Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 9 - Evidence - Morning sitting
ROUYN-NORANDA, Wednesday, October 28, 1998
The subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:00 a.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: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the continuation of our study of the Canadian boreal forest.
Dr. Yves Bergeron, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue: I would like to take this opportunity to talk to you a little about the strategies that I and a number of other people envision and believe should be used to preserve the biodiversity of the boreal forest.
I will limit myself to that subject, without touching on others, even though I am aware that during your hearings you deal with much broader concerns than that one.
There are two strategies for protecting biodiversity. In English, we talk about "fine grain" and "coarse grain," in French about "filtre brut" and "filtre fin." Fine grain means that we want to preserve biodiversity; we have to preserve areas where there will be no forest management.
Coarse grain means finding forest management strategies by changing the way we do things to encourage the general preservation of biodiversity.
Both approaches are necessary and complementary. We cannot succeed by using only one approach to biodiversity. That may be a generalization that you have already heard.
The first part is the fine grain, or preservation, total conservation. If we look at Canadian statistics quickly, about 5.5 per cent of the area of Canada is preserved and protected from harvesting or mining, et cetera.
In any case, most of these areas would not be harvested. If you think about the large Canadian parks in the Rockies, I do not think there will ever be any forest management or harvesting in those areas.
Most of the specialists in the world recommend and agree that there should be a minimum of 12 per cent of protected areas in Canada. We are therefore quite far from such a level. In Quebec, the situation is in fact very far from the Canadian average: less than 1 per cent of the territory is protected.
Government strategies to create parks would increase that figure to about 4 per cent. Most parks would be created outside the commercial forest zone, therefore in the northern area where there is no forest management. The need to exclude certain forest management areas is urgent.
There is less and less virgin forest left in Canada. We have a duty to the world because there are none left in Scandinavia. Russia has a large part of the boreal forest but it is not in an economic position to preserve its virgin forest.
Here, we have a few years left, not hundreds of years. We estimate the end of the first selection in the use of virgin forest at 5 to 10 years in some Canadian provinces. That will cause irreparable harm.
I work a great deal with people in Scandinavia. They are required to restore the natural forests at astronomical costs. We still have them, and it may be time to establish a policy for preserving them.
I work a great deal with people in the forest industry. As you may know, I hold an industrial chair, I am aware of the industry's problems. There will certainly be economic problems if we subtract certain territories from forest development, but it will be very easy to get around them if we agreed, in Canada, to move to more intensive forestry in certain areas. We practice mostly extensive forestry in Canada; we have very little intensive silviculture. In Quebec, we do not have any.
Most of the objectives in forestry are based on natural regeneration. In fact, we use reforestation to make up for the lack of natural regeneration. We have not decided to look for a tripling or quadrupling of productivity around the mills and to compensate for the protection of areas in this manner.
In total, the allocations would stay the same. We would have to move to a policy pf more intensive forestry for certain parts of the territory.
Those are my comments on the fine grain, or at least on conservation. It is obvious that will not be enough. Even if we had 12 per cent of preserved areas, we would need forestry that maximizes habitats for the flora and fauna. There are interesting leads being developed in that field.
One of those leads is illustrated on this first overhead. In terms of the boreal forest, the forestry shown here reproduces the same thing, up to a point, as natural disturbances.
In part, this diagram compares natural disturbances and disturbances created by forest development. Take the example of forest fires, which represent the greatest disturbance in the boreal forest. Forest fires will have a certain recurrent variability. I have spoken about return intervals for this reason.
Fires can come at short or long intervals. They can cover relatively small areas, but also areas of tens, even hundreds and sometimes thousands of square kilometres. They are of very variable severity.
If the fires burn in the spring, they will be less severe because the ground is often frozen, but in the summer, during excessively dry periods, the fires will burn all the organic matter.
On this chart, the big circle gives an idea of the variability created naturally in forest landscapes. It is the natural variability that we find in the boreal forest. The small circle represents what we could expect in terms of variability if we took the Scandinavian model, for example, and decided to do intensive forestry everywhere in the boreal forest. That is not the case.
We know that is not what we do in Canada. That was to illustrate that forestry or forest management in general tends to decrease the variability we would normally find through natural disturbances.
By that I want to show you the positive aspects. Forest management per se does not go against nature. Clearcuts in the boreal forest do not go against nature because the boreal forest is controlled by disturbances and by forest fires.
It is not a forest that is stable for tens and hundreds of years. It is not a tropical forest. The boreal forest is an environment that is excessively disturbed. Forest management is not per se of an intrusive nature that is far from what nature does. However, nature does it in a much more diversified manner than forestry or forest management.
We have to be aware of the fact that forest management tends to decrease the variability of habitats observed at the scale of the forests. We therefore have to look at a type of forestry that does not tend to standardize a forest to the point of reducing its diversity.
My message is that forest interventions per se do not threaten biodiversity. The accumulation of forest interventions in the whole of a given landscape must be taken into consideration. The next overhead may illustrate what I mean.
In the east and west of the country, because of the climate the harvesting cycle is about 100 years. That means it takes about 100 years before forests can be harvested. If we want to standardize forests, all forests that are 100 years old will be used and returned to a younger state.
In terms of fire cycles, in Canada, they go from 50 to 250 years and even longer. That means that at the end of a 100-year fire cycle the area will have been completely burned, or at the end of 200 years, the area would have completely burned.
On the chart I have shown the proportion of the area we would find if we had fire cycles of 50 to 250 years where we would have forest older that 100 and 200 years. You can see that the proportion increases rather dramatically in terms of the age of the stand. Some are older than the harvesting cycle. If we standardize the forest, we will lose the composition of overly mature forests, we will lose the structure and characteristics of these forest habitats.
That is something very important. We have to remember to pay attention to the way forests are managed and not standardize them in a losing manner. In certain cases, as in the Abitibi for example, we work with fire cycles that are well over 150 years, which gives us relatively old forests. Forests of 150 or 200 years of age are common in the northern territory. These forests have a structure and a composition that we must preserve as a habitat.
I have given you a document that makes suggestions to reach the objective of maintaining the structure and composition of stands that are older than the harvesting cycle without reducing the allocation of wood. One of the methods is not allowing the forests to age but instead developing forestry systems that re-create the composition and structure of older stands.
Instead of having a single approach that standardizes forests at a given level, we recommend a number of forestry approaches spread over the landscape so as to allow the preservation of variability. That is the best way of preserving biodiversity because we will recreate a diversity of habitats and, in so doing, the organisms that live in the forest will thrive.
In closing, I must say that this kind of presentation is well received by government organizations and by the forest industry. We have even won awards for this type of approach. Winning awards is nice for a researcher, but if it deserves an award, it is perhaps because the idea is interesting and it is time to apply it. That is very slow in coming.
If you look at most government documents, they say we need more research. That's fine. We have research results that provide leads. It would be time to take them, implement them and give them as objectives to the forest industry.
I was in Alberta last week. I also visited the equivalent of the CAF or the FMA of the Alpac company. In Alberta they are applying this approach of imitating nature. It is not the government that is pushing for the implementation of this vision, it is the industry.
In the east it is much more difficult than in Alberta because we are in a system where companies are really at the limit of their wood allocations. As soon as we try to implement a new system that creates problems with the wood allocations. It was easier in Alberta since we were dealing with recently opened territories.
The models exist and we should now move to their implementation. I am pleased to participate as the holder of an industrial chair in sustainable forest development. It is sort of the mandate that I gave myself to work with the forestry industry to get the message across.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I am curious as to your response on a particular topic, that is, the assertion that there are not enough natural areas left today. Your chart makes projections 200 years into the future and, I think, in this business, you must look that far into the future to try to determine how you will manage the resource. In that regard, you told us that different practices can be incorporated.
In essence, our forests are becoming like our prairies. They are becoming vast tracts of land on which we grow trees instead of grain. Essentially, we are farming a different product. Unfortunately, I think there remains only one small area in Manitoba that is still natural. The biodiversity, specifically, the flora and fauna has survived and adapted, although that cannot be said of the bison.
If you view managing the forest as a resource and that is to be farmed as a plantation, surely the various species can evolve. We will continually be pressured by world markets to supply, and we will continually be pressured by companies to meet that demand. We will also continually have pressure to provide jobs. Governments must try to ensure that jobs are provided, if at all possible. Jobs are well paid in this industry, particularly at the upper end of the production, the mills.
Looking forward 100 or 200 years, how can we move towards meeting those pressures, recognizing that we will have to manage this vast region as we managed the prairies in the past? Essentially, farms will grow trees. Of course, the harvesting cycle will be much longer. This view may sound radical, but I believe we must view this resource in that way so that we set aside appropriate areas or regions as wildlife reserves where we can protect the various species which may be affected by this change.
Mr. Bergeron: I believe I said that, if we want to preserve forested land, there will be a cost. Of course, if we set aside some area and remove that from forest activity, there will be a cost. We can try to increase forest management in certain areas and start doing intensive forestry to offset that cost. We are not doing very much in Quebec or, in general, in the rest of Canada, except maybe British Columbia. We must move in that direction.
I do not think that all of Canada will become a vast plantation. Our advantage in Canada is that we have a large land base that we can manage using extensive forestry.
The other strategy is to do extensive forestry and set some objectives to preserve biodiversity.
What I propose today will not cost a single cubic metre of wood. It is possible to keep the same economic activity, the same flow of wood, with those objectives in mind. The problem is that we have not fixed those objectives. Nobody in the field incorporates those goals in his management plan. If those goals were incorporated into companies' management plans, those companies would still succeed. It is easy for people who focus on economic development to reject something that will add to their costs. They do not want to talk about it. It is more complicated to deal with it and retain a certain level of economic activity.
That is the message I bring to you today.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: You have mentioned that the acceptable standard would be to have 12 per cent natural forests. In Quebec, it is 1 per cent.
Mr. Bergeron: There is a little more than that.
Senator Gill: What would be the acceptable standard, the reference point of 12 per cent?
Mr. Bergeron: In fact, I don't know if the 12 per cent is the correct figure. We referred to the Bruntland report where that standard was set. At the Rio summit, Canada signed the treaty that set percentage standards for preservation. We were to reach that percentage.
Canada, Quebec and all the provinces are trying to find solutions to reach this standard by adding areas that, in the end, are not preserved areas.
