---

Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest

Issue 10 - Evidence

---

OTTAWA, Monday, November 2, 1998

The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:08 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.

[English]

The Chairman: We welcome our witnesses from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. I understand RPF stands for "Registered Professional Forester."

Please proceed.

Mr. David Barron, Senior Vice-President, Environment, Resources and Technology, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association: Thank you for the invitation. CPPA is a national association that represents the pulp and paper industry across the country on a variety of public policy issues, as well as in a number of other areas.

Our member companies tend to be large and integrated. Many of them are in the solid wood business as well, although we do not represent the industry on that. I understand you are travelling to the Miramichi tomorrow to visit one of our member companies which is an integrated company. That should be an interesting trip for you.

We will cover a number of subjects. First, however, we will give some general background on the status of the industry at this stage in the economic and environmental sense, and then in the forestry sense.

Fiona Cook, who is an economist, will proceed with the overview of the economic situation.

The Chairman: Before you begin, could you clarify one point. Do Canadian Pulp and Paper Association members cut and bring in pulp, or do they just process wood into pulp?

Mr. Barron: It is a mixed bag but, for the most part, our members are large companies who are integrated right from the forest through saw mills, in many cases, bringing chips forward to make pulp and paper.

The Chairman: Is it unlikely then that your members would be small cutters or timber berth owners who sold wood to the pulp mills?

Mr. Barron: No, it is more likely that they would be working for one of the members of the association.

Ms Fiona Cook, Vice-President, International Trade and Government Relations: It is my understanding that this committee has been holding hearings for about one year now. I am sure that, in your consultations with various stakeholders over that year, you have learned that forests are an integral part of the historical development of the Canadian economy. They are also an important part of the Canadian psyche.

Governments, industry, and society at large must then continually strive to seek a balance between the economic and social values that forests bring. I would like to briefly discuss the industry's role as a key driver of the Canadian economy.

The forest product industry is, without a doubt, the largest employer in Canada, employing 1 million people, directly and indirectly, across the country. We calculate that a quarter-million of those jobs are what we call direct jobs. Using a multiplier of 3, we calculate that there are 750,000 indirect jobs. This implies that one out of every 12 employed Canadians is employed by the forest products industry.

Annually, the industry harvests about 190 million cubic metres out of a total allowable annual cut of 230 million cubic metres. From this, about $55 billion worth of product is produced, composed of 61 million cubic metres of lumber, 8 million cubic metres of wood-based panels, and 30 million tonnes of pulp and paper.

It is important to note that most of the industry's annual harvest goes directly into the production of lumber and panels. Close to two-thirds of the fibre for pulp and paper is sawmill waste.

Given the sheer size of the industry's output and the relatively small size of the Canadian market, it is no surprise that the industry depends to a large extent on international markets. About 70 per cent of the industry's output is exported with about 50 per cent of that going to the United States.

Last year, the forest products industry brought in no less than $31 billion worth of foreign exchange to the Canadian economy. That is an impressive figure, as it should be for an industry that has been the world's largest exporter of forest products over 75 years. We are not the world's largest producer of forest products, but we are the world's largest exporter.

We have a diagram showing the net contribution to the trade balance; that is exports less imports. Without the enormous contribution of forest products, Canada's trade balance and the economy would definitely suffer. Without the industry, the trade balance last year would have been in the red.

The Chairman: Why are you so modest in not including forest with pulp and paper? Is the graph incomplete?

Ms Cook: No. I should have clarified that. This figure of 31 includes pulp and paper. It is not a cumulative graph. Pulp and paper contributes just a little more than half.

Senator Spivak: That is the percentage of exports. What is the percentage of the forestry industry to exports? What is the percentage of the forestry industry to the economy? What percentage of foreign export in trade is the forestry industry? What percentage is it of the economy?

Ms Cook: Pulp and paper is 3.5 per cent of GDP. Forest products would be about 6 per cent of annual GDP.

Senator Spivak: You do not know what it is as a percentage of exports?

Ms Cook: No, because we tend to look at in net terms.

Senator Spivak: Communications, for example, is bigger than forestry.

Ms Cook: It is in terms of sheer export. So is the automotive sector, if you look at net terms.

Senator Spivak: But forestry is bigger than agriculture. Is that correct?

Ms Cook: Yes.

Senator Spivak: I would like to have those figures.

Ms Cook: I will supply them for you.

The industry, therefore, drives the economy through its international trade. No less than 350 rural communities throughout the country depend on the industry and its ability to trade in world markets.

The numbers tell a clear story. The forest products industry is a key contributor to the socio-economic fabric of Canada. To preserve this fabric, the industry must operate in keeping with the principles of sustainable development. Both voluntary and regulatory initiatives need to work in harmony to produce effective and practical solutions to the environmental challenges that we all face.

Senator Spivak: Ms Cook, can you tell us the number of pulp and paper mills, saw mills, oriented-strand-board plants, and so on, by province? Do you have figures to show how that has grown in the west over the last five years?

Ms Cook: I do not have those numbers here, but I will get them for you.

Senator Spivak: We have heard some things about a supply problem in Ontario. You talk about a sustainable industry, but given the situation in Ontario, that must mean that it is not sustained. If it is sustainable, that means you want to continue it for a long time.

We have had a huge influx, particularly in northern Alberta. The same can be said about Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Apart from the environmental considerations, can the forests withstand such an assault and still be a sustainable industry?

I do not have a good grasp of those figures. We are working on that. We would appreciate any help you could give us by describing the industry by province, particularly as it relates to the boreal forest. In other words, what is the annual allowable cut? What are we taking out, compared to the size of the forest? What is the number of industries? How do they break down, and so on?

Ms Cook: We do take less than the total allowable annual cut nationally. Another variable is that the industry's investment in R and D increased yields so it can also get more out of less. I will try to find some information on that.

Senator Spivak: You may take less now, but there is a gap. Companies are looking at doubling what they are doing and going into other areas such as parks. This is what they are thinking of in Ontario. It is that whole question.

The Chairman: Generally, in our committees on natural resources, we know what the reserves are and we know what we are using, whether it is oil and gas, nickel, or gold. In forestry, we are having a great deal of difficulty determining that. Everyone can tell us what the annual cut is, but no one can tell us what is out there and how much you can take per year. As we go across the country, there is certainly increasing evidence that already we cannot sustain what we are cutting. It would be interesting to see those figures.

Senator Spivak: We can sustain what we are cutting, but in 15 years the forests will be gone. We cannot sustain them forever.

Mr. Barron: When Mr. Rotherham begins to talk, we can probably return to the fibre supply question. Looking forward in this country, I think you will find -- at least in our experience -- that the growth rates will be substantially higher than they are at the present time. There may be periods and areas where there is some bridging to do, but in the long run the potential is very high. If you do not mind, we will wait until we come to the forestry side of our presentation.

Senator Spivak: I should like to know what the products are. There is a lot of talk about shipping logs out. I am not clear on that. How much is being used to supply toothpicks to Japan, and so on?

Mr. Barron: I do not know if we can get down to that.

Senator Spivak: What is the wood being shipped out for, and what are we using the different kinds of wood for?

Mr. Barron: We have a slide for you on that.

Senator Spivak: That concerns value added.

Mr. Barron: Let me run through some of the environmental performance so you have some general background. We have followed this over a long period of time in the industry. Our graph outlines our expenditures on environmental, mill-related matters. They include air, water, and solid waste. You will see a bulge in the water expenditures at the more recent period of time. Some of this has to do with the regulations that have come in at the federal level, which resulted in secondary treatment in all of the mills across the country. There is a $5 billion bulge over a period of time that takes care of that.

In the area of water, the industry itself continues to move forward. There is a major program with federal support out of the research institute to progressively close the water cycle down.

The Chairman: Are the values on the left of the slide absolute values, millions of dollars?

Mr. Barron: Billions.

The Chairman: I do not know what you mean by millions of dollars spent on water.

Mr. Barron: These are millions of dollars spent on capital improvements to take care of these particular environmental matters in the mill.

The Chairman: I see. Do you have a curve showing results?

Mr. Barron: Yes.

Senator Spivak: When you talk about closing the water cycle down, do you mean the closed circle where no emissions come up to the water?

Mr. Barron: That is correct.

Senator Spivak: How many plants in Canada actually have it?

Ms Cook: Three.

Senator Spivak: Are you planning for all of them to have it?

Mr. Barron: They are moving in that direction, but it is complex because there are many types of mills. Some are using more chemicals than others are. The mill you are talking about is not much of a chemical user, therefore, it is easier for it to switch.

Senator Spivak: That is more economical, is it not?

Mr. Barron: It depends on whether you are recovering heat. There are many possibilities.

Senator Spivak: It is a more efficient method of operation, is it not?

Mr. Barron: It may turn out to be that. People are approaching it from the point of view of improving the environment. However, when new technology comes in, it tends to be more efficient.

You are now looking at a graph showing the performance against the federal government voluntary program Accelerated Reduction and Elimination of Toxics. This is our performance against the baskets of chemical pollutants out there. You can see a substantial reduction over a period of time.

Senator Spivak: Do you have that broken down by region, for example, the Great Lakes?

Mr. Barron: We may have it by macro region.

Senator Spivak: That would be very helpful.

Mr. Barron: However, it would not be related to the Great Lakes bodies. It is possible, however, that there may be figures for Ontario. We could look at that.

The next graph shows the decrease in water usage. We are talking about closed cycle processes coming on. You can see that the amount of water being used is constantly being reduced. Traditionally, paper was made out of three things: fibre, water and energy. There is a constant ratcheting down of the amount of water being used.

I will go through a few federally regulated substances, pollutants. The first one is total suspended solids. You can see that it drops off, and the number in aggregate across the country is lower than the federally regulated number.

