Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 8 - Evidence
ROUYN-NORANDA, October 27, 1998
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 7:00 p.m. to continue its study on the present state and future of forestry in Canada as it relates to the boreal forest.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: At this evening's meeting, we will be discussing issues related to the boreal forest in Canada.
What exactly is the boreal forest? Well, it's a little like a cape thrown around the shoulders of the earth in the northern hemisphere. More than 20 per cent of the boreal forest is located in Canada.
[English]
Our committee has a clearly defined mandate to examine the progress our country is making in achieving our national goals of sustainable forestry, protection of biodiversity, aboriginal rights, and federal-provincial issues. However, our subcommittee is not just about trees or just about forests. What we are concerned about is people, their livelihood, their recreation, their traditions, their heritage, and their future.
The issues we are examining touch upon a full range of Canada's domestic and global interests:
[Translation]
conservation and protection; economic growth and job creation;
[English]
aboriginal rights; commercial competition on local and global scales, jurisdictional issues between governments;
[Translation]
and finally, sustainable development and the sound use of our forest resources.
[English]
To abuse an old adage, let us not only see the forest as well as the trees. Let us ensure that we look well beyond both forests and trees to see what this valuable resource means for our country and for our future.
I now introduce our first witness from the Association touristique de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, president Jocelyn Carrier. Mr. Carrier, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Mr. Jocelyn Carrier, President, Association touristique de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have this opportunity to address such a prestigious committee whose mandate is of such importance to the future of our region, its development and especially its quality of life.
I am especially pleased given that the fundamental role of the Senate is to provide a voice to minorities, to those who may not share the views of large industries, and I would even say, big business.
So it is with a keen interest in your study that the tourism industry comes before you tonight. First of all, we have a mandate from Tourism Quebec to promote and develop the tourism industry in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.
It Is important to point out at the outset that we do recognize the very positive efforts made by the logging industry in recent years. It is not our intention to dismiss out of hand the efforts that have been made to raise people's awareness; we felt it was important to state that right from the beginning.
However, we do have serious concerns and those concerns remain. We want to warn logging operators and other decision-makers against the temptation to destroy our collective heritage.
There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that many organizations, each more qualified than the next, are sure to bring forward recommendations with respect to regulations and programming that are technically superior to our own. However, the primary goal of the Abitibi-Témiscamingue Regional Tourism Association is to ensure that the community as a whole recognizes the importance of protecting the forest and that committee members are aware of the issues.
Our main concern in the tourism industry is without a doubt the special relationship we must develop and maintain with Canada's aboriginal peoples who, it must be remembered, were here before us; they have rights, including the fundamental right to be respected.
It is for that very reason that we recognize in Abitibi-Témiscamingue that we have nine aboriginal reserves; thus far relations with band councils and the reserves in general have been excellent.
People who work in the tourism industry want to share the same land with them, use the same natural infrastructures and appreciate the same flora and fauna. The regional tourism association has thus adopted a development plan, the general thrust of which is quite simply to raise people's awareness of the importance of the forest in our recreational activities and our daily lives.
We are very lucky in the Abitibi region in that we have longer winters and at the same time shorter summer nights than elsewhere. We have countless lakes, rivers and other bodies of water, as well as a forest teeming with flora and fauna. All of these natural assets were the starting point for our development plan, which focuses on five areas. You will soon understand why the forest is so important to us and why it must be protected.
The first area we targeted is outfitting excursions. It must be remembered, first of all, that increasing acceptance of environmentalist values, wildlife protection and the draw of hunting- and fishing-only products have all evolved. Overall supply is increasingly based on related activities like snowmobiling, dog-sledding, accommodation, family life in the forest -- which is an increasingly important factor for us -- flora and fauna watching, photography and hiking.
Clearly, any regulations or programs aimed at protecting the beauty and intimacy of the forest will receive our whole-hearted support. I would just like to point out here that the days of outfitting excursions where the focus was the biggest catch or catching the most fish are long gone.
Nowadays, outfitting excursions are increasingly becoming a family activity where even though people may make excellent catches, they are concerned about conservation -- in other words, they put whatever fish they catch back in the water with the utmost care so as to ensure their survival.
Snowmobiling, as a tourism product, is also undergoing significant change. Rather than just involving riding through the forest, demand is now geared much more towards forest outings that allow families to discover the wonders of nature and the regional culture. Indeed, a new culture -- family-oriented activities -- is also emerging. It is important to understand that the natural setting for sport snowmobiling is and always will be the forest.
Then there is outdoor adventure tourism, meaning travel in natural settings geared towards soft or high-risk activities. If you have the time, I would strongly encourage you to visit Aiguebelle Park located not far from here between Rouyn-Noranda and Taschereau which, as well as being a magnificent park is both a cultural and nature interpretation centre where you can discover a richly abundant natural environment.
Adventure tourism clients are mainly seeking a high-quality natural environment, wide open spaces and authenticity.
In addition, the products and activities available in these large boreal forest areas are canoeing, rafting, cross-country skiing, excursions in 4X4s, dog sledding, mountain biking, snowmobiling, trips to Aboriginal communities, horseback riding, sea kayaking, nature watching, climbing, and so on.
Is it conceivable that people could be indifferent in this day and age to the destruction of our forest and at the same time have a taste for adventure? I will skip over my explanation of tours and events, because you have received our brief and the definitions it provides clearly show that both of these products also depend on our forest remaining intact.
The new tourism industry is growing by leaps and bounds in Abibiti-Témiscamingue. We want -- rightly so -- to become an attractive destination, one whose vast open spaces captivate not only the local population, but visitors seeking new challenges. Your committee will have to consider the fact that this resource is part of our collective heritage and as such, belongs to each and every one of us.
