Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 17 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 2, 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 Mira Spivak (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome to all the representatives. We welcome as our witnesses Mr. Claude Langlois, Mr. Luc Bouthillier and Mr. Denis Bernatchez.
Mr. Claude Langlois, Chairman, James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment: Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you for inviting the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment to appear before you and your colleagues, the members of the Senate Subcommittee on the Boreal Forest.
We tabled a brief that summarizes the main points of our presentation with your subcommittee clerk and we would be happy to answer any questions the members of your subcommittee may have. Basically, our presentation will deal with three aspects. As Chair of the committee, I will briefly discuss the background, roles and responsibilities of the committee and provide you with an overview of the main issues.
Mr. Luc Bouthillier will then talk about the work accomplished in recent years and provide you with the committee's thoughts on boreal forest management in the James Bay territory. He will also talk about recent initiatives undertaken by the committee in the area of forest management development, criteria and indicators.
Mr. Roméo Saganash was supposed to accompany us. He is the Cree representative. He prepared the third part of the brief submitted to you. Mr. Bouthillier will be presenting Mr. Saganash's contribution which deals with the concerns of the committee pertaining to the special status of the James Bay territory, which is occupied and used, for the most part, by the James Bay Cree.
The James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment was established in 1978 under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was signed in 1975 by the governments of Quebec and Canada and by the James Bay Cree.
The committee is composed of 13 members, four of whom are appointed by the Cree Regional Authority, four by the Government of Canada, four by the Government of Quebec and one ex officio member who is the chairman of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee.
The committee is mandated to examine and oversee the administration and management of the environmental and social protection regime established by and in accordance with Section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement for the entire James Bay territory.
A map appended to the document we submitted to you shows the boundaries of the territory under the agreement. This territory refers to that area of Quebec located south of the 55th parallel and west of the 69th meridian. This southern boundary coincides with the southern limits of the Cree trap lines.
The Quebec and Canadian governments, the Cree Regional Authority and Cree village band councils, the regional council of Radissonie or territorial municipalities for the territorial government bodies consult the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment on issues pertaining to the development of the environmental and social protection regime applicable to the territory. In addition, the advisory committee makes certain recommendations.
These recommendations deal with the adoption of bills or draft regulations, amendments to existing legislation and regulations pertaining to the environment and social protection regime, amendments to regulations and procedure regarding land use which may have a direct impact on aboriginal rights or on environmental and social impact assessment and review mechanisms and procedures applicable to the James Bay territory.
The committee must base itself on guiding principles in preparing these opinions and recommendations to the governments. These principles include, in particular, the protection of aboriginal hunting, fishing and trapping rights throughout the territory, the environmental and social protection regime in order to reduce, as much as possible, the impact of development activities taking place within the territory of aboriginal peoples, the protection of aboriginal peoples, their communities and economy, the protection of wildlife resources, the physical and biological milieu and ecosystems, aboriginal rights and guarantees in lands classified under the agreement, participation of Crees in enforcing this regime, any rights and interests which non-aboriginal people living in the territory may have, the right to undertake development projects in the territory and finally, reducing impact for aboriginals and their communities. These are the principles that guide the committee in administering and overseeing the environmental protection regime.
Over the past few years, the committee has focussed on the issue of forestry development in the James Bay territory. Section 22 of the agreement provides that the responsible Quebec ministry must send the committee the forest management plans for crown lands located in the territory. The committee must therefore review and comment on these plans within 90 days before the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources can give his approval.
Every year, logging companies harvest approximately 500 square kilometres of forest on the Cree family hunting areas. The network of logging roads is cutting deeper and deeper into the territory, giving greater access to non-aboriginal people for hunting and fishing.
Right now, logging in the James Bay territory is, without a doubt, one of the activities having the biggest impact on the Cree way of life.
It must be noted that forestry development is exempt from environmental impact assessment when included in government-approved management plans, after they have been submitted to our committee. The review conducted by the James Bay Advisory Committee of the general and five-year forestry plans is a crucial step enabling the committee to assess the environmental and social impacts of forestry activities for both the inhabitants and users of the James Bay territory. The information forwarded by logging companies is very often incomplete and, in the past, the committee has never been able to comment on the management plans in a manner which would enable us to respect the objectives of the agreement.
To rectify the situation, the committee prepared an interim directive for the submission of management plans that lists all of the aspects and particular information that must be included in such a plan. Requested information includes what impact the proposed plan will have on certain regions that are significant to the Cree, such as hunting and fishing camps, deer yards and sacred sites.
In preparing for the next assessment of a new generation of general forestry management plans, the committee and its subcommittee on forestry started a process to develop a sustainable forest management approach for the entire James Bay territory. This process resulted in an initial draft sustainable forestry management plan. The committee, along with the Ministry of Natural Resources, is currently reviewing this draft plan to define how it should be applied to the planning phase currently undertaken by the forestry companies. The committee also examined the Government of Quebec's proposed update of the Quebec forestry system as well as the Forestry Act. In particular, the committee deplores the fact that this proposal does not take any account whatsoever of the special conditions that must apply to any development in the James Bay territory, including logging. The environmental and social protection regime applicable in the territory gives the Cree, whenever it is necessary in order to protect aboriginal rights, special status and the ability to participate more fully than the general public. All this is provided for in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been in existence for 23 years, and the committee feels that a review of the terms and conditions is required. The committee has begun reviewing section 22 of the agreement, given the fact that the environmental assessment procedure in effect under the Agreement is obsolete.