For example, an American who looks at a road map of Quebec says to us: "You are really lucky to have so many parks in Quebec." Those parks, shown in green on the road map, are mostly wildlife preserves. On those you will find the same kind of intervention and forest development as on adjacent Crown lands.
If you add those areas to the preserved ones, it is just a lot of bull since they are not preserved areas. That is what we are doing now. A lot of federal and provincial bureaucrats are adding all the possible zones to try and reach the 12 per cent.
But one day someone will have to tell them very clearly that there is conservation and there is conservation, and that there is no green spot on a map if there is forest management or mining or energy development in a given area.
That is not a conservation zone, it is a zone like any other. It is in green because we decided to put green on the map.
Senator Gill: You were talking about 1 per cent in Quebec. Does that include the lands or areas north of the 50th parallel?
Mr. Bergeron: No, I think it does.
Senator Gill: The 1 per cent is included?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes.
Senator Gill: In the total?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes.
Senator Gill: Even if you go toward the Arctic, toward James Bay?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes, but it is not preserved. It's one of the ways Quebec can get part way out of the problem. There are many provincial park projects in the "subarctic" zone, so that will increase the percentage preserved.
Ecologically, the overall percentage of preserved land in Quebec or Canada is meaningless unless it is distributed in terms of the different ecosystems and the various areas.
The Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, region 08, has only one park. We are well below the 1 per cent level in this region. In British Columbia, they will reach 9 per cent because of the Rockies. The distribution has to be in seen in terms of territorial variability. We cannot say: we will keep all of the Arctic and that will compensate for the southern boreal forest.
I do not have statistics for the boreal forest, but I would not be surprised if the percentage of conservation was low. It is a heavily used forest. The pressure to use it for forestry development is high enough for the parks to have been created in mountains or other areas.
Senator Gill: Yesterday we visited here and there and we also heard about tourism. You spoke earlier about the fauna, the flora, the natural habitats and the forestry industry. You talked about clearcuts which, apparently, aren't bad. They may not be bad for the foresters, but they may be very bad for the native people who hunt and trap. It can be bad for those who visit the forests and who want to keep them. How do you reconcile all that?
There are different users and different interests. The forest offers many economic spinoffs. What tells us that in 10, 15, 20, 30 or 50 years, areas in their natural state, for tourism and for local users, will not be the priority and gain ascendancy over forest development?
Mr. Bergeron: I have really based my argument on the preservation of biodiversity. I agree with the fact that there are other resources and other users, and that there are compromises that must be taken into account.
However, the ecologists believe, and this may be technocratic, that if the ecosystem is healthy the populations that live within it will also be healthy. So we often emphasize the preservation of the ecosystem. If we can keep it productive, if we can keep it diversified, quite normally, the person using the territory will be able to trap. The people who want recreational use will have what they want and the people who live from it will be able to develop the forest in a productive manner.
That means a basic ideology that exists, that must not be pushed to an extreme but that has a real basis. If we have sustainable forestry management or sustainable forestry that keeps the ecosystem healthy, we will have productivity, a diversity of habitats and the other users will also be satisfied.
We have to work hard to achieve this instead of trying to find compromises. The compromises are those of the users: I want moose, you want forest and you want scenery. It is not obvious that compromise will threaten the health of the ecosystem and its integrity.
Everyone wants a specific resource and then the sum of all of these. Even if we reach a compromise, it is possible that the ecosystem will lose its productivity and that we will lose diversity.
We have to look at the problem from the other end and think about the health and integrity of the ecosystem. The other users, by the very nature of things, will be well served.
Senator Gill: In a society, it is difficult to not think about compromises when faced with different users. By taking biodiversity and health into account, does that mean that people will have to have about equal knowledge in all areas and all specialties -- forestry, tourism, trapping, hunting, tourism -- for that to be implemented? Is that realistic?
Mr. Bergeron: If we have integrated management with many users, there has to be someone, as I often say, to represent the widows and orphans, someone who represents the integrity, health and productivity of the ecosystems.
With a compromise of users, if it is only that, there is a risk that we will end up in a situation where the pressure on the environment will be even greater that if we have only one user.
Trials can be combined. It is essential that there be someone or a group with strong representation, at these integrated management or sustainable development tables. That is the case for the criteria and indicators for sustainable development. There are criteria and biophysical indicators for maintaining biodiversity, productivity or the integrity of ecosystems.
I am fully in agreement with you that there will have to be compromises. These compromises may not be in losses of volume of wood. For example, you met yesterday with Johanne Morasse, chief forester for Norbord. We have a collaborative project in which she is interested in developing a new forestry approach in the north where she will maximize the volume of wood.
It so happens that this forestry approach is exactly what I was proposing to recreate the biodiversity in this territory instead of making it a single type of development.
There is a student working with Johanne and me. I would not be surprised if at the end of this program we found out that we have managed to maximize both: increase the production of wood and recreate a habitat that did not exist in forestry as it is traditionally practised.
There does not necessarily have to be a cost. First, one must set the objectives, make simulations in terms of the sustainable forestry objectives and then see if compromises are necessary. Currently, we are not doing that. Now, it's "business as usual," we simulate the production of wood material. It is time that we set other objectives.
[English]
The Chairman: I am not sure I understand your proposal to set aside 10 per cent to 12 per cent as untouchable land, land that would be almost like a park. How would you handle forest fires in that area? Would you let nature take its course, or would you prevent or attempt to delay them? It appears, from what we have heard, that if an area goes too long without a fire, when fire does break out, the fire becomes so hot because of the material that is left there to burn that it changes the system. Even by delaying fighting the fire, you change the system. If you extinguish it immediately, you avoid that. How would you handle forest fires in these untouched areas?
Mr. Bergeron: From which part of Canada are you?
The Chairman: Northern Alberta.
Mr. Bergeron: This idea that, if fuel is allowed to build up the fire will burn quickly, comes from the western part of the United States. In Arizona and Colorado, they have effectively controlled fires and, as a result, there has been a fuel build-up. When they have a fire now, it is a very big fire.
The Chairman: An example of that is Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. Bergeron: Yes. According to the scientific literature for the boreal forest, to date, this does not apply. In the boreal forest, we have a regime of forest fires that are crown fires. They rarely occur but, when they do, they burn a very large area, so the fuel build-up is not important. When it is time to burn, whatever the age of the stand, it burns. The severity of the burn may change, but it burns. This is not an issue for the boreal forest.
In Arizona, Colorado and Yellowstone they have this double system where you have surface fires for a while and, if you keep the fuel levels low, they do not turn into big fires that burn the crowns. We do not have this system in most parts of the boreal forest. It occurs in the part of the boreal forest where there is pine, but in the spruce or the mixed wood boreal forest, it does not occur.
As to how we deal with fire, we must admit that we cannot extinguish all fires. There must be a buffer zone when allocations of wood are made, because it is impossible to control all fires. When you ask those who are responsible for controlling fires if they are able to control the extent of the area burned, they will admit that they can control many fires for, say, 10 years, but then there is a big one that burns the equivalent of what was controlled for the previous 10 years.
They are now doing salvage logging after a burn so that they do not lose the wood. There is a problem with that practice because when you cut the forest, you take out the trees but, when you burn, you take out the organic matter. Maybe both occurring is too much for the ecosystem. One is acceptable, but both might be too much.
The Chairman: I am thinking of the protected areas. Hypothetically, if we had 12 per cent, which is quite a small forest, and a fire starts, would we say, "Let God look after it," or what action should we take?
Mr. Bergeron: In the past, the strategy was to create big parks such as Wood Buffalo in Northern Alberta and Yellowstone. However, people who specialize in conservation biology will tell you that the best way to protect a large area is to create smaller parks and spread them over the landscape. Some of them will burn; but why not? A recent burn is as natural as an old growth forest, and it is different, for conservation purposes, from a clearcut. There is no comparison. You cannot preserve the same biodiversity with a clearcut as you would with a recent burn.
The Chairman: If you were the boss, would you allow logging north of the 52nd parallel in Quebec?
Mr. Bergeron: If I sat down and considered all of the issues involved in that decision, I cannot say that I would definitely not allow it. We should take some time to consider every aspect of what should be done.
The problem in the north is that the fire cycle is very short. It is a question of being sure that we want to invest. If we cut, it is because we want to regenerate, but it will cost a lot of money to regenerate.
I cannot give you a definitive answer to that question.
Senator Mahovlich: Algonquin Park is very near where I spend my summers, and logging is carried out there. Have you studied the Algonquin Park area, and do you know whether logging is well controlled in that area?
As well, every time I drive through the park, I see three or four moose. Is moose hunting allowed in that park?
Mr. Bergeron: It is not my intention to try to convince you that, if we log, we will lose everything. Of course, we will not.
One argument, which is often used by people who say that biodiversity is not a consideration, is that our biodiversity in Canada is much better than it is elsewhere. Scandinavia has problems, one being that they have too many moose and deer. Hardwood cannot be grown in Scandinavia because the moose and the deer will eat everything. They have to fence off areas if they want to grow hardwood.
Here, in general, we are still logging virgin forest so, of course, we will not see a decrease in biodiversity tomorrow. That will happen when we start to do the second pass. The people in Scandinavia did that in the 17th and 18th centuries. I do not think that we should say that, because it is not as bad here as it is elsewhere, we should do the same thing.
Senator Mahovlich: We can learn from the mistakes Europeans made. This is where we have an advantage. For example, there used to be cottages all around the lakes in the area of Algonquin Park. People are no longer allowed to own or to build cottages there. Those who do own cottages in that location are being asked to tear them down when they pass on. They are making that area as natural as they possibly can for tourists, for lumber. Will that not work?
Mr. Bergeron: I do not think there is logging now in Algonquin Park although there was in the past. It is a provincial park. Most of Algonquin Park was created after logging. Most of the parks were first logged and then transformed into parks. I have never been to Algonquin Park.
Senator Mahovlich: I am sorry, I thought you might know it.
Mr. Bergeron: I know of the park. I have read a lot about the fire history of the park because it has been documented. Most parts of the park were logged in the past but logging is no longer carried out there.
Senator Mahovlich: I think you should check on that.
Are you aware of the court case in Ontario where ecologists took the Ontario government to court over logging in Temagami Park?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes, I have followed that, but from a distance.
