Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, November 23, 1998
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:00 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: Colleagues, I call the meeting to order. I have a short statement to make.
We have been studying Canada's boreal forests for some time now. It is clear to us now, if it was not before, just how important they are to our country and our people. Canada has an international responsibility here. The boreal forest hangs like a cloak around the shoulders of the world and we have over 20 per cent of the world's resource. In Canada, it represents 80 per cent of our overall forests. It is also clear that our boreal forests are facing major threats to their survival, largely through human activity.
Many think of forests synonymously with logging. While some still see the forest primarily as a source of financial wealth, of pulp and fibre, most Canadians now hold values related to the boreal forest that go well beyond harvesting wood.
The issues related to wise management of the boreal forest are complex. They include questions such as: what are the threats to its survival, from industrial use right through to the effects of global warming and climate change? We are examining that. We are also examining how we can preserve it while at the same time satisfying the legitimate multiple uses of the people who depend on it for their livelihood and their way of life.
There are other questions. How can we ensure that it remains a safe and productive habitat for flora and fauna? How can we protect the rights of First Nations peoples to whom the forest is their physical and spiritual home? We will be hearing more about that later today. How can the needs of forest industries coexist with our duty to sustain the forest and to set aside enough of it in pristine condition as a legacy to future generations? What are the respective responsibilities and rights of local communities, the forest industry, First Nations, the provinces and the Government of Canada?
We have visited boreal forest communities throughout Canada in our deliberations, seeking perspectives on these and other questions, and we have heard of the forest's importance for recreation, wildlife, water and, perhaps most important, as a home for those who live there.
It is therefore very appropriate that we welcome our witnesses this evening.
Today, we will be hearing from Mary Jane Jim-Cant, Regional Vice-Chief for the Yukon, of the Assembly of First Nations; Harry Bombay, Executive Director of the National Aboriginal Forestry Association; and Hugh Taylor from the Teslin, Tlinget Tribal Council.
I understand that Ms Jim-Cant will be speaking first.
Please proceed.
Ms Mary Jane Jim-Cant, Regional Vice-Chief (Yukon), Assembly of First Nations: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I should like to thank the chairman for inviting the Assembly of First Nations to speak to you tonight. Dr. Charlene Higgins will be joining us shortly.
To begin with, I want to introduce myself. My name is Dakwa ul Nne chedne chea.
I am a member of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations of the Yukon Territory. I am also a member of the Crow Clan of the Yukon Territory.
Those are my traditional names. Those were names given to me at birth. My Christian name is Mary Jane Jim-Cant and I am the Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations for Yukon region.
I presently serve as the Vice-Chief responsible for economic development.
I will speak to the following key concerns of First Nations: access to forest resources, infringement on aboriginal and treaty rights; capacity building; and initiating a First Nations' forest strategy.
With respect to access to forest resources, of the 2.7 million hectares of reserve land, 1.4 hectares are forest covered. There are 633 First Nations in this country. Nearly 59 per cent live on reserve land. First Nations people are highly dependent on the forest. The trees and other riches of the forest have supported the cultures of First Nations for centuries. The erosion of our access to the forests has committed incremental genocide.
The creation of parks systems has not alleviated this situation. Most First Nations people are rarely invited to participate in the creation of the parks and the management of them.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report recommended that interim measures be taken to address the need for improved access to natural resources for aboriginal economic and cultural development.
The commission's recommendation also addressed the need to expand the range of benefits derived from resource development in traditional territories. This is in order to achieve a more equitable distribution of economic benefits from such activities.
With respect to jurisdiction over forests, although aboriginal people have a right under the Constitution Act of 1982 to hunt and fish on traditional lands, we have no control over timber harvesting.
The Indian Act does not provide mechanisms for First Nations to administer and control reserve forests. First Nations cannot issue timber licences or permits on their lands. Pursuant to the Indian Act and the Indian timber regulations, DIAND issues permits and licences for the cutting and removal of reserve timber at the request of the band council. Unfortunately, this does not provide the opportunity for communities to actively practice the traditional method of forest management. The current approach to sustainable forest management needs the naturalized knowledge of our people to transform it from trendy jargon to concrete action.
It does not respect Canada's international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, one of which is to safeguard the knowledge and innovations of First Nations people in the sustainable use and conservation of forest resources. The national forest strategy, which arises out of the Canada Forest Accord, contains only one -- one out of seven -- strategic direction dealing with the complex issues of aboriginal treaty rights.
The accord was presented for signature to all of the provinces. First Nations were not adequately consulted. According to the presentation made to the subcommittee on June 8, 1998, by DIAND, the department sees its primary role as that of a funding agency. In its report, it explained how bands must reinvest in their own forestry plans with moneys, which are often in competition with health, education and other priority areas.
Aboriginal communities constitute the fastest growing population in Canada. According to the Royal Commission report, by the year 2015 these communities will have increased by approximately 50 per cent.
Eighty per cent of all First Nations communities are located in areas of the country where forestry is the dominant, or one of the dominant, economic activities. First Nations people see involvement in the forestry sector as critical to addressing the needs for employment and revenue generation by those growing communities.
First Nations want opportunities to develop their economic base and to provide for themselves and their families. This can only be accomplished by having fair and equitable access to land and resources.
First Nations people do not require limited funding programs. They require support for innovative co-management agreements between the federal, provincial and territorial governments, the private sector, and First Nations governments. First Nations people require support for capacity building, training, access to capital, business experience and research capabilities.
The federal government needs to uphold its commitments made under Gathering Strength to build capacity for development and implementation of professional development strategies in lands and environmental stewardship; in land and resource management; and increased funding for resource initiatives.
With respect to third-party interests, disputes over forestry are growing while justice is decreasing. The Paul case originally promised to rectify the situation. With the New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturning a ruling recognizing aboriginal rights to harvest and sell trees on Crown lands, we have returned to the inequitable status quo.
The cost of litigation, both in terms of the associated cost and time lost, will rob First Nations of a livelihood in many areas. As a result of disputes between First Nations and the provinces, outside interests will increase.
First Nations are consistently falling through the cracks. If they support themselves through forestry the provinces come in and stop them and call them irresponsible.
If they try to protect the forests, there are no resources or legislation for them to make provinces accountable for their lack of enforcement.
With respect to a forest strategy, DIAND has entered a joint initiative with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) on policy development within the lands and trust services sector. The First Nations forest strategy resolution addresses the need for First Nations to be recognized as equal parties to provincial and federal governments and to the forest industry with respect to any efforts toward defining, developing, and implementing sustainable forest land-management initiatives.
In order to be effective, First Nations need to have local capacity, access to and participation in the forest network, as well as a working relationship with the National Aboriginal Forest Association (NAFA).
First Nations refuse to stand by and see the forest cut. It is imperative that when we do move forward on this issue, that it is done with a focused national strategy initiative. It is only natural to be a partner with NAFA.
The joint initiative work in this area is in its early stages. There will be research work and issues identification with respect to natural resources that will produce a clear and comprehensive picture. This should show the current legal environment relating to obstacles, opportunities, et cetera, in each of the natural resource areas, including forestry.
It is the intention of the AFN LTS unit to establish an informal working relationship with the NAFA on forest issues.
In conclusion, the primary concerns of the First Nations regarding boreal management include access to forest resources, infringement on aboriginal and treaty rights, capacity building, third-party interests and building a First Nations forest strategy.
Canada is our home. We are here, we have been here, and we will be here in the future to assume our rightful place and role. Once again, I thank the chairman and honourable senators for inviting the AFN to make a presentation regarding the present and future state of forestry in Canada, as it relates to the boreal forest.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Jim-Cant. I hope you will stay for a few minutes while we listen to Mr. Bombay.
Mr. Harry Bombay, Executive Director, National Aboriginal Forestry Association: I wish to thank the chairman and members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to comment on the issues of sustainable forest management and aboriginal involvement in the forest sector as they relate to the boreal forest. I have met a number of the senators here before. Senators Whelan, Adams and Chalifoux, it is a pleasure to see you again.
The organization I represent, NAFA, the National Aboriginal Forestry Association, is primarily concerned with the role aboriginal communities play in sustainable forest management in Canada.
I am from northwestern Ontario. I am a member of the Rainy River First Nation. I have been involved with the National Aboriginal Forestry Association now for approximately seven years, since the association was formed in 1991. Our interests are in promoting aboriginal participation in forest management. To do that, we must have a large role in terms of influencing forest policy. We take every opportunity we can to advocate on behalf of aboriginal forest interests in Canada.
As Ms Jim-Cant mentioned, forest management is extremely important to aboriginal communities because our cultures and lifestyles are dependent on healthy forests. NAFA's position is that forest management must sustain our lifestyles and respect our relationship with Mother Earth. If forest practices and management cannot do that, then forest management in Canada cannot be deemed to be sustainable.
Aboriginal communities in Canada have been under a constant change process ever since the arrival of Europeans to the continent. In today's context, aboriginal communities wrestle with the issue of development and the extent to which they will rely on traditional economies or adopt non-aboriginal values and efforts to improve on their social and economic conditions. Each aboriginal community in Canada is seeking a balance between traditional and contemporary economic development, which is hampered by a number of factors. I have listed six different issues that affect the way in which aboriginal communities relate to forestry. These factors include the degree of integration into the non-aboriginal community and culture; proximity to urban centres; the amount of traditional culture retained in knowledge, customs and social structures; the overall health of the community; the extent and impact of outside resource interests; and organizational, financial and technical capacity.
