Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 11 - Evidence - November 25, 2010
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:05 a.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I welcome witnesses who have come to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. My name is Percy Mockler, and I am from New Brunswick. I am chair of the committee. The meeting will be in two parts. We will be hearing from our witnesses for the first hour of the meeting, and then we will have questions and answers in the second hour.
I would like to start by having the senators introduce themselves. I will start on my left.
Senator Mercer: I am Senator Mercer from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Fernand Robichaud from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Fairbairn: Joyce Fairbairn from Lethbridge, Alberta.
Senator Mahovlich: Frank Mahovlich, Ontario.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Kochhar: Vim Kochhar, Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Ogilvie: Kelvin Ogilvie, Nova Scotia.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, Ontario.
The Chair: Witnesses, thank you for accepting our invitation.
[Translation]
This morning, we have Mr. Daniel Arbour, National Chair of the Canadian Model Forest Network. Thank you for accepting our invitation.
[English]
We also have, from the British Columbia Community Forest Association, Ms. Jennifer Gunter, Executive Director. Thank you both for accepting our invitation.
The committee is continuing its study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector. We are looking particularly at the community forests and some forest users, including hunters, fishers and stakeholders. We have been informed that you are representing a group that we want to hear from.
I am informed by the clerk that we will start with Mr. Arbour, to be followed by Ms. Gunter. The floor is yours, sir.
Daniel Arbour, National Chair, Canadian Model Forest Network: I would like to thank the Senate and the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for welcoming me this morning. This is a presentation that the people I work with have put a lot of heart into, so I hope I will do justice to the many members we have.
I will do my presentation for the most part in English. I was given about 15 minutes, but I will not take the full half hour if you were hoping for an hour from us.
I represent the Canadian Model Forest Network, which is a national organization with 15 member sites. It was established in 1992. Together, we represent 300 communities, of which 55 are First Nation communities, with 1,000 partners across the nation. We are also part of an international network that Canada was the leader in founding. There are about 55 sites around the world that work with us and with which we interact.
To give you a bit of history, the model forest concept was developed after the Rio conference. It was spearheaded by Canada and other participating countries. For a number of years, the Canadian Forest Service, which is now inside Natural Resources Canada, was the great champion and host for the network. Three years ago, the national network became its own non-profit society. We operate with our 15 member sites, providing leadership around common issues nationally, all related to the forest sector.
To describe the concept more, these sites are basically partnerships. The concept was always how to bring diverse stakeholders together to tackle the tough issues as the forest sector is changing.
It used to be that it was rare for environmental groups, forest companies, First Nations and mayors of towns to sit down and work together on those issues. It is not as rare any longer, but definitely with the model forests, we have very strong tables across Canada. At many sites, you will see mayors sitting there along with First Nation chiefs and forest companies. It is always those people who provide leadership and try to identify funding to help their member communities to come up with sustainable solutions.
Another key principle for us is sustainable forest and land management. Many of our tables sometimes go outside the forest sector, because I do not think you can operate with blinders on. Quite often, we will work with other resource sectors as well in integrated land management, trying to figure out the best uses for the forest.
A lot of what we do is also about knowledge transfer. Obviously, having a presence in each of the provinces and internationally provides amazing opportunities for exchanges. Sometimes we kind of brush over that, but coming as you do from all the different provinces, I am sure you appreciate the kind of lessons learned that can be crossed over and reflected on.
This is key, especially when we think about things at the policy level. Some innovations have happened in one province, and then we will be sitting at our table thinking this might be an idea that would be worth importing here or a lesson learned from elsewhere. This is true around the world. We have people who go to South America or Sweden; there is now a regional network in Southeast Asia. Many important exchanges occur inside our network.
That is the general background about who we are. I would be happy to answer questions about the history.
Currently, we receive a large part of our funding from the Forest Communities Program, which was established in 2007 by Natural Resources Canada. It is five-year core funding, which allows the entire network to operate. The Canadian Forest Service inside Natural Resources Canada has been a great partner.
I am sure you are more familiar with the Hill than I am, but we are coming up for renewal in March 2012. We are thinking hard and hoping the federal government will remain a strong partner.
Regarding accomplishments with the Forest Communities Program, over the last three years, nationally, between the sites and us, we have received $13 million. We have leveraged those funds with other funds to $52 million. I think that speaks to the power of partnership — how we are not just sitting there and receiving funds but are having an impact in the world and bringing partners to the table.
I just wanted to paint that broad overview of who we are. I think your committee is mostly interested in some of our views on what is happening and what we see happening on the ground in the forest sector.
I have read with interest your mid-term report. I also looked at the paper you produced on rural poverty. I was quite impressed by the work that has been done. I also looked at the government response and found out about a number of programs I was not aware of.
There is no doubt that the forest sector is still in a deep crisis. In our 300 communities, we know many people who are yearning for better days. My aunt happens to be the mayor in New Richmond in Gaspésie. That community lost its mill, along with 300 jobs. She had to come up with a policy just to keep people in place.
Her first policy was that the municipality started to pay for diapers and milk. It was just a symbol to tell young families, "Stick with us; stay in our community and we will figure it out.'' From there, they tried to grow some programs and devise new approaches to keep moving forward.
There are similar stories in Ontario, in Northeast Superior. Some of the towns are not doing well. Some of them have lost their tax bases, so it has been very difficult to operate. In British Columbia it is a similar case, as I am sure you will hear from my colleague later.
You have heard a number of witnesses talk about the causes for the decline in the forest sector. I agree with all those things — structural decline in the demand for newsprint; competition from developing countries and the economics around that; the exchange rate; access to credit; and changes in the timber supply. To me, industry structure is the key one.
We often think of shorter cycles when we think about the forest economy. That is because we, as human beings, operate on shorter-term cycles. In Ottawa, it might be a two-year cycle or a four-year cycle — the government cycle. Where I am, it is the same thing with the municipalities, with non-profit sources of funding.
My view, and the view of many members, is that maybe we are at the tail end of a 100-year cycle, where for the past 100 years we have had a certain approach to using the forest resource. It was based on land that was empty at the time, and we went at it with a kind of volume-based, export-driven mentality.
I am trying to imagine what the next 100 years will be like. That is where I see that not everyone is thinking about the policies or a vision for the next 100 years — things like looking at a new world, where Canada is now full and the timber supply and economics are changing. We may be looking at a world where water, biodiversity, carbon and all these other forest values will start stacking well against the fibre value alone.
That should change your vision of the industry structure and how communities derive wealth from the forests around them. It is hard to envision because we do not have the policies. Markets do not exist yet for some of the things we are talking about.
We all know that, for ecological goods and services around the world, there is a big push tied with climate change to try to move forward. Right now, we are in that in-between stage where all our social and financial capital is tied up in the model of the last 100 years and is starting to reduce. We are riding down some of those assets.
We realize the value is no longer there, so we have to create new value. You have heard about the technology side from people at the Forest Products Association of Canada. Amazing innovations are happening to make value-added products. The other element that communities yearn for is an integrated approach to managing forests well and to deriving other benefits from it.