Mr. Luc Bouthillier, Faculty of Forestry and Geomatics, Laval University: Since you are almost finished your inquiry and the report is to be tabled soon, I would imagine that you don't have any more questions to ask. I will therefore turn to my text immediately.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to correct you. The report has to be tabled before June 30th. We have a lot of time.
Mr. Bouthillier: I was misinformed. I was told December 13. I was to talk about sustainable development in forestry. If you have read the brief, you probably noted that I never used this expression at any time for a very simple reason. The expression "sustainable development" has become a kind of buzz word. Although this expression is somewhat overused, it does refer to an important thing, at least in forestry. Every time I refer to ecosystem-based planning, it is my way of talking about sustainable development. The James Bay territory, under the James Bay Agreement, is representative of the problems facing the boreal forests north of the 55th parallel, just about everywhere in Canada. I teach forestry policy at Laval University. I was appointed to the JBACE as representative for Quebec. I am testifying before you as a university professor specialized in forestry policy. I feel that the James Bay case constitutes a treasure of experience valid to all of Canada.
What can we learn from James Bay? It is extremely interesting to note that the James Bay territory is a huge forested territory that contains 5.2 million hectares. One hectare is the size of a football field. We are therefore dealing with a very big territory containing very old forests that can be compared to the old growth forests on the Pacific coast, albeit less spectacular. In developing this land, we have to think about environmental strategies that compare to what we could do on the West Coast. These strategies lead us to think about a different type of forestry than we have right now, one that is based on natural disturbances.
Ecosystem-based planning would mean that we would organize a harvesting of our forests in a way that would imitate natural disturbances. You have no doubt already heard about this. As far as the boreal forest is concerned, fire is the natural disturbance which is of interest to us. The committee is pleased to show the Senate subcommittee a map showing the natural disturbances affecting the James Bay territory and the intensity of logging. We can draw some interesting comparisons.
The forested area of the James Bay territory is a huge region whose forest can be characterized as being long-living. Unlike conventional old growth forests, these forests are composed of very small trees that grow slowly. Generally speaking, they are under 100 m3/hc.
The Deputy Chairman: I am having trouble picturing the size of these trees.
Mr. Bouthillier: These are trees that are about 10 meters high. Trees that reach this height in this territory are considered to be big, whereas, on the West Coast, trees usually reach a height of 90 meters.
Event though these small trees grow slowly, given the size of the territory, we are talking about a great deal of lumber. We are interested in the boreal forests because, after more than a century of lumbering in Canada, we are realizing that trees are getting scarcer and that the forest is seen as being a reserve for trees. When we talk about ecosystem-based planning, I must point out that the forestry practices required are different from those of the south. In particular, we are not just dealing with tree reserves. We are also dealing with other values in this case, which pertain to the territory governed by the James Bay Agreement.
These other values are reflected by the Cree community. It is like this throughout Canada. Eighty-eight per cent of aboriginal communities live in the boreal forests of Canada. This is why I say that the territory under the Agreement is an excellent laboratory to understand the reality of the boreal forest.
This forest, which is generally viewed as a huge woodpile, is an essential environment, the basis for the identity of the Cree Nation. In addition to contributing to the identity of the aboriginal peoples, particularly the Cree, this forest also provides the material conditions that allow for the Cree traditional way of life. If the Cree do not have their forest, they would lose not only their identity but also the means allowing them to pursue their traditional way of life. If Cree values are not taken into account in the ecosystem-based management of this boreal forest, the Cree will lose the essential ingredient that will enable them to develop, to some extent, a modern way of life.
You know that aboriginal communities have the highest birth rates and it is clear that the subsistence economy will not be able to meet the requirements of these people. If these people want to become part of the modern world, they are going to have to get involved in forestry. We are going to have to look at forestry a different way, setting aside our southern values.
I would like to draw the committee's attention to the Quebec government's forestry policy, which has just been reviewed. This policy places a great deal of stress on the following concept: the forests must be viewed as a legacy that must be managed for the benefit of all, to ensure that current and future generations are able to enjoy them socially, culturally and economically. The intent of this policy is very generous.
However, our examination of the means reveals that what counts is the availability of the largest wood supply possible over the longest period of time. The policy focusses especially on the woodpile. I would like you to be the spokespeople for people who see more than a woodpile in the forest. The forest is a living organism that enables human societies to evolve. This is what we should be thinking about.
The new forestry regime in Quebec is to be carried out through forestry supply and management contracts aimed primarily at wood users. These contracts seek to increase the sustainable yields of wood. Once again, here is the proof that we think about "lumber" when we think about the "forest". We have to get beyond this two-by-four mentality, we have to stop thinking like planks.
We must explain what is expected from the forest if we want to put the importance of wood in perspective. Your committee can play an interesting role in doing this.
