THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the growing issue of wildfires in Canada and the consequential effects that wildfires have on forestry and agriculture industries, as well as rural and Indigenous communities, throughout the country.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. It is great to see you here. Happy World Soil Day. In honour and recognition of our recent study, it is great to be able to celebrate World Soil Day here in Canada and beyond.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in‑person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback. Please take note of the various preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants here in the room and beyond. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
I want to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses in the room and online, and those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Robert Black. I am a senator from Ontario, and I am chair of this committee. I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, also Treaty 6 territory.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Edmonton, also Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Today, the committee continues its study — in fact, today is our last meeting date — on the growing issue of wildfires in Canada and the consequential effects that wildfires have on the forestry and agriculture industries.
Today, we welcome, as an individual, Mr. John Vaillant, who will join us by video conference if he is able; in the room, from the Boreal Carbon Corporation, Rick Doman, Co-founder, Chairman and Director; in the room, from Tree Canada, Nicole Hurtubise, Chief Executive Officer; from Forests Canada, by video conference, we have Jessica Kaknevicius, Chief Executive Officer; and from the Canadian Cattle Association, Kevin Boon, General Manager of the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association.
Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for being with us in person and online. You each have five minutes for your presentations, and I will signal when your time is coming to a close. When one hand is up, that means you have about one minute left. When you see two hands up, it’s close to ending your presentation, please.
With that, the floor is yours, Mr. Doman.
Rick Doman, Co-founder, Chairman and Director, Boreal Carbon Corporation: Thank you very much. I look forward to presenting today. My comments are as follows.
In 2023, Canada experienced approximately 43 million acres of land affected by wildfires, severely impacting communities and releasing significant carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The consequences of these wildfires on the environment, wildlife, human health, communities, jobs and investments are profound.
The destruction of vast forest areas critically undermines the environment. Healthy forests are vital for absorbing large quantities of carbon, whereas dead, diseased and fire-damaged forests contribute to carbon emissions. Improper replanting practices can alter species composition, further jeopardizing wildlife habitats and disrupting the forest industry.
In British Columbia’s interior, standing dead and diseased forests are particularly evident, especially due to the extensive damage caused by the mountain pine beetle, which has affected large volumes of pine trees. The spruce bark beetle also poses a significant threat, though it has been more effectively managed. Alberta has not escaped the impact of the mountain pine beetle either, as evidenced by the Jasper wildfire. The mountain pine beetle, which is a significant concern across Western Canada and five western U.S. states, leaves behind vast swaths of dead and diseased forests, making them more vulnerable to lightning strikes.
Climate change may be a contributing factor to these issues, with the root cause tracing back three decades to the emergence of diseased forests. Typically, such diseases begin in parks, and when left unchecked, they can evolve into a superbug. This appears to be the case with the mountain pine beetle, which originated in a British Columbia park about three decades ago and has since spread unchecked.
The consequences of this beetle infestation have been severe. Approximately 47 sawmills have closed in British Columbia’s interior alone, leading to a reduction in lumber capacity of up to 8 billion board feet annually. The annual allowable cut or harvest has been reduced by as much as 50%, affecting up to 50,000 direct and indirect jobs within the province. The mountain pine beetle’s ability to fly longer distances and withstand colder temperatures has facilitated its rapid expansion, exacerbating the challenges faced by the forest industry and the environment.
Canadian forests have been affected by mountain pine beetle, spruce bark beetle, and spruce budworm infestations across various regions of the country. These diseases often originate in parks, where management is minimal, and then spread to commercial forests and protected areas. Despite Canada being the second-largest nation by land area in the world, with nearly 800 million acres of forests, our annual allowable cut or harvests are declining. This decline, coupled with widespread disease, has led to larger and more intense wildfires that are increasingly difficult to control.
The smoke from these wildfires poses significant risks to human health, as the airborne particles can affect both people and wildlife. The impact is felt by any city or community, depending on the direction of the wind.
Historically, global forests covered approximately 58% of the Earth, but this figure is now estimated to be around 38%. This decline can be attributed to factors such as disease, wildfires — often a result of unsustainable harvesting practices — and over‑harvesting or clear-cutting for alternative land uses.
Canada should prioritize the improvement of its forests, as they have the potential to absorb significant amounts of carbon if managed effectively. Canada should harvest its diseased forests to mitigate the risk of increasing wildfires. These dead, dry and diseased trees pose a significant threat as they contribute to more intense wildfires and typically have little commercial value. Therefore, it is imperative for governments to address this issue. By harvesting these trees, Canada could create job opportunities across its provinces and territories. Some of the harvested material could be used for biomass, providing heat and energy for communities that currently rely on diesel or other expensive energy sources.
In addition to harvesting, Canada could expand its tree planting program, facilitating the generation of carbon credits through replanting efforts. This initiative would allow carbon credit developers to work on Crown lands, helping offset some of the costs associated with harvesting dead trees and replanting new forests. Such measures could offset emissions from other industries while fostering the growth of valuable assets for current and future generations — a larger, healthier forest that actively absorbs carbon.
Well-managed forests act as nature’s lungs, promoting sustainability and growth. While techniques such as carbon burial may help offset emissions, they are often too costly.
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr. Doman. We are going to cut you off, and you can provide more information in the questions.
Nicole Hurtubise, Chief Executive Officer, Tree Canada: Good morning, and thank you for having me. I’m very pleased to be here.
A few words about Tree Canada: Since it was founded in 1992, Tree Canada has worked relentlessly to grow Canada’s tree canopy through our greening programs or research in our public engagement. We are the only national non-profit organization dedicated to planting and nurturing trees in rural environments as well as urban environments in communities across the country. In 2023 alone, we planted 2.3 million trees. We worked in 132 communities with greening projects, and we engaged more than 9,000 volunteers across the country.
Planting trees is one of the most effective ways to tackle climate change. Trees absorb and store greenhouse gases, regulate water levels, prevent shoreline erosion, clean air and help cool our cities, which are becoming increasingly hot in summers. In addition, planting a variety of native trees and shrubs is essential to preserving biodiversity.
From large-scale reforestation to smaller urban greening projects, Tree Canada works closely with many different partners and stakeholders, including municipal, provincial and federal governments.
Wildfires are a natural part of forest regeneration, but in recent years we have seen more intense, frequent and harder-to-control fires. These fires are devastating ecosystems, displacing wildlife and having a profound and devastating impact on communities.
As a national organization, Tree Canada works closely with landowners across the country, and we are seeing an increase for post-fire restoration and reforestation as they are seeking to regenerate their lands.
Fires and droughts are key challenges that impact the survival of trees that we plant. Here are just a few takeaways regarding how we are improving our own program delivery to ensure the sustainability of reforestation and restoration projects.