I would just like to digress for one moment to remind you that a logging permit was recently granted to an industry north of the 52nd parallel. I will be tabling with the committee a letter from Monsignor Gérard Drainville, the Bishop of Amos, for the diocese of Amos, in which he responds to the president of the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature.
Monsignor Drainville makes a couple of points. He begins by saying:
We are facing what many feel is a disaster waiting to happen in the forest. Indeed, there are serious questions with respect to the growth rate of spruce north of the 50th parallel.
As I just mentioned, a logging permit has been given to a company north of the 52nd parallel, where forest renewal -- meaning the time required to grow trees that are approximately four to five or seven inches in diameter -- can take anything from 150 to 200 years. So, potential destruction of the forest is of tremendous concern to us, given that its rate of renewal is quite uncertain.
Monsignor Drainville then adds:
What interests us most about this forest? Well, what interests us most is to exploit a long-standing natural resource for which we have paid nothing, since we have invested nothing in it. It was there, so we appropriated it.
I would conclude by saying that the lure of quick profit for our logging companies and governments has in the past left vast tracks of barren land, reflecting a complete lack of concern for the environment and the importance of protecting our heritage. It is essential that we all be aware of how our forests are used. We must get used to the idea of sharing our vision with Aboriginal communities, and we must act with a view to educating people about a region that is there to be discovered, promoted and enjoyed.
I wish you all a very pleasant stay in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and I invite you to visit our local attractions and our forest, while it is still standing.
[English]
The Chairman: Je vous remercie, monsieur Carrier. We have a few questions.
[Translation]
Senator Spivak: Mr. Carrier, yesterday and this morning, we were given two different perspectives on the forest. Yesterday, we visited Lake Mistassini, and the aboriginal people who live there told us that the large companies operating there show utter disregard for their land and have practically destroyed their "trap lines."
This morning, officials representing Norbord told us that they are in the process of modifying their logging practices. Do you feel enough changes have been made that your interests are no longer threatened? Do you feel there are enough protected areas to meet the tourism needs of Quebecers?
Mr. Carrier: First of all, I want to make the point that the aboriginal communities living near Lake Mistassini are absolutely right to be concerned and to say that the forest there has been destroyed, because it has.
At the beginning of my opening statement, I made the point that large companies are increasingly aware of the need to preserve and protect certain areas. It is fair to say that deforestation is now occurring in a somewhat more civilized fashion.
However, there are two reasons why I have serious concerns. First of all, the large logging companies are mainly interested in making as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, leaving behind them vast tracks of barren land and forest in which less and less reforestation is being done. Although there is some reforestation, the fact remains that nature, flora and fauna have been destroyed for the most part. As for wild animals, those that have not been completely destroyed have been driven out into outlying areas, and it takes a very long time before they come back into the new replanted forest.
In answer to your second question, my view is that current protection is completely inadequate. For example, I think there should be a protected area around bodies of water so that animals have some shelter and so that the tourism industry can show visitors a forest that really looks like a forest, rather than barren land surrounded by a small wooded strip, forcing us to say: "This is our forest," and add, "This is the way the rest of it looked before." We think it's important to have a protected area around lakes and rivers.
As far as lakes are concerned, while I have no particular technical expertise in that area, I think we are probably talking about approximately 200 feet or 60 metres.
Senator Spivak: That is not much.
Mr. Carrier: No, it is not. I would suggest maintaining much larger strips as wide as a kilometre on each side of a river or stream to allow for construction of shelters for animals, to provide them with access to a more natural breeding site than just a tract of barren land, and also to allow flora to develop and reproduce in a natural environment.
In the tourism industry, it is important that visitors be shown a natural, authentic environment. Rather than showing them deforested areas under regeneration, we want to be able to show them something authentic.
Logging should therefore be avoided in reserve areas. I spoke of the Aiguebelle reserve earlier, but I might also mention La Vérendrye Park and a number of other wilderness areas north of the 50th or even the 52nd parallel. They should all be preserved and given back to the people, because they belong to them and to the Aboriginal communities that still live in these wooded areas and reserves, and still rely on traditions that we cannot allow others to callously destroy by logging the forest in a way that while it may be authorized, is still uncontrolled.
The aboriginal communities are perfectly right to be concerned. I am willing to admit that the industry is currently making an effort, but I think we have to be very careful. We experienced this same problem with the mine tailing ponds in the Abitibi, ponds that destroyed the environment around our towns. We don't want our forest to meet the same fate.
So, it is essential that the wooded areas around lakes and rivers be preserved.
Senator Spivak: What do you think of Quebec and federal government policies on endangered forests that we should be protecting and preserving for tourism and tourist activity?
Mr. Carrier: As long as people are prepared to allow politicians to manage public lands and forests, there will always be the danger that big industry will exert its influence. I would describe that influence as being, not unhealthy, but shall we say very pervasive, because of ongoing lobbying efforts on the part of large companies which, year after year, gain control of land that governments have genuinely tried to protect, in order that aboriginal communities can continue to live there and that the some 90 outfitters in the Abitibi who depend on the lakes, rivers and forests, have an opportunity to grow and prosper.
I think increasing numbers of citizen's groups -- as well as the Senate committee which also has a role to play -- will have to bring that home to politicians by saying: "Yes, you are going to be pressured by big business; yes, globalization means exporting our forestry products to the United States."
As soon as there is a hurricane in the United States, that means disaster for our forests. The price of lumber goes up, and the lure of quick profit means that we have no control and that governments are lobbied very heavily.
We will need groups such as yours, as well as environmental groups and people like Monsignor Drainville, whom I quoted earlier, to act as watchdogs, by telling the different levels of government: "This forest does not belong only to you; it also belongs to the people and to the first inhabitants of this country, so be careful."
