Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 11 - Evidence
MIRAMICHI, Tuesday, November 3, 1998
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 7:08 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: This is our last visit to a province. We have visited British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Northern Quebec. We are studying the boreal forest, which is the forest that includes Russia and Scandinavia. Some people say it is like a cape around the top of the world. Here in the Miramichi, you are right at the southern edge of it. The boreal forest actually starts a little to the north.
We are quite interested in hearing about what you think about the future of the forest because the boreal forest is one of the last great botanical systems of the world. The temperate forests in Europe and Asia and North America have all been used up or destroyed years ago. The Amazon forest is disappearing at a pretty good clip, too. The fact is that forests are now being looked at as more than just a supply of wood: they have everything to do with the environment and a few other things. They have become very important.
The Senate thought to strike a committee, which has been in existence for a little over a year now. One of our jobs is to look into areas that are not that sexy when it comes to elections. We look into areas that we think the public should know more about and, after investigations, give signs and suggestions as to which way the government should be operating in the future. Along that line, earlier today we were out touring both private woodlots and government-owned timber areas and those owned by Repap. We are going to hold hearings tonight and most of tomorrow.
The first person to present a brief today is Roberta Clowater. She is with the New Brunswick Chapter of the World Wildlife Canada Fund. Roberta, do you want a minute to test out your French at all or to see whether the interpretation is working?
The floor is yours.
Ms Roberta Clowater, Protected Natural Areas Coalition, Endangered Spaces, World Wildlife Fund: I am actually going to do my presentation in English today.
As the Chairman said, I am with the New Brunswick Protected Natural Areas Coalition. I am World Wildlife Fund Canada's Endangered Spaces coordinator for New Brunswick.
The forest ecosystems we have in New Brunswick are some of the most diverse in all of Atlantic Canada. Forests with boreal characteristics in New Brunswick are predominantly located in the Highlands ecoregion, in the northwestern and north central parts of the province. For the most part, the forests in New Brunswick are considered to be in a transition zone between the Acadian mixedwood forest and the boreal forest. Conservation of our forests is integral to the environmental, social and economic well-being of New Brunswick.
The Government of New Brunswick, which has responsibility for managing our forests, claims to do so on a sustainable basis. With respect to ensuring a sustainable timber supply for the forestry industry, they are possibly correct in that assertion. However, sustainable forest management should incorporate a balanced plan for all uses of the forest -- timber, wildlife, wildlife habitat, natural ecosystem processes, clean air and water, recreation and cultural uses. In New Brunswick, approximately 99 per cent of our public forests are managed for use by the forestry and mining industries, with only about 1 per cent in permanent protection for natural ecosystem functions.
In 1992, the New Brunswick government, along with the other provincial and territorial governments, through the Tri-Council Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada's Networks of Protected Areas, committed to the goal of establishing a system of protected areas that would represent the ecological diversity of the province. That same year, provincial and federal governments, along with representatives of the forest industry, labour, aboriginal and conservation groups, signed the Canada Forest Accord, making a commitment to work towards the same goal. In New Brunswick, the promises made regarding protected areas have not been kept. This is also true elsewhere in the country, and Canadians should not be given the impression that all is going well in the boreal forest.
Currently, New Brunswick is behind all other provinces and territories in establishing such a protected areas system, with none of its seven ecological regions being adequately or even moderately recommended by protected areas. In the 1996 and 1997 "Endangered Spaces Progress Reports", World Wildlife Fund Canada gave New Brunswick an "F" grade for failure to make any progress on a protected areas network. Mount Carleton Provincial Park, the province's only provincially designated wilderness park, is the only protected area of any size that protects parts of New Brunswick's boreal-like forest.
The main reason for not going forward with protected areas seems to be a concern over the potential impact these designations could have on the forestry and mining industries. While these industries are certainly important for our economy, the health of our natural environment must be considered to be equally important. There is an urgent need to bring some balance to the way we use the forests in New Brunswick, as there is elsewhere in Canada. Roadless areas, and other natural wild areas where nature is allowed to take its own course, are rapidly diminishing in New Brunswick. Our province has been settled for a long period of time, with towns and communities spread throughout the province. There is a long history of resource use and community dependence on natural resources. However, the type and intensity of use of our landscape has been changing over the past 30 years, and industrialization of the landscape is now the norm. This has brought with it a drastic increase in the amount of land that is being changed at any one time, and also an increased ability to affect large parts of the landscape in a relatively short period of time. It is now crucial that we, as a society, and our governments, investigate other options for the use of our boreal forest, with a long-term view to the greatest benefit for our communities and our natural environment.
The New Brunswick government has recently commissioned an external consultant, Dr. Louis LaPierre, to develop recommendations for a protected areas strategy for our province. The government intends to take these recommendations to public consultation sometime over the next six months. They will then make decisions about the future use of our natural areas, hopefully in a way that will finally bring some balance to our land use. World Wildlife Fund and the New Brunswick Protected Natural Areas Coalition have asked the premier of New Brunswick to give interim protection to the wild areas that Dr. LaPierre has identified so that they will not be degraded while we discuss their future.
In New Brunswick, we have a dramatic example of what can happen to a natural area if it is identified as being ecologically important but not given interim protection. The Christmas Mountains area of north central New Brunswick is an excellent representative of our province's boreal-like forest, with a mountainous terrain and many wetlands and lakes. Until 1990, this area was relatively roadless, and biological surveys of the area indicated that it was an undisturbed, wild, older forest ecosystem. The area is located on Crown land, and the forestry company that holds the licence began building logging roads into the Christmas Mountains. In 1992, conservation organizations renewed the call for a moratorium on logging in this area, which was originally identified for protection in the late 1800s and then again in the early 1900s. These calls for protection were not heeded, and the wild area that was 50,000 hectares in 1990 has been reduced to a small, 4,000 hectare or less, core. We certainly hope that the wilderness areas that have been identified in Dr. LaPierre's report will have a better chance at maintaining their ecological integrity, at least until political decisions can be made about their future.
Given this situation in New Brunswick, here are some things I would like the Senate Subcommittee on the Boreal Forest to consider: The first one is that interim protection of identified potential candidate protected areas is essential to the whole process of protected areas system planning. If areas are not given interim protection until final decisions are made, their natural character will be degraded by development while we discuss their future.
The second point to consider is that since our governments are not living up to commitments made internationally or nationally with respect to protected areas, more work needs to be done with major natural resource-based industries to ensure that they live up to the agreements they made to work with government and non-government organizations on completing Canada's protected areas systems. Right now, industries can publicly claim that they have signed on to conservation agreements like the Canada Forest Accord, but do not translate their commitments into action by supporting actual protected areas decisions on the ground.
Third, the federal government puts a considerable amount of money into infrastructure development and maintenance, such as road building, that are considered to be essential services for Canadian citizens. However, the federal government puts little money into finding ways to convert our resource-based economy into a more diverse economy that incorporates other values of our resources and also places us in a situation to take advantage of emerging markets. It would seem useful for the federal government, perhaps in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, to examine ways to move us along in this regard.
The fourth point is that federal departments responsible for natural resources and the environment have skilled staff persons who could give more assistance with research on biodiversity conservation. Federal government departments could help with biodiversity conservation by working with industry to complete biological inventories of forests that are planned for harvesting or other development. This would bring a greater level of awareness of potential harvesting impacts on soil organisms, fungi, insects, plants, birds and mammals, and would help change harvesting practices to better conserve these organizations that are vital to the healthy functioning of forest ecosystems.
That is the formal part of my presentation. I understand that you may be interested in asking questions.
Senator Robichaud: You mentioned the Christmas Mountains area. I do not know if you can say that this forest was in its natural state. Speaking to some people this afternoon, those areas were sprayed with pesticides to protect them and then the trees were sort of overmatured and the wind just blew everything down. Should we let that happen when we consider the economic activity that could be generated, when we are looking for jobs for people in the area? I am not suggesting we should go in there and clean the whole thing out, mind you, but I am suggesting that we cut in a well-thought out way. Nature just blew the whole thing down and we had to go in and save whatever we could. Where do you draw the line as to what kind of activity we should have in forests such as that, and how do we do it?
Ms Clowater: I think that you draw the line once there is a true balanced land use plan that brings into consideration the areas that you are going to protect for natural processes and the areas that you are going to use for industry. Right now, we do not have such a plan in New Brunswick. Basically, most of the forests that we have are available to industry. In such cases, where we would have had a plan in place, it would have been clearly identified whether this was an area that should be left for nature to do whatever it was going to do or whether it was an area where, as you say, the industry could go in and carry out salvage operations to obtain the timber that had fallen down.
The concern we had about that area was that there was not any balanced land use plan that identified areas that industry would not be going into. Basically, all the areas were available to industry. As you say, it certainly was not a totally natural system, as most unfortunately in this world are no longer, because of the spraying that was done several decades ago for spruce budworm. The spraying allowed the forest to develop in a different way from the way it would have naturally, if we had not interfered.
At the same time, it was a relatively natural ecosystem if you did not look at the age of the trees. If you looked at the other plant life that was there and the kinds of animals that were there and the lack of roads and of fragmentation, it was a natural ecosystem from that perspective. However, I agree with you that the age of the forest was certainly not natural. Many trees that would have been naturally killed by budworm were protected by the spraying. I think that you are right; we have to find a fine line. Yes, we need to use our forests for industry; we need to use our forests to obtain the natural resources from them; but to do so without having a balanced plan that at the same time understands the need for conservation and areas that industry is not interfering with is unfortunate. That is the situation we have here in the province today.
Senator Robichaud: Would you say that industry now is much more conscious of the environment than it was a few years ago and that it is paying more attention to having areas set aside within their work area for such purposes?
Ms Clowater: I would say that industry is certainly becoming more conscious of environmental concerns, especially as they relate to clean water. I feel that we have a long way to go yet before industry really understands that biodiversity and the ecosystems we have are much more complicated than we often give them credit for. We may go into a forest area for harvesting purposes without really knowing exactly what it is we are going to be affecting. We know the kinds of trees that are there. We might know a few of the wildlife species that live there if we have done some sort of preliminary survey, but ecosystems are much more complicated than unfortunately we have been able to understand. It makes them difficult to protect at this particular time. That is why we feel that there needs to be a plan that looks at protecting some areas from industry. Those are areas where nature is basically allowed to take its own course. Then, as you say, we must have more industry understanding about protecting the environment as they are doing their work and doing things in a way that more reflects the ecosystems in which they work.
Senator Robichaud: This morning, we visited a private woodlot. I must say that the woodlot owner was really sensitive to what was happening on his woodlot. He was concerned about the wildlife, whatever happens there. That brought me some comfort because I see that in other places, too. People are starting to take notice that something is living in the wooded area; it is a habitat and you have to protect it. Surely, you would agree with me that the public at large and the private woodlot owners are more conscious of the effort they must make to keep those spaces.
Ms Clowater: Definitely. I think that private woodlot owners have an advantage in that they are often dealing on a much smaller scale than industry does. Therefore, they can have a much better hands-on approach to the way they manage the forests. They are much more likely to know where the sensitive ecological sites are. They are much more likely to know exactly what kinds of wildlife species live in one area and food they need. Those kinds of things can be dealt with on a smaller scale much better than they can be dealt with on the large scale that industry works on.
The Chairman: How many endangered areas, or areas, do you want to preserve? In your report, do you refer to the ones that were put out by the consultant?
Ms Clowater: There were 12 areas that were identified as being large areas that are still relatively roadless and, therefore, have a more natural character than other areas.
The Chairman: Are they spread equally around the province or concentrated in the north?
Ms Clowater: They are spread mostly around the province. There are a few more in the north simply because much of our Crown land is situated in the north and central parts of the province and most of our privately owned land is in the west and the south. As a consequence, a lot of privately owned land is more fragmented because there are more roads and more habitation in those areas.
The Chairman: I understand that all New Brunswick Crown land is committed to forestry. Would it be safe to say that these so-called areas would all be committed to forestry now?
Ms Clowater: Yes, most of them are.
The Chairman: It would be a case of pulling them out.
Ms Clowater: It would be a case of pulling them out of the system that is now in place.
Senator Stratton: Of these 12 areas, are there any that have not been touched, or has everything been logged at one time or another?
Ms Clowater: I do not think we know whether all of these areas have been logged in the past. I would think that many of them have been, even back in the early days of logging when they were using the rivers to send the logs down. However, for the most part, there have not been roads in many of these areas, at least in the central portions of them.
Senator Stratton: The current percentage that is set for permanent protection is 1 per cent. If you took the 12 large areas, what would that percentage increase to?
Ms Clowater: It would be about 6 or 7 per cent of the province.
Senator Stratton: Other folks are advocating a much larger percentage.
Ms Clowater: Yes. We, ourselves, are advocating a much higher percentage.
Senator Stratton: You are being realistic.
Ms Clowater: The government's consultant is putting this forward.