First, letting nature do its work. In most cases, wildfires naturally regenerate forests. However, there are situations when reforesting and replanting is required — for example, when the fire intensity has compromised the seed bank, delaying regeneration. This is also very important as it relates to the habitat where at-risk species may live. If the regeneration takes too long, return of endangered species may be compromised. We are seeing this with the return of the caribou in the Northwest Territories on Tlicho land. Replanting is also recommended when there is a risk of landslides or where a lack of vegetation could lead to water quality issues, especially near important riparian areas. We are seeing this in many parts of Canada.
Another takeaway is securing stock. Ensuring that there is enough nursery stock available for planting is essential to ensuring that the right trees are planted in the right place. Tree Canada seeks to support nurseries by securing multi-year contracts, often in collaboration with other organizations, and giving nurseries the time to collect the seed and have more financial stability and security.
Another key takeaway for us is planting for the future. We also need to consider the future fire risks when undertaking tree planting projects in large reforestation projects as well as those near communities. This includes implementing FireSmart strategies, especially around communities and buildings. Communities affected by fires are asking us to plant hardwood species and more fire-resistant species in fire-prone areas, as they are less likely to burn as fast and as intensely as coniferous trees. We are seeing that in our urban projects.
The last point on that is supporting biodiversity. It’s not just trees that are impacted by wildfires. Shrubs and grassland habitats are also being destroyed. To truly recover these landscapes, and where appropriate, planting deciduous trees helps create greater biodiversity and enhances long-term wildfire resilience.
A point on the role of Indigenous knowledge: Indigenous communities play an essential role in reforestation efforts. Their knowledge and experience in land management and fire prevention are invaluable. Tree Canada is working closely with these communities to incorporate their expertise into restoration and regeneration projects. The knowledge of these communities and elders should be leveraged beyond their own land.
To conclude, I would like the highlight the following: Healthy biodiverse forests and landscapes are part of the climate change solutions. How and where we carry out reforestation and restoration will play a key role as it relates to the future behaviour of wildfires. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Jessica Kaknevicius, Chief Executive Officer, Forests Canada: Good morning, and thank you for having me today. My name is Jess Kaknevicius, and I am the CEO at Forests Canada, a non-profit charity dedicated to conserving, restoring and growing Canada’s forests to sustain life and communities.
I am calling today from the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples, now known as Toronto.
For over 75 years, we have played an important role in advocating for our forests, and over the last 20 years we have supported the planting of over 46.5 million trees, working alongside 8,000 landowners through important partnerships across the country.
While our focus has largely been on supporting private landowners, we have noticed an increased interest and need in restoring public landscapes post-fire and are curious about exploring how, when, why and where to support regeneration efforts. In addition to our work in forest restoration, we also reach out and engage with schools and communities in better understanding why our forests are so critical and aim to empower individuals to take action and support sustainable forests.
Fire is a natural process, as we have heard much of over the past few weeks, but last year’s season obviously prompted the public to question why these fires were occurring with such severity. There are many factors contributing to this, which you have already discussed, ranging from forest management and fire suppression to the broader impacts of climate change and the lack of resources for effective wildfire planning and management.
There are several important recommendations that have been outlined that we are supportive of, including forest management to support reduced fire risk and exploring improved community safety, as well as the need to restore after fire.
Some may ask, why do we need forests? With Canada having 9% of the world’s forests, we are fortunate enough to have an abundance of trees. I would say that our forests play a critical global role in cooling the planet, providing climate change mitigation, sequestering carbon, providing important migration habitat for birds, sustainable products, and also providing employment and support to Indigenous and rural communities across the country.
As we face the consequences of climate change, including unprecedented wildfires, it is imperative that we take action. This includes creating healthy new forests and managing the diversity and health of our existing forests. Our organization is committed to collaborating with our partners to ensure that appropriate forest restoration activities occur after significant disturbances such as fire.
We believe that effective restoration begins with choosing the right seedlings, and that starts with the seed source. We collect of over 50 million seeds each year. That’s why we emphasize the critical importance of selecting the right seeds for our restoration efforts. The trees we plant today must thrive in our current climate, but we also need to consider future conditions to ensure that our forests remain resilient. By planting climate-appropriate species, we enhance our chances for lasting success. However, we also understand the complexities of the supply chain and that shifts happen in years or decades, not months. We also recognize the impact that fires have on future seed source, putting our future seed supply at risk.
I have three recommendations for you today to consider including in your report.
The first is to think about long-term investment. Investments in our forests must be sustained over the long term. Much like fire prevention and management, the stewardship of our forests is a long-term endeavour. We must think beyond the year a tree is planted and focus on the ongoing management of these sites to ensure their resilience. This long-term management requires long-term investments, prompting us to adopt a longer-term perspective in all of our work. A one-time investment is insufficient to ensure the ongoing health of our forest ecosystems, especially as the climate continues to change and increases pressure on our forests. The results of the decisions we make today will not be seen for decades. The lack of an action will have long-term implications.
My second recommendation is to focus on the importance of restoration. Forests are vital for soil stabilization, maintaining water quantity and quality, flood mitigation and providing habitat for wildlife. They also support biodiversity and ensure communities have access to natural spaces that are crucial for mental and physical health. Replanting after fire is an important economic driver, not only providing jobs today but also potentially providing future products that store carbon for the long term. We recommend leveraging existing programs and funds to support restoration efforts, but also do it in a strategic and appropriate way to ensure their long-term survival. This includes working with the right partners and provinces to get good work done at scale.
Last, invest in training and capacity building. We need to ensure that we are delivering the best restoration possible, and this includes best practices and the implementation of Indigenous-led practices. This training should be across the supply chain, from investment in seed to seedlings to planters in the field, in addition to the long-term maintenance of any project.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Kevin Boon, General Manager, British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association, Canadian Cattle Association: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today on this very important issue of the past, current and future effects of wildfire on our forests, agriculture and the economy.
I am the general manager of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. Our industry is one of the most directly affected by fires. It is where we live and work, and the grass that grows between the trees produces millions of pounds of protein for us to eat each year.
Between 2017 and 2023, British Columbia has seen wildfires consume more than 6.3 million hectares of land, at an estimated cost of close to $4 billion just in firefighting costs alone. We do not have all of the tallies in for 2024, but we saw another 1.081 million hectares burnt.
We know what it cost to fight the fires, but we have no true estimate on what the actual losses are from these events. What has been the cost of the infrastructure, forests and food security through loss of forage production, not to mention the environmental impact caused by the release of stored carbon, contaminated fresh water, and burnt soil causing hydrophobic conditions that can affect production for years?
We are quick to point our finger and say that it is drought and climate change that are the cause of these catastrophes, but that is an easy way to pass the buck and blame for something that we don’t believe we have the ability to change. We do know that the climate is changing, but let’s be honest: the climate has been changing for billions of years, and it will always change. How we adapt is actually the question we need to be answering.