The new forestry regime does not give the aboriginal peoples a deciding role in administering their territory. The forestry legislation does not really spell out a special role for the Cree of James Bay. They are deemed to be just like the other stakeholders. We believe, at the JBACE, that the Cree should play a more deciding role in administering the territory because of the roots that they have established in this territory and because of their very different culture. This explains why the JBACE has worked very hard to develop criteria and indicators that will translate, in real, concrete terms, the Cree values for the forestry planners from the south.
The Government of Quebec has been very receptive and co-operative in this respect. I feel that this exemplary situation deserves to be publicized outside Quebec, elsewhere in Canada.
As an academic stakeholder examining the Cree issue, I will conclude by asking three questions. If we truly want to take an ecosystem-based management planning approach with respect to the sustainable development of the James Bay territory, we must ask ourselves the following question: Do we want to farm the forest of James Bay? There are very few signs showing that this is the case. Too often the forest is viewed as a woodpile. Priority is given to building roads enabling us to harvest the forest as cheaply as possible. This idea of farming the trees does not appear to be very clear.
If we really want to practice ecosystem-based management on this territory, do we agree that we should give a special status to Cree communities? Do they constitute specific components in the current and future forestry management institutions?
Once again, we can only say yes. It appears that there is a great deal of reluctance to give aboriginal communities special status in the area of forestry management, in Canada in general and in the James Bay territory in particular.
There are several reasons for this situation. Clearly, there is a climate of great mistrust that prevails among Canadians and Quebeckers in general, and this is borne out by my research.
For instance, in the Haut-Saint-Maurice region, where I work with the Attikamek community, my research indicates that 80 per cent of the non-Native population does not trust the aboriginal people when it comes to forest management. Research conducted by a colleague from Simon Fraser University concluded that in logging towns, such as Prince Rupert or Fort Alberny, only 28 per cent of the population agrees that aboriginal peoples should be given a special status.
We can understand why the people responsible for forestry policy are reluctant. Such a special status is socially unacceptable. Perhaps some thought should be given to creating more awareness, to having Natives and non-Natives who live in the forested areas work together to develop a common vision. It is obvious that the white people do not talk to the aboriginal people in the James Bay territory. So it comes as no surprise that there is no trust, it comes as no surprise that the Whites do not want to give the aboriginal peoples special status.
Such an approach would enable us to test the hypothesis whereby -- as indicated in the National Forest Strategy renewed last May -- if we truly want to have sustainable forest development, we would have to adopt aboriginal values. This is an interesting thought, but it remains a hypothesis that needs to be tested.
By having Natives and non-Natives who share a territory and who can develop a common vision of ecosystem-based forestry come together, we could really have sustainable forest development.
I will now continue with the part concerning the Cree, that Mr. Roméo Saganash is not able to present. Mr. Saganash came up with four observations when he tried to view the James Bay forestry problem with his Cree eyes, giving an aboriginal perspective.
His first observation is that forestry is completely absent from the James Bay Agreement. To all intents and purposes, forestry appears as the poor cousin. We have to put everything back in context; the James Bay Agreement was drafted towards the end of the 60s and in the early 70s, at a time when we had not even thought about harvesting wood in this area. Logging was deemed to be uneconomical.
It is, therefore, not surprising if, at this time, logging was not viewed as a threat to the Cree Nation way of life or environment. Because of the historical background, forestry was not provided for in the agreement. We must denounce this situation.
The second observation pertains to Quebec's legislation on forestry, which appears to ignore the James Bay Agreement, that grants and acknowledges Cree rights.
Indeed, there is no mention of the agreement. According to Mr. Saganash, there appears to be a view that Quebec should be managed by uniform rules and that the laws that apply in the north should be the same as those that apply in the south. There is a view that an error has been made and that the proper way to rectify the mistake is to create a place for the James Bay Agreement in Quebec forestry legislation.
Indeed, if the James Bay Agreement is not mentioned in the legislation that was passed in 1986, perhaps it would be a good idea to put it in when this legislation is being updated.
A third point, which is extremely important and with which I fully agree, is that the legitimate uses of the forest set out in the current forestry plan do not include any of the uses that aboriginal people generally make of the forest.
The current forestry plan assumes that the basic function of the forest is to produce wood. Consequently, the environment, wildlife and land use and environmental planning such as water purification and erosion protection, are perceived as limiting exploitation of the forests.
What is even more tragic about this mentality is that traditional Cree uses are seen as constraints, when, according to a progressive approach to forestry, aboriginal uses of the forest should allow us to gain a better vision of forestry.
Mr. Saganash deplored the fact that the Cree uses of the forest, although explicitly recognized in the James Bay Agreement, are completely ignored in the forestry plan.
This leads Mr. Saganash to wonder whether the James Bay and Northern Quebec territory only serve to make up for inefficient management under the former forestry plan, that is, to provide wood until such time as the forest in the southern part of the territory or in southern Quebec can be cultivated and, once the forest in southern Quebec is in better condition, whether operations will be closed down in the north?
