Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 19, 1998
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest met this day at 9:40 a.m. to organize the affairs of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as the clerk of your subcommittee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chairman.
Senator Spivak: I move that Senator Taylor be Chair.
Mr. Armitage: I have the name of Senator Taylor. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Armitage: Honourable senators, the motion is agreed to. Senator Taylor, would you please take the Chair and preside over the election of the deputy chair?
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the chair will entertain a motion for a deputy chair.
Senator Stratton: I nominate Senator Spivak.
The Chairman: Any there any other nominations?
I declare Senator Spivak Deputy Chair.
Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I move:
That the Chair and Deputy Chair of the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I move:
That the Subcommittee print 200 copies of its Proceedings and that the Chair be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I move:
That, pursuant to Rule 89, the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I move:
That the Chair, on behalf of the subcommittee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I move:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses' expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than one witness from any one organization, and payment will take place upon application.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I move:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chair or in the Chair's absence the Deputy Chair; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the subcommittee be conferred on the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the clerk of the subcommittee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The Chairman: The next item on our agenda is future business.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Armitage raised the issue about the 1996 research we have may be dated. Even if it is not fantastic evidence, it would be very difficult to go back over that ground again. It has been meticulously documented. It is all there in written form. It has been transcribed now, even though we did not have the right tapes. I would like us to make a quick trip to Ontario, Quebec and maybe one place in the Maritimes. We could use two days or a day and a half to do that, perhaps a Monday or a Tuesday, so that we could be back in the Senate by Tuesday afternoon. We would hire our people, including Dan Shaw, who is already working on this.
We should wrap this up as quickly as we can, even if it is only an interim report. We should get something done by June. I feel that this has been done. The information is just laying there, and it needs to be brought to the light of day.
The Chairman: We may be able to speed it up. I am not sure that we need to go to the Maritimes because, after all, this is a boreal forest study.
Senator Spivak: The boreal forest stretches to Atlantic Canada as well.
The Chairman: In the Maritimes, this is a tricky subject because I think 80 per cent of the timber is privately owned.
Senator Robichaud: In New Brunswick, it is the largest activity.
The Chairman: It is privately owned.
Senator Spivak: It could be privately owned, but it is a problem.
Mr. Armitage: Private ownership is one of the many issues raised with the previous subcommittee.
The Chairman: I would like to pick a day while the Senate is sitting to go to Quebec, another day to go to Ontario, and another day to go to the Maritimes.
Senator Stratton: I would like to avoid Mondays.
Senator Spivak: That is fine.
The Chairman: Let us try to arrange the Ontario and Quebec tours.
What do we wish to see? Do you want to go out to a town and listen to submissions? Where should we go in Ontario?
Senator Spivak: Temagami. The Harris government has opened up logging on white pine. It was protected for a long time. The first question is whether they are logging in a sustainable fashion. The second question relates to who is watching. Ontario has cut 60 per cent of its enforcement staff. Those are the two key questions.
The Chairman: In the past, we sent out notices to a number of organizations, everyone from the tree huggers, to the concession owners, to the pulp owners.
Senator Stratton: I want to know what we are trying to accomplish.
Senator Robichaud: In New Brunswick, there is the Mirimachi area.
The Chairman: Chatham or Newcastle.
Senator Spivak: They are losing salmon. It would be interesting to know if part of that is related to the forestry industry in the region.
The Chairman: In Quebec, what would be a good place to have hearings? Rimouski?
Senator Robichaud: Logging is all over the province of Quebec, but from Rimouski to Gaspé, there is quite a lot of activity.
Senator Spivak: There is a great deal of controversy with the native people over logging. Could we find a place where the Cree could come and talk to us?
The Chairman: Quebec is a big province. Perhaps we could go to Rimouski in the Gaspé area, and then we could go up north and speak to the Cree.
Mr. Armitage: Forestry Canada can get back to us with some suggestions.
The Chairman: We might have to visit two centres in Quebec because that is a large province. We might have to go to two cities in Ontario as well. We have the Lakehead region, as well as Temagami.
Senator Spivak: Let us not get too ambitious. I would say three days maximum.
Senator Stratton: Will we go to Thunder Bay?
Senator Spivak: Why do we not ask the clerk to investigate these places?
The Chairman: In conjunction with Forestry Canada.
Senator Spivak: Cathy Piccinin was seized with these issues, and she was seconded to the Transport Committee and the Joint Committee on Child Custody. She has a full plate, but could we have her for these few months? That would prevent someone else from coming in and having to get acquainted.
Mr. Armitage: I will pass that request along.
Senator Spivak: Do we need a motion to get Dan Shaw back on the case?
Mr. Armitage: I neglected to put that in the organizational meeting motions. There is a standard motion by which we ask the Library of Parliament to support the committee.
Senator Spivak: Very well. I move:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to the Committee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed?
The Chairman: Carried.
The committee adjourned.
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 27, 1998
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 3:35 p.m. to continue its study on the present state and future of forestry in Canada as it relates to the boreal forest.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I see a quorum.
Honourable senators, today we are fortunate to start off this second meeting of the Subcommittee on the Boreal Forest with Dr. Yvan Hardy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service. With him is Mr. Jacques Carette, Director General, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Branch. Please proceed.
Dr. Yvan Hardy, Assistant Deputy Minister, The Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: I am honoured by your invitation, Mr. Chairman. I have a fairly short presentation for you so that there will be time for questions. I would indicate that my presentation is focused on the Canadian Forest Service and what it is happening within the Canadian government. If you want to go beyond that, I will try to assist you.