I noticed in your documents that the committee is also looking at how the federal government can get involved in solutions. I would be happy to find out more about this and will be asking questions, maybe not here today but of others. In your document, you referred in a few places to creating a department of rural affairs and you talked about the need for collaboration between different departments to go to rural Canada and work in the forest sector and with other sectors. That has great value. I can report that most communities never deal with forestry only; they might go to a meeting on forestry one day and on fisheries the next day. In all the natural resources sectors there are challenges; and an integrated approach is useful.
In some ways, I could make a pitch that you already have a small department of rural affairs with the Canadian Model Forest Network, where different types of funding come together to develop creative solutions. We get excited when people say they will try to break through silos and bring new approaches to communities. That is when communities respond because they want to be engaged.
I will leave it at that. I wanted to give you a good overview of who we are. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Arbour.
Jennifer Gunter, Executive Director, British Columbia Community Forest Association: Good morning, Mr. Chair, honourable senators. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you this morning.
Canada's forest-based communities are facing dramatic changes due to a range of ecological and economic factors, as you are well aware. The multiple crises in Canada's forestry sector have been well documented in the committee's interim report. I very much appreciated Mr. Arbour's presentation. I liked the concept of thinking about the next 100 years and what our vision is for the next 100 years. Rural communities and First Nations are looking for alternatives to what has happened in the past 100 years. They are looking for ways to help to stabilize their local economies to provide long-term employment opportunities. In British Columbia, an increasing number of these communities see community forestry as a way to meet many of the challenges they face.
I have prepared a few slides to serve as a reference point to my comments today. To give you an outline for my presentation, I will begin by defining "community forestry.'' I will focus on the new tenure in B.C. called the community forest agreement. I will speak a bit about its status and where we are with that. I will share with you some of the benefits of community forestry and provide some examples. I will touch briefly on the British Columbia Community Forest Association and conclude with a few recommendations.
How do we define community forestry? It is happening in nearly every forested country in the world in one form or another. As a result, the definitions are varied, but in essence, community forestry refers to local peoples' control over forest resources for local benefit. A professional forester friend of mine offers the following definition. He says: "Community forestry is decisions being made by people who have to live with the outcome; finding local solutions to contentious issues; keeping benefit in the community; a very good idea; and one of the hardest things I have ever done.'' In British Columbia, community forestry's roots go back to the 1940s. The concept has taken root only in the last decade or so in the form of the community forest agreements under B.C.'s Forest Act.
The Community Forest Agreement program was introduced in 1998 and is one of B.C.'s newest forms of forest tenure. Community forest agreements are area-based and grant communities exclusive rights to harvest timber in their area as well as the ability to manage other forest resources, such as botanical forest products. Community forests are issued for a term of 25 years and are replaceable every 10 years. In theory, licences are granted to communities to be operated in perpetuity.
Every community forest is unique. Agreements can be held by a municipality, a community corporation, a cooperative, a society, a First Nation band council or a partnership of any of the above. They are subject to all of the rules and regulations that govern forest management in B.C., such as the Forest and Range Practices Act; and they pay fees to the Crown based on a special tabular rate structure. As of November this year, 54 communities are involved at some stage of planning or operating a community forest. Collectively, they represent only about 1.5 per cent of the provincial annual harvest; so it is a relatively small program.
What are some of the benefits? The benefits of community forestry vary from community to community because the communities are all different, and they all have different values and priorities for forest management. Communities manage a specific area for the long term. Incentives are created to manage for as wide a spectrum of forest products as possible. This supports local livelihoods and creates a foundation for economic development and diversification.
Research from around the world has shown that communities able to play a meaningful role in management have developed ways to prevent over-exploitation of local resources. This is where the stewardship benefit comes in. In community forestry, management decisions are made by those who have to live with them, and the feedback can be immediate. With meaningful area-based tenures, communities become the stewards of their local forests.
Community forests also promote participation and can help to resolve local conflicts. They encourage communication and strengthen relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities and persons. They also provide opportunities for education, training and skill development. They explore ways to help their communities reduce their carbon footprints. They connect people to the land, and they lead to an improved awareness of forest management and ecology among members of the public.
I would like to take you into the forest to illustrate these points and provide examples of community forests operating in B.C.
This first slide shows the board of the Likely-Xat'sull (Soda Creek) Community Forest. This is a 50-50 partnership between the very small community of Likely and the Soda Creek Indian Band. The manager says, "We do not work at community forestry; we live it.'' Most people who work in community forestry are passionate about their work.
This community forest is maximizing profits by selling high-value logs to a local specialty sawmill. With the profits, community members are working to diversify their economy. They are doing this by promoting tourism and recreation in their community. They are also making significant contributions to local health and community services, such as the purchase of an ambulance to serve their very remote community.
Let us go now to the Harrop-Procter Community Forest. This is in the Kootenay region of British Columbia, where I live. The protection of consumptive watersheds or drinking water is the primary mandate. Back in 1994, community members actually were protesting industrial logging; there were blockades, and arrests were made at the time. Today, through the establishment of a community forest using an ecosystem-based management plan, the community has been able to develop harvesting plans and log in their watersheds in ways that are sensitive to local environmental values and that protect ecological services.
I have more interesting stories I would be happy to share with you later if senators are interested in more examples.
In 2009, British Columbia's Working Roundtable on Forestry reached consensus on 29 recommendations aimed at achieving a vibrant forest industry, and one of their key recommendations was to expand the Community Forest Agreement Tenure Program.
Apart from the benefits to communities that I have described already, what is the reason to grow the community forest program? One of the most compelling reasons is value-added development. As you know, access to fibre has been a limiting factor in the creation of a vibrant and diverse wood manufacturing sector, especially for small to medium-sized businesses. Small manufacturing companies need a reliable and stable source of raw material, which long-term community-based tenures can provide. Community forests have the ability to deliver products to all user groups so that they can sell their logs to major two-by-four dimensional lumber mills but also to the smallest artisan, such as a guitar maker.
Community forests are hoping to attract more wood-based manufacturers to operate in their communities and work directly with community forest managers. With a secure, long-term wood supply, value-added companies can focus on manufacturing and marketing their product. Featured here in these photographs is an example of a company called West Coast Log Homes, which is benefiting from a secure wood supply from the Sunshine Coast Community Forest.
While the Community Forest Agreement program holds great potential, it is really in its fledging stage in B.C., and there are many challenges. Community forest agreements really exist as a square peg in the round hole of the traditional corporate forestry world.
The British Columbia Community Forest Association was formed in 2002, and we work on behalf of community forests to improve the conditions under which they operate. We are a non-profit society comprised of over 50 organizations that either manage community forests or are striving to establish community forests. Our current work includes collaboration with government to expand the program and improve the policies that govern community forests. We are helping to link community forests with value-added manufacturers through a new program and are working to create a community forest brand by telling our stories and increasing our profile.
I have brought with me DVDs that we created about a year ago that tell the stories of six individual community forests, and there is also an introductory segment in there. I invite you to check those out and share them with your colleagues. We have also partnered with the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia to conduct research and to develop educational materials and best practices on community forest governance and management. In fact, UBC has just this fall launched a new specialization in community and Aboriginal forestry.
Coming back to the branding and our DVD, an early outcome of our work in that area was the participation of community forests in the Vancouver 2010 Olympic podium project. You may not have heard, but 14 of the 23 podiums were made from wood donated by community forests, and that program was facilitated through the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands and VANOC, the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. It was an exciting opportunity for us. This slide shows one of the podiums.