Finally, Mr. Saganash maintains that forestry regulations are enforced much more strictly in the south than in the north. The management measures applying to forestry operators working on the James Bay territory are more lenient, with fewer restrictions.
That is a conclusion drawn by Mr. Saganash, and it would have been interesting to hear him explain his position. I myself think that the rules established in the south do not correspond to those in the north because forestry in the north is something completely foreign to us. Following southern rules in the north does not lead to effective forestry operations in the north. I am under the impression that this is the right message.
As far as the management of northern forests is concerned, the use that the Cree make of the forests seems to be completely ignored, and the concept of integrated planning is not really accepted by northern forestry operators.
The exploitation of the forests therefore seems to be an overriding right; it appears that the right of aboriginal people to develop their territory is not as valid as the industry's right to exploit the forest on the James Bay territory. And this is an irritant that the people of the six Cree communities living on the James Bay territory regularly bring to the James Bay Agreement committee. I wholly support Mr. Saganash's point of view; there seems to be a double standard.
Mr. Langlois: I would like to conclude by saying that the boreal forest occupies a large part of the James Bay territory and that forestry operations are mainly concentrated in the southern part of the territory, where negative repercussions have been observed on the Cree communities living in this area.
In the last few years, forestry operations have gradually extended northward. Forest supply and management contracts have even been awarded for land north of the 52nd parallel.
In a territory as far north as this, given the fragility of ecosystems and the fact that their natural productivity is lower than in more southern forests, the danger of forest overexploitation is much higher than elsewhere in Quebec or Canada. Sustainable forestry management in northern lands must therefore be based on the principles of conserving biodiversity and preserving the viability of forest ecosystems. The goal of integrated management of the territory's wood and non-wood forest resources is to allow optimal forestry development while ensuring the land can be used for other purposes by aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
In seeking solutions to the problems related to forestry development in Cree territory, we must reaffirm the paramountcy of the environmental and social protection regime established by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. There must also be a change in attitudes toward traditional aboriginal activities in the forest which, we must remember, are completely missing from the current forestry regime.
The forestry regime that has been in place in Quebec in the last ten years or so was designed without considering the rights negotiated with the Cree Nation in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The JBACE, the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment, is therefore of the opinion that the Quebec government should implement a separate forestry regime for the James Bay territory, in order to ensure that the guiding principles of the JBNQA are taken into account. This is the gist of the message we want to give you.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I apologize to the witnesses and the committee members. I was up at about 5:30 this morning to catch an airplane to attend a conference in Toronto. The conference was on natural disasters in Canada and what we can do when they happen. It was rather interesting. It was put on by Emergency Measures Canada and the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They are pushing towards trying to find solutions to deal with these natural disasters. Indeed, they told us that they have been seeing a dramatic increase in these events in the form of floods, ice storms, and so on.
An individual from Environment Canada made a presentation. Senator Spivak will be interested in but not happy about what he said. The 20th century is the warmest century in the last 1,000 years, and this year is the warmest year on record. They were forecasting that global temperatures will rise from 1 to 3.5 degrees centrigrade over the next 50 years, and they are now forecasting that it will probably go beyond the 3.5 degrees in the upper limit.
Should that occur, your trees, which now only grow to 10 metres, will grow substantially larger very quickly.
How many aboriginal people actually work in the industry of the harvesting of the northern forests? Do you have numbers?
Mr. Bouthillier: We have trends. For the moment, it is less than 5 per cent of the active population. One of the tremendous challenges we are facing is how to encourage those people to become involved. That is particularly so in relation to the Cree. Cutting down trees is totally foreign to their culture. When anyone in the Cree nation expresses an interest in forestry, a great deal of peer pressure is applied to encourage that person to back off. That is not so in the case of the Micmacs or other aboriginal peoples.
As you move further north, taking care of the forestry industry certainly becomes a greater challenge and we must rely on aboriginal people to be our foresters.
Senator Stratton: If your trees only grow to about 10 meters, the question that comes to mind is: What is a healthy harvesting cycle? Is it 80 years or 50 years?
Mr. Bouthillier: It is much longer than that. The rotation cycle should be approximately 200 years. It is not based on old growth. In fact, it is not based at all on growth; it is based on the renewal cycle. The renewal cycle there is dependant on fire occurrence. Our estimations of fire occurrence lead us to understand that the rotation is about 200 years.
When we plan logging operations, we should keep in mind that what we are taking should be, in a particular area, one-two thousandth of what is on the ground. I am not sure that that is what we are doing now.
Senator Stratton: Surely it does not take 200 years for a tree to mature. It must be shorter than that. If trees are growing in that region until they reach a harvestable stage of maturity whereby you can have sustained cutting, surely the cycle is shorter than 200 years.
Mr. Bouthillier: Yes and no. It is about the same in northern Alberta and in the Northwest Territories. The information on the cutting cycle, the rotation, is fed into the computer in order to calculate how much we can harvest without impairing the land. That figure is about 120 years.
In the forests up north, in what I call in our paper the "middle north", the growth rate is not a regular cycle. You could have small trees that will stay very close to the ground for 100 years, and if there is a fire, they will be released and you will have full-fledged trees within 40 or 80 years.