It is the same situation for biochemical oxygen demand. It tapers off in large part because of the secondary treatment put in place.

The use of elemental chlorine has dropped off substantially. We still use chlorine dioxide in bleaching, but this and other changes in process result in the elimination of dioxins and furans from the effluent. I will show you a slide of the result.

That is not just related to the federal regulation, but to a voluntary move by the industry when it discovered chlorinated dioxins and furans in its affluent some years ago. The industry did a great deal of research to find the sources of these chemicals and immediately put those changes into process. Although we are regulated federally on this subject, most of it was done well before the regulations came into effect.

Senator Spivak: Have you identified all of the organochlorines? I remember at the time there was a substantial effort, but it was pointed out that most of the organochlorines had not yet been identified.

Mr. Barron: There is a long list of these things in various forms. These are the ones which were considered most dangerous. Many of them occur naturally. There are still organochlorides being released, but the level is down.

Senator Spivak: Science has not reached the point where they are all identified. It is somewhat like documenting the gene.

Mr. Barron: I am sure you are right, but I believe that groups of them are understood and they are understood to react in certain ways. As I read the science, the concerns are not that great with what is out there right now.

Senator Spivak: Can you identify the research body that is working on this?

Mr. Barron: The Pulp and Paper Institute of Canada, in Pointe-Claire and in Vancouver.

Senator Spivak: Would you include any of the universities?

Mr. Barron: I cannot speak to the whole thing, but there is quite a network.

Regarding the question of organochlorides, this is the situation right now: In aggregate across the country, the level is .6 per tonne of product That is well below the 2.5 that the federal government had identified as being the level where one stops being greatly concerned about organochlorides.

These days, an important issue is climate change. Our industry has been paying attention to this for the best part of a decade. Fortunately, we have the ability to convert to biomass fuels when we change our process of energy use. We do a large amount of fuel switching, a large amount of conservation, but we also have the possibility of switching into biomass fuels. There will continue to be improvements over a period of time. Although they emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, biomass fuels cycle back into the forest. This carbon dioxide is in cycle so the use of biomass fuels is considered to be a good thing.

The energy use by the industry is more than 50 per cent now. Biomass fuels, purchased electricity and fossil fuels are the other parts.

The Chairman: Do you have figures relating to the BTU costs in each area? It is driven mostly by economics, is it not; or is some of it driven by environmental concerns?

Mr. Barron: A good deal is driven by environmental concerns. Again, we are fortunate in being able to convert to these biomass fuels.

Senator Spivak: Can you explain that for me? What is that all about?

Mr. Barron: When you go to the pulp mill tomorrow you will see a chemical recovery boiler or a biomass fuel boiler. The parts of the trees that do not come out as fibre, the ligament and those parts, become fuel for the companies to make steam and energy for themselves.

Senator Spivak: How long has that process been in use?

Mr. Barron: It has been in use for quite a number of decades.

Senator Spivak: Was there not some obstacle to co-generation and so forth?

Mr. Barron: Co-generation is another question. We are in favour of co-generation because we are steam users in the mill. If we can produce steam for our mill, as well as feed power back into the grid, then there is an economy in it and a good deal of efficiency associated with that.

Senator Spivak: In the end, this must be an efficiency measure. If you were to use more and more biomass, and especially if you get into the co-generation field, this is an efficiency measure, is it not?

Mr. Barron: It certainly is an efficiency measure.

Senator Spivak: I can see where it is an environment measure, but it always helps if it is also an efficiency measure.

Mr. Barron: You are correct. As capital turns over and new machinery comes into place, it becomes more and more efficient in and of itself. Since 1990, there has been approximately a 15 per cent reduction in our carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions. We are probably one of the few sectors, because of this biomass situation, that can actually make a positive contribution to the environment.

The Chairman: Fossil fuel -- and indirectly electricity, because we use so much coal-generated electricity -- probably adds to the carbon dioxide that we put into the air. Would you put out less carbon dioxide or sulphur into the air with biomass than you would with the same number of units of energy from the fossil fuel?

Mr. Barron: No. Biomass is less efficient than fossil fuel.

The Chairman: Is it less efficient in the volume you are burning? I am referring to emissions. Solar energy is not very efficient but it is lovely for emissions. What kinds of emissions are coming up the stack?

Mr. Barron: You have carbon dioxide emissions coming from biomass fuel. However, if you look at the international convention and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change work on it, they treat biomass fuels as neutral. They are greenhouse gas neutral because it is in cycle. It is a natural carbon dioxide that is in cycle back into the plants and into the forest, providing you are replacing forest.

Senator Spivak: At 53 per cent biomass, is that increasing exponentially or slowly?

Mr. Barron: It is increasing steadily.

Ms Cook: The greatest increase has been since 1990. We have seen a real shift.

Mr. Barron: We have seen a real shift in that period of time. We have been measuring it since 1972.

I can show you our fossil fuel usage, which is the other side of the coin, as we convert into biomass fuels. These are the fossil fuels. You can see how they are drifting downwards because of the conversion to biomass fuels, fuel switching and general efficiency.

Those are the environmental parameters that I had. I can show you a couple of forestry slides before Mr. Rotherham presents his carousel. He will be showing you actual pictures.

You have probably seen the statistics elsewhere, but this graph illustrates the breakdown of Canada's land area. It shows how much is forested, how much is not forested, how much is considered commercial forest, which is the 21 per cent, and how much is protected. Those are the various categories of forest. From our industrial point of view, we are talking about that 21 per cent.

The Chairman: Before you leave that area of discussion, I have some questions. With the protected forests at 3 per cent, as an environmentalist, what is your opinion? We have heard repeatedly across the land that the proper Canada land policy would run somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent of protected forests. Will that be on the other slide?

Senator Spivak: We do not have that slide.

Mr. Tony Rotherham, Director of Forests, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association: May I elaborate on that for a minute?

Senator Spivak: Please do.

Mr. Rotherham: That is 3 per cent of the total land area of Canada, not 3 per cent of the forests. Approximately 41 per cent of Canada is forested. It would be about 13 or 14 per cent of all of the forests. Under the heritage forests it would be 12, 13 or 14 per cent of the forest area. There is a large amount of tundra and water and other barren land that is to be found in Canada as well. It is a much higher percentage of the actual forest area, than it is of the total area.

Ms Cook: We will make sure you get a copy of that slide.

The Chairman: Could you explain what you did there?

Mr. Rotherham: If you work from the total Canadian land base, which is about 1 billion hectares, non-forested land makes up about 51 per cent and water, 8 per cent. Therefore, the forested area is the 16 plus 12, plus 21, plus 3, which should come to about 41 per cent.

The Chairman: That would mean that the 3 per cent of protected forest is really only 7 per cent of the total forest. You could double it. If forests were absolutely 50 per cent, and you had 3 per cent of the whole, that would be 6 per cent of the forest. It is 59 per cent. You are still only coming in around 7 per cent?

Mr. Rotherham: We could send you a table prepared by the federal government based on their national forest statistics. That will give you these percentages based on the forest area and it would be much easier to understand.

Senator Spivak: It is not the percentage so much that counts, although I like that higher percentage. What counts is what are we doing. Are we preserving the different kinds of forests? For example, perhaps we should preserve the entire south temperate rain forest, because that is a limited, non-renewable resource. Perhaps we should cultivate more intensively our plantations. Perhaps we should not cut so closely around watershed areas. Perhaps we should be preserving places where there are endangered species and plants such as the lady's slipper, which is no longer around. That is what is important.

To give you an idea of what we saw, in some areas, this is taken into consideration. In my own Province of Manitoba, none of it is taken into consideration. The forestry companies do whatever they want.

I wish to know what those percentages mean in terms of protection of the forest, based on these kinds of values and criteria. That is important.

The Chairman: Mr. Rotherham offered to give us more information along those lines.

Mr. Barron: The percentage is not the thing that is important. What is important is what you are trying to do. Many of the things you mentioned could be done with good forest management, as well as protecting areas.

Senator Spivak: Would you say that is the case with the south temperate rain forest as well?

Mr. Barron: It may well be. If you are going to the Miramichi tomorrow, you might ask the people there how much of their area is set aside for stream improvements. You also mentioned borders and protection areas. It is quite an interesting number.

This is ownership of land which you have seen this before. Canada is a public ownership country with very small areas of private ownership, although it is highly productive.

Finally, along with the government, we tracked the amount of money that is being spent on forest management in various categories by the federal and provincial government as well as industry. We have done this for some time. There are a number of categories in which we track those numbers.

Generally, those are the statistics that we have to present to you.

Senator Spivak: We are missing the last few slides that you have.

Ms Cook: I will ensure that you get a complete set.

The Chairman: Except for the Atlantic provinces, we have been to almost all the other provinces. It comes up time and time again that the forest industry is making little or no effort to work with and provide jobs aboriginals who occupy a great deal of the forest that you are cutting down.

In other words, although you are cutting down the roof over their heads, you do not have a policy to work with them. Does the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association have a subcommittee, or is there any portion of its association that is working on the problem of aboriginal employment and training, as well as aboriginal relations in general?

Ms Cook: At the moment, we do not have anything formal set up. However, we are looking at doing an inventory. Some companies work very well with the aboriginal people who occupy the lands that they operate on. Close to 10 per cent of the industry's workforce is made up of aboriginal people. They are a very important component of what we do.

Mr. Rotherham: I do not have any knowledge of this report because it was given to me this afternoon by a colleague in the Canadian forest service. However, it is a report that explores the relationship between aboriginal peoples and the Canadian forest industry. There is a significant amount of information here on the things that companies are doing to bring aboriginal peoples into the business of forest management and the forest products industry. I should like to give you this copy.