A fair amount of documentation has been prepared for you on different issues, such as the national forest strategy, our strategic plan, and criteria and indicators. If you need other documentation, it would be a pleasure to make it available.
At the outset, I should like to give you a brief outline of Canadian forests. They are characterized by their size: 417 million hectares. That is huge compared to most countries in the world. Ten per cent of the world's forests are in Canada. They are not only huge, they do many things for Canadians and for nature. A forest is a place where wildlife is abundant, a place with great biodiversity. There are 180 different species of trees growing in our forests.
Today, we say that they are a carbon sink. I say "today" because, 10 years ago, no one talked about climate change or the importance of sequestering carbon, but it is definitely the case that forests are sequestering a lot of carbon which could be enhanced in many ways.
More and more, Canadian forests are used not only for industrial purposes, but for recreational and spiritual purposes. A multi-billion-dollar tourism industry is based on the forests, for fishing, hunting, eco-tourism, and so on.
The Canadian forest is mostly publicly owned. Over 90 per cent of the Canadian forest is owned by the provinces and the federal government. Only 7 per cent is privately owned. Interestingly, a very small portion of the forest is divided among close to half-a-million small woodlot owners across the country, mostly in Eastern Canada because of our history and the way the country was developed.
Forests are maintaining rural Canada. Our estimate is that close to 298 rural communities are forest-dependent. If you remove that segment of their activity, they will be gone, economically speaking. As well, close to 40 urban settlements depend heavily on the forest industry.
The Chairman: With regard to the number of communities that depend on the forest, have you done any split as to aboriginal or non-aboriginal?
Mr. Hardy: We do have the numbers on that, and they could be supplied to the committee. I can say said that, especially in Eastern Canada, most Indian reservations are forest-dependent.
I do not want to go into too much detail, but the industry is huge, as you might suspect. It is an industry that produces over $ 70 billion. The contribution to the balance of trade is very significant at $ 31 billion. In excess of 800,000 jobs are linked to the forest industry.
The Canadian Forest Service has a number of major functions. Our major activity in terms of our resources and budget is to generate knowledge. About 75 per cent of our focus is on research and the transfer of knowledge.
The service shapes the forest agenda. We exercise a leadership role within the country and other jurisdictions to build a consensus at the national level. I will give you examples of that as we move on.
As to size, we have approximately 900 employees, with peaks during the summer season when we have students working with us. A fair number of people are joining forces in partnership with us as well. In addition to our regular staff, we have about 100 or 150 post-doctoral fellows, or what we call "PDFs," doing their Ph.D. graduate studies in our labs.
Our budget is around $95 million annually and that has stabilized at about that level, in the last year of the program review.
The CFS is the premier forest research agency in the country. We are not the only one, but we are the largest and the one that is the most influential. Most provinces are not in the forest-research business. They are in the business of forest administration. Some research is done at the university level as well as some research with industrial associations. That pertains mostly to forest products.
As I said, we are the most influential forestry body. I am not saying that to impress you. I am just reporting facts. Presently, we have five labs across the country, one in Fredericton; one in Quebec City, the Sainte-Foy area; one in Sault Ste. Marie; one in Moncton; and one in Victoria. They serve the country as a whole. They work in a network amongst themselves and with local establishments.
The methodology, the approach and the tools being used by the provinces for forest fire protection and to combat forest fires, come from the CFS. The technology being used to combat forest insects, defoliators, comes from the CFS.
In modern forestry where you involve people in decision making, which is made very complex by multiple use, the decision-support systems come from the CFS. We are also very involved with the appropriate use of bioherbicides. Our agency provides forest managers with the right tools. That is our business.
The CFS has an initiative called the "Canadian Model Forest Network." We now have one program in northern Quebec dedicated to the First Nations. The forest is managed according to their values. They are trying to develop a commercial forest industry yet retain their traditional ways of living, in particular, the continued use of their trap lines. The particular band I am speaking of has 30 families which survive exclusively from trapping. They are attempting to manage the forest to protect their way of life, and at the same time derive for themselves benefits from the forest. They are doing that in a harmonized way with the industry and the provincial authorities. We have repeated that 11 times in 11 different situations across the country. It is also happening in the Rockies with wildlife interaction, and so on. That is one of the ways we transfer the knowledge that is being acquired.
We are also involved in gathering data. Ten provincial jurisdictions do their own thing in their own way. However, the CFS, with the assistance of the provinces, maintains national statistics. The CFS is the forest expert of the federal government. Whether they are dealing with First Nations issues, work development issues, or the ice storm assistance program, other Canadian government agencies turn to us for advice.
In recent years, we expanded the scope of our research to include socio-economics. Traditionally, we have been more involved with biological research but, given the importance of forests to the people of the country and their role in decision making, we put together a new working group to deal with that aspect of the industry.
A national, holistic approach to achieving consensus brings me to the national forest strategy. Again, 10 provincial jurisdictions have their own legislation and their own rules, but there is no overall template. Hence, the CFS, with a mandate from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, has led, for the second time, a hugely popular consultation across the nation with respect to what Canadians expect from their forests. If you ask the industry, they will tell you that they expect to be able to run their mills. If you talk to the fishing and hunting associations, they will tell you that they want to fish and hunt. Conservationists will tell you that they want biodiversity. This has been put into a national forest strategy, which is the best attempt at putting divergent opinions together into a template with respect to where forest management will go in the next five years.