Our experiments -- and here I am speaking for the scientific community, not for myself -- in forestry demonstrate that tree planting in the north does not work most of the time.
The typical expectation in southern forestry is that, when you plant a tree, you have regular growth, which means that, depending on where you are, within 40 or 80 years, you will have harvestable trees. However, the north is a different dynamic. There is still a lot of ignorance about the dynamics in the north. That is why we are trying, in our logging activities, to emulate or mimic natural disturbances, but this is still at the experimentation stage.
Senator Stratton: If you plant a tree, why will it not grow?
Mr. Bouthillier: It is because the environmental conditions are very adverse. You have shallow soil, so the freezing will uproot your seedlings. You have a high rate of mortality. You do not have a huge snowpack protecting those seedlings against wind, and therefore you have a great amount of desiccation.
There is also a genetic problem. In our nurseries, we do not have many seeds from trees of the north. For the moment, we are planting seedlings that are descendants of large trees that grow in the south, and we are encountering a lot of problems with that. I am not saying that tree planting is a total failure up north, but it is certainly not working as it is in the southern part of our country.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: To continue with this subject, we cannot rely on results obtained with the plants. The species was poorly adapted to this climate. That could be done fairly easily, to go and collect cones, seeds, grow them in a greenhouse and then transplant them. Has it already been tried?
Mr. Bouthillier: No, as far as I know it has not, but I do not know absolutely everything.
Mr. Langlois: As part of the La Grande complex development project, there were a lot of plantations used to regenerate land, including construction sand and gravel pits. It was mainly deciduous trees that were planted. The experiment cannot be used. There's not a lot for coniferous species.
Mr. Bouthillier: This experiment was designed to produce alder, which are bushes with a very high soil retention capacity. As far as I know, no experiments have been conducted with a view to wood production. I would be surprised if there had not been some elsewhere in Canada. I am not aware of any in Quebec.
When we tell you that it would be interesting to develop aboriginal forest operations, it is because this is a good opportunity. The harvesting of seed and cones, seed extraction, greenhouse production of small trees, site selection, soil preparation for these small trees, tree planting and maintenance of these small trees are all very constructive possibilities. We are not talking about cutting down trees, we are talking about planting them. The tree is a symbol of life in aboriginal culture. If you plant trees, you are propagating life. Why can we not take such steps to help aboriginal communities living in forested areas modernize by practising forestry? We must bear in mind that reforestation has to be an activity we resort to only if natural regeneration fails. The best forest at these latitudes is the forest where self-regeneration takes place.
Senator Robichaud: I agree with you. When a region's economy needs fibre, as in this case, ways to justify certain operations are found. We have to develop the existing species, as we did in my home province of New Brunswick, where we promoted the idea that if we practised thinning, we could increase the annual harvest by 10 to 15 per cent, depending on the location, depending on how far north it was. We cut timber because we were sure of what we were proposing. The same thing could be done in this region.
You referred to Micmacs cutting trees. You should know that the reason they did this was because it was the only possible activity open to them. They had nothing else to do, they wanted to do something. The unemployment rate in these communities is between 80 and 90 per cent.
You have told us that the Cree people live off the forest in different ways, without relying on wood and wood fibre. You have said that their population is increasing faster than in other provinces, and that this creates needs. They will want to have the same things that you and I have. They will be influenced by television. This will mean they will have to carry out other activities than the ones they currently do, probably logging. Do you think that could happen in the near future?
Mr. Bouthillier: The survival of these communities hinges on whether or not, in the next five to ten years, forestry operations can provide a source of jobs, income, well-being and basic social progress for the Cree communities of the James Bay territory. The Micmacs in New Brunswick and the aboriginal nations on Vancouver Island are the most vibrant examples of success in generating social progress for aboriginal nations from the forest.
Mr. Langlois: Neither the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment nor the Cree who are on the committee, being one of the three parties, are against all forestry development. However, forestry development in Northern Quebec, in the James Bay territory that is covered by the Agreement, should not be managed in the same way as in the south. What the aboriginal people are seeking is to participate in managing forestry development, not to block all forestry development. The Cree's objection to forestry development have to do with over-harvesting on certain lands. On certain family lands, over 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the land was cut over.
This causes major problems for the Cree in living off the land. Many of the people hunt, fish and trap. They have hunting and fishing camps and rely on game for food. The forest is an important shelter for game.
There are all sorts of alternatives to clear-cutting, including commercial thinning, et cetera. The message that you take away with you today should not be that the Cree or the committee is against forestry development.
Senator Robichaud: That was not how I understood it. You want them to be involved. Above all, you wish to develop a management model for this forest that is completely different from those used in other zones. It is urgent that you do so. If you reduce the size of the land where these people live in a traditional manner, you will force them to turn to other forest resources, fibre in particular, and that could be disastrous.
It is an impossible situation to manage. The people want to work and we are turning to the forest to give them something to do.
Mr. Bouthillier: The message we want to get across is that we must put this boreal forest, which is located north of the 50th parallel, under a bell jar. There are perhaps some conservation measures that must be taken, but this forest must be used to further the social progress of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in the north. This is an invitation for us to seek out new forms of forestry development.
