with the Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec, the Fédération de l'UPA, the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners.

My function is one of general management. I'm going to read you our brief and I can answer any questions you may have.

The Wood Producers Syndicate of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and its members wish to thank the honourable senators for this opportunity to express their views on the future of the boreal forest as part of this extensive consultation process.

We wish to express our gratitude for this opportunity.

The Wood Producers Syndicate is an organization representing the private woodlot owners of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region and its main mission is to defend the general and specific interests of its more than 2,000 members.

The Syndicate's mission is also to market wood from private woodlots, including all operations involved in the production of unprocessed wood. These activities include negotiating production conditions, sale, prices, handling terms and conditions, delivery schedules and so on. The regulatory framework governing this operation is the joint marketing plan, and it is generally accompanied by regulations. All woodlot owners are members of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue joint marketing plan which, as I mentioned a moment ago, represents 7,500 owners.

We would like to make a few comments on certain parts of your consultation process.

In the preamble to the questions, the subcommittee mentions a certain number of points in which it was interested during its visits to the Prairies in 1996. We would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of those points.

Starting in the early 1970s, the industrial development of forests in Quebec was based on mass production objectives. The introduction of forwarders and tree fellers replaced horses, and we began to harvest the forest at a fast pace, with less regard for the quality of the trees, their distance from plants, their size or, in particular, forest renewal. We undoubtedly had to revolutionize our tree harvesting methods, but we also changed the values that we attached to forest jobs and forests.

In the same line of thinking, we definitely neglected the specific interests of the inhabitants of rural areas who live off the forest, native people who live in those forests and the biodiversity of those untamed regions. The introduction of the Quebec Forest Regime in 1986 helped correct this situation in part. A national evaluation of the sites that must be protected should be conducted to survey the number of industrial infrastructures that we have introduced and the deterioration of rural areas that industrial practices have caused.

In our view, the liquidation of wood on private lands is an abusive term, particularly when one considers the way in which private forests are managed in Quebec. The regulatory structure that private wood producers have established since the late 1950s has evolved considerably, and these rules are now rules of dynamic conduct, highly compatible with objectives regarding respect for forest resources and the wishes of owners and their business partners.

The problem we see here is the absence of similar regulations in neighbouring provinces and the highly complex procedures that our organizations must follow to obtain regulatory power over interprovincial trade from the federal government so that they can better govern wood sales outside the areas concerned by our joint plans. The case of logging wood in Gaspé, at Restigouche, and exporting it to New Brunswick is an example of this problem.

The role of locally regulating logging on private land has now fallen to the regional county municipalities and municipalities of Quebec. To some, this regulation may seem negligible, and indeed even lacking, but one must consider the financial and human resources of these areas. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the land is private and that owners must be able to enjoy this benefit in a manner respectful of the people around them. As I mentioned a moment ago, the joint plans are also regulatory structures which belong to the producers and provide for certain limitations on excessive logging.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, we have a system of limits or quotas that enables us to limit volumes to be harvested from each woodlot.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the present tax system merely acts as an incentive for woodlot owners to liquidate their lots to pay less tax on their property. A forest takes at least 70 years to produce. To guarantee sound management, the forest should be harvested over that same period to ensure it is renewed in a manner consistent with local biodiversity.

Instead, the tax consequences of this kind of management encourage owners to harvest all wood when their stands reach a certain stage of maturity and thus to limit the negative tax effects. Changes to the current tax system and tax incentives would definitely lead owners to change their harvesting habits and avoid the alleged liquidation of forests.

Canada is a vast country with varied land uses. Here we are thinking of the country's cities, suburbs, the agricultural sector, the forestry sector and, lastly, the protected sectors.

On private lands, we must address the issue of unproductive areas that we call wild land. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, we estimate these lands represent 100,000 hectares. Incentives to return these areas to agricultural or forest production should be put in place to ensure effective production on these lands.

We believe that joint federal-provincial programs must be developed to enable, indeed even require, local populations to put these areas into production. The introduction of tax incentives could be one measure worth adopting. This action would probably help more readily achieve the objectives of ecological diversity in a given area.

In this same line of thinking, knowledge of the land and what it contains is fundamentally important for proper management. Taking inventory is a long and costly process.