At the end of April, a National Forest Congress meeting was held here in Ottawa. We are very proud of the forest accord, a separate document. The participants at the meeting agreed with the principle of a national forest strategy that the agency -- established by either the federal government or someone else -- will prepare an action plan.
The last strategy, which was signed in 1992, ran until 1997. It had 24 signatories. We expect this one to have 39. It is particularly rewarding to see that more people want to have their say and do something about managing Canadian forests.
In terms of shaping the agenda, I wish to discuss the criteria and the indicators that were identified. This, again, is a CFS initiative that goes back to 1991 or 1992, when the concept of sustainable management or sustainable development came forward from the Brundtland commission in 1989. A fair amount of discussion, defining, and so on, was still needed, so the CFS stepped forward, with the full backing of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, to assist with the definition. The six criteria are identified as follows.
The forests will be managed in a sustainable manner if you take into account conservation and biological diversity; ecosystem conditions and productivity; water conservation; the global ecological cycle; multiple benefits; and societal responsibility. There are also indicators to measure whether or not we are making progress so that we can put forward suggestions to rectify the situation if we are sliding backwards.
Canada was the first country to adopt this policy, and last year we were able to produce the first technical report. Many aspects of our proposal are not traditional in the forestry industry so, as yet, we do not have the data respecting them. For example, what research should be done to be able to acquire the data to respond to various situations? That is shaping our research agenda also.
We were also part of what is being called "the Montreal Process," which brought 12 countries together representing about 90 per cent of the boreal and temporal forests in the world. Included in the group with Canada was the U.S. and Russia <#0107> the three countries which represent a sizeable chunk of these forests -- as well as some Latin American countries.
Earlier, I was reminiscing with Senator Robichaud. The first time I met him, I was with my minister in Rome at FAO. She made the announcement there that all 10 countries had agreed on the international criteria and indicators on sustainable development.
All our research efforts are being directed at sustainable development. Next week, I will be at the European Ministers Conference in Lisbon to pursue that agenda and acquire stronger ties with the Pan-European criteria and indicator system, which is called the Helsinki accord.
International forestry is very important. The federal government has the sole responsibility for that. I did not expand too much on that in my brief but, according to our Constitution, forestry is a provincial jurisdiction. That is why we do not manage the forests. However, international forestry is an area where there is considerable federal involvement. Currently, we are involved with the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, which was previously called the International Panel on Forestry. That has been replaced by the new inter-governmental forum on forestry. At the conclusion of that process, we hope to have an international convention on the forest industry. That is part of the federal government foreign affairs agenda. The forestry agenda is being divided among other issues such as climate change, biodiversity, and many other initiatives. The danger is that the issues will become too scattered.
It is also a matter of a level playing field for our industry. The trend in this world is towards having a greener planet, and we are all for that. However, there are also "counter-trends" where someone else's market is captured by the imposition of tariff barriers and so on. An international forest convention would take into consideration all of these elements.
This morning, the management committee of my department placed the final touches on the agenda on forestry for Minister Goodale. He wants to pursue five issues, including climate change, which has many facets.
The Kyoto conference introduced the notion of sinks. In a couple of years, Canada will have to report on what we are doing with our sinks. We must put forward a methodology to be able to do that in an accurate and a credible fashion.
There is also the whole matter of how climate change will affect our forests. For instance, is our climate change or global warming causing forest fires? There is some indication in that direction. Will that change the approach to forest fires? Will climate change the distribution of tree species as we know it today? Can we adapt to that? Many questions must be addressed now and in the future.
All tree species have a certain amount of resilience. I do not believe any of them will be replaced within a year or 10 years. Trees take 60 years to 200 years to grow to their full size. We are in the business of trying to understand better to what extent forests are sinks and how to measure that capacity across the nation. We are in the business of simulation in order to know what it will do to the ecosystem, bad or good, and then propose some changes.
With regard to resource innovation, we want to emphasize value-added more in order to make better use of the forest resource. If you cut a tree, you might as well get everything you can out of that tree. You should minimize the waste and create some value-added products.
There is global competition in resource trade and investment. We are not alone. New technologies have launched new competitors. Political changes, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, have broadened the market. There are new players who are not necessarily playing by the same rules by which we and other countries on this side of the hemisphere play.
With regard to increasing work opportunities, again, we are not necessarily targeting the traditional forest industry. We are targeting the First Nations and the ancillary activities around the forest. We want to maintain the forests in such a way that tourists will be attracted to them and so that other activities will take place there.
With regard to a national consensus, experts in the field have a notion of where we should be headed. Outsiders and beneficiaries of the field have a different notion. A forest worker knows exactly what he wants. He wants to cut trees. However, an artist might not want a particular tree to be cut. Many conflicting values must be brought together. The minister, the department and the Canadian Forest Service want to build a national consensus on how we should manage all of our national resources.
I will now be pleased to answer questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. You certainly have given us much to contemplate.
Senator Spivak: You said that you have 900 employees. How many are in the field, and what are they doing?
Mr. Hardy: They are mostly in the field. I am here in Ottawa in the Department of Natural Resources. The Canadian Forest Service is the odd man out because we have only 130 people in Ottawa. The balance of our employees are in our labs, although not so much at this time of the year. I try to avoid having visitors to our labs at this time of the year because they are very empty. Our people are in the field working with their partners, depending upon their speciality.
Senator Spivak: I ask that because I want to know how you will ascertain whether we are managing our forests sustainably. For example, in my own province, there are almost no enforcement officers. The federal government did not see fit to do environmental assessments of large forest operations. In my province, the allowable cut was nearly tripled without any evaluation.