Senator Spivak: What is your position as to companies cutting lands where there are land claims? We have seen that forestry companies have actually cut down trees in those areas. Many provincial governments do not think it is their fiduciary duty to protect those claims. I assume you are working on that or you have a position of when and where you should be cutting when there is a dispute as to whether or not that land is claimed by the aboriginal people.

Mr. Barron: For the most part, this is a question about the relationship between the federal and provincial governments, and the natives. We have always said that we would like to see these claims settled. There is not much that we can do. We have a relationship with the Crown with respect to the long-term and annual plans. These plans are laid out. We have always said that these issues should be dealt with, but they are very complex and they have been there a long time.

Senator Spivak: It is being dealt with on the ground; the companies are cutting the wood. That is what is happening. Do you not feel a responsibility to advocate?

Mr. Barron: What we advocate is that these things be settled between the parties.

Senator Spivak: In the mean time, the companies are cutting the wood.

Mr. Barron: And we are operating under the umbrella of the Crown and its responsibilities.

The Chairman: Are you an employee or a consultant with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association?

Mr. Rotherham: I am an employee of the association.

Before joining the association in 1979, I worked for a variety of companies across Canada. I also worked in Kenya and Iran on forest management projects.

I will endeavour to give you an historical perspective on how forest management has changed over the years in Canada, how the industry has changed, and where we are going. I will try to do this through a series of pictures and historical notes. Please feel free to interrupt at any time to ask questions.

I am not a social historian, but it is my perspective as a forester that, in Canada, we have gone through about five different phases or concepts of forest management. From about 1840 through to 1920, we were in a period of resource exploitation. That was the period of the great pine logging in the Ottawa Valley and other areas of Canada. There was not a great deal of thought about regeneration. It was simply a matter of meeting the needs of a pioneering society that was hard at work building the country.

My dates are very general because things happened at different times, in different parts of the country. Around 1920, provincial governments started to insist on sustained yield management. They required companies to determine what the allowable annual cut was on an area, write a management plan, and adhere to it. However, at the time, the only thing really being managed was timber.

From 1960 to around 1975 or 1980, we entered a phase of what I would call multiple use. The governments and the companies started to consider the needs of other users of the forest and to build those needs into the management plans.

From 1975 or 1980 on through to about 1990, we got better at this and it became much more formal. I would call it the era of integrated forest resource management. There were consultations required. Things such as wildlife values were to be written into the management plans.

From about 1990 on, we have been moving toward forest landscape management and sustainable forest management as defined in the case of Canada under the Montreal Process and as approved by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.

That is where we are today. We are at the beginning of the era of sustainable forest management. In determining how the forest will be managed and what forestry practices will be used, we have to take into consideration not only the timber and the needs of other users, but also such factors as ecosystem function.

I have here a picture of a raft of pine logs going past the Parliament buildings on the Ottawa River. Had you been here in the 1890s, you might have seen this out your window.

This pie chart shows the forest land classes. It deals only with forest land in Canada. We have about 43 per cent open sparse alpine and boreal forest land; a total of about 193 million hectares. At the time these figures were compiled, there were about 27 million hectares of parks and about 24 million hectares of area where forest operations are constrained by policy. These would be riparian reserves along lakes and streams and also reserves for wildlife habitat needs, moose calving and such things.

About 46 per cent of the total area, or 209 million hectares of forest land, is available for forest management. Of that, we think about 11.3 per cent has been harvested since 1840. That is not a very large area of forest in this country. A great deal of it, however, has been harvested several times.

This map shows the forest regions of Canada. The dark green band that stretches from Newfoundland through to the Yukon is the boreal forest, which is your main area of interest. There are seven other forest regions shown there and I will quickly review some of them.

The deciduous forest area is pretty well all hardwoods. It is the northern extension of the Carolinian forest and is found mainly in southern Ontario.

This is a photo taken in the winter in the boreal forest around Thunder Bay, a land of trees and lakes. This is a photo of boreal forest in the summertime.

This is a picture of alpine and subalpine forest taken near Prince George, British Columbia. This gives you an idea of the coastal forest in British Columbia. It has very dense, luxuriant undergrowth and large trees.

This is a photo of the montane forest in Alberta. The background is nearly all lodge pole pine, resulting from a very large fire. In the middle ground, you see spruce, and in the foreground you see aspen. Under the aspen, there are a lot of young spruce growing. This is a good example of forest accession. The spruce will eventually take over from the aspen and there will be a spruce forest in that foreground as well.

This is the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region, which includes Ottawa. The region extends along the St. Lawrence River to the Great Lakes. This forest is a mixture of conifers and hardwoods. This forest is quite diverse. Although it is not as diverse as a tropical forest, it is very interesting.

In the eight forest regions, we have about 50 commercial tree species, of which about 30 are important commercial species. Of these, about 20 are conifers and 10 or 12 are hardwoods. There are about 200 different species of mammals, about 180 species of freshwater fish, and a total of about 131 tree species, although the vast majority are not of commercial value. There are about 580 species of birds, 48,000 species of insects, and about 4,000 herbs.

Senator Spivak: What percentage of that is endangered and what percentage of what you are listing has been catalogued? We still do not know what the vast majority is in that forest.

Mr. Rotherham: Pretty well everything has been catalogued except the insects, which are a little harder to find and catalogue.

I believe there are about 270 listed endangered species in Canada, although I cannot tell you how many are animals and how many are plants. The vast majority of these are found in the populated areas of Canada; southern Quebec, southern Ontario and the lower mainland of British Columbia.

I regret that this graph is not absolutely up to date. However, it would not be significantly different if it were. It indicates that the allowable annual cut of both hardwoods and softwoods in Canada is in the order of 230 million or 235 million cubic meters and that the harvest rate is about 180 million to 190 million cubic meters, depending upon the year.

If we look at sustainability as an arch, the keystone in the centre of that arch is to ensure that the harvest respects the allowable annual cut. The allowable annual cut is the interest on the capital, that is, the standing volume of timber. If we respect that, we should be able to continue for a long time. It is sustainable, provided we respect that limit.

Senator Spivak: Does each province set its own annual allowable cut?

Mr. Rotherham: They do.

Senator Spivak: Each province bases it on different criteria; is that right?

Mr. Rotherham: That is correct.

Senator Spivak: What should we think of that? Who knows if it is based on sustainable development or not? There are no national standards and provinces compete for companies. How do we know whether that will allow us to harvest forever, when we do not know what criteria it is based upon. In many cases, it is whatever the traffic can bear.

Mr. Rotherham: I have a slightly different view. Under the Constitution, the provinces have the legislated mandate to manage natural resources within their boundaries. Through their legislative procedures, all of them have established a department that is responsible for the management of publicly owned forests. They have systems of forest inventory and growth, as well as yield studies, which have given them the data that they require to determine what the allowable annual cut should be.

The allowable annual cut is determined not only by growth and yield, but by the area of forest that is available for commercial activity, as well as by the utilization standards that are in force at the time. Generally, utilization standards have been going up. That is to say, a higher percentage of the tree has been used, but the area available for forest management by industry has been going down, as more and more areas are being included in parks and reserves of a variety of sorts.

In terms of what is the allowable annual cut, there is a constant shifting going on. I have faith that the provinces are doing a good job of keeping an eye on this and that they honour the mandate that they have.

Senator Spivak: Let us consider the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. Can you tell me how many people are employed by the provinces' department of natural resources and forestry to ensure that these standards are adhered to?

Mr. Rotherham: No, I cannot give you the number.

Senator Spivak: Many companies come in, and that often governs the allowable cut. It does not necessarily just happen the way you say, with only growth and yield being considered. For example, when the Province of Manitoba, my province, is faced with a proposition from a forest company to come in and create jobs, that is generally seen as a good thing, and that is what happens. It is not always such a sterile process.

Mr. Rotherham: Some time ago we did some calculations based on historical data going back to the 1870s. We then projected back to 1840 the total volume of wood that had probably been harvested in Canada, and the area of forest that had been harvested and regenerated. We estimated that of the 200 and some odd million hectares of forest that is non-reserved and available for the production of wood -- both private and public land -- perhaps 25 per cent had been harvested. Again, I would say some considerable area of that has been harvested more than once. This is definitely not a scientific figure but it is what we consider to be a reasonable estimate.

The point of this is to try to indicate that there is a great deal of the forest in this country that has not yet been harvested. There is a terrific reserve of forest land out there.

Senator Spivak: Do you use geopositioning to arrive at some of that?

Mr. Rotherham: No. We used historical data.

We, the Europeans across the country, have a terrible time understanding the size of this country. The red blotch in the middle of the slide represents Germany after reunification. As I say to German audiences, this is not to show how small Germany is, but to show how big Canada is.

This slide shows more coniferous forest. The picture was taken in the montane forest in the Okanagan area of British Columbia. It is a fairly large clear-cut that was carried out about 15 years ago. Because of the snow in the centre part of the slide, you can see that there are many little trees growing. I may have a slide which shows what that looks like on the ground.

The next slide shows an area of forest that has been cut near Kelowna. It is the same sort of forest region. These trees have been left for a variety of purposes. If you look closely, you may be able to see some high stumps. They are being left in order to provide dead stubs for cavity nesters. There is an attempt being made within a clear-cut block to leave some trees and some woody material, both on the ground and standing, in order to provide a little bit of structure for animals afterwards.

This looks pretty desolate right now because there is no regeneration in place, but, in about 10 years, it will look very different and those trees and those dead stubs will provide some useful habitat.

The Chairman: Where will the animals go in the meantime?