These policies have always been sustained: "Yes, you can log, but you have to reforest." But when you say to people: "You can log," the damage is already done. The flora and fauna disappear and find shelter elsewhere, and return only many years later.
Because I also hunt, I know full well that from one year to the next, the status of our own forest is quite precarious, meaning that we never know when we are going to end up in a barren area and have to hunt on a gravel road or, in some cases, roads that are practically paved. It is quite worrisome.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Today, in Toronto, the courts rendered a decision in a case where an ecological group took the Ontario government to court on a matter concerning the Temagami area. The case, involving a company cutting down huge forests where the pine trees were up to five feet tall, was resolved in favour of the ecological group.This is a very positive statement and we will probably read about it in the papers tomorrow morning.
We hear so much about what a great year it is for moose hunting. Can you comment on that, Mr. Carrier? Are there a lot of moose this season?
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: Yes, but I do not happen to be one of the lucky ones. Of course, I could cite the example of the place where I used to hunt. Four years ago, hunters caught 32 moose there. It was fairly easy to hunt them then because the moose, being unable to find shelter elsewhere, were on the gravel logging roads.
During the first week of the hunting season that year, close to the village of Preissac, hunters shot some 32 moose that had been unable to find any place to hide or take shelter. They were completely out in the open and the hunters simply drove up in cars or vans and killed their game alongside the road.
That kind of massacre -- and that's putting it mildly -- unfortunately does occur. This year -- although I do not have the exact figures -- I know that in my own area, where there has been deforestation because of logging by some large companies, and where reforestation began only four or five years ago in some cases, there are no moose left.
We go there just for a rest. There is nothing left. There are seven different groups of hunters in my area and of those seven groups, no one had shot anything, as late as last week anyway, because there are no moose left. The first year after the logging, there were still a lot of moose caught there because they were completely out in the open; there was no place left for them to hide, take shelter or play cat and mouse.
I am very pleased about the decision handed down by a Toronto court in support of environmentalists, even though I sometimes think they go too far. I believe there has to be some balance between the groups at each end of the spectrum. We believe the tourism industry is sort of in the middle: We recognize that the logging industry has to make a living and that it is doing a much better job now than it did before, but a great deal of effort is still needed if we are to make full use of the rich resource that the forest represents for us. I did not kill one moose this year.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: As far as the Senate is concerned, we make up our own minds. I hope that you have confidence in what we are doing here today.
The Chairman: Thank you, senator. Before we go to Senator Gill, I have one question. The roads that the lumber companies have put in are used for tourism and family activities such as snowmobiling, adventure tours, cross-country skiing, and dog sledding. If you did not have forestry in those areas, you would not have the roads to get around. How do you balance the use of the companies' roads for these activities with the desire for less logging? If forestry companies were not there, there would be no roads.
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: First of all, as far as other groups are concerned, last weekend in Rouyn-Noranda, I attended the regional general meeting of the snowmobiling clubs. I can tell you that some snowmobilers are using the big companies' logging roads, although in many cases they make their own tracks because the logging roads lead only to vast tracks of barren land. There is very little actual forest. That means it is no longer possible to use those roads for the kind of snowmobiling being practised nowadays.
That is why snowmobiling clubs increasingly prefer to use their own tracks that they have actually cleared, since it means they can snowmobile safely in an environmental setting that suits this new type of snowmobiling which, as I mentioned, is no longer just a ride through the forest but also a family outing.
In fact, the logging roads are more often than not destroyed once the company has left. The culverts are removed as well as the pipes used for drainage, so they are not as useful for summer sports involving 4X4s and ATVs -- all terrain vehicles -- or winter sports such as snowmobiling.
People are naturally going to prefer to use their own trails. One example would be the cross-country ski trails that are very popular here in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. I am going to quote a figure here -- although someone who knows better may want to correct me -- but I believe that more than 95 per cent of cross-country ski trails are not in fact former logging roads. They are trails that were actually built and cleared by cross-country ski clubs.
It's pretty well the same situation with snowmobiling. Of course, they say: "If we hadn't built those nice roads in the forest, how would you get to your hunting camp?" But the fact is we didn't have those nice roads before, and we still managed to get to our hunting camp. We would get there the same way the aboriginal people do, which is by water. It was the same thing.
As far as I am concerned, claiming that this easy access to the forest via the gravel roads used to haul the logs out is an advantage for the people who now use the forest is a totally spurious argument. You do not hear many aboriginals who use the forest expressing delight at the fact that these gravel roads exist. As far as they are concerned, those roads are responsible for the destruction of an environment that is extremely important to them.
I can certainly tell you that we have little interest in them, except maybe for partridge shooting on a Sunday afternoon when you are out for a ride along these roads. That is not what we would call a forest outing.
Senator Gill: Mr. Carrier, I want to thank you for being with us and commend you for the quality of your brief. I imagine your concerns are shared by many people in the tourism industry.
I have two or three questions. First of all, let's talk about the economy. Do you have any figures or statistical information on the economic benefits of tourism here in the Abitibi region?
That is always a pretty strong argument as far as the various users of natural resources are concerned. It is also a very compelling argument for politicians or business people. Do you have any rough figures showing the economic impact of tourism in the Abitibi?
Mr. Carrier: Our region is relatively young as far as tourism is concerned. We have been around for barely 80 years in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue -- but what I can tell you is that across the province of Quebec, tourism represents some $5 billion worth of economic spinoffs.
In the Abitibi region, we do know that annual economic spinoffs represent something like 30 to 40 million dollars. If you don't mind, I would like to give you some figures. We have 90 outfitters in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, and most of them work at full capacity for approximately half the year, meaning the equivalent of six months a year.