Senator Stratton: What is World Wildlife Fund's position on the percentage?
Ms Clowater: We have done a conservation assessment of the province to determine what would be needed to truly represent the province if we were to have more protected areas, and the number is more like 13 or 14 per cent of the province.
Senator Stratton: Is this of the forested area?
Ms Clowater: No, of the whole province. Many of those areas would fall on privately owned land and that would require a much longer-term planning for protection because we would have to involve the landowners and see if they are interested in conserving any parts of the lands that they own. Maybe we could enter into voluntary stewardship agreements with them.
Senator Stratton: At what stage are you at with the government with respect to these 12 protected areas?
Ms Clowater: The report has been submitted to the provincial government. They will be releasing it in late November to the public. They will then be going out to public consultation sometime during the winter, holding meetings around the province. It is my understanding that they intend to make a decision sometime in the spring of 1999.
The Chairman: Are the 12 areas all forestry areas? Does it not also include something like sand dunes or beaches?
Ms Clowater: Oh, yes. Half of it, or 40 per cent of one area in particular, consists of bogs. There are some in the southern part of the province where there are a lot of lakes, mountainous areas and steep slopes. These are areas that would not normally be cut or perhaps should not normally be cut. In some places in the country, I guess steep slopes are being cut. We have determined that a high percentage of some of these areas are what we would call inoperable from a forestry perspective because they are either rocky terrain or are bogs, wetlands of other kinds, or lakes.
Senator Stratton: The World Wildlife Fund gave New Brunswick an "F" grade. I think it gave Manitoba an "F" grade as well. How many provinces would you have given an "F" grade to and to how many a passing grade? Do you just grade them "F" or "P"?
Ms Clowater: No, the grading is A, B, C, D, F. I believe Alberta has gotten an "F" in the past.
Senator Stratton: Yes, I understand that, too. Has any province gotten a reasonable grade?
Ms Clowater: Yes. Some provinces are doing quite well. Nova Scotia has gotten good grades in the past. Prince Edward Island has, which is surprising because most of the land is privately owned, but it has gotten good grades because they have many good stewardship programs. British Columbia is doing well.
Senator Stratton: Is this despite the conflict there?
Ms Clowater: Despite the forestry conflict in British Columbia, they are moving along quite well with their protected areas system.
The Chairman: They have a lot of land straight up and down.
Ms Clowater: That is right. That is one of the advantages some of these other provinces have. They have areas that are not settled and have never been settled, and they also have areas that are mountainous, what we sometimes refer to as "rock and ice", which are sometimes easier to protect than areas that have trees on them and where people are interested in cutting.
The Chairman: I understand that New Brunswick has moved, as Ontario has, to long-term licences with a five-year audit or a five-year check to see if they are keeping their agreement. In Ontario, they have made that five-year audit an independent audit. In other words, it is entirely separate from the government and separate from the forestry companies. They have a panel composed of a combination of professors and ecologists, people with the World Wildlife Fund and so on, Aboriginal people, who actually assess whether or not that has been done.
In New Brunswick, in that five-year period, are you notified or is the public aware of when that five-year time comes up, so that they can have input into the process as to whether or not the forestry companies have been living up to their agreement, in their opinion, or are you kept totally in the dark?
Ms Clowater: The forestry companies have new plans every five years that come forward. There is a requirement that when forestry companies are establishing their new plans, or updating their plans, they are required to have public input. Unfortunately, the public input in New Brunswick is more in the form of public information sessions where they hold large meetings, or perhaps small meetings, and they tell the public what they are planning on doing. The public really does not have any opportunity to have input into changing what that might be. We certainly have a long way to go as far as getting public input into these management plans. The public input is very limited.
One company, J.D. Irving, Limited, has a few local committees in areas where they have forest operations. I am not sure to what extent those committee members have an actual input into changing their plans or whether they are just sort of kept up-to-date with what is going on.
Senator Stratton: The subject of herbicides has always intrigued me. Are they spraying the forested areas in New Brunswick? It is my understanding that they still are.
Ms Clowater: Yes.
Senator Stratton: In Quebec, they must stop using any and all herbicides in the year 2000, as I understand it. The deadline is the year 2000 in Quebec and 2002 in Ontario. Are you aware of any deadline for the use of herbicides in New Brunswick?
Ms Clowater: No. It is not my understanding that they are planning on phasing them out at any point.
Senator Stratton: Do you have faith that the herbicides used today are biodegradable?
Ms Clowater: No, I do not have faith in that. We are concerned not only about herbicides but about the carrier agent that is used to apply them. The herbicides themselves will often go through testing to determine their biodegradability or their toxic character to other forms of life. However, the carrier agent is often a more toxic chemical than the herbicide itself because those carrier agents do not have to go through the rigorous trials that the herbicides do. We are quite concerned about the use of herbicides in New Brunswick forests, especially in plantations, because removing certain types of species out of a forest does not really foster biodiversity. Those types of species likely have a very valuable role to play in fertile soil or in allowing the other trees that are growing with them to grow to their maturity.
Senator Stratton: This committee has viewed plantations. Would you not agree that there is a use for plantations? The demand for product is going to be increasing quite dramatically over the years, despite the present problems with Asia. A combination of natural forests and plantations will help us meet that demand in the future, while still being able to sustain natural forests. Would you not agree with that?
Ms Clowater: I would say that plantations probably have a place in our forest industry. We are concerned that, every year, plantations are gaining an increasing role in our forests and more natural forests are being converted to plantations. This is occurring not only on industrial freehold, which is the land that industries own themselves, but also on Crown land where areas of publicly owned land are being converted to plantations.
I believe that plantations could be managed in a different way that could encourage more biodiversity and I would say that they probably could find a more labour-intensive way of removing competing vegetation that does not involve spraying toxic chemicals in the forests.
Senator Stratton: Would you put a limit, percentage-wise, on an area devoted to plantations? Some forestry companies have said that 20 per cent of the forests should be plantations. They are saying, with their projections of increased growth in demand, that is the kind of level we need over the long term. Once you hit a certain level, it does not go beyond that because you have hit that level of sustainability. Do you have a position on that?
Ms Clowater: Our organization has not really come up with a bottom line for plantations. However, maybe we should not make the assumption that the demand is always going to be increasing. At some point I think we have to recognize that natural systems have a limit. Maybe that means that we, as consumers, have a limit beyond which we cannot go as far as the amount of wood products that we need. We must address the question of whether we really need all of these products or whether we just want some of them. I think we have to address that issue at some point because industry will always say, yes, there is always going to be a need, but they are in the business of making sure that is the case.
The Chairman: Before you go, I want to ask one question. Is your group following this question of certification? As you know, we export a great deal of our pulp and our lumber. "Green markets" are developing around the world, particularly in Europe, and I think they are spreading to the U.S. In order for that product to penetrate the market, it will require certification. In other words, consumers are deciding on their own hooks that they do not want to buy timber or pulp from areas that use herbicides, or they do not want to buy from clearcuts and so on. That type of thing seems to be increasing very quickly. I would be interested in whether your group is studying certification, and what you think of it. That might be the way of the future as far as regulation is concerned. In other words, the market is going to be regulating it rather than pressure groups such as yours. Have you looked at that?
Ms Clowater: Yes. Actually, I am on the Maritime Steering Committee for the Forest Stewardship Council, which is an international certifying company. We are looking at that seriously because we feel that it is often more useful to provide a carrot than to hit them with a stick. It is the alternative to boycotts, which is what some environmental organizations in Europe, and in other places like Canada, have used. They have used boycotts as a way to basically punish companies that are not doing the right thing.
We see green certification as a way of providing an incentive for companies to do the right thing because the consumers will then buy the products if they know that they are coming from companies that are sustainably managing their forests. We believe that is a very important mechanism to help improve forest management practices. It may be one of the only ways we have to improve forest management practices on industrial freehold lands. We have a certain amount of input or influence on publicly owned lands through our governments, but we have basically no input on industrial freehold land, which is becoming more and more the norm for many industries. They are buying land themselves and managing it. The market and green certification and things of that nature may be the only ways to influence large companies that own their own land and are basically beholden to no one.
The Chairman: Do you have faith in the consumers that they will still buy green products if they are more expensive?
Ms Clowater: I have faith that certain consumers will pay more, myself being one of them. I know there are consumers who will pay more. How much more can we actually charge people, and how much more are people willing to pay are questions that will have to be answered. If it is $10 increase on an item that normally costs $5, then maybe we would be talking too much of an increase, but if it is $1 more, I think that people would be willing to pay that. Not only do I think they would be, I think they should be paying more because I feel that, through low costs on wood products, we are perhaps subsidizing poor forest practices and the indiscriminate use of products from the forest. Perhaps we really need to be charging more for these products to reflect what it actually costs society to have them removed from the systems that they are in.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Clowater. We appreciate you taking the time to talk to us and answer our questions. We will also keep your brief, if we may.
Ms Clowater: Sure, yes.
The Chairman: Thank you again for coming forward.
Ms Clowater: Thank you for inviting me here today. I am really happy to see you going around the country, asking these kinds of questions and doing a good examination because I think that we definitely need to be discussing more of these issues in Canada, including New Brunswick. I appreciate you coming here to New Brunswick to discuss them with us.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Steven Ginnish from Eel Ground First Nation. Mr. Ginnish, I want to tell you I have a vested interest in listening to you, and in watching you. I have researched my genealogy. My great-great-great grandfather and his brother were both in the Fraser Highlanders with Wolfe when they climbed the walls of Quebec. One of the rewards they got was a land grant at South Esk, right across from Eel Ground. I have gone back through my history there. It seems that a couple of my great-great grandmothers are from Eel Ground. There is a little bit of blood there. I do not think it is enough for me to dismiss myself from the job of chairman for prejudice, but I am going to have a very sympathetic ear while you talk about Eel Ground.
Mr. Ginnish, Eel Ground First Nation: A lot of the discussion we will have here this evening will be focused on the policies directed at the aboriginal communities and their participation. I think many of the people across this country can draw their roots back to the Atlantic region simply because of the history of the country. That connection is there.
First of all, I would like to express my thanks for the opportunity to speak to the senators tonight. I want to give a little bit of background about myself first -- where I come from, and the community in which I reside.
As you all know, my name is Steve Ginnish. I am a councillor for the Eel Ground First Nation, which is located five to ten kilometres away from Chatham. I am a forestry development officer. I have been in that position since 1989, and I serve the First Nation community of roughly 710 registered band members. Since I began my job, we have implemented a management plan on our community forest, which amounts to 7,000 acres. As a council member, I work with the natural resources portfolio, and I serve with six other council members, including Chief George Ginnish from the Eel Ground First Nation.
I chair the MicMac/Maliseet Forestry Association of New Brunswick, which I helped form back in 1992. With the Canadian Forest Service, I also co-chair a provincial management committee for the province that oversees the administration and management of the First Nation Forestry Program. That program was developed by DIAND in 1994.
I also co-chair a wide assortment of other committees that look into the network systems that affect environment and fishery issues as they relate to First Nation communities. This past year, our work in Eel Ground has been recognized through awards from several conservation groups and forestry associations. One was the Milton F. Gregg award, which is awarded yearly by the Conservation Council of New Brunswick in the Group/Business category. We received it for our work in promoting sustainable forestry. The second one we received this past summer was the James M. Kitz award, which I personally received from the Canadian Institution of Forestry for my contribution to the overall management of forestry.
As I said earlier, I will speak about several issues. Almost everything that relates to natural resources affects aboriginal communities. It is only in the last 10 years that aboriginal communities have started voicing their concerns with respect to the utilization of natural resources. We were sitting back and waiting for the promises to be fulfilled, waiting for the commitments that government and industry promised First Nation communities long ago. We came to the realization that this just was not going to occur, however, and that many of the promises were going to be broken. We started to speak our minds. We started to bring issues to the forefront.
There is a general misconception or a lack of understanding of just what governs First Nations people. We all know of the Indian Act. In many cases, the Indian Act is the most hindering document to affect aboriginal communities. Many people sitting in this room tonight, or in this country, do not realize that when the community of Eel Ground starts implementing sustainable resource management, we are actually breaking federal laws. It is difficult to understand why this is the case.
Aboriginal governments in their communities are severely restricted in their ability to carry out forest management on reserve land, because of the authority to issue timber permits. That process still rests with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. You hear talk about self-government and autonomy for First Nations, but we still must go and ask for permission to carry out any activity. Self-government decisions will require the development of legislation to give aboriginal communities the authority to manage their own lands.
We have a beautiful country, a vast rich country, and we go on to the international scene and tell people that we are looking after our land very well. We say that Canada has one of the best resource management systems in the world, but the government itself shirks its own responsibilities when it comes to federal land. In many cases, 50 per cent of that federal land is reserve territory or land set aside for the use and benefit of native people. We do not have the authority to manage that land. We occupy it. We do not own it, according to the government of Canada.