Mr. Rotherham: Into the adjacent block. As soon as some revegetation starts in that cut-over area, they will come back into that block to feed, because there will be a lot of good vegetation for them to eat, something which you do not find in a closed mature forest.

The next slide is a small example of what we call a shelter wood system. It was taken in the Maritimes. It indicates that, if you leave a few trees to provide some shade, you get a pretty good crop of natural regeneration under it.

In Canada, we are using clear-cutting systems. The best statistics I have show that we get about 82 per cent of the wood from clear-cutting systems. There is a total of about 824,000 hectares that were cut that way in 1995. That includes about 31,000 hectares of shelter wood; about 11,000 hectares of seed tree; and about 128,000 hectares of selection cut, which is the sort of operation that was evident in the stand of hardwoods that I showed earlier. There is commercial thinning in about 16,000 hectares.

There are some interesting trends here. The trend on clear-cutting is going down and the trend on all the others is going up. The total area harvested by those various systems is 1.1 million hectares. It is cyclical and depends on the year as to how much wood is harvested and how much area is worked on. The trends for clear-cutting, both in terms of the size of the blocks or the proportion of the area that is clear-cut, is going down.

As Dave Barron indicated with his chart showing the amount of money that is being spent annually on these operations, we carry out a terrific number of silviculture operations in this country.

In 1995, we planted about 426,000 hectares. Approximately 25,000 hectares were seeded from helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. We did site preparation work on about 317,000 hectares and stand-tending operations on 391,000.

There are some big operations going on across the country to ensure that there is good regeneration after harvest and that those trees have a good opportunity to grow.

Natural regeneration provides about 55 per cent of the total regeneration effort in this country, with planting and seeding providing about 45 per cent. Generally, the trend there is natural generation up, planting down, but it is not moving very rapidly.

This picture shows a nursery where container seedlings are grown. This particular greenhouse is a small one. It only has about 125,000 seedlings. There are some very big greenhouses which may contain as many as 1 million seedlings. Some 650 to 700 million seedlings a year that are grown in Canada are largely produced in this sort of greenhouse.

Here is an example of a boreal forest that has been visited by a fairly extensive fire. You can see the green areas in the background and some in the extreme foreground in the lower right corner, but the rest of it is largely black or brown with a few little green streaks. This is typical of the way fire works. It does not burn and kill the entire area. It skips around. Some areas around watercourses are not killed. This is very typical of fires in Canada. The boreal forest, in particular, is what we call a catastrophe-driven ecosystem, and the catastrophes are fires.

This is not a wild fire in a forest. It is a site preparation slash-burning fire. Many researchers consider that it is not a good practice to keep all fires out of the ecosystem. It is a natural part of the boreal ecosystem and a certain amount of site preparation through slash burning is a good idea.

Another catastrophe is insect epidemics. This photograph was taken in Cape Breton Island 10 or 12 years ago, after almost the entire mature conifer forest on Cape Breton Island had been killed by budworm.

Senator Spivak: You say that you have to use fires. However, the number of fires and the number of hectares burned have increased two or three times in the last few years.

Mr. Rotherham: Yes. The amount of forest burnt by fire in Canada each year varies significantly. The number of fires across the country varies from a minimum of approximately 8,000 to 9,000, up to a maximum of 11,500 to 12,000. If memory serves me correctly, the losses would vary. The worst year we had recently was 1989 when we lost 7.2 million hectares of forest to fire throughout the entire country. A good year in this country would be a loss in the order of 300,000 hectares. There is a terrific cyclical nature to this. It depends upon the weather.

Here are more pictures of a boreal forest. This is a fully regenerated area that has been harvested up in the Thunder Bay region, a mixture of softwood and hardwoods. It is a nice diversity for everyone there and most of the animals.

This is a sort of clearcut pattern that one can still find in Alberta, and perhaps in some areas of northern Saskatchewan. The approach to clearcut blocks is changing.

This slide is a recent picture of a clearcut block. It is smaller; the edges are more curved; and there are more islands in it.

This slide shows a fully regenerated clearcut block. Regeneration, I should like to underline, is working across Canada. We turned that around in about 1980, and across this country foresters are doing an excellent job of reforestation. You see it everywhere you go.

This slide shows an area of clearcut, again in the Okanagan, which shows the reserve that has been left around a wetland. This is more and more typical of the sort of thing you will see in forest operations across Canada.

These are some patches left in a clearcut block. This is what it looks like, again in the Okanagan, about 15 years after harvest. There is very good regeneration, some of it planted, some of it natural. There are at least three species in there, one planted, the other two natural. There is spruce, balsam fir, lodge pole pine, and probably Douglas fir scattered around in it. There are more clearcut blocks in the Okanagan area showing the regeneration on those patches.

This slide taken in the Thunder Bay area shows forest operations going on in winter. The yellow machine in the centre is a feller-buncher.

This slide shows an area in the Thunder Bay area of the boreal forest. You can probably see the lines of planted trees in among the larger ones that were left after the harvest. We would call that a clearcut, but, in fact, there were quite a few trees left after the harvest, and the gaps were filled in afterwards by planting. This is typical of the sort of thing you will find more and more these days.

This slide shows a clearcut block with lots of patches and bits and pieces left, as well as reserves around the water bodies.

The next slide shows a fairly typical clearcut patch that you could find today in northern British Columbia. It is configured with several curves and ragged edges, making it look more as though mother nature did it. There are still a few trees standing within the block.

I will skip over the next few slides.

Protection of water quality is one of the most important parts of forest management these days. Forest managers and provincial governments are taking this increasingly more seriously.

There were some questions about product. In 1995, in the market pulp area, we produced a total of about 10 million tonnes of bleached softwood kraft, bleached hardwood kraft, unbleached kraft, sulphite and high yield pulps.

Senator Spivak: They are bleached by chlorine; is that right?

Mr. Rotherham: Some would not be bleached by chlorine, and not very much of it is bleached using elemental chlorine. Most of it is bleached by chlorine dioxide, which has a different effect on things.

Paper and board represent a total of 18.6 million tonnes; a mix of newsprint, printing and writing papers, kraft, sanitary and special papers, liner board, medium container board and box board.

In the lumber production, as Ms Cook said, there were about 61 cubic metres of lumber of a variety of types, a mix of spruce, pine, fir, hemlock, Douglas fir, cedar, pine, spruce and others; and in the hardwood side, birch, maple, oak and others.

On the wood-based panels, we have about 3.5 million cubic metres of oriented strand board, 2 million metres of plywood, almost 2 million metres of particle board and 300,000 cubic metres of fibre board for a total of about 8 million cubic metres and growing. The orient strand board portion of that is growing rapidly. It is a good product.

The Canadian pulp and paper industry has drastically changed its fibre supply over the past 30 years. You can see clearly on this graph that roundwood used to be about 65 per cent of the total volume taken in by mills and about 2 per cent of recovered paper.

Now we are down to about 26 per cent of roundwood, 62 per cent chips from sawmills, and 12 per cent recovered paper. More and more, the industry is living off residues.

That is how chips are delivered generally; this is how roundwood is delivered; and there is your waste paper. It is garbage, but the industry likes it.

In summary, we have a big multiple-use forest. We grow more than we harvest, but we lose a lot to fire. There is approximately 90 per cent public ownership of forestland. Strict provincial legislation, approvals, and permits are required before anything is done. The industry handles all of the operations and most of the planning. About $800 million a year being spent on the many silviculture operations. There are five harvest systems. Clear-cut consists of about 82 per cent, but it is going down. The value of our products is approximately $55 million. We export about 70 per cent, and the pulp and paper industry gets most of it furnished from residues.

The Chairman: I have a question dealing with certification. You mentioned that you export 70 per cent of your product and that quite a bit goes to Europe. Is it becoming more important all the time? What is the demand that must be certified now in your export market?

Mr. Rotherham: It is becoming a mainstream activity. Quite a few Canadian companies are involved in getting their operations or management systems certified. Three or four marketplaces in the world are quite green: Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Belgium. Other areas are starting to become greener. There is some indication that the American and the Italian markets are showing an interest in certification as well.

Probably 20 large Canadian companies are implementing management systems with the objective of becoming certified and we expect that there will be a great deal of certification in Canada by the year 2000. The first certifications -- one in British Columbia and one in Nova Scotia -- will probably take place by December 15. Many will come on stream in 1999.

Senator Spivak: May we have copies of those overheads?

Ms Cook: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Roberts, you now have the floor.

Mr. Ralph W. Roberts, Past President, Canadian Institute of Forestry: I should like to make my presentation brief but not to the point of being meaningless. There is a written version of my report available to you, which goes on at some length. I shall try and make the main points concerning the forest practitioner in this country and our involvement with the forest practitioner. I should also like to leave with you information from our institute on public participation and on the national forest strategy, and how the Canadian Institute of Forestry is involved with that.

Another issue that we consider important to sustainable forest management in this country concerns the Canadian criteria and the indicators initiatives on which we have a position. We would like to share that with you. We would also like to deal with our national forest resource inventory, which Mr. Rotherham spoke briefly about, and underline our position with respect to that important work.

A sixth element we should like to discuss with you is research and development. All of these issues have a general application to the Canadian forest situation, and they can be more sharply focused on the boreal forest. However, as a national institution, we look at these issues from all types of forest perspectives. Finally, we should like to raise with you the importance of skill development and education.

Those are the seven issues that we should like to speak to you about.

The Canadian Institute of Forestry is an institute that represents approximately 2,400 members. It is a national institute that has 23 sections across the country. These sections are distributed in a way that is demonstrated in this overhead. We go from coast to coast to coast. Our newest section is in the Yukon, right in the boreal forest. Twelve of our sections are in the boreal forest. The sections are, if you like, decentralized groups of members that are very active throughout the year in sharing information about forest issues, both locally and nationally.