Why is all of this happening now and with such regularity? There is no one answer to all the problems, and there is no one solution, but if we are to be honest, much of the cause in British Columbia has been gross mismanagement of our landscape. Climate, the environment and nature are built on balance on that landscape, but we have done a great job of destroying that balance by creating monoculture landscapes rather than diverse ecosystems.
Somewhere along the line, we have become convinced that trees are the solution to climate change and we must produce more at all costs. We need to look at all of the science for this, not just the parts we want to look at. When we look at all of the attributes that a single tree can give us, they look pretty amazing, but when we concentrate too many of them into too small of an area, we not only lose many of those benefits but they can often work against us. Trees utilize large amounts of water, and too many together can contribute to drought and fire hazard. The majority of the carbon is stored in the stems rather than the roots, so in the event of a fire, the carbon is lost.
We need to look for a goal between the trees. We have learned through the fires we have experienced that space between the trees with forage and shrubs being allowed to grow reduces fuels, and when we allow these to be grazed by livestock and wildlife, we reduce the fine fuels, and the fire risks are reduced as well.
We must also look at timber harvesting practices. For example, we build roads to haul the timber out. Roads move water off the landscape and dry the land, causing further drought.
Managing our forests and landscapes by creating a diversified environment through agroforestry and silvopasture practises creates a healthier landscape that will support more opportunities for agriculture and wildlife to thrive while achieving our goals for carbon sequestration utilizing trees and other plants that have the ability to sequester.
There are three stages to look at: pre-fire, the event and post‑fire recovery. Every effort must be made to bring the landscape back into balance to reduce the future risks of fire.
We have to closely examine how we use programs like the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements so that they give us maximum benefit when rebuilding post-fire. Some of the restrictions and requirements associated with the programs actually lend to creating a habitat that will do nothing more than create future fire hazards. Fires cleanse the landscape and leave us with a blank canvas and an opportunity to paint that canvas in a manner that will protect us from future disasters for years to come.
We must also be careful that we do not make thoughtless political decisions without fully understanding the implications. Making commitments such as planting vast numbers of trees without a plan is very careless and detrimental. The answers to how we combat both climate change and protect our resources from future wildfire disasters lie in the same place. Thoughtful, practical planning using modern science, citizen science and historic knowledge will help supply the answers.
The Chair: Thanks to each of you for your testimony.
We will proceed to questions. Senators, you have five minutes for your questions and answers. We will move into second and third rounds as may be necessary. We only have one panel, so we have the remaining time in the committee. With that, I’m going to take the first set of questions.
I want to know more, briefly, about the Boreal Carbon Corporation please.
Mr. Doman: Thank you. I started the Boreal Carbon Corporation a few years back. My history is that I was CEO of three of Canada’s larger forest companies — one I founded, one I co-founded, and one I restructured — from coastal B.C., Quebec and Ontario. I have been very concerned about what is happening in our forests, starting about 30 years ago, in particular with disease in the forests. I always had it in the back of my mind to create a company like Boreal Carbon Corporation to reforest and regenerate our forest lands and deal with this disease that we thought would lead to more wildfires. I co‑founded the company with two others, and we have large Canadian and U.S. institutional investors. Our goal is to repair the damaged, diseased forests across Canada and into the United States. In order to do that, our objective is to also create carbon credit projects in many of these diseased forests or other challenged forests.
The Chair: Are you working with organizations, companies, provinces, territories and the federal government?
Mr. Doman: We are working with territories and provinces and states in the U.S. also where they have diseased forests that cross borders, and also companies who want to buy carbon credits, so large emitters essentially.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: I also want to start with Mr. Doman. I come from Alberta, so I am familiar with the devastation caused by mountain pine beetle. When you talked about harvesting the infected and dead trees, you said there is not much of a commercial market for it. Is there any use for it beyond biofuel? Could any of it be salvaged, not for building construction but for any other commercial purpose?
Mr. Doman: Great question.
The history of the mountain pine beetle and other forest diseases is that when they occur, the wood is good for about 10 to 12 years after infestation. After that, the trees get too diseased. They become dry and brittle and unusable. They also have blue stain in them. Historically we would make lumber, but if we couldn’t make lumber, we take the trees and chip them for the pulp mills. However, because of the blue stain, you have to use so many additional chemicals that it is very difficult for the pulp mills.
What we have, unfortunately, is a huge amount of standing dead trees in the forests that are essentially negative value. When I say negative value, there is a cost to harvest them and take them somewhere. The best use is probably biomass. It could also be for hydrogen, which I think allows for opportunities. Unfortunately, because the trees are dead, some of the fuel value is lost, but not all of it. They would be good for heating and energy through woody biomass and possibly hydrogen, in particular to use for data centres in the future, which I think is a strong possibility for Alberta to help address these dead, diseased forests, and the British Columbia interior, but it’s right across Canada, and in particular also in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. There is a use for them. It’s just it would need to also be kind of coordinated through carbon credit projects.
As I mentioned, it is a negative value. You have to cut trees that essentially have no value, which costs about $30 to $35 a cubic metre that someone has to pay for. Then you have to replant them, which we should be doing, not natural replanting always. I think of hydrogen and the opportunity for data centres to use some, the sour gas facilities that are in Alberta, as examples, and using those trees for that process as woody biomass.
Senator Simons: It sounds like a huge undertaking if there is not much commercial value to the logging companies. Carbon credits are one thing. Getting carbon credit markets stood up and making them functional and verifiable is a huge challenge. Direct government subsidies would be a huge output of money, but it might be a saving in the long run if it prevents massive forest fires.
I’m curious to know what our other forestry witnesses think about this issue. Ms. Hurtubise?
Ms. Hurtubise: Thank you very much.
Absolutely, the carbon credit market is quite complicated and is a huge endeavour. I completely agree. For us, it is always looking at how we can support biodiverse forests. We haven’t looked specifically into how we deal with trees that have been diseased and their removal and how it may impact the logging industry and the financial value. We haven’t looked into that, so I will leave that to others to answer. Thank you.
Senator Simons: Ms. Kaknevicius, in 30 seconds?
Ms. Kaknevicius: Yes, we’re running into a similar issue that we will in the future, which is that without long-term, sustained investments, without the long-term approach, it is critical for us to really think about the work we are doing today. We will run into similar issues in 50, 60 or 100 years. In long-term planning, whether it is restoration or management, looking at the impacts of the forest sector, we really have to think of this within decades and not necessarily within years.
Senator Muggli: Thank you, everyone, for being with us today.
Mr. Doman, I am also intrigued — Senator Simons may have asked the questions I was going to ask — about harvesting diseased forests. I’m trying to get my head around the practicalities. Do you have some guidance of what you think the first steps or instruction should be to government as to how we start this?
Mr. Doman: Absolutely.
If we look historically, Finland and Sweden have similar forests to our forests in Canada, and 50 years ago they ran into similar challenges. They had challenges with disease, wildfires and poor management. They started science-based forestry, and they have increased their forest cover by 50%, reduced disease and wildfire significantly, and increased their forest industry and absorbing carbon.