How do you work with the Department of the Environment? How do you get the hard data which tells you whether this is sustainable?
Mr. Hardy: We are not an enforcement agency and we do not have a mandate to make judgments on that. Our role is on the methodological side, that is, we provide the tools to do it. That is what I was referring to when I was talking about criteria and indicators.
Senator Spivak: Yes, but you are talking about shaping forests, sustainability, conservation, biological diversity, ecosystem conditions and productivity. How do you find information to deal with those issues?
Mr. Hardy: As an example, is it sustainable to broadcast chemical insecticide over millions of hectares? In our opinion, it is not. We saw our role as moving away from research on chemical insecticides and going to other methods of controlling insects, and ensuring that these methods are made available to the users. We have been successful in that area.
Senator Spivak: Dr. Hardy, that is a very important issue, but in terms of sustainability, we are affecting fish habitat, for example. Certainly the collapse of the salmon fishery in British Columbia has, to some extent, to do with the logging of watersheds.
I am trying to understand the federal role in sustainability, not only in terms of information gathering. We have obligations under the biological diversity convention and so forth. How can we credible if we just study it while everything is going on around us? I am not saying that is so, but what is happening? How are you getting the information to enable you to determine whether we are managing sustainably?
Mr. Hardy: To use your example of the salmon fishery on the West Coast, our role was to demonstrate that certain methods of harvesting were damaging to the salmon and to propose alternatives such as a green belt around the forest.
Senator Spivak: Do you know whether that has been done?
Mr. Hardy: Yes, it has been done. It is in provincial legislation. If that were our responsibility, the Canadian Forest Service would be a different animal from the one I am presenting to you.
Senator Spivak: I will have to ask the question a different way. Certainly the federal government has responsibility over navigable waters, fish habitat, birds and things of that nature, and that is all intimately connected with the forest. How do you work with the Department of the Environment to ensure that triggers are activated when there are violations?
Mr. Hardy: We will do it on request from Environment Canada which has that mandate.
Senator Spivak: You have the knowledge. I am voicing the concern of the ordinary Canadian citizen who would like to be assured that what we are saying in these lovely words is actually happening. I am looking for some assurance from you.
Mr. Hardy: The lovely words I am using are not empty words. We are saying that we are trying to develop the knowledge to have ideal sustainable management of our forests within our jurisdiction.
As I said, we are the forest experts within the federal government and we have daily interaction with departments such as Environment Canada and DIAND, and to a lesser extent, Fisheries and Oceans. The Navigable Waters Act has been used as a trigger, and we stepped in to help them out.
However, we do not have the mandate to go into the field, take measurements, and say that a particular operation is not conforming with provincial forestry laws.
The Chairman: If you do not have that mandate, who does?
Mr. Hardy: Environment Canada has that mandate.
Senator Stratton: Am I correct that you provide advice on sustainability to the provinces and that the provinces manage and police their forests?
Mr. Hardy: No, we do not provide advice. We provide tools, methodology and approaches.
Senator Whelan: You say that CFS is science-based. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, I think I visited every sawmill, pulp mill, spawning bed, fish hatchery and fishing port in Canada.
I wish to challenge you on one of your statements. I know of a beautiful forestry station at Indian Head, Saskatchewan which operates under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. They do tremendous forestry work.
The Fathers of Confederation were very farseeing people. Before the Prairies were settled in the late 1800s, they had various species of trees brought there from Siberia and Mongolia. There were no trees on the Prairies at all before that, because the buffalo ate every tree sprout. That was their favourite food.
I have always believed that in forestry and agriculture, research is our most important product.
There are now trees in Alberta and Saskatchewan that will grow in our frigid winters -- at 60 degrees below zero on the Fahrenheit scale, as well as at 100 degrees above. I believe that the warmest day we ever had in Canada was 124 degrees in Estevan.
Are you aware of the research station at Indian Head?
Mr. Hardy: I do not believe it does forestry work any longer.
Speaking of history, the Canadian Forest Service, or this entity under a different name, will celebrate 100 years of existence next year. During that 100 years, it has been under 26 different federal jurisdictions. At various times it has been under agriculture, fisheries and forests, environment and natural resources, et cetera.
Senator Whelan: I was unaware that the station at Indian Head was closed. That station provided millions of trees for wind breaks on the Prairies. The trees were given to the farmers free of charge.
Mr. Hardy: It is well known that most of the trees growing on the Prairies were planted by man.
Senator Whelan: Many of them were planted naturally by birds, et cetera. Once there were no buffalo to eat them, the seeds grew when they were spread.
When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, wanted all renewable resources under one ministry. He wanted me to learn everything I could about forestry and fisheries because all renewable resources have so much in common.
Further to what Senator Spivak was saying, I saw the clear-cutting in British Columbia and the erosion which resulted, polluting the salmon spawning grounds. There was tremendous damage.
What has been done in Brazil to the rain forests is unbelievable. There is nothing but gravel left in some places. Terrible erosion has taken place due to six months of rain and then six months of hot sun.
Oil and gas is not a renewable resource, but agriculture, fisheries and forestry are. We can provide all the energy we need if we manage those resources properly, and we need not worry about the depletion of coal and other underground resources.
I think it is a conflict for a minister to be in charge of both renewable and non-renewable resources. I remember Premier Lougheed from Alberta saying that we know we can continue to build on agriculture, but we do not know how much longer the other resources will last. He maintained that agriculture is still the most important industry in Alberta.