At the national level, we try to represent our membership through meetings that take place around banner issues. This year, they are dominated by the slogan "stewardship through partnership." We have a number of partnerships with affiliate forestry organizations and institutions, extending our reach to more than 10,000 forest practitioners. Most of these practitioners are members of provincially based professional forestry associations. I believe you will hear from them more directly later this evening.

The Canadian Institute of Forestry is unique in that it is the only national voice for the forest practitioner in this country. In another aspect of our involvement, the Canadian Institute of Forestry has networks, not only within the country but also internationally. Through our networks, we have information flows, which may be of interest to you. If you have not already collected such information, we can certainly make it available to you. For instance, we have the Frontier Forestry Report of the World Resources Institute, which deals with boreal forests around the world, as well as other so-called frontier forests around the world. You will it of particular interest in your study on boreal forests.

The World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development has recently published an executive summary of its report, which will come out in March of next year. We have a copy of it with us today. The Canadian Institute of Forestry has had input into the commission's hearings. One of their hearings held here in Canada dealt with boreal forest problems.

Through our network, we are involved with the International Union of the Society of Foresters, as well as with another network of conservation organizations, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. I have with me information about the IUCN's project on the temperate and boreal forest, with a focus on Russia and Canada. I am certain you will be interested in finding out more about their activities and I know they would welcome the opportunity to have input into your examination.

The Canadian Institute of Forestry has much information flowing into it from our network members. We try to turn that information around and share it with our membership through our forestry chronicle, which is the voice of the Canadian Institute of Forestry. We have a number of copies of the chronicle, which is issued every couple of months. Sometimes the issues are thematic and sometimes they are not. In any case, they contain articles on the research that has been undertaken in Canada, as well as professional articles that deal with matters such as certification or criteria and indicators. Perhaps in the future there will be articles about the Senate findings and its report on boreal forests in Canada.

I should like to share with you our mission statement, which is to provide national leadership in forestry, to promote competence among forestry professionals, and to foster public awareness of Canadian and international forestry issues.

Within our membership, we include people who have an abiding interest in forests and their good forest management practices. You do not need to be a professional forester to be a member, although many of our members are professional foresters. In fact, if I understand your interests, you could qualify for membership in the Canadian Institute of Forestry. In that regard, we brought application forms with us. We hope you will give consideration to joining the CIF.

Among foresters, we also include people who are biologists, zoologists, technicians, technologists, or others who are trained to work on forest-related problems.

It is a membership that extends from coast to coast and draws upon various universities and colleges from across the country, as well as practitioners who have not had formal training, but have had much experience in dealing with forest issues.

One of the issues that we consider particularly important has to do with public participation in the process of decision-making about forests. The CIF fully endorses this concept of public participation. We support the following attributes of such participation: balance of inputs; an informed public, consistent with the concept of sustainable development; a strong consideration for future generations; clear definition of the rights, responsibilities and roles of all parties; and a respect for legal rights of forest tenure holders which are consistent with the principles of the national forest program.

We have called for the establishment and implementation of public participation at all levels of forest decision-making. We have included within our own membership training programs to assist in developing the skills and understanding of approaches for techniques for public participation.

Our second issue is the national forest strategy. The Canadian Institute of Forestry, together with the Canadian Forestry Association, played a significant role in the recent national forest congress that took place in the spring of this year. In addition to helping to organize the program, we have also been busy in writing our contribution to the action plan for the implementation of the national forest strategy.

There are a number of strategic directions in the national forest strategy, and I am sure you are aware of them. Strategic direction number 3 focuses on public participation. Number 4 focuses on communities and the work force. These are areas where we think that the Canadian Institute of Forestry has a comparative advantage to making a meaningful contribution.

In our activities for the next five years, we include actions in these strategic directions that will contribute to the implementation of the national forest strategy and the meaning of commitments under the national forest accord.

As a national institution, one area to which we are particularly drawn is working with the federal government, helping it meet its obligations under the national forest strategy to sustainably manage the approximately 23 per cent of forest land which falls under its jurisdiction.

The third issue falls under criteria and indicators. A question of certification was raised earlier. Criteria and indicators are important to that exercise, however, they are also very important from the policy, legislative and regulatory side.

Our members are very much involved in developing the field level indicators that will go into expressing criteria for sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level.

To help define better sustainable forest management on the ground, the CIF uses its forestry chronicle extensively as well as its own web site to communicate current views and findings in connection with this important initiative.

A fifth item or issue in which we are involved is the forest resources inventory. Measuring what you treasure is an important imperative that we recognize. We have developed a position on the need for national forest inventory information, not only of timber values, but also of all forest values, so that we can demonstrate both nationally and internationally our accomplishments in sustainable forest management. The CIF has called for a number of activities under this rubric.

Under research and development, we believe that policies should be developed to support sustainable practices at all jurisdictional levels. Such policies should provide incentives for R and D investment and also establish a means of coordinating research with adaptive management proceedings.

In this connection, we think that the Canadian model forest program, as well as the international forest model program, represent a working example of an appropriate approach that encompasses regional, national and international participation.

In this area, much more money needs to be committed. It seems that much less is being committed and, therefore, we need to reverse the trend that has developed over recent years.

Last month we saw the establishment of a coalition for the advancement of science and technology in the Canadian forest sector. We see that as a positive step and we have offered to participate.

Education is a key. In this country, we have a number of world-class forest institutions of higher learning. However, we have a great need for more and better-trained forest practitioners. I use the word "better" in the sense of being up to date on modern practices. As we watch funding levels shrink for universities and colleges, we must protect the excellent reputation that our forestry schools enjoy, in order to supply industry, government and non-governmental sectors with the necessary skills to meet future needs.

In a recent annual meeting, we resolved to communicate with the appropriate institutions and organizations to bring our concerns to their attention, in order that forestry education not be short shrifted in the rush to reduce budgets.

In summary, the CIF believes that training programs are an essential component of any sustainable forestry program, and that such a program should include levels aimed at the professionals, interested parties and citizens in sustainable forest management. As an institution, we also have a continuing education program for our membership. It has been increasingly popular, as we have been developing it.

We have some closing remarks on the boreal forest, which I should like to share with you at this time.

Understanding the underlying principles, the present policies and initiatives are key to understanding management practices in the Canadian boreal forest. To understand the boreal forest, one must understand the silvics of species, the stand dynamics, lifespans, history, and impact of disturbance. I think you do understand that the boreal forest cannot be painted with the same brush as other forest regions in Canada, including the one we are in right now, here in Ontario, Quebec and the Outaouais.

The practitioners are responsible for managing the forest. We think that they require the knowledge of its composition, growth and yield. Forest management requires detailed and up-to-date information on stand productivity under various management programs. The provinces are responsible for the management of provincial land. Not all jurisdictions manage the same way, yet the desired end results may be something that can be compared. We think that our foresters, forest rangers and technicians are in the best position to provide a neutral and professional view on sustainable forest management of the boreal forest, as well as other forest regions in the country.

The CIF will continue to play a role in providing information on sustainable management, not only to its members, but also to our affiliates, and others in our networks. Our members work and live in the boreal forests and the other forest regions in Canada. We continue to network through local, regional, provincial, national and international agencies to provide the best available factual information about forestry practices in Canada. We will continue to provide information through the Forestry Chronicle on forestry issues and forests such as the boreal forests.

We would encourage this Senate subcommittee to consider submitting their findings to the Forestry Chronicle for their publication and dissemination. With that, I should like to thank you very much for your attention.

The Chairman: Mr. Cooligan, the clerk pointed out to me that you helped us plan our trips. We like to hear all sides of an issue and you were able to point out certain people who could help us.

Mr. Dan Cooligan, Manager, National Programs, Canadian Forestry Association: It was my pleasure.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Forestry Association to participate in your inquiry about Canada's boreal forest. I bring you greetings from our president and from the rest of our board of directors from communities across Canada.

In this submission, I will focus on the importance of public education with respect to forests in Canada. I will also talk about what we perceive to be barriers to effective education. Finally, I will state our position on the issues relating to the boreal forest under inquiry by this subcommittee in the areas of environment and biodiversity, industry and employment, aboriginal peoples, federal-provincial questions, and wildlife preservation.

First, I will give you an overview of the Canadian Forestry Association. We have many programs that are designed to promote public understanding and sustainable development of forests. Our association was founded in 1900 and is one of Canada's oldest conservation organizations. Over the years, the CFA developed branches and affiliates. In 1959, it was reorganized into a federation of provincial forestry associations.

The mandate of the CFA is to promote public understanding and cooperation in the wise use and sustainable development of Canada's forests and other natural resources. This is consistent with the original mandate of the CFA when it was constituted 100 years ago. We continue to promote good forest management in Canada and public education on the eve of our centennial anniversary in the year 2000.

Currently, we have nine provincial affiliates: the Forest Education British Columbia, the Alberta Forestry Association, the Saskatchewan Forestry Association, the Manitoba Forestry Association, the Ontario Forestry Association, the Canadian Forestry Association of New Brunswick, the Tree House; the Nova Scotia Forestry Association, the Prince Edward Island Forest Improvement Association; and the Newfoundland Forest Protection Association. These associations are autonomous and represent a broad cross-section of the forest sector. They embrace people in the provinces from all walks of life.

Although each association is unique in terms of the constituents they serve, their membership, in many cases, includes a combination of individuals, private landowners, government agencies, the forest industry, and others who are interested in forest education.

I will give you a quick rundown on some of our programs. We have supported good forest management and public awareness of forest issues through education programs throughout our history. We pioneered and championed some of the earliest forest conservation efforts in Canada. That includes the establishment of the University of Toronto and the University of New Brunswick in the early 1900s. It also includes the development of the conservation railway cars on the prairies in the early part of this century, right up until the 1970s, which resulted in the planting of over 500 million trees in forest areas and shelter belts across the prairies of Canada.