Senator Mahovlich: The Ontario government lost the case. The provincial government allowed forestry companies to go in there and cut down the forest. The logging was not planned properly and I think it very much upset the reserve in that area. I think this judgment is a step in the right direction.
What will be your next step towards implementing your theories, or have you come to a wall?
Mr. Bergeron: We have hit a wall as the issue relates to conservation, because I think it is up to you, the government, to push the issue. It is not a matter for the scientific community. The arguments have been made as to why we must protect areas. It is now the business of the government.
Senator Mahovlich: I believe it lies within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, rather than the federal government.
Mr. Bergeron: I recognize that.
Senator Mahovlich: You have hit a wall.
Mr. Bergeron: You can create a national park wherever you want.
However, in relation to the other aspect, which is to change the way we conduct forest management, I am not in front of a wall. I would like it to go faster. I think the pace is too slow. Where I think I hit the wall is that it will be much easier to implement that in the virgin forest than when we are doing the second pass. The area of virgin forest is rapidly decreasing.
Senator Mahovlich: How much virgin forest do we have left in Quebec and Ontario? Will it survive another 20 years?
Mr. Bergeron: On the north shore of Quebec there is little forestry activity, so there is a considerable area of virgin forest there. Logging is now going on north of 50, so we are close to the limit of the commercial forest. Of course, some virgin forest has been left behind. They do not cut everything. However, most of the productive forests are cut at the first pass because that is their first selection.
Senator Mahovlich: Are those the prime forests?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes, they are. Ten years is probably the maximum amount of time for this part of the world. However, in other parts of Quebec there is still some virgin forest.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: The day before yesterday, the senators boarded a plane in Ottawa and went to the Great Mistassini Lake. Some of the senators were quite impressed by the great amounts of clearcuts on the Chibougamau side and in that entire area.
A clearcut means that the flora is widely affected but the fauna is also affected. When the fauna is affected, it takes quite a long time to come back. What do you think?
Mr. Bergeron: I am really not a fauna specialist.
Senator Gill: No, are you a forest specialist?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes, I am a forest specialist. For example, Alberta workers who work in a system where they have a lot of territory usually make two passes. There is a problem of lack of wood material and there is a tendency to roll out the carpet.
Instead of cutting blocs and coming back for a second pass, the tendency is to take territories and cut them over wide areas. That should be rethought. It is not a clearcut per se that is bad, it is the area covered by the clearcut in a particular unit that is the problem. That's what needs to be reviewed.
Because of a wide range of road infrastructure and economic concerns, they prefer, when they are in a territory, to take a large section of it. That should be changed. We should set limits on the size of the territory affected by clear-cutting.
Clearcutting per se is not the problem, it is the cumulative effect of the clearcuts that is probably a significant problem.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Professor Bergeron. You have given us a great deal of food for thought. If you recognize some of your ideas being expressed in our report, you will know where we got them.
Our next witnesses from the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou are Mr. Joseph Shecapio-Blacksmith and Mr. Roger Lacroix. Mr. Jack Blacksmith is appearing on behalf of the Grand Council of the Crees.
The floor is yours, Mr. Joseph Blacksmith.
Mr. Joseph Shecapio-Blacksmith, Local Environment Officer, Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Council of Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation, I would like to thank you for inviting us to make a presentation to this subcommittee and giving us the opportunity to express our views on this extremely important and very timely topic.
The Oujé-Bougoumou is a Cree community situated in the Chibougamau-Chapais area of Quebec and it is part of the larger Cree Nation. In 1991 to 1995, we constructed a new village in that area. The reason that we built a new community there relates to an important part of our history. We have had previous villages in the past, in fact, seven of them since 1920. However, each time our people settled somewhere, a mining company would come along and want what was underneath our villages and would decide, together with compliant governments, to have us forcibly moved. Our villages were then destroyed. The last time this occurred was in 1970.
Our people dispersed throughout our traditional territory, living in very difficult circumstances on the margins of the social, economic and political life which was developing within our own territory. An entirely new way of life was developing around us and, needless to say, a way of life which did not involve us and from which we did not benefit.
Beginning in the early 1980s, we undertook a serious political struggle to gain recognition of our rights to have a permanent village whose future existence would not be subject to the whims of industry and government. We eventually won this recognition, and we concluded agreements with the Province of Quebec in 1989 and the Government of Canada in 1992 which provided for financial contributions from each level of government toward the construction of a new village.
Throughout this lengthy period of political efforts, we had the opportunity to establish some basic planning principles which would eventually guide us in the construction of our new village. We approached our elders and asked them for their insights and for their guidance as to how we should go about building our new village and what should be there in this village. They told us that our new village needed to meet three fundamental objectives.
First, they told us that we must build a village which is in harmony with the environment. Our people had witnessed so much of our traditional territory despoiled by mining and forestry industries that it was very important not to add to the negative impacts which had already accumulated. Our traditional philosophy places a value on conservation and harmony with the natural world. We only take what we need from nature and we use all parts of what we take. We waste very little.
Second, our elders told us that our new village would need to work economically. It would not advance our cause to simply build a new welfare ghetto in the bush. Rather, we needed to ensure continuing employment for our people and to plan for the employment which would be required as our population grows.
Third, we were instructed to build a village which was compatible with our Cree culture. It would not be sufficient to simply import a concept or a design of a village from the south and assume that it would be appropriate for our setting. This new village would need to reflect important aspects of our culture and traditions.
When our elders expressed their wisdom, it was always understood that these three guiding principles were couched in a context which assumed a continuity of the Cree way of life from generation to generation, forever into the future.
What our elders expressed to us, using their own language and their own words, was that we should build a village on the basis of what has come to be known as the concept of "sustainable development." In their totality, these planning principles reflect important philosophical elements of our traditional way of life.
It was on the basis of this set of beliefs that we undertook a unique approach to the village architecture, the design of an innovative housing program, and the installation of an appropriate alternative energy system.
The Oujé-Bougoumou village, its appearance and the way it functions, is based on these ancient traditions and philosophies of the Cree people. It represents a successful and forward-looking integration of traditional values, philosophies and perspectives into a contemporary context, with modern buildings and contemporary technology. An example of this integration and this balancing is seen in our alternative energy project: a district heating system. In our village heating system, we convert the industrial waste produced by the region's sawmills into heating energy.
In the process, we reduce energy costs, we retain energy dollars within the community, and we create employment. It is environmentally sound while also creating important socio-economic benefits to the community.
These have been our guiding principles throughout the construction phase of our village and they continue to guide our major community development undertakings.
Our energy system, our housing program, in fact our overall approach to comprehensive community development, are proof that the philosophies and traditional practices of aboriginal peoples are relevant to the establishment of contemporary sustainable communities.
Although the construction of our village has been innovative and successful and we have received a good deal of national and international recognition for our efforts to date, we have asked ourselves: Just how far have we come in implementing a truly comprehensive sustainable development strategy? As innovative and as creative as we have been in our community development efforts, essentially what we have accomplished is the building of a village. So far we have only created the physical surroundings in which our people will live, a mere shell.
The Oujé-Bougoumou Council is now seriously turning its attention to issues related to ensuring that what we have built will be sustained over the long term and how we can ensure that the community remains vibrant and viable. We are looking at options in the area of economic development to establish the basis for this long-term viability. We want to be involved in forestry. We want to be involved in mining. We want to be involved in tourism.
However, our involvement in these economic sectors must be on reasonable terms which means that there must be serious attention paid to what it means to be "sustainable," sustainable for the resources, sustainable for the environment and for the habitat, and sustainable for our traditional way of life. Adherence to this understanding of sustainable development cannot be said to apply to the current practices in regard to resource development in our territory, especially in the area of forestry.
In Quebec, as elsewhere in Canada, inappropriate and non-sustainable forestry practices in the south of the province have forced forestry operations to go further and further north in order to secure forest resources to fuel a fundamentally capital-intensive industry. By moving to more and more remote areas, the fundamental issues related to the non-sustainability of the industrial practices have not been addressed. The wood supply within the Oujé-Bougoumou traditional territory is currently not managed from the perspective of perpetuity.
The Oujé-Bougoumou traditional territory covers an area of approximately 8,500 square kilometres. Of this territory, approximately 5,500 square kilometres is productive forest. Between the years 1969 and 1990, 1,000 square kilometres of Oujé-Bougoumou forest was cut. It is estimated that between 1991 and 1996 there was an increase of 289 square kilometres of clearcut, and it is estimated that a further 172 square kilometres of forest will be cut between 1997 and 1999. Therefore, the total estimate of the amount of land clearcut by 1999 will be approximately 1,461 square kilometres. This means that about 27 per cent of the productive forest land in Oujé-Bougoumou will have been cut by 1999. At this rate, it has been predicted that an average of 48.7 square kilometres per year will be cut, resulting in a total cut of every productive square kilometre of the Oujé-Bougoumou traditional territory by the year 2080.
The rotation age for the forests in the Oujé-Bougoumou territory is greater than what can be sustained in the context of the current cutting practices. At the current rates of cutting, the northern forests of the province will be driven into a timber falldown scenario by the middle-to-late part of the next century. Our forest will be cut much faster than it will regrow and we will, at some point in the future, be left with a desert.
The year 2080 may sound distant to some of you, but for us, we must think about our long-term occupancy of our territory, our long-term ability to maintain or to remain in our traditional way of life, and the long-term sustainability of our community. We are the truly permanent residents of our territory. We are not going anywhere else. To us, having occupied our territory for thousands of years, 2080 is not far away at all.
By the middle of the latter part of the next century, the planted stock in the southern part of the province will have recovered the timber yield, while we in the north will be left with a desert wasteland.
It is our belief that sustainable development implies a fundamental rethinking of how resource development is carried out. To us, sustainable development implies that very close attention must be paid to the long-term social and economic consequences which any resource development strategy has on communities. This is true, of course, not only for indigenous communities but for non-indigenous communities as well.
When resource development is carried out by economic forces which are distant and disinterested in the long-term viability and health of resource-based communities, the results are not very likely to be anything which can remotely be characterized as sustainable. It is only through a reasonable system of local jurisdictional control over the management of resources that it is possible to devise appropriate strategies for sustainable development. In this respect, we, as a Cree community, are fundamentally in the same political and economic position as very many non-aboriginal communities.