In the United States, the federal secretary of agriculture is in charge of agriculture and forestry.
Do you not find it confusing that 10 provincial ministers deal with one secretary who represents a nation of 269 million people?
The Chairman: That is a constitutional matter.
Senator Whelan: I am talking about administration. In many Scandinavian countries, agriculture, forestry and even fisheries come under one ministry.
Mr. Hardy: There is a fair sample of countries where forestry and agriculture are together under one administration. There is also a fair sample of other countries where that is not the favourite mix.
Senator Whelan: Germany has agriculture and forestry. It is a big country.
Mr. Hardy: You mentioned that the U.S. forest service comes under agriculture, which is a fact, but the reality of life is that you almost have two administrations within that particular department, considering the amount of synergy with the agriculture side of things.
I started my career in academics, and I joined the federal government fairly recently. At that time, forestry had just moved from environment to agriculture, and that lasted for two or three years. The contact with the agricultural side of the organization was very slim. My experience with the current department is that it is not difficult for a minister to deal with boreal forests but, more than that, we can we build a team within the department to work together with colleagues. Once you are beyond that, it works well.
The Chairman: I have a question on tree plantations. I understand that Sweden now exports about the same amount of timber as it did nearly 100 years ago, but the timber is now grown on plantations, whereas before it was from natural forests.
Mr. Hardy: If you allow me to correct your perception, 100 years ago, the forests of Sweden had disappeared. They were gone. They had been burned. They had been over used through mostly making charcoals for their steel industry. In the 1920s, they decided to rebuild their forests. A natural forest in Sweden is a very scarce entity.
The Chairman: That is where I was leading. Do you have any research on that? Is there any future for plantations or planted forests, agriculturally grown timber, rather than using the natural forests, leaving the natural forests for other things such as tourism, fisheries, and aboriginals? Do you do any research towards helping farmers to grow trees?
Mr. Hardy: Yes, lots of information is available. However, basically you are asking about a policy decision, which is, whether in this country you want to do forestry in what I would call the "natural ecosystem way" or with extensive management. That is what we are doing, by and large. In an intensive forestry, you plant, you fertilize, and then you must add that into the equation. Then you start dealing with all kinds of exotic or man-made problems with equilibrium in the ecosystem.
When people mention Sweden, Norway and Finland and all the positive aspects of forests where the trees are all lined up and so on, they never talk about the over-population of moose, that situation has caused. I was honoured last January to be invited by their director general to participate on a small expert panel to look at their programs. I sat with someone who boasted of having killed his seventh moose that season. The fauna in that forest is totally out of equilibrium. There are no predators. As well, when you have an insect outbreak, you can imagine what it does in one continuous plantation of Norway spruce. There are pros and cons to that.
Canada, has not made that decision, but if we do, some land will need to be put aside for very intensive management. The French will not tell you that they are taking some fairly strong measures to get rid of certain vegetation. Most Western European countries definitely have a biological equilibrium problem. They have a lack of biodiversity. In their museums they have some interesting specimens of their extinct species, such as the wolf. In this country, I agree that we are struggling with endangered species and species at risk, and we should do our utmost not only to preserve them but to enhance their environment. However, that cannot be done in an artificial environment. That is where we must strike a balance.
Senator Whelan: When I was in Red Deer, there was a danger of driving into moose 40 miles out of town, an area of natural forest and bush. When I was in High River, Jim Lockhart told me he saw a bull, a cow and a calf in his pasture.
How much of our forests in Canada is state-owned?
Mr. Hardy: I believe it is 92 per cent or 93 per cent, including Canada as a state.
Senator Stratton: That includes the provinces?
Mr. Hardy: That is mostly provinces.
Senator Stratton: Except the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Hardy: That number includes the Northwest Territories and Yukon, which is the bulk of Canadian government ownership, 20 per cent.
The Chairman: That is being transferred back.
Mr. Hardy: In the Yukon it is in the process of being devolved to Yukon, but it is still federal government ownership.
Senator Whelan: I imagine in the Soviet Union it is probably 100-per-cent owned by the state, but what about the Scandinavian countries?
Mr. Hardy: It is, by a long shot, mostly privately owned. That applies to all of Western Europe. Even the U.S. federal government only owns 20 per cent.
Senator Whelan: They own all the resources in that line of states in the west, all the mineral resources, or at least over 50 per cent. I saw statistics on Utah, Oregon, and some other states.
I remember revisiting the Lacombe agriculture station. I visited every station in Canada when I was Minister of Agriculture, which was something that had not been done for 100 years. It must have been a lot of work to clear the land at Lacombe, because there were big trees. I was shown around the station and they told me that the man who was the first director of Lacombe loved trees. They had the old tin-type pictures of him going around with horse and buggy and planting trees. They told me this land was one million years old and that there never was a tree that grew naturally. They proved that trees can grow there.
I remember the premier of Saskatchewan saying that if you water a tree, it will grow.You can plant a tree at any time. The researchers at Indian Head told me they had trees there which would grow in salinized soil. In Alberta, a lot of land in different areas is becoming salinized. Are you doing research on trees which will grow in salinized soil?
Mr. Hardy: We are very active in -- I use the jargon here -- tree improvement and biotechnology. For a long time we were active in what I would call "traditional" improvement methods, things that you would have recognized in your agriculture portfolio. The reproduction cycle of trees is so long that traditional genetics is slow. With agricultural plants, you can sometimes force two or three generations in a year. The emphasis is now on using new biotechnology such as rheogenics, somatic orthogenesis, trans-genetic applications and so on.