Senator Robichaud: What do you want us to do to help you achieve this new and very special form of forest management?
Mr. Bouthillier: A host of people have given evidence to the committee and expressed expectations regarding the manner in which the forest is used. The Senate committee can certainly be an initial milestone in developing a common vision.
The biggest obstacle to be overcome is the perception of the forest as a huge reservoir of wood material. That is only natural, because this view has served the country very well in the last 150 years, but we must move on. The wood material will always be there, and will continue to contribute to Canada's being a rich and prosperous country, but the forest is an environment possessing many resources. Forest operators are very powerful, and recreation workers are also very interested in it. This cannot be denied. aboriginal people also have a special view, as do people concerned with biodiversity. All these interests are very sectoral.
If ecosystem-based management of the forest is what we really want, then we must develop a vision common to all regions and set production objectives. We must be clear about our expectations from the forest and work together for a common role.
A committee such as yours could surely emphasize the message that currently many things are expected from the forest, but they are divergent, almost in conflict with each other, and with all the rivalry and each one striving for the dominance of their preferred mode of use, there is little time left to develop a common vision. The first thing to do in introducing ecosystem-based management would surely be to develop a common vision, and you have a golden opportunity for repeating this message loud and clear.
Senator Robichaud: We have heard this message many times. I must say that at times I was impressed. For instance New Brunswick woodlot owners formed an association in order to manage their lots. They no longer think of the forest as a mere woodpile, just a place for chopping down trees.
We have even seen a change in the attitudes of forest companies. We visited some sites and there is still a long way to go, but the change has begun and must continue. I hope that our contribution will help to establish this new way of considering forestry, and above all to its respect.
Mr. Bouthillier: In your report, you could perhaps encourage all intervenors in the forestry sector to dare to be imperfect.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: We visited Lake Mistassini and met with the Cree there. We heard from the trappers that the forestry companies did not care about where they set their traps; that they just came and cut them out without any consultation or care. As well, they cannot move to other places because every place areas are allocated to certain trappers, and that has been going on for thousands of years.
This new vision, this new forestry, requires knowledge and leadership. We went to Quebec and heard some good things about what they were doing there. They will cut out herbicides in the year 2000. However, what is the reason in Quebec for this negligence? The same situation can be found all over the country. In Manitoba, in my opinion, the situation is even worse than it is in Quebec. We heard about some terrible things in Alberta. Why has the government of Quebec not moved on this? Is it lack of knowledge? Is it lack of political will? Surely it would be in the government's interest, in view of their "winning conditions", to ensure that the Cree went along with them. What is your analysis for this neglect?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I will answer a part of your question. Perhaps Mr. Bouthillier will complete my answer. First, this may not be a problem specific to Quebec. Forest development is the largest Canadian industry in terms of job creation and economics.
There is a concentration of the forest industry in Quebec. Almost 40 per cent of industrial forestry facilities are in Quebec.
A great many improvements were made for monitoring conservation and for monitoring pollution from paper mills especially in the pulp and paper sector. Awareness of the problem has been raised. Governments had to pass regulations to encourage paper mills to proceed in the new way. From 1993 to 1995, in Quebec, almost one and a half billion dollars were spent by 60 Quebec paper mills to set up secondary treatment plants. This brought about a great decrease in water pollution. Forest companies still have work to do in all phases of their operations, specifically wood cutting and sawmills, where awareness of the problems still has to be raised. This is probably due in part to the fact that there has not been particularly strict regulations that could have led to such thinking, either at the federal or the provincial level. Regulation applying to pulp and paper mills has been very strict in all the provinces and at the federal level. This has forced the mills to take action.
One of the roles that a committee like yours can play, and one of the areas in which your committee can be interested, is to sensitize the Canadian people and Canadian institutions to the fact that there are still many problems to be settled in the area of forestry development and with regard to other activities related to forestry, including logging and lumber.
At the international level, some concerns have already been expressed in the past and the paper and forestry companies have no choice. They have to adapt because, at some point, they will not be able to sell their products internationally if they do not comply with standards related to the biophysical and social environment. A debate has to be held at the corporate level. Governments react to economic, political and grassroots pressures. There are huge economic pressures in the field of forestry.
[English]
Mr. Bouthillier: To answer your question directly, I want to understand it correctly. Are you asking why there is no room for native issues in forestry, particularly in Quebec?
The Deputy Chairman: Not only Quebec, I am referring to everywhere in Canada.
Mr. Bouthillier: It is a Canadian problem. It is a matter of industrial culture. Everywhere in Canada, forest management on Crown land is done through industry. Industrial culture has shied away from native issues for 100 to 180 years everywhere in Canada. The industrial approach has left a legacy of how forestry has been done in Canada, and that has an impact on forestry today.
Your other question was why there was no acknowledgement of the importance of native issues in forestry. That is certainly as a result of ignorance of the facts and know-how. However, all across Canada there is a willingness to deal with native issues.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: There is some great rhetoric.
[English]
Mr. Bouthillier: Yes, there is a lot of wishful thinking, perhaps, but there is more than wishful thinking, at least in Quebec and in B.C.