The concept of sustainable development cannot be relegated to a few isolated initiatives, such as our alternative energy system. The concept by its very nature is comprehensive and we must look at this fundamental factor of jurisdiction in our discussions of sustainable development. Indigenous peoples must have sufficient control over traditional lands and natural resources so that we can apply our traditional philosophies which emphasize harmony with the environment. It is for this reason that for the indigenous peoples the on-the-ground application of sustainable development cannot be divorced or separated from the political imperative of self-government.
The basic constraints which we face in implementing sustainable development within our territories are neither natural nor human. The fundamental constraint which we face is in the nature of public policy. The policy context in which we currently find ourselves is one which favours the resource development practices of large-scale, capital-intensive exploitation with little serious regard for long-term environmental health or regard for the development of healthy and sustainable communities.
We urge you to do what you can to change this.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Blacksmith. It is a pleasure to see you back here again. I believe Mr. Jack Blacksmith's brief is related to yours. That being the case, perhaps we will ask him to present his brief and then we will ask questions of both of you.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Good morning, senators. Wachiya to Senator Gill. I am not very good at shooting from the hip so I will be reading from my presentation. After my presentation, I will be glad to try to answer any questions you might have.
On behalf of the Grand Council of the Crees of Eeyou Istchee, I would like to thank you for taking the time to travel all the way to hear our views on this very important issue -- forestry in the boreal forest. I would also take this opportunity to thank the senators and some of the staff who recently visited the community of Mistissini. I trust that, having seen the lifestyle of the people and the forest in which they live, you have a better sense of what our discussion will be today.
I believe it is appropriate to give you some background information on the Grand Council of the Crees for whom I work. The Grand Council is comprised of the nine Cree communities that are located in the James Bay territory, or Eeyou Istchee, as we like to call it. There is representation on this body from all of the nine Cree communities and it is the political arm of the Cree organization. It represents the Crees at all levels: provincial, national and international forums. When it was created way back when, its purpose was to ensure that Cree interests were always protected politically. The Grand Council was the body that was the signatory to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Although the Grand Council is not an institution created from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, it is still very much a strong body representing the Cree.
In terms of my role within the Grand Council of the Crees, I work on all the special projects. Whatever work nobody wants to take on, eventually comes to my table. For some three years I have had charge of the file regarding seeking some solutions to the forestry problems that we are experiencing on Cree lands.
As some of you may already know, for the Cree, the boreal forest is our home. It is very important to us for our well-being and our future as a people. Every Cree person, young and old alike, has some sort of a link to the forest. Each one of us has many memories as they relate to our hunts, great feasts, adventures, even lessons taught to us by our elders. Those lessons are not in the form of books. That knowledge is conveyed through the lifetime of experience of the person who is giving that lesson, and that person is the elder.
While it is true that many of us now hold regular nine-to-five jobs, there is still a number of Crees whose primary occupation is fishing, hunting and trapping. Many other seasonal workers maintain this lifestyle in combination with fall and winter bush living. That is how they live. In most of our communities the employment rate is often above 30 per cent. Being able to hunt, fish and trap between jobs is something that boosts the economy in each of our communities.
Just as hunting the moose, beaver, geese, rabbits and partridge, and fishing the trout enabled our people to survive for thousands of years, these animals and fish and the important food they provide enable our society to thrive today.
For the young people in our community, eating partridge is a big treat. It almost parallels eating Kentucky Fried Chicken. However, with all the pressures that are being brought to bear on the boreal forest, especially in terms of large-scale industrial forest operations, these animals and our ability to harvest them are under threat. Even though you may hear divergent views from the Quebec forestry officials or the industry representatives, the reason these animals and the whole boreal ecosystem of this region are threatened is because they are simply cutting wood too much, too fast. It does not matter what kind of studies you put in place, that is the bottom line. There is just too much wood being cut too fast. That is all there is to it.
We know this because we have seen trappers' prime areas for moose hunting logged out in as little as one or two years. We have seen valuable spawning beds ruined by erosion from nearby clearcuts or faulty road crossings or even so-called "temporary" winter bridges. Unlike the government that has been forced to drastically reduce the number of wildlife officers and thereby reducing its ability to keep track of animal populations, our trappers are still in the bush. Some of them are there all the year round, and some of them only go for the weekends. They witness the changes which result from these forestry operations.
We think of our trappers as our researchers, as being similar to people with PhDs. When they tell us that the forestry industry poses a significant threat, we listen and we take their warning very seriously. This is why we have no difficulty saying that the forest companies now and in the last 20 years in the Cree territory have been cutting too much and too fast in the boreal forest.
These warnings from our trappers are not new. We have heard them for a number of years. These warnings are the reason we have approached the provincial government and tried to propose solutions. We believe that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement created a protection that enabled us to continue our hunting, fishing and trapping way of life. A whole section of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement grants us that right.
We also believe it is our treaty right to have access to a land base where we can practise this lifestyle. Without that land base, we cannot practise this lifestyle. It also should be regarded as a normal part of every Cree person's life.
I live in Ottawa and have done so for approximately four years. The time has gone by quickly. Although I live in the city, I know when the ducks and the moose are moving, and I always want to go hunting again. Those things we were taught by our dads, our elders, and so on. Nowadays, we also have access to formal education. We mix what we have learned from our elders with everyday school subjects. We continue to teach our children the traditional ways.
Even though we have this treaty right to a viable land base, and even though it is covered in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, all sorts of environmental advisory committees have been created to look after the development within the Eeyou Istchee.
The forest is still being clearcut. We make an assumption that the forest is now being cut at approximately one family hunting territory per year. That is well over 500 square kilometres per year. In some cases, it is perhaps a trapline and a half. In Waswanipi, the southern-most community, 100 per cent of its territory is affected by forest activity. The average size of a trapline is approximately 300 square kilometres. When I tell you that the forestry companies are taking out 500 square kilometres per year, that amounts to a trapline and a half in the territory of the Waswanipi.
We have been extremely patient and very law-abiding citizens for a number of years in light of what we have been facing. We previously expressed our dissatisfaction in numerous letters, briefings and reports to both levels of government, with no result. This is true especially in dealings with the provincial government.
In 1986, when Quebec was reorganizing its forestry system, we insisted that there be special recognition of Crees under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and that agreement specifies that. Both governments in their proper houses of authority took this as a treaty. We pointed out that this treaty had legally prevailed over all other legislation and we insisted that special provisions be set out in the Cree Forest Act to ensure that forestry is carried out in a manner consistent with the agreement. That was never incorporated in the act. None of that was taken into consideration.
Instead, the revised forestry legislation created a forestry regime that not only gave cutting priority to Cree traditional lands but also created an industrial framework that has become very heavily dependent upon those lands. Based on Quebec's own figures for 1995, wood harvested on Cree traditional land is worth more than $1.3 billion a year. This is equal to about 15 per cent of Quebec's total annual harvest. Instead of enhancing existing Cree treaty rights, the new legislation ushered in a forestry regime which allowed for further expansion on Cree lands, and this expansion continues today.
Most recent figures from Quebec's Ministry of Natural Resources indicate that the amount of land within Cree traditional hunting areas licensed to companies has increased by more than 16 per cent since 1995, to a total of over 68,000 square kilometres.
Each of the five most southern Cree communities has been dealing with the impact of forestry. I want to give you some data compiled by our people at the administrative level of the Cree Regional Authority. In Waskaganish, which is the community at the tip of the James Bay, seven hunting areas are facing logging in the near future, the worst of which is number A-4, which is slated to have 89 per cent of its productive forest logged. In Nemaska, a community that is a bit inland, six hunting territories overlap with timber licences, the worst of which is N-19 which is scheduled to have 65 per cent of its area logged, and N-21, which will have 79 per cent logged in the near term. All these numbers I am giving you, N-19 and N-21, these are our hunting territories, our hunting trap lines.
Moving further east and south, there is Mistissini, with 25 of 53 hunting areas overlapped by timber licences. On the average, 44 per cent of each of these areas will be affected by logging, the worst being M-49 and M-51A, which will both be completely logged over.
In the most southerly community, Waswanipi, 100 per cent of the hunting area is overlapped by timber licences. This means that eventually all of Waswanipi's most productive forest land will be logged. Already, over 4,000 square kilometres of land have been logged in Waswanipi, the worst being areas W-13A, 80 per cent logged out, and W-13B, 64 per cent logged out. On average, 39 per cent of Waswanipi hunting territories have all been affected, and in the future it will be probably nearly 100 per cent.
You have already heard testimony from Joe Blacksmith regarding the Oujé-Bougoumou statistics.
The impact of this expansion and the numerous fruitless attempts at negotiating new arrangements have left the Crees with two options to consider. As I said earlier, we have been discussing this with all levels of the Quebec government in an attempt to find solutions, proper remedies, to the situation we face because of log cutting in our territories.
One option was what we classified as civil disobedience in the form of road blocks. The other option we thought of was seeking legal recourse in the courts.
The Cree have always been fairly law-abiding citizens. We do not believe you have to break the law to change bad laws. We opted for the court action. We have chosen court action over civil disobedience because of our traditional respect for authority and our faith in political institutions.
It should be understood that the decision to defend our rights in court did not come lightly. It was considered over a number of years with a great deal of internal discussion towards this end, with all the Cree communities sitting down with the trappers. As a result of the slow progress we have made with the Quebec government, we felt that we were left with no other recourse. We were just banging on a door that was not being opened quickly enough.
It is unfortunate that we have to bring this matter to court. However, by that action, we hope we can eventually build a system of forestry in Quebec that is sustainable, just for timber interests, and fair to all concerned so that people will be able to use the forest, including tourists.
In order for this to happen, the Quebec government must change its thinking and allow other people to share the direct role of decision making. It must allow roles to change so that those who are impacted by forestry are consulted. Currently, it is our opinion that the companies are making decisions for Quebec.
We all understand what the forest industry means to the various people who live in this region. It means jobs. However, there must be a balance. We are, perhaps, somewhat biased in our opinions because we believe we are the prime user of that boreal forest and, as such, that the balance has to be determined by us and not by the companies.