Senator Whelan: Much of the land in Eastern Ontario never should have been cleared because the soil was so shallow.
Senator Spivak: I want to know what percentage of forestry operations at the moment are old-growth logging, both in the boreal forest and in the temperate rain forest. What percentage is old-growth logging?
Mr. Hardy: It is 60 per cent or 70 per cent.
Senator Spivak: We do not have plantations here because they require such a long period to become established. Are they logging second-growth forests in British Columbia?
Mr. Hardy: Yes.
Senator Spivak: What percentage?
Mr. Hardy: That is the remaining 30 per cent or 40 per cent.
Senator Whelan: We have had a cottage for 27 years in Northern Ontario not far from the controversial area, just on the edge of Temagami. I am sure you are aware of where the watershed divides there. Some big white pines that are about four feet across at the base can still be found there. However, on our little island of about two acres, only the stumps remain. The trees were cleared away with big logging booms.
Do you have statistics on the watershed at that location? Do you know how much water goes north? Water is important to forestry.
Mr. Hardy: We do a fair amount of work on watershed management. Again, we are not in the business of getting data on specific watersheds.
Coming back to the West Coast, in Victoria we worked very closely with the Vancouver Water Authority on management of the watershed around Vancouver.
Senator Spivak: There is only one undisturbed watershed left on Vancouver Island.
Mr. Hardy: I believe there is more than one.
The Chairman: That is not in the boreal forest.
Senator Stratton: When you talk about sustainable development, what are your criteria for that? How do you measure whether we have a chance of sustaining our forests?
Mr. Hardy: We were the key agency to link with the CCFM, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, which includes the 10 provincial and two territorial forestry ministers, plus the federal minister. They came together and asked that very question about five years ago. Today's discussion is typical of discussions on sustainable development because people have different visions of sustainable development. If you change your forum and you hear another definition.
An exercise called "Criteria and Indicators" was put together. For a year and-a-half, official experts struggled to define sustainably managed forests which can provide timber and services forever and ever, that would be grown in a sound environment, and so on. We came up with six criteria. The indicators show how to measure your success according to the criteria once they are defined.
I do not believe the C & I information was in the package. You have some documentation but, if you want more, we can certainly provide it. It takes into consideration the biological aspect, the commercial aspect, the socio-economic aspect and people participation.
One matter that does not come to the fore when we are talking about sustainable development is the conflict, that is, the divergence of opinions among groups. You cannot have it all for conservation. You cannot have it all for exploitation. You cannot have it all for biodiversity, and so on.
The socio-economics and people participation, and the decision-making process, are very important, and they have been added to our research spread. Our team in Edmonton is working closely with the University of Alberta. They are basing their work on socio-economics, people participation and decision-making.
The Chairman: On biodiversity, do you do any research with chemical companies and with drug companies in particular, looking at plants, bacteria and fungi which might be developed in 50-year-old or 200-year-old forests which may be used in today's medicines?
Mr. Hardy: We do not have a program which is focused on that. However, we were quite involved with researching a drug which is used for AIDS. We looked at its production, the extraction of the active ingredient, and how to propagate the plant, and so on.
Indirectly, we have supported the First Nations regarding medicinal plants and their traditional use of vegetation.
Senator Stratton: You say you have established the criteria for measuring sustainability. Now that you have that the definition in place, are you measuring whether our forests are being sustained according to that criteria?
Mr. Hardy: In some cases, yes.
Senator Stratton: Do you do that or do the provinces do that? Does the Ministry of the Environment do that?
Mr. Hardy: Everyone does that.
Senator Stratton: It is as if no one is responsible, but everyone does it.
Mr. Hardy: That might be one way to interpret that, but when I say "everyone," I mean that everyone knows a little bit more about something. I know more about forests. The Canadian Wildlife Service knows more than we do about the mammal population. Through their regular survey we have added data in order to measure sustainability.
We have a network across the nation that measures and monitors the state of forests. The provinces report the amount of wood being harvested and any information they have regarding the environment.
I did not cite this example to shield myself.
Senator Stratton: I understand that. My biggest concern, after hearing your evidence today, is that, while we are establishing this criteria, there is a split jurisdiction with the provinces managing their own forests. How can we measure sustainability to the extent where we can tell Canadian people whether or not our forests are being sustained and will be there for future generations? I know that is a difficult question, but ultimately it is one that must be asked.
Whether or not the provinces like it, there must be some measure or guide to determine what is happening. Must we operate in a hands-off fashion because of the state of the union with respect to provincial jurisdiction and the transfer of authority from the central government to provinces in managing their own affairs? That is my fundamental question.
Mr. Hardy: I will not comment on the political aspect of your question. I know you do not expect that.
Senator Stratton: No.
Mr. Hardy: However, I will offer a comment. Last year the report on the state of Canada's forests was presented. We make an annual public report in which we cover a number of topics. Last year our feature topic was the evolution of forest legislation and regulations in Canada since the founding of the first colony. We found in that study that the legislation, regulations and practices have evolved on an exponential curve. We found that there were five distinct periods over a period of 300 years. The interesting part is that the first period lasted 200 years. There were no regulations. The last four periods can be found in the last century. The second one lasted for about 50 years. The third period lasted for about 20 years, and the fourth for approximately 10 years. We are almost at the end of the fifth period and that is related to the global influence.