Since the aboriginal peoples of Canada are largely forest dependent, one means by which they can express their collective aspirations is through forest management and the development of appropriate relationships within the forest sector. This task is not an easy one because our belief and value systems often differ from the forest management regimes established by the provinces, which are largely oriented to the forest industry.
One of the major barriers in our efforts to influence forest policy stems from the fact that Indians and lands reserved for Indians are a federal responsibility and forest management falls under provincial jurisdiction. Both the federal and provincial governments are cautious that they do not step on each other's toes in exercising jurisdiction. In practice, this has meant that the protection of aboriginal interests in forest management has not been a priority for any level of government.
The whole issue of the federal government's role in the forest sector is one that needs to be addressed. As some of you are aware, the Canadian Forestry Service and others are trying, at this point in time, to define the federal role in forestry. In 1995, the Speech from the Throne indicated that the federal government was withdrawing completely from forestry. It is our view that the federal government has a large role to play in forestry, particularly with regard to aboriginal issues. The sustainable management of Indian reserve land forests is clearly a federal responsibility, and the Crown's fiduciary duty to protect and honour aboriginal treaty rights, though shared with the provinces, must be led by the federal government.
When viewed in the broad context of national forest policy, aboriginal issues must be considered and given equal weight to issues such as science and technology, international affairs and trade, and national coordination of sustainable forest management initiatives. These are the four areas that currently constitute the federal role in forestry.
The point I want to make here is that the federal government has a lead role to play in ensuring that aboriginal peoples benefit from the forest sector. However, the federal government has not been proactive in so doing. This is evidenced by the lack of programming and policy with respect to First Nations forestry. We have one program, the First Nations Forestry Program. It is the only program that is designed to promote the First Nations' involvement in the forest sector. The program has a national budget of $5 million per year and is declining annually. It goes down on a sliding scale in the next three years. We expect that the program will be terminated on March 31, 2001.
The question is, then, how the First Nations in Canada will pursue their aspirations in forestry without a program such as that? That program is somewhat misoriented and is certainly underfunded to do the job that it should do.
The First Nations Forestry Program is one program that the federal government should be strongly considering in order to expand and support the types of things that Ms Jim-Cant mentioned. Other federal programs are available for First Nations forestry, for example, Indian Affairs has a resource access negotiation program; First Nations have some access to training programs under Human Resources Canada; and other initiatives have been undertaken by the federal government through the Canadian Forestry Service. I make reference here to the model forest program, where we have one aboriginal-led model forest in Canada. However, it is for a small parcel of land managed by the Nishnawbe Cree First Nation.
In the area of international trade, Canada has not considered the development needs of aboriginal communities. One of the most detrimental barriers to aboriginal development at the present time is the softwood lumber agreement. As our communities develop, it is inevitable that we will develop forest companies producing lumber and that we will look to the U.S.A. as a primary market. Currently, we have eight forest companies barely surviving and two others that have had to close their doors because of lack of access to the U.S. softwood lumber market.
As you know, honourable senators, the Department of Foreign Affairs administers the softwood lumber agreement and allocates softwood lumber quota to forest companies in four provinces in Canada. There is a cap of 14.7 million board feet that is allocated by quota. First Nations companies have about .02 per cent of the quota. First Nations companies have asked the National Aboriginal Forestry Association to deal with this issue. We certainly look for a committee such as this to raise that particular issue.
One of the reasons why we have a small quota is because our companies are small. They are newly established and, as a result, do not have a track record of exporting to the United States.
On this issue, trade agreements negotiated between Canada and the U.S. and other trading partners have to take into consideration the development needs of indigenous peoples. Those trade agreements have to recognize that we have rights and that we have been a trading people. We have traded across the border with U.S. tribes for centuries. We would like to see that type of trade continued and expanded in a commercial way.
Concerning initiatives aimed at promoting and coordinating policy with respect to achieving sustainable forest management in Canada, the federal government is not active as a fiduciary in the formulation of policy. There are many processes under way to implement sustainable forest management. One of them is the "Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management," which was developed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. It is generally supported and promoted by the Canadian Forestry Service.
Those criteria and indicators, in our opinion, do not attach sufficient importance to matters such as aboriginal treaty rights and the sharing of economic benefits from the forest sector. It is our view that aboriginal forestry should be a separate criterion within that process and that the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers should be asked to re-examine that document and to ensure that aboriginal issues are appropriately addressed.
The importance of the criterion indicators, I think, should be noted because it is our measure of sustainability in the forest sector. It is also the means by which the Canadian Standards Association certifies those worthy of certification in sustainable forest management in Canada. The CSA adopts these criteria and indicators to measure sustainable forest management and certification qualifications.
We must ensure that these types of documents, because of their long-term effect and impact on the forest sector, recognize that aboriginal issues are an essential element of sustainable forest management.
Another instrument of sustainable forest management is Canada's "National Forest Strategy." I received two copies in my office just last Friday, and this document includes Strategic Direction No. 7, which deals with aboriginal issues.
The key in this document is found not so much in its words as contained here but in the need for appropriate policy within provinces and for the federal government to implement the broad strategic directions of that strategy.
We have been through this process before. We had a national forestry strategy that ran from 1992 to 1997. It had many good objectives and commitments in it as well. The problem with the document was that no one took ownership of it; it was no one's responsibility to implement the commitments made there.
This document was signed on May 1 at the National Forest Congress here in Ottawa. We have to ensure this time around that the parties to the document are committed to the objective stated therein and that they are ready to provide the appropriate policy and programming to support the objectives as stated in the document.
We want to ensure that that occurs. We also want to ensure that the broadest numbers of people are aware of the document and what must be achieved. The federal government has a large role to play here, both in terms of programming and policy.
The area of greatest concern, though, to First Nations and other aboriginal people in this country is the lack of attention paid by the provincial governments to forestry issues impacting on aboriginal communities. Despite direction given to them in the National Forest Strategy and by other means, and despite court actions and decisions that have validated aboriginal treaty rights in Canada, provinces have been reluctant to consult meaningfully with First Nations organizations on aboriginal treaty rights.
Considering the legal requirement to consult and deal with aboriginal treaty rights in an appropriate manner, the courts have confirmed the existence of aboriginal title. The Delgamuukw decision of the Supreme Court has immediate implications in areas within Canada where there are no treaties. That decision as well has some bearing on the validity of existing treaties and whether or not specific provisions within treaties might be challenged.
Concerning treaty areas, there was a significant court case in 1997, heard by the B.C. Supreme Court, called the Halfway River First Nation v. B.C. Ministry of Forests. Basically, the case said that the issuance of a timber permit may be considered a prima facie infringement of a treaty right. Second, the Crown must consult prior to making any decisions that may affect treaty or aboriginal rights. Third, the Crown must make all reasonable efforts to consult and fully inform itself of relevant aboriginal treaty rights as well as of the impact of the proposed decision. Four, the Crown must provide the First Nations with information relevant to the proposed decision.
Provinces have generally not conformed to that type of process. They have not implemented any kind of policy that would have them adhere to the types of decisions that are coming out of the courts. Instead, provinces have been undertaking policy processes that tend to downplay aboriginal treaty rights. An example of this, in Ontario, is the "Lands for Life" process.
Right now, that process is complete and I understand a report is supposed to be tabled with the provincial government very soon. The stakeholders in Ontario have until the end of November 30 to make their final statements, at which time that process goes forward.
The Lands for Life process has two objectives: one, to ensure increased security for industry so that they may retain their monopoly on the wood supply; and two, to set aside more lands for parks and protected areas. Both of these objectives run counter to the goals of aboriginal people. Aboriginal people see industry as neglecting our views. Parks and recreation areas and protected areas are minimizing our ability to use land for traditional-use activities.
We have a very serious problem in terms of where Ontario is going with their Lands for Life process. We understand that those in charge of the process are even contemplating the granting of tenure to such groups as snowmobiling clubs so they can have exclusive use of some areas. The question then is what First Nations can have once all the land has been handed over in tenure to other types of organizations? At the provincial level, that is one of the major issues.
Access to resources is another key area. If you look at the boreal forests across the country, there are probably only two or three examples where First Nations have actually gained access to forest resources through some provincial forest tenure system. The Meadow Lake Tribal Council in Saskatchewan and the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation are obtaining a forest management agreement. Beyond what is occurring in Saskatchewan, no First Nation in Ontario or Manitoba has achieved any form of access to forest resources through the provincial tenure system.
Another major concern is the fact that these tenure systems in the provinces are handing over to industry more forest management responsibility. The provinces are asking industry to manage huge tracts of lands, in Ontario, under sustainable forest licences, and in other provinces under forest management agreements. They are asking industry to manage the forest and in so doing to deal with all the issues. In a sense, the provincial governments are asking industry to deal with aboriginal people on aboriginal treaty rights. That just should not be so. First Nations should not have to deal with forest companies in terms of their aboriginal treaty rights. They have a relationship with government; that is the mechanism by which it should be done.
Essentially, access issues are largely a provincial matter, but the federal government has a large role to play in supporting First Nations in those areas, we believe. We should be doing a great deal of work in terms of building the infrastructure for First Nations' involvement. We talk about new approaches to tenure. We should be talking about how First Nations gain access not only for timber but also for non-timber forest products. We should be looking at training aboriginal people in capacity-building areas such as value added and forest management. There are many areas the federal government could support.