Although we have commenced a legal proceeding, we have not closed our minds. We have not closed the doors on anybody who may want to try to seek a proper solution to this. We much prefer a pathway of honest and constructive dialogue over a terrible legal battle. However, I do not think this dialogue will ever start unless we are recognized for who we are, and the dialogue is government-to-government, nation-to-nation, and that our basic rights are recognized.
Thus far, Canada has deferred all of its responsibility directly to Quebec on this matter, and the province continues to act as if there is no treaty. We signed a treaty. Canada signed a treaty; Quebec signed a treaty. It is time for both governments to recognize this and start living up to their obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
As we embark on a new century, Quebec has begun a process to update its forestry system. I have the document here a summary of their intentions. Last night I read it to make note of how many times the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was mentioned in that document to acknowledge the fact that this was a special territory. The document is probably 41 pages in length. I read it three times, and not once did I find any reference to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. I did find the word "native"; the word "communities"; and the word "institutions"; but I did not find the words "James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement" which, by law, the government should have considered when making any amendments to their legislation.
However, there are numerous mentions in that document as to how we can find a way to uphold the rights of the timber companies. This reminds me of the power granted to Hudson Bay a century ago. It makes me question what century Quebec is planning for, the 19th or the 21st. More importantly, it makes me question if we will ever be able to come to an arrangement on forestry that is not forced by a judgment of the courts. We do not want to continue at that level. We want true constructive negotiations with Quebec, if that is at all possible.
It is my understanding that the mandate of this subcommittee is to examine the management of the boreal forest in relation to achieving sustainable forestry and protecting biodiversity. I urge the committee members to use the health of the aboriginal communities as a yardstick to measure Canada's success or failure in achieving these goals. I say this because aboriginal peoples like the Crees have successfully thrived in the boreal environment for thousands of years. Even today, we still make up the majority of people living in this region within the Eeyou Istchee. The boreal forest is our home. We wish to protect it so it can support all people for at least another thousand years.
In closing, like my counterpart, I would ask each one of you to use all your influence, personal and through the mandate of this committee, to help us build the setting necessary for an honest and constructive discussion between the Crees, Canada, Quebec and anybody else concerned. Meegwetch.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Joseph Shecapio Blacksmith and Mr. Jack Blacksmith have put forward very moving and thoughtful briefs. I am sure you are ready to answer some questions.
Mr. Lacroix, is it your intention to present a brief?
Mr. Roger Lacroix, Forestry Technician, Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou: No.
Senator Stratton: I would refer to the first presentation and, specifically to the mention of the construction of the new village. You said you created physical surroundings which are compatible with the natural surroundings in which your people live. Have those surroundings had any impact on sustaining your lifestyle? Has it had any impact on employment? Will your lifestyle be the same 60, 80 or 100 years from now? Are the youth moving out to urban centres such as is happening in Manitoba, where I am from?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: As I said earlier, we have had this forestry file for some time. We have asked the very questions you are asking us. What are we fighting for? Why are we doing this? At the end of the day, we hope that our lifestyle will continue for the next few decades. I cannot know what my children's children will think, but I hope that they will know how we used to live and that they can continue, perhaps not on a full-time basis, to live in their own area.
Not only have we always questioned ourselves but also other people question us and tell us everything must evolve and everything changes. Our society has evolved. However, we do not want to leave our lifestyle behind. I think that will always be there. The change that will happen will be effected by the kind of land base we have. That change will be forced upon the people because they do not want to change in that way. That they can no longer practice that kind of lifestyle, do not have the land base, and no longer have their water is something that they will have to come to grips with. We plan on the basis that our people will always be on that land practising this kind of lifestyle. We always plan on the basis that the way in which our people use the area right now will influence what is going to happen 40, 50, 60, 70, 100 years down the road.
Senator Stratton: If I may, I will return to my roots and talk about Manitoba as the basis of my question. Fewer and fewer hunters go out every year -- and I am not just referring to native people -- because they can buy food at the stores As a result, we are having a serious problem with deer. They can feed off all the natural grain that is left around these fairly significant wood lots. The deer are proliferating. They are becoming a real hazard.
I have to ask this question, because it is a critical one: Do you envisage that fewer of your younger generations as they come along will stay on the land and more will go to the cities, to the urban areas? It has happened historically in the West, on the prairies where the farms are becoming larger and larger. There are fewer and fewer people in the smaller towns. The urban areas are growing significantly. The rural areas are diminishing significantly in population. Is that not likely to be the case with you?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Let me answer your question this way. Back about five to ten years ago, there was a study done -- and do not quote me on this but I think it was done by the Department of Indian Affairs. The result was a paper that looked at the overall language of the aboriginal people. The conclusion, as I understood it at that time reading that report, was that the aboriginal people were losing their language. There was a figure given in terms of the degree to which the aborginal people were losing their language in one given year or in a certain period of time.
When we started to consider or to look at options for protecting our language, when we signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, education was a priority for us. Education is part of that treaty. We have taken over education since 1978, since we started the Cree School Board. From the onset, when the Cree School Board started, language of instruction was a big issue. We had three choices: French, English and Cree. We started at the level of probably English and French.
Even in my community of Waswanipi, I know for a fact that when you first started school the language of instruction was mostly English at the beginning, and then it started to change, it started to become French.
Today, in Waswanipi, the language of instruction from kindergarten to about grade one or grade two is Cree. My counterparts are here and perhaps they will correct me on that afternoon. However, I think that today the language of instruction is Cree. We also take into consideration, in terms of education of our children, something that neither myself nor Mr. Joe Blacksmith had, and that is training our young people, giving them an education besides the education they get from their parents and the elders. They teach them basic hunting techniques: moose hunting, rabbits, the whole thing.
Joe and I did not get that opportunity. Back in 1961, I was taken out of my community of Waswanipi, which was on an island in Waswanipi Lake. I was taken to Brantford, Ontario. I stayed there from September to June, for approximately eight years. Every time we spoke our native language, we got the belt, which was probably two and a half inches wide. Every time we discussed who we were, we were shown the belt. We went through that.
Here we are today, I am 42 years old -- I am going to be 43 next week. I am not sure how old Joe is. He loves to go hunting. He loves to go moose hunting. He loves to pack his bags whenever goose hunting season comes. I invite you to come to one of the Cree communities once the goose hunting season opens in spring. You will see that the Cree communities almost become ghost towns. This is why I say to you, when you look at how we live right now, we plan on the basis of saying that we are going to be doing this for the next 100 years, unless we are forced to live otherwise, as we were forced when we first went to school.
Senator Stratton: I am curious because there is this so-called global village now. Satellite television brings the world right into your living room. Your children see that and your grandchildren see that. They see that big, magical world out there. Why would they not want to go and see it? Why would they not want to change their lifestyles and move to other areas? Do they not do that now? Are they not doing that now?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: They do it to a certain extent. Right now, I do not live in the community; my children do not live in that community. We live in Ottawa. We have all the gadgets in terms of whatever you want to see on TV. The young people who leave our communities to go to school go down south to Montreal, Ottawa, North Bay, Sudbury. They are going all over the place. Eventually, though, they come back to the community. I think we have a few engineers. We have a few lawyers. I do not know if we have a doctor yet, but we have a few nurses. We have a few surveyors. You name it, we have them. But they are still within the community, the community that you are in, the community that you have visited. The chief who you spoke to is a lawyer. The executive director that addressed your group, Peter Coon, is a lawyer. The chief just returned from two weeks of moose hunting two weeks up towards the Eastmain River. Mind you, he did not get a kill, but that is another story. He was there.
I understand what you are saying when you ask whether our lifestyle is going to change. I acknowledge the fact that we will evolve, that the culture will evolve, but nevertheless the principle of who you are and what you do must be protected. We cannot say, "We should drop everything because our children are never going to live like that. So let's not plan like that; let's all jump into development and wipe out the whole territory." We cannot say that.
Senator Stratton: I am not suggesting that that is the route to take. I am only concerned that if you have a high unemployment rate -- you are of course concerned about the future of your children. If there are no jobs or not enough jobs in your community, the situation will be similar to the farms in western Canada, where the kids had to leave the farm and go out and find work.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: This is why I say in my presentation that we are not totally against development. We are not anti-development at all. We understand that for the people who are living up here that industry is important, or any other industry for that matter that started within the Eeyou Istchee. All we are saying is we want to be a part of it and that there has to be a balance. There has to be a balance within whatever industry we are talking about. There must be a balance in terms of our lifestyle.
As I said, I am a little biased in my opinion, but we consider ourselves a little bit more important than anybody else within this boreal forest.
The Chairman: I think also the Blacksmiths might mention that there is a big difference between being forced to go to the city because you have no method of getting by and making a choice to go into the city. Most of us have the right to choose to move some place. That has been removed from your situation here.
Senator Mahovlich: Has the Cree population increased in the last ten years?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: We do socio-economic profiles of all of the Cree communities probably every five years. The last one we did ended in 1994. Our figures indicate that probably more than half the overall population is under 30 years old. If you look at our growth in terms of our birth rates, it blows Canada out of the water. It blows Quebec out of the water, in terms of birthrate figures in the five years preceding 1994 and the five years before that.
Senator Mahovlich: Would a family typically have two, three, four children?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: The average is three or four children per family.
Senator Mahovlich: Since the native people seem to want to keep their system in place, you would have to almost control your population. Because a certain hunter has a certain area, and you cannot have three or four hunters in that area or there would not be anything left, you would have to control your population. Am I correct?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: No, you are not correct. If you look at the lifestyle of the Cree, it is a completely different matter. This lifestyle, as Senator Stratton was saying earlier, is also changing -- and so you might we right in a sense. When a particular family goes hunting in a particular trapline, there are no fences around the territory. No special passes or special licences are issued.
Senator Mahovlich: You get permission from a family to cross a line?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Exactly. This is how the Cree have worked over hundreds of years. We have always understood each other, in saying "I know your particular territory is not very good for hunting but we can look at the concept of you coming in or my brother taking you in." The reason I say you might be right in a sense is that in the last couple of years that thinking has changed. The mentality has changed.
Companies have said to the Cree people, "We want to work with you. We want to develop solutions with you, but only with you. We do not want to deal with the local government. We do not want to deal with your regional government. We want to deal with you, so here is $10,000."