Every government, whether provincial, federal or municipal, may not be responding at the same rate, but they are all under the same influences and pressures. The forest industry is under pressure.
As you know, significant pressure is being applied to and industry and provincial governments by organizations such as Greenpeace.
Living in a global world, with instant modes of communication, what is happening in Hamburg or London can be seen in your home on the same the day.
Senator Stratton: When we look across the country, we hear all kinds of opinions about stripping or clear-cutting huge areas. How would you rank the provinces? Who is the best? Who is the worst offender?
Mr. Hardy: It is hard to tell, to be honest, because every province now has regulations which define the maximum area which can be clear-cut. It is becoming more and more reasonable so it no longer that much of a problem. An operator may be allowed to clear-cut 30 hectares, which is quite reasonable, which could be regenerated, if done properly, with directional filling and so on. This will prevent erosion and ensure natural regeneration. However, if an operator does one section after another, 30 hectares and 30 hectares for 10 years in a row, before the first one has had a chance to regenerate, then that type of clear-cutting is a problem. This is the operator's responsibility and a result of the interface between how active a given province is in its inspections.
I can guarantee that in every province you will find some operators who should be reminded of their responsibilities. We also see, however, in the same province, operations that are very neat and well done.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The provinces are responsible for setting annual harvesting levels, are they not? What is your role in this? Do you take into consideration all of Canada's forest areas or one province at a time?
Dr. Yvan Hardy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: Harvesting levels as set on a province by province basis. We are not involved in this process.
Senator Robichaud: You depend on provincial experts not to exceed annual harvesting levels. You have no qualms about relying on them?
Mr. Hardy: We have no reason to doubt them. We are just like any other Canadian citizen when it comes to such matters. However, we do have one specific tool with which we can assess more or less accurately what a province is doing.
The annual "State of Canada Forest Report" provides information on provincial harvest levels, in other words, what we call the biological calculations. In theory, what we are doing is harvesting the interest on our forest capital. This has led to some rather odd conclusions. There is considerable concern about the country's old-growth forests.
It is important to recall the answer I gave earlier. Currently, 70 per cent of forestry operations take place in old-growth forests. If we look back over the past three hundred years, we will see that we have harvested only 30 per cent of Canada's forests. Otherwise, we would not be in a position today where 70 per cent of Canada's productive commercial forests have yet to be touched.
On a macroeconomic scale, this provides some assurances to us, while on a microeconomic scale, each one of us must understand that we are citizens of Canada facing a unique situation. The federal government, however, does not have any means of assessing excess timber that a province may have harvested.
We also have to understand that there are exceptional situations. A U.S. astronaut flying over some part of British Columbia commented on the terrible scene that he witnessed from above. Had he minded his own business, he would have realized that the scene below him was a salvage cutting operation which followed a widespread outbreak of bacillus thuringiensis which had destroyed millions upon millions of hectares of forest.
The Government of British Columbia had decided to recover the timber, rather than let it rot on site, which meant that a large swath of forest was clear-cut. Officials were dealing with an exceptional situation. During the two years in question, it is quite possible that allowable harvesting levels were exceeded.
Every year in Canada, one half of one per cent of the country's forested area is harvested. At this rate, it will take 200 years to harvest all of the country's forests. The average forests in areas east of Alberta are being managed on a 60-year cycle. From a macroeconomic standpoint, our conscience is clear. As I was saying to Senator Stratton, from a microeconomic perspective, we need to look at the actions of forestry companies. It is a sure bet that someone will always try to harvest more than they should and often, these are the ones responsible for damaging the industry's reputation.
Senator Robichaud: People have been highly critical of the destruction of the Amazon rain forest and of logging operations taking place in that area of the world. Is it possible to draw a parallel or comparison between what is happening there and the situation in Canada? At some point, were allowable harvesting levels exceeded, which might have destabilized the environment, as will surely happen if clear-cutting continues in the Amazon?
Mr. Hardy: Up until 1850, it was possible to draw some kind of parallel. That was back when the country was being settled. Earlier, I referred to the five stages of forest development. In the early stages, the forest was viewed as a nuisance and as an impediment to growing crops and to building cities. I am not talking about the Prairies here. The forests were cleared and certainly at the time, the settlers cleared more trees than they needed to. To all intents and purposes, there was no commercial market for lumber and wood was used for domestic purposes. Often, the forests were set ablaze as a quick way of clearing the land.
However, since the introduction of forestry management, this parallel no longer exists.
What we often neglect to mention in the case of Brazil is that the primary reason for clear-cutting is not to develop the forest industry or boost the country's timber production, but rather to give the locals a place to grow their crops.
The situation in Canada is entirely different. When exposed, tropical soils deteriorate very rapidly, which is not the case in a temperate climate. Therefore, while it may be tempting to compare the situation in Brazil to that in North America, the two have nothing in common.
Senator Robichaud: Your words are very reassuring. The Canadian Forestry Service seems satisfied that in the majority of cases, greater efforts are being made to conserve and regenerate boreal forests. Is that correct?
Mr. Hardy: Yes, that is true. However, we can still do better and improve our forestry practices in Canada. This is a personal opinion, albeit one of someone who has been involved in forestry for nearly 40 years. When I think of all the changes that have taken place in the past forty years... when I first started working in the forest, people were still using saws and axes. Log drives were still a common occurrence and no one wondered if the practice posed a hazard to fish. The river beds were clogged with bark. I agree that efforts have been stepped up.