I have been fairly negative in my remarks, but I should point out that in the boreal forest we have some good examples of co-management. We have good examples of where, through joint ventures, First Nations are working with industry. Some First Nations companies are taking on forest management responsibility. The examples of positive developments should serve as models and also give confidence to both government and industry that First Nations can do the job in the forest sector. We simply need more of that to happen.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will now turn to Ms Higgins.
Ms Charlene Higgins, Forest Manager, Shuswap Nations Tribal Council, Assembly of First Nations: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I should like to thank the Assembly of First Nations for inviting me here. I will be quite brief.
I wish to focus on international policy and how it is not reflected at the national and local levels. I work on three levels: I work on international policy. I work on national policy with the article 8(j) working group with the indigenous caucus. I work provincially in B.C. to try to incorporate policy change with the province. I work locally for nine bands in the Shuswap, as well as doing some work for the Nicola Tribal Council.
To provide a bit of context, the Brundtland report in 1987 recognized the role of indigenous peoples in sustainable development. The Rio declaration five years later clearly established the relevance of their knowledge and traditional practices in sustainable development and the need to protect their rights.
In that framework, then, we see the "National Forest Strategy," a document produced by the federal government. Speaking on behalf of the bands in the Shuswap, we are very disappointed in the document. It acknowledges who we are and what aboriginal peoples are and where they belong only in Strategic Direction No. 7. I have done a critique of this report. It talks about, in Strategy No. 1, forest stewardship. That is the role of aboriginal peoples. They were the original stewards. No processes or strategies are set up in the document.
I will point out that in Strategic Direction No. 8, Private Forests, most of the bands that I work for have woodlots. The problem is the milling. They do not have the mills to process it, and thereby value-added opportunities are limited unless they partner. It is hard to be independent.
The provinces control 80 per cent of the forests, and under the Canadian Constitution forest management is the responsibility of the provinces. The provinces do not come to the table when we talk about the Convention on Biological Diversity and how the government has signed on and ratified it. Throughout, in the forest biological decision, in sustainability under Brundtland and in Rio, it is all based on and incorporates the need and the use of traditional knowledge, but there are no processes. There is nothing. The provinces do not come to the table and therefore are not obligated or mandated to implement these.
In the decision, there are direct references to the elements of the work program and the activities with regard to Article 8(j). I can fill you in on Article 8(j) at a later time, but it says, in part:
...respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities...and promote their wider application.
It is impossible to apply it when there are no policies in legislatures that make the industry and government accountable.
Article 10(c) states that the customary uses of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices should be protected and encouraged. That is right out of the decision. It is mentioned in Article 8(j), and all the relevant provisions are mentioned throughout the recently ratified Convention on Biological Diversity this year under the forest biological work program. Canada has stalled that work program for years in its push for a forest convention.
We in the Shuswap and in the Nicola are against a forest convention. We have made too many great strides recently in the Convention on Biological Diversity and in the incorporation of Article 8(j) in all the thematic areas. To lose forests from the umbrella of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is the only international agreement that is at least somewhat holistically based and which starts to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples, is a real concern. Canada has been pushing it. It is in the National Forest Strategy. They are pushing for a forest convention. Indigenous peoples are already marginalized, and Canada has not even gone on with the work program under the forest biological decision. Some people claim there is no ownership, but it takes political will and getting the provinces to the table.
Our second concern is the push by Canada for a forest convention. We are not in support of it. Several governments are not in support of it. International NGOs such as ICUN and WWF are not in support of it. They are not supporting Canada. Canada has very little support for this internationally. It was supposed to be an open and participatory process. They have already had a meeting of the steering committee in Costa Rica. I do not know of any indigenous groups who have been invited; as well, I do not know whether we would go. We would be marginalized.
Another concern we have is that at the intergovernmental forum on forests in Geneva the government is now pushing to have non-timber forest products under valuation of forest goods and services. Indigenous peoples, aboriginal peoples, are demanding the right to control and manage those resources. Those resources are sustenance resources. The government should have no hand in making it a trade issue or controlling it.
Recently we in the Shuswap took legal action. The government in British Columbia changed the Forest Act on July 30. They are now creating four new community forest pilots. One will be aboriginal-led, and the other three will not. In the amendments to the act, they changed it so that each pilot agreement holder will have exclusive rights to harvest not only the timber and manage the timber, but also have rights to manage the botanical and other forest products.
They just changed that. We are going to the courts on that. It is in direct contravention to Delgamuukw and aboriginal rights. It is an infringement on our rights to have that in there. We were not consulted.
I will end on a brighter note. I am trying here and in the arenas in which I work to set up processes whereby we incorporate community-based strategies to meaningfully involve indigenous peoples and reflect those in national forest strategies and policies.
I have meetings with the open-ended article aboriginal justice working group to implore the federal government not only to make them accountable for what they have signed on to but also to encourage them to get the provinces to the table. They cannot implement this strategy or the forest biological decision without the provinces being at the table.
On a good note, I work locally in negotiation on involving the First Nation groups and bands for which I work in employment and partnership value added in the forests. We have no access to tenure, timber, or the softwood lumber quota. I have a band that has a mill that has no access. We need to change those things in order for First Nations to play a meaningful and rightful role in the forest sector.
I do think it is possible. However, policies must be put into place and legislation enacted that mandate these things.
Senator Whelan: I gather from the presentations of the three witnesses that they feel that there has been a federal abdication of forestry.
Mr. Bombay: That sums it up well, yes. The federal government has responsibility in two areas, as I see it. One is the management of federal lands that are set aside for the use and benefit of First Nations, and all lands which may come under their control, and the second is the protection of their aboriginal treaty rights on what are called Crown lands.
The federal government has not implemented forest management regimes for the lands that are now under federal jurisdiction that First Nations use. Second, they have not been proactive or taken any meaningful steps to act as a fiduciary when it comes to aboriginal rights on what are called Crown lands.
Senator Whelan: I believe Ms Higgins mentioned that some countries seem to be against Canada's policies.
Ms Higgins: I would not put it in those words. I would say that the federal government tends to leave out those countries that are against its push for a forest convention and only mention America. However, Norway, New Zealand and other countries are not in support; the EU is split. I do not want to say the federal government does not have support; they have support from certain countries and not others in that respect.
Senator Whelan: Do they have support from the United States of America?
Ms Higgins: No, they do not.
Senator Whelan: I would wonder about getting support there. The Secretary of Agriculture in the United States has total control of agriculture, but that office also has control of forestry, too. The states are just extension services.
Ms Higgins: The United States spoke out most strongly against Canada's push for a forest convention at the recent International Forum on Forestry, in Geneva, as did Norway and New Zealand, based on several issues that come with a forest convention.
Senator Whelan: Mr. Chairman, how can we trade with the United States of America when they have one person dealing with forestry. We have 10 or 11 people with whom they will have to deal. That makes it all the more difficult.
In Timmins, we were told about the invisible provincial boundary that you could walk across and not know you walked across it where there could be a completely different program on either side of it. The people are treated differently, whether aboriginal or forestry peoples.
It is unfortunate that the federal government has abdicated its responsibilities in this regard. I feel the same way about fisheries, too. They never would have done that if there had been another minister there, I can tell you.
There is a concept that we hear in some of the meetings, although I did not attend them all, that perhaps there should not be any forestry. Some say preserve the biodiversity, and they acknowledge that forestry is an important industry.
I recently read a document from the National Aboriginal Forestry Association, an interview with Harry Bombay and Peggy Smith.
I gather from your presentation today that you want to be involved more in forestry issues. What is your perspective on the bill before the present Government of Ontario to abdicate all forest rights to companies in Ontario?
Mr. Bombay: Most land in Canada is licensed to the forest industry now. Those areas that have not been are in the process of being licensed to industry.
From the aboriginal point of view, there is a delicate balance between traditional and preservation aspirations as opposed to economic development. Aboriginal people are wrestling with that issue all the time. Each community has a different perspective.
Aboriginal people do want to preserve biodiversity and traditional use of the forests and traditional use activities. It is a question of how much can they do to get involved in the forest industry.
Aboriginal communities are becoming involved in the forest industry. We do have, at last count, approximately 600 aboriginal-controlled forest companies across the country, from very small companies to the Meadow Lake Tribal Council which employs close to 400 in their various companies.
There is quite a range of forest companies involved in many different things, from forest harvesting to silviculture to some of the non-timber values in harvesting activities. There is quite a mix. When I say 600 companies, it covers that whole range of activity.
Senator Whelan: You talked about trade that took place for centuries between the aboriginal people. You are now not even involved in any of the United States export quotas for lumber.
Mr. Bombay: We have about six companies that have some quota. There are approximately three companies in B.C. that have a small amount of quota. We have one in Ontario. Some of our quota is obtained through our joint-venture partners who work with some of the forest companies we have now. We get quota both directly and indirectly.
Companies have closed because they have not been able to get a sufficient quota of softwood lumber quota.
Kyahwood came to see me a week ago. That company is a Wet'suwet'en and Northwood joint venture near Smithers. They had a certain amount of quota. If you are familiar with the softwood lumber agreement, you will know that value-added products can be moved to the U.S. without quota. They were drilling holes in their studs in order that their product would be considered a value-added product. That loophole was closed in the softwood lumber agreement.
At one point, they were making a profit of about $11,000 per month. Since that loophole was closed in the softwood lumber agreement, they have been losing approximately $88,000 a month because they lost access to the U.S. market.