I am also the Eastern Vice-president of the National Aboriginal Forestry Association. To address this question of land management, NAFA has drafted legislation designed to give First Nations the tools necessary to effectively manage the resources in their own land base. Hopefully, it will also allow them to branch out into the bigger scene. With such legislation in place, Aboriginal communities will have the power to pass and enforce by-laws governing forest management on reserve territory, using past methods with respect to community involvement.
We developed what are known as the Aboriginal Land Management Guidelines. That particular document puts the community in the forefront with respect to exactly how management of the resource should take place. It is not "public consultation"; it is not "public participation". The community is making decisions to manage the land in order to reap the benefits of sound management practices for future generations to come.
In New Brunswick, we feel that, until the time comes when such legislation is in place, First Nation communities and government will have to continue to operate under the limited scope of the Indian Act. As I stated earlier, at the present time when I practise forest management on my community, I am breaking federal law. If I were going to sell timber to industry, however, as long as I had the blessing of the minister, I could cut it all down. It very ironic that in this era of talking about sustainable resource management systems, about protecting the environment, the fisheries, and the fish habitats, we are still governed by legislation that will not allow us to do that.
The next piece of legislation I am going to talk about is a recent report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Recommendations specifically related to forest resources are set out in chapter 4, "Lands and Resources" contained in Volume 2, which is titled Restructuring the Relationship.
Many issues and recommendations on forest resources and strategic directions are contained in different sections of the Royal Commission report, and they relate to the ones that NAFA has created. This was done in order to increase aboriginal participation in forest management through education and training, business development, and policy and advocacy.
It is great to appear before this subcommittee, to discuss issues, and hopefully, to get some resolution in the long run. One evening in the beautiful Miramichi or any part of this country just will not do the issue justice as far as I am concerned, however. This time constraint worries First Nations.
The previous speaker spoke about the 25-year management licence plans of big industry, and said that they go through a review process every five years. That review process does have a public participation component, but it is just a forum to inform people what is going to happen to the natural resources for the next five years. Aboriginal communities are usually invited to these forums but, to our mind, the decisions are already made.
We have deep concerns about the legal overtones of the word "consultation". First Nations communities come and sit around these tables to discuss their concerns. Two or three months down the road, however, we hear industry or government saying, "We sat down with the aboriginal communities and we had full consultations with them." This so-called consultation was a one-time, one-hour sitting. That is why many of the First Nations are reluctant to come to these types of hearings, simply because of the fact that the decision-making power does not lie in our hands with respect to how resources are utilized in our traditional territories.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples talked about improving our access to resource-based economic opportunities. It talked about co-jurisdiction and co-management of land and resources. There is so much diversity across this country with respect to Aboriginal peoples themselves and society in general. What we, as aboriginal people, see as concerns for forestry resources here in New Brunswick may not necessarily be the same concerns that are voiced in the west.
One of our biggest concerns here in New Brunswick is outlined in the Royal Commission report as "Ownership and Management of Cultural and Historic Sites". In many cases, we are not even allowed to hold on to our history as it relates to natural resources. We are told what our history was like. In the school systems, we were told just who we are as a people. We find that very ironic. If you do not know yourselves as your own people, who is going to tell you who you are? We find it extremely ignorant of industry and government to tell us that they know what is best for us.
Next is the recommendation on public involvement in land negotiations. You are probably wondering how some of these items relate to the protection of natural resources, and asking what this has to do with the protection of the boreal forest. There are many unresolved issues with respect to Aboriginal communities, however, and 99 per cent of those issues are related to the natural resources.
We find it very difficult to participate when we are treated as a third party -- when we come into these types of hearings where we are classed as another "user" or another "stakeholder". In reality, simply because of the treaties and the recognition that is coming down through the Supreme Court of Canada, we are more than just another stakeholder. We have a legitimate tie to the land. Whether that is title or rights has yet to be determined.
Helping Aboriginal communities to develop their economies is very important for the land and the resources. Every community in this country relies on natural resources for its sole survival. The economic benefits derived from natural resources created this country, and First Nations are no different in that respect.
In New Brunswick alone, there are 6.1 million hectares of productive forest lands. In the Aboriginal communities, 16,000 hectares of reserve land are scattered among 15 First Nations. If you take that and divide it amongst each and every Aboriginal person in this province, it amounts to 1.3 hectares. That is a very small portion of land for a person to survive on.
It is often said to me in meetings that the First Nations communities should become a better contributor to Canadian society overall. We were not allowed to participate in the same manner with respect to the economic wealth of this country, however. The First Nations people were not allowed to also enjoy the riches of this land.
You look at the river system. We talk about protection of the white-tailed deer. We talk about the protection of the salmon species and things like that, and rightfully so. We should do that. It makes good sense to protect those species. However, many of the people sitting on this land today do not realize that my grandfather used to hunt caribou here. I have pictures of that at home. Why are there no more caribou? The primary reason is that there is no habitat left for them here in this province.
Salmon was not always the primary species taken by Aboriginal people. It used to be the freshwater sturgeon, but that species is no longer in the Miramichi River. There were only two recent reports of evidence of that particular species of fish in the river system -- one in 1986, and one in 1991. This is a species of fish that only returns every 20 years to lay its eggs. You can imagine, if you left your home 20 years ago, how you would wonder what happened to your homeland when you came back.
I find it strange that we do not look at those issues. We do not talk about a balance within nature. We do not talk about a balance of life in this province.
I have great respect for the work of the environmental groups. I really believe in what they are doing in a lot of cases, but I do not believe in going from one extreme to another. I do not believe -- and First Nations communities and our people do not believe <#0107> that everything else will be okay if you look after the seal. It just will not happen.
I will give you an example of that. The latest population figures show that we have 200,000 Atlantic salmon. We turn these salmon into the East Coast river systems, which rely on the forest. People do not make that connection. They do not see how the forest will protect the fish. All of our headwaters where the fish spawn are located in prime industrial work zones, however. Also, you have 200,000 fish trying to make it through 6 million seals. I would not want to be that poor salmon, with 30 seals on my tail trying to have me for dinner. Having said that, I can understand trying to ensure the survival of the species for the betterment of future generations.
One very interesting initiative that was recently developed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers is called the National Forest Strategy. Here we have a document that was signed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, along with 1,800 other organizations across this country. It creates a policy to ensure sustainable resource management in the whole country, but this is not new.
We all know about the first NFS from the years 1992 to 1997. Within that document, the seventh strategic directive is about the Aboriginal communities. That whole document -- just like the Royal Commission report -- makes references to Aboriginal needs in each category: economic development, training, capacity building, and so on.
What is unique about this, is that, when the blue ribbon panel report came down on the First National Forest Strategy, it made many references to the substantial progress that had been made with respect to Aboriginal communities. Most likely, there was progress with respect to the West Coast, because you see a lot of positive changes within B.C. with respect to Aboriginal issues. It is not the same out here.
There is very little change in the Province of New Brunswick's way of thinking when it comes to the participation of Aboriginal people. We have only now been seeing some progress, simply because of the latest court developments in this province with respect to the Thomas Peter Paul case. Everybody is being more reactive because of certain situations, rather than being a little proactive with some of this stuff. Let us do the planning now, before we have to end up reacting to everything.
That is what you see in this province now with respect to Aboriginal people. The government of New Brunswick, along with industry, has a problem that they need to take care of. That problem, as far as they see it, is Aboriginal people. They dream up these interim access agreements in order to bring in control the way they want to see it.
The National Forest Strategy is important, because Aboriginal peoples have an important and an integral role in forest policy, development planning, and management. Forest management in Canada, therefore, must recognize and make provisions for the rights, values and traditions of Aboriginal peoples, and for the forests' importance to their livelihood, community, and cultural identity.
To address their needs and aspirations, Aboriginal communities require increased access to forestry resources, and an increased capacity to benefit from forests in their traditional and recognized areas. They also need to participate in the management of those resources.
Honourable, fair and timely resolution of land claims, modern treaties and Aboriginal self-government is necessary in order to create a lasting environment for sustainable resource management. Within that document, there was a framework of action. The Minister of Natural Resources signed this document in the Province of New Brunswick on May 1. A six-month time frame was given from May 1 to develop that framework of action. Nothing has happened, because the province is reacting to the current natural resource issue with respect to utilization of the resource.
That framework of action identified six areas. I am not going read them off here. They are made up of several items that may allow this to be achieved. I brought the information related to this with me, and I will leave it with the clerk.
The first thing that needs to be done is to achieve an increased level of Aboriginal involvement in forest management decision-making. This reverts to what I said earlier about the word "consultation". I remember sitting in a local industry's office about six years ago, and talking about the latest round of forest management licensing plans.
I raised several issues as they relate to my own community. It is hard for me to talk about other First Nation communities, because I am not there. I am on the Miramichi River, and I am concerned about what is happening to the Miramichi River. At the same time, however, I am concerned about what is happening -- or not happening -- in other Aboriginal communities. When decisions are being made which affect us, and yet we have no say in them, it is very destructive to our First Nations people.
People wonder why sometimes there are so many things happening with respect to Aboriginal people, and just what contributes to it. In the case of Eel Ground, just last year, if we as a First Nation community had not spoken up, we would have been known as "Dump Triangle". Local forestry industries have been proposing major industrial landfill sites right around our community. We already have one major landfill site located just below us, but one was being proposed in an area known as Morrissy settlement.
The sad thing about that is that I sat on the environment committee of the company that was proposing it, and I was the last person to know about this development. I asked why. Is it because I am Aboriginal? Is it because my dad was an Indian chief a long time ago, or is it because I am from Eel Ground? It is surprising to me that an industry could propose such a development when Eel Ground just spent $3.5 million on a new water supply for our communities. The dump that they were proposing was roughly 1.5 kilometres above that, right in the headwaters of McKay Brook, which feeds our water supply. The company was totally unaware of that. Thank God that dump has not been built.
We recently came out of this province's court system. We had been seeking an injunction against one particular company, which was proposing a second landfill site. We always knew that the treaty process in this country, or Aboriginal issues in this country, are usually only addressed by the court systems. No one wants to listen to Aboriginal peoples unless the court directs them to listen to us.
We are talking about another very large industrial landfill site that will be operating for the next 50 years. We have been valuing areas like fishing territories, hunting territories, medicinal land territories, cultural and spiritual gathering areas.
Northwest Mill Stream is presently going to be the host of a very large landfill site. We are challenging it, simply because of our beliefs. Many of the concerns of the Aboriginal community are not based on solely monetary gains, or what is needed to better the economy. We place a great value on the resources, and on the protection of Mother Earth.
It is disheartening when a presiding judge would say to us that we have a very legitimate case that should go to trial, but that, because of the balance of convenience and the economic investment that industry put into this development, it cannot be shut down. Everyone knows that Indian communities are very poor communities. We do not have the economic base to challenge many of these things. When it comes to the National Forest Strategy, that is the type of decision-making that we are not involved in.
The second framework of action is to recognize and make provisions for Aboriginal treaty rights in sustainable forest management. That refers back to what I mentioned earlier about the Indian Act. We do not have a mechanism within our own government -- or within our own governing documents, the Indian Act -- to actually practise sustainable resource management in our communities.
Eel Ground, along with many First Nations, is a firm believer that if you cannot practise what you preach in your own backyard, you are not ready to venture out. In Eel Ground's case, we spent the last ten years learning the system, learning just what industrial forest management is all about, and learning what sustainable forest management is all about. The purpose of this education was so that we could sit down in forums like this one, or sit down with industry and government and speak their language. They never learn our language, because they are not willing to come to our communities to learn our language.
I remember one time when the big tax issues were hitting this province. The former premier of this province said that, in order to be a person with a culture, you must have your own language. If I were to say "Welali" to him, he would not know what it means, but I will always say thank you to the man if he listens to me. That is what "welali" means: "Thank you". It is surprising that he says we do not have a culture.
Another consideration is to increase access to forest resources for Aboriginal communities, in order to pursue both traditional and economic development activities. On international forest strategy, a group of us sat down and developed these principles. Roughly 50 of us across the country sat down and developed this so it would be part of the National Forest Strategy. We realize that it also puts the onus on First Nations to come forward and start partnering off, or to sit down and welcome the fact of consultation. It also requires us to make sure that industry and government are there as willing partners -- that they are not just there to listen to us and say that they had full consultations.
Many traditional activities were lost in our community, simply because of the fact we were not allowed to practise them. We were not allowed to use them. You just have to look at the Province of New Brunswick to see how this economic giant called Canada benefited from the native communities. None of our history is actually taught in our school system with respect to Aboriginal communities. You just have to watch some of the commercials that are on TV.
Sometimes I use the maple syrup industry as an example. It is a multi-million dollar business. It was given to the Europeans, the French and the English by the native people, but we are not allowed to participate in the industry. It was a gift from the Aboriginal community.