If we consider all of the progress that has been made and if we add to that global and local pressures, we find that Canadians have more free time and more resources than they had forty years ago. Changes, however, are far from over. That is why I derive a great deal of satisfaction from my work with the Canadian Forest Service. This agency is in the forefront of the industry. We try to be forward-looking and to adopt the methodology, tools and approaches needed to manage the forests of the future.
Speaking about success rates, we have worked on bacillus thuringiensis as a substitute for infiltration. People thought we were crazy because at the time, there were at least five highly effective insecticides on the market, but today, the five are no longer certified.
We are currently working on viruses to replace B.T. And this is proving to be quite a challenge. Fifteen years ago, we began to adopt GIS, global positioning, modernization and decision-support systems.
If you take a look at major forestry operators today, you will see that they all rely on similar systems. When we started out ten years ago, we had no decision-support systems in place. It was important then to work closely with the forest community. By this, I mean the Canadian Forest Service always made a point of working with the extended forest community, that is not only with industry users, but also with the provinces in their capacity as managers of the resource, with people concerned about wildlife, with aboriginals, small woodlot owners and so forth. I am very satisfied with what we have managed to accomplish.
Senator Robichaud: Regarding insects that can damage forests, for example, the spruce budworm infestation that hit New Brunswick a while back, are you currently doing any sampling to see if our forests are vulnerable to certain infestations?
Mr. Hardy: I mentioned our forest health network and this is a responsibility that we share with the provinces. On the one hand, provinces monitor insect behaviour patterns. When they find a hot spot, we become more involved. On the other hand, we have invented detection measures that are far more efficient than simply going out and examining each tree. We have invented two methods, one of which involves pheromones and the chemical or sexual attractants between insects. After observing insect behaviour and compiling data, we are able to draw a correlation between the number of insects captured and the overall insect population. We routinely do this. We also employ another method which uses light to attract insects. Butterflies are attracted to light sources in the evening.
Between two epidemics, insects as a rule enter another stage. We have maintained our focus and continued our research into what happens when the budworm moves from the endemic stage to the epidemic stage. We are beginning to understand what factors come into play. Once we understand this, we can take steps to intervene in the process. Parasites, that is small insects, live within other insects. During an epidemic stage, the parasite population is quite low which means that the budworm's chances of survival are greater.
Senator Robichaud: We could have a problem this year because of the spring we had. The snow melted very quickly.
Mr. Hardy: A hot, dry spring like the one we are currently having creates conditions that are very favourable for budworms. Normally in the spring, we experience temperature variations. However, this year we had very few hard frosts.
[English]
Senator Whelan: My research assistant just made a call to Regina, and he informs me that the Shelterbelt Centre, which specializes in trees and is located at Indian Head, is still open. It does tremendous work. It is not a huge operation. It comes under the Department of Agriculture and it has made a tremendous contribution to forestry in the western provinces.
When you were talking about jurisdiction, agriculture was a 50-50 deal.
Mr. Hardy: You were lucky.
Senator Whelan: That is what I mean. Federally, we have opted out of some of these areas like forestry. That was a bad mistake.
Mr. Hardy: Historically, senator, that has always piqued my curiosity.
The one and only reason jurisdiction over forests was given to the provinces in 1867 was to give them an income through stumpage fees. It was not a matter of semantics or anything else. The British Crown had given Upper and Lower Canada the authority to get some revenues out of the harvesting of wood. Every operator had to pay something to the local government, and that was one of their sole sources of revenue. When they got together and decided to form a country, they decided to leave that as it was.
The Chairman: You mentioned "slash and burn" in the emerging countries. We want to have more trees growing in those areas so that the world can absorb more carbon. Have you discussed what amount of money would be required to encourage these developing countries to stop the "slash and burn" in the name of agriculture?
Mr. Hardy: It would cost a lot. Brazil is one country that always comes to mind in that regard.
The Chairman: They do it in Africa a lot as well.
Mr. Hardy: The major reason for cutting and removing trees in the world is not because of industry at all; it is due to hunger.
The Chairman: Wood for fuel.
Mr. Hardy: And clearing the land for agriculture. That is the major reason by a long shot.
I am not an expert in the developing countries and tropical countries, but the few times I have been there, I saw people walking 10 to 15 kilometres just to get fuel wood for the week because the forests had been cut down.
The Chairman: Oriented strand board plants utilize every scrap of wood. This chip board is said to be stronger than ordinary plywood. Is there any danger, because OSB has become so popular, that we will take all the scraps out of the forests? We used to leave a lot behind. Do these plants use everything?
Mr. Hardy: We used to use the good lumber out of a big tree and burn the rest. The OSB plants use the fibres that would otherwise be waste material to make solid wood. That is good news.
The Chairman: It should not be left in the forest.
Mr. Hardy: When it comes out of the forest, it comes out as timber.
The Chairman: In the advance forestry, they used to chip and leave the branches lying around. Given the value of OSB, they will no longer do that.
Senator Whelan: Where I spent part of my summers, they used to log in the winter. Now they go in with big cats equipped with big shears. They run over all kinds of trees to get that one special black pine. Then they just walk away. I could not get over the harshness of that type of destruction.
Mr. Hardy: You have seen the worst of it. About five years ago, these people became more disciplined. They rediscovered what we call "directional felling" where there is just one access road and the trees are felled in one direction and pulled out. That maintains the regeneration. There is much more discipline than there used to be, and that is good.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. This has been most a informative meeting. We may invite you to join us again before our study is completed.
The committee adjourned.