Community forests are a new and exciting model of forest management, and there are a number of areas where we see a role for federal government support. With the support of federal funds through the Western Economic Diversification Canada programs and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Community Development Program, the British Columbia Community Forest Association has and continues to provide critical support to communities and First Nations. We are very grateful for the support and see other exciting opportunities for federal involvement. For example, programs could support the development of a strong and diverse value-added wood manufacturing sector, and any program that can help to grow new businesses and create jobs in concert with community-based tenures will be of benefit.
Continued support is also needed for programs to reduce the risk of catastrophic wild fires and also to assist with the recovery from the mountain pine beetle epidemic. There is also a need to fund knowledge transfer between provinces on community forestry. This concept is gaining support, and there is quite a bit of interest in other jurisdictions around Canada and interest in what we are doing in British Columbia, but there is a lack of resources to share experience and knowledge.
Also, recent federal programs have been very important to a number of individual community forests. Employment is a top priority for many, and federal programs have made a significant impact by helping to put people back to work.
As Mr. Arbour mentioned, and I took note of his comments about rural poverty, these are very difficult times for many rural communities, but 10 years after this innovative community forest tenure was piloted, community forests are demonstrating their ability to create local jobs and manage local resources to meet community needs, values and priorities. They are positioned to meet the needs of the value-added sector so critical to the future of the forest industry. Local and international markets are seeking products that are produced in an environmentally and socially conscious manner, and I think community forests can deliver those products.
In the midst of the current challenges facing forestry and forest-dependent communities, community forests are a unique tool to help create and maintain more resilient and self-reliant communities. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a job well done, as we say where I come from.
Before we move to questions, I remind all honourable senators that we also have a second panel, so we have approximately 30 minutes left with these witnesses.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Arbour, we have learned on this committee that there is a huge difference in the appreciation of the forests by rural and urban people, and perhaps urban people have not been educated. They may think cutting down a tree is a terrible thing instead of thinking of it as an opportunity. Does your association do any kind of education?
Mr. Arbour: Yes. That is very important. I will use a couple of examples. The Newfoundland and Labrador model forest group has worked with the Ministry of Education on creating curriculum for youth to educate people about the forest values and forest opportunities, and it has been very well received. They even created backpacks for people to get out of their village and go into the woods. The backpack has all the supplies people need. That is for the little ones.
Here in Ottawa I have a colleague from the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, which has a very strong interface between urban and rural forestry. That whole concept of the urban forest is a great way to get the public to think more about the fact that most cities are in the forest. We are surrounded by trees, and we should not manage them on a block-by-block basis, as we are in the forest. There is an ecosystem around Ottawa itself.
There are educational programs that are promoted. I will not try to pretend it is the primary mandate of the association, but it is one of the things we do.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Ms. Gunter, talk to me a bit about botanical forest products. We have heard about blueberries and mushrooms. Are those the things you are talking about?
Ms. Gunter: Those are the kinds of things we are talking about for sure. The community forest agreement was the first forest tenure in B.C. to confer management rights to a licensee to manage for non-timber forest products — or non-timber forest resources, as they are known.
At this point, there is a lack of regulation in this area, so many community forests are hesitant to launch into initiatives, but they do, in theory, have the right to manage those. Some of them are starting small-scale projects. For example, the Likely-Xat'sull (Soda Creek) Community Forest that I described earlier has begun a wreath-making business this year. They had a gentleman from New Brunswick, which is also where I am from originally, come out and give workshops and help them initiate a business where they are harvesting trees that are quite small and have low value and are being sent to one use, and then the boughs are being created into Christmas wreaths. They are finding that the Christmas wreath side of the business is more profitable than the wood.
Those initiatives are in their early stages.
Senator Eaton: We heard about First Nation treaties. Would it be helpful to the British Columbia Community Forest Association if more treaties were signed? Do you have that trouble with First Nations?
Ms. Gunter: I think everyone would like to see the treaty process progress, and it is certainly a major issue in British Columbia. That being said, there are quite a few First Nations that hold community forest agreements, and they see them as a way for their communities to get a connection and have some control over the forest land base in their area. At the same time, other non-Aboriginal communities do need to consult First Nations for approval of all their operating plans, and that process can be hung up because of unsettled treaties. The answer to your question would be yes.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, witnesses, for your presentations. This is interesting, new information that we have not had before, or at least it is a new angle.
Ms. Gunter, I am anticipating the answer to this, but are all of your community forests certified?
Ms. Gunter: In what manner?
Senator Mercer: There is a certification process for forests now so that the wood that comes out is branded and certified as sustainable.
Ms. Gunter: Right. They are not. Some of them are. The Harrop-Procter Community Forest that I described in my presentation is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, FSC. It is the only one at this point that has that certification.
Others are very interested. However, at this point, they see the cost to be quite high, which is a bit of a barrier for them. We are starting to explore ways to reduce costs for certification for these relatively small operations.
Senator Mercer: I anticipated that would be a problem. We have heard before that the cost of certification is a bit of barrier, but we are getting into a market where eventually all our products will have to be certified for our export market. Since you have a number of community forests, is there a possibility that you could perhaps have them certified in a management plan done for them collectively as opposed to individually?
Ms. Gunter: I think so. We are interested in exploring that.
Senator Mercer: Are there community forests outside of British Columbia?
Ms. Gunter: There are. Mr. Arbour may have more details about this. There are some examples in New Brunswick. I do not believe any other province has the same kind of forest tenure that applies to Crown land that British Columbia has. Certainly we are the largest program, but different models are being explored in other provinces.
I know Quebec and Ontario are quite interested. I believe the Yukon has a new community forest tenure, but I am not sure that it is operational at this point.
Senator Mercer: Thank you. Perhaps we should make a note that at some future time — not necessarily while doing this study — when we go to British Columbia on some matter we should put in the back of our minds to visit community forests, even if we are doing an agriculture study at that time. When we are in the neighbourhood, we should stop by and see one.
The Chair: The clerk will make note of that.
Mr. Arbour, do you have a comment on that question?
Mr. Arbour: As Ms. Gunter mentioned, just to add to the knowledge base, yes, community forests are starting to transfer across the country. I think the start was definitely in the strength in British Columbia. Our president of the model forest in Newfoundland visited the Whistler community forest and went back to Newfoundland to start work with his people there. I wish I had the proper information for you, but they either have started one or are about to start one.
I would like to comment also on the certification. That is a very important issue in Canada. As we try to devise that new model for the next 100 years, I think your assumption is right that we will need certification across the board. Not all certifications are created equal. I was happy to hear some comments about some of the certification schemes that exist. For model forests as well, we have two excellent programs in the country, one in Ontario and one in British Columbia, which allow small businesses to become certified.
The way to bring down costs is to aggregate those small businesses under one banner. Our organization runs a program where we have 30 businesses certified under one banner; 23 of them are chain of custody, and I think one is a community forest, and then we have some woodlot owners as well. There are a number of private landowners in Eastern Ontario who share an FSC certification program as well. It is the way of the future.
The Chair: Mr. Arbour, if you want to provide additional information, for instance the latest information or specifics on the question asked by Senator Mercer, please feel free to do that.
Senator Plett: As has already been said, we have had a number of different presentations over the last nine or ten months, and all of them have been interesting. I found yours very interesting. Thank you very much for coming out and sharing.