We also have a number of tourist attractions. This year alone, we witnessed a 13 per cent increase in tourism in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. We believe the vast majority of tourists come to our area because of the beautiful sites we have to show them. They come to enjoy nature, and our wide open spaces, and to share our fish-filled lakes and rivers with us and the Aboriginal communities.
The tourism industry is growing by leaps and bounds in our region, and we believe that in years to come, we will be able to capture a significantly larger market share. This year, we launched a promotional campaign in the Greater Montreal area and we have also reached an agreement with area outfitters in cooperation with the Canadian government, and specifically Economic Development Canada, to promote our outfitting operations in the United States, at four major fairs that will be taking place there. We believe that over the next three years, we will be in a position to double the amount of economic spinoffs tourism is currently bringing into the region.
So, the tourism industry will be a very important industry in future, not a secondary industry as it currently is. This year, visitors to tourist information booths increased by 13 per cent; there are more and more tourists visiting our attractions, such as la Cité de l'or in Val d'Or or the Refuge Pageau in Amos. The minor problems we had at Fort Témiscamingue on Lake Témiscamingue prevented us from fully developing that area, but we firmly believe in the future of the tourism industry here in the Abitibi. We will also be seeing an increase in the number of European tourists coming to the area, since they are looking for the kind of adventure and enjoyment of nature that we have to offer.
Overall, then, what is the current status of the tourism industry? Of course, the mining industry still comes first, and it is important to realize that. However, I think the tourism industry is well up there in third place and that it could soon bump at least the logging industry which, in my view, is declining more and more. I'm sorry I can't give you more accurate figures, but those are the only ones I can remember.
Senator Gill: We may not always have the figures, or at least, we may not always be able to check them. I know the Quebec Ministry of Tourism does have statistics for Quebec as a whole, but not necessarily for each individual region.
Is there an organization here in the Abitibi through which you can hold discussions with other users of these same natural resources? Is there an umbrella committee that can coordinate your activities or, at the very least, provide a forum for discussion with a view to ensuring optimal use of these resources? Is there any authority here in the Abitibi region that provides that kind of coordination? You referred earlier to the aboriginal communities, the logging industry and the outfitters.
I understand that you are responsible for the ATA, but is there any one organization that brings together all the players?
Mr. Carrier: To my knowledge, no, there is no one committee through which we can dialogue with the major industry players. The only organization we have direct contact with is the provincial government, because we come under the jurisdiction of Tourism Quebec, and it is through the latter that we access the Ministry of Natural Resources and so forth.
However, even though there is no umbrella committee, I know that the band councils operating in the aboriginal communities maintain ongoing relations with the Ministry of Natural Resources and industry stakeholders, but through target groups.
I also know that the Cégep, the Université du Québec and a variety of school boards, including the Harricana school board, have established partnership committees with the logging industry. These institutions -- the aboriginal communities, the university, the Cégep and the school board -- certainly have a greater awareness of the issues and as such are better equipped than ordinary citizens to defend and preserve the forest, but at the same time, they also have an interest in developing the logging industry.
To my knowledge, there is currently no committee involving a partnership between the tourism industry, the logging industry and the outfitting or snowmobiling sectors. That is something we may want to put in place so there can be more dialogue.
Senator Gill: In the absence of an umbrella committee, do you occasionally hold seminars? The reason I am pressing the point is that I am a strong believer in community forces. So it may be a good idea to talk to senators or politicians and so on, because when people have a chance to talk, a lot of issues can be resolved.
That is why I ask the question and why I am pressing the point. Perhaps through the university you have access to seminars that would allow you and the different users to exchange information?
Mr. Carrier: The potential for information exchange already exists at three different levels, as I see it. First of all, through the Abitibi-Témiscamingue regional development board, a government organization whose primary mission is the development of our region, there exists a forest consultation committee. At that committee, environmentalists, loggers and representatives of the primary, secondary and tertiary forestry processing industries get together to dialogue.
The CERDAT, which stands for the Abitibi-Témiscamingue regional economic development council, is an organization concerned with maintaining the proper balance between the various users of the forest and we have a seat there through which we are able to engage in discussion.
The logging industry -- I pointed out earlier that it is making a major effort -- organizes an annual logging industry convention where various groups, such as our own, can come forward and raise awareness about our concerns; that is about as far as it goes. There is no possibility of negotiation.
Fortunately, we have environmental groups in the Abitibi region that are very much aware of what is going on and regularly lobby both the different levels of government and the industry itself.
However, there is not a committee through which stakeholders, including Aboriginal communities, tourists, the logging industry and governments can hold discussions. There is no regional forum for consultation, other than the Regional Economic Council, the CERDAT, which, because it is a consensus group, does not necessarily get involved in negotiations to determine how the forest should be used in future.
Senator Gill: One last question, if you don't mind. You referred earlier to sport hunting and fishing in the lakes, rivers and forests of the Abitibi.
I don't know whether the number of tourists and sport fishermen is decreasing or not, but another category of tourists is expanding: adventure tourists, who are not necessarily taking the resources out of the forests. They are more interested in taking pictures and spending time in special areas inside the forest, such as next to the lakes. But they are not taking the resources away. That means that tourists like these are not affecting the resources in any way and, as a general rule, are generally bringing money into the region.
Mr. Carrier: Yes, a lot.
Senator Gill: Have you found ways of ensuring that those two groups of tourists can coexist? On one side, you have the sport hunters and fishermen, and on the other, the environmentalists, who don't want to hear about either hunting or fishing.