In Canada, we have a lot of standing dead trees, unfortunately — probably near a billion cubic metres in British Columbia alone, going into Alberta and across the country and the territories also. We could have a government program to harvest those trees, which would create a lot of employment for Indigenous communities — all communities — reforest them, which gives students great jobs during the summers to help with their educations and so on, and repair these damaged forests. These trees have to be cut down. They are like matchboxes out there because they are so dead and dry. When lightning strikes, we have very intense fires, and unfortunately, the good folks who try to put out these fires find it very difficult because they are becoming more intense because the trees are standing dead trees and are dry inside.
We really have to harvest these forests, and woody biomass, potentially hydrogen and so on, are all opportunities to use them. The income from it will not be great because it is a negative cost to harvest a tree that has no value, but there are some uses for it. It will take the federal government and provincial governments working together to design a program that can work.
Senator Muggli: You mentioned Finland and Sweden. What did they do in terms of harvesting their diseased forests?
Mr. Doman: Essentially, they took their forests and realized they were not very well managed. They started thinning. In a boreal interior forest, it would be good to thin in the first 15 to 20 years.
Senator Muggli: How did they do that?
Mr. Doman: They went in and harvested the smaller trees.
Senator Muggli: It would have been government-supported?
Mr. Doman: Absolutely. It allows the other trees to grow bigger, and you get more cubic metres per hectare, so you essentially grow your forests, which they have done by 50%. Instead of shutting down sawmills, they have more sawmills. They have gone into biofuels and engineered wood products. Their pulp and paper industry is thriving, and the packaging and so on, and sustainable aviation fuels. We don’t have any of that.
I have worked right across Canada. Our pulp and paper mills are closing, our sawmills are closing, and we’re shrinking our forests. We can fix this for future generations and current generations. We just need to start now. I have studied Sweden and Finland significantly and hope that we can achieve that.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Ms. Hurtubise and Ms. Kaknevicius, I’m thinking of all the trees you planted — I think you said you planted 2.3 million trees in a year — and then I am thinking about who is paying for those trees. Can you share some examples of how corporate contributions to Tree Canada and maybe Forests Canada have been used to address the wildfire impacts, but particularly supporting vulnerable ecosystems?
Ms. Hurtubise: Thank you very much. That is an excellent question.
We have had partnerships with corporations for the past many, many years. We have long-standing partnerships. To answer your question, this program is funded in part by the 2 Billion Trees program, and then we bring a match to the table, so we have to fundraise for that. This gives an opportunity to go to large corporations, and smaller ones as well, who are really keen on demonstrating that they are good environmental green corporate citizens. Some of them link this to their ESG goals or their commitments to net zero by 2030. Some businesses will say they are interested in supporting the program in British Columbia or other specific areas and are expecting certain types of projects, essentially more biodiverse or looking at FireSmart. Others will say, “Please go ahead and use the funding where you need to across the country.”
We have found the corporations we have engaged with have been very appreciative of the opportunity to support programs, and we are also very careful with the type of funds that we receive because we want to ensure that corporations who support the work and biodiverse projects and restoration are also doing it with the intent of contributing to healthy forests and not just demonstrating that they are doing this but have other practices elsewhere. We’re focused on that. The corporation support has been absolutely key, and we continue to steward those relationships.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Ms. Kaknevicius: I would also agree that corporations are definitely interested in supporting restoration efforts, especially post-fire, but we also need to look at diverse approaches across the country. In some cases, our work supports near-urban areas post-storm. Fire is one issue, but storms are increasing across the country too and impacting our forest loss, so also looking at post-storm damage.
Overall, it’s an approach to really understanding that we’re doing things in the right way, and that necessarily doesn’t come at a cheap cost. We want to ensure, as other people stated, that the work we’re doing now doesn’t cause similar issues in decades down the road. We can look at better practices, at implementing the right species, and at implementing and training partners. A big part of the work we do is building capacity to deliver high-quality projects. We work with corporations and private donors to ensure the capacity is there to collect seed, plant trees and work in nurseries, because it is all part of the larger supply chain. Individual donors, corporations and the government play a significant role, both at the federal and provincial level.
Senator McBean: Would you say the funding through the 2 Billion Trees project is enough? Is it enough to draw in corporate support, or do you think if there were other programs, that there would be more corporations and increased funding?
Ms. Hurtubise: We can always use more support. Jessica and I, both organizations, work quite closely together as well. The idea is to have as much impact as possible. But it is what has been said before: long-term planning. You have to ensure that you have the supply chain behind it: the right tree in the right place, the nurseries, the contractors. You also want to find areas where you can have really meaningful, long-term sustainable, resilient forests. Finding these projects and then matching them with corporate dollars and being able to unlock federal support, federal government funding, to do that is the sweet spot.
The government funding has been essential for us at Tree Canada and a number of other organizations to be able to expand the programming across Canada in ways that we wouldn’t have been able to, but also in a way to engage, as we said, corporate partners, individuals and major donors who are really trying to find a concrete way to address climate change, and reforestation, restoration and conservation projects are part of that.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Richards: Thanks very much for being here.
I have a quick question about how you are combatting or how we should combat the pine beetle. I grew up in an area where there used to be 22 sawmills. Now there is none. There used to be three pulp mills, and now there are none. I did some planting when I was a kid, reforestation, but natural regeneration is always better, isn’t it? The idea of planting pine where spruce or hardwood used to be is not the most effective way to go about it, and the soil isn’t right for it and the water table goes down. Without being critical, how effective is replanting when the species replanted isn’t germane to the area that was there before the fire? Isn’t the natural occurrence of regeneration after a fire always better?
Mr. Doman: Thank you for your question.
I’ll give you a little bit of history. My grandfather started in the forest industry, my father is in the forest industry, and I continued in the forest industry, and I have been alarmed at how our forests are being managed in many parts of Canada. I’m originally from coastal British Columbia, but we have had great success in replanting our forests in coastal British Columbia and across Canada. I have worked in Quebec and Ontario and other parts of Canada, like Alberta.
I think that replanting forests is key, but with native species, as you mentioned. In other words, you shouldn’t be planting hemlock where Western redcedar grows and so on, but we do have to replant our forests. When thinking about natural regeneration, we do have a changing environment, so water levels, light and so on. Of course, trees fight for water and light, so different species can emerge stronger than the species that were historically there. In other words, you can have more hardwoods and fewer softwoods and so on. It’s very important that we replant our forests, using university students, Indigenous communities, et cetera, to get out there and properly replant our forests by hand. There are other ways now to do that too, through helicopter seeding and drones and so on. Generally, people planting forests is the best way to do that. It creates a lot of jobs.
Senator Richards: I’m not trying to criticize. I’m just wondering if the replanted forests are as sturdy and able as the forests that regenerate naturally. It doesn’t seem to me that they are. When I look back at my time doing that as a kid and as a university student, it just never seemed to be as effective. That’s all. I’m just wondering if you think it is every bit as effective as the natural regeneration. That’s all I’m asking.
