NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 29, 2000

• 1111

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of Canadian forest management practices as an international trade issue.

With us today is the Canadian Forestry Association: Susan Gesner, president of the board; Fred Pollett, consultant; and David Lemkay, general manager.

If I'm not mistaken, we were here not that long ago and we were rudely interrupted by matters of grave import in the House of Commons. No...that was somebody else. At any rate, I think there was a rose and two thorns. I made the mistake of confusing myself from the visual image.

We're pleased to have you here today, and I need only caution you about the same thing I had to caution the other group about. The affairs of the House are such these days that we may be interrupted. In fact we were supposed to have a vote at 10.40, and it hasn't happened yet. I think the leader of the official opposition is still delivering his budget response, and we know not what will happen afterwards. I give you that caution because while we're very anxious to hear what you have to say, when we are called away, we will interrupt the meeting.

I think you've appeared before this committee in the past, have you not? No? But you're familiar with the procedures. We'll give you about ten minutes, not because we don't want you to go on at great length about your expertise, but because we're frankly a little bit more interested in picking your brain about your expertise in order that we might thereby increase our own. So please stay in and around that ten minutes, and then we'll go from there.

Madame, I don't know whether it is you who wishes to begin, but if that's the case, the microphone is yours.

Ms. Susan Gesner (President of the Board, Canadian Forestry Association): Thank you.

Greetings, and thank you very much for giving the Canadian Forestry Association an opportunity to speak today.

I will be presenting in English. At this time, the Canadian Forestry Association is going through some radical changes in the organization, as you will hear about later on in my brief speech. We are made up of a board of directors who are all volunteers. We are currently without the support of an executive director to help run the ship. I was unable today to bring with me one of my bilingual directors. Our board is made up of representatives across the country. I'm based out of Ontario, as the president, so it was easy for me to attend.

With your permission, I would like to be able to provide this committee with a brief of our presentation in both official languages within a week to ten days, if that's suitable.

The Chair: That's absolutely fine, Madam Gesner. All you'll have to do is forward it over to our clerk, and our clerk will ensure that each and every member on the committee is equipped with that information post-haste.

Ms. Susan Gesner: Thank you very much, and I will do my best to keep my comments under ten minutes.

Initially, I'd like to explain what the Canadian Forestry Association is and why we believe there is a role in your discussions for us.

The Canadian Forestry Association was formed in 1900. It was formed by a group of prominent Canadian citizens who had a real concern about the wise use of natural resources and conservation. It was called the Canadian Forestry Association, but as you look through some of our previous history, which I certainly won't make you read today, you'll see the concerns were broader than simply forests. They included wildlife, soils, water, and a variety of other concerns and issues.

• 1115

I mentioned we were formed in 1900. That means this year, the year 2000, we are celebrating our 100th anniversary, and we're very excited about that. I believe that demonstrates our role and our abilities over the last 100 years.

In 1906 we held the first Canadian forestry convention. For your information, it was presided over during all three days of that convention by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and was also supported by the leader of the opposition at that time, Mr. Borden. Both gentlemen believed very strongly in notions of conservation, and both parties at that time agreed upon the need for effective natural resources management and conservation. It demonstrated a real foresight of the government at that time to be caring about these sorts of issues.

Particularly, there were two concerns raised by that group of individuals. One was a concern around the burning of forests throughout Canada in order to create agricultural land, and secondly, there were concerns that certain individuals in the country were perhaps overharvesting.

What was most interesting also is that sitting around that table at that first large meeting in 1906 were other individuals representing business and industry and forestry who cared very deeply about the harvesting issues, individuals like the Gillies family, the McLaughlins, the Booths. They were the foundation of conservation and wise-use management in this country, and it was long before there was an active and vocal environmental movement.

I believe I can say confidently that the activities of that particular group solidified the federal government's role in forestry as they sat on that non-government organization. It also set the stage for issues around forestry to be studied at colleges and universities in Canada.

Furthermore, I believe the movements starting from that organization and that meeting in 1906 have moved us towards a series of national forest congresses. The most recent, you may be aware, was the National Forest Congress held in 1998 here in Ottawa, and on May 1 the Canada Forest Accord was signed, and our current national forest strategy was addressed at that point.

Perhaps what is so critical about that comment is that the Canadian Forestry Association has been central and pivotal to that movement around the national forest strategy and concerns around forest issues, both national and international, since that time.

For clarification, our role as an organization is one of public education and awareness and information. It is our role, and certainly our desire, to provide information for the public of Canada, a variety of publics and a variety of sectors, to know and learn more about forests and all issues around forests.

Let me give you a few examples of some of our current programs. I suspect if you have children perhaps you're all aware of National Forest Week, which is celebrated throughout the country and has been celebrated since the early 1920s. It celebrates an issue around forests each year. Material goes out to schools across the country, as well as to youth groups and interest groups, and looks at forestry and forest issues studied within the classrooms.

We are also the organizers of the Forestry Capital of Canada. Each year, through the Canadian Forestry Association, a particular community in this country that has its basis in the forest industry and the forest concerns is celebrated as a community that capitalizes on its forest benefits.

Perhaps one of our most exciting and current issues is the National Forest Millennium Conference—and I have some handouts I might share with this group, if that's appropriate. It's a conference that will be hosted by the Canadian Forestry Association and a number of other partners throughout the country to look at issues around forest sustainability and certainly some of the very specific issues that I believe you are addressing through this committee.

We've hosted a number of other conferences in our years, particularly those conferences that focus on education, public education, outreach and awareness. An EDUFOR conference was also hosted in Thunder Bay back in the early 1990s for teachers who wished to infuse more forestry education throughout their curriculum. EnviroFor is a conference that has been hosted in a number of provinces to look at forest issues discussed by a variety of sectors, not strictly the formal education community but all interested communities.

• 1120

In a nutshell, I believe the focus of our organization is on bringing people together to explore issues around forestry, forest management, and conservation and come up with some common answers and actions. Our role is not as an advocate for business, industry, or government, but rather as an advocate for the people, to provide knowledge and information and ensure that the public is aware of all aspects of forestry, particularly sustainable forest management. Perhaps underscoring that goal is the opportunity to increase dialogue with the public and within the public.

I mentioned we started in 1900 as a public organization. People had individual memberships. In the late 1950s, we moved from individual memberships to become a federation of provincial organizations, because the concerns around forestry were becoming more regionalized and localized. At this time in our history, we are moving back from that federation of provincial organizations to become a central core national organization that will focus very clearly on issues in both the national and international schemes.

We are at the very edge of where we started. We started as a national organization focusing on those issues. We moved to a federation of provincial issues. We are now back, and we are looking very clearly at a national level on those sorts of issues.

We are currently run by a board of directors who are all volunteers, such as myself. We have been able to solicit support from Dr. Fred Pollett, who's been able to provide us with some very clear strategic direction. Dr. Pollett's work is moving us toward this new organization. We've looked at a variety of avenues to increase and maintain that dialogue, and he's helping us map that forward.

At the conference in May, Forest Sustainability—Beyond 2000, we will launch that new organization and begin to tackle some of those more specific issues. I believe that as an organization we are ideally poised to move forward in Canada to be a voice for a variety of organizations, to explore the issues you are at this table discussing.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Just before I turn the questions over to my colleagues now, you are much more practised in this field than I. As you were giving your presentation, I kept asking myself, what are the organizations she represents? You finished by saying there is a whole cadre of organizations now. Can you give me just a very quick indication of what they are?

Ms. Susan Gesner: Perhaps I was not clear.

The Chair: No, you were clear—I'm new.

Ms. Susan Gesner: Perhaps I wasn't articulate, though.

The Canadian Forestry Association doesn't necessarily represent organizations; we represent interests. If I could put it in simple terms, we would like to speak for the forest and provide a voice for that forest. So if you were interested in concerns around forest management or concerns around what was happening in classrooms across Canada, we might be a group that could help answer some of those questions.

As I mentioned, we were a federation of provincial organizations. In each province in Canada there were, in the 1950s, regional provincial forestry associations: the Alberta Forestry Association, the Ontario Forestry Association, the Nova Scotia Forestry Association, and the Canadian Forestry Association of New Brunswick. They were very strong and powerful, and focused on specific issues within their provinces.

Currently some of those forestry associations are doing well, and some are not doing as well. As a national umbrella organization, we are taking a step back to centralize our efforts and speak for and to private sectors that have interests in forests, not necessarily a variety of organizations.

Is that a little clearer?

• 1125

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thank you very much.

Your website points out that you're a registered charitable organization, not aligned with either government or industry. I'm a British Columbian, and right now we're facing TV and newspaper ad campaigns sponsored by Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. It's a million-dollar campaign. We're assaulted by it on television, particularly. They're targeting the mid-coast of British Columbia. It's a very politicized campaign. They're going directly after the new premier.

Greenpeace has no federal charitable status, but the Sierra Club still does. I wonder if you have a comment or an opinion on the appropriateness of this kind of campaign.

Ms. Susan Gesner: I'll fall back on what the premise of my organization really is. Perhaps we are differentiated from groups like Greenpeace and Sierra Club. We do not promote a stand or a message around forestry. We don't say certification is good, or to stop clear-cut harvesting.

Our role is to provide information about all those sorts of issues, so we indeed provide information about the issues being raised by Sierra Club and Greenpeace to a variety of publics, providing them with an opportunity to make their own decisions about those issues. As an organization, we're not prepared to directly address that kind of thing, other than provide information.

The Chair: Mr. Pollett.

Mr. Fred Pollett (Consultant, Canadian Forestry Association): Greenpeace, as you know, is a special interest group with a particular agenda, and I don't think there's anybody who's ambiguous about the agenda.

The CFA is trying to make sure the best information is in front of people like you, the public, so you can draw your own conclusions. At the same time, we want to provide fora, so we can bring people together and try to find solutions to the differences people bring to the table.

If you look at the Canada Forest Accord, which was signed by organizations in B.C. and right across the country—environmental organizations—the CFA tries to find a common ground and some way to get a dialogue going, where we all benefit. You might say we try to come down the middle, but we try to make sure the best information is available. One of the problems you have in trying to fight the messaging, as you say, is who delivers the message?

The CFA is an organization that, with the way we're taking it now, will represent the people of Canada. In other words, we're going out for public membership. We believe we need a national magazine, similar to Canadian Geographic, on the forests of Canada. We believe we need to have a window on the world through the Internet. Let's make sure people have the best information that's available from our scientists and others, but let it come, in our case, from an organization that is not directly an advocate of government, industry, or special interests.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Your website says that one of your roles is to advise the federal government on forest policy concerns. Surely one of your forest policy concerns must be that those groups—Greenpeace, Sierra Club and others—are getting a message out that is not really being met equally in terms of TV time or advertising time, simply because they appear to have more financial resources. Are you advising government that there ought to be a lot more resources thrown at this problem, here and overseas?

• 1130

Mr. Fred Pollett: Of course, as a taxpayer, I don't like throwing money.

Mr. John Duncan: I didn't mean it in that way.

Mr. Fred Pollett: I know what you're saying. In other words, direct it towards this particular—

Mr. John Duncan: Targeting money would be a better way to say it.

Mr. Fred Pollett: I believe that if we want to communicate the best information.... You have some of the best scientists in the Canadian Forest Service. You have a centre of excellence through the tri-council looking at sustainable forest management. You have the model forests program across Canada looking at new ways of management. You have some really powerful voices. There's a lot of good information. Now I think what you need is more resources to make sure the people who have good information have a chance to get that distilled down and out so people can digest it.

In terms of how you do the mechanisms, there's already the international group that operates through the CCFM. I'm sure they are generating some very good messages, good information. I also believe you need voices that are outside of that speaking on forestry issues.

Say you were a parliamentarian in Germany and you wanted information on a Canadian forest and you had an independent organization that tried to stay independent and offer the best information. If that group came to Canada and we could help in that, then we would like to do so. We want to try to get that message out. Certainly resources are needed, yes.

Mr. John Duncan: Does the CFA do an analysis of the federal budget after it's presented on an annual basis and indicate where you're pleased and where you're disappointed, or anything like that? Is that a formal exercise that you go through at all?

Ms. Susan Gesner: We've not done that in the past.

Mr. John Duncan: Is that something you might consider? There was quite a bit of talk about increased budgetary consideration to address this issue. I think the estimates are tabled today, so there's an opportunity to do that. Is that something you would consider?

Mr. Fred Pollett: In deference to the president, the CFA has looked at the budget in the past in the sense of its impacts on forestry, and has published that in publications related to.... For example, there used to be a series of publications called Forestry on the Hill where we looked at issues through this kind of analysis and so on.

The budget itself has been looked at it in the past, but more or less for internal consumption as to how we might take advantage or assess it in the sense of the organization. But it was not in the sense of bringing out an analysis on our website or anything like that, no.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here with us today. I appreciate that the organization tries to avoid aligning itself with a particular political view or policy view, if you would. I'm making reference to Mr. Duncan's questions about the activities of Greenpeace and their partner, the Sierra Club, out on the east coast of B.C.

It seems to me that one of the common denominators in terms of solving some of the dilemmas Mr. Duncan refers to, which indeed is a non-denominational issue, is the issue of certification. I see that one of your principal mandates has to do with sustainable development of the forest and education in relation to that. Have you been involved in any way with work towards forest certification? I have more on that, but before I pursue it, have you been involved in that at all?

• 1135

Ms. Susan Gesner: In the discussions around forest certification?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Yes. Forest practices.

Ms. Susan Gesner: We haven't had a significant voice in those discussions. We're aware of them. We have participated at a variety of tables. We have no policy or particular statement on certification.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: As to the question of whether Sierra Club representatives said they favour certification, I guess they would see that from their point of view as a way to deal with consumer demands for certain kinds of forest practices. They made what I thought was an interesting point in that they didn't believe the various certification systems should be integrated, that they should be maintained separately: the ISO, CSA, FSC, and whatever others might be around.

It would seem logical to me that there be a single, integrated certification system so that there wouldn't be confusion. To me it plays into the hands of the NGOs to have several and to promote confusion, if I might say, as opposed to having a single one that everybody could agree to. This is maybe pie in the sky, but eventually if we had one that we could all look to for guidance, that would be good for the world's forest.

Do you have a view on whether it's better to have a series of separate certification systems or one integrated system as a goal? It would seem to me that if sustainable development is an objective of your organization, that is something you'd have an opinion on.

Mr. Fred Pollett: I agree.

The way the CFA would deal with that is that we would see it as an issue or a problem around which we need to try to get the various players and see if we can't come to some coherence of approach. In other words, it may or may not end up saying there should be one. But we look at it as an issue because with certification, as you said, we're now looking at a pan-American.... We're looking at many different....

The CFA would have a concern about the impact of certification and its processes. It is not a replacement for sustainable forest management, although if you read the documents, you would think certification was a solution. Certification is a tool. It should not be confused. There's a lot of good...but we're still going to have to move ahead.

So the CFA may look on it as an issue in terms of how we can better manage the forests of Canada and internationally and say this proliferation is a concern. We may want to address that as to what is the best way to approach this in the future. That's the way we would try to deal with it, rather than say it should be one or it should be two.

The ISO has an advantage at the macro level, whereas the FSC has another advantage in some other areas. We're trying to say that we're aware of the issues like old growth, clear-cutting, and so on. We're not avoiding them, but we're trying to find solutions to this problem without saying we're on this side on an environmental issue or this side with industry.

Ms. Susan Gesner: I just would like to add one little point.

I mentioned the Forest Sustainability—Beyond 2000 conference. As Dr. Pollett said, the direction we're moving in is to address these issues and bring some dialogue around them. The CFA can provide the venue to allow that to take place. For example, the conference we are helping to sponsor this year is an opportunity to explore those sorts of things. As you review the agenda, you will see that discussions around certification are embedded in there.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Did you bring spares of those?

Ms. Susan Gesner: Yes, I did.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Canuel.

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): I'm also proud that you are here. In your introduction you said that you are the voice of the forest. As far as I know, your voice is not very strong in Quebec.

• 1140

My colleague for Vancouver seemed to be saying that there were not any forestry problems in his region. Although I have visited the West, I'll be speaking about the situation in Quebec in particular where we do have problems. The purpose of a company, and you know this better than I do, is to make profits. The company doesn't care a damn about forestry management and when it does this management or reforestation, it is because of a legal obligation. There aren't many companies that would do reforestation if they didn't get subsidies or some type of assistance. You know this better than I do.

There's not much denunciation of this situation. There is one voice in Quebec that has been attracting attention, the voice of Richard Desjardins. He made a short film that got everybody talking. Since you do not appear to take a stand on any particular issue, you may think that he went too far. Quite possibly. Nonetheless, Richard Desjardins made people realize the tremendous mistakes that we are making with our forests. In my riding of Matapédia and Matane, there are forest farms. These forest farms are, roughly speaking, places where the forest is cultivated, like a garden, with the essential attraction such as hunting, fishing, tourist attractions and sugar bushes. People operating these farms are able to make a decent living. I'd suggest that you go visit the farms in the Mitis region or the farm belonging to Nicolas Rioux. They are a beautiful sight. I can't understand why your forestry association isn't exerting pressure so that there are forest farms everywhere.

When the minister appeared, his deputy minister told us that they budget envelope for forest farms and model farms was already committed for the next two years and that he didn't know whether this program would be continued. If you agree with my view, I think you should be doing some advocacy work for this cause with all the advertising it requires so that the largest number of people possible can live from the forests so that the forests can become a veritable garden and so that 20, 30 or 50 years from now, instead of being diminished, our forests will be in a position to produce even more and to grow over the long term.

I'd be interested in hearing your comments on that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Canuel.

[English]

Now, as the translation finishes and you digest the full import of the question....

Madam Gesner.

Ms. Susan Gesner: Yes. You began your question by saying that our voice is not very loud in Quebec. I noted at one point that we were previously made up of a variety of provincial forestry associations across Canada. The provincial forestry association of Quebec is no longer a partner because it is no longer in existence. However, there is a variety of very well-organized, very strong regional forestry associations within Quebec, and one of the regional associations sits on our board of directors. So we do have a voice coming from Quebec to our board.

• 1145

You spoke very eloquently about the ability within Quebec of the small woodlot owners to establish forest farms and to focus on the biodiversity of those particular areas and make a living out of them. That happens, in my own personal opinion, more frequently in Quebec than in some of the other provinces. But then you proceeded to say that perhaps we, as an organization, could put pressure on whomever to have people know more about these forest farms and perhaps to move toward the forest farms. You mentioned that we should put on pressure and talk about those sorts of things.

As an organization, the latter is our role.

We can listen to your words and take that as a recommendation that we, as an organization, need to provide opportunities to talk about those very issues. We have found opportunities to speak about sustainability and certification in this conference. Obviously there are other opportunities for us to look at the issue around forest farming and biodiversity and to provide forums and vehicles to talk about that, because that is our role: to talk about it and provide information and critical discussion opportunities. We can do that.

There are two things I might say. Regarding your riding, Matapédia, before I joined the Canadian Forestry Association, I believe it was in 1991 or 1992, the Matapédia Valley was the forestry capital of Canada. So we're quite aware of the wealth of resources there.

The Chair: He just scored a point.

Ms. Susan Gesner: Second, and perhaps very important, particularly to your question, the Canadian Forestry Association is working with an American organization called the Temperate Forest Foundation, which is based out of Portland, Oregon. The Temperate Forest Foundation is trying to get teachers more actively aware of what happens within forest communities. Last year the Temperate Forest Foundation, in partnership with the Canadian Lumbermen's Association and with support from our own organization, took teachers from the United States and Canada and sent them to Edmundston, New Brunswick. Those teachers were able to meet with mill people, with forest managers, with people in government and the industry, to learn more about what happens in a forestry community, and specifically how to manage the wood and all the resources within that area.

That will be happening again this summer. We will be helping to identify teachers who will be participating in those activities. From Quebec last year, Josette Bérubé from Témiscamingue participated in that program. She is currently teaching in her high school the information she learned from that program and is using information from the Canadian Forestry Association.

So we are positioned to look at an issue like that and find ways to get people of influence, like teachers, members of Parliament, and students, and provide them with opportunities to learn and to dialogue.

The Chair: Merci.

Monsieur Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here also.

Given the angle of international repercussions and implications in relation to forest management, and given also that there is a growing concern in Canada and even at the international level that our forest industries are producing beyond capacity, and that within the next 15 or 20 years there may be a shortage of fibre, could I have your views on that? Have you participated in any panel whereby the concept of sustainable development has been redefined or given a wider mandate? Have you participated in any discussions in this regard?

• 1150

Ms. Susan Gesner: I keep falling back on our role, our role as an organization that wouldn't take a stand and would not have an opinion on the issues you've presented.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: You would not.

Ms. Susan Gesner: No. We would provide a venue for people to make those opinions. Again, in here it is very clear. Allow me a moment to speak about some of the issues that would be raised in here. There are society and stewardship programs, where we look at issues around sustainability policy and practice. There's an exploration of the science behind sustainable development and sustainable forestry. It is articulated in here.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Part of my question is that in your opening remarks you alluded frequently to sustainable development, and certainly forest management is sustainable development. My question is that in the not-so-far future there are concerns out there, so what is your organization doing to ensure that there is sustainable development in Canada in order to improve our image internationally, because of the Greenpeaces and the Sierra Clubs of the world, and the Green Party in Germany and so on?

Mr. Fred Pollett: For example, one of the things we would like to do—I'll use this as one example—is create, using the Internet, what we call.... There's an enormous amount of resources that we don't tap. For example, I could tell you about scientists doing tremendous work in the boreal regions so that people can now work in areas they couldn't work in before because there would be too much ground disturbance, whereas now they can, using careful logging techniques developed in Quebec and northern Ontario. There are many things we could bring to bear here.

However, I think the broad issue of sustainable management is one that changes based on the knowledge we have. And we want to try to keep that knowledge in front of people.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's what I said.

Mr. Fred Pollett: Yes. That is our goal, to keep that knowledge in front of people.

Now