That is the kind of financial impact it has. Of course that impacts jobs. They used to have a staff of 50 and now have about 20. That is happening across the country in First Nations forestry companies.
Senator Whelan: NAFA, the acronym for Mr. Bombay's organization, lacks only the "T" to read "NAFTA," the North American Free Trade Agreement, but it does not sound like it is free to me.
Mr. Bombay: No, it does not. We have often questioned the rationale behind the softwood lumber agreement, when NAFTA is in place supposedly to give broad direction on trade.
Ms Higgins: I should like to respond to the senator's first question, which was based on economics. He asked whether First Nations want to be involved in the forest sector. First Nations very much want to be involved in the forest sector. To put it in perspective again, the communities I work for locally were all forest dependent. They were shoved out of the forest industry when they could not compete with the change from a quota system to a tenure system under the Forest Act in 1982. They were given no tenure. We have no tenure; we have no access to resources; and therefore it is hard to be economically viable.
Economics are the bottom line for any community and any business. You have to be viable.
The Chairman: The First Nations were left out of the tenure agreements in New Brunswick also, but in the last year New Brunswick went back to the people who have tenure and said that 5 per cent or 8 per cent of what they had must be turned over to the aboriginal people. Have you looked at that system?
Mr. Bombay: Yes. The 5 per cent and 8 per cent are the two relevant numbers. First Nations are supposed to get 5 per cent of AAC in New Brunswick. I believe that eight of the 14 First Nations in New Brunswick have signed agreements on that 5 per cent at this time. That may or may not be satisfactory to First Nations in New Brunswick.
This proves that governments can grant tenure if they wish to.
Ms Higgins: In negotiations in which I have been involved, I always argue for clawback. I have been unsuccessful but I do not stop trying. I recently had a meeting with the district manager and the regional manager of forests, attempting to negotiate a community tenure. I was told by the district manager that there is no available AAC. That is the response in British Columbia. They will not surrender any of their AAC. According to the licensees, it is just economics.
The Chairman: We have a New Brunswick senator on our committee. He might tell you how it was done in New Brunswick.
Senator Robichaud: The witnesses here today probably know more about the process that took place in New Brunswick than I. The success was that the aboriginal people were recognized as having some right to the annual cut.
You say that it might not be exactly what they want. I hope they continue to negotiate and that through that process they will increase economic activity, which is what the people are looking for. They want an opportunity to work and be productive.
The rate of unemployment in aboriginal communities in New Brunswick was unacceptable, as high as 90 per cent in some cases, which led to all sorts of problems. If they can continue to have some access, that will certainly help. However, there is still more to be done.
Mr. Bombay, you said that your presentation was rather negative, but you gave good examples of aboriginal involvement in the forestry. Would you give the committee a few of those good examples? This is what we can build on.
Mr. Bombay: One of the good examples comes from West Chilcotin Forest Products in the Anahim Lake area of B.C. That is a three-way joint venture between the Ulkatcho First Nation, the non-aboriginal community of Anahim Lake, and a lumber company called Carrier Lumber. They each own one third. That company has been quite successful in the last few years. They have put in place some good people and policies. One of the policies pertains to the employment and contracting of the company. All employment in the mill and all contracting in areas of logging and hauling is to be 50 per cent aboriginal. They have structured that within the structure of the corporation.
They are now expanding into the value-added area. I was in their community last August. I saw the new buildings and the good working relationship that has been created by the non- aboriginal and aboriginal community and the forest company. That is a good example of how deals can be put in place.
However, that company could do much better if it had more softwood lumber quota. I believe that they only have quota for the equivalent of 45 per cent of their potential production. They are still not as advanced as they could be.
The Chairman: Is the quota allocated by the forest industry or by the government?
Mr. Bombay: There is a national committee that allocates quota among the four provinces. There are regional committees struck in each of the four provinces that allocate the quota within the provinces.
Ms Higgins: There is no First Nation input into those allocations.
The Chairman: But the committees were made up by the ancestral big companies?
Ms Higgins: Yes.
The Chairman: And the government?
Mr. Bombay: Yes.
The Chairman: Could the federal government insist that aboriginal companies be given a certain amount of quota?
Mr. Bombay: That is one possibility. There are many side agreements attached to the softwood lumber agreement. Some of them pertain to the price of lumber. If the price exceeds a certain amount, additional quota comes in. That extra quota can be used to support what they call hardship cases, which are often First Nations companies and new entrants. There are ways around that. In order to allocate, they have to take quota away from someone else, and that becomes problematic.
In my view, the best way of approaching the softwood lumber agreement is to seek an exemption from the softwood lumber agreement for First Nations forestry companies.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces are exempted now from the softwood lumber agreement. Why can First Nations forestry companies not be exempted as well?
Senator Robichaud: The Americans would have to agree to that exemption, would they not?
Mr. Bombay: Yes, they would. When you look at the small size of aboriginal forestry companies it would be a drop in the bucket. The softwood lumber market that First Nations do supply is presently small.
Ms Higgins: The softwood lumber agreement is up for renegotiation in March 2001. On behalf of the groups I represent, First Nations will be looking for direct representation in those negotiations. We will be seeking an exemption.
Senator DeWare: It appears that the aboriginal people and the First Nations do not have the same opportunity to access the land. In the early 1980s New Brunswick implemented one of the best forest management programs: if you cut a tree, you plant a tree.If this was not done, the licence was revoked. Why can the federal government not offer a similar program to the aboriginal peoples. It would allow access to so much of the forestry where you live, and allow you to manage it. It would be the same as we presently allow Crown corporations and private companies.
Mr. Bombay: That would be great if that could be accomplished. It is something that the federal government should promote. Lands are now under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments which control forest management. The provincial governments tend not to recognize our needs and our rights in the forest.
Senator DeWare: We are talking about a federal-provincial agreement rather than just a provincial agreement?
Mr. Bombay: Yes.
Senator DeWare: Are the recommendations from the Royal Commission being addressed?
Ms Higgins: No, they are not being addressed at all.
Mr. Bombay: There were some very good recommendations in the Royal Commission's report. To date we have found that the response from the federal government does not address the issues in the specificity that the Royal Commission made them.
The federal government is introducing programs. They have expanded the Resource Access Negotiation Program and they have also introduced a program called Resource Acquisition. However, those programs are not specific to forestry.
While they have introduced a few new programs, they are not dealing with the underlying policy issues of resource access that was mentioned in the Royal Commission report.
Senator DeWare: Would that allow your people to manage a certain portion of the land, including cutting and exporting and developing your materials, as well as replanting the forest?
Mr. Bombay: Yes.
Senator DeWare:Mr. Bombay, you mentioned that the First Nations Forestry Program is worth $5 million a year and has been expanded. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Bombay: The First Nations Forestry Program spends approximately $5.5 million per year. It was a five year program implemented in 1996. It will end March 31, 2001, coincidentally when the softwood lumber agreement expires.
The program is primarily directed to economic development. It is not about forest management on any reserve lands, as previous programs were, such as the Indian Forest Lands Program, which was part of the federal-provincial forest resource development agreements.
When the federal government got out of these forest resource development agreements in 1995, we had to convince them that they still had a responsibility on Indian reserve lands. We convinced them to maintain a program that has become known as the First Nations Forestry Program. This program was refocused toward economic development as opposed to the sustainable development or sustainable management of Indian forests.
Senator DeWare: That was the direction in which they were going with the federal-provincial agreement. Then they went in a different direction.
Mr. Bombay: Not only that, but the moneys at that time were decreased by approximately 30 per cent.
This existing program, the First Nations Forestry Program, is decreasing each year. Next year it will be approximately $5 million a year and the next year $4.5. It is on a sliding scale downward. That has to be addressed. The First Nations Forestry Program is the only one we have dealing with community-based First Nations forestry.
Ms Higgins: With respect to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Royal Commission made specific recommendations for interim measures to improve aboriginal access to forestry resources on Crown land and participation in their management and development.
In British Columbia, we do have a forest practices code whereby companies can sign off their own work. When it comes to aboriginal involvement, all they have to do is send a letter. It is called the referrals process.
First Nations groups that I represent will have no part in that process because it does not protect their aboriginal rights and title to the land.
We are attempting to negotiate for tenure reform to allow us access to manage the forest and to improve the forest practices codes. We need tenure reform. Of the government community tenures coming out now, only one will be aboriginal; the others will be community led. So tenure reform is needed. First Nations will manage holistically, either bettering or following the forest practices guidelines.
Senator DeWare: Do you think if some recommendations from the Royal Commission could be implemented properly, that would answer some of the needs of the aboriginal people in the forest management programs?
Ms Higgins: If they made an attempt to implement them it would answer the needs. "Properly" is a difficult word to define; the point is whether they are committed to implementing them. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is very good; it is right in a lot of instances. However, it sits on a shelf. The recommendations are not being implemented.
The Chairman: Ms Jim-Cant, in the Yukon I would think there would be a tremendous input from the aboriginal side for the use of the forest as it was originally designed, before we got into exporting and cutting of fibre. I am thinking of trap lines and tourism and fishing and so on. We had the same thing in the non-aboriginal community. There was tourism, snowmobilers, the fisheries, and so on, conflicting with fibre cutters. If you go towards the aboriginals having control of any area, will you not have the same fight between the fibre cutters and sellers, on the one side, and, on the other, those who want to preserve the forest as a home for game and trapping and traditional use of forests. In other words, a feller-buncher run by a non-aboriginal will cause as much damage as one run by an aboriginal.