Mr. Doman: Great question. I think it is, and in some cases it can actually be better because we have other species coming up because of the change in climatic conditions that evolve into disease and so on. I think a combination, definitely, but planting trees is positive.
Ms. Kaknevicius: We need to think about the objectives of what we’re working on. In some cases, species are planted or naturally generate based on the objectives of the plan, and I want to recognize the important role that foresters play. Foresters do implement site space practises when they are developing plans for regeneration and when they are developing plans for harvest. I would recognize that they play a critical role in helping to determine what gets done, and they are bound by a code of ethics.
I think we’re in a different place where we’re starting to see the climate changing. Our practices need to change, and we need a different approach to it. Let’s use knowledge within the system, including foresters, as well as working closely with Indigenous communities to better understand Indigenous-led efforts.
Ms. Hurtubise: Just to build on what has already been said, when you consider reforestation, you are looking at at-risk species. For example, we are working closely with the Tlicho government in the Northwest Territories right now. They have been devastated by millions of destroyed hectares last year, 2023, and we have a partnership with them for the next three years. The intent is to plant a million trees within five years. It’s a very complex project. The idea is that if we wait for natural regeneration, it could take 80 years, and by that time, the caribou won’t come back. Working with them, the elders have determined which species to plant based on their own traditional knowledge, from shrubs to trees, and we have gone and collected the seeds from the forest. Working with our Indigenous partners, we brought them to northern Alberta. There is germination. We are bringing them back and planting them this year.
Again, what is the purpose of the regeneration, and how long would it take for that forest to regenerate itself? I come back to this, but the biodiversity is so critically important so you don’t end up with monocultures that are easily vulnerable to invasive species.
Senator K. Wells: Thanks to all the witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Boon. You mentioned about targeted grazing in your work in B.C. in particular. Can you talk a little bit about the research into what animals are most appropriate for this targeted grazing? Can you tell us more about the benefits of that approach?
Mr. Boon: Thank you for that question.
In 2017, after the fires, we really saw the value of having cattle on that landscape for being able to manage fires, to turn them and to actually stop them. With BC Wildfire Service, we implemented a program of targeted grazing for interface areas to protect major infrastructures. We had three or four different pilots.
We’re utilizing mainly cattle, but that depends on the area. In some places, it is sheep or goats, and it depends on the makeup of the plants available to do it. We’re bringing in, in a very targeted, small area, livestock to graze at specific times, early in the season, to remove those fine fuels, and then removing the cattle, putting them back out into where they would typically graze, and we might come back in later.
That’s just one part of the tool. We have to prepare that site before we graze as well, and that usually means going in and doing selective logging, taking from maybe 1,200 to 1,400 stems per hectare down to 400 or 500. We are also seeing that is reducing the fire risk but also creating better timber coming out of that, and the cattle actually are natural pruners for the bottom end of those mature trees.
Just for your information — and I think we included it with our package — we have a short documentary called Too Close to Home that we produced back in 2020 on the project itself.
Senator K. Wells: Is this only happening in B.C., or is this in other parts of the country as well?
Mr. Boon: It is targeted or is a program in B.C. This really isn’t rocket science. It is really what we do on that landscape at any given time. It is just more a matter of concentrating the animals in a certain area at a key time. The program we’re doing is utilizing mainly Crown land, keeping in mind that in British Columbia about 85% of our grazing is done on Crown land, but we also have a program with the corporation that works with private land there as well.
Yes, it is being adopted across Canada, and we have produced a guide that will come out as to the practices and how to implement it on individual farms and ranches.
Senator K. Wells: Could you speak a bit about how your association is working with Indigenous communities and partners?
Mr. Boon: Yes. When we do things like this, as well as any of the other planning — I came out probably as anti-tree, and that’s exactly the opposite of what we are. It is a matter of creating a balance. With the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, it is a way of us creating relationships with them too. Agriculture and the interests of the First Nations are most closely aligned. We have a lot of the same beliefs.
For targeted grazing, for example, we have nine or ten different groups that come to the table to build a landscape-level plan for how that looks. It is determining where the trees and water developments are and where we will we actually put the fences. What are the significant shrubs or culturally significant plant base, like wild potatoes? We look at where their interests lay and ensure that they fit into the plan. The unique part about it is building that plan as a community rather than based on not only cultural and specific needs, like recreation and stuff, but what is best for that area.
The other interesting thing that has come from this that we are working towards designing — although we’re maybe a little behind; there is some of that technology already there — is virtual fencing, and that is of keen interest as well.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I will address all the witnesses. First of all, thank you for sharing your expertise about what happens after a fire. We’ve talked a lot about prevention. I don’t want to deny its importance, but you talked about what needs to be done for future generations in terms of the regeneration process after fires. Thank you for introducing that important angle here today.
Our role as a committee is to submit recommendations to the government. We have a mandate for the growing problem of forest fires in Canada and their effect on forestry and agriculture. In our report, we make recommendations to the government, whether it follows them or not. I’ll ask each of you what major recommendations you would like to see in the report. We’re giving you a voice with the government, so what would you like to see in our report?
Ms. Hurtubise: Thank you. That is a hugely important issue for us. If I may, I will make a multi-part recommendation. Biodiversity is very important. It creates an environment where trees are more fire-resistant. If we keep generating forests made up of 100% conifers, we will create environments that are much more likely to increase forest fires in number and severity. That is an extremely important factor.
The other factor is adopting practices—
Senator Oudar: In terms of the means, would you like us to adopt a strategy for promoting biodiversity in Canada? What do you see as a way of reaching the biodiversity objective, which we all agree on? In real terms, for the government, should it be a program, strategies or a newly created organization?
Ms. Hurtubise: Absolutely, we need to maintain the current reforestation program, although we still have a lot to learn for the 2 billion trees program. The program has had a huge impact. It includes a biodiversity component. That’s very important. The Canadian government has made commitments to biodiversity within international agreements, and it’s very important to meet them.
I am not Indigenous, so I won’t speak on their behalf, but the whole issue of controlled burning is very important in terms of forest management. The last point I’d like to raise is a very practical approach known as FireSmart. There are practical solutions for ways of protecting your house, like the type of trees you should have in your community or around your house. There are practical solutions and organizations working on that issue. I think it’s very important to see how these practices can be applied, but I’m not sure about the legislative or legal ways of doing so. All these strategies are extremely important, in my opinion.
Senator Oudar: That’s interesting, thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Very quickly, each of you have the opportunity to provide a recommendation.
Mr. Doman: Thank you for your question.