Do you think it's possible for these two groups to coexist or will something have to be done? I don't suppose you have referees on hand to intervene if a dispute arises. One group advocates environmental protection at any costs, and the other wants to hunt and fish. I imagine that could lead to problems.
How do you see that working? The reason I am asking you is that I do not have a solution either.
Mr. Carrier: What I can tell you is that at the present time, two groups are raising our collective awareness of the situation. First of all, there are the aboriginal groups, that is, the band councils of the nine reserves which now have economic development boards that include a tourism component.
Fortunately, their role is not only to sell arts and crafts. They are also there to sell nature by organizing forest outings, primarily with European tourists. I am thinking here of Mr. Kistabish, from the Pikogan reserve, who is very well known in Europe and goes there to organize excursions for groups interested in photography, hiking and observing flora and fauna. These tourists come to use the forest, but not to consume its resources.
So, first there is this aboriginal group, which is brand new, and is raising awareness by making the point that it is possible to use the forest not only to hunt and fish, but also to enjoy the beauty of the natural environment and resources it has to offer.
There are also other groups, which are becoming increasingly numerous -- such as the group in Lasarre, in the Abitibi, that currently organizes the "raid des conquérants." This is a cycling competition that takes place in the forest using mountain bikes. My own belief is that this kind of activity has a very promising future, because people are increasingly interested in using the forest without consuming its resources. They use it and get involved in activities there, a little like snowmobilers who also use the forest, but don't remove its resources.
How will this fit in with what the logging industry is doing? Well, I think it is much too early to say who will be acting as a referee the day that choices have to be made. I certainly would not want only the different levels of governments to act as referees, because they could well have a preference for the big industry players, given their direct contribution to government revenues in the form of royalties.
I think environmental groups and those who advocate returning these natural resources to the people will have to be given the opportunity to come forward and say: "Enough is enough, so let's put a stop to this."
Currently, there is no regional forum that can arbitrate. We are now collectively raising awareness about the current reality, thanks to the efforts of these private groups that use the forest and our nine aboriginal communities, who are acting as watchdogs and telling people: "You can't use the forest anyway you want." We think that's important.
[English]
Senator Stratton: Please accept my apologies for not speaking French. The last time I spoke French was 45 years ago, just after high school.
Across the country, in British Columbia, in Ontario, and in parts of the Province of Manitoba where I am from, wilderness areas are being designated and they cannot be logged. We have a finite area of forested land. You could almost say that the areas that we log are going to become plantations. The crops will be harvested and seedlings will be planted or we will let nature take its course. Fifty to 85 years from now, the process will be repeated. Surely, that kind of cycle is logical.
It would appear that you would have certain areas protected from logging. Would that not be a negotiation or ongoing negotiation by you and groups like yours to ensure that these areas remain pristine? You cannot have it all. On the other hand, neither should the logging industry or the forestry companies have it all by cutting down all the trees. Is that not an ongoing process that is underway here, as well as elsewhere in the country? Do you think that is the logical conclusion to come to and the logical way to work towards that end so that we can keep those wilderness areas?
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: Senator, you don't have to apologize for not speaking French, because I don't speak any English either; like you, the last time I spoke English was when I graduated from school.
The idea of a protected or designated area where logging would be completely prohibited, or of establishing other areas that would operate as plantations, as you were saying, meaning that the area would be logged and replanted, so that 60 years later, the same process of logging, refertilization and reforestation could start all over again --
That approach may be the most practical for the logging industry, but it is not necessarily the one that most benefits us. If it ever came to that, I think we would still have to protect minimal amounts of land in areas where logging was to occur -- in other words, areas around lakes, rivers or other bodies of water where logging would be totally prohibited. In other words, even if those lakes and rivers were in areas where it had been agreed that logging could occur, we would still have to designate much larger protected areas than we currently have.
Should we be aiming to negotiate timber harvesting on the basis of the plantation model, in other words, logging and automatic reforestation? My answer would be yes, because you cannot have it all, and it's very clear that we cannot forever hereafter preserve a totally virgin forest throughout the Abitibi region. There has to be some logging, and I think that could be achieved only if there is cooperation with all the groups who have a stake in the forest. Without making exaggerated claims, I think it is clear that we have a major interest in developing the tourism industry and that we should therefore be at the table.
I still maintain that this kind of dialogue will occur in the years to come. It is already begun. We have experienced different types of logging. They used to do what is called strip felling. They would log in a 200-foot strip of land, for example, but would leave a 200- to 300-foot wooded strip next to it. They eventually realized that is not necessarily the best method, because the wooded strip that remained, being vulnerable, was much more likely to be destroyed by the elements.
It was then decided that clear cutting, followed by reforestation, was probably a more modern and economical way of logging the forest. That is where we are at this point.
I think we will first have to agree not on the kind of logging we want, but on the areas we wish to preserve, in the form of parks or wilderness areas, and where we will be able to say: "This is our wilderness area, our heritage, and no industry can access it for the purposes of logging, not even selective felling." It makes no difference. Humans should use those parts of the forest only for tourism, recreation, and other uses, such as photography, hiking and so on.
As for the rest, yes, we should agree to develop areas where forestry resources could be exploited along the same lines as a plantation or garden. I use that term because that is exactly how it would be done -- as I recently discovered -- meaning that every 60 years, you would harvest the resource, then replant, and so on.
There again, we should not be making compromises with respect to the spaces to be preserved in the immediate proximity of essential bodies of water. There can be no compromises there. There must be a protected area so that animals, tourists, and people have access to something reasonable. As far as I am concerned, those things simply are not negotiable.
[English]
Senator Stratton: Are you aware of any negotiation with the Province of Quebec, or is the province taking a stand? Jobs in forestry and logging pay fairly well. In that area, the number of people in the forestry industry are diminishing but the jobs nevertheless pay well. You can understand why any government, including the provincial government, would want to sustain the work. It is ideal for remote areas such as the logging areas.