Ms Jim-Cant: Without getting into too much detail, I think the Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council will elaborate on some of these issues with respect to that.
In terms of a partnership and developing strategies, we are kind of at a crossroads right now in the territory where the federal government is in the process of devolving some of its responsibility to the territorial government.
The Chairman: Some people say not "devolving" but "deserting."
Ms Jim-Cant: They are devolving some of their responsibility, including forest management and resources, to the territorial government. Through the Umbrella Final Agreement, First Nations is supposed to be a party to the process. To date, we have not signed a memorandum of understanding with respect to that process. The Yukon government is in the process of developing a forest strategy. We have not, unfortunately, been actively involved in that process. Once again, an opportunity for meaningful partnership and development is evading us. Hopefully, we can salvage the situation through our lobby efforts here and in other avenues and venues with the Yukon government.
Aside from talking about the allocation of timber in the Yukon, I will leave that to Ms Warrington and Mr. Taylor, who have some specific ideas and information to share with you in that regard.
Senator Adams: Ms Jim-Cant, do you have the same problems in the Yukon that B.C. and Ontario have with the federal government? You do not have anything on the reserve but how are land claims in the Yukon settled with the Government of Canada? Does the Government of Canada still have control over some of the forestry? Do you have a right to free trade in the province? How does that work?
Ms Jim-Cant: In my presentation, I talked about where DIAND, under the Indian Act, maintains control of issuing timber licenses and permits on First Nations land in the Yukon, which would be considered Crown land. Until the signing of the Umbrella Final Agreement in the Yukon, we were a party to that process. That was the only way in which we could access timber, or anything else for that matter.
We are now in a process where we are seeing a devolution occur from federal to territorial jurisdiction. Part of the problem, again, is that the federal government is still implementing its jurisdiction with respect to timber permits and allocation. They are not recognizing their responsibility with respect to including Yukon First Nations in that process.
That is part of the breach of the Umbrella Final Agreement between the three governments, not just the two governments. In the Yukon, when we settled our agreement it was a tripartite process.
Senator Adams: Do you use your local area for exporting softwood lumber outside the country? How does the system work?
Ms Jim-Cant: Exporting softwood lumber?
Senator Adams: Yes. You do not have any exporting permits. You can only use timber locally in the Yukon. Other people are concerned about exporting into other countries. You are cutting lumber. Is it only used in the Yukon area?
Ms Jim-Cant: No, timber is exported. Unfortunately, First Nations have not been involved in that process -- at least, not for the duration that exporting has taken place. As Mr. Bombay said, some First Nations are getting involved in a partnership relationship with other industry to take part in that venture. At this point, however, I do not think there are any First Nations in the Yukon that are solely in the process of exporting timber.
The Chairman: Ms Higgins, with regard to the international scene, bearing in mind the success of the Lubicons on worldwide boycotts, the fact that the certification process is starting to take hold in Europe and some of the foreign markets, and the fact that a large part of our markets are exported, I am sure that the idea of approaching foreign governments and foreign buyers to exert a little pressure in the certification process to incorporate a strong aboriginal content has entered your mind.
Ms Higgins: It is funny you should mention that, because we now have a bilateral process with the alliance, dealing with some of the problems in the forest sector. Under the Delgamuukw decision, the Province of British Columbia has not recognized any of our rights yet. The bands that I work for are not in treaty and, at this point in time, because they disagree with the treaty process, they will not go into treaty.
Recently, a bilateral process was set up, and your words about going straight to the European Community and talking about all this were not too far off the mark. The idea of going there and talking about certification, about our lack of rights, about the lack of sustainable harvest, about the harvesting practices and the non-management of traditional resources has certainly entered our minds.
Mr. Bombay: I wish to make a point. We have a number of documents here that NAFA has prepared, which I would like to leave with the chairman. We can get more, but these are copies. We have the "Aboriginal Forest Land Management Guidelines," the "Aboriginal Forest Base Traditional Knowledge in Canada" -- how it is used or not used -- and other documents.
One document contains a map which indicates the boreal forest. It shows that the majority of aboriginal treaties in Canada are located in the boreal forest.
The Chairman: Our next witnesses, Ms Warrington and Mr. Taylor, are from the Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council. Many years ago, as a hungry, young geologist, I worked up around a huge granite mountain not far from there. It is great asbestos country. Please proceed.
Ms Blanche Warrington, Manager, Renewable Resources, Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council: I wish to thank the Chairperson, Honourable Nicholas Taylor, and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my First Nation, the Teslin Tlinget.
As mentioned, my name is Blanche Warrington; however, my Tlinget Indian name is Yekanasheen and I belong to the Eagle Clan of the Teslin Tlinget First Nation. I am a forest technician and work in the capacity of the Renewable Resources Manager for my First Nation. My co-worker and supervisor, Mr. Hugh Taylor, will be making a presentation to you following mine.
The Teslin Tlinget have occupied our traditional territory in the Yukon for approximately 400 years. My people have lived solely off the land, and even today they still enjoy the comforts of the wilderness through camping, subsistence hunting and fishing, trapping, and numerous other outdoor activities. We are a people no different from any other aboriginal people in that we have historically depended on the natural resources provided by the land for our survival.
Since the construction of the Alaska Highway, we have found it increasingly difficult to maintain this life-style, and now the very resources on which we are so dependent are being threatened.
My people, in particular my elders, have become very concerned over the recent publication of a preliminary timber supply analysis for the southern Yukon which was compiled by DIAND Forest Resources. This timber supply analysis projects that the Nisutlin forest management unit, which encompasses our traditional territory, has an available annual allowable cut of 89,000 cubic metres for the next 10 years.
My elders are concerned that this timber supply analysis is focused mainly on the old growth forests that surround Teslin Lake and the Nisutlin River. Our people have always referred to the Nisutlin River as their breadbasket, in that that is where they have traditionally harvested and gathered for their own subsistence. My elders are adamant that a 1,000-metre buffer be enforced on both sides of any navigable waters, whereas the timber supply analysis only stipulates a 100-metre buffer. My elders have also specified that they will not tolerate any clear-cutting within our traditional territory.
My elders have expressed concern about the retention of the old growth forests and concern that our traditional territory must remain in a pristine state. My elders consistently refer to a logging project that occurred adjacent to Sidney Creek, which lies within our traditional territory. In 1992-93, Forest Resources allocated a 15,000 cubic metre permit along Sidney Creek, which covered approximately 75 hectares with approximately 35 per cent slopes. The timber waste and debris left on that site was a disgrace.
In 1995, Forest Resources artificially regenerated the site by planting spruce. This past summer, a co-worker and I walked through this plantation to assess its condition. In our estimation, the cut blocks were not sufficiently restocked, and the surviving trees averaged only 15 centimetres in height, which is not a very good result considering that those trees were planted three years ago.
To date, there is no statistical data available to prove that plantations will succeed in the boreal forests of the southern Yukon. This is directly related to the fact that almost all plantations in southeast Yukon were only planted in the last three to four years, and therefore there is no solid proof that artificial regeneration is practicable.
Getting back to the issue of the TSA, I would like to bring forward another concern for your consideration. In 1995, Forest Resources set an annual allowable cut of 350,000 cubic metres for the southeast Yukon. This annual allowable cut was set based on a timber supply analysis that was completed as part of the draft "Southeast Yukon Forest Management Plan." This management plan was compiled in 1991 and is now shelved.
Now, Forest Resources is setting an annual allowable cut using a preliminary timber supply analysis for the southeast Yukon which is still under public review. It should be understood that the southeast Yukon has been harvested at an unsustainable rate and now stakeholders are searching for greener pastures farther up the Alaska Highway. When Forest Resources publicly announces that there are 89,000 cubic metres available in our backyard, we have a problem.
The timber supply analysis has increased its projected timber supply by 246 per cent. The Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council and the community of Teslin have argued that the timber supply analysis is not based on sustainable forest management, in that the utilization standards are unrealistically set far too low at a 10-centimetre top diameter and a 15-centimetre butt diameter. Also 80.9 per cent of the merchantable stands identified in the timber supply analysis fall into a poor-site productivity class.
In closing, I would like to mention that during the 1997-1998 harvesting season, the Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council worked cooperatively with Forest Resources in developing an alternative timber-harvesting demonstration forest within our traditional territory. The "demo forest" demonstrates alternative harvesting using selection-harvesting systems and was a proud accomplishment for both governments.
For the 1998-1999 harvesting season, the Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council is still negotiating with Forest Resources to reduce the annual allowable cut from 89,000 cubic metres to 16,000 cubic metres. This will give the council the opportunity to commence the development of our land-use plan, our wildlife management plan and our forest management plan, which, with all due respect, should be completed prior to the issuance of a timber supply analysis.
I would also like to mention that we do have copies of the preliminary timber supply analysis. We also have a copy of a critique, which we had done by Herb Hammond, that is available for your review.
Mr. Hugh Taylor, Director, Lands and Resources, Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council: Listening to the last presentation makes me realize that the Yukon First Nations are very fortunate in many ways. Up there, it is not an issue of access to timber as much as it is the issue of sustainable management.