As I said in my presentation, when three-quarters of the electorate does not favour that kind of sympathetic view about native issues in forestry, so perhaps you should act cautiously. That is probably why we have the feeling that it is wishful thinking.
Having said that, there is another point I should mention. Most of the people who are extracting some profits or benefits from the forestry resource believe that they will lose something. That is what we must get over if we want to develop a successful new scheme of forestry. We must develop new participatory processes that will end in a win-win situation. It is possible. That is the message we are trying to bring here.
At least in Quebec there is a great deal of goodwill. Maybe that is just wishful thinking, but I do not think it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Bernatchez, Secretary of the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment: In Quebec, we are raising our awareness of the James Bay region and specifically forest development. We should realize that this is a rather recent problem. In 1975, there was no forest industry in the James Bay region. The James Bay Agreement states that forest development is compatible with the Cree way of life. This was true at the time. There was no forest development, so there was no impact from forest development. The vast network of roads opening access to the entire area had not been built. That was the situation in 1975.
In 1998, the situation changed. It took a while for people to become aware of the problem. It probably took 23 years before we realized the impact of forestry on the Cree way of life. It changed their hunting and fishing habits. It completely changed their vision of their environment, which is of basic importance for Crees. You have seen clear-cut areas where a mature forest might grow back. It is said that it takes about 120 years in the James Bay region. When a father sees the trees being cut down, he knows that several generations will pass while the forest grows very slowly, subject to climate conditions et cetera. Without forest fires, it can grow, but if there are forest fires then the result may be a wasteland.
We are currently becoming aware of this. Basically, the Quebec forestry system must be reviewed. This is presently being done. There is another activity currently going on: when forest companies make forest management plans, they will generally consult with aboriginal communities. Forestry engineers meet with aboriginal people in their own communities -- these people are not forestry experts -- they show them a plan and tell them what they intend to do. Often, the aboriginal people are unable to imagine the final result of forest development on their territory. They cannot conceive that the forest will be devastated as far as the eye can see and will remain that way for 60 or 70 years depending on the growth rate. There is some power play involved. When a forest company consults with a Cree community, the forest company is clearly better equipped to sell its products than the Cree community is equipped to defend its culture, its interests or its traditional way of life.
Senator Robichaud: You want the Cree communities to be consulted beforehand. Mr. Bernatchez has told us that these communities are unable to assess the potential disaster. Aren't we on the horns of a dilemma?
Mr. Bouthillier: The Quebec government is currently reviewing its forestry system. This review has a very interesting aspect, namely to get non-Native and Native communities whose livelihood depends on the forests involved in management. This commitment holds great promise. It must go beyond mere words. To go beyond mere words means updating the Quebec forest system by developing and implementing mechanisms of communication adapted to the values of Native communities. This is a promising commitment which translates into real achievements, as the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment, in elaborating criteria and benchmarks, wants to give the forestry industry a trend chart on the meaning of respecting Cree values in forestry operations. The Quebec government, through its Department of Natural Resources, provides vast amounts of resources with very concrete commitments in order to carry out this initiative of a trend chart in the very near future, so that during the coming three months we may have at least 15 criteria and in the next three, four or five years, we can have a trend chart with nearly 80 criteria. There are initiatives for participation with consultation mechanisms adapted to the values of aboriginal communities. Research projects are being funded to establish a consultation procedure that the Cree will be comfortable with. I could tell you a great deal about this, as I am one of the beneficiaries of these research projects.
Senator Robichaud: I simply want to ask you this: how will the Cree participate in developing your plan or your trend chart? I am not referring to you, but if university professors think that they will tell them how they should envisage the situation, they might be right, but if people are not convinced that it came from them, we must respect that. Often other people arrive and tell them a completely different story, which they accept as well as they accepted the first one.
Mr. Bouthillier: Honourable Senator, if you were in my classroom, I would give you an A+. You have understood the whole thing.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: It is very promising that there is consultation with the natives, but you must look at what is happening, for example, in Alberta. We visited Alpac and, as you know, there was supposed to have been extensive consultation in that operation. In fact, there was very little consultation.
However, I agree with you that there has been more than wishful thinking in recognizing the status and the rights of aboriginals. We have had landmark royal commissions and landmark court cases. However, in the last 10 years, there has been an enormous assault on the boreal forest, particularly in northern Alberta. Manitoba is catching up and Ontario wants to double its annual allowable cut.
Forestry companies, in order to satisfy their shareholders, sometimes do not operate according to the rules, and no government is enforcing the rules. The provincial government does not enforce them in Alberta. They say, "Use it or loose it." In other words, the companies are ahead of the government.
What mechanisms are there, in the face of this tremendous assault, to ensure that we can put some beef behind the words "ecosystem management" and use the multiple values in the forest? These are things that people are beginning to recognize, but nothing is being done to that end.
Furthermore, I see something else happening which is much more threatening, and that is, for example, using Greenpeace as a scapegoat and labelling them the enemy of the people because the Asian markets have collapsed. Public relations people who act on behalf of the forestry companies talk about beautiful, natural British Columbia. What is happening there is not a little skirmish; it is a full-blown battle. You must have the right tools.