A management mechanism must be established on a sufficiently broad scale to permit the use of modern tools for updating data on forest stocks, while reducing the cost of gathering data in the field. Here again, we believe that a collaborative effort between government levels is necessary to secure funding for research and the development of these kinds of mechanisms.

Here are some comments on the sub-committee's fields of interest.

The subcommittee's first area of interest is the environment and biodiversity. Action to maintain biodiversity, reduce climatic impact and maintain our environment must be taken in a manner respectful of the local communities. The imperative of business and corporate and government profit alone means nothing if it is not met in a way that benefits the people who live in these areas.

We believe the Canadian government must assure our trading partners and our businesses that action taken is intended to be respectful of the environment and consistent with the benefits sought by each party and to improve the quality of life of the populations concerned.

Environmental impact must be assessed as regards the actions of our neighbours and our ability to solve these problems. Acid rain, for example, knows no borders.

The environmental requirements of our trading partners, particularly the Europeans, must not become non-tariff barriers to trade in our goods. We feel it is the federal government's responsibility to take action in this area.

As regards the industrial and employment sector, we believe that all forest resources must be exploited. However, tax measures affecting the operating revenues of our members and owners must not encourage the repeated liquidation of private forests and certain public lands.

By amending the current tax system, the Canadian government would be signalling to the provinces that it actually intends to encourage the complete and diversified exploitation of forest resources for the benefit of the people who live there as well as for its own benefit. Sufficient acknowledgement of the investment required to derive income from forests and recognition of the time it takes to earn a return on that investment must be basic factors in the review of the tax system.

We feel that urgent action in this area is the easiest way to put a stop to the deterioration of our forests and an excellent encouragement for owners to reinvest time and money in developing our forest heritage.

As regards employment, we encourage the Senate subcommittee to analyze jobs in the forest sector. Development jobs are unstable and often poorly paid relative to the physical demands they make.

We feel that timber should be forwarded to plants based on fibre quality and value of the finished product and, in short, that you must consider the quality of the log before processing it. Lastly, we believe that the northern limits of the territories should be enforced based on the quality of the forests and the very long periods of time that those forests take to regenerate.

As regards native peoples: Logging rights should be granted to industrial concerns in a manner consistent with the interests of aboriginal peoples. However, in a concern for fairness toward all inhabitants of the country, we believe that the Canadian government should treat the members of the various peoples fairly. However, we agree with the policies that would involve aboriginal peoples in decisions regarding land management and access to logging revenues.

With this in view, we ask the Senate to reflect on the fact that private owners will become Aboriginal peoples in their own way by deforesting the land for agricultural purposes and occupying that same land for the benefit of big business.

On issues relating to federal-provincial agreements: With respect to these issues, we emphasize that fields of jurisdiction must be respected.

We also believe it is necessary to establish a very close collaborative relationship between the various levels of government in areas such as research, new technology development, knowledge transfer and the defence of Canadian interests with respect to global trading partners.

In addition, the various governments must cooperate in developing a tax system that encourages private woodlot owners and processing business owners. Mere subsidies may not be the best solution, but a responsive and, especially, simple tax system definitely deserves careful study.

Lastly, we believe that encouragement by the Canadian government of owners from non-organized provinces to adopt a Quebec model for managing and marketing wood from private forests would be an asset in managing environmental impact and biodiversity.

On wildlife preservation: As mentioned, satisfactory tax incentives would make integrated exploitation of forested lands in the boreal forest possible, and this would have the positive effect of protecting animal species living on Canadian lands and stopping actions that lead to the extermination of certain species.

In conclusion, senators, we ask you, in your wisdom, to reflect on the human aspect of the issue of private woodlot owners. These people occupy a very large area of Canadian land. They are very active and, in many instances, not very visible participants in building the country's wealth through their local operations, involvement in volunteer work, their investments, the time they give to local organizations and their faith in a better future for generations to come.

These people have great expectations of the kind of consultation you are currently conducting. Unfortunately, promised results all too often exceed any action taken.

We also ask you to consult the Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec and the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners for a fuller discussion of the tax system as it applies to private woodlot owners.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Plourde. You not only presented an interesting brief, but you have given me an increased respect for the interpreters.

Maybe I can lead off with one question. Having woodlots in an area probably increases the amount of game there, such as deer, grouse and pheasant. Does that bring more wildlife back to the area?