I have a few questions. Mr. Arbour, regarding the model forest, you talked about 1,000 partners and 55 sites. Our notes here list a number of member organizations, including the Manitoba Model Forest. Where is the Manitoba Model Forest located? I need to go visit that model forest.
Mr. Arbour: When I was there a couple years ago, it was very cold.
Senator Plett: It is very cold there now.
Mr. Arbour: We landed in Winnipeg and we had an amazing trip. The ground zero for that model forest is in the Pine Falls area and heading north from there. It is a fairly substantial land mass, and the model forest has been looking to expand in other places in the province. There is demand for the model forest concept. If you want to go, you would have to land in cold Winnipeg and then head north.
Senator Plett: I live in cold Winnipeg, so I would only have to drive about an hour and half. I know the area well. As a matter of fact, I have family living just outside of Pine Falls. I do not know that Pine Falls is any colder than the rest of Manitoba.
Mr. Arbour: I am sure we could arrange a tour as well.
Senator Plett: I would enjoy that. Maybe away from the committee meeting here we can discuss that. I would appreciate more information on that.
Ms. Gunter, I particularly liked one of the statements in your slides with regard to the decisions being made by people who have to live with the outcome. I think that is a marvellous statement. Too often, we make decisions that someone else can deal with down the road.
I have a question for both of you. We have heard of so many different programs, and it seems that there is a lot of competition among wonderful organizations doing somewhat the same thing. In your presentations, I found many similarities between a model forest and a community forest, and I would like you to tell me what the difference is. To me, many of the elements are the same. Why do we need a model forest organization and a community forest organization? Are you competing for the same funds? What are the differences?
Please take a minute or two to tell me about that, and then I want you to tell me briefly what the podium was made of. Was that one block of wood or was that laminated wood?
Mr. Arbour: We are about partnerships, so we are never in competition. We are always partnering together. Briefly, quite often the requirement for the model forest concept is not necessarily for active land management. Community forests are actually legal entities that manage pieces of land, so they have tenure over the land.
A model forest is usually a large regional area that will include Crown land, private land, community forests and First Nation areas. It is often a partnership of very different interests on the land, while the community forest will be a defined piece of land that is being actively managed by that group. That is the main distinction.
If I may, I want to talk about the competition for funding, which is actually more important. I was at the Boreal Awards gala last night, meeting people. There is also the biosphere system in Canada. It is interesting, because we end up with very different programs that are supported by the provinces and by the federal government. All of us, both in government and in the non-profit or the funded part, are looking to the future and thinking about where the synergies are. Those who are not doing that are fooling themselves, because resources are scarcer and we need to be smart about the kind of synergies we create on the land base, again coming back to the integrated approach and bringing departments together. This is hard to do in Ottawa right now with Treasury Board requirements. If people want to work across departments, two years' notice is required to devise a new program. Organizations like ours can sometimes help to bring those funding pots together.
Ms. Gunter: Mr. Arbour has answered very well. The key difference is that community forests are about management rights that are granted to a community or a community-based entity. The community runs the forest like a business, harvesting, making profits and reinvesting those profits in the community. The concept of nesting them is a good idea. A community forest could be part of a larger regional cluster of institutions and businesses working together.
Hearing Mr. Arbour's presentation this morning, I see more opportunity for information exchange and collaboration. Working in our small rural communities, we can have tunnel vision and just think about what we are trying to do locally. Learning more about these programs, such as the Canadian Model Forest Network, and trying to plug into the experiences and resources that they have is a great idea. As I mentioned in my presentation, there is a lack of resources for us to reach out and learn and exchange knowledge and information within provinces but especially nationally.
Senator Plett: Briefly, could you tell me about the podium?
Ms. Gunter: The podium was a very cool project. At the Vancouver Olympics, whatever your opinion of it may be, the organizers tried to bring in everything that they could, all the different innovations going on, and they did it well.
Senator Kochhar: Could you show that slide again?
Ms. Gunter: Yes. The Centre for Advanced Wood Processing at the University of British Columbia was involved and machined the podiums. The podiums were assembled by a fabrication shop in Vancouver that hired young, disadvantaged people who wanted to learn carpentry skills. They brought them in to assemble the podiums. The wood was selected from community forests and other groups around the province, and the podiums were all made of different species. The podium in this photograph was made from wood donated by the Revelstoke Community Forest. The slices were cut using lasers, I believe, and then assembled together that way, glued together. It is precision cutting. They create a model, and then the pieces of wood are cut to fit in a precise fashion.
Senator Plett: It is a wonderful program.
Ms. Gunter: I can provide more details about that.
Senator Plett: I do not know that that it is necessary. It is certainly interesting to look at, and it looks like a great project. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Arbour, is the Lower St. Lawrence Model Forest part of your network? I cross the Gaspé Peninsula from Edmundston to Rivière-du-Loup and I see signs saying "model forest.'' Now I do not know whether it is the Lower St. Lawrence or the Témiscouata model forest. Is it part of your network?
Mr. Arbour: Yes. Thank you for your question. Every network has its successes and its lessons to offer. Unfortunately, the Lower St. Lawrence Model Forest has stopped operating. That is something that all partnerships experience; they encounter difficulties. As I said, to keep a table of industries, of environmental groups of regional people, players and priorities can change. Not a lot of model forests have fallen. There are still champions in the region that are working on projects, but, unfortunately, as a group, we have lost the Lower St. Lawrence model forest. There are two in Quebec, in Lac-Saint-Jean and in the Laurentians, at Mont-Laurier.
Senator Robichaud: I was completely unaware that it was no longer in existence as a model forest. Ms. Gunter, you have competition when you want to set up a community forest, do you not? Are the big contractors, the big companies that want fibre resisting the movement you head?
[English]
Ms Gunter: Certainly, there is competition. In some areas there may be resistance because it is a new model. For the most part, community forests are log sellers. They often sell their logs to the large mills as well as try to attract smaller manufacturers. They do develop fibre relationships with larger companies as well. They can be part of an integrated mosaic in an area.
When we talk about expanding the community forest program, that is where it starts to get difficult. As I am sure you know, every tree is accounted for. The difficult challenge for the provincial government is to figure out how to expand the community forests program. They are also looking to provide more tenures to First Nations and for woodlots as well. There is competition for the land base. We see an important role for community forests, and our association is promoting that.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We are talking about model forests. Do you encourage people in the region to discover all the natural products that can come from trees such as, for example, spruce water. One business in Quebec is trying to extract water from spruce trees. There is a market for it and people are apparently importing it from Switzerland. There is also yew, what we call ground hemlock back home, from which they extract substances that are good for the health.
Do you encourage people to explore this avenue and to deal in these products?
Mr. Arbour: Not only do we encourage people, we have provided assistance to establish small businesses. I am glad you mentioned spruce water. I would have liked to come here this morning with one of our products from the Lac- Saint-Jean Model Forest: spruce beer.
Senator Robichaud: Are we invited to visit this model forest?
Mr. Arbour: Yes, any time. We went to Lac-Saint-Jean; we were there a year ago, and all the model forests in Canada have managed to come up with spruce beer.
Beyond that, what is interesting on that site is the integration of agriculture and forestry. There is a blueberry region and they are starting to integrate the forest and blueberries. They call it the blueberry forest. The model has achieved so much success that the Ontario Model Forest has imported the idea and established areas.