I am not faulting the forest companies for wanting to make a profit. I am faulting them because they do not take into consideration the experience of other industries, such as the cod industry. We always said that we had to fish because we needed the jobs. Now there are no fish and no jobs.
In making our report to the Senate we want to address the real issues, including the role of the aboriginal people in the context of the boreal forest context. How can we get at this serious, practical question? I do not think I am being too cynical; I think I am describing the realities as they are.
I recognize what has happened in the pulp and paper industry and the billions of dollars that the forestry industry has spent, but they were forced to do that by the federal government.
Can you suggest some recommendations as how we might look at this issue in a way that helps the situation? Do you agree with my analysis, or do you think it is too overblown?
Mr. Bouthillier: I am quite familiar with northern Alberta and Alpac. For a foreigner, or someone from the outside, it is certainly terrifying and scary. The question should be: How can we achieve something else in terms of land use?
We must stress the duty to consult; and to consult in a particular way. Alpac is making great efforts in the area of public relations to stress how they have consulted aboriginal people about traditional land use maps.
Senator Spivak: Have you seen those maps, and have you seen their factory?
Mr. Bouthillier: Yes. It is good to have maps, but if they are simply rolled up in a wardrobe, they are of no use. That is the problem. We are consulting. When I speak about the duty to consult, I am not referring only to consultations with native people; all the stakeholders on these lands and territories should be consulted. It should be done in an way to achieve shared control over the forest and in a way by which the industrialists and the other stakeholders can agree upon a common vision or on common goals or objectives.
It is important to understand how the forest companies view consultation: "We know how to do forestry; we know how the land looks; and we will tell them how it works." That is not quite arrogance, but it is close to it. The consultation should involve a learning process. There are many ways of learning. People in the industry have a great deal to learn from native people, from the recreationalists, from the environmentalists, and so on. Native people also have a great deal to learn. Consultation should lead to learning and sharing control over forests in a proper land-use management plan.
Senator Spivak: Do you see that happening in Quebec? With the renewal of the forestry regime in Quebec, are you seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, before it is too late?
Mr. Bouthillier: It will be tough, and perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I see it coming quite soon.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: The Quebec forestry system project has already provided, in the consultation paper, that industries must initiate monitoring programs to assess the impact of their operations on the environment and on society. Things are already opening up.
In answer to your question about disasters, both in forestry and in any other context that involves the environment, legislators will always have to play a role. In Quebec, as everywhere else in Canada, a trend to deregulate environmental matters has developed in recent years. More and more autonomy and self-monitoring must be allowed developers, but we will always need legislation encouraging industry and developers to improve by becoming better citizens through protecting the environment and maintaining the quality of social life.
The Deputy Chairman: There are very powerful federal tools that are now about to be discarded by certain bills, for instance the Fisheries Act. They want to eliminate triggers.
Mr. Langlois: This is a good example. The federal government's Fisheries Act, amended in 1992, has provided a follow-up program on environmental impact for all paper mills in Canada. This program is jointly managed by government and the paper mills. Paper mills do the follow-up and pay for it. This takes them through a three-year cycle. So this might be a form of deregulation, but according to the Act and the regulations, paper mills must do their follow-up.
This is what we might well find in the forestry system that is being proposed here, especially as the monitoring and follow-up of forestry and the environment will become more efficient. We expect that industry will do the follow-ups. They will certainly have to be constrained to do so or they will not sacrifice any profit to invest in environmental follow-ups.
Senator Robichaud: You said that industries should be encouraged and even obliged. Incentives and encouragements are not enough. We need measures that are clear enough to oblige them to do specific things. They will see that it is not at all that bad and that it can even help their public relations.
Mr. Bernatchez: Often we realize that forest companies are very sensitive to the views of those who buy forest products. More and more, they are requiring environmental assurances which they will get if the forestry management fulfils very specific conditions. Often, these are German, American or French criteria. Purchasers of wood are increasingly asking for environmental guarantees. We complement all this in a way. We hope that there will be co-operation and that by reviewing the Quebec forestry system we will be able to achieve the objective of not completely excluding the forestry environment from forestry operations. We honestly believe that it is possible for Crees and non-Crees who live together on the territory to come to an understanding with forestry operators, but I do think that the rules should be changed.
Senator Robichaud: Just a comment to thank you for your excellent presentation which was so well documented and so articulate. We understand the message you're bringing to us and this message also supports other messages we have heard including those from aboriginal communities all over Canada.
The vice-chairman mentioned that we have learned a few lessons in disaster prevention. She mentioned codfish. First, I am confident that we will be more successful because we are better informed and secondly, there are no seals to eat everything that moves.
Mr. Langlois: We can see trees, but we cannot see codfish.
Senator Robichaud: This is why we have a good chance of making it.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. If you have anything to add that might help us, you could perhaps send it to us and contact our researcher by telephone. This was very interesting.
Mr. Langlois: We will certainly forward the document that we prepared on criteria and benchmarks as soon as it is finalized.
The meeting is adjourned.