Our programs continue to this day. We currently run a program called Logging for Wildlife, which helps loggers understand and address wildlife concerns in the course of their logging operations. We are still very much involved in public and youth education and we still run our wildfire prevention program featuring Smokey the Bear and National Forest Week. We now have new programs called Envirothon and Forest Capital of Canada, as well as others.

Some of our affiliates are advocates for woodlot owners. They also carry out stewardship education programs for private landowners. From the beginning in 1906, we have been in the business of coordinating conferences for the forest community. We are still in that business, as a matter of fact, we coordinated the 1998 National Forest Congress that was held here in Ottawa in April. We also run Corporate Partners' Tree Planting Program, whereby corporations in Canada donate funding for tree planting for environmental purposes.

I should like to present to the committee our view on the importance of forest education in Canada. We believe that all Canadian citizens have a right and a responsibility to participate in meaningful ways in decisions relating to how forests are managed in this country. In order for Canadians to participate effectively, they need to be empowered with the knowledge and understanding of the forest itself. Canadian needs to know how the forest behaves ecologically, the capacity for it to provide benefits and the quality of its management and stewardship. With this knowledge, we believe that Canadians will make the right decisions in terms of deciding how their forests should be managed.

The CFA and its affiliates also believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that effective and balanced public education programs about Canada's forests are supported by the broad forest community, including industry, government, individuals and associations.

The benefits of forest-based industries are not confined to Canada's hinterland. They employ tens of thousands of people in our major cities, in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Over 330 communities across Canada are dependent upon the forest industry for their existence.

We believe that support for a balanced forest policy in Canada is at risk because of a lack of public understanding of forest issues and facts. Poor public understanding of the critical importance of forests to Canada's economic, environmental and social health has the potential to undermine Canadian leadership in sustainable forest management, as well as the health of our economy and society.

I should like to review what we perceive to be barriers to forest education in Canada. We believe that, at this time, the primary barrier to balanced public forest education is a fundamental disagreement among various interests -- indeed among individual Canadians -- about what good forest management is. The positions of the various opinion leaders in Canada range from total protection and banning of logging in some regions, to advocacy for unfettered industrial development of Canada's forests. As in most emotional issues, we believe that the truth and a balanced interpretation of the facts lie somewhere between those extremes.

The education process has been driven by competing visions of what Canada's forests actually are and how they should be treated. Canadian citizens are getting mixed messages.

Another barrier to forest education, which is common in most jurisdictions, is the general lack of stable funding. Traditional resources, such as government contributions to programs, have declined significantly over the last decade. Increased private sector programs have not kept pace with this decline in public funding. Less broad-based public education is taking place with regard to forests, and governments are placing a reduced priority on forests and environmental education in the school system.

Although Canada is a forest nation, some jurisdictions do not address the subject significantly in their curriculum guidelines. Balanced information about forests in the classroom is essential to have better informed citizens in the future.

I will conclude my remarks by stating our position on the elements of the inquiry. In terms of environment and biodiversity, the Canadian Forestry Association supports the National Forest Strategy. We believe that provincial governments need to continue their land use planning and resource planning improvements. Genetic management programs are needed to maintain gene pools and provide opportunities for mitigating the biological effect of climate change. Canada needs to complete its protected areas system to ensure the conservation of various environmental, ecological, economic and cultural values. As well, we say that public education is needed to provide an accurate and up-to-date perspective on the state of Canada's forests and the environment.

On the second element of the inquiry, we believe that Canada needs to ensure that access to markets is maintained by addressing barriers to trade such as protectionism, unattainable environmental standards, and consumer acceptance. Public education is needed to ensure that Canada's citizens understand the effects of policies on forest health, employment, and society as a whole. Canada needs to promote its good forest management practices at home and abroad.

In terms of aboriginal peoples, we believe that aboriginal people and their communities should be full partners in the equitable sharing of the responsibilities and benefits accruing from forest management in the boreal forests. Canada and the provinces need to conclude the process of settling land claims with aboriginal people so that we can all get on with participating in the benefits and responsibilities of forest management. Education programs are needed to foster public understanding of how the land claim process will affect the management and health of the forest.

Under the area of federal-provincial questions, the CFA supports the existing constitutional arrangement of provincial jurisdiction in forest management and other natural resources in Canada. However, we believe that national programs are important and appropriate, because forests are common to all of Canada's provinces. The jurisdictions share many issues and conditions as well as challenges such as trade, science, public education, capacity building and forest industry. We believe that national programs can be more effective in addressing broader concerns through economies of scale and improved management.

Public education, an important area, has eroded since the end of federal-provincial agreements concerning forests. The agreements, which provided significant funding to program development and delivery, ran out in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Provincial government forest management agencies in most jurisdictions have reduced, and in some cases dropped, public forest education in their core business areas. The public sector has not yet been able to adequately fill the gaps.

Finally, in the area of wildlife preservation, we believe that jurisdictions across Canada need to continue to develop and improve wildlife management systems to guide forestry activities.

Good forest management can result in improved wildlife habitat and populations. Good forest management protects and conserves sensitive wildlife habitat. We believe that education programs need to be developed by governments and the forest industry to assist loggers in the identification of important values and how to conserve them.

In conclusion, I should like to thank you very much for your time. Our president and board of directors appreciate your interest in these important matters. I would be happy to answer any questions. If there is anything I am unable to adequately address at this time, I would be glad to respond later, in writing.

Senator Spivak: I have a question about indicators for certification. It is my understanding that the Canadian Standards Association is a management-based certification rather than performance-based. In other words, it does not track the performance, but looks at management procedures, and so forth. Is that an accurate perception?

Mr. Rotherham: The Canadian Standards Association standard is based on the International Standards Organization 14001 environmental management system, but a few changes and additions have been made to it. It was completely rewritten in a forest management context for Canada and four important additions were made. One was the requirement for public participation, which Ralph Roberts discussed and with which we agree.

Also added were the criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management approved by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. That is written right into the standard, together with the 21 essential elements which provide more detail to those criteria. There is a requirement for on-the-ground measurement of performance by the auditors, and also a requirement for forecasting.

The criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management are introduced to the public participation process. In that way, the members of the community around a particular forest can to tell the forest managers what values they would like to have protected, conserved or produced, according to those criteria.

Those criteria cover biodiversity, social values, ecosystem health and productivity, soil and water conservation, society's responsibility for sustainable management, and the forest's contribution to global ecological cycles. During the public participation process, they will develop, with the provincial forest management people and the company forest management people, several management objectives -- performance objectives, if you wish -- which will be part of what the company will then put in place.

The objectives are written into a management plan. When a 20-year management plan for a large forest area is drafted, it is based on the anticipated future state of the forest. However, it is very difficult to determine whether putting the management plan into force and taking the actions mentioned therein will result in that anticipated state of the forest. It is beyond the capacity of most human minds to work through the evolving state of the forest.

Thus, to see what the future state of the forest will be, there is a requirement for forecasting using geographic information systems, computer-based mapping and forest-level models.

Finally, there is a requirement to do an audit of on-the-ground performance.

While there are no performance details laid out in the standard itself, there is a requirement within the standard to develop those performance measures. The CSA standard is a combination of management system, performance and on-the-ground auditing.

Senator Spivak: As I understand it, companies such as KPMG, and others, will be doing the audit.

Mr. Rotherham: It will be done using auditors who have the correct technical training, professional qualifications, and training in standard and auditing procedures.

Senator Spivak: A company might be accepted in advance of their developing a plan, or after they have developed it. What are the sanctions for not following through, and who will impose them?

Mr. Rotherham: The company is not accepted for certification before it meets the requirements of the standard. First, the company will make a decision to implement the standard. It will be implemented in its management systems, in its planning, and on the ground. Once the standard is in place, the company will ask for an audit. It can easily take two years to put this sort of thing in place, because there is a great deal of work required in training and documentation systems.

Once the company is audited, if it meets the requirements of the standard, it is then certified -- or registered, as we say in Canada. You are registered to a management system standard and then you can say that you have a management system that meets the requirements of the CSA or the ISO standard.

Senator Spivak: So we may not see the performance for 20 years?

Mr. Rotherham: The performance starts immediately. You will, for example, state that you will see to it that there is adequate regeneration after harvest. While the harvest block that you complete this year will not necessarily be regenerated for a couple of years, the auditors can look at what you have been doing in the past. If you have a good record, they will say that your regeneration systems are working.

Senator Spivak: What are the sanctions here again? We know of instances where companies are not monitored. How will this be put into place?

Mr. Rotherham: In the first place, in order for a company to get its first certification, there is a comprehensive audit of its systems and its performance on the ground. There will be visits on an annual basis afterwards. The first full reaudit takes place after three years and every five-years thereafter.

If you fail, the main sanction is that your certification or registration is removed. At that point, you can no longer claim that you have that system in place and that you are meeting its requirements. I believe that it would be quite a blow to a company to lose its certification.

As far as sanctions are concerned, all provincial governments periodically audit the performance of the companies that are operating on publicly owned land, and there are sanctions in place. The most dire sanction would be the removal of a forest licence. I know of one instance in British Columbia where a licence was removed because of poor performance.

Most companies are not prepared to take that risk because, without their licence, they have no wood to run their mill, a bad situation for the company, its managers and its shareholders.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could enlighten us on the exact difference between the institute and the forestry association. I understand that the institute members include people who are interested in forestry, and that the forestry association members include people who are developing or utilizing the forest.