For all products other than fibre, we are trying to invest with people from the regions to develop these businesses. It is not easy, as Ms. Gunter said. Economies of scale are not always there, but there is a lot of innovation in this field.
Senator Robichaud: There is a lot of potential as well, according to the various witnesses we have heard. I see one person in the audience over there, vigorously nodding his head, who seems to support what you say.
Ms. Gunter, is the situation the same in British Columbia?
[English]
Ms. Gunter: There is interest. As Mr. Arbour said, with economies of scale, it is difficult to start these new businesses.
The last slide I had was of the plant devil's club. I believe it has a number of medicinal values. The McBride Community Forest has a lot of devil's club. It is called that because of the thorns on the plant. They are looking for that because they see potential for a commercial venture there.
One of the key components is First Nations' interest in those plants and their traditional knowledge of medicinal qualities. It can become a delicate subject. It is extremely important, especially for non-Aboriginal community forests, to develop good partnerships and relationships with First Nations.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Gunter, I heard you say a few words in French. You have a good French accent. I am sure you are a product of French immersion.
[Translation]
That is the result of language immersion in New Brunswick. I congratulate you.
Ms. Gunter: That is true, but it has been a very long time.
[English]
Senator Kochhar: Thank you, Mr. Arbour and Ms. Gunter. You gave informative and knowledgeable presentations. Both of you talked about a 100-year model. It is difficult for some of us to comprehend 100 years from now. I would have liked to have heard something about what your plans are for two, four or five years from now.
You also talked about the model forest and the community forest. You can call a model forest a community forest and a community forest a model forest. Why these two names? Why do we not keep to a simple formula, develop something and go all across the country?
The third thing you asked about is the federal government's intervention. Your kind of project is a local project, and then you can expand it to the region and to the province. The minute the federal government intervenes, you get more rules, more regulations and more hurdles on your way to progress. I do not know why you would want the federal government to be involved at all in community projects. Both of you can answer that.
Mr. Arbour: I think you are right that the principles around the community-based approaches we both presented here today have many similarities. If you wanted to lead an effort to take that model and spread it across Canada, we would gladly help. As Ms. Gunter mentioned, part of what we are talking about is not how the whole Canadian landscape is structured.
I do believe there is a role for the federal government to provide leadership. I think someone made reference to the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. Some programs absolutely need federal involvement for proper knowledge transfer, for proper partnership and for international engagement. We are working on a circumboreal project that starts at the community and is linked regionally, nationally and internationally. We now have about eight sites across the boreal forest. We have sites in Sweden and Russia, which allows one to look at the entire boreal forest, allowing for an international approach as well as a local approach. That is incredibly valuable and for the most part is driven by Canada. Yes, the projects are local, but in the policy and exchanges I think there is an exciting role for the federal government. I would say the same for community forests, as other places try to bring about those models.
Your questions are good. Regarding the differences between community forests and model forests, perhaps some things that we see as differences would not be differences to the broader public. However, if we can both present our principles and you understand what we are talking about in principle, then for your purposes you can consider us part of the same team.
Senator Kochhar: You asked about federal help. Are you asking for financial help? The minute the federal government starts giving money, it needs to establish a bureaucrat here at the head office, which costs just as much money as the government gives you. There should be some mechanism where things can be done in a different way instead of going to the federal government for money all the time.
Ms. Gunter: I can respond to that. Some of the programs we have benefited from that have originated in the federal government have been aimed at community economic development and diversification and were focused on communities that are really in crisis or going through transition. As I mentioned, we still need that support. However, the goal is to create more self-reliant communities. Hopefully it is not dependence, as you described it, but support for a time of transition.
Back to your question regarding what is happening in the next two to four years, markets are terrible for community forests in B.C. Now is a difficult time to be operating a forestry business. That is part of the reason our association is focusing on things like trying to attract more small-scale, value-added businesses to our communities, trying to brand community forests. That is part of an educational program to raise awareness about what we are doing and the benefits of community forestry and the products we can provide. We are trying to build strength at a small scale right now and improve businesses that way and diversify that business activity at the local and regional level.
While I would like to be here today to start to create visions of the next 100 years, community forests are focused on right here, right now running as a business and how they will pay their employees and make a go of it.
The Chair: Before we move to Senator Fairbairn, for the benefit of the committee and to ensure that it is on the record, in 1992 the Model Forest Program was announced by Canada's Prime Minister at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.
Senator Fairbairn: I am delighted to have you here. I am from Alberta, and I wonder if you could give me any thoughts and ideas about what you have been discussing in the south of the province, which is where I am from, near the mountains. We are filled with many trees, and the boreal forest is north of Edmonton.
You talked about the work being done and the way you two are involved. Do you know if in my province there is a good deal of your activity going in that direction as well?
Mr. Arbour: It is a very exciting time for us in Alberta. Our newest member of the network is Webberville Community Forest, which is the champion for the regional project. It is partnering with both the forest sector and the agriculture sector.
Senator Fairbairn: That would be in the south.
Mr. Arbour: Yes. That model forest is operating. So far it has not received much funding at all. Many model forests around the world are often communities coming together and pooling resources. That is basically where the people at Webberville are starting from. Already they are attracting partners that are putting in resources, sometimes cash resources, but they are in their infancy, and it would be great if you wanted to pay them a visit.
In the north around Hinton is one of our most successful model forests at bringing industry partners and the province together. It has a very dynamic table and a substantial budget — to the point that it does not currently receive federal funding. The model forest has matured enough to reach the goal of standing on its own two feet, but sometimes money is needed for transitions, as Ms. Gunter mentioned. In Alberta, the model forests have benefited from partnering with the resource sector and that whole approach to integrated land management.
They also hosted the global forum a couple of years ago, so people from around the world came to Hinton and talked about forest management around the world. It was a very valuable exchange, and they hosted that very well.
I will let you speak about community forests in Alberta. I only know about Webberville.
Ms. Gunter: That is more knowledge than I had about community forestry in Alberta.
Senator Fairbairn: This is sounding great. Is this vigorously bringing in the Aboriginal people?
Mr. Arbour: Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned, across the country those partnerships are key, and at the national level there are partnerships trying to work with groups such as the Assembly of First Nations. At all levels, I think the future of rural Canada depends on the new relationship between Canadian society and First Nations. I am in British Columbia as well, and we know it very well there. By all means, they are key partners. Some of our presidents are First Nations. There are many communities in rural Canada, and many of them are First Nation communities.
Senator Fairbairn: It is good to hear that. Thank you.
Senator Mahovlich: I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today. I was born in Northern Ontario in a blueberry patch right up around Timmins. Blueberries need acidic soil and a forest. It is very difficult to have a forest. I see here you say you are building forest-based products in the Lac-Saint-Jean area. Are blueberries up in Lac-Saint- Jean?
Mr. Arbour: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: Is it farmed?
Mr. Arbour: It is a mix. There is agriculture with the fields of blueberries, and then in the forests, based on ecosystem management, they started doing some variable retention logging. They realized that in some of the patches the potential for blueberry returns was higher than the returns from fibre. They started doing experimental programs to try to test that idea.
It is not only an economic thing. They have researchers on board studying the impact on the forests, the biodiversity, all the rest of it; but from an economic perspective, it is a very smart and interesting approach to try to derive more value.