Consider, too, the canoe business. No canoes came across from Europe when the Europeans first came, but the recreational side of it is now a multi-million dollar business now. The canoe traditionally belongs to the Aboriginals, yet we cannot participate in this.
If I won $30 million tomorrow, and if I wanted to start businesses in my native community, I would not be allowed to do so until I received ministerial approval from the federal government. I find this system archaic. If people within the leadership or within government are there to help First Nations people, then why should the First Nations be held back as long as they follow the rules and regulations like everybody else? That parental attitude of government must change.
This leads me to my next section: to support Aboriginal and business development in the forestry sector. Last year, through the media, one could see what was happening to the Crown lands of New Brunswick. Many people were saying, "look at the stumps that are left; look at the destruction that is happening out there". It was attributed to the Aboriginal ways -- it was "look at what the Aboriginal people are doing".
If you looked a lot closer, however, you would find that to be a product of the federal government's past assimilation attempts. A lot of this stuff happened simply because of what the government proposed to do with respect to trying to bring Aboriginal people into the mainstream of society.
If we are going to protect the Acadian forest region in this province, and the boreal forest as a whole, I think everybody has to come around the table and listen to all of the concerns. Many issues are coming down the pipes, if you want to call it that.
Later this week, the Marshall case will go to the Supreme Court of Canada. What does that mean? Nobody really knows until it happens. The vast majority of cases that come down from the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirm Aboriginal involvement in the natural resources. Until this government -- or industry -- recognize the fact that we are just as much a part of New Brunswick society as everybody else is, we will not move ahead at all, because we will always be on the outside.
There are areas in the National Forest Strategy where I put a lot of the onus back on the Aboriginal communities. One of those areas is the increased capacity of Aboriginal communities -- their organizations and individuals -- to participate in and carry out sustainable management.
I remember when I first took on forestry in Eel Ground with respect to trying to bring a depleted resource back to a sustainable base. We are not there yet, but we are moving towards it. There was only one possible option that I saw, and that was to take my cutters <#0107> who had been out there for 20 years -- and train them in what they would call "the white man's way". I had to train them as professional chainsaw operators. It took a little bit of time to try to convince them that this is a better way -- that you will not cut your leg off. This training showed the cutters different approaches.
I believe the Aboriginal communities are open to that type of development, as long as they are brought into a system as an equal partner. They do not want to be told, "Well, you guys do not know what you are doing out there; we are going to show you how to do it." I think that attitude has to change.
One of the big issues I mentioned earlier is that, internationally, the government of Canada is telling the rest of the world that we are protecting our natural resources, and that we are achieving sustainable resource management in this country.
This is the last item in the National Forest Strategy that should be addressed -- the issue of achieving sustainable forest management on Indian reserve lands. Imagine putting the land base of all 631 First Nations of this country together. There is one reserve in Nevada that has a bigger land base than all of the First Nation territories in Canada combined.
There is no possible way that First Nation communities can effectively participate unless we have access to a land base. Ninety per cent of First Nation communities are located in the boreal forest. They are right there, right in the heart of the forest. But we are not allowed to participate.
The First Nation Forestry Program addresses this issue of achieving sustainable forest management. The First Nation Forestry Program is an initiative of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The purpose of the program is to improve the economic conditions in status Indian communities, but to do so with full consideration of the principles of sustainable forest management.
It is kind of hypocritical in one way, because on one hand DIAND is saying that we need to employ sustainable forest management on First Nation territories, but on the other hand the Indian Act totally works against us doing that. DIAND says, "Go out there and manage your resources so that they can be sustained", but we cannot do that because of the Indian Act. At the same time, however, they are pumping millions of dollars into this.
That program has four objectives. The first is to enhance the capacity of First Nations to operate and participate in forestry-based businesses, and to increase the number of long-term forestry jobs for First Nation members. You come to the Miramichi, and you can see the stacks in almost every area. There are many forestry industries located around the Miramichi River here. I can count the number of Aboriginal people employed there on one hand, yet there are 3,500 industry-related jobs in the forestry sector here. I can see Repap's stacks from my front door. There is not one First Nation person working there. Why is that? Repap is probably the largest financial contributor to the economic base of the Miramichi.
The Miramichi Leader did an exercise around four years ago. It listed the top ten economic contributors to the Miramichi economy, and First Nations was fifth. We are important, then -- we are important to this society as a whole. We contribute substantially to the economic wealth of this area.
The First Nation Forestry Program is a new program that derived from the old cooperation agreements, which ended back in 1994. The First Nation Forestry Program was designed to encourage as many First Nations as possible to practise forest management with respect to business development, on-the-job training, technology transfer, communication, management plans and so on.
This program is actually in a third year review right now. It has a sunset clause that takes effect in the year 2001. It is operating on two scales, which is surprising because, on one hand, they want more and more First Nations to participate in forest management. On the other side, however, the financial requirements to bring more First Nations on side are decreasing. It is a model set up to fail.
Many of the success stories that were part of the cooperation agreement gave rise to this new forestry program. At that time, DIAND had a review committee going around to all the First Nation communities and talking about forest management. They were saying, "Yes, this is a good program; we should try to get more First Nations on side."
We have some major success stories out there. It is no different from what was said earlier about the private woodlot owners. You go out there and you see some really good operations but, for every good operation, you are going to see some really bad operations.
First Nation communities are no different. In many cases, First Nation communities are in the same position as a lot of the private woodlots. We have common problems out there, and we are trying to solve them. On one hand, there is a program that is advocating more First Nations involvement, and on the other hand, there is less funding to try to get them on side. The First Nations are expected to partner off with industry, but there is always this wall of animosity between all the groups. Without knowing the reality of why people are the way they are, the program is destined to fail.
The program is made to bring First Nations up to certification level. It is made to try to at least establish some First Nations under these criteria indicators, and to include them in certification by the Canadian Standards Association or the Forest Stewardship Council. However, the financial requirements make this an onerous undertaking for First Nations communities. First Nations want to participate in the certification process too, but we see it as another avenue or another niche for an organization to become a business within certification.
Eel Ground has been approached by many certification groups, including Smartwood. We are not near sustainable resource management yet, but we have changed our practices to the point where it can be achieved. We took a depleted resource, and we started implementing policies that will bring it back to a sustainable level. We will never achieve what it used to be, but we will get close to it. We are approached by certification groups that say Eel Ground should go after certification -- that we should be the first ones -- but we do not have the US$15,000 to do that.
The Chairman: Mr. Ginnish, you have been speaking for about 45 minutes. Your presentation is good, but you have to remember that we can only retain so much.
Mr. Ginnish: I am almost finished, senator.
The Chairman: I wanted to sort of flag you to finish before we wear out on you.
Mr. Ginnish: As I said earlier, it is very difficult for me to come to a subcommittee like this because of the plethora of issues.
The Chairman: I understand that. Just for your own information, we have met with Aboriginal groups in every province -- sometimes for an hour, sometimes for a couple of hours. As a matter of fact, we are going to be meeting the National Aboriginal Forestry Association on November 23. You might even be along there in Ottawa. We are looking at it very closely.
Please continue, but do see if you can move towards a conclusion.
Mr. Ginnish: There are three other main issues. I will not say too much about them, but I will list the ones that are part of the First Nation Forestry Program. One is to increase First Nations' cooperation and partnership. In order for First Nations to participate, they must be willing to form partnerships.
At the same time, we want to see equal cooperation. We do not want to be an add-on simply because of the necessity of having something, especially when it comes to certification. We all know what certification is. There are certain Aboriginal components there that industry must meet, but some companies are being certified based on what they achieved in certain areas. In many cases they are not doing anything in the Aboriginal area. We find it hard to understand how they could become certified in that process.
The third issue is to investigate the feasibility of trust funds, capital pools, or other similar mechanisms of financing First Nation forestry development programs. This is simply because of the shortfall that the First Nation Forestry Program itself has. If we want to create some longevity here with respect to the First Nation Forestry Program, we must look at other funding mechanisms, be it trust funds or whatever.
Similarly, there is also a need to enhance the capacity of First Nations to sustainably manage First Nation reserve forests. That gets back to the backyard concept. We made it clear to several First Nations that you have to learn the game. If you want to practise sustainable forestry management on Crown land, first you have to show that you can do it in your own back yard. You have to show that you can sustainably manage what you already have. In Eel Ground, we like to think that we achieve that. We are not 100 per cent there, but we are definitely getting there.
In conclusion, for many First Nation communities, land and natural resources offer the most important opportunity to create jobs in economic development. As part of its response to the recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the federal government made the following commitment in Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan. It states:
The government will work with First Nations, provinces and territories to strengthen the co-management process, and to provide increased access to land and resources.
It also states:
The government will also work to accelerate First Nations participation in resource-based development in and around Aboriginal communities, and to improve the benefits that communities receive from these developments. The government also reaffirms its commitment to the claims process, which provides the First Nations people with increased access to land and resources.
I wrote an article for Treehouse not too long ago. Regardless of the level of government, be it federal or provincial, we feel that both should assume fiduciary responsibility, thereby ensuring that the best interests of First Nations people are addressed. I think that is something that we cannot let go of. Governments are trying to get away from fiduciary responsibility with respect to any program of management on First Nation territories. Anybody would be prepared to do that if they had the resources to do it, but who is going to assume liability for past actions? That is a tough question, and First Nations must deal with it.
The Chairman: It has taken us a couple of hundred years to get into this problem, so we are not going to solve it in one night.
Mr. Ginnish: It took 500 years to get there.
The Chairman: Yes, but we have to make a start.
Senator Stratton: As the chair said, we have met with, and are meeting with, native groups across the country. You say that nobody from your community works at Repap. Why? How are you addressing that issue?
Mr. Ginnish: I have sat down several times with industry and asked that question. In the past, that was not a problem. A lot of people do not realize Repap sits on territory that traditionally belongs to Eel Ground. Part of the arrangement for releasing that land was that 4 per cent of the work force would be Aboriginal. This requirement was initially met but, for some reason, it was lost. We do not know why. We have several trained people. We have forestry technicians in Eel Ground, and we have licensed mechanics. We have those individuals, and they do apply for jobs.
It is hard for First Nation communities to go and apply for jobs with respect to industry. I do not know if this subcommittee is going to meet with the task force that has been put together by the Province of New Brunswick with respect to the current land use issue. I gave them a photograph that I took at Repap a couple of years ago. Right on the bulletin board, it says, "Indians need not apply." It is still there. It is not done by industry itself. It is done by the employees, but it is still there.
Things like that make it very, very uncomfortable for First Nations people to go into an atmosphere like that. Some First Nation people have tried to work there, but because of the attitude or the reception that they get within the mill, they do not last very long. As aboriginal people, a prejudiced attitude is directed at them. One person out there had a rough time in life and, unfortunately, he is drinking or doing something, but because of him the whole community is labelled. It is just not fair, but that is what is happening. That is the present reality of the Miramichi.
Senator Stratton: That seems to be everywhere.
Mr. Ginnish: It is everywhere, regardless of who you are.
Senator Stratton: My fundamental question is what are you doing to change that image? Are you tackling that problem through education? Is the Eel Ground First Nation becoming educated?
Mr. Ginnish: Oh, definitely.
Senator Stratton: They are now definitely getting much more education.
Mr. Ginnish: Yes. I will mention one project we try to do in the natural resources area. Last year, Natural Resources Canada launched Phase II of the Canadian Model Forest Program. Its purpose was to establish the first ever Aboriginal-led model forest. It was actually awarded to the Cree First Nation in Waswanipi, up in northern Quebec.
Ironically, the Miramichi proposal that was developed here would have addressed many of those concerns with respect to employment opportunities, capacity building for First Nations, and so on. The proposal that went forward from the Miramichi had everybody on side.
The only problem with the proposal that went ahead here is that the Province of New Brunswick never came onside. Here is a government that wants to promote sustainable resource management. This would have brought in $2 million annually to the economic region of the Miramichi, but the only glitch in the system was that the province did not come onside.
The Minister of Natural Resources was part of this committee, as was Dr. Louis LaPierre. They indicated to me that the Miramichi proposal was ranked number one until they read the province's letter. It was not strong enough. We have been attempting initiatives to address those problems with respect to lack of involvement. This includes not only the employment level, but also the decision-making level, with respect to local industry and government.
Right now, you will probably hear that there is some positive development going on with respect to access to resources, but it is based on a reaction to current situations. I am talking about the Crown land issue.
The Chairman: The First Nations or the Aboriginal people apparently have won the right to get so many logs -- to get a certain percentage of the licensees' logs, and to be able to cut trees. It seems to me you are in a pretty good position to twist the tail of these big companies, and to tell them that they will have to give you a hell of a lot more logs to cut, or they will have to give you more jobs. It seems to me you are in a pretty good negotiating position. I am not trying to suggest how to beat the companies to death, but it seems to me that you have a bit of a club there.