Are you aware of the province actually working towards the designation of areas that will become protected where there is no logging? Or, on the other hand, is it out-and-out war where you can virtually negotiate and obtain rights to cut timber?
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: A little while ago, I said in response to another question that the designation of protected areas is something that could easily be achieved. I always thought that La Vérendrye Park was a nature preserve that was completely off limits. Yet almost all the wooded areas are now being logged.
As I mentioned earlier, a logging permit has just been granted to a company north of the 52nd parallel, where the forest takes between 150 and 200 years to regenerate itself and reproduce. Five to ten years ago, no one would have thought it was possible to log the forest north of the 52nd parallel.
Is it possible? You make a very valid point. The problem is precisely that kind of thinking and the fact that it sells politically to be able to say that jobs in the logging industry pay well.
When you come to a town on the eve of an election saying: "We are authorizing such and such a company to set up a sawmill," I can tell you that no one in that town is going to be opposed. Even the most fervent environmentalist will keep a low profile and not protest, because what is at stake are jobs, and well-paying jobs to boot.
But governments do not exist only to create jobs on the spur of the moment; they have a responsibility to ask themselves: "Fifteen, twenty or thirty years down the line, what will the consequences be of the decisions we are making right now?" Indeed, the danger is that 15, 20 or 30 years down the line, there will be no trees left to log, except in those plantations where the trees are already mature, and the jobs will be long gone.
It's all this talk about the globalization of our economy that leads us to believe that we have to produce quickly so as to get whatever benefit we can out of the economy while there is still time. To me, that is a dangerous approach.
My fervent hope is that we here in Abitibi-Témiscamingue will soon be invited collectively to work with the different levels of government, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue Economic Development Board, the Aboriginal communities and the logging industry to designate these protected nature preserves within the forest and around lakes and rivers.
Right now, however, we do not get the feeling, particularly on the eve of an election, that there is any desire to move ahead quickly with this.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we go to the second round, I have another question. As you know, besides creating jobs, the forest industry pays the government stumpage fees. It also pays for its use of the forest to take the trees out. If you want an increase in tourism and a decrease in the use by the lumber companies, should the users of the forest, tourists, mountain bike riders, and snowmobilers, pay a user fee? In other words, should the government and the taxpayers at large receive money for the use of the forest by people instead of getting fees from the forest companies?
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: Well, those kinds of fees already apply at La Vérendrye Park. You have to pay an additional amount when you go into the park to fish or camp or for other uses. La Vérendrye Park already charges such fees. Are they adequate? I am counting on our governments to move quickly to adjust the fee structure.
The point is, though, that fees are already being charged. And, yes, it seems to me that outfitters are already paying taxes, as well as GST and QST. We are not against the idea of additional fees being charged for the tourism industry. But we want there to be places where we can enjoy nature. Right now, that is all we are asking.
If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide you with five copies of Monsignor Drainville's letter, which is a response to the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature, and parts of which support the arguments I have made this evening on behalf of the tourism industry.
I want to thank you for your kind attention. We have the utmost confidence in your committee and in the Senate of Canada. I personally believe that the primary role of an institution such as yours is to defend the rights of minorities and hear the views of groups whose thinking may not coincide with that of the big industry players. It is important for us to have an opportunity to express our views, and I want to thank you for that.
[English]
The Chairman: You are not quite finished here. I believe Senator Spivak has a question.
[Translation]
Senator Spivak: I just want to make one comment. I think the problem in Canada is that the large corporations want to take everything, including in Manitoba, because globalization and the need to be competitive. You may recall that annual fellage is to double in Ontario.
I think we have to redouble our efforts to conserve a small area, even if it only represents 5 or 10 per cent. Even in the parks, trees are being cut down. We have to conserve a small area for all Canadians who, if I am not mistaken, are the real owners of Canada's crown lands, rather than the logging companies. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Carrier: Yes. What I am gong to say conflicts with what you have just said. You talk about small areas, but I say we need to preserve large areas. The fact is we are living in a society that places an ever-increasing emphasis on recreation, where fewer and fewer people work and where greater numbers of people work for shorter periods of time.
That implies that people will have an increasing number of days, weeks of vacation and time available for recreation. And it is not by confining them to a concreted, asphalted environment that our civilization will become more modern and balanced.
I think that can only happen if we go back to the kind of life we lived before -- in other words, to a leisure-oriented society. In future, we have to develop a new concept. We will no longer be saying that we have to put people to work; instead, we will want to keep people occupied, not necessarily through work, but through leisure activity during those times when they are not working in an industrial setting.
My father used to work six and a half days a week. I, myself, worked five days a week. My children will probably work three or four days a week to be able to meet their own needs. But what do you do on those days you don't work, where the use of your time is not dictated to you by industry? That is real leisure time.
A good example would be what happens in Quebec during the winter break in February, when all the students are off for a week; it really creates problems. Indeed, it caused so many problems that we had to stagger the week-long break during which the schools are closed over a three-week period.
And it is the same for adults. The day we start working a four- day or three-and-a-half-day, 25-hour work week, the leisure and recreation industry will come under quite some pressure, the idea being that people will need a way of staying occupied, but not necessarily in a work setting.
That will be our collective responsibility. There is no guarantee that the logging industry will be willing to help when that happens -- hence the need, in my view, to preserve large tracts of land.