I mentioned that the Northeast Superior Forest Community looked at that approach and has secured a bunch of land to do exactly that. It is not scaled yet, but it is working.
Senator Mahovlich: The government would be interested in investing in something like that. That is where the government would come in. Is it possible to visit these places in Lac-Saint-Jean?
Ms. Gunter: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: In British Columbia, do they have blueberries?
Ms. Gunter: There are blueberries, yes.
Senator Mahovlich: What is British Columbia's favourite berry?
Ms. Gunter: I think huckleberry, at least in my area.
Senator Mahovlich: Every province has a certain berry. The East Coast has partridgeberries. If you want a partridgeberry pie, you have to go to the East Coast.
Ms. Gunter: The mention of blueberries again reminds me of the Likely-Xat'sull (Soda Creek) Community Forest. When they were just getting started, they wrote their management plan at a kitchen table. They started from meagre beginnings. Their foresters and silviculture technicians out in the forest loved to pick berries, and their wives made jam, so they decided to start a little jam business. They made huckleberry jam, some blueberry jam, cranberry and I think Oregon grape. They found they could make more money selling jam in the early days than they could selling logs. They still do that. There is interest.
As Mr. Arbour said, there also needs to be research about sustainable harvesting as well.
Senator Mahovlich: In the winter, I get blueberries from Argentina and Brazil. They are farmed berries, and they do not have the flavour.
Senator Kochhar: Of course not — they are not Canadian.
The Chair: This concludes our first panel.
[Translation]
Mr. Arbour, thank you for accepting our invitation. You have provided us with a lot of information, and I thank you for that.
[English]
Ms. Gunter, I thank you for being here this morning. I hope we do not have what I call a logjam on our rivers.
Ms. Gunter: Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would now like to welcome Dominic Dugré, President of the Canadian Federation of Outfitters Association. Mr. Dugré, thank you for accepting our invitation.
[Translation]
Dominic Dugré, President, Canadian Federation of Outfitters Associations: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been President of the Canadian Federation of Outfitters Associations since 2008. I have been Secretary General of the Fédération des pourvoiries du Quebec, the provincial association in Quebec, since 2000. To say a few words about the Canadian Federation of Outfitters, the history dates back to 2003. Perhaps you will recall the mad cow crisis in 2003. At that time, the United States had shut down its borders to our meat exports from ruminants, which included not only beef, but also caribou, moose and deer. Consequently, we were very hard-hit by that crisis. We tried to get through it because a lot of our contractors were in the dumps. We started discussions from province to province, from one outfitters association to another and, over the years, saw that we were really interested in getting together to discuss topics of national interest. In 2007, the Canadian Federation of Outfitters Associations was officially established.
We currently have 10 federation members: the Northwest Territories, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are not members; I believe it is not very structured or that not a lot of outfitters got together to seize the opportunity to join our group.
The 10 provinces represent at least 2,000 outfitter businesses across Canada, essentially in isolated regions, remote regions of Canada. That is 2,000 businesses essentially specialized in organizing hunting and fishing activities, but also, increasingly, outdoor activities of all kinds.
This industry provides Canadians with at least 20,000 jobs a year and generates economic impact.
The figures I am giving you are very conservative. We are a young organization. We do not yet have any studies on the economy generated by outfitters, but we can say without fear that it is worth more than $1 billion for Canada's regions.
Outfitters are a prominent tourism industry. Canada is seen internationally as a big country well known for its open spaces and abundant wildlife. As a result, the outfitter industry, which is established in Canada's forests, in its open spaces, is on the front line in welcoming this international clientele. We are a prominent showcase.
And this is starting to be recognized. And yesterday I had a meeting with a tourism commission that wants to promote Canada internationally as a first-class fishing destination.
We have proof of that recognition this morning as well, and I want to thank you for inviting us. I believe it is an honour for a young organization like ours to be invited to share our point of view on the subject of forestry in Canada.
Forest outfitting has been very important, particularly in recent years as a result of the forest crisis. A number of communities have been hit hard by plant closures. In some regions, our sector has led the way in providing jobs, very important jobs for communities of a few hundred inhabitants.
Earlier I heard Senator Eaton say he had been fishing in Gaspé. As you probably know, communities like Saint- Jude rely to a great degree on salmon fishing. That is true of a number of regions in Canada.
This product, hunting, fishing and outdoor activities, is essentially based on one thing, yes, abundant wildlife, but also the quality of the environment. People go into the forest to revitalize, hunt and fish, but it is not the same thing without the forest. The quality of the environment of the outfitters' area of operation is central to that business.
We believe that, in the context in which we have been invited here today, the key to the success of the interface between the forest and outfitters is planning.
I want to mention that the outfitter industry, regardless of province, is not opposed to logging. It is important for certain communities and, in various respects, can be good for wildlife. The idea is to see how the two can work together for a better future for both industries.
We believe our industry traditionally has not received all the consideration it deserves. I will not go on about horror stories. Clear cutting, outfitter areas completely cleared causing outfitters to be shut down, are something that has been regularly seen, although it has been increasingly infrequent in the past 15 years or so. A number of our members still remember when the log skidders arrived on the land, without warning, in the middle of hunting season. The hunters had to leave and, one week later, the hunting area was levelled.
Outfitter contractors invest on lands that do not belong to them, public lands. It takes faith to invest $500,000 or $750,000 on land that does not belong to us. That generates recurring revenue, year after year, unlike the forest industry that develops a given area and returns 30 years later. The outfitting operation is there, year after year, generating a recurring economy for the region.
One fear we have is that, in times of crisis or where there is a desire to lead the forest industry out of crisis, too much emphasis may be placed on cutting supply costs. If that is done incoherently, it can mean that cutting constraints are allowed to fall.
We have always called for, although not always without success, it has to be said, specific terms and conditions for logging on our lands, for another access road than the one that was planned, in order to destroy the outdoor product that we have put in place. The road can be shifted five kilometres to the west. That may result in costs to the forest industry, but it will enable us to continue implementing the business plan we have put forward and to achieve success with our businesses. We have always been viewed as a constraint.
Cohabitation of the two industries is not only necessary, it can also be beneficial. I am going to cite a very interesting study, which states that current analyses show there is a significant economic gain where both activities, forestry and outfitting, are taken into consideration at all planning levels. It can be said, based on initial analytical findings, that economic activity due to outfitting generally represents 40 per cent of that of forestry and that additional development costs represent approximately four per cent of operating costs, but only for a small portion of exploitable volume. The potential synergies between the necessary environmental protection and the response to the needs of tourism businesses, in terms of protection of the environment, further reduces the actual cost and, in most cases, results in no impact on forestry opportunities. The result will be a greater benefit for both industries.
In conclusion, the key lies in planning and taking into consideration the land protection needs of tourism businesses. No one will go and rent a cottage at an outfitter if it has been devastated, if there is no wood on the opposite shore. You also have the protection of wildlife habitats, migratory corridors; most animals will migrate to a certain degree, each in accordance with their own needs. There is also the issue of managing access roads that may vary from one outfitter to the next, from province to province. If forest roads are built, some businesses will want to shut them down immediately after the cutting in order to preserve a product that is solely accessible by aircraft in order to maintain fishing and hunting quality. Others will want the roads to remain in order to reduce costs, both the operating costs of the outfitter and clientele access costs. Needs vary from place to place.