Mr. Ginnish: I agree in one sense. In another sense, I do not think the problem is with the Aboriginal people and industry. In some cases, I think it is the government and industry.
The Chairman: We have to change that.
Mr. Ginnish: I will give you an example. We started a value-added operation in Eel Ground a couple of years ago. It only employs six people, but it is what the government of New Brunswick was saying with respect to value-added. That is, it is the way to go; it is the future. Do not take all your timber, sell it to Europe or the States, and then have to buy the furniture back. We should be building this stuff ourselves.
I remember approaching industry and government three years ago, before the Turnbull decision came down, trying to gain access to 330 cords of wood to keep this little business going for our First Nation community. First of all, the province said I had to go talk to the licensee holder -- that they allocate the wood supply.
I turned around and went to Repap, because they were the licence holders at the time. I asked if it was possible to get 330 cords of wood fibre to keep this micro business going in the First Nation community. They replied, "Oh, we cannot make that decision. You must go back to the Department of Natural Resources. They allocate wood fibre." There was a lot of this "passing the buck" attitude. No one was willing to make a decision.
As you say, now we have access to 5 per cent of the AAC. Once again, it was not because of being proactive. It was because of a situation the government had to deal with right now. If many of these issues had been dealt with in the past, we would not be grappling with the situation that we find ourselves in today.
Senator Stratton: Your traditional values include trapping, fishing and hunting. How many traplines does your group operate?
Mr. Ginnish: The sad thing is that we are unlike the West Coast, where the traditional ways are still really strong. Here, those traditional ways have been lost, simply because of what I call "first contact". First contact with respect to the West Coast was 150 years ago, whereas first contact on the East Coast was more than 500 years ago.
Senator Stratton: There are traplines next door in Quebec.
Mr. Ginnish: How far north do you have to go to see those big traplines? They are not in the big, urban areas. There are some in those areas, but they are very small ones. This is where I get back to the environmental groups, with respect to the fact that I fully believe protection of species is vital to the survival of the whole ecosystem. In many cases, however, they do not understand the results of their actions with respect to the traplines.
Senator Stratton: I understand all that. So you are not trapping.
Mr. Ginnish: There is some trapping, but not much.
Senator Stratton: Is there any fishing?
Mr. Ginnish: No.
Senator Stratton: Is there any hunting?
Mr. Ginnish: There is quite a bit of hunting.
The Chairman: The First Nations people have different fishing rights. You have a right to net, do you not, in the river, and the non-Aboriginals have to fly-fish on the tributaries, or am I wrong?
Mr. Ginnish: The right to fish with a net is still there as a result of the Sparrow decision. The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, or AFS, was developed, and it creates mechanisms for First Nations to participate in the management of the fishery resources. Gillnetting, if you want to call it that, is pretty well gone from all river systems of this province, but there is always a misconception about that.
Senator Stratton: When this subcommittee talks to folks, we tend to look further into the future. We look 20, 40, 60 and 80 years out, and we like to think that we can afford to do that. The rest of the world -- meaning the House of Commons -- worries more about the immediate present.
You now have satellite TV and television in every home. When you look into the 20, 40, or 80 years into the future, do you see a future for your traditional ways? Alternatively, do you see your children and your grandchildren eventually evolving into urbanites? That is what is happening to our world. I am from the west, and every year the population of the rural areas -- including the reserves -- decreases, because people are moving to the larger areas. They are moving to the cities.
Mr. Ginnish: I expect the change of modern times is going to happen no matter what we do. However, I firmly believe that Aboriginal communities will not let go of their traditional ways. The reason I say that is because my children know how to speak the language. Any spare time I have, I take my children out on of the river system to show them the ways that were handed down to me from my father, which were handed down to him by my grandfather. I do not think they will be lost.
Senator Stratton: They will not be totally lost, but it will not be so much a way of life anymore.
Mr. Ginnish: I do not agree, simply because the First Nation territories are experiencing a revitalization, and it is because of the traditional ways. Fifty years ago, we were not allowed to go and collect traditional medicines on Crown land. Now that is allowed. We can go out and get traditional herbs.
In 1980, we were not allowed to fish in the river system. Many people do not realize that, because they see native people out in the river system now, and they assume that is the way it always was. When my father was alive, he had a commercial fishing licence. He was not allowed to sell the fish, but it was a commercial fish licence. He was allowed to eat all he wanted, but he could not make a living from it.
Many of the traditional ways are coming back. You will see a lot of the First Nation communities on the East Coast practising ceremonies with respect to sweat lodges, and trying to re-establish a lot of the old portage routes that stretched from reserve to reserve when First Nations used to trade with each other.
You are starting to hear a lot of talk about the revitalization of some of the traplines. It is not occurring, simply because of the monopoly of jurisdiction on the land base now. It is pretty hard to have a trapline going through the middle of a clear-cut, because there is no communication between government and industry as to where those traplines are located. In Quebec, they at least sit down with the First Nation communities, and they identify those areas that are used by the First Nation communities.
Senator Stratton: I have one more question. Try to keep your answers a tad shorter, if you could.
The Chairman: Perhaps you should ask a short question.
Mr. Ginnish: These questions are not that easy to answer, because they deal with such complicated issues.
Senator Stratton: I understand that, and it is important for us to understand these issues. In trying to re-establish your traditional ways, have you wondered if to do so is not, ultimately, a detriment to your children and grandchildren, because it would affect their futures? Do you see them becoming doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, and still being able to maintain their traditional ways? Do you see that occurring?
Mr. Ginnish: No, I do not.
Senator Stratton: You do not see that occurring. You are saying you will always be a part of the land.
Mr. Ginnish: I think the word is "adapting". First Nation communities are adapting to the modern era.
Senator Stratton: Why is it that, in the west, they are moving from the reserves into the city, and giving up their traditional ways?
Mr. Ginnish: A lot of this is because of the Indian Act. People should sit down and read the Indian Act.
Senator Stratton: There is no future. In essence, what I am getting at is that we put you in such remote areas, and there is no future for kids. You go on to these reserves away up north, and the children get educated, but when they go back, there are no jobs. That is what bothers me about the whole system. I find it disturbing, in fact, tragic. You are advocating the perpetuation of that system, however. I find that appalling for the youth, and for your children and grandchildren.
Mr. Ginnish: I am not advocating it. That is where there is a misunderstanding about advocating. First Nations people need access to their traditional territory if they are going to participate. I am a forester. I went to university to get my education. I am a tribal individual who practises my traditional ways, and I live on an Indian reserve. I cannot see how you can say it is not beneficial in some cases. I know what you are saying with respect to circumstances and certain scenarios. Yes, it can happen. Why go back to certain areas if the opportunities are not there? If the First Nations communities were allowed to participate in that big diamond mine that is being developed in the Northwest Territories now, however, the First Nation communities would not suffer up in those areas.
Senator Robichaud: Welali for being here tonight. We appreciate it. You said that no one in your community works for Repap. Do any members of your community work for other contractors in forest operations? Do contractors in your community do some work and employ some of your people?
Mr. Ginnish: There are cases within this whole province where First Nations people are participating in what I would call an indirect way. There are land-based resources on communities that industry want. There are timber resources on some First Nations communities. Cutting that timber and supplying it to a local mill indirectly creates a job for that individual. There may be ten individuals directly employed within the industry at the production level, as opposed to just cutting the raw material. Up until the past six months, however, there was very little employment. The only reason we see an increase now is because of the Crown land issue.
In Eel Ground alone, over the past ten years the community of Eel Ground trained 65 individuals with respect to proper silviculture and forest management techniques. I went out to a private Northumberland Country woodlot a couple of years ago, and offered the service. I have trained crews that understand basal area, that understand the ratio of cords to acres, and that understand cubic metres.
We obtained a contract up in the Boiestown area to perform silviculture thinning in one area. We spent some time doing post assessments to the area to find out what was there, and what needed to be done to the area. We spent a lot of time riveting it off, and all of that. The next thing you know, the individual in question did not want us there, because he found out we were Aboriginal.
When you first look at me, you do not think I am Aboriginal. When I go and talk to companies with respect to trying to win some contracts over, I am treated just like everybody else. As soon as I show up with my crew, however, and some are really Aboriginal people, it is a different scenario. My dad was an Indian chief. My mom was a Mahoney from Douglastown. People's first impression is that I am not an Aboriginal, but as soon as I bring my crew in, it is a totally different scenario.
That attitude has to change. It is up to the individuals and companies to change that attitude -- to force change. A lot of it must be through public awareness and education. A lot of that must happen. I open the doors to Eel Ground to anybody out there to see what we are doing with respect to forest management. I invite industry up, I invite government up, and I invite woodlot people up.
Anybody is welcome to see what we are doing in that community, because we can pass that little bit of knowledge, which originally was knowledge handed down to us from the community college or the local ranger school, back to them. The attitude that Aboriginal people do not know how to manage the land is still prevalent, and that must change. Until it does change, we will not be able to participate in the way that we would like to participate.
Senator Robichaud: Repap told us that they have an Aboriginal contractor doing some thinning out there.
Mr. Ginnish: I would like to know who it is.
Senator Robichaud: We will check into that.
Mr. Ginnish: The offer was always there, but it was not Repap. It must be Fraser's up in Perth-Andover. That just happened this year. I am not aware of any Repap ones.
Senator Robichaud: Do you see any change of attitude?
Mr. Ginnish: It is happening. Five years ago, we could not even get in industry's door. It is happening, though, and it is changing. I put the onus back on the First Nations in some cases, because if you want to participate in the game, you have to learn the game. I understand that aspect of it.
I do think industry and government have to become more sensitized to the Aboriginal issues, however. They should understand just what Aboriginal people bring into the picture when it comes to industrial development. We are not necessarily 100 per cent profit-motivated. We do not have to satisfy a bunch of shareholders. To me, my shareholders are my community, and what I do affects them. That is how I look at profit with respect to industry. You do need the monetary aspect of today's society in order to move ahead, however.
Senator Robichaud: You also have to educate us on this Aboriginal way of looking at things. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding there as to how you see things, and how we see and interpret things.
Mr. Ginnish: I would be interested, senator, to find that out. I know Repap always opened the door with respect to silviculture contracting, but it was based on long time frames: See you in five years. Four years ago, that was the expression that they sent to Eel Ground First Nation.
As I said, I have a number of specialists trained in forest management, but Repap was not willing to give us any type of contract until five years after we proved ourselves. Many of their own employees in the field of trail cut operations or thinning operations are just going through the certification process now, however, and becoming professional chainsaw operators or professional thinners. We have them. Why are we treated differently in that aspect? It makes us ask a lot of questions with respect to their sincerity in wanting us to be involved.
The Chairman: We are holding hearings right across Canada. The issues of Aboriginal input to forest management, where the Aboriginal fits in because of the increased desire to preserve wildlife and restore natural conditions in many areas, come up time and time again. I can almost assure you that in our Senate report there will be many strong recommendations on Aboriginal input into this whole forestry set-up.
It is quite evident -- not only here, but right across Canada -- that Aboriginal people have been sidelined to either a major or minor degree. The only province that is even approaching trying to take them into partnership is Saskatchewan. They are doing a certain amount of work, and they are doing some very good work there. The rest of the provinces are going to need a real cold shower, or a wake-up call. We might be able to do that. Thank you for coming.
Our next witnesses are representatives of the Northumberland Forest Products Marketing Board, Albert Richardson and Jean-Guy Comeau. Peter Demarsh appears from the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners. Andrew Clark is from the New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners.
Mr. Demarsh, would you lead off for the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners? Thank you for waiting this long.
Mr. Peter Demarsh, President, Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to belabour the issue of order but I think it is most appropriate if the people in the local area get our message grounded in some of what you saw this afternoon. I should like to ask Mr. Richardson if he would lead off with the welcome from the local woodlot owner association.
The Chairman: Mr. Richardson, the floor is yours.
Mr. Richardson, Northumberland Forest Products Marketing Board: Welcome, mesdames et messieurs. Good evening and welcome to the Miramichi from the Northumberland County Forest Products Marketing Board. I am sort of at a loss myself because I was very pressed for time and I have been in negotiations, so I did not really get to know what this Senate subcommittee is all about. Somebody told me that it has something to do with the boreal forest. Are you in a position to believe that there is some danger to the boreal forest?
The Chairman: That is partly it. The committee was put together because it has become increasingly evident that there is an increased demand on our forests from those who want to take timber or fibre. There are also those who want to preserve it for ecological reasons, cleaning the air, filtering the water for the streams. As well, there is the question of Aboriginal input. Where do they fit in? After all, we made treaty rights. We signed many of them that include ancient hunting and trapping rights. There is also tourism. All of these are people who now want to use the forest. The question then comes up as to how we are going to put all these uses together when it appears that the boreal forest is barely able to keep up with supplying the timber. We have chosen to focus on the boreal forest because that is the biggest forest across Canada, running from Newfoundland over to the very corner of B.C. and up into the Yukon. You are right at the border between boreal here to the north and Acadian to the south.