[English]
The Chairman: Perhaps, Mr. Carrier, I might take a few minutes on a topic we have not covered. I commend you for mentioning the nine aboriginal reserves in the area. You are working in cooperation with native peoples. The forest is home to many of our aboriginal people. They depend on hunting, trapping and other uses of the forest. Nevertheless, we have found that these people are very seldom mentioned by those who are not closely associated with them. You mentioned the nine reserves.
When you were answering Senator Gill's question, you also mentioned that there does not seem to be an organization where your tourist association and the forest industry can work together. Is there an organization where your tourist association and native organizations can work together? Do you cooperate with them?
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: Senator, perhaps I could tell you about the two places I know best, which are the town of Amos and the Pikogan Reserve.
Members of the Aboriginal community sit on the tourism commission of the Abitibi Regional County Municipality. This year, in cooperation with them, we developed an excursion to the Indian reserve. We did this in cooperation with Chief Harry McDougall and the band council, who in fact hired a tourism consultant who worked with us.
It was not taking its instructions from us, but it did have the same concerns and there was that interface. In other words, someone who stopped into the tourism bureau in Amos would receive all available information about the Pikogan Reserve. And when groups wanted to visit the reserve, the arts and crafts centre or the Indian chapel, those groups would go through the Amos tourist bureau to arrange it.
We also worked closely with them through the band council and the Amos Tourism Commission, which manages tourism-related activities in the RCM. And every year, we have to revisit the interests of all parties as they relate to the tourism industry, because we don't necessarily have the same needs.
At Pikogan, their major focus is the European market; I always say they have a direct line to Europe. Indeed, they have far closer relations than we do with France, for example, where they do a lot of promotion through the major fairs that are held there. Every time they attend those fairs, they take information about the RCM. So, we do indeed cooperate.
The same applies to Notre-Dame-du-Nord and the reserve located close by -- although I do not know its name -- where the Témiscamingue Development Corporation and the Reserve Development Corporation are involved in ongoing dialogue and consultation.
Mr. Julien Rivard, Representative, Abitibi-Témiscamingue Regional Development Board: It is the Témiscamingue Reserve.
Mr. Carrier: So, consultation is occurring at those levels. There is also a reserve close to Lasarre. While I do not have any specific information on that, I do know they work together. In some cases, this is done through formal meetings between members of the tourism development community in the RCMs and the Aboriginal communities in which there is some tourism development.
The offices must be open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Unlike us, they are not really used to operating that way. There are adjustments to be made on both sides, but we are able to work together in harmony.
We do not really have problems of that nature in the Abitibi. Friction and disagreements do occur on occasion, but they are minor. We are able to resolve our differences because we can talk to each other.
[English]
The Chairman: I am going to ask for your opinion, however, you may not want to answer as the subject is sensitive. Our native people were here before the provinces were created. As we travel across the country, we find that the federal government has responsibility, yet the provinces have control of the forests. However, in the treaty we signed before the provinces were created, we said that the native people had the right to hunt and fish in these forests.
Do you feel that the federal government has taken enough interest or given enough support to our native people so that they can negotiate the use of the forests or almost have a partnership with lumber companies with respect to the use of the forests? Even though there are no television cameras here, you do not have to answer the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: You do not know me, of course, but I answer every question, even though I occasionally put my foot in my mouth.
When the aboriginal communities signed those treaties, they certainly didn't think that one day, even if they could continue to use that land for hunting and fishing, the forest would end up being destroyed.
It is that brutal reality that the aboriginal communities are trying to come to terms with today. They make use of the forest, yes. They can hunt and fish there. They still have some land, but there are no woods or wilderness left to protect the game! Like us, when we hunt and fish, they are forced to hunt and trap over large tracts of barren land.
Does the federal government have a responsibility? Well, that's a little contradictory. The provincial and federal governments each have their own responsibilities. I don't want to start a major disagreement between the federal and provincial governments, but I do think the aboriginal communities have become the fall guys in that little game.
On the one hand, their right to hunt and fish and access large tracts of land was written in black and white in the treaties. The right of access of entire families to areas located at different parallels, places where they could find food and ensure their survival was also recognized. And yet, at the same time, the land was being logged and their lakes and rivers were being polluted.
You say they were here before us. Let me tell you a little story about something that happened in the town of Amos on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. We had struck a committee composed of learned non-aboriginal members of the community in which one aboriginal, Mr. Alfred Kistabish, was invited to take part.
The non-aboriginal residents of Amos were proud to be able to say that the Turcotte family had been the first to land on the shores of the Harricana -- Fantastic! What courage! -- until Alfred got up and, with his usual candour, said: "Mr. Chairman, we were the ones who greeted the Turcottes on the shores of the Harricana." So, there you have it.
[English]
The Chairman: I ask this next question on behalf of my friend, Senator Chalifoux, another senator from Alberta. Senator Chalifoux is also very interested in whether or not the Métis people participate in your community or in this area. The Métis are easily recognized as an aboriginal people in Western Canada. However, as you come east, they are less known. Are you were familiar with any Métis organization or any of the Métis people around here?
[Translation]
Mr. Carrier: I can't guarantee the accuracy of this information, but I don't think there is any Métis organization in Abitibi-Témiscamingue area. All that I'm aware of are the nine reserves in the area.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Carrier. You were very helpful and your evidence was most interesting. We will read your brief.
The floor is open to anyone in the audience who wishes to make a presentation. I recognize the gentleman in the back. For the record, please state your name and the organization you represent.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Croteau, Representative, Groupe de citoyens pour la protection de la forêt des lacs Vaudry, Gendron et Joannès: I have both a comment and a question. The idea of land protection was raised in reference to the desirability of establishing wildlife areas where the forest would be completely protected, leaving others where there would be greater development and more traffic.
The concept of space that underlines this question is not the same for an aboriginal person as it is for a city dweller. Similarly, a farmer and probably a logger do not have the same conception of space. We are talking about another concept again for an ecosystem.