We had 43 million acres burn in 2023. This is a serious issue across Canada, and the solution is very simple. Most of Canada’s forests are boreal interior forests, with the exception of coastal British Columbia. I have worked across most of these forests, including through the Prairies. The solution is learning from Sweden and Finland. Their annual sustainable harvest 50 years ago declined to 50 or 60 million cubic metres per year, and now they are nearing 100 million cubic metres per year through science-based forestry practices. To me, that is the solution, and I’m happy to discuss it further, if I get the opportunity, in more detail.
Ms. Kaknevicius: My recommendation is for long-term investment. We are headed into our 20th year of planting trees, and we are now looking at what we have planted previously and how we look at maintaining and supporting those forests to grow healthy into the future. While there is a great focus on regeneration right now, we also need to be thinking about what 20 years down the road looks like in terms of maintaining and managing those forests. We need to think about long-term investment for maintenance.
Mr. Boon: Thank you for the question.
I would have to go with biodiversity and long-term planning. We need to invest in landscape-level planning that is not based on monocultures, looking at each individual area and what is the best thing to have in those areas, growing and producing. That includes where we have urban development and where we have infrastructure development right along the way. We need a better job of on-the-ground planning. That is the biggest silver bullet that I can throw at you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Moving on to round two, my question is for Mr. Boon. You mentioned the documentary Too Close to Home. Thank you for doing that. My question centres around the issue of whether ranchers, researchers and municipalities have come together, and are continuing to come together, to collaborate. Do you see collaboration happening in the way that these pilot projects are taking place? Secondly, to what extent is funding available for those pilot projects? Is it over? Is there still funding available? Where is that funding coming from?
Mr. Boon: Thank you very much for the question.
We are cooperating. We are receiving funding through both federal and provincial levels. A lot of our funding has come for research from the B.C. Wildfire Service, which is the Ministry of Forests. We are also seeing it in the B.C. Beef Cattle Research Council’s funding, which is the science cluster federally that is applying some of that. Also, we have a significant investment from industry itself where we are coming to the table and individual producers are putting towards various aspects of that management.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: My question is for Mr. Boon. First, we have not focused much in this report — although we have a bit — on the issue of grassland wildfire. We have been focused on forests, but grasslands are also subject to wildfire threat. I wonder if you can talk about the role of cattle in mitigating that kind of fire threat.
Mr. Boon: Absolutely. You have hit the theme behind targeted grazing. When we look at grassland fire, it is based on the stem and what is above the ground. We know that most of our carbon is sequestered in grasslands below the ground, so that grazing it actually sequesters more carbon. That is an added benefit. For fire hazard, we see that grass fires are probably more dangerous and volatile than forest fires because they move quicker, but they are lower to the ground and easier to get into and fight and control. You can keep them in straighter lines and move them in there.
It is a matter of being able to remove that fuel to fight the fire. If we are grazing it, we are removing the fuel. We are not able to do that with some of the larger trees. We see where forest has been harvested that it is easier to get control of a fire. When we get a fire running in trees where it is a Crown fire and going tree to tree, it’s almost impossible to put it out and calm it down. Being able to bring the fire to ground is a big part of fighting it, and being able to reduce that fuel through the use of livestock is better than mechanical harvesting, as it adds to the ability for carbon sequestration. That’s part of the research we have shown.
Senator Simons: You touched on the issue of virtual fencing right at the end. Senator Black smiled at me because we had this conversation just the other day. My family has a cabin in the woods, and I have been trying to convince my brother to find a neighbouring farmer who will come and graze up the things on the ground that ought to be eaten up before they become fuel tinder for a fire. How far advanced are we in the adoption of virtual fencing? Let me back up. Explain to us how virtual fencing works and how it could help us to graze in areas that we might not otherwise be able to do.
Mr. Boon: The technology for virtual fencing is actually quite advanced. It is used in The Netherlands extensively. There is a lot of research in Australia and New Zealand. It is just starting to come to North America. We have four or five different companies that are doing it. One of the challenges for us, especially in British Columbia, is that most of them run either from cellular technology or a line-of-sight tower system. That can be overcome. Here in British Columbia, we are working to try to develop one that is totally satellite dependent so that we can overcome that. That’s a harder challenge to meet. They work like a dog collar that would restrict your dog. They work on sound and shock. There is an audible warning to the cattle three stages before. Then they will get a light shock. Once they cross the fence line, which is virtual and is created by those waves, the collar shuts down. They are outside of the fence. It allows them to return in. Cattle are a herd animal, so if an animal does leave the herd, they will usually return because they don’t want to be away from them. It is still there. We are still in the early stages in North America, though.
Senator Simons: I would love to ask you about goats, but you are not really a goat guy.
Mr. Boon: Goats have their purpose. They are harder to control, but they are very good at certain plants, especially invasive plant management.
The Chair: The Alberta Cattle and Goat Association. Thank you very much.
Senator McBean: Mr. Doman, you have been talking about rejuvenating Canadian forestry. It sounds exciting. Since this committee’s purpose is to look more at wildfires than rejuvenating the forest, I just want to confirm that, were we to build back our forestry, we are also controlling wildfires? I don’t want us to build back forests, as Mr. Boon said, and just put up trees just to create fuel.
Mr. Doman: Absolutely. Repairing our forests will lead to healthier forests, which should lead to fewer wildfires and disease. Our forests have been poorly managed, in many cases, for many decades because of conflicting interests between industry, environmental groups and governments not following the proper science of forests. That has led to disease similar to COVID. It just happened in forests and became superbugs. These bugs can fly farther, withstand colder weather and develop like that. When lightning strikes and so on, you have these dead trees, and they have ignited in a massive forest — as I mentioned, 43 million acres in 2023.
I think the solution is what Finland and Sweden have done. They recognized 50 years ago or so that their forest industry was important for biodiversity, wildlife, jobs, communities and health. We can do the same thing. Our continents were once adjoined. These are very similar forests to Swedish and Finnish forests. We should have more forests. We should expand them and manage them better. We will have fewer wildfires and disease, and we’ll be absorbing more carbon. These are growing trees that are for future generations that will benefit, including for wildlife and jobs and investment —
Senator McBean: I want to get a follow-up before he puts two hands up and go for the goalposts.
The federal government has the 2 Billion Trees Program, and there are questions here. Is it possible for us to get to 2 billion trees without harvesting the diseased — do we need the space of the diseased forests? Is that possible? That is going to be the first part. The second part, Ms. Hurtubise, is that I know that the targets are behind on the 2 billion for Natural Resources Canada investments into the trees. You are talking about being selective and looking for sweet spots. Are we going to get to 2 billion trees if we are being picky? First of all, do we need the space, and are we moving quickly enough to achieve the goal?
Mr. Doman: Sure. The 2 Billion Trees Program, in my view, has not worked that well because it doesn’t allow for replanting for forest companies and so on, and other landowners, because it specifies that you cannot use it for carbon credits unless it is an Indigenous community. So it really hasn’t worked completely across Canada. In my view, we do have to repair the damaged trees. We should expand the 2 Billion Trees Program because it will absorb a lot of Canada’s emissions. It is a natural way to absorb emissions for Canada as we are striving to improve our environment. If we have healthy trees, replant them, the 2 Billion Trees Program should be expanded and used for — to allow for carbon projects and so on.