I will follow up by outlining further concerns that we have with the southern Yukon timber supply analysis. Just to clarify, the Nisutlin is one forest management unit in the southern Yukon. This process covered six units but we are just addressing the Nisutlin because it relates to the Teslin traditional territory.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of a timber supply analysis. Long before a chainsaw starts up, long before a timber permit is issued, long before someone decides who gets what timber, someone must decide how much can be cut in a sustainable way.
Perhaps the best way to sum up our concerns for the timber supply analysis is to say that the model used has proven to be unsustainable in southern Canada so why would we want to use it in the North, where the soils are colder, the climates are more harsh and growths are slower?
The model being used in the Yukon is a B.C. model. It was modified once for the southeast Yukon and then modified again to deal with the Teslin area. They use only the timber part of it.
In B.C. they are now doing a lot more than just looking at timber growth. They are looking at all the forest values. In the Yukon, they just use the timber part of it. So they are not even adopting a total B.C. model.
I will list what we see as the omissions or the topics that are inadequately considered in the timber supply analysis. There are the wildlife habitat issues, such as winter range and wildlife corridors; the retention of old growth, and the lack of archaeological impact assessments. Every other jurisdiction in Canada does those archaeological impact assessments before harvesting.
Ms Warrington mentioned the riparian buffers and the difference between what the elders think and what the Forest Resources puts in. The trapping interests were not considered in any way. The outfitters' interests were not considered. They were not even discussed. The heritage interests were left out. The whole wilderness-tourism business was not consulted. Our economic development advisers tell us that our best hope for economic development in the Teslin area is wilderness tourism. That is not too compatible with clear-cutting and roads.
Ms Warrington mentioned land-use planning. We are just starting land-use planning now under the Umbrella Final Agreement. She talked about regeneration delays. She also talked about alternative harvesting. If we move to alternative harvesting from clear-cuts then the regeneration is a non-issue. The first thing they teach you in forestry school is that spruce does not like the sun; they like to grow up underneath other vegetation, under aspen or something else. When you clear-cut and plant spruce, you are kind of working uphill. I think that is called the synthesis syndrome.
The timber supply amount is also based on the assumption that the herbs and shrub phase is not allowed to happen. In B.C., after a clear-cut, when the herbs and shrubs come up competing with the planted trees, herbicide is sprayed to kill them. That herb and shrub phase is a very important phase for the soils and for the wildlife. We need to let that 10, 20 or 30 years of growth happen.
There was also no definition made of ecological limits like wet soils or climates or micro-organisms. There were surveys done on social or cultural limits.
When I speak of cultural limits, a certain land base is required for First Nations to carry on subsistence lifestyles. Under the final agreement, there are hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights. There must be some consideration then of those rights and the kind of land base required to support those rights.
No economic analysis was done. The forest fire zoning will be done this fall, which is a year after they have done this exercise. The B.C. model assumes a clear-cutting style of harvesting that the elders, again, do not accept.
No access management or access impact assessment was done. One of the big fears of the elders is that, once access is created, you can never keep people out. Deactivating roads does not seem to stop four-wheelers and skidoos and things like that.
The timber supply model includes what are called fire islands, which is what are left after a burn. Ecosystem management specialists tell us that those islands are very important for reseeding and regeneration, and for shelter for the animals that escape a fire. They run onto the islands of green left during the fires. Those islands are considered part of the merchantable or harvestable timber. We think they should be left.
The maps that show forest cover and types of forest are full of errors. We refer to these as "inventory deficiencies." The foresters we have hired have gone crazy trying to work with those maps.
Ms Warrington has referred already to the low-average site index. If you think about that, 80.9 per cent of the sites are in the low-site class. Our ecosystem management advisers have told us that those sites should not be there at all. If you accept that and take out that site class, then you reduce your timber supply, or your annual cut, by 80 per cent right off the top.
The TSA assumes a 100-year rotation on good spruce sites. Elders know that the trees are 250 to 300 years old when they are mature. Once all the stands identified have been harvested, you will not see old growth again under this kind of model.
All of us heard last summer and the summer before about the increasing fire trend. Across Canada, it has gone from 1 million to 3 million square hectares in the last 10 years. It is a threefold increase.
Ms Warrington also spoke about using a low definition of merchantability. The mills in the Yukon cannot saw wood that small at this time. Thus, it is a moot point to go down that low, because it includes wood that cannot be cut there and it inflates the TSA number.
The model also includes things that we think should have been left out or put in differently. I spoke about including the small trees and poor site classes. We expect land use planning to identify areas where there should not be roads. Much of that will include the Nisutlin Valley. The Teslin elders have always said that there will be no logging in that whole valley, which means no roads. The TSA model assumes that roads will be built into all those stands included in the formula.
Parks Canada is initiating a feasibility study for the Wolf Lake area. That study area accounts for over one-half of the area that is in the timber supply analysis calculation. If the park moves ahead, you reduce the TSA by 50 per cent. The Government of Yukon has developed a policy, which it calls the "Protected Areas Strategy," that will be finalized this month. They will be looking at park lands and other types of areas that should be protected, and, again, that will reduce the area available for forest production.
All in all, when you look at it, there are so many things that should have been considered that were not that the TSA is probably at least 80 per cent or 85 per cent higher than it should have been.
I will go back to what I call the balancing act. This question came up earlier. The Teslin Tlinget Council owns a sawmill. It is called Yukon River Timber. They are building to a capacity of 40,000 cubic metres per year. The Teslin Tlinget Council also owns an outfitting business in the Wolf Lake area, as well as a tourist services business in Teslin. Like any First Nation, however, we have to struggle with unemployment, low education and other social issues. All of those needs have to be balanced, and that has to be done with a sense of stewardship of the traditional territory.
Just because there is a final land claim agreement in Teslin does not mean that the elders see that as shrinking their obligation for being stewards of the settlement land. On the contrary; they still see themselves as stewards of the traditional territory. We look at everything that goes on. We do not just look at settlement land.
Another point that I should mention is that even though the Teslin Tlinget have settled in the Yukon, they are negotiating in B.C. So wWe have the joy of working with three different governments.
The Yukon River Timber people are trying to do a good job. If it comes down to the crunch and sustainability is not possible, they will close. Profit is not the overriding principle. As part of that, some of the people from the sawmill went to Finland where they learned how to grow trees faster and to have almost a 100 per cent utilization rate. Much to our surprise, when the people from Finland and Sweden came to Teslin, they wanted to know how to restore a fully functioning forest to Finland and Sweden because they were losing the micro-organisms and all the stuff that goes with a complete forest by going straight for the timber. I am not sure how they will get the mice and other animal and plant life to return.
It is interesting to note that they focused so much on forestry, and with such success, that they lost a lot. They only realize that now.
In summary, I cannot see how Canada can go to the United Nations and boast about being a world leader in sustainable forest management when in the Yukon, the only jurisdiction where Canada manages the forest, they are not practising sustainable forestry. In the Yukon, however, there is still a chance to do it right.
In order to ensure sustainable forest management, we see the TSA becoming a four-step process. The first step would be to define the ecological limits. The second would be to determine the socio-economic and cultural limits. The third would be to determine what "ecologically responsible forest management" means on those lands that are identified through the other processes as being available for timber production. The fourth step is the one DIAND went with first, that is, to calculate the annual allowable cut. We think this is best achieved by DIAND working with the local community steering group. That group would have to be supported by their own specialists in ecosystem management. Until that happens, we hope that harvest levels will be kept at historic levels. To many, 89,000 cubic metres may seem like a low number; but in Teslin, where the historic level is less than 2,000 cubic metres, 89,000 came as quite a shock.
Perhaps I should thank Forest Resources for coming out with such a high number, because it had the effect of mobilizing the whole community. The local residents were even more outraged than the Teslin Tlinget Council. As a result, Forest Resources were forced to set up a steering committee of local residents and work with them; that is how we are negotiating with them to come down to 16,000 cubic metres. We hope that process continues, even though they will not formally back off their model or their number.
The boreal forest is the largest ecosystem in the world, which is a pretty unique position. There is more than enough for every one. The forest can satisfy our needs, but it will never satisfy our greed.
Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about our concerns.
Senator Spivak: I should know the answer to the question I am about to ask. However, I do not exactly understand the legality of the Forest Resources drafting a plan and saying that is what it is. Who are the forestry companies that are in there doing the harvesting? First, what is the legal status of their plan?
Mr. Taylor: I would not call it a plan. It is a timber supply analysis. They are mandated to manage the forest through the Territorial Lands Act; they are also required, through the final agreement, to consult. In this instance, the consultation happened. We met with the inventory forester in August of 1997 and the phone line went dead. Then, in March of 1998, we heard that they had released that number to industry.
In Teslin right now, there are no forest companies operating. Yukon River Timber and about six others have been tentatively approved for permits, but there is no permit at present.
Senator Spivak: Is the Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council part of the decision-making process? What is the legal framework? What is your legal position?
Mr. Taylor: Chapter 17 of the Final Agreement covers forest resources. Chapter 16 provides for a Joint Renewable Resource Council to be set up. That advisory body will then advise the minister. The minister is supposed to consult with them and the First Nation on anything that would affect forest resources.
Senator Spivak: Have you had any legal opinions on what that means in terms of what your view of all of these matters is and what their view might be?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, we have had two legal opinions. They both said that the government has failed to consult. There is reluctance, though, to proceed further with court actions or injunctions, because we were successful in moving them from 89,000 to 16,000 cubic metres for this harvesting year. However, we know they want to return to 89,000 cubic metres in April, so we still may have to go that way. The other positive thing was the creation of the community steering group.