It is all very well to establish administrative boundaries in order to protect an ecosystem, but you first have to understand how it works before you decide to draw a line between this lake and that river, or this mountain and some other place. We have to set specific conservation goals. Knowledge of the ecosystems involved will provide certain responses as to the way resources and land have to be shared, so that we will never be without them and that everyone can enjoy them to a certain extent. I might not have agreed that we should force all the campers into one area and allow the industry to use 90 or 95 per cent of the land base anyway it wants to.
Another myth that often comes up relates to reforestation. People tend to believe that it resolves all the problems created by logging. But we must not forget that forest ecosystems evolved over a very long period. When we replant trees, we are recreating an existing ecosystem. We are replacing it with species of a particular type. In many cases, the solutions proposed by industry do not restore the entire ecosystem, because the latter is not only made up of trees, but also fauna and a variety of other elements.
That reality has got to be taken into consideration and reviewed by industry representatives and university researchers with a view to providing an objective assessment of the real impacts. If our goal is 45- or 60-year cycles, then logging and reforestation are not the solution. In my view, the simplest solution will yield the best results.
The tourism dimension will also have to considered, if we want to be in a position to show people a diversified and more attractive forest in the region.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. I understand that you will be making a formal presentation tomorrow on a similar matter.
Mr. Croteau: Oui.
[Translation]
Senator Spivak: What do you think of Quebec and federal government policies with respect to environmental protection? What are your views on the rules the government of Quebec has imposed on logging companies? We heard this morning that there are now new rules in place that will prohibit the use of all herbicides starting in the year 2000.
You are absolutely right to say that we have to respect the boundaries of an ecosystem. Logging companies have admitted that they don't really know how to protect an ecosystem. This is a fairly new science and a lot of research is needed.
Mr. Croteau: I will begin by answering your question with respect to provincial and federal policies, something I will be expanding on tomorrow. As a general rule, these policies take the easy way out.
Rather than trying to gain an overall understanding of forest-related issues, they have proceeded by elimination or by taking very small steps. Under significant social pressure, an attempt was made to solve the problem. The result was the forest protection strategy currently in place in Quebec.
We must not forget that this strategy was developed by industry and government representatives. Quebecers were not asked for their views on the underlying principles of that strategy. It was only afterwards, when it came time to improve it, that their views were solicited, but at no time were the people asked to define the basic premises, such as the concept of the allowable cut and of rights being transferred in perpetuity. Nor were people asked what they thought about the validity of the simulations carried out to determine the allowable cut. The industry has maintained these same rights throughout Canada's history. It has full powers over the wood materials per se. That is something the government and the logging industry have negotiated.
All of this has resulted in a single forest management model. There are no others. There is no alternative to that model. We are saying that in the environment, there is room for other kinds of models that would be more consistent with regional needs, and the diversified requirements of other industries, as well as being better suited to the ecosystems.
An attempt has been made to administer ecosystems through legislation. But it just is not possible to administer an ecosystem. All we can do is be sensitive to the needs of that ecosystem and respond on the basis of what it can provide. But the strategy used so far is: if the industry needs spruce, we plant spruce.
Yet we have no idea whether the spruce market will be any good 60 years from now. We did know, though, that the forest ecosystems were successively producing spruce on a regular basis, when that species was interspersed with other types of productions.
We are saying that rather than spending money to try and force ecosystems to produce particular species, let's make the industry flexible enough to receive whatever the forest ecosystems are capable of producing. In that way, we will be in a much better position to respond to new markets 60 years down the road, because we have no idea at this point what the market will be like.
Senator Spivak: Do you know the book Herb Hammond's Homework?
Mr. Croteau: Yes.
Senator Spivak: It's another system?
Mr. Croteau: Yes, it is.
Senator Gill: Only recently have people been able to discuss major developments with respect to the use of our resources. In the past, companies, albeit acting with the authorization of government, did pretty well what they liked.
Until very recently, they resorted to what was called "consultations," which had more to do with convincing people to go along with a specific project than anything else. That may be less true nowadays.
As regards aboriginal and non-aboriginal ecosystems, are we not really talking about each group having its own philosophy as far as the environment is concerned?
If the aboriginal civilization has been able to survive for several millennia, they must have been doing something right. The non-aboriginal population has relied on European methods, which are also efficient, particularly in terms of management and so on.
Has there been real consultation and real dialogue? Can we now say that by really listening to each other, we have finally recognized that there are competent people or groups out there able to provide us with essential information, and vice versa? The fact is aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups were probably considered to be two solitudes -- each doing their own thing while believing they really knew one other. In fact, the reverse is true.
Do you not think we have reached the stage where we have appropriate methods? I am not asking you to answer that question now; you can address it tomorrow when presenting your brief. None of us can claim to have "the" approach. It has yet to be discovered. Meaningful communication is probably the only way we will ever find solutions to the problem of orderly use of our resources.
You can respond now, or you may wish to wait until tomorrow to address that point.
Mr. Croteau: I do not think we have reached that stage yet. The weapons that environmental groups are currently using are disproportionate to those of government and industry. The government has never wanted to really help these groups develop solutions to the issues of forestry management. Help has been given here and there, for the most part through volunteer efforts and minor experimentation projects.
As far as that goes, I strongly believe that we are still not in a position to talk to each other as equals. And that will not happen anytime soon, unless we are given comparable tools to those they currently possess for the purposes of defending their position. I will elaborate further tomorrow.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Croteau. I think we have come to the end of our evening. Tomorrow, we will reconvene at nine o'clock in the morning. Our first witness will be Professor Yves Bergeron.
The committee adjourned.