Mr. Cooligan: The mandate of the Canadian Forestry Association is public education and the promotion of good forest management. The members are diverse through our provincial affiliates, and include private landowners, governments, educators and individuals. It is a public education mandate.

Mr. Roberts: In terms of its membership, I would define the institute as an organization made up of forest practitioners, people who are actually working on forest issues.

The Chairman: Apart from those who use the forest from a fibre perspective, are there significant numbers of other users in your organizations? Do aboriginal organizations or the tourism and pharmaceutical industries join your organizations?

Mr. Cooligan: The provincial associations have a diverse membership of individuals from almost the whole spectrum of interest in the forest. For instance, environmentalists, hunters, tourist outfitters, and those sorts of people who are not fibre consumers are welcome in our provincial forestry associations.

The Chairman: They are welcome, but are there significant numbers of them who belong to your associations?

Mr. Cooligan: I am not sure. I would have to check on that.

The Chairman: Would it be the same for the institute? Would it be basically fibre users who make up the membership of the institute?

Mr. Roberts: Fibre growers and users. If you are using that term -- one with which I am not familiar -- as including research scientists or academics who are currently concerned with biodiversity in its many forms, then the answer is "yes." The term "fibre producers" is not accurate in describing our membership, which is much larger. It does not exclude fibre producers.

I would like you to know that the Canadian Institute of Forestry is in the process of assessing how it might restructure itself to better represent what you were just mentioning, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, we might become a society of societies. Perhaps a new Canadian institute of forestry could include, in addition to individual membership, groups which have an interest in forests, whether they represent pharmaceutical organizations or some aspect of agro-forestry. This is a work in progress. I do not think the change will come about overnight, but rather over a period of years.

The Chairman: My question is driven by the fact that, as we travelled across Canada, we heard a consistent complaint: Forestry management is being exclusively run by foresters. It is analogous to the old argument that armies are too important to be run by soldiers.

This is the same thing. There seemed to be a strong feeling out there that trees and forests are too important to be left to foresters -- in the traditional sense of the word -- and that there are many other uses for forests, everything from environmental cleaning of the air, to aboriginal homes, to tourism, and so on, and that people involved in those areas did not have enough input into the decisions being reached. I thought perhaps your organizations could be in the forefront of solving this problem by starting to bring in other parties.

Do you have a consistent policy on the use of fire? Should we be making sure that no fires break out in our forests, or are you of the view that fire has a useful purpose? Is it the thrust of your association to come up with a solution to that, or do you just let the argument rage amongst yourselves?

Mr. Roberts: The latter is the case.

The Chairman: I have a question which may apply to Mr. Rotherham. Is there much evidence out there that forests are not being managed to regenerate; that regeneration is being warped a bit genetically by herbicides and pesticides so that you have the type of forests which will allow you to generate more money in the future? In other words, you are not quite happy with what God gives you, so you push it to one side or the other.

Mr. Rotherham: There is no doubt that regeneration is directed towards reforesting with commercially valuable species, but, generally, Mr. Chairman, that is what we cut off the site when we went there. We cut the commercially valuable species. Generally, the species that are being put back into a site are very much the same as the species that were taken out.

Herbicides are being used less and less. They are expensive and they are unpopular with the public. Some provinces have legislated them out of use. That is certainly the case in the Province of Quebec and it is practically impossible to use herbicides in the forests in Alberta. Herbicides were generally used to knock back hardwoods that were over-topping conifer seedlings, whether they were naturally regenerated or planted. At no time did these herbicides eradicate the hardwoods. You cannot eradicate nature. The idea was to check the growth of the hardwoods for a while so the conifers could get through.

You may have noted during my presentation that I said about 55 per cent of the regeneration is natural regeneration, as opposed to planting. Where there is natural regeneration, you are generally getting back the same genetic stock and, in many cases, the same general mix of species that you took off. Therefore, in my view, we are not vastly changing the composition of the Canadian forests through the process of harvesting and regeneration.

The Chairman: Is there any work being done now that forest cutting is moving farther and farther north? In Quebec, they are starting to let out lands north of 52 degrees latitude. In northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan, they are getting up there as well. They are almost cutting bonzai trees where the cycle might be more like 150 or 200 years and not 100. Is there any thought that the practice has to be examined more closely?

Mr. Rotherham: There is no doubt that the silvicultural systems, which are put in place in those northern areas, have to be different from the ones in the south. A lot more care has to be taken with soil conservation and, I would suggest, protection of already-established regeneration. That is one of the reasons that the Province of Quebec has established what they call their CPRS program, cutting with the protection of soil and established regeneration, where the harvesting is carried out in a way that protects that regeneration so that it will grow after the overstorey has been taken off. This has made a difference in the regeneration practices over the last decade. There is now more natural regeneration in Quebec than before. Ten years ago, there was a higher emphasis on planting than there is today.

The Chairman: One of the fears expressed to us is that, because they are now using chips and scraps to make oriented strand board and other products, they will go out and cut chips and scraps and so on. In the past, a tree had to be a significant size before it was worth cutting.

We have heard a few times that the global warming trend is changing the species and moving the boundaries. Does anyone have a position on that?

Mr. Roberts: The institute does not have any position on global warming and its influence on forests. We are in the early days of that issue and are looking for science to provide some answers. It sounds logical and reasonable that boundaries would change. They certainly have in the past. A trip up to the Gatineau hills will reveal that, 10,000 or 15,000 years ago, the area was covered with two kilometres of ice. That changed the boundaries of the trees.

The Chairman: I read in the paper today it may be coming back.

Mr. Roberts: I do not mean to change the direction of your question, but I wanted to come back to Senator Spivak's question about criterion indicators. When you mentioned certification, I knew that Mr. Rotherham could better respond to your question.

When I spoke of criterion indicators in connection with the CIF support for the initiative, I was referring to the incorporation of sustainable forest management in the policies and legislation within Canada and within Canada's jurisdiction, at the provincial and the federal levels.

There are two sets of criterion indicators, if I can characterize it that way. One set deals with certification. Another set is designed to change our forest acts and policies, and to modify our legislation and regulation, so that they are more in line with what are being described as sustainable forest management. That is the process that the CIF is particularly interested in supporting. We watch with great interest and support the eco-labeling or certification exercises, but our support is more passive than it would be for this other process. You have heard of the Montreal process and its cousins such as the Helsinki process. All these processes are aimed at changing the policy and legislation in member countries.

Senator Spivak: That is right. Canada has been a supporter of that. However, many of the non-governmental groups are not.

Mr. Roberts: Our non-governmental group, the Canadian Institute of Forestry, does support it.

The Chairman: Thank you for your input.

Our next witness is from the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. Please proceed.

Mr. Lorne Riley, RPF, Executive Counsellor, Ontario Professional Foresters Association: Mr. Chairman, the presentation I will make to you this evening will be from a slightly different perspective than the last two, if not the last three presentations you have heard this evening. However, it does touch on an area that you have mentioned on several occasions, and that is the practitioner.

The Ontario Professional Foresters Association is an association of practitioners. It is the association in Ontario which brings together the professional practitioners of forestry as opposed to the entire gamut of people who have an interest in or who may be involved in one way or another in forestry.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you this evening on behalf of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. I am a member of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association and, as such, I am a registered professional forester in the Province of Ontario. I am a past president of the association, and I am currently the executive counsellor.

The Ontario Professional Foresters Association -- and I may, on occasion, refer to it as the OPFA -- cannot be counted among the national umbrella groups noted in the subcommittee's backgrounder as the target group for the current round of hearings. It is, however, one of five professional foresters' organizations across Canada, each located in a separate province.

While I cannot claim to represent those associations in this presentation, I do feel comfortable in saying that the goals and objectives of the OPFA are virtually the same as those of the other professional foresters' associations in Canada. In this sense, my comments do represent a pan-Canadian view.

The charter of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is found in the Ontario Professional Foresters Association Act (1957) in the Province of Ontario. Our membership is just under 800. It is not the most numerous amongst the five professional foresters associations, but it is a significant number, nonetheless. Approximately 75 per cent of the foresters in Ontario belong to the OPFA. We also have members from out of the province and out of the country.

The entrance requirements for the association are stringent, requiring both academic standing and relevant work experience, and they are comparable to those of the other associations across the country. They conform to the national standards set by the Canadian Forestry Accreditation Board, an independent organization which evaluates and accredits the forestry programs in Canadian universities.

A university degree in forestry is not always required for membership, but it is usually required. There are circumstances under which non-degree holding individuals may attain status in the association. Forestry is an applied science. The profession's university-level entrance requirement is designed to ensure a thorough understanding of that science and its application, not to create a technical elite.

Current forest management planning involves teams of professionals from various professions and disciplines. Their interaction with the public, the owners of the province's forests whether on private or Crown land, is critical to achieving a balance between those values the public wants and the values it is possible to provide from any given area of forest land. Sound scientific principles must be used if the forests are to be managed sustainably.

The deliberations of the class environmental assessment hearings for timber management on Crown lands in Ontario, in the early 1990s, was a major public forum for the consideration of forest management needs in the province and the basis for much of what now constitutes forest management policy and philosophy in Ontario. That group emphasized the importance of science-based understanding of the growth and management of our forests. In its report to the public, the environmental assessment board urged the strengthening of forester involvement in the management of the province's forests. This need and the training and professional discipline of the forestry profession should place the organization in a unique position with respect to leadership in forest management activities in the province.

OPFA members can be found in all of the major areas of forestry employment and endeavours, whether government, federal or provincial, research, industry, urban and forestry community, and, increasingly, in private practice. The last is gaining greater prominence in the management of the province's forest as the Government of Ontario reduces its operational forest management capability, particularly in the southern-most areas of this province.