Mr. Richardson: I was born in the Miramichi and raised on a private woodlot in a rural community. I was one of 16 children. My first experience in the woodlots in the forests was helping my father stump land to grow a garden, pick the rocks off that land, plant the garden and weed it. As I grew older, I helped cut the wood with a bucksaw and an axe, doing some sap peeling or spud peeling, as you people know what it means, in the summer and drying out peeling in the winter. Our forestry tools in those days consisted of a bucksaw, axe and horses.
We were compelled to sell our wood to brokers or buyers. Once, we had worked quite hard and had piled 14 cords of wood at the road. The buyer came along on Friday to buy and he scaled my wood and said to my father, "Well, Edmund, you had a pretty good week this week. You have 12 cords of wood." I asked my father at the time, "Dad, I thought you scaled it for 14," and he hit me. I was too young to realize that if he did not sell the wood, we had no groceries to eat. That was an experience that lived with me all my life. This is what the woodlot owners were faced with until 1972.
We have 144,000 hectares of land in Northumberland County belonging to private woodlots. There are approximately 3,600 private woodlot owners, of which 401 are absentee owners. They live outside of the county, province or the country. The majority of owners live on or near their woodlots. I have the eleventh membership card in the Woodlot Owners Association, which was first formed prior to 1972. Although I was not involved directly at that particular time, I wanted to help.
The board was formed in 1972 by plebiscite of the owners. The annual allowable cut for our board area is calculated at 204,000 metres cubed: 96,442 cords mixed softwood and 77,000 metres cubed or 41,831 cords of hardwood. There has been an average yearly contribution over the last 10 years to the local rural economy of $10 million from wood sales. About 1,000 woodlot owners each year harvest some amount from their lots. Primarily, the vast majority of them are small producers, cutting 40, 50, 60 cords of wood a year. Then you have your contractors.
The board is also actively involved in the delivery of silviculture programs. We are the legal entity responsible for the silviculture programs. This past year, we did approximately $1 million worth of silviculture. This involves both the federal and provincial governments and industry. Woodlot owners have had to set up their own fund where so much money, $1.40 cents off every cord of wood, has to go into a management fund for sustainable forestry. Employment is generated from the harvest of 140,000 to 150,000 cords of wood per year.
Prior to 1982, the vast majority of the wood contractors did their contracting on Crown lands. In 1982, the Crown Land and Forest Act was introduced, dividing the Crown land between seven major mills. This act also guaranteed that private wood would be the primary source of supply. Companies were required to have an agreement in place or arbitration requested with the boards before gaining access to Crown land. It levelled out the playing field in negotiations between the private woodlots and the Crown lands so that the Crown lands could not be used against the private woodlot owners.
Marketing boards had the ability to negotiate price, volume, delivery, schedule, and all of the contract items with mills. The system allowed for conciliation and binding arbitration, if necessary, which meant that if you went into negotiation with Repap Mill, or any mill, and you could not come up with a contract, you had to apply to the New Brunswick Forest Products Commission to appoint an arbitrator. Once that arbitrator was appointed, the companies could then go on to Crown lands because both parties knew there would eventually be a settlement, not necessarily knowing what that settlement would be. Each marketing board's annual allowable cut was allocated to various mills within the area.
The system worked fairly well, with arbitration being requested by one party or the other on very rare occasions. To my knowledge, I do not think that our board, since 1972, has ever requested arbitration. Maybe you can correct me on that, Jean-Guy. We always settled our contracts. However, what happened was that once total control over Crown lands was given over to private industry, mechanization came into effect. The vast majority of those contractors that existed on the Crown lands were forced off the Crown lands, and they attempted to make their living on private woodlots.
Private land wood prices during this period, while not quite keeping pace with inflation, rose steadily until 1992. Then in 1992, the industry was in a downturn, we were told, and pressure was put on the government. They reacted by changing the rules under which marketing boards operated. Marketing boards lost much of their bargaining powers. We lost a primary source of supply. While conciliation arbitration on some items remains in place, there is no process to ensure that companies are required to buy through the marketing board.
We go to the negotiating table today on a marketing board and we sit there and ask, "Well, what are you offering us today?" We leave, and that is the price. There is no negotiation. How can you negotiate when you have absolutely no power to negotiate? There is nothing to compel the companies to negotiate with us. They opened up the process of bypassing the marketing boards, which creates absolute havoc now on private woodlots. Contractors walk in; they can clear-cut 100 acres of land in 10 or 11 days with the mechanization they have, and we do not even have a record of it.
As a result of that change in legislation, in 1992, prices dropped drastically across the province. In our case, in 1998, we still have not regained the pulp wood prices we had in 1991 and 1992. That is how much we lost. A return to some form of bargaining rights is desperately needed.
What has happened in that period of time, as far as I am concerned as a woodlot owner, is that industry and government are hand-in-hand, and the bottom line is the dollar bill, without regard to the forest, the woodlots, or the communities and villages that it affects. The bottom line is the dollar bill. We have had a government that stood up here, and you are probably aware of what they were going to do with the private woodlots, which was to overcut them.
Over the years, from the colonization days that existed in the province of New Brunswick, people lost their 100 acres, which reverted to the government. This whole pile of private woodlots belonged to the government. However, they were not considered part of the Crown land because they had been lots designated for colonization. The government decided that they were going to sell them to the highest bidder.
We understood that the government had to sell them. It needed the money. We advised the government to attach a management plan to them. The government said no. Then the strangest thing happened. It was government land, but the very moment it was sold to the private contractor, it became a private woodlot. All those woodlots, if I am not mistaken, approximately 14,000 acres in Northumberland County, were sold that way and clear-cut all in a period of about three years. Who got the blame for overcutting the private woodlots? We, the private woodlot owners, did. You have read the papers about what the governments were going to do and what had to be done, and you have heard the position put forward by private industry that private woodlot owners were overcutting their woodlots.
I sat down with government -- the premier, deputy ministers, and ministers -- and I asked them the same question time and time again. If they had a board that was responsible for selling their total allowable annual cut, would it not be beneficial to them as a company to come to us and negotiate with us because we could deliver to them the total allowable cut if the prices are right? Why would they need buyers and brokers to buy wood from private woodlots? I say to each and every one of you that the only reason that exists is that, once the allowable cut is achieved through the marketing board, they can use the buyers and sellers to go and cut up and above the allowable cut. That is destroying our private woodlots. With the economy being what it is today, you realize the stresses and strains that are on the people who own private woodlots. They need money to pay taxes. They need money to put their kids through school.
Senior citizens have guarded and kept their private woodlots as a pension fund because they could not work in jobs that come with pensions, like senators, like pulp mill workers. They worked at carpentry or construction and had a private woodlot, which they allowed to grow. That is the pension fund. Now they are at the age to receive their pension and they cannot cut their woodlot because the federal government is going to take practically everything away from them. There must be some system in place to assure woodlot owners who do this that they are not going to get crucified when they come of age to enjoy their pension.
Some way or some system must be set up. I would suggest a non-profit organization, a land-based organization or a public land fund system set up so that those woodlots can be bought directly from the senior citizen and managed in a sustainable way for the community without allowing contractors to walk in there. We need contractors, but God help us, their sole interest is to clear my woodlot from boundary to boundary to boundary to boundary. They could not care less about sustainable forestry or anything of that sort.
We are told that we have a real problem with sustainable forestry in New Brunswick and that the crunch is coming. I cannot understand why industry in the last 10 years built up their production capacity to such an extent that it exceeds the allowable cut. My information is that the total production of wood fibre capability in New Brunswick on linear lumber exceeds the total allowable cut of private woodlots and Crown lands combined, which means that you have to go outside of the province to bring wood in. I say to each and every one of you that when the crunch comes, they are not going to care about sustainable forests. They are going to go and get the wood, and our woodlots and our Crown lands are going to be devastated.
One of the first things that our board did was push for a code of practice on the woodlots. It was accepted and adopted by our board. I should have brought a copy of it for you. To my mind, it is one of the most comprehensive codes of practice for a woodlot owner who manages his woodlot. It takes in recreation. It takes in fish and wildlife, fowl, the whole aspect of it. We encourage our woodlot owners to adopt this code. In fact, we have set up a bonus system for woodlot owners who manage the sustainable forest along those practice lines to get extra money.
Senator Stratton: Could you send that to us?
Mr. Richardson: Yes, certainly, I will send that to you.
We now have the people in place where we set up management plans for our individual woodlot owners. Up until last year, it was not too difficult to talk a woodlot owner into adopting a management plan to manage his woodlot. It is becoming more difficult because the woodlot owner cannot see any benefit or profit derived from going into sustainable management forest practice at the moment. Some do, but some do not. There is the mythology out there that, although we believe we are living in a free enterprise system, a private woodlot owner is not allowed to make any profit from his product. For some reason, that view is held by everybody who deals with the industry. Our woodlot owners are not all like Mr. Comeau here who enjoys his woodlot tremendously. Many woodlot owners today who had jobs are losing their jobs. They have to live off that woodlot. They cannot afford at today's prices to manage that woodlot or to do select cutting.
If you want some recommendations, I will have some for you later on, but I will let the other three witnesses speak.
The Chairman: We might want to question you. We will listen to everybody first and come back.
Mr. Comeau was our great host today. We will remember the experience for years. Would you proceed?
Mr. Jean-Guy Comeau, Northumberland Forest Products Marketing Board: Yes. Thank you. I will probably disappoint you because I know you were anticipating a long speech or a long talk. I will be very brief. I will ask you a few questions and as we go through the questioning, we will deal with these questions.
When I see committees getting involved, it is usually because a storm is coming. When we see storms coming, I am not too sure if I should ask the captain who is going to enter into the storm to steer the ship or to stay still. In this light, I will just leave a few questions for you.
I think the committee exists because of the matter of sustainability. There is supposedly, right across this country, a problem of forest sustainability. Is the forest industry sustainable? That is a very important question.
Then another question comes into the picture. Is the community that relates to the industry sustainable? We have to look at these questions carefully in the context in which they apply. When we look at sustainability of industry, we have to pay attention to what has happened in the last three to five years. When I hear "sustainability of industry", I ask if we are talking about sustaining the mergers, which amount to billions of dollars. That is one thing of which we have to be careful because when we hear the term "sustainable industry", I am not too sure of its meaning. We have to relate it to sustainable community.
We are seeing that our communities are not becoming sustainable. We have had sustainable fibre for the last 50 years or 75 years and yet the jobs that relate to that fibre have not been sustainable. They are on a diminishing trend. Those are the important questions we are asking. I am not going to go into more detail.
As we see a crisis looming, we start to point fingers. When we point fingers, we ask where the problem is. I know that this question has come forward to your committee as it has travelled across Canada. We have a problem and yet it appears that all lands relating to forestry are well managed across Canada in this province. People in government and at an industry level will say that our Crown lands and the lands that we are in charge of are very well managed. You gentlemen have to pay attention, however. Regarding sustainable forestry and sustainability, I doubt that those people are speaking the full truth because we cannot operate in a system of 90 per cent clear-cutting across Canada and say that we are sustainable. These are fundamental questions that relate again to community.
That leaves the word "law". Does more law need to be applied? Does law work?
I should like you gentlemen to pay attention to another issue: the taxation of the private woodlot. I want you to see what can be done in this matter. Part of my family, including my young son, is here with me tonight. They are here in part because our family-owned land is going to be passed down to family members. When that happens, the way that the law exists now, chances are that those lands will have to be sold because of the taxation burden that my children will face. Those are fundamental laws to which you gentlemen should pay very close attention. Taxation relating to the private woodlot is part and parcel of the chain of other problems that we are getting into.
I am sure that my friends here in the New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners and in the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners are going to speak on that topic, but as a woodlot owner, I want to emphasize that this is a key issue.
The Chairman: The floor is yours, Mr. Clark.
Mr. Andrew Clark, President, New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I guess my task on behalf of the federation is to try to give you a little bit of the picture of who we are and what we do. I will start by saying that there are about 40,000 woodlot owners in New Brunswick. We have about 50,000 parcels of land. That makes up about 1.7 million hectares of productive forest land. That is about 30 per cent of the total of the province. The value of our products at the mill gate is about $100 million a year. I should like to point out that this $100 million ends up in every corner store and local garage and in the community. This money is really broadcast through the economy much more so than the income that is derived by large contracts and industry that tends to buy in bulk and in a different way. Therefore, it is important to the community, as Mr. Comeau mentioned.