The Chairman: That is for the registered trapline owner.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Yes, for a registered trapline owner. In essence, the company kind of pays the guy off. Here is a guy who has been living on his trapline for a number of years and who has had truly hard times in the last few years because the fur-bearing animals have not brought anything to him by way of income, and he has bills to pay.
Senator Mahovlich: Do you believe the system is weakening?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: The system is weakening vis-à-vis influence of ownership. In the past, that was never an issue with the traplines. It was always "stewardship." That was the word that was used. Increasingly, the companies are saying, "You are the owner of this particular territory; I want to deal only with you."
So, yes, that is a major change, I agree with you.
The Chairman: When Senator Mahovlich starts talking about the number of children in a family, he always looks at me because I have nine children and 13 grandchildren.
Senator Mahovlich: What about our Prime Minister? He is number 18 of 19 in his family.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: He was Quebec-born. Of late, however, Quebec has had problems with its birth rate.
The Chairman: You mentioned going to court. Has the federal government or the provincial government offered to help pay any legal bills to take the case to court?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: No. I do not think they are going to cough up any money on this. What we have done is filed a court case in the provincial court in Montreal. The federal government and the provincial government are named in this suit, along with approximately 27 companies. The communities that are involved are very much participants in this court case. The trappers that are involved in this court case are also named in the suit. We are paying for the whole "shebang," so if you can get the federal government to contribute, thank you.
Senator Mahovlich: I want to speak on that point. I heard yesterday that ecologists had taken the Ontario government to court. They won their case yesterday and the government has to pay for all the court costs.
The Chairman: That is in hindsight. They did not get the court costs to begin with. Out west, and in other areas of Canada, there are many lawsuits where aboriginal peoples sue governments and the governments pay for the lawyers. It has not worked out as well as it should because, if the government is paying for their own lawyers and for your lawyers, that is a recipe for eternity. The lawyers will just keep sending bills.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: If everyone lived up to what they agreed to, there would be no necessity for any court cases.
The Chairman: I agree with you.
Senator Gill: Congratulations on your excellent presentations. I read the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement many years ago, so I do not remember exactly what it contains. However, I would imagine that there is some mention in that agreement to "traplines." Were those traplines recognized as being, distinctly, the traditional traplines of the Cree people? Is there some provision in the agreement that indicates that the traplines that are being used today are to be viewed in the same light as the traditional traplines?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: No. There is no specific reference in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to that because the trapline system of allocation is based on so many traplines per community. The guidelines relating to distribution were based on how those traplines were disposed of whenever an individual passed away. The family made that decision. There is no particular provision that recognizes the traplines of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Section 24, which deals with hunting, fishing and trapping lays out what our rights are -- what we can do within that particular territory and what rights are extended to us.
Senator Mahovlich: Have the terms of section 24 of that agreement been broken? Has that section not been followed?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: My opinion may be a little biased because I am on the Cree side of the discussion. The hunting, fishing and trapping rights that were extended under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement have been threatened for the last 20 years. We have been unable to take advantage of those rights provided for in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement because of the mass clearcuts that took place for the first 15 years after the agreement was signed.
Senator Gill: Is that why you are in court?
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Yes, that is exactly why we are in court.
Senator Gill: You are taking the government to court because this agreement was broken.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Yes, that is exactly why we are in court.
The Chairman: I will read the applicable section to you, Senator Gill. Section 24.1.5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement states:
"Conservation" means the pursuit of the optimum natural productivity of all living resources and the protection of the ecological systems of the Territory so as to protect the endangered species and to ensure primarily the continuance of the traditional pursuits of the Native people, and secondarily the satisfaction of the needs of non-Native people for sport hunting and fishing.
That is fairly clear. When you cut down all the ruddy trees, there will not be much of that left.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Exactly.
Senator Gill: My next question is somewhat philosophical, and it may also be a bit political. The question raised by Senator Stratton relates to the concern that we all want to address, and that is: What is the feeling of non-native people? You live like people in the south. You have a car, you have a television, you have a snowmobile, and sometimes you may even drive a Cadillac. When you reach an agreement which results in you receiving money, you are able to spend that on whatever you want. You live like everybody else. That has been the case for quite a few years now.
Yours is a civilization that goes back thousands of years. Aboriginal people do not simply give up their traditional way of life, even though they may drive a car. You have been living on the land, you depend on the land, and you know the land. Your traditional ways have been taught for thousands of years and you can make an important contribution. If we want to save this planet, the knowledge and expertise you have of the land must be passed on, not only to your own children, but to those who come from the south.
The discussion that we have just embarked on in this room today has been going on for quite some time. This subject is always raised when non-native people have an opportunity to question representatives of native communities. Perhaps the Indian and Inuit should change the way they explain and describe their way of living so that those asking the questions have no doubt about how you live and what you want.
Mr. Jack Blacksmith: Wherever I make any sort of presentation about the boreal forest, I always stress the fact that I come from the area that is being discussed. I am simply somebody who has "studied this thing," I am an expert. As such, I know what you people are doing to the boreal forest is wrong. I always emphasize the fact that I used to live in the boreal forest and I have seen the destruction that has been allowed to happen in the forest. Whenever I make a presentation, I always mention that my opinions are a little bit biased but that I hope somebody will listen so that they have some idea of what is going on in our particular area of the boreal forest.
I think we are making some headway. I am sure you have all noticed that in the past 10 years the environment has become very important to all people. That was not the case before.
I do not know if all of you live in Ottawa, but I am sure you are all in Ottawa now and then. When you are there, I want you to go to the gas station at Bank Street and Catherine. I stopped there the other day. That gas station has a slogan, which I cannot quote word-for-word, but it says something like this: This land is not ours to do what we want with it. This land is being loaned to us for our future generations. I asked the attendant where they got that from and he told that their head office had provided it. I said to him, "I'll tell you where you got it from. You got it from the thinking of the aboriginal people. That is where it came from." He kind of walked away and said in passing, "Maybe you're right." I said, "No, it is true."
Increasingly, people are beginning to feel concern for the environment and what we are doing to this world of ours. Every time we get involved in any kind of industry, we think the resource is limitless. In northern Quebec, some of the mines have closed down. On my way up here from Val-d'Or this morning with the Director General of the Cree Nation of Waswanipi, he told me there was a mine right in our backyard, approximately 20 kilometres away from our village. He was telling me that the mine is completely gone now. It is just all leveled off. There is nothing there. A company came in, took everything they needed, and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, that is what is happening with the forestry sector.
People living within the Eeyou Istchee and even those living in northern Quebec where there is an important forestry industry will find themselves in the same boat we are in. We must realize that the industry has to continue for a number of years. We cannot go on as we are because, eventually, we will run out of that resource. What are we going to do then?
The Chairman: Thank you for your excellent presentation. We could continue talking to you for much longer, but we must move on to the next presentation.
Our next witness is Robert St-Amour, Vice-president of Forestry Supplies at Tembec.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert St-Amour, Vice-President, Forestry Supplies, Tembec inc., Forest Products Group: Thank you for inviting our company to make a brief presentation on this subject. I am fairly bilingual but I think I make myself more easily understood in French, if you will allow me.
As for the boreal forest, with the documents we have received to prepare for today's meeting, I have prepared a few notes.
When we talk about the boreal forest, in a global perspective we, the foresters, can have problems seeing the exact scope of these forests. Your document shows this. On the map, on your left, I will try to position the province of Quebec. It is part of this boreal forest. With the latitudes I have illustrated, toward the East, the Scandinavian countries that are often described as great world forestry countries.
To the best of my knowledge, you have had the opportunity of meeting a representative of Tembec in Timmins recently. Regarding our activities in Quebec, we can say that the latitudes of our harvesting are similar. We are at the 49th parallel. When we talk about the Scandinavian countries, we are already beyond the 60th parallel; that is a very different scale. For us, the 60th parallel is about mid-north in Hudson's Bay. That scale can be misleading when one talks about latitude.
Many climactic phenomena create the forests in the East and in the Scandinavian countries. Relative to ours, they are not in fact northern forests.
I have also prepared a small map that describes the location of mills and the supply territory for our company. As many know, Tembec now has a mill in France. In Canada, we have locations in four provinces: on the West coast, in Manitoba, with the mill in Pine Falls; recently, on the Ontario side, the large concentration of mills is the one you had the opportunity of discussing with Mr. Grove of Tembec last week. Tembec's supply territories are in blue on the map. At the Quebec-Ontario border, Tembec has activities on the Quebec side, on the northwest border of Quebec. Toward the centre of Quebec, we have our Malette Québec division and toward the East, a sawmill that is part of the Gaspé division. Once again, our involvement in the Atholville mill in New Brunswick is recent.
As you can see, when we talk about the boreal forest at Tembec, it is an integral part of our activities. When we talk about Southern Ontario or even Southern Quebec, we start talking about more deciduous forests. Tembec has activities in both the boreal forest and in the deciduous forest of oaks, pines and yellow birch. We have an extensive overview of the types of forests and the types of interventions that we must make.
On the whole, the boreal forests remain an important source of supply for our mills. We must ensure the future, the perpetuity and the accessibility of such a resource, based on sustainable forestry development criteria. Without such concrete measures, the mills are only blocks of cement and metal.
In our management philosophy, the forest is the gas we have to put in the car. It is essential. There is never any doubt that we must intervene to ensure this perpetuity.
We also know that the forest, especially the boreal forest, is an important source of and lever in socioeconomic development. For example, in 1994 a provincial multisectorial study showed that a cubic metre of roundwood harvested on public land generated $32.11 per cubic metre in duties and taxes on the total payroll and in fuel taxes.
If we actualize this data and add the stumpage dues levied by the provincial governments, we can say that we should be at the level of $50.00 per cubic metre in direct tax and stumpage dues that benefit the State. Since it takes about 10 trees to make a cubic metre, we can then imagine that on average a standing tree is worth $5 to the State, directly or indirectly.
This image shows the lever effect of the forest. Once again, given our desire to operate this industry profitably over the long term in a sustainable manner, these numbers allow us to suspect that the governments are also interested in the perpetuity of this resource, given its multiplier effect on jobs and its critical importance in the balance of trade.
If you wish, I have prepared a slightly more precise portrait of Tembec. It will allow you to see the social and environmental trends that are part of our culture. I could then answer any questions you wish in terms of the consultative documents that you sent me.