At present, the OPFA is a registering, right-to-title association, which means that membership is voluntary.

In other words, one does not need to be a member of the association to practice forestry in Ontario, although, as is the case, the majority of foresters are members. Unfortunately, this status means that the technically and scientifically untrained may also present themselves as qualified to practice forestry in the province. The only thing they are not permitted to do, and this is by law, is present themselves as registered professional foresters.

Association members are bound by standards of practice and a code of ethics. They are subject to peer review and, when required, disciplinary procedures. They are also committed to a career-long effort in continuing education. It is these mechanisms which ensure that our members perform to a high technical standard, and that their efforts, whether in direct forest management or related fields of endeavour, are directed towards ensuring that the public interest is served.

We are pleased to let the subcommittee know that the association is currently pursuing licensing authority. Just this past month, legislation was introduced in the Ontario legislature by a member of the provincial Parliament for this purpose. It is hoped that, by the new year, the Ontario Professional Foresters Association will join its counterparts in British Columbia and in Quebec as fully authorized licensing bodies for professional foresters. There are professional forester associations in Alberta and New Brunswick as well. These are right-to-title associations.

Public concern over the state of Ontario's forests and their management has been growing, as it has been in the other provinces of the country. Ontarians recognize that there are multiple, often conflicting demands on our forests, and that sound planning principles and scientifically based management practices are needed for good forest management. As government at various levels, but particularly at the provincial level in Ontario, move out of direct management of the forest, it is clearly in the public interest that those responsible for forest management be professionals working to the highest standards. A strong self-governing forestry profession will go a long way towards ensuring that decisions about forest management and use is based on sound science. In this regard, I would note that the Ontario Professional Foresters Association is a signatory to the National Forest Strategy and the Canada Forest Accord, which was referred to earlier this evening.

The association's drive for licensing is aimed at better satisfying the public's demand for good forest management. The key to doing so is to increase the accountability of forest managers and to ensure that those who practice forest management are appropriately qualified.

The Ontario Professional Foresters Association believes that improved accountability can be achieved through five principal actions. First, defining an appropriate scope of practice for forestry professions. Second, extending the reach of the forestry profession to cover all individuals practising forestry. Third, ensuring adequate educational qualifications. Fourth, setting the highest possible standards of practice for practitioners and disseminating those standards throughout the profession. Last, establishing and enforcing discipline within the profession.

To inspire public confidence, the OPFA will be accountable to its judgment of good forest practice, as established by scientifically based standards, the law and the legislation of the province. Whenever it is involved in these activities, it also adheres to and abides by the criterion indicators of sustainable forest management, which have been referred to several times already.

Provisions for meaningful public participation are an integral part of the proposed legislation. Indeed, members of the public would sit on the council of the association, as well as on a number of the committees of the association.

Under the proposed licensing regime, the consequences of licence revocation for improper practice, and the subsequent loss of the right to practice, would be very real and would constitute a strong deterrent against malpractice. The strong professional discipline and public accountability that will result from licensing will serve to increase confidence that the profession exists to protect the public interest.

I am aware that the particular interest of the subcommittee is the boreal forest and its management. The committee members will be well aware of the importance of this forest region to the national, regional and local economies of Canada. If any of the forest regions of Canada can be described as the national forestry breadbasket, it is the boreal forest. With the possible exceptions of the British Columbia's uniquely productive coastal forest, the boreal forest makes the greatest contribution of all to the national economy. In Ontario, certainly, it makes up the majority of the province's forest cover and is the mainstay of the province's forest industry.

The OPFA, itself, does not deal directly with the boreal forest. Despite the fact that many members of the association can be found practising in other forest regions of the province, a significant percentage of our numbers practise their profession in that forest region; that is, in the boreal region. Most of the forestry practised within the boreal forest is practised by or overseen by members of the OPFA.

The association has considerable influence on how the forests of the province are managed through the collective and individual regulation of its members. It is our aim through licensing, if possible, to have the boreal forest of Ontario managed to the highest possible standard for the greatest common good.

I thank the subcommittee for its indulgence and interest in receiving this presentation this evening. I would be pleased to try to answer any questions that you may have at this time, or to provide you with additional information following this hearing, if you should so wish.

The Chairman: Being a mining engineer, my background is in another applied science. I may be somewhat familiar with your problems of registration and so on.

When we travelled in Ontario, we found it interesting that the province seems to be putting in a five-year independent audit system to see if the forestry company has, indeed, honoured or carried out its contract for cutting in an area. Those independent audits would seem to be a place where trained foresters could fit in. However, my reading of forestry practices is that it is similar to what mining was 35 years ago, and, outside of government, there is hardly any employment for the non-government organizations. In respect of forestry cutters, there is hardly any employment for forestry graduates.

Are there forestry graduates working with tourism and guiding, or similar associations? In other words, are foresters not being considered almost the paid lackeys of forest harvesters, rather than independent professionals whose services are available for both sides of the equation?

Mr. Riley: Your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. One of the objectives of licensing is to provide a strong, independent organization of foresters which will have backing in the event that a forester is accused, if you like, of being a lackey, or of being unduly responsible to the employer.

In the past, as it is now, that is the forester's livelihood without licensing. If he chooses to do something that goes against the employer's wishes, then he has little recourse. This is something that we have recognized and railed against but have not had the legal clout to do much about. We all decry the situation and hope it will change. However, it is not as rampant as it is presented some times in the press or through non-government organizations in some of their presentations.

This is a public relations problem caused by foresters who continue to allow that kind of view of foresters to persist in this province as well as across the country.

The Chairman: If you had a grandfather clause to include people who have been practising forestry without as rigorous an education or standard, it would probably be easier to get independent licensing in the forestry field. That makes it easier to attain licensing for the profession. I like your idea that, if you get it licensed, there would be non-foresters helping to run the new association.

Mr. Riley: Indeed, there is a rather extensive section on grandfathering and a provision for people who are not graduates of universities to continue to earn a living, if that has been the case over the past number of years. We have dealt with this subject at length and recognize that there are people who do gain their livelihoods from the practice of certain aspects of forestry. We do not wish to cut those people off from earning their livelihoods.

Senator Spivak: You say the association has considerable influence on how the boreal forests of Ontario are managed and you want them to be managed for the greatest common good.

What are your comments about the most recent "Lands for Life" report that has been presented in Ontario and how much influence did you have on it? Do you think the entire forest should be managed, or should some of it be left alone?

The report suggests opening up the use of forested land to development logging, mining and so forth, even in the parks.

Mr. Riley: You are aware, of course, that the "Lands for Life" report has received mixed reaction around the province. Perhaps it has received more opposition than was originally expected, given that it was intended to be a means by which the public could have input into how the forest would be managed in the province.

The association itself did not make a presentation on "Lands for Life," but a number of its members did.

We did not make a presentation because, at the time, we were considering it and we were not at all clear on what it was that was being proposed. There appeared to be issues under the surface that perhaps we might have been able to support and issues that we might not have been able to support. Therefore, as an organization, we decided not to make a submission. However, our members were involved in the process.

As to whether some areas should be left natural, every forester believes that there must be places out there that have not, in one way or another, been disturbed by man.

On the other hand, we also run into the situation where, when a fire occurs, we are taken to task for not having rushed in to fight the fire or put it out. However, fire is one of the more natural things within our forest ecosystem history. As honourable senators will know, fires are perhaps the greatest influence on the composition of our boreal forests today.

We are fully in agreement with the setting aside of reserves, which is part of the sustainable forest management criteria and indicators. We believe there should be areas that are left natural for the enjoyment of mankind as well as biological reserves.

Senator Spivak: As an organization, would you be in favour of logging in protected areas? I understand "Lands for Life" has just increased those protected areas by about 1 per cent. Because some of those areas, such as in Temagami, are the last stands, many people are hoping they will be left alone.

Are you saying that your organization does not wish to take a standard on that issue?

Mr. Riley: No, it was not a case of not wishing to take a stand; it was not wishing to take an uninformed stand.

Senator Spivak: Now that the plan has been set out, will you respond?

Mr. Riley: If it appears to be appropriate, yes. I am hedging a little because we have not yet come to grips with it as an aftermath to our earlier consideration of it.

In respect to your question about areas such as Temagami, we do not necessarily concur that the setting aside of land is the proper approach to take. There are a range of ecosystems, forest types and unique conditions. There should be representative samples of those areas set aside. However, if your aim is to set aside a million hectares within the Province of Ontario, and you choose to set it all aside in the boreal forest, I am afraid we could not agree with that. You would then be ignoring other areas of importance. There must be an appropriate cross-sectional representation.

Senator Spivak: It is beyond just preserving certain areas. I understand that is great cottage country, a hunting and recreational country. Someone wrote an article in which they said that you might wake up and find several feller-bunchers next to your lake. I have not read the report, but I understand that much of the area was off-limits for the longest time, and now it has all been left open.

Mr. Riley: Basically, we are talking about two different kinds of land here: Crown land and private land.

At the moment, if a private land owner wishes to bring in a feller-buncher and start logging on his land, there is little that can be done. Through the Managed Forests Incentive Program of Ontario, we are hoping to change that kind of situation in that people will be given a tax relief if they manage their forests for certain values. On the other hand, public land is under the control of the Government of Ontario which, ostensibly, is the people of Ontario. I understand why you would roll your eyes at that, but it is a fact.

This is what I was discussing before. If people insist that forests be harvested down to the water's edge, these are the kinds of issues that a forester, as a result of his understanding of forest science, ecosystem behaviour and the need for higher standards of forest management, would object to and take a stand against. It depends on the circumstances, but there are areas where logging should not take place. It does not have to be in a biological reserve.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Riley, for your input this evening.

The committee adjourned.

---