The federation itself exists as a servant of the boards that are members and they, through their participation and their financial contribution, enable whatever activities the federation engages in, such as my attending this hearing tonight. To the best of my ability, I will try to give you a broad view or a consensus view of what woodlot owners think. One of our main duties is to defend, where necessary, and promote, where possible, the interests of woodlot owners, whether that is in the marketplace in getting a fair share of the price, or whether it is in the world view of us, which I guess is where we would enter into the certification business. We are starting to become interested in that because our future ability to sell our products and earn an income may depend upon what the rest of the world thinks of us. We have been paying attention to that process and we are interested in it.
Speakers have already addressed the policies of the provincial government here. A while ago, the government proposed a regulation that would be enforced by law officers. We thought that was a threat to our woodlots so we joined with just about every other organization in this province that has anything to do with forestry that also agreed with us in trying to talk the government out of what it wanted to do. I think that we were reasonably successful in that they did not bring that piece of legislation forward.
We feel it is necessary to propose an alternative when you talk someone out of something like that. The alternative, as far as we are concerned, is that marketing boards within the province should be given back some of the powers that Mr. Richardson mentioned that they had lost. Perhaps the powers should even be expanded to the point where we are the single entry point into the system. If you are an industry and you want to buy private woodlots, you should have to speak to the local marketing board first. That should be where you go to make your request to buy wood out of the woodlot system.
You have told us that you want to know where we feel the federal government enters into this. We are in the process of having the federal government expand the powers of the marketing board so that they could deal with the export as well as the domestic market. We want you to be aware that legislation will be moving through the Senate at some point. I suppose that it will be regulations for approval. We would very much like to have those moved forward when they come along.
If we had a volume management system or an orderly marketing system for private woodlots, it would give us three things. It would give us fair prices. It would allow for the orderly movement of products from the woodlots so that we would have contracts that we could depend upon. We would know in each month of the year how much product we can move. It would also allow for some advantage planning and some stability. It would give the woodlot owner the confidence that if he does management work today, there will be a future for it. That stability is important. If you want people to participate in protecting biodiversity, that stability is important. A person needs to think that this is a long-term project. If an area of my woodlot has been identified as significant, then yes, I should like to participate.
By and large, you will find woodlot owners to be very sympathetic towards the goal of ensuring that biodiversity is not destroyed. Many people still live in the countryside on their woodlots. Some live in town. Some are absentee owners who live in other places, but mostly they live right there. Having a single entry point would be important.
I should also like to point out that there has been, to my knowledge, no marketing board in this province that has ever signed a contract in excess of what has been considered its annual allowable harvesting level. The harvesting that has been done in excess of the annual growth levels has been done by a parallel system. That system was created by the policy change in the government whereby private contractors can get into the system without any sort of contact, approval, licensing or anything to do with the marketing board system. They operate entirely independently.
I go back to my participation in the groups that asked the government not to bring legislation forward. That brought about a process where we and industry and government met together. We came up with the one thing that we could all agree on, which was that it was important to expand silvicultural activity on private woodlots. To that end, funding almost quadrupled. We went from a little over $2 million to $8 million this year. Of that, $2 million is coming from the job transition fund. That is running out, so identifying funding in order to keep this program going is very important. While we cannot, under the present regime, do much about the harvesting, we certainly can do quite a lot to rehabilitate stands and to have them grow faster and move them along. That is very important.
It is also very important as an alternate source of income for the people who live in the countryside, for the woodlot owners themselves and other people who are there. It has been very beneficial, and we are quite happy with that.
What has not been done? The government in this province has not moved on to establish any type of framework that ensures that the wood that is being cut each year does not exceed what is considered to be the annual allowable harvest level for that area. We feel woodlot owners can settle any sharing up of the market that is necessary among ourselves with a minimum of fuss. We have been doing it for a number of years. Some of our boards have been operating for over 20 years. We have good relations and good contacts. We have good methods. Many of the sore points in how to operate the boards have been worked out over the years. We think we can do a pretty good job there for you.
As organizations, it enables us to participate in a meaningful way. I have had the honour to represent the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners at the recent Environment Canada hearings in Ottawa on developing the endangered species legislation that is to be brought forward. There are three issues in that piece of legislation that are very important to us. One would be dispute resolution. Many of the environmental groups should like ways to push the legislation to make sure it is enforced. We should like to ensure that small woodlot owners at least do not get run over in a process that would require a lot of lawyers. If someone has a complaint against me on my woodlot, I want to be able to show up and defend myself. No lawyers should be allowed on either side, because we just cannot afford this stuff, to be quite blunt. That is one issue.
Another issue is compensation. If it is that important to society that something on my woodlot needs to be set aside and preserved and it represents a loss of value or income to me, then I think that society should be prepared to properly compensate people. That should be a fundamental principle that underlies that legislation.
The third issue we have recommended strongly is that stewardship of the private woodlots would be the primary tool that you would use to promote the protection of species and habitats at risk. You can legislate and make whatever agreements you want on federal land, Crown land, and Crown provincial land, in cooperation with whoever has leases there or whatever, but when you get to private woodlots, ownership is constantly changing. We need a framework where stewardship is encouraged. The fact of the matter is that today, an awful lot of the policies are conflicting in that respect. We could expand upon it. One of the noteworthy policies here in the province is the Nursing Home Act. No one initiating the policy had any idea it would ever affect the private woodlot. When you threaten people with the loss of woodlot property and tell them that they are not going to be able to pass it on to their children, they end up having it all cut and they use the money before the government can get its hands on it. That is an unintended consequence of legislation. That type of legislation affects people's thinking and stewardship.
That is another concept I should like to see recognized when you bring forth this legislation. Always look at something in the light of how it will affect people, how it will affect their thinking, how it will affect their decision making. All too often, these pieces of legislation are brought together with a very narrow focus without thinking of how people are going to react to them.
On this issue, I share the goals of the environmental groups but I would dispute slightly with them the methods that we use to achieve those goals. I believe that if we develop these stewardship programs well enough, we can create an environment where species will not be placed at risk, and where the overall management of the woodlots and the wood resource sector in general will be better. That is the best guarantee that the species will not be lost. We could talk about that one for a few days, but I will leave it at that for the moment.
The Chairman: Mr. Demarsh, do you wish to say a few words?
Mr. Demarsh: I should like to continue filling out the picture of who woodlot owners are. We have heard from Mr. Richardson and Mr. Comeau about the local situation and from Mr. Clark about the provincial situation.
Nationally, there are more than 410,000 owners across the country, holding about 8 per cent of the national productive forest, with sales in the vicinity of a $1.5 billion of forest products and other products each year.
Our Canadian federation was formed in 1989. It has nine provincial associations that are participants. Newfoundland has just formed an association, so we are hoping soon to be able to say we represent all ten provinces.
We have been involved in a number of activities over the years. One of the big ones has been encouraging the federal government to, where possible, increase silviculture funding for woodlot owners through the federal-provincial agreements. We have been involved with the Canadian Standards Association in developing their certification standard to make sure that it recognized not just big industry and Crown land but also woodlot owners. Mr. Ginnish talked about the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers National Forest Strategies, the first one and the second one. We have been active in making sure that the woodlot's unique circumstance, opportunities and special conditions were clearly part of that national strategy.
We have especially been seeking changes to the income tax system to remove disincentives to good management. My colleagues have made several references to ways in which that has been a problem for us. I will come back to that. I should like to touch on some of the other points quickly first.
There are some challenges that we face right now looking into the next millennium. Funding for silviculture is an ongoing concern in many provinces. In some places, and I am glad New Brunswick is one of them, the provincial governments, industry, and woodlot owner associations have been somewhat successful in replacing the funding from the federal-provincial agreements. However, especially in Ontario and further west, for various reasons, they have not. There are jurisdictional issues here when we talk to federal government people about the need to find ways to fill this vacuum. Probably the biggest obstacle, however, has not been jurisdictional but budgetary. We think there is a clear role and a clear need for the federal government to act as a partner with provincial governments, industry and woodlot owners and, where necessary, to act as a funding source of last resort. I think you can certainly substantiate that concern further west as you meet other woodlot owners in other provinces.
One recent initiative that may act to meet this need in part is the interest in reforesting marginal agricultural land as part of the Canadian commitment to the Kyoto agreement. Recently, we were asked to estimate the potential on woodlots across the country for this type of planting. We have been able to report that we feel we could plant 30,000 hectares a year for five years. The full cost of that scale of program would be about $70 million a year. It will certainly be interesting to see what kind of method is put in place to put together the funding to allow us to do that.
I have been talking about silviculture funding and the loss that the demise of the federal-provincial agreements represented. We lost something perhaps even more important, and that was funding for educational programs for woodlot owners. Those programs have been even harder to replace than silviculture programs. I think that, in the long run, we will look back on this period of five-to-ten years and say that that was a really stupid thing to allow to happen. That failure to continue investment in education is something that is going to cost us all dearly in the long run. I would argue that the case for renewed federal involvement in woodlot forestry, if anything, is even stronger in the area of education. The case for transferring the research capacity of the federal department is even stronger here than it is in the area of silviculture.
I mentioned earlier that we have been working on the issue of income tax policy. There are two key points. The first is that because most of our land is of a scale that does not allow us to make a full-time income from it, we are in a part-time category. We simply have not been allowed under the existing policy to deduct expenses of silviculture from woodlot income. If I drive a school bus, work in a pulp mill, work for a woodlot association, I am not allowed to deduct money from that wage or salary that I spend in planting or thinning trees on my woodlot.
The second big problem, and Mr. Comeau has already introduced it, is the problem that arises when a woodlot is transferred from one generation to another. The increased value of the property may lead to a major tax bill. The federal minister has said that he does not think that the tax bill is big enough, in most cases, to represent a significant problem. Our message to him is that there are many woodlot owners across the country who are not in a big enough income bracket to necessarily have the cash in the bank when that $5,000, $6,000, $8,000 tax bill comes along to pay that bill. Where do they find the cash to pay it? They are forced to go to the woodlot. It is one of the many examples of government policy that has contributed to the problem of overharvesting that my colleagues have described.
The good part of this story is that we appear to be on the verge of some major changes. We believe that Revenue Canada is now willing to recognize all of our forest management activity as farming under the Income Tax Act. That will be a really big step. It will mean that we can deduct expenses against off-woodlot income, using the restricted farm loss rules. It will mean that when taxes are levied on transfer of a woodlot within a family, if that woodlot is under good management, those taxes will be deferred as they are with family farms. We seem to be on the tip of a major breakthrough in getting some serious progress on this issue that has been around for a long time.
The one remaining piece of the puzzle that will allow us to say that real progress is being made is to get Revenue Canada to understand and clearly state that it recognizes that our investments in forest management take several decades, perhaps in some cases longer, to produce a profit. They are still reluctant to state that clearly. The present law and the present policy are such that they do not feel they can go beyond the statement that regular income every several years is considered a major test of reasonable expectation of profit. We feel this is a real negative in what is otherwise a good news story because it is going to confuse many of our people. It obviously does not apply to woodlots and forestry in many cases. We have been working with them to try to fix this situation. It appears clear to us that it is going to take some political leadership to fix this problem. We think the people in Revenue are doing their best with the tools they have available.
We must make this problem of time frame in forestry extremely clear; the fact is that it takes several decades to produce a profit. That is not because we are poor business people. It is not because investing in forest management is a foolish investment. It is because that is how long it takes trees to grow. It is no more complicated than that.
We have asked the Minister of Finance to fix this problem. We have asked him and his people, for the very same reason, to also modify the restricted farm loss rules to take this time frame issue into account.
If there were one thing you could do for us, I would say that it would be to use your influence to help solve those problems with Mr. Martin. If you are inclined to look into this further, I have some copies of recent correspondence over the past few months that would give you the details. As I have said, as this unfolds, we are hoping that real progress will be made in the next few months.
Certainly, other problems with the tax system will remain in place. One that I think bears mentioning quickly is the Guaranteed Income Supplement rules. Again, this is a case of a government policy that has a negative effect on woodlot management. Many seniors, as I am sure you well know, consider that supplement something they have earned from society. They would rather see their trees fall down and rot than risk losing it. That is a common reaction. It means that much land is unavailable for employment and harvesting.
Other woodlot owners in that situation go to the other extreme and say, "I am only going to lose the supplement in the year that I get the income so I am going to get it cut all at once." In some respects, that is just as damaging in the long run as doing nothing with the woodlot. Still others who have done some thinking about this will get their woodlot liquidated at age 64. That is going to be a tough one to solve, because the people in Finance say that they cannot make special rules just for us; there are all sorts of groups that have come to them with problems with the supplement somewhat parallel to ours. We feel this problem is serious enough that we are going to continue working on it to see if we can come up with some creative solutions.
To conclude, overall, I think it is important to stress that there is tremendous potential for the sustainable development of woodlots across the country, for both short-term and long-term employment, and for healthier forests that will contribute to an improved environment. With those comments, I think you have a pretty good picture from local to national of some of our challenges and concerns.