Planning must absolutely take into consideration both parties as regards lands and government operations. All too often, in the provinces, the departments responsible for forest and wildlife do not speak to each other enough. It is often the forest industry that comes out on top.
Senator Rivard: I am very impressed. I did not know your industry generated 20,000 jobs or that the economic impact was more than $1 billion. Apart from our fellow Canadian citizens from other provinces, where does the foreign clientele come from?
Mr. Dugré: Most of the clientele comes from the United States. In some provinces, for hunting, if we are talking about Newfoundland, Alberta, Yukon and British Columbia, more than 95 per cent of the outfitter clientele comes mainly from the United States.
As for Quebec, a good percentage of our clientele is American, particularly for caribou hunting, but a European clientele is increasingly coming to Quebec for hunting and fishing.
Senator Rivard: Are the regulations the same for salmon fishing as in the provinces; that is to say, is it catch and release if the salmon does not weigh X; you have to release it, or is that typical in Canada?
Mr. Dugré: It is typical to a large degree in Canada and typical in Quebec as well. I am not a salmon specialist; what I do know is that Quebec manages its salmon rivers particularly tightly. When you get to the point where you can say that 437 big salmon and 675 small salmon were fished from a river, that is very fine management and virtually unique in the world, which makes it possible to allow people to keep some salmon because we have very well documented conservation thresholds. We have benchmark rivers.
That practice is not as extensive in Maine, for example. We are at the forefront of salmon management in Quebec. There are permanent measures and there are, I would say, ad hoc measures depending on the salmon catch.
Senator Rivard: We know the outfitters are definitely comfortable. Do you have any demands from outfitter employees? If you compare with lobster, crab and other fishermen in certain regions, they find the seasons too short and demand extensions to employment insurance programs. Can we say that public outfitter employees are less affected as a result of their higher wages? Is that comparable, in your opinion?
Mr. Dugré: Wages are not at all comparable, if we are talking about the offshore fishing industry. Our employees are seasonal and wages are lower; this is the tourism industry. There are no employee demands. As for entrepreneurs, there can be financial demands. The big demand is for regulatory relief. We have gotten to the point where this is killing the passion of a number of these entrepreneurs. You have to have that passion in order to invest half a million dollars, find financing, an institution that will want to lend you money to build an inn on a piece of land that does not belong to you. You have to put up your house as collateral. That necessary passion is dampened by too much regulation, not just at the provincial level, but at the federal level as well, not just with regard to the forest industry, but also with regard to a range of departments; it is understandable to a degree, but we are not considered.
Transport Canada recently amended the Merchant Marine Act. We have regulations that apply to pleasure boats. From the moment there is a guide abroad a pleasure boat, it is no longer a pleasure boat, even if it is still the same 16- foot boat. It becomes a commercial boat. The regulation is completely different. If you come to an outfitter and rent a boat, you can navigate using your boating licence. I will limit my comments about that licence. You can navigate on a waterway more than 2,000 miles long using that licence. The fish have not bitten. You want a guide. We set up an employee on board the same boat. That employee, who has an intimate knowledge of the area, needs one week's training in order to drive you. You need your licence. He needs one week's training. That training is given in Grande- Rivière, Quebec. You have about 600 businesses in Quebec, several of which operate in the High North. We have seasonal employees and high staff turnover. How do you think our entrepreneurs can manage to train all these people? Imagine the millions of dollars that can cost across Canada. This is the type of regulation that makes it physically and financially impossible for people to comply. There are regulations in a number of sectors, apart from financial requirements for road maintenance; this aspect has a really dramatic impact on our industry.
Senator Robichaud: Deer hunting just finished in New Brunswick. I spoke to a number of hunters who were not happy because they were unable to get the trophy they wanted, a 15- or 18-point deer. I am told, and I am talking about New Brunswick, and I am saying this free of charge because some hunters told me, that the wildlife has less space to shelter and feed and that the standards of the past may have been exceeded. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Dugré: Situations may differ greatly from province to province; I do not know the exact geography of New Brunswick. If I carried that question over to Quebec, for example, yes, that is a point that has been raised in the southern St. Lawrence, where there are essentially private lands. There are fewer and fewer wooded areas. In recent years, numerous wooded areas have been cut in order to plant corn, spread manure and so on.
For public lands, I would generally say that is not necessarily a big problem in Quebec. Yes, there is wood cutting, but that will displace animals. That will affect us because we cannot move.
Recent years have been difficult for deer. Winter conditions are very hard on the herd. Significant declines have been observed everywhere. However, I would say that our hunting regulatory model has proven its effectiveness in recent years. The number of licences is lowered when necessary. I believe that, with regard to herd, species management, the work that is being done is nevertheless quite good.
Could there be more space on private lands? No doubt.
Senator Robichaud: When authorities grant large areas for intensive cutting, is any consultation conducted to determine whether there are any sensitive areas within that zone that should be protected? And are you consulted to ensure they go after wood but do not destroy the area where you are carrying on your business?
Mr. Dugré: I am going to speak for Quebec. I am not familiar with the regulation in other provinces. I know that this situation occurs in the other provinces. Yes, we are consulted. Since 2002, 2003, there has been a major effort to review forest management in Quebec. Consultations are now mandatory. Cutting areas are divided into different zones. Outfitter areas may vary between 10 and 300 km2. Consultations are not conducted because, in a movement toward regionalization in Quebec, it is those regional authorities that will be helping to plan forest cutting.
We have outfitters in a situation in which their areas overlap two or three forest regions. In each, there may be two or three companies actively cutting. We are already up to 12 people whom we have to consult and to whom we have to present our plans. There is an obligation to abide by the planning, but no penalties come into play when it is not complied with.
We have a particularly shocking case in western Quebec right now, in Abitibi, where people took part in the consultation; there were disputes, and the minister intervened for mediation purposes.
He ordered something that the company did not comply with. The department issued a licence in spite of the minister's opinion, probably by mistake. Nevertheless, cutting is currently being done on protected land because that land is accessible only by hydroplane. A $1.25 million inn has just been built in the middle of nowhere to attract people who want this product and they are destroying everything, and no one is doing anything.
Yes, there is consultation and planning. When planning is done in the middle of summer, the outfitters are in operation, and we cannot attend all those consultations. There are so many consultations on the forests and wildlife regulations. The regions organize consultations. We need full-time staff for each of the outfitters.
We currently have 12 employees at the federation. We have two forestry engineers. They are trying to cover as much as possible, but our people are contractors; most of them are in the field, serving the clientele. Leaving the operation in high season in order to take part in a consultation — we will do it, but doing it 10 times a season is impossible.
Senator Robichaud: We should not recommend holding more consultations.
Mr. Dugré: In Quebec, we have had consultations on consultation methods.
[English]
Senator Plett: I would like you to explain briefly the partnerships that encompassed most of the provinces. I believe you said that two provinces, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, are not members of your organization.
Mr. Dugré: Yes.
Senator Plett: Is your funding entirely from the provinces? Do outfitters pay a membership fee to keep the organization going? How do you fund your organization?
[Translation]
Mr. Dugré: Our organization receives no assistance from any government whatever. Yes, a membership fee is paid by every provincial association.
[English]
Senator Plett: They are partners.