[English]
The Chairman: How much longer will your presentation be?
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: About 15 minutes, Mr. Chairman. First, the people of the Tembec company themselves are building for their future. We need a bit of historical background on this company that has now been in operation for 25 years.
In 1972, a multinational paper company quickly closed its doors in Témiscaming, a small town south of Témiscamingue on the Ontario border. Overnight, this one-industry town found itself with no jobs; the only source of jobs was the multinational that had decided to close its doors.
Between 1972 and 1973, the population took itself in hand and bought the old facilities; thus was born Tembec, a Canadian company that is still under strong Canadian majority control.
Tembec is an integrated company. By integrated, we mean that we try to get as much value as possible from each tree harvested, from the cutting, from the pulp as well as from the extraction of by-products. Of course profitability is part of the criteria for sustainable forest development.
In the context of worldwide competition, the forest industry cannot fool itself and think it is still the only one that can make products people can use; given the globalization of the market that is no longer possible.
Innovation is one of our niches. Tembec is well known for that and is of course competitive while preserving the environment and creating a social, cultural and economic climate that is beneficial for the region, its population, its employees and its shareholders. In its mission, Tembec emphasizes its social involvement and the quality of life around its plants.
Once again, given that this company was created by its employees, one of the basic niches of the company is that it has accepted, from the start, to share the company's benefits with its employees.
Socially, when the company makes a profit, the employees make profits. They have extra pay; in our opinion, this creates a better distribution of wealth in the community.
Of course Tembec favours the expansion of everything related to problem solving and the entrepreneurial spirit in its dealings with its employees.
As for its social responsibilities, we spend at least 1 per cent of our benefits before taxes on improving the individual and collective quality of life, on education and culture as well as on recreation and health.
That is put into practice through our involvement in municipal libraries and in musical activities in the regions, and in providing university scholarships.
As for participation in the life of the community, our employees can, if memory serves, have five days per year to participate in community activities paid for by the company, for example in the scouts' movement, the Canadian Cancer Society, et cetera. The company agrees to free up, on a volunteer basis, people who want to do volunteer work. That translates our commitment into action.
For the last two years now, each time we harvest a cubic metre on public land and the company makes a profit, five cents per cubic metre is put into an environmental fund to put back into the forest, in either installations or facilities that allow citizens to enjoy it more.
That can be implemented through boat trips to enjoy a fishing lake, or an arrangement with Ducks Unlimited. There is no limit; what people want determines how the money will be spent.
We spend 2 per cent of our total sales on research and development. When I talked about leadership in terms of innovation, I believe that explains it by and large.
As for resource recovery, in our Témiscaming complex, a tree goes through the initial sawing process to get the most value out of it. Wood chips are the by-products. We use them to produce various types of pulp and a part of our production goes into making pharmaceutical products. All the by-products are recovered to produce ethanol and wood sulfates.
So instead of paying for $300 or $400 million plants to treat our effluents, we have tried to set up an integrated complex that allows us to extract all the richness of this forestry resource and to make as many products as possible in order not to have to pay money to depollute, but instead to create as positively as possible using the resource.
Tembec is ranked second in Canada in terms of pulp producers, fifth in Canada and second in the East for the production of timber, sixth in newsprint and first in corrugated board.
Our environmental policy translates Tembec's way of thinking very well. Tembec shares important responsibilities with the community in environmental matters. It supports the responsible use of resources, including the forest, fauna, aquatic flora, wildlife, air, soil and water.
Good resource management linked with a process of continuing improvement ensures sustainable and continuous economic development and a better quality of life. In this light, Tembec has made a commitment to implement and maintain an efficient environmental management system that shapes its attitudes and initiatives in the environmental field.
You are surely aware of the CSA standard on sustainable forest management. Tembec's objectives are mainly oriented toward meeting the ISO 14001 standard on the industrial and forest environment, which seems to us more adapted in the short term to yield an environmental balance sheet. Later we can make revisions to get the CSA standard. If you wish, we can come back to that in the financial data later.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. St-Amour. You are the Vice-President of Forestry Supplies. Are you connected at all with the labour side in that position? Do you have any contracts or do you make any effort to employ a specific number of aboriginal peoples in your operations?
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: Yes, about two years ago we set up a structure that allows us to be much closer to the native nations that are in our territory. The native nations are everywhere on the territory we harvest. We have one person who works only on that.
At our mill in Témiscaming, I don't have the figure in my head, the number of native people working on site in our pulp, paper and saw mills is very high.
As for our activities in northeastern Ontario, I believe Mr. Grove spoke to you about them, there are a lot of communications. We have very concrete projects, among others, in the Hearst sector, that have been set up. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, despite the distance barriers we are having more and more meetings with the natives to try and understand the problems raised by our interventions in their territory and to find ways of coexisting.
We also have projects with the Pikogan band on value added projects directly on the territory of their reserve. In Gaspé, we are studying a value-added project with the Maria reserve and we are looking at an integrated management project with the Baldwin reserve. In New Brunswick, we are evaluating the significant involvement of native entrepreneurs from the Restigouche band.
Those are part of our daily concerns to find ways of working that meet both our profitability needs and the need for easy coexistence with all these people on the ground.
Senator Gill: Mr. St-Amour, we stopped at the numbers but we can talk about them a little. If I understand correctly, Tembec started as a cooperative. Has it stayed a cooperative? You talk in terms of profits, et cetera. In fact, I am asking you if that is the case. Second, is Tembec profitable?
Mr. St-Amour: In 1973, many people thought Tembec was a cooperative. In real life, it is not a cooperative in the legal sense. To my knowledge, the concept of cooperative is very precise and I believe it applies only in Quebec. In Ontario, I do not know the legal status of cooperatives, but there may be some.
Tembec is joint stock company listed on the stock exchange. Why did we start with the idea of a cooperative? At the time, people organized themselves and invested their own money in the company's share capital. This share capital based on the Canadian Companies Act has grown. Later on the employees got their original shares, which are the same shares that you can trade on the Montreal or Toronto stock exchanges.
It is a company made up to a large extent by Canadian interests. There is no holding in Tembec. There is no bloc of shares. To the best of my knowledge, the biggest bloc of shares is of about 6 per cent. Many shares are held by the employees, but by ordinary citizens also, and by investment funds and so on.
If you will permit me, I will use data from the 1997 annual report; I have brought a few copies. The entire presentation I have already made and this one are extracts from the annual report.
Tembec is a young company. As a rule, Canadian paper companies are often older companies, not in the pejorative sense, but in the sense that they have been around a long time. Tembec is a 25-year-old company for whom the notion of grow or perish is a constant concern.
As you can see, in 1993 Tembec's sales were $445 million. In 1997, it had $1,350 billion in annual sales. Of course such growth often requires long-term investments. That may have put our company in somewhat tighter spots. The net benefit or net loss statements showed a $48 million loss in 1993. In 1994, there was a net gain of $74 million and in 1995, of $120 million; $300 million in 1996; and $7.6 million in 1997.
Unless I made a mistake, that gives a rate of return of about 5 per cent on the capital used over a 5-year period.
Is that cost-effective? I think so. On paper, we see $56 million balanced by $194 million. A good financier would probably have said: I will bank my money for the short term, except that the operations being set up are for the long term.
As I mentioned earlier, many innovations, many new products and the strength of the core business allow us to get through the economic cycles.
The number of employees at the end of the fiscal year parallels the sales: 2,000 in 1993 et 5,353 in 1998. That does not include the last two acquisitions in Manitoba and New Brunswick.
Senator Gill: About the dividends to your employees --
Mr. St-Amour: Yes?
Senator Gill: Are they significant? You spoke earlier about the fiscal fallout of about $50.
Mr. St-Amour: Yes.
Senator Gill: For your employees, what is the order of magnitude, in cubic metres or otherwise, whatever.
Mr. St-Amour: Very well.
Senator Gill: Is there a significant return for the shareholders, in dividends or otherwise?
Mr. St-Amour: If you look at the gains and losses by shareholders on a per share basis, to the best of my knowledge in 25 years has never paid dividends to shareholders.
Why? Because this young company wanted to ensure that it was sufficiently capitalized to not be overly dependant on the financial markets. So, at the 99.9 per cent level, Tembec has never paid dividends. The gains have always been reinvested in the company.
Secondly, in salaries, in sharing the wealth or participating in the benefits, a part of the profits generated are divided as a percentage of the total payroll.
For example -- I do not want to mislead you because I certainly am not a specialist in this field -- we can say that for an annual salary of $40,000 or $45,000 in a pulp or saw mill, in a bad year the profit sharing would be of about $2,000; in a good year, it could go up to $10,000 or $12,000.
Senator Gill: The other question touches on another aspect. You spoke earlier about five cents for the environment. What does that include? Are these mediation measures? You are not giving more to the environment. Reforestation is not included?
Mr. St-Amour: No, not at all. In fact, it is in addition to our legal obligations in terms of reforestation, of all the intervention standards we must meet in the forests to install culverts, bridges, buffer zones, etc. It is really in addition to all that. That five cents is not a legal obligation; it is a social obligation we chose freely.
Senator Gill: Do you still do clear-cuts?
Mr. St-Amour: You can call them clear-cuts.
Senator Gill: I don't know, in the old way?
Mr. St-Amour: I have been in the business for 15 years and have lived in the forestry industry for 25 years. The cuts I saw 25 years ago are not seen anymore; those have been gone for many moons.
The kind of cutting done has been adapted by using machinery that is more environmentally friendly and by making spaced hauling trails that preserve regeneration. It's not perfect but compared to what was being done 25 years ago it is certainly quite different.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Could the Tembec corporation be sold? An American company comes in and says "Look at this, there is 5 per cent. We could make it into 10 per cent." They decide to get rid of 2,000 employees, because they do not think you need that many employees. They think that your company is doing too much work with the aboriginal people and all this social stuff, and that they could make a pretty good profit with it. Is it possible for this corporation to be sold?
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: I would like to say no, but those are market phases. I will give you a very personal opinion. We are alone in this room. At the level of the Canadian dollar and the current interest rates, a Canadian company, Tembec or any other, is likely to be at risk now.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: It looks vulnerable to me. You mentioned our dollar. It has a ripple effect through all our corporations in Canada.