Senator Stratton: I am curious about marketing boards. I thought marketing boards were there to monitor and limit supply and demand, thereby sustaining a base price. If you are told what your prices are, why have a marketing board? What is the purpose?
Mr. Clark: The marketing board structure was developed in New Brunswick to address just that question. We did not have any market leverage, we did not have prices, and we did not have access to market. We were told that if we formed marketing boards, we would be able to sell what was reasonably available or the annual allowable harvest level from the private woodlot sector before the company got access to Crown land. We could document the fact that there was a social contract. There was quite a bit of unrest in New Brunswick that finally created the system. We were told that this would be our part of the bargain and, on the other side of the equation, the companies got tenure over their sections of Crown land.
In 1992, when the system was changed due to complaints from industry, or at least some industry, they kept their tenure on their Crown land. However, when the market changed around in different respects, our powers in relation to that social contract were not restored. Even worse than that, as the market situation entirely changed and the opportunity was there to sell wood faster than it was growing, the government found itself without any effective means to enter into the system or to regulate it in any way. Therefore, the supply equation was entirely changed around. We have told the government that rather than have anybody impose anything from the top, we can regulate ourselves. We are willing to do that in exchange for having some of our powers restored. We would be the single-desk seller. We would have the ability to negotiate prices, to negotiate when and how the products are delivered.
At present, even getting paid from some companies in the province is a problem. When we were marketing boards with some authority, we were paid promptly within 10 days of delivery, or something similar. Now some boards are waiting 30 days before the company pays them. This creates a little bit of a cash flow problem. There are many issues there. Why are marketing boards not given a proper position in this province? That is a question for the provincial government. It is not a question for woodlot owners.
Senator Stratton: If the marketing boards are not working, why have them?
Senator Robichaud: He did not say they are not working.
Senator Stratton: It would appear that they are not working because they do not have the power on their board as a single-desk seller.
Mr. Clark: That is not the case in New Brunswick.
Senator Stratton: No, but the theory behind marketing board is that it is a single-desk seller, is it not?
Mr. Clark: The theory behind marketing boards is they were created to correct a market imbalance. What we had before 1992 was doing that. What we have right now does not do that. It does not leave us entirely powerless, either.
Some companies take a very responsible position. I do not want to paint all the companies in New Brunswick with the same brush here. Some companies take a very responsible position and only buy their wood from marketing boards. We have some very good contracts and some very good arrangements. We should like to see those expanded to cover everything because the model is there and it will work.
Why continue to have the marketing boards? I guess some woodlot owners are asking themselves the same question. If you cannot have the advantages that a marketing board is supposed to deliver, why have the structure? We have been able to come here because we have marketing boards; they were able to fund us. Organizations are functioning. We were successful in negotiating the new silviculture agreement, which is delivering many benefits to our owners. It is not that we cannot do anything. It is just that we cannot do all that we could.
We have offered to divorce our negotiating position from the Crown land issue as part of our offer to government and industry on how to settle this. We have said that if they make us single-desk sellers, they will no longer have to buy from us if they want Crown wood. However, if they want to buy any private woodlot wood at all, they will have to buy it from us, in one place, which will give us influence and negotiating power and everything in the system. We have offered to take less than what we had before in order to regain a stable situation again. Even that has not garnered the expected response.
The Chairman: There is single-desk selling in Western Canada in grain. You are right; the marketing board does not work unless everybody is forced to sell their product through the marketing board and they cannot go around it. Also, the buyer of a product cannot go and buy it from a foreign country. In other words, if you have a flour mill, you cannot get your wheat outside of Canada. What value are your marketing boards in trying to keep prices up if the buyers of the wood or pulp can buy it from across the line?
Mr. Clark: The marketing board system in Canada, at least for wood or anything that I know of, has never had the kind of powers that you are saying existed for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Chairman: They could always go around you, even when you had control of everything.
Mr. Clark: They could buy wood from whatever jurisdiction they liked.
The Chairman: They could buy wood from outside New Brunswick and you could not stop that.
Mr. Clark: No.
The Chairman: What was your bargaining power, really?
Mr. Clark: Our bargaining power was this issue on the Crown land. Before a company could get their allotment for the year from Crown land, they had to bargain in good faith with us.
The Chairman: Did they have to buy from you?
Mr. Clark: That was our power lever. It is significant to note that we are willing to give up that power in exchange for being single-desk sellers.
The Chairman: You are willing to give that up. You would be a single-desk seller, but they could buy lumber from outside the province.
Mr. Clark: They could buy lumber from wherever they wanted to buy lumber, but if they wanted to buy lumber originating from the private woodlots in the market board area, they would have to buy it from us.
The Chairman: Are you willing to give up the law that says that licensees have to buy New Brunswick private wood?
Mr. Richardson: No. Each board has a jurisdiction. Our board covers predominantly Northumberland County. A producer, pulp mill or sawmill that wanted to buy wood from any one of our woodlot owners within our jurisdiction would have to come to the board to do so. That is what we are asking.
The Chairman: Suppose they do not want to buy. Can they get their wood from outside of the province?
Mr. Richardson: They could always do that.
The Chairman: I am having trouble understanding what kind of bargaining power you then have.
Mr. Richardson: The bargaining power we hold is that they cannot run their mills without private woodlot wood.
The Chairman: We are going around in circles here. You just said that they could buy their wood from somewhere else. Then you turn around and say they have to buy their wood from private woodlots.
Mr. Richardson: They cannot operate their mills without private woodlot wood. They cannot get the volume from the Crown land. For example, if they go to Nova Scotia, the cost of bringing wood in is approximately $144 a cord.
The Chairman: That is the competitive wall that you are up against.
Mr. Richardson: That is right. We are selling it for $91.
The Chairman: I still have trouble understanding why you have the marketing board if the power that sets your price is the cost of importing wood. That is the wall you are operating against.
Mr. Clark: May I offer a little bit of explanation on this? A forest company that has a lease in New Brunswick on Crown land has to abide by an annual allowable harvest level on that. It can vary by 5 per cent or 10 per cent in a year, but it has to be 5 per cent in five years. As a woodlot owner, I know that the amount of wood that they can get from Crown land is limited to a certain proportion of their needs. If they get wood from Crown land they have to abide by the same rules on their own freehold. They cannot cut all the wood they need from their own freehold.
The Chairman: We are all agreed. They need wood.
Mr. Clark: That is our bargaining power then; if you want to buy the wood, come talk to me because you are not going to buy it from anyone else.
The Chairman: They can go to Nova Scotia to buy it.
Senator Stratton: You cannot get the volumes. You cannot get the price.
The Chairman: The point is that is the maximum price that you will get at the marketing board is the price that they can import it for, maybe a nickel less or something like that. Why would individual owners not be able to get that just as well?
Mr. Clark: The whole point of the marketing boards in the first place is that individual owners, acting on their own, were getting treated even worse than we are now.
The Chairman: I am an old farmer but I am having trouble following your logic.
Mr. Clark: Take a look at another commodity. Look at potatoes in New Brunswick. Farmers still deal independently and brokers pick and choose throughout the system. If you look at the percentage of the selling price that farmers are able to get back in their hands, it is always very small. They get treated quite poorly.
Senator Stratton: In Manitoba, the potato farmers are doing quite well. The richest agricultural land in the province is now land that grows potatoes for McCain. That is what is happening in Manitoba.
The Chairman: We have dairy boards, egg boards and so on. They all have one thing in common: You cannot go somewhere else to buy. You cannot buy eggs in Minnesota and bring them to Canada. You cannot buy butter. There is no other alternative. Every marketing board I know of forces whoever buys their product, whether eggs, butter or wheat, to buy in Canada.
Mr. Richardson: As a woodlot owner, I am used to being discriminated against. I cannot understand the provincial government implementing single-desk selling on the Crown lands and refusing the same thing to the private woodlot owner.
Mr. Clark: I have one last point on that regarding areas near the border. As transportation distances shorten, people move things further. In New Brunswick, historically, we have always had a cross-border flow of wood. We can sell into Maine. They sell wood into industry. That has been a common occurrence. It has ebbed and flowed both directions over the years, depending on a myriad of factors. We are not against the export of wood into Maine. We are not trying to stop them from buying wood out of Maine and bringing it into New Brunswick when it makes sense. We want the right to be the single-desk seller for wood in our areas to be returned to us, for private woodlots.
The Chairman: Something intrigued me. It seems to me that the farmers, particularly in Western Canada, have fought the same issues that you are fighting now, which are passing on land from generation to generation and also the one-time capital gain that you can make when you sell it. There is an analogy, except that people who are working off woodlots are making income elsewhere. The point is that you want to be able to write off costs like farmers do. Mind you, some of the farmers have the same problem. There are young men working on the oil rigs and trying to build up a farm at the same time and using the money for that purpose. They have trouble.
Senator Stratton: You have to earn the majority of your income from your farm. You cannot be employed full-time somewhere else.
The Chairman: They are doing some adjusting on that.
Senator Stratton: There may be some adjusting, but you are still deemed to have earned the majority of your income from the farm.
The Chairman: I suppose you are working with Western farmers because it seems to me that you could help each other a great deal in this area. I would love to see your submission.
Are there any more questions?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Has the volume of wood cut by private woodlot owners changed since 1992? Or is it mainly the price you get for what you cut which was the most important factor?
Mr. Richardson: We have no way to know that because contractors, buyers and brokers do not have to report the wood they cut or get from private land. We have no document regarding the wood which is not sold through the marketing board. We know about it simply because we live in the area. We know approximately where some wood have been cut and how much. Last year, the marketing board lost $62,000 in revenues. We know that the wood has been cut and that it has been sold through private contractors and not through the marketing board.
Senator Robichaud: Those who go through the marketing board need tickets?
Mr. Richardson: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: So it goes through the marketing board?
Mr. Richardson: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: I can get my wood cut by someone without tickets and sell it directly to the mill?
Mr. Richardson: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Since 1992?
Mr. Richardson: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: You lost these pieces of land. They were not part of your organization before 1992 in any case, right?
Mr. Richardson: Yes, they were all part of our organization.
Senator Robichaud: These lots were not sold afterwards?
Mr. Richardson: No, not all of them. Currently, the government does not sell lots any more, but contractors sell and buy a lot of 100 or 200 acres, cut it with a machine and deliver the wood to Juniper Lumber or Repap or some other company, but it does not go through the marketing board.
Senator Robichaud: In that case, the role you play might be less important. People who feel they do not have to go through the marketing board will find other ways to sell their wood because they do not trust the marketing board. If I were a contractor, I would probably tell people, "I am going to sell you wood directly, you do not have to go through the marketing board which keep its cut of the price. It is easy. You could lose a lot.
Mr. Richardson: The same owner, several years later, can ask the marketing board for money to finance a plantation on his land, for instance.
Senator Robichaud: But you still control that?
Mr. Richardson: Yes, but we have no control over the allocation of the money. It's first come, first serve.
Senator Robichaud: All the forestry funds, except the large companies' money, go through the marketing board?
Mr. Richardson: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: I agree that Revenue Canada considers the use of these lots in a way that does not encourage people to manage timber in a structured fashion. Let's say that somebody reaches retirement age, a contractor can come and say, "If you do not want to cut your woodlot immediately, the government will take it, sell the wood and you are going to lose everything." People panic.
Mr. Richardson: They did the same thing when they proposed to take the land and the houses of old people who were going to live in a nursing home.
Senator Robichaud: But it was not the case.
Mr. Richardson: No, but contractors would go and see old people and make them believe that the government was going to take their land.
Senator Robichaud: Maybe they were trying to make them believe that, but it was not true. I was a member of the board of a nursing home, and the government did not take their houses. It is not true. However, some of them were saying that it was better to sell their land because once they had moved, they might lose it. People were not sure and were selling at a ridiculous price or even giving their land.
Mr. Richardson: When were you a member of the board of a nursing home?
Senator Robichaud: Several years ago.
Mr. Richardson: Was it when Frank McKenna was Prime Minister?
Senator Robichaud: No, not at that time. If there were a few cases, they were quite rare, but the rumour was still that you were going to lose your land. The government changed that and reassured people. I hope woodlot owners can be reassured.
Mr. Richardson: We spoke to the Prime Minister and he told us that the house which is on a private woodlot will be separated from the land by one acre and that the rest can be taken by the government.
Senator Robichaud: So, this does not help your cause.
Mr. Richardson: Right.
[English]
The Chairman: There are some pretty mean governments down here, something about those Liberals.
Senator Stratton: I am glad you said that.
Senator Robichaud: I never thought you would do it.
The Chairman: Western Liberals always have trouble understanding them down here. Are there any further questions?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I would like to thank our witnesses for taking part in our discussion. In particular, I would like to thank Mr. Comeau, who welcomed us, as well as Ms Comeau, who cooked a very good meal.
[English]
The Chairman: I should like to thank you also. Merci beaucoup.
The committee adjourned.