NRGO Committee Report

HOUSE OF COMMONS
CANADA

---

INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND: FROM A REGIONAL TO A NATIONAL ISSUE
A. The environmentalists’ campaign targeting British Columbia
B. Possible repercussions at the national level
FOREST MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA :
FROM THE FOREST TO THE LANDSCAPE
CERTIFICATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS AND PRACTICES
ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SUGGESTIONS BY WITNESSES
APPENDIX "A" - LIST OF WITNESSES
APPENDIX "B" - SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WITNESSES

---

FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN CANADA
AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUE

REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
(INTERIM REPORT)

BRENT ST. DENIS, M.P.
CHAIR

JUNE 1999

---

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

CHAIR

Brent St. Denis

VICE-CHAIRS

MEMBERS

Réginald Bélair	Gilles Bernier
Gerry Byrne	Roy Cullen
Pierre de Savoye	John Duncan
Yvon Godin	Tony Ianno
Marlene Jennings	Ghislain Lebel
Carolyn Parrish	Carmen Provenzano
Werner Schmidt

OTHER MEMBERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS STUDY

Joe Comuzzi	Monique Guay
Gerald Keddy	Alex Shepherd

CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE

Richard Rumas

FROM THE RESEARCH BRANCH OF THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

Jean-Luc Bourdages

---

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations has the honour to present its

FIFTH REPORT

In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 108(2) the Committee has considered Forest Management Practices in Canada as an International Trade Issue and has agreed to report the following:

INTRODUCTION

In November 1998, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations heard from representatives of IWA-Canada (Local 2171), Western Forests Products Ltd., and International Forest Products Ltd., regarding Greenpeace International's campaign against management practices in B.C.'s temperate rainforests. The witnesses, representing companies and unions, made the committee members aware of the potential repercussions on the entire Canadian forest industry of the campaign led by Greenpeace in Europe, the United States and Japan. Basically, the boycott campaign targeted retailers to stop selling wood products that come from B.C. forestry operations that are described by Greenpeace and other groups as not ecologically sustainable. Although up until now the campaign has focussed primarily on British Columbia’s coastal rainforests, it is likely that export markets of Canadian forest producers in every region may be affected.

The Committee’s trip to British Columbia was to a significant extent in response to a request for assistance from the local communities and the industry in the mid-coastal region. These witnesses told the committee and a number of other parliamentarians that they are indeed committed to preserving the forests and protecting the environment, as well as to securing the future of their communities. On May 12 and 13, 1999, in order to hear more from those affected by the situation and to better understand the issues at stake, the Committee visited Bella Coola, on the coast, and Williams Lake, displaying all the attributes of a forest in the interior. After meeting with industry and union representatives working in these areas, as well as with local and aboriginal community representatives, the Committee held public hearings in Vancouver on May 13 and 14. Committee members were therefore able to visit certain forestry operations and meet with people there, and then heard a range of viewpoints from a variety of industrial, union, environmental, professional and native organizations.

It quickly became clear to the Committee members that the issues went far beyond their regional character and were liable to have a direct impact on forest management practices across Canada and on how these practices are perceived both nationally and around the world. The Committee is very aware of the division of powers and responsibilities among the orders of government and among all the partners involved in the sustainable development of the country’s forests. The gravity of the situation, as well as the effort Canada is making to implement sustainable forest development, motivated the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations to report and submit recommendations to the House of Commons on what it saw and heard during its short stay in British Columbia. This is, however, an interim report, as the Committee has expressed its intention to broaden its study to include other forest areas in Canada. It should also be noted that during the 35th Parliament, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources addressed some of these issues and made specific recommendations regarding the role of the federal government in promoting Canada’s forestry industry in the international marketplace.⁽¹⁾

BACKGROUND: FROM A REGIONAL TO A NATIONAL ISSUE

A. The environmentalists’ campaign targeting British Columbia

Since the early 1990s, British Columbia's forest management practices have been viewed quite differently by the industry and certain environmental groups. Campaigns initially focussed on protecting certain still-pristine valleys of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island. Now that the conservation of some of these valley forests has been ensured through a number of government initiatives, the focus of the debate seems to have shifted to the province's central coast.

Certain environmental organizations, led primarily by Greenpeace International, have been very active over the past few years in Western Europe in protesting against Canada's forest management practices. They have been particularly successful in Germany and the United Kingdom where they have been campaigning against logging in British Columbia's old-growth forests. Greenpeace's main tactics have been to pressure European customers to stop buying forest products from B.C. coastal rainforests.

In March 1998, newspapers in western Canada contained articles about Greenpeace’s targeting of three large buyers of B.C. forest products – Magnet, Jewson and Harcos – in an effort to convince them to find alternative suppliers. Magnet announced its stores would no longer buy forest products from B.C.'s "Great Bear Rainforest", as it is called by the preservationists.⁽²⁾

Large demonstrations were held in the Scottish port of Greenoch, and at a plant owned by Clariant, one of Western Forest Products's biggest European customers for pulp.⁽³⁾

The Canadian government, through the Canadian High Commission in London, denounced the protests to the British government. The U.K. is the largest European market for B.C. forest products, importing about $230 million worth a year.

The environmentalists are not campaigning solely in Europe; they are now leading campaigns in the United States and are very active here in Canada, particularly in British Columbia. In December 1998, the Coastal Rainforest Coalition, a coalition of groups comprising Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defence Council and the Rainforest Action Network, published a full-page advertisement in the New York Times containing the names of companies they were recommending consumers boycott because the wood products they used came from old-growth forests in British Columbia. Other demonstrations targeted the giant hardware store Home Depot, with its head office in Atlanta and one of the main clients of B.C. lumber suppliers.⁽⁴⁾

At the same time, the New York Times advertisement published the names of companies refusing to buy forest products from old-growth forests.

In Canada, environmentalists tend to focus directly on forestry operations rather than on consumers of forest products.⁽⁵⁾

After targeting Vancouver Island's forest valleys early in the 1990s, a coalition of preservationist groups, including Greenpeace and other organizations, is now concentrating its efforts on the vast forest region of B.C.’s mid-coast. This area covers an immense forest of some 3.2 million hectares and lies between high alpine peaks and the Pacific Ocean along the central coast of British Columbia. According to preservationists, this is one of the last large areas where an undeveloped temperate rainforest still exists. Today, they say, over half of the world's original temperate rainforests have been destroyed and B.C. has one-quarter of what is left.⁽⁶⁾

They estimate that the forest contains more than 50 undeveloped watersheds, each greater than 5,000 hectares, the vital habitat for the annual migration of Pacific salmon.

Basically, preservationists claim that the forests are being harvested faster than the rate that is sustainable over the long term, and that almost every valley will have been logged by 2020. They also argue that logging operations on B.C.'s mid-coast generate too few jobs.⁽⁷⁾

These organizations are advocating a shift, through regulatory means if necessary, toward labour-intensive and value-added production at the community level. They are totally opposed to clear-cutting in all areas on the coast, and are promoting sustainable ecoforestry logging practices, along with more diversified use of the coastal environment to enhance tourism, fisheries and recreation. Groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Legal Defense Fund and the Sierra Club propose that the B.C. government adopt a large-scale conservation vision of protecting intact watersheds and connecting corridors in order to ensure that grizzlies, salmon and other wild-life populations are maintained.⁽⁸⁾

B. Possible repercussions at the national level

The most recent campaign by environmental groups concerning the west coast rainforest is part of a global movement based for the most part on a new report by the World Resources Institute (WRI) in Washington D.C., The Last Frontier Forests⁽⁹⁾, which deals with the large natural forests around the world that are still relatively intact. According to the report’s authors, 50% of the earth’s original forest cover has disappeared. They estimate that a large part of the remaining forests has already been affected by human activity and that only 22% of the planet's original ancient forest remains intact enough to be capable of supporting biodiversity and the full range of species. Moreover, most of these forests are located in Brazil, Russia and Canada.⁽¹⁰⁾

The WRI report also identified the temperate rain forest as the most endangered forest ecosystem, comprising only 3% of what is left of the world's ancient forest. In its testimony before the Committee, Greenpeace reported that in British Columbia there were originally 353 rain forest valleys over 5000 hectares, and that only 69 of those remain intact. Almost all of them were slated for some logging within the next five to ten years. Greenpeace also stressed the impact of human activities on coastal salmon runs.

It is not surprising that Canada is of particular interest to preservationists working to set aside frontier forests. It may, however, appear paradoxical to some, considering that the forest practices in force in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, are clearly in the forefront of the practices worldwide. It is, of course, more difficult to attack countries in western or northern Europe, the Scandinavian countries, for example, where the primary forests disappeared a long time ago, giving way to other land uses or to plantations with much less biodiversity. Many preservationists are of the view that Canadians have inherited a global treasure and that it is our responsibility to safeguard it over the long term.

Although the activities of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations have thus far focussed on the issues affecting British Columbia specifically, the members are nonetheless deeply aware that this regional situation is clearly becoming a national issue. A number of recent events lead to the concern that the entire Canadian forest industry will be affected by campaigns which target our forest practices. Moreover, reports such as the one on frontier forests by the World Resources Institute in Washington attach great importance to the conservation of the vast stretches of boreal forest in Canada.

A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee in Vancouver noted that when one steps back to look at the broader issue, it is clear that the target is Canada as a whole, not just British Columbia.⁽¹¹⁾

Much attention was paid to the film L'Erreur boréale, produced recently in Quebec and describing forest practices in publicly owned boreal forests. The film aroused a great deal of discussion and controversy in the media and among the well-informed in Quebec. In reply to the film’s producers, the Quebec Minister responsible for forestry expressed his concern that this highly media-oriented film might be used in the commercial marketplace to the detriment of Quebec’s forest industry. Recent events seem to have borne out the Minister’s views, as the committee was informed that forestry companies in Sweden have apparently already referred to L’Erreur boréale in promoting their own merchandise and to undermine sales of Canadian products.⁽¹²⁾

The Quebec Minister recently announced that he will table a bill in the Assemblée nationale to review the current Forestry Regime in the wake of the vast public consultations held during the Fall of 1998.⁽¹³⁾

It is by no means the Committee’s wish to comment on the conclusions of the film produced for the National Film Board, but the members are fully aware of the impact that any kind of information can have when it is taken out of context.

A good example of the repercussions of awareness campaigns or boycott of forest products on international markets is no doubt the presentation, in May 1998, of a motion for resolution to the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Legal Authorities of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly.⁽¹⁴⁾

Basically, the draft resolution states that what now remains of temperate rainforests and the wildlife species inhabiting these forests must be protected as part of the world’s natural heritage, that the trading profit of harvesting these forests cannot outweigh their irreplaceable ecological and cultural wealth, and that since Canada has committed itself to respecting the spirit of the Rio Conference (1992) and its Agenda 21, the country has a duty to call a halt to every non-sustainable forestry operation in temperate rainforests in British Columbia. The resolution ends by urging European companies to rescind any contract with producers using wood from non-sustainable timber industries.

To date, the draft resolution was discussed in Paris on January 14, 1999 and again in greater depth on May 21, at a meeting where a delegation of Canadians were able to present Canada’s position on this issue. The Canadian delegation which included, representatives from Natural Resources Canada, the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, the National Forest Strategy Coalition, the National Aboriginal Forestry Association, and members of this committee, reiterated the importance of the Canadian forest industry and Canada’s entire commitment to sustainable forest management. While remembering that forest management is a provincial jurisdiction, it stressed the fact that our legislation, policies and resulting practices reflect the changing values of the public and the market. From being based primarily on the economics of harvesting, now forest management in Canada encompasses ecological and social values too. A delegation of European parliamentarians who are interested in this issue are coming to Canada in September 1999 to view Canadian forest practices. The Canadian delegation presented a summary of Canada's leadership to encapsulate the fact that as a major forestry nation we have a history at the forefront of international initiatives to improve forest practices and cooperation.

Canada is watching the proceedings of the Council of Europe’s Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Legal Authorities very attentively, and is making the necessary representations. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations is of the view that one of the federal government’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that the international community is well informed about the forestry policies and practices in effect in Canada and to spread word of Canadians’ pursuit of sustainable forest management.

FOREST MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA :

FROM THE FOREST TO THE LANDSCAPE

When the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations travelled to British Columbia, the members had an opportunity to see for themselves certain aspects of the forestry practices used currently on B.C.’s mid-coast area and in the interior. They discovered that the government requirements for all stages of forest planning and management have been tightened up significantly and are constantly being improved. Noticeable changes have been made since the Standing Committee on Natural Resources began its work in 1994, and since the implementation of the new Forest Practices Code, which became law in 1995. According to the testimony of the Council of Forest Industries (COFI) to the committee, significant progress has been made at all levels, from land-use planning and integrating logging activities with the surrounding landscape, to post-use renaturalization of forest roads.

In British Columbia, the forest industry is vitally important to the economy. It comprises almost half of all manufacturing shipments, employs 300,000 people (100,000 directly and 200,000 indirectly) and supports more than 100 communities that are highly, if not totally, dependent on the industry.⁽¹⁵⁾

However, forestry is still a cyclical industry which has had to face major challenges over the past few years, such as high production costs and difficult market conditions. The recent boycott campaigns aimed at consumers, retailers and governments in the United States and Europe have made it increasingly arduous for the industry to survive and continue to progress.

Of British Columbia’s total land area of about 95 million hectares, only 23 million hectares (24%) has been designated for commercial forest use. Since 1992, the implementation of the Protected Areas Strategy, which intended to increase the area of the protected parks and wilderness areas in the province from 6% to 12%, has enabled B.C. to set aside 11.3% of the provincial land base. This should represent more than 11 million hectares once the objective has been reached. Old growth forests make up about 30% of all protected areas, covering more than 3 million hectares.⁽¹⁶⁾

It should be noted that, in the 1990s, British Columbia implemented an extensive system of regional land use planning that involves all stakeholders in a consensus based process to decide how to balance the uses of the forest. This approach gives the local aboriginal and rural communities an opportunity to play a key role in planning the future use of their area, without having the impression that decision-makers and special interest groups from outside the area are dictating to them how their land should be used. According to COFI, comprehensive land use plans have been established, or are in the process of being developed, for more than 80% of the province. Regional plans are in place for Vancouver Island, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, West Kootenay-Boundary and East Kootenay, and eighteen sub-regional plans have been finalized or are being developed.⁽¹⁷⁾

The forestry industry has taken an active part in all these planning processes. It would appear, however, that organizations such as Greenpeace are still reluctant to play a role in the regional planning process. During its visit to British Columbia, the Committee learned that Greenpeace had agreed to participate in the discussions on drawing up the regional plan for the B.C.’s mid-coast once forestry companies agreed to place a moratorium on their logging plans until June 1999. The Committee commends the compromise made by both sides, but it deplores however the fact that Greenpeace is coming to the discussion table with the preconceived idea that a consensus is unlikely to be reached.⁽¹⁸⁾

The Committee is of the view that the issues at stake are so crucial that all parties must make an effort to achieve a consensus.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations had an opportunity to visit, albeit briefly, some of the forestry operations of the Lignum company in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Committee members were particularly impressed by the company’s innovative approaches, as their forestry activities are planned in a way that coincides with the regional land-use plan developed in close co-operation with the local communities and the various special interest groups. Lignum makes use, and demonstrably good use, of a wide variety of planning tools that allow it to pay meticulous attention to forest values, as well as to integrate its logging development plans with the overarching aesthetic and environmental considerations. The approach used in the Cariboo-Chilcotin is original and augurs well for the future. It is analogous in scope to one of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in its 1994 report, when it suggested that the federal government should promote Natural Forest Landscape Management as a useful planning approach for achieving sustainable forestry.⁽¹⁹⁾

It appears that this idea has gained ground and has propelled Canada to the forefront of the forest nations that share the aspiration of ensuring the sustainable development of the planet’s remaining forests.

On British Columbia’s mid-coast, the Committee noted the extent to which forest practices have changed during the 1990s, while remaining aware that they are not yet flawless, and that a forest landscape that has recently been logged appears greatly disfigured in comparison with the majestic and unblemished coastal forest surrounding it. On the ground, the members of the Committee were able to see and discuss the new requirements set out in the province’s Forest Practices Code. The Code, which has now become law, applies to the 94% of B.C. forest land that is public. The Code itself is very complicated because it contains numerous prescriptions concerning all aspects of forest operations: planning and location of roads and cutblocks, the size of cutblocks (which has been reduced), protection of streams, deactivating of logging roads, reduced site disturbance, maintaining biodiversity, conservation of "culturally modified trees"⁽²⁰⁾

, and so forth. In general, the Code has obliged forestry companies to plan their activities by ensuring that all the other forest values, such as fishing and tourism, are not jeopardized by logging operations.

The Forest Practices Board was set up to impose and enforce the new Code, and frequently conducts scheduled and unscheduled inspections of forest operations. Since the Code came into effect, the companies’ compliance rate has increased from 93% in 1995/96 to 94% in 1996/97 and 1997/98, which made the Chairman of British Columbia’s independent Forest Practices Board say that B.C. was making good progress, even though there was still room for improvement. COFI held the view that the incremental costs for the B.C. forest industry of implementing the new regulatory regime have exceeded $1 billion per year.⁽²¹⁾

Greenpeace Canada and the Sierra Legal Defense Fund consider the Code to be inadequate in protecting fish habitat and in its requirements for public input in the review of forest development plans. They also raised concerns about the government’s enforcement, or rather its failure to enforce, the Forest Practices Code.⁽²²⁾

CERTIFICATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS AND PRACTICES

If there was one issue where the Committee felt there was a consensus, it was the certification of forest products and practices. Representatives of environmental groups, unions, the industry and forestry professionals were all equally predisposed to the use of certification as a tool for assessing industry practices and for evaluating the level of awareness among consumers of forest products. However, they did not all agree on the best approach to certification and on the standard that should be promoted in Canada and abroad. The proliferation of certification processes and standards has created problems for this industrial sector, which has already been hard hit by the pressure on its product sales both domestically and internationally.

In practical terms, the Canadian forest industry may choose one of three main certification standards for forest products and practices. Two of these appear to have the support of Canadian companies, although in some cases the standard used may well be dictated by the marketplace itself or by lobbying by special interest groups. The three certification standards used or likely to be used in Canada are known primarily by the acronyms of the organizations that developed them. They are the CSA (Canadian Standards Association) standard, the FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council) standard, and the ISO (International Standards Organization) standard.

Canada was one of the first nations in the world to develop its own sustainable forestry management (SFM) standard, following the creation of a group of forestry industry representatives known as the Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition. While the idea came initially from industry, they approached the Canadian Standards Organization (CSA) asking that they manage the development of voluntary, domestic SFM standards. The CSA set up a Technical Committee composed of 24 voting members spread equally among four sectors: the industry, academic and professional groups, social and environmental groups, and regulatory bodies. Twenty non-voting members have joined the committee and play a full part in the discussions. Broad-based consultations were held before the CSA was able to adopt the sustainable forestry management standard in 1996.

By reason of its affinities with the International Standards Organization, the CSA used the ISO 14001 environmental management system (see below) as the basis for this domestic forest certification scheme. The ISO standard was completely rewritten in a forest management context and additions were made by the CSA. One major change involved adding the criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management that were developed in Canada and approved by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. Another important addition was the requirement for public participation in certain aspects of forest development, including a number of the CCFM criteria, such as biodiversity, forest ecosystem health and productivity, soil and water conservation, the forest's contribution to global ecological cycles, and social values and responsibilities. There is also a requirement to include forecasts of expected results and to carry out on-the-ground evaluations or audits of the performance of forest companies. The CSA standard is therefore a combination of management system, performance and on-the-ground auditing.

While Canada’s forest industry was taking its first steps toward the implementation of a certification process, the Forest Stewardship Council was treading a similar path at the international level. The objectives of this international Council are to support environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world’s forests. The FSC scheme for certification, unlike the ISO and CSA approach, is premised on the creation of an international labelling system that is designed to assure consumers that the forest products they are buying come from well-managed forests. To carry the FSC logo, the producer must meet ten principles and criteria for forest stewardship that take the form of performance standards. Only FSC-accredited certification bodies are permitted to carry out the on-the-ground forest inspections necessary to receive FSC approval.

The similarities between the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) principles and the CSA’s SFM System standards deal with conserving biodiversity, protecting wildlife habitat, conserving soil and water, providing multiple benefits to society, and so on. Both processes aim to promote better forest management performance. However, they differ on three points, ⁽²³⁾

:

1. The CSA standards focus on the evidence of continual improvement and sustainable forest management for each audited forest area, whereas the FSC approach focuses on chain-of-custody-based product labelling as an essential endpoint.
2. The CSA SFM standards require ongoing public participation throughout the forest management process, while the FSC Principles do not specifically address this issue.
3. The CSA followed the procedures and disciplines for standards development set out by the Standards Council of Canada, a Canadian Crown corporation. The CSA process provided for balanced participation by a variety of interest groups in the development of its standards, including government representation. The FSC developed its principles without the input of governments which, in Canada, are responsible for public interests and own large portions of the world's forest land. Moreover, the industry only had an opportunity to contribute to the development of the CSA standards.

The Committee understood from its hearings that the FSC approach must be tailored to suit the Canadian context by developing regional criteria that reflect the forestry operations to be certified. It does not appear that the procedure for determining the regional criteria has been developed yet. While some firms appearing before the committee clearly showed their interest in FSC certification, probably for use in European markets, the members noted a degree of reticence about venturing down a path that is entirely, or in any case largely, controlled by environmental organizations. The Committee is of the view that it would be worthwhile to ensure that adapting the FSC certification process to the British Columbia context is carried out in a way that includes the government and the industry, and that it consider the views of a wide range of interested parties, as was the case for the CSA standards.

In connection with ISO 14001, it should be noted that this is a generic standard that can be applied to the environmental management of any industry, in any country. The main elements of ISO 14001 are that the company must develop and publish a management system showing its corporate objectives and its commitment to improving its environmental practices. A company must be open to a third-party audit before obtaining ISO 14001 certification. A number of witnesses appeared to find that the ISO standard is not especially appropriate for sustainable forestry operations, because it is based primarily on management practices, not on performance or on product labelling. There are, however, some companies that would still like to obtain ISO certification.

A number of witnesses appearing before the Committee in Vancouver said they wanted the federal government, in co-operation with the provincial governments, to promote more actively the implementation of certification processes. Concern was also expressed that Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards were mutually exclusive and that companies would have to choose which certification they would apply for or, in some circumstances, apply for more than one. Some witnesses also pointed out that it would be a shame for the concept of certification to become overly politicized or to reach the point where recognition of certification depended on who was applying for or obtaining it.⁽²⁴⁾

A number of witnesses indicated strong interest in integration of the various certification standards, particularly those of the CSA and the FSC, if only to avoid confusion among forest product consumers.

In a letter to the Committee following the appearance of the Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada (IWA), Western Forest Products, and International Forest Products Limited (Interfor) in November 1998, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Natural Resources, confirmed the federal government's position on forest management methods certification. He noted that Canada favoured certification for trade purposes insofar as it promoted sustainable forest management. The federal government has not officially endorsed any certification system and does not intend to do so. Minister Goodale also expressed apprehension that inappropriate use of certification could have harmful effects on the economy, the environment and sovereignty for Canada and indeed globally. In the federal government's opinion, certification should be consistent with forest policies, voluntary, non-legislated, non-regulated, science-based, transparent, and developed in an open, inclusive manner that takes into account the interests of all major forest industry stakeholders.⁽²⁵⁾

Although the Committee understands governments' hesitation to participate directly in certification processes, which in any case remain voluntary, it considers the following recommendation appropriate. [With respect to recommendations, the Bloc québécois wished to be on the record as preferring to leave any recommendations to the final report.]

The Committee recommends that the federal government, in co-operation with the provincial governments and other stakeholders, actively promote integration of the various sustainable forest management certification standards, both nationally with the CSA (Canadian Standards Association) and the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), and internationally where a number of approaches have been developed or implemented.

ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Despite opinions to the contrary, the federal government is quite active in the forest industry. Of course, since forestry is an area of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is not responsible for managing vast forest tracts. However, it does play a leading role in forestry research and development in Canada, and in leadership on world forests and promoting sustainable forest management practices internationally. It is also a responsibility of the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces and the industry, to promote Canadian forest products and to defend Canada's interests on international markets.

Canada made a strong commitment to international discussions on forests when preparing for the UN Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) (the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, in 1992. At that time, Canada spared no effort to have world forests, along with biodiversity and climate change, included in an international convention. Although this initiative was unsuccessful and the participating countries agreed instead to adopt sustainable forest management guidelines under Agenda 21, Canada's efforts did at least put world forests on the agenda of international discussions. Today, Canada is unquestionably a leader among forest harvesting countries in developing and implementing sustainable forest management criteria and indicators. NRCan continues to gather international support for ratifying an international forestry convention that will ensure the sustainability of world forests.

Canada has developed a strategy to strengthen its commitment to sustainable forest management and to ensure ongoing access to export markets. The first part of the strategy relies on NRCan's Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and provincial, territorial and industry partners. Their commitment is reflected in the new National Forest Strategy 1998-2003, entitled Sustainable Forests: A Canadian Commitment; the second Canada Forest Accord also reaffirms their collective commitment to co-operation in making sustainable forest management a reality in all parts of Canada. Also from a strategic perspective, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) criteria and indicators help define and make concrete the concept of sustainable forest development, and also facilitate access to foreign markets.

Regarding international market pressure against Canadian forest products, Minister Goodale reminded the Committee⁽²⁶⁾ that in 1993 the CCFM introduced the International Forestry Partnership Program (IFPP). The purpose of the IFPP is to communicate Canada's sustainable forest management policies and practices to key decision-makers in Europe and the United States. The IFPP obtained $4.5 million in pro-rated funding over a three-year period from the federal and all provincial and territorial governments. The IFPP was extended for four years, with no additional funding, and is to end in March 2000; however, the IFPP Secretariat at the CCFM is working to extend it beyond that date.

The IFPP is administered and its yearly activities managed by NRCan, with the assistance of a Sector Working Group (SWG) representing all the governments involved. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (FAITC) and Industry Canada are also represented on the SWG; the forest industry is represented by three groups with observer status at SWG meetings. Every year, NRCan and FAITC sign an agreement under which FAITC, through its embassies, carries out approved activities in selected export markets, at present the United States, Europe, and Japan. Almost all IFPP funding is used for these additional FAITC activities; all jurisdictions involved in Canada, including NRCan, pay salary and other domestic expenditures from their budgets.

The IFPP hosts missions to Canada by foreign decision-makers and trade delegates, organizes visits by Canadian experts (mostly scientists) to foreign markets, and distributes factual information about sustainable forest management practices in Canada. Minister Goodale considers the IFPP effective, since participants in IFPP-hosted missions confirm that, after observing on the spot the type of sustainable forest management practised in Canada, they now know more about Canada's forest management policies and practices. Since the IFPP was set up in 1993, some 25 such missions have been hosted. The 1999-2000 schedule of activities includes a series of missions by representatives from the United States, Europe, and Japan,⁽²⁷⁾ including a mission by parliamentarians from the Council of Europe planned for September 1999.

A number of witnesses appearing before the Committee in Vancouver expressed approval of the IFPP, saying they wanted it to be maintained and even broadened. In fact, forest industry representatives and unions said they very much favoured this federal, provincial and territorial program, which brings foreign clients and consumers to Canada to observe forest operations and see by themselves forest practices in Canada. Some witnesses even said they considered the federal government the forest industry's ultimate trade representative abroad.

Since the IFPP is to end in March 2000, and since stakeholders seem unanimous that it has been useful and effective in making Canada's forest management practices better known abroad, the Committee makes the following recommendation.

The Committee recommends that through the CCFM, the federal government, in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments, extend the IFPP for a five-year period and provide it with the funding it needs to achieve its objectives, particularly promoting and supporting Canada's forest industry on international markets.

In addition to supporting the IFPP, the federal government actively promotes Canadian forest products on export markets. For example, it co-operates with various industry associations and other private-sector organizations by organizing trade missions, market prospecting trips, studies of major markets of interest to Canada, and Canada's participation in major trade fairs. In these activities, Canadian trade delegates and embassy and consulate employees in over 100 cities worldwide are very active in promoting and defending abroad the interests of Canada's forest industry.⁽²⁸⁾

SUGGESTIONS BY WITNESSES

A number of witnesses appearing before the Committee in British Columbia made suggestions and recommendations about various aspects of forest management in Canada and especially British Columbia. Since the Committee did not yet have an opportunity to hold hearings elsewhere in the country, it has had some difficulty making formal recommendations to the House on issues that often extend beyond its mandate. Therefore, it has decided to summarize below the main suggestions and recommendations made before it. Appendix B contains, for the information of readers, most of the recommendations made by witnesses to the Committee. Appendix A lists the witnesses that appeared on this study.

For example, Greenpeace Canada and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund said they wanted the federal government to increase spending on forests, although not necessarily in areas that other stakeholders would prefer. They wanted the federal government to invest more in rural community development and thus diversify the economy, particularly value-added activities, and to encourage more frugal use of the forest resource. They also criticized the federal government for not enforcing its own legislation strictly or comprehensively enough, especially the fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. They also demanded that the federal government adopt legislation to protect endangered species and their habitats.

Representatives of the forest industry and forest workers appearing before the Committee in British Columbia unanimously supported the federal government's present work to promote and defend the Canadian forest industry's interests on international markets. A number of them would like present programs to be broadened and given more funding in order, for example, to send a larger delegation of industry representatives, workers and local communities to defend Canada's interests in major markets in Europe, Asia, and the United States.⁽²⁹⁾

Lastly, representatives of local and aboriginal communities appearing before the Committee in the Bella Coola region, on the mid-coast of British Columbia, said how important it is for them to participate actively through dialogue and co-operation in discussions on the long-term viability and use of the forest resource. Naturally all stakeholders acknowledge that the situation is complex, especially on the coast where land claims by the aboriginal nations are a major outstanding issue. The Chiefs of the Nuxalk and Heiltsuk nations reiterated their communities' intention to obtain their fair share of natural resources and put them to good use with respect for their traditions. From this perspective, the Committee considers the efforts and agreements made by certain companies to carry on their forest operations in co-operation with aboriginal nations to be a very positive development. The approach by Western Forest Products, which employs aboriginal forest workers in its operations on Yeo Island, seems very positive for both the company and the Heiltsuk nation. The Committee can only encourage initiatives of this type.

The Committee looks forward to continuing its work in the area of forest management practices in Canada as an international trade issue. In addition, it wishes to thank all those who helped with its travel to British Columbia and those who made presentations, formally or informally, to the Committee.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (Meetings Nos 69, 71 to 73, 76 and 77) is tabled

	Respectfully submitted,
	BRENT ST. DENIS, Chair

---

(1) Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Canada: A Model Forest Nation in the Making. Ottawa, June 1994, primarily Chapter 4 B (the international level).

(2) Greenpeace protesters halt timber shipment", Calgary Herald, 27 March 1998, p.A7. It is important to note that this name was given to this B.C. mid-coast rainforest by preservationists.

(3) Protest against B.C. timber spreads to Germany", The Edmonton Journal, 29 March 1998, p.E8.

(4) Stewart Bell, "Boycott grows against B.C. forest products", National Post, 8 December 1998, p. A5.

(5) However, as late as 26 May 1999, a dozen Greenpeace demonstrators took their dispute over forest conservation to the Home Depot store in Gloucester, a suburb of Ottawa (France Pilon, "Greenpeace et la protection des forêts millénaires; Home Depot reçoit de la visite", Le Droit, 27 May 1999, p. 2).

(6) Sierra Club of British Columbia, The Great Bear Rainforest, information from the internet site: http://www.sierraclub.ca/bc/Campaigns/Temperate_Rainforest/GBR.html.

(7) Greenpeace, British Columbia Communities at the Crossroads: Towards Economic and Ecological Sustainability, August 1998, p. 14.

(8) Sierra Club of British Columbia, op.cit.

(9) D. Bryant, D. Daniel and L. Tangley, The Last Frontier Forests : Ecosystems & Economies on the Edge (What is the Status of the World’s Remaining Large, Natural Forest Ecosystems?), World Resources Institute’s Forest Frontiers Initiative, Washington D.C., 1997.

(10) As reported by Greenpeace during testimony before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, Vancouver, 13 May 1999.

(11) Testimony by Patrick Moore, Forest Alliance of British Columbia, before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, Vancouver, 14 May 1999.

(12) Testimony by Dr. Yvan Hardy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forestry Service, before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations Ottawa, 10 May 1999.

(13) Government of Quebec, Department of Natural Resources, Lancement du document synthèse sur la mise à jour du Régime forestier québécois — Notes pour une allocution de monsieur Jacques Brassard, ministre des Ressources naturelles, lors du lancement du document synthèse sur la mise à jour du Régime forestier québécois, 17 May 1999.

(14) Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, Deforestation of temperate rainforests and Canada’s responsibility, Motion for a resolution presented by Mr. Staes and others, Doc. 8106, 4 May 1998.

(15) BC Council of Forest Industries (COFI), Canadian Forest Practices as an International Trade Issue, A Submission to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, May 1999, p. 2-3.

(16) Ibid., p. 4.

(17) Ibid., p. 5.

(18) Testimony by Greenpeace to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, Vancouver, 13 May 1999.

(19) House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Canada: A model forest nation in the making, June 1994, recommendation No. 2, p. 32.

(20) Culturally Modified Trees": a tree that was nicked, gouged or scored by native people to determine whether it was hollow and could be used to build a canoe. A CMT must be left intact on the cutblock.

(21) BC COFI (May 1999), p. 6.

(22) Testimony by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, Vancouver, 13 May 1999.

(23) According to Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition, internet site at: http://www.sfms.com/rece73h.htm#2.

(24) Testimony to the Committee by the Forest Alliance of British Columbia, Vancouver, May 14, 1999.

(25) Letter from the Honourable Ralph Goodale to the Committee Chair following the November 1998 appearance before the Committee of the IWA, Western Forest Products, and Interfor; letter received March 3, 1999.

(26) Ibid.

(27) Ibid.

(28) Ibid.

(29) Presentation to the Committee by the Council of Forest Industries (COFI) and IWA, Vancouver, May 14, 1999.