[Translation]

Mr. Plourde: We are developing assistance programs for woodlot owners to develop their lots in a wildlife-friendly way. These programs may not be in the embryonic stage, but they are just beginning. There are more advanced programs for the white-tailed deer in southern Quebec.

Development agencies are new structures that have been introduced in cooperation with the industry, the Quebec government, woodlot owners and the municipalities, and this has been done right across Quebec.

Various support programs are also being developed for woodlot owners to improve the condition of the forests, based on a vision of forest resources as a whole: protecting water supplies, protecting wildlife and improving the forests in quantitative and qualitative terms.

All this action must increasingly be planned in a manner respectful of all resources. It is difficult to say whether there has been any increase in wildlife, but action that is to be taken in the next few years will be designed to increase wildlife to improve tourism, hunting, et cetera.

[English]

The Chairman: Does the presence of a woodlot rather than a farm increase the amount of game like deer and grouse, things like that, in the area? The reason I ask that is that in Europe, in France in particular, and in parts of Italy, private lot owners receive grants from the government because they enhance the fauna and flora in the area. One of the arguments is that if a person from the city wants to shoot grouse, there are more woodlots around. So it is not a case of a subsidy; it is a case of improving nature so that other people can enjoy it.

[Translation]

Mr. Plourde: At present, there is no specific government program in this area, except the Wildlife Federation's program to promote the white-tailed deer. This program has been so effective that they now have the opposite problem. They introduced a development program to increase the white-tail deer herd, but now have too many deer in the Eastern Townships and southern Quebec.

To my knowledge, there is no specific wildlife program in Quebec.

Senator Gill: Earlier on, you spoke about the tax system. Can you give us a specific example of measures that might improve the system? What do you mean?

Mr. Plourde: An owner can only take deductions on his woodlot operation if he cuts the entire lot. Then he has a deduction for what is called forest depletion.

A large number of expenditures or investments that he makes in his woodlot to improve its quality are not tax deductible. Consequently, owners invest in their woodlot, but cannot claim those expenses.

They cut their wood, take the capital gains deduction, and that's it. If it were possible to operate parts of woodlots on a sustained or increased yield basis and to take a kind of gain, rather than pay tax on the income which is a kind of business income or capital gain, if it were possible, only once, to spread it over the life cycle of a forest, which is 70 years, that would definitely be a considerable motivation. It would be enough to find a way to do this, but this would encourage owners not to clear-cut their lots and to put wild land back into production.

Quebec is currently revising its property tax system. These are all factors that should ideally come into play at the same time, but as soon as possible, to stop the deterioration of the forest.

Senator Gill: Mr. Plourde, people have been submitting briefs to us for a few days. You spoke of the Quebec model on your second last page, in the last paragraph or thereabouts, for the non-organized provinces. What do you mean by "Quebec model" and what do you want to emphasize?

Mr. Plourde: In Quebec, we have marketing boards. As a result of the regulatory structure of those boards, wood is sold on the basis of yield, at least on the basis of a sustained yield, depending on how strict the regulations are in each region.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, we have quota regulations. Producers are limited in the wood volumes they can cut on a private lot. These powers are limited because, there is no regulatory structure in Ontario.

Consequently, owners in Rouyn-Noranda can cut a woodlot and sell the wood in Ontario. No one is policing this in any of the municipalities; they have to rely on what people say. If an owner sells his wood in Ontario, no one knows and the forest is over-exploited.

This situation won't be discovered until 15 years from now, when a forest inventory is taken, but we know that we will have lost 15 years in the life of a forest that could have been better managed because the owner engaged an operator who went and sold his wood outside the province.

In Gaspé, for example, some lots are bought by New Brunswick contractors, who cut the wood in Gaspé and sell it to New Brunswick plants. Quebec's private forest capital is thus reduced in this area. This is being done in all areas bordering on New Brunswick, Maine, New York and Ontario.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Plourde, for coming out. I might mention that we have the same problem in Alberta. Somebody comes in and buys the whole thing, and suddenly it is gone overnight.

I also want to thank the other witnesses. It was polite of them to stay and listen to the rest of the evidence. Too often witnesses present their positions and then disappear. It certainly seems that the interest is here.

I wish to thank the citizens of Rouyn and Val D'Or and of the area in general. There is great hospitality here. Perhaps one day soon we will have the opportunity to come back and maybe catch some of your fish.

The committee adjourned.

---