Senator Spivak: I do not know anywhere in Canada where sustainable harvesting is taking place. That is sort of an ideal situation. I do not think we have encountered anywhere that that is really taking place. Maybe the chairman has a better idea.
Do you think you can achieve this model, which would be a fantastic model to have? As you say, it would be a fantastic opportunity through this kind of cooperative method. Are you reserving the opportunity to take legal action if you need to do so?
Mr. Taylor: I am sure the leadership will always reserve that option. I am fairly optimistic so far, partly because Yukon River Timber, the band-owned company, is the only real producer north of Watson Lake. As a result of the limitation on exports -- you can only export out of the Yukon 40 per cent -- you must be a value-added miller of some kind. Therefore, Yukon River Timber will be one of the main parties.
Senator Spivak: Whose mandate is that? Under what jurisdiction do the export limitations fall?
Mr. Taylor: That is under DIAND rules or Forest Resources rules. That is the policy, I do not think that is the law.
The Chairman: Is there a clause in the Yukon's legislation that DIAND would have to turn over the administration to the Yukon Minister of Resources? How long can DIAND continue to represent that it is looking after the forestry interests of the Yukon?
Mr. Taylor: The timeline for devolution, which I do not think is achievable, is March 31, 1999; that is when they have to have an agreement in principle. The transfer would start on December 31, 1999. I do not see that happening; however, that is their timeline.
The Chairman: Do either of you have any feeling that the devil in the guise of the Yukon government would be any better than the devil in the guise of DIAND?
Ms Warrington: We would certainly hope that, once devolution does occur, certain programs would be transferred to the territorial government. My feeling is that, at that point, we are working with the territorial government rather than the territorial government and the federal government. We are hoping that we can work cooperatively together to resolve some of these issues, such as the timber supply analysis.
Senator Spivak: What are the provisions with regard to resource harvesting? Hopes are wonderful, but from what I have seen of devolution in my own province, Manitoba, it is pretty sad what happens.
Mr. Taylor: It is only in the last three years that they have started developing anything longer than four pages. The Yukon government is not only stealing federal public servants, forester types, but is also planning to adopt federal legislation by reference, because otherwise it would take too long for them to put legislation in place. Therefore, we are left looking at the same legislation for who knows how long and at the same people.
The Chairman: Before we go to Senator Adams, I had one more question on the legal aspect of this. The Tlinget territory is not a reserve, is it? I understand that the Yukon and the Tlinget are joint managers of the land in question; is that correct? Do you have a limit, or a point at which you run into the Old Crow in the North, or anything like that? Is there a particular area of influence where the Teslin Tlinget Council is limited?
Mr. Taylor: Yes. We are pretty well limited to the traditional territory, which is about 16,000 square kilometres. Over that, through the Wildlife Act, we have jurisdiction over citizens harvesting for the whole territory. Through the land and resource legislation we have jurisdiction on settlement lands, which is 937 square miles of that territory.
On settlement lands, we control the forest resources. The elders do not see their stewardship stopping at the survey line. However, what will potentially happen if the situation carries on is that you will have little green islands of settlement lands and less than green outside.
The Chairman: The 89,000 cubic metre annual cut is not for the settlement lands, it is for the Crown lands. Is it all Yukon now or is it part British Columbia?
Mr. Taylor: It is just the Yukon.
Senator Adams: You mentioned that clear-cutting will have an effect on the culture of the people. You mentioned trapping in particular. Will the income of trappers and hunters be affected by clear-cutting?
Ms Warrington: I have no idea what income trappers earn. I assume that incomes would fluctuate. I understand that most of the trappers are fairly successful right now. However, if our forests are harvested, that will drastically affect the incomes of trappers. That is a big concern because our entire traditional territory is covered by the trap lines of our people and at least 70 per cent are Teslin Tlinget trappers. If this harvesting were to take place, it would affect their income.
Senator Adams: Will it be locals or outsiders who will benefit from employment in forestry?
Ms Warrington: In my opinion, the benefit will be for stakeholders who have been harvesting in the southeast portion of Yukon, in the Watson Lake district. The southeast Yukon is slowly but surely being depleted of forests. As I am sure everyone here is aware, there is a shortage of timber in B.C. Many B.C. loggers moved up into the south Yukon and were able to access timber permits. Now, because the forests are becoming depleted in the southeast Yukon, they tend to move further up the Alaska Highway. The next stop on the Alaska highway is basically our traditional territory.
Senator Adams: Are there no regulations about what time of year clear-cutting can be done? In the Arctic, not much exploration is allowed in the summertime because it damages the land. The only time core drilling is allowed is in the winter. There should be similar regulations with regard to clear-cutting.
Ms Warrington: All timber harvesting in the Yukon is winter harvesting. I do not believe there has been any summer harvesting in recent years. Some loggers in the Yukon are requesting that the harvesting season be extended to include summer months. I imagine that will be another issue with First Nations, the Yukon Conservation Society and other NGOs in the Yukon. I do not foresee summer harvesting, however, because the boreal forests in the Yukon are so ecologically sensitive.
Senator Adams: Mr. Taylor, you mentioned replanting. What kind of trees are being planted?
Mr. Taylor: There is a nursery in Whitehorse that provides a lot of spruce stock. Primarily they plant spruce and pine. What you see is mostly what you get with forests. If you harvest spruce, spruce wants to come back, but they want to come back after the aspen. Where you harvest pine, the soils are more suited to pine and pine will come back.
They do try to plant spruce in open clear-cuts instead of letting the aspen come in first, but that does not work very well. The seed source is pretty good. They actually export seed to Norway and Finland, which are at a similar latitude. I think they are okay in terms of source, but I would still like them to stay away from clear-cutting so that regeneration is not an issue at all.
Senator Adams: Do temperatures in Finland go down to minus 70, or does that only happen in the Yukon?
Mr. Taylor: I do not think it gets that cold there.
Senator Robichaud: What is the rate of unemployment in the area to which you are referring, where 89,000 cubic metres is proposed as a total allowable cut? That rate could exert some pressure on those who will determine the level of cut because of the employment it would provide. This is a factor which sometimes bears much weight in the decision-making on what activities should be conducted in an area, or is this not a factor at all?
Mr. Taylor: It is definitely a factor and we are never allowed to forget that. The unemployment in Teslin varies from perhaps 30 per cent in the summer to close to 70 per cent in the winter. It would be a matter of who gets the employment. If Yukon River Timber cuts, they would probably employ up to 24 people. If there were more jobs than that, the people would come in from elsewhere to fill them. They would not go to people from Teslin. The companies coming in from Watson Lake would bring their own crews. It would not help the people of Teslin right now in terms of employment, but that is an argument that the government does use.
Senator Robichaud: For the people seeking work, it is an argument that you must take into consideration, because they have needs and there are resources there. Reductions could be made to the point where it would not be economical to build roads and other infrastructure, so pressures come to bear on people taking the decisions. Where is the balance?
Mr. Taylor: In the minds of the management team at Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council, the balance is what is sustainable. That is to say, sustainable forest management not sustainable timber management. If 20,000 cubic metres is what is sustainable, then it is 20,000. It could be 40,000 or 60,000, but we have no comfort that that is sustainable. We have neither the research nor the information on those figures. I worked with Forest Resources in Teslin and I worked with the band there. I also worked in different places in B.C.. It will probably be around 30,000 or 35,000 for that whole area. We have done a lot of our own cruising. The advice that we are getting is that the government is at least double where it should be.
Senator Robichaud: How long will it take to have all the proper information to make an informed decision about the total allowable cut?
Mr. Taylor: Here, we are talking about two or three years. Part of that depends on whether Parks Canada goes ahead, because they would conduct a forest potential study in their study area as well.
The Chairman: You mentioned parks. Are you talking about a national park in there that would take away part of the Teslin Tlinget traditional areas?
Mr. Taylor: A national park, yes.
The Chairman: I am sitting on another committee. We set up a park largely at the urging of a lot of aboriginal people. Some smart non-aboriginal geologists came along and said, "Do you realize there is possibly a great big copper mine there?" Now they want to take it out of the park.
Realizing that there probably would not be any timber-cutting in the national park, you might have another devil coming around the corner, namely, the one who does not want to let anyone cut anything. Have you thought about that?
Mr. Taylor: Yes. In the area that is identified, the timber potential is very limited. That is another area where we disagree with Forest Resources. They have lots of dark green on a map in an area that we know has been burnt since they produced that map.
The Chairman: That is all right. If they are only 20 years behind time, they are doing pretty well.
Mr. Taylor: Mining is a concern, and that is definitely a concern in the southeast portion of the study area. That may influence the boundary.
Senator Robichaud: Last week, we had witnesses before us who deplored the fact that we suppress fire as much as we can in all our forests, because that, they said, has a negative effect on the forest itself. It does not provide the occasion to regenerate in its natural state. How do you feel about that? If there were a fire in your area, would you go out and fight it?
Mr. Taylor: I do not want to get started on fire.
Senator Robichaud: I will not light the match, then.
Mr. Taylor: Obviously, you get a split opinion on fire. It is a bit like the abortion issue. It depends. How is that for an answer?
With fire, nature knows what it is doing. If you get a lightning fire, it tends to burn a certain distance and then there is rain and rain showers, and so on. You do not get lightning fires after a three-week dry period when there is no rain. That is when the man-caused fires happen and that is when you get your intense burns. It depends on the cause, the location and the fuel type.