The Chairman: You mentioned that you are an integrated company. I gather that means you cut, and you make fibre, and you make pulp. I wondered if, in your profit statement, you separate how much comes from the lumber you cut, how much comes from the fibre lumber business, and how much comes from pulp.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: I do not have the numbers on paper. I have them in the annual reports. I could easily find them for you. In general, I could say that in the forest products business, the pulp cycle was about catastrophic during the last four or five years. We had a few good months during the last five years; the rest has been a total disaster. That's not true only of Tembec. The entire industry has felt it. Newsprint has stayed at an acceptable level. Saw timber was perhaps shaky at the beginning of 1990, 1991 and 1992; it is now trying to make a comeback.
On the whole, out of 1997 sales of $1.3 billion, forest products accounted for about 50 per cent of the total. Unless I am mistaken, they accounted for about 85 or 90 per cent of the company's profits. That means that pulp was a substantial drain on the profits generated by paper and cardboard.
[English]
The Chairman: I have one more question. Are you able to supply yourself from the concessions or licences you hold, or do you buy some outside wood to keep your mills going? If you do buy outside wood, what percentage of your throughput would that be?
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: In general, if we are talking about the consumption of roundwood -- I must make a distinction because wood chips are really another area -- sawmills are self-sufficient at about the 80 per cent level. About 80 per cent of their volume -- if I do an average for Quebec and Ontario -- are guaranteed by licence or by a supply contract.
Of the remaining 20 per cent, about 10 per cent comes from private forests in Quebec and in Ontario and another 10 per cent from purchases on what is called the free market but come from public forests. Those are first refusal rights or things of that nature.
As for the wood chips, it is a little more difficult to quantify because there are used in pulp and paper manufacturing. They are often by-products of our own sawmills. We also go to the free market in both provinces. The company will be self-sufficient at the 60 per cent level in wood chips and at the 40 per cent level on the basis of short- or long-term purchases.
[English]
Senator Stratton: Thank you for appearing today. I would like to refer back to one of the previous witnesses, Jack Blacksmith of the Grand Council of the Crees. He stated in his presentation that we are cutting too much wood, and we are doing it too fast. How do you respond to that, being on the other side of the question? I think it would be appropriate for us to ask you that.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: After our discussion with the native nations, and I am referring to the North as well as the South, we see, and the natives tell us this often, that we don't have the same scale of forestry. We do not speak of forest use in the same way, culturally and industrially.
For our part, I mentioned earlier that mills without a forest are just so much worthless concrete and steel. It would be very unproductive for our company to harvest a forest faster than it grows. Both in Quebec and in Ontario, and to my knowledge in New Brunswick and Manitoba, forests are harvested on the basis of sustainable forest yields.
This sustainable forest yield is based on an array of criteria, including our knowledge of the territory and the effect of the silvicultural regime we use. A forest yield may fluctuate in five-year periods, but not by 50 per cent.
The level of forest yields should always stay in a range of 1, 2 or 3 per cent in more or less five-year periods in order to stay in line with the forest's productive capacity. Our level of knowledge must evolve both in terms of the standing trees and in terms of the yields of our silvicultural regime.
I will tell you that I do not share that vision. I can understand that it exists since we do not have the same vision of the forest.
[English]
Senator Stratton: When we were in Timmins two weeks ago, Dr. Naysmith from Thunder Bay identified and talked about a gap. In other words, there will be a shortage, because in the past we have harvested forest without thinking about reforesting. As a result of that, although reforestation is carried out now, we are going to see a shortfall that will last 15 to 20 years. Do you see that same thing occurring here in this region?
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: I will use a chart that I had already prepared. I have a lot of intuition when it comes to presentations. I have tried to illustrate here, without getting into a forestry engineering course or whatever, the way to calculate the continuing yield of fibre. This is a very popular example. It may resemble a number of areas, either the Abitibi-Témiscamingue or northeastern Ontario.
When we draw up our management plans, the clock is il always reset to zero. We always look at the state of the forest in five-year periods.
In this case, you have the current year in terms of the plan and the standing trees that are deemed mature, in other words trees that have finished their growth or that have started to decline. The fifth year, we calculate 90,000 cubic metres of mature standing stock that would allow us to collect fibre which would otherwise be declining.
We do the same exercise using forestry data banks. We forecast these mature standing stocks by five year periods. The basic idea in calculating a continuing yield is that you should never harvest more than the minimum standing stock in a given year.
In this case, you see that in years 40 and 45, the standing stock is at a minimum in terms of the curves of expected stocks. This means that in the first 40 years our harvesting level cannot exceed 60,000 cubic metres.
In lighter colour I have shown the contributions of plantations, or more specifically managed stands. In that case, I have written the word plantation for ease of understanding. Theoretically, in a plantation the yields are higher and the harvesting cycle is lower. So in the fifth year, if I forecast harvesting these stands at the end of their growth or at the beginning of their decline, I also forecast reforesting them during those five years. They will have reached maturity.
That means that I will have contributing plantations or stands, if you wish, managed more intensively that will contribute to the availability of fibre in 45 years. I go through the same exercise for each of these columns here. This means that the more I move forward, depending on the years, I can have stands that are more degraded, less well regenerated naturally.
We know that harvesting gray pine in the boreal forest requires a different strategy than that for spruce or fir. My levels of reforestation are likely to increase more or less over the short or long term. They will yield more and more fibre for me, so that my critical period will be over. That threshold will have been passed.
After that, which is the lowest period in the entire forest history, theoretically the continuing yield from the 50th year onward will continue to increase. For five years the continuing yield will increase, for example, to 75,000 cubic metres. In the next five years it will fall to 80,000 cubic metres and will plateau at 110,000 cubic metres, for example, from year 80. That is the principle behind the calculation of continuing yields. As you can see, the effect of forest standardization, a term you may have heard during your consultations, is that after creating a revolution in the natural forest and managing it, we reach a plateau that is theoretically perfect.
It will be stable over the long term and the new possibility will be the lowest of these columns, but all columns are equal. The forestry possibility is that of this plateau.
Our interventions in the French forest, in the southwest of France, are in a pinery that has been managed for more than 120 years. You may know the pine that is halfway between our gray and red pines. France has reached this plateau here. It is a perfectly standardized forest. About 95 per cent of it is a private forest.
If they have taken the challenge of standardizing a private forest, we have every reason to hope to do the same thing one day.
To summarize, perhaps, there is a plateau dictated by the lowest column. During the first years or the first 25 years, it is always the lowest plateau that dictates our activities.
That can only influence new knowledge. It ensures that this column may have in fact been higher than we thought; that one might be lower. On the whole, this line may vary, but as I mentioned, by 2, 3, 4 per cent in each of these five-year periods. In general, it is about impossible, barring an enormous catastrophe, that our probability calculations are seriously in error.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Yesterday, a decision was made in a court action against the Ontario government about an area in Temagami. Is Tembec in Temagami?
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: Part of our operations are there, yes.
Senator Mahovlich: Yes.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Were you involved in that case?
Mr. St-Amour: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: Tembec was involved?
Mr. St-Amour: Oui.
Senator Mahovlich: And you lost the case?
Mr. St-Amour: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: I am not familiar with the whole procedure. Was Tembec cutting down trees they were not supposed to cut, or was it the Ontario government's fault for allowing Tembec to do that? Do you need a lawyer to answer that?
[Translation]
Mr. St-Amour: I am a forestry engineer by training but I can answer you. In this case, we can summarize the problem as follows: There is a lot of pressure from the south of Ontario to preserve certain forests in the north of Ontario.
One of the legal aspects that was somewhat more fragile in the law managed by the MNR in Ontario is the process of adopting forest management plans and granting licences to forestry companies. The better organized environmentalists found a small flaw in the act that forced the Ontario government to face possible illegality and to accept a management plan.
Senator Mahovlich, you have summarized the situation well. It is a case in which the forestry companies followed the acts, the regulations, and honoured their supply agreements on public lands but where the government of Ontario was told: You are not following the law when you are granting licences.
It is not a question of illegality by the forestry companies. It is a very basic legal question.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: I am very impressed with your company. I spent a couple of weeks up in Timmins. Thank you for clearing up some of the doubts that we had.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: If we refer to your chart, if we take the mature stock, I imagine that it is from the natural forests?
Mr. St-Amour: Yes.
Senator Gill: What we see in black is the natural forest and in grey, the contribution of the plantations?
Mr. St-Amour: That is correct.
Senator Gill: As indicated there?
Mr. St-Amour: Yes.
Senator Gill: If we do not have any plantations -- I do not know if my interpretation is correct -- that means that in 90 years we will have no natural forests?
Mr. St-Amour: You said if we do not do any plantations?
Senator Gill: Yes. If we did not have the contribution of the plantations.
Mr. St-Amour: Yes.
Senator Gill: Unless I am misreading your chart.
Mr. St-Amour: I am listening.
Senator Gill: That means that in a period of about 80 or 90 years, there will be no more natural forests? Your reference point is in about 60 years?
Mr. St-Amour: That is correct.
Senator Gill: If I subtract the plantation, you are still at about 60?
Mr. St-Amour: Very well.
Senator Gill: Eyeballing it.
Mr. St-Amour: You are talking from now or approximately?
Senator Gill: That means there will be no more natural forest?
Mr. St-Amour: No, you almost have the correct interpretation. Your reforestation here, instead of coming back to a 45- or a 50-year cycle, according to such a model, will not come back as plantations, it will come back as natural forests.
With a plantation, in fact you greatly accelerate the forest process because there is no regeneration delay. The forest does not take 10, 15 or 20 years to regenerate naturally. In addition, you put ideal spacing between the trees. That means that the tree growth you set up is faster and the harvesting cycle is shorter.
In fact, if we stopped reforesting, let's take an easy example: here, the plantation would yield 20,000 cubic metres of possible forestry yearly but the natural forest would come back later with a reforestation of 5,000 cubic metres in the natural forest.
All our columns would go down. We would be partly cutting off the base. You are correct. For example, the 60,000 cubic metres would last over time; however, if we remove the plantations, we only have the natural forest. It is incorrect to say that there is no more natural forest. It is only natural forest.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. St-Amour. That was most interesting. There are no further questions.
The committee adjourned.