Mr. Dugré: No, the provincial governments are not partners. We are totally independent.
Senator Plett: I understood otherwise.
[Translation]
Mr. Dugré: Each of the associations in each of the provinces pays a membership fee to our federation and we try to find funding avenues. We have requested nothing from the government; the only thing we have requested from the federal Department of Industry is financial assistance to conduct a study on the economic impact of the outfitter industry across Canada. That is one thing that currently does not exist.
Apart from that, our members auction off holidays, and that is how we manage to increase funding.
[English]
Senator Plett: I always encourage organizations that are not asking for government money to continue the good work they do. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Eaton: To raise your profile slightly among the urban population in Europe, I can buy wild meats at a grocery store. Why not in Canada?
Mr. Dugré: That is a good question. I do not think we can do that, start selling wild game; personally I believe that may lead to acts contrary to hunting ethics.
Senator Eaton: At this time of year in Europe, the grocery stores have pheasant, partridge and so on. People buy that like beef or lamb.
Mr. Dugré: Is it farmed game?
Senator Eaton: No, it comes from hunting. In Germany, they shoot moose.
[English]
Absolutely they send it to market to be sold.
I have hunted stag in Germany. At Harrods in London, England, you can find wild grouse, wild pheasant and wild partridge. You can sit down at a restaurant in London and eat wild grouse. There is no such thing as grouse that has been farmed.
[Translation]
Mr. Dugré: Here, as far as I know, the only wild species that has been commercialized, and I believe the business has suspended its operations, was caribou. I believe the company was called Arctic Food. It was owned by the Inuit. They suspended their operation. It is nevertheless sold illegally.
Senator Robichaud: You should not say that.
Mr. Dugré: No. I have a little trouble with that. There are vulnerable species. That is done for salmon. It is fished with a net, regardless of who does it.
Senator Eaton: Salmon management is very strict. You know with the controlled zones.
Mr. Dugré: Not all the rivers are controlled zones, you know. There were some incidents on the Matapédia. Some salmon was resold. There have been some on the North Shore. Even though the situation is well managed, it is in a precarious state. Every effort has to be made to ensure that there is no trade in those species. I am not saying that could not be done for certain species; caribou is currently in decline. As in all regions of the world, we are seeing a sharp decline in the herd. This is not the time to talk about trade in caribou. There are a lot of moose. Could we think about that?
In organizations such as yours, at evening benefit events for wildlife industries or wildlife protection officers, they like to attract people who want to contribute by saying they are organizing a game meal. They cannot do it because that is tantamount to selling it. Could there be exceptions?
Senator Eaton: Go to London or Germany next fall and you will eat well.
Mr. Dugré: I am telling you that I eat well enough at home; I was lucky this year.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: I believe the last time I ate a moose meat dinner was in a restaurant in San Francisco, California. In fact, I was dining with Henri Richard.
Mr. Dugré: Was it his moose?
Senator Mahovlich: No, it was not his moose; but he could fight a moose, I can tell you.
You talked about caribou. Currently, we have an abundance of deer. My car was ruined when it was hit by a deer in 2008. I had to get a new car because it was totalled. My wife was happy, but it was not a good experience. A buck came at me and, but for a few inches, I would have been injured.
Does the government do enough to promote our wildlife activities like moose hunting and deer hunting? I think we have too many deer around cottage country.
Mr. Dugré: That is a good question.
Senator Mahovlich: I cannot have a garden because they eat everything I plant. Some people tell me to build a fence. A fence around a cottage is not great out in the wilds.
Mr. Dugré: May I suggest that you leave your car out of the garage so they will attack the car and not go in the garden.
Senator Mahovlich: We have an abundance of deer, but maybe not caribou.
[Translation]
Mr. Dugré: There may be tougher regulations. Permission was granted in some regions of Quebec where there were numerous accidents involving deer; they are reducing the ratio, the number of deer per square kilometer in order to respond to problems like that. They are promoting an increase in other less inhabited areas, but a decline in urban areas. The regulation is working well in that regard.
In response to your other question about promoting hunting, no, not enough promotion is being done. I believe every province is doing a good job, but I must say there is an enormous void at the federal level. I do not mean to blame anyone.
Earlier I mentioned the Canadian Tourism Commission. Have a look at their Web site. There is no mention of hunting. The only exception is where tourists are invited to go see the Inuit and hunt seals, which is all right. Canada is a unique hunting destination in the world. That is not talked about at all; it is hard to talk about hunting in today's context. It is hard to understand, but, no, there is not enough promotion.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: You feel the government should do more to promote wildlife hunting here in Canada. We are not doing enough.
Mr. Dugré: It is part of our heritage, like hockey.
Senator Mahovlich: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Dugré, that is a good message for Senator Mahovlich.
Senator Kochhar: You mentioned about the government not promoting hunting in this country. Have you done anything about that? Have you written any submissions or asked them to put it on their website or to change that attitude of the government? I want to know if you have done something about it.
You also mentioned that there are too many provincial and federal regulations for intervention. That is music to my ears, because I do not like government to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary. Can you elaborate a little more on these regulations that you feel are not necessary, from both provincial and federal sides?
[Translation]
Mr. Dugré: In response to the first question, yes, we met some people from the Canadian Tourism Commission and people from the Department of Industry and the Office of the Secretary of State for Tourism to express our interest in having hunting promoted more extensively.
For the moment, I do not think that will move forward. Fishing was not pushed very much to the forefront. We will start with fishing; that is easier. We will start working with the appropriate fishing authorities; it is a step in the right direction to form a partnership with them, a good cooperative arrangement and then we will see what can be done for hunting.
I deplore the fact that there is not more promotion of hunting, but we will work with them to try to make ourselves understood a little more clearly. We are not stirring things up; we are not pulling out our weapons; we will start by cooperating.
[English]
Senator Kochhar: Why not make the recommendation to this committee to go to the federal government and promote this kind of activity? You are going there directly by going through this committee. You have many other avenues to take care of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Dugré: I accept your invitation and I would like to recommend that more promotions of hunting be recognized.
Earlier I mentioned some Transport Canada regulations. There are too many regulations, but perhaps much of it is no longer appropriate. We are not requesting more regulations in our sector. We are asking that our needs and situations be taken into consideration. Our situations are not the same as that of the merchant marine. We do not have pilots on the Great Lakes or in the Pacific or Atlantic regions. We operate on small lakes. Issues should be studied in greater detail before any regulations are made in this sector.
There is Transport Canada; at the provincial level, there is the environment. No one is opposed to environmental protection. However, in 2002, we were asked at the provincial level to serve potable water, that is treated with ozone, at our cottages and to dig wells. We are on the Canadian Shield; that is not always possible. For two years, we were denied the option of posting signs saying "non-potable water'' and of providing bottled water. We cannot do it. We have water on tap and everyone remembers Walkerton. We do not want that to be repeated. It took two years to convince the people that the safety objective had been met, but, because the regulations had been written, it was very hard to go back afterwards and undo what had been done.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Dugré. If you want to send the committee other information, please do so in writing.
[English]
I invite Mr. Dugré and the previous witnesses to go on the Internet and search for "New Brunswick forest summit.'' It was the first in all of Canada, and it was held last Friday. All the stakeholders in the forestry industry were present to look at how to best manage and utilize our forestry.
With that, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)