A comprehensive report on the whole subject has just been finished in the Yukon. I agree with a lot of it. It is pointed out in that report that for every year of successful fire suppression we are brought one year closer to a catastrophic fire, because the boreal forest is fire dependent. If you do not have fire, you must do something else -- either logging or fuel treatment or something, because it will burn some day. We are looking now more in terms of defensible spaces rather than action zones. That is to say, if a fire occurs at this point and it is under certain conditions, we will let it burn up to that point before we will even think about it, because millions of dollars are spent up there. The fire tends to stop where it wants to stop anyway. We must think more in ecological terms and in fire behaviour terms. We would fight some and let some go. That is the answer.
Senator Robichaud: You talked about the model forest. Is that in place now? Are you doing some selective cutting in there now?
Ms Warrington: Yes. The model forest was a joint initiative between Forest Resources and the Teslin Tlinget Council. The harvesting took place last spring. It is not totally complete at this time. There are still 1,000 cubic metres that must be harvested out of the demonstration forest to make it complete.
What we have demonstrated there is the alternative selection harvesting systems. This demonstration forest is available to anyone who wants to visit it. The objective behind it was that we would have a lot of the loggers who are intent on clear-cutting come out to see the results of this demonstration forest, and, hopefully, they would start to practice some selection harvesting systems rather than clear-cutting.
Senator Robichaud: A few weeks ago, in New Brunswick, we saw a demonstration of selective cutting that was done by a machine, but a machine that was very effective. In this case, it was taking out the fir which was mature and leaving the spruce to continue growing. At the same time, it offered some shade for the young trees to grow. It looked like a good operation, in the sense that you took out the wood that was mature and left the other wood to grow more and to provide shade for the rest to mature. Is your harvesting done mechanically?
Ms Warrington: Yes. The machine is called a Wolverine. Some hand felling took place in some of the stands but the majority was done with this Wolverine. The site degradation was minimal. As I said, we are quite proud of the demonstration forest. That was a cooperative venture between the federal government and the Teslin Tlinget Council. We can work together sometimes.
Senator Robichaud: It does make a difference when you get to see an operation like that and compare it to clear-cutting, especially when you have someone who knows what is happening and can explain it to you.
I hope that your demonstration project goes a long way in convincing people that clear-cutting is not the best option.
Ms Warrington: Yes. There is a reduced level of harvesting for the 1998-99 season. Forest Resources set it at 89,000 cubic metres and we are negotiating with them to reduce it to 16,000 cubic metres. The Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council has a forest steering committee which consists of community members and Teslin Tlinget Council members. Forest Resources develops what they call a resource report. It indicates the area that they plan to harvest, and so on. We were able to comment on that resource report. When we did, one of the stipulations we made as the forest steering committee was that any harvesting that was to take place in our traditional territory had to follow the format of the demonstration forest selection system.
Ms Higgins: I should like to briefly mention a couple of other numbers for the committee.
On Monday, I will be taking part in the timber supply review of the Kamloops region. About a month ago, FRBC, Forest Renewal B.C., came out with a figure for our area that was sustainable annually of 7 million cubic metres. I am laying that groundwork, because I should like to address the point that the senator made when he asked: "How long do you think it will take for you to collect the information you need?"
As of October 8, the Forest Renewal B.C. board of directors made a decision that traditional-use studies were no longer within their mandate and they would not be funding them. That means there are no resources for First Nations communities to collect the information we need. Not being in treaty, we have no access to resource dollars to fund those basic inventory studies. We are caught. We cannot address the issues. We do not have the information we need to make informed decisions.
I have to go and take part in this timber supply review where they are looking at how much timber they will take out of the Kamloops forest district. Some funding did come in, but the government dictated the amount of funding and how long the funding would last. Other traditional-use and traditional-knowledge studies have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the Algonquin and Barrier Lake tri-lateral agreement, the communities were given amounts ranging from $300,000 to a maximum of $500,000, two years ago, to do their study. Right now, it is down to $311,000, if they are lucky.
Not only has the government cut back on the amount, they dictate a time limit. They fund only what they would deem to be the requirements needed by the government. We tend to differ on our reasons for needing the information. We do not share all the information we collect, of course, because it is very sensitive cultural information.
We do not have access to the resources or the information we need to make informed decisions. We hear that about 7 million cubic metres will be coming out of that area, and industry is laughing at that figure. That figure was brought down by the Forest Renewal board of directors.
Senator Adams: I have heard a lot about wild mushrooms that grow in areas burnt by forest fires. Do you know where those things grow? Do they grow close to any Yukon communities? How long does it take to produce a crop of those very expensive wild mushrooms up in the Yukon? Do they only grow locally? There could be some kind of economic value to those very expensive mushrooms if they grow over there.
Ms Warrington: As you probably know, approximately 350,000 hectares were burnt in the Yukon this past season. I believe, next year, these mushrooms will grow in the burned areas. I am not sure if they will grow in the following year, too. One First Nation took advantage of a burn that occurred up around Burwash. They collected all their mushrooms and found a market for them, but I believe that they just broke even.
The majority of the burns that took place in the Yukon did not occur in our traditional territory so we will not be able to actually benefit from any mushroom picking.
Senator Adams: We are talking about federal land here. Can just anyone from outside your territory go in there and pick them up? Do you have a regulation about picking?
Ms Warrington: If it is settlement land, we have first right. We have a final agreement. If we did have a fire on our settlement land, we would have first right. We also have first right on our traditional territory, too.
The Chairman: Sixty per cent of the timber product must stay in the Yukon; only 40 per cent can be exported. You must be doing something to end-use 60 per cent of the timber. What do you do with the 60 per cent you are obviously keeping?
Mr. Taylor: Just to clarify, 60 per cent must be processed before it can be exported.
The Chairman: That could be very basic processing. Has anything been done to create employment by doing more value-added processing, such as furniture making?
Mr. Taylor: Yukon River Timber does not have much of a market. Producers are looking for different ways. They have a fairly nice log-home package with grooved, machined logs. There are some sales there. It seems that that will be their market, because, for anything dimensional, a kiln is needed. They cannot compete with kiln-dried lumber coming up from the South. They use either backyard material or round wood.
Senator Spivak: I am curious about herbicide use. When we were in Quebec, we learned that herbicide use will be completely outlawed in Quebec by the year 2000. They cannot use it at all. We also, in our travels, saw a lot of regeneration that did allow the shrubs and the herbs to come back. I did not notice herbicide disallowance in your list of appropriate limits.
Before you comment, though, I would like to put to rest this whole business about jobs versus sustainable development. It seems to me that, wherever this argument has been used, only disaster has followed. The cod fishery is an outstanding example of doing certain things because we needed the jobs. Now we do not have the jobs and we do not have the fish and we have destroyed a very valuable resource. It seems to be a question of knowledge.
Sustainable forestry as a science is not that old. People do not know much about it. Forestry companies are just now beginning, some sincerely and some just as a public relations exercise, to examine what it means to do proper eco-forestry. This evolution has taken millions of years. The idea that we can suddenly just snap our fingers and know what we are doing is just garbage.
What is your view on herbicides, especially in your model forest?
Ms Warrington: As far as I know there has been no herbicide application in the Yukon since probably the cutting of the Yukon-B.C. borders several years ago. I am not sure whether southeast Yukon has actually applied any herbicide. I know that within our traditional territory, no herbicides have been used. If they were to apply herbicides on our settlement land, they would first need the permission of the Teslin Tlinget Tribal Council.
Senator Spivak: That is good.
Ms Warrington: I am sure they probably will use them in the southeast Yukon if allowed, because there are a number of plantations there and it has always been the practice to use herbicides or pesticides to reduce vegetation that is overpowering the planted trees. I am not sure. We will have to wait and see whether they actually do use herbicides.
Senator Spivak: It seems to me that in Quebec they are quite successful in regenerating and not using the herbicides. I know it can be done. That is all I was saying.
Ms Warrington: I agree with you.
Senator Robichaud: When I mentioned the employment figures, I was not advocating that we should use the resources as social filler. I am just saying that, because of certain situations, sometimes a lot of pressure is brought to bear on those who take the decisions. To make a proper decision, you must have very good information, as well as good communications with the people who are affected.
This will happen whenever you deal with resources and whenever you deal with setting total catches, cuts or harvests. That was point I was trying to make.
Ms Higgins: I would like to make one point. I want to give you an idea of what happens in the Province of British Columbia. I love this idea of using resources as a social filler. I will give you an example of where that was done recently. Last year, in B.C. it was mandated, again under Forest Renewal, that where stumpage is collected the revenues are supposedly to be put back into the land. The board of directors made the decision with regard to any project being funded that some 45 per cent of the employment must be in silviculture. That made absolutely no sense in the interior. The model came from the coast. The model was shoved into the interior. There is not that much silviculture work. We had crews out walking. It was an unsustainable number that the Government of British Columbia said had to be maintained. Licensees had to fit the bill. They did it.
Silviculture is not a sustainable practice. More and more studies are showing that it is not sustainable. To put such a practice into the interior where there are not the growing conditions was ridiculous.
Senator Adams: The Yukon approaches the issue of Crown land a little differently, does it not?
Ms Warrington: I would like to clarify that the presentation was actually from the Teslin Tlinget Council and that our concerns are with the timber supply analysis.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for a most informative presentation.
The committee adjourned.