Ms. Hurtubise: Thank you very much for the question.
The 2 Billion Trees Program involves cities, municipalities and provinces. You have hundreds of stakeholders and partners who are receiving funding from the program across the country. The 2 billion trees, the number itself, I don’t know how exactly 2 billion came to it. What I can tell you is that it has taken awhile to ramp up. We have talked about the fact that if you are looking from collecting the seedling to germinating to replanting, it could take three years, right? So we are looking into the long term. We are just ramping up. Nurseries needed the certainty that this was not just going to stop overnight. Contractors needed that certainty, because once you start investing in a nursery, again, it is long term.
At this point, I think the 2 Billion Trees Program has — there are many areas that can be improved. We could talk about that. But I think that it is ramping up, and in terms of actually arriving and counting 2 billion trees, I don’t know. But it will have a significant impact across the country through these various stakeholders for reforestation and restoration. I know that, coming back, there is a real focus on biodiversity and working with Indigenous communities. So it is ramping up, and we should see the hockey-stick effect as the seedlings are in the pipeline and as the pipeline is working.
The Chair: See, the goalposts.
Senator Richards: I asked earlier about the pine beetle. How can it be managed, and how can we try to eradicate it?
Mr. Doman: The mountain pine beetle, as I mentioned, started about 30 years ago, in essence, in Tweedsmuir Park in British Columbia. It has been around for billions of years, but that was an outbreak that has essentially destroyed nearly 60% of the pine trees, which make up 40% of the B.C. interior forest, and expanded into Alberta and likely going into Saskatchewan and into five U.S. western states. We didn’t deal with it when the initial outbreak happened, which was to cut a half-kilometre swath around it and to replant and properly manage it, because it started in a park. There was a plan to do that in the 1990s. It got shut down, and it wasn’t done, and it turned into a superbug, similar to COVID-19 in trees in this case.
How do we deal with it today? We have to harvest these standing dead trees before they cause more wildfires and the disease continues to expand. Of course, when we get cold weather like we did in the Prairies last year, minus 40 or so, it does slow it down a little bit. But, historically, minus 15 to minus 20 for two or three weeks in a row would have destroyed the mountain pine beetle or stopped its expansion. Unfortunately, it has turned into a superbug. It can fly further and withstand colder weather.
The answer is harvesting forests, these dead trees, and replanting through programs like the Canadian replanting program, but allowing for that to be expanded so that companies can plant trees and also use it for carbon credits, noting that 93% of our forests in Canada are Crown. They are managed by the provinces. Only 7% are private land. We have to cut down these trees. I’m not quite sure how you do it when they have a negative value except allowing for companies to take those areas, replant, work with the provinces and create carbon credit programs, helping offset industries like oil and gas, steel, concrete and other emitters.
Senator Richards: Is it something like Dutch elm disease, or is Dutch elm disease quite different than the pine beetle attack on trees?
Mr. Doman: That’s different. We have various diseases. We have spruce bark beetle that can develop. We have the spruce budworm in Eastern Canada, which you, unfortunately, saw wildfires in Quebec in 2023. We have various diseases. That’s one of them. But we have less hardwoods in Canada. We have more softwoods.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Kaknevicius, you had your hand up, and I didn’t recognize it. I apologize.
Ms. Kaknevicius: I was going to make a comment about the grasslands, when Kevin was speaking. We run a program called Grassland Stewardship Initiative. We also do some grasslands restoration, particularly in Ontario. I wanted to comment that native grasslands are quite resilient to fire. Much to Kevin’s point, a lot of the biomass is kept underground, so the fire might go through and take out the aboveground mass, but it will return, and they actually need fire to regenerate. Grasslands are a great opportunity for fire resilience within the landscape. Again, much to Kevin’s point, I think a great recommendation for the report would be to look at a landscape plan for Canada in terms of restoration of all different ecosystems.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I will continue along the same lines as my previous question, specifically about programs. Canada has a lot of programs, which we talked about this morning. It has also developed an action plan, a national forest fire adaptation strategy.
Some witnesses have come to talk to us about implementing these programs. I’m still talking about practical means, but government bureaucracy can cause delays and often make it impossible to take action. I heard nothing about that this morning. Do you have the same problems with bureaucracy and delays in administering the programs? Have you witnessed that? Should we make recommendations on the subject, or is everything fine with the programs and we don’t need to deal with that aspect?
Ms. Hurtubise: Thank you for the excellent question. Our experience at Tree Canada is working closely with our colleagues in the 2 billion trees program. In our experience, they are very open to our comments and suggestions.
In every bureaucracy there are delays. That’s normal, but there is a willingness to make the program go forward, get delivered and make a real contribution to the desired impact.
There is also acknowledgement that the program is not perfect. Therefore, they are open to recommendations we could make to improve the program. These conversations take place at different levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy.
Senator Oudar: Are there improvements to make? Are there unnecessary steps to eliminate that would otherwise lengthen the timelines for allocating funds, which makes it impossible to act in time for regeneration or implementation, for example? Are there suggestions to make? We’re not talking about that today, and I don’t want to get into micromanagement. However, suggestions for improvements to programs, at the very least, to make them more effective and efficient would be appreciated. People would like to have additional funds, but sometimes we can also work on ways to make the programs more effective in terms of timelines.
Ms. Hurtubise: Absolutely. Without getting into micromanagement, a few recommendations could be put forward to improve the 2 billion trees program. They involve effectiveness, the program’s duration and partnerships. We’ve looked into it. We’ve also discussed that with the 2 billion trees program.
Based on my work experience with other departments, I can say that the program is very flexible and has a long-term perspective, which is quite rare for government funding. Funding programs often last four or five years. This one goes for much longer, 10 years, which is pretty rare.
There are definitely recommendations for improvement. However, our experience has been positive in terms of these recommendations.
Senator Oudar: Thank you. Mr. Doman?
[English]
Mr. Doman: Thank you.
I don’t think the 2 Billion Trees program has worked as well as it could because, first of all, it doesn’t allow for people who wish to develop carbon credits to use it. Again, 43 million acres of our forest burned down. This is a serious problem for Canada, and we need to fix it. Whether it is in Eastern Canada, the Prairies, Central Canada, Western Canada or the territories, we have diseases in all our forests. They are expanding, and they are causing more intense wildfires, which is emitting massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. If we just had healthy forests, we could be absorbing massive amounts of carbon. So the solution is improving our forest management and improving the tree planting program.
Senator K. Wells: We are talking about recommendations. How are the existing technologies or new technologies helping to manage this growing issue of wildfire? We heard a little bit about virtual fencing and the notion of drone planting. Maybe we can start there with Mr. Doman. Can you explain a little more about drone planting and the viability, the success so far or limitation?
Mr. Doman: Absolutely. The best way to plant is using people, just doing it more effectively. That can be done through modules that are like hockey pucks and dropping them rather than having people go in and having to dig and replant trees. That technology is evolving. I believe it could work. You could use that through drones and helicopters for more challenging areas, but it could also make tree planters more productive. The biggest issues for tree planters are that when a seedling is planted you either have too much water, too much drought or animals come along and eat those seedlings and slow the ability for trees to grow. So these pods or modules, I think, are a tremendous opportunity that help in that process. To me, that technology can work. Drones just shooting trees into the ground hasn’t been successful in my view at all. I think you have to have these modules, and it should be a combination with tree planters, which could create enormous job opportunities across Canada for Indigenous communities and peoples of Canada. To me, that’s the best way, but also with the help of drones and helicopters. Also, drones can determine where best to plant seeds and so on, so from a weather perspective and soil perspective, they can be very helpful.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Ms. Hurtubise: Drones are important in the areas that have been devastated by wildfires and are dangerous for individuals or for teams to go and plant. With the proper pods — the technology has improved tremendously with pods — they are certainly very useful in that area.
I want to touch on your question about technology a bit more broadly and satellite technology and drone technology. Certainly satellite technology is enabling us to be more predictive in terms of the behaviour of wildfires. When you look at factors like dryness, the lack of rain, have there been wildfires there before and the content of humidity, you can assess where there might be more chances of forest fires and so perhaps make policy decisions or more practical decisions around that.
We adopt a long-term, sustainable approach to our work. We plant a tree. We do an assessment the first year. Is it alive? Great. If it’s not, replant it. Second year, go back. Is it alive? Is it doing well? Yes, great. And then five years. We replant up to a certain percentage. Having satellite imagery enables us to determine what the competition is and whether those trees are growing. Are those trees alive? Also, the variety in species is also very helpful. Then, the impact of wildfires can also be assessed.
I’m not an expert, but technology is becoming extremely sophisticated to enable us to determine and to predict to a certain extent — perhaps not predict, but to determine the greatest risks, and also to look at sustainability and the impact of wildfires afterwards.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
The Chair: I did see, Ms. Kaknevicius, your hand was up. Do you have something to add quickly?
Ms. Kaknevicius: To Ms. Hurtubise’s point, there is a lot of technology being used to assess prevention of fire and trying to predict its impact at scale.
I want to point out that while drone planting can be effective, especially in areas where you cannot necessarily reach it or there are safety concerns, one thing people do not think about is the impact on seed supply. Drones require seed, and in terms of availability to be able to support drone planting — I would say seed is at risk. So we want to think about efficiencies in seed and how we use that in our restoration efforts.
The Chair: Moving on to round three, Senator Simons, you may have the last word.
Senator Simons: Isn’t that every woman’s wish? I’m actually going to give Mr. Doman the last word.
During our last big study, which was about soil health in Canada, we heard from farmers and ranchers who were eager to find some kind of legitimate carbon credit trading forum so they could get compensation for adopting agricultural practices that helped to sequester organic soil carbon. We had many witnesses explain to us how complicated it would be to set up carbon markets that mean something, that are not just trading fictive bonus points, one of the challenges being that markets like that are provincially and not federally regulated. Given all your experience in corporate offices and in the financial world of this, could you talk to us a little bit about what the challenges would be to create viable carbon markets that would make it possible to reward forestry companies for good carbon practices and to create a token that is actually tradable and means something.
Mr. Doman: That’s a great question.
When you look at the carbon markets worldwide, they have had challenges. They have done carbon projects in different parts of the world. There haven’t been proper regulatory systems. Some have failed. Big oil and gas companies have done carbon projects overseas and so on, and they haven’t achieved what they expected to achieve with those carbon programs.
I believe that there is an opportunity to regulate carbon markets through futures exchanges. For example, if you sell soybeans into a futures exchange, you have to have a specific product, and it is regulated. That is what should be done through governments. The Government of Canada should take a lead on it. It is a huge opportunity for Canada because we’re a very large agricultural and forestry country.
For farmers, there is a tremendous opportunity to use lands that are not as valuable for farming — in other words, they don’t grow as much — within their farming areas to plant forests and receive carbon credits from them, and also to receive carbon credits from their crops.
The same goes for forestry. Ninety-three percent of our forests, as I mentioned, are controlled by Crown corporations. It is a huge revenue source for government. Most provincial governments in Canada have significant debts or are concerned with debt.
This is a tremendous opportunity to repair our forests, and also it is a growing asset. In other words, these trees grow cubic metres every year until they become mature trees, and during that process, they are absorbing massive amounts of carbon. Rather than always thinking about taking carbon and burying it and paying a cost for that — there is nothing wrong with that — trees are a natural way to absorb carbon. They are growing, and we can use them on subpar farmlands and to repair the forests, but first we have to fix the forests.
The opportunity for the Government of Canada federally is to regulate carbon credits, and we could attract companies. For example, data centres are an expanding opportunity for Canada. We have cooler weather. We have great energy sources. We could attract those and sell them the carbon credits to offset the energy uses. It is a huge opportunity.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, and thank you to all four of our witnesses, especially those of you in British Columbia, who testified at 6:00 a.m. Pacific Time.
The Chair: Since we have just a bit of time left, would any of the other three witnesses like to add to the carbon credits question? Mr. Boon, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Boon: I would just add that it is a real challenge for us. We depend on forage and grass, and that is what has naturally occurred over time. It is hard to create a protocol that we can actually utilize. This is what Mr. Doman was relating to a little bit. Carbon credits are one of those things that could give us added revenue and could give us some added incentive but, at the end of the day, recognizing what we are contributing already would be a huge value to us. One of our biggest challenges with forage production is not recognizing the natural sequestration that is occurring on the landscape already and the value of preserving that going forward.
Ms. Kaknevicius: My comment would be that within the 2 Billion Trees program, there has been discussion whether there is an opportunity to open up carbon as a match or as another source of funding. I agree that it is complex, and the role of the federal government can be to provide guidance. If it does become regulated, working with partners to ensure there is consistency is critical.
The Chair: Witnesses, thank you very much for your participation today here in person or online. Your testimony, insight and passions, which were exhibited, are greatly appreciated.
I also want to thank our committee members for their active participation and always insightful questions. I also want to thank the folks that support us in our offices and the folks that are behind us: the interpreters, the Debates team transcribing the meeting, the committee room attendant, the multimedia services technician, the broadcasting team, the recording centre, the Information Services Directorate, or ISD, and our page today, Allan Buri. Thank you, Allan.
The final meeting of this committee prior to winter adjournment will be next Thursday. It will be an in camera meeting on December 12. Members can expect to receive additional documents from the clerk in the upcoming days regarding next week’s meeting, which will focus on developing a plan for this report and how we move forward with it.
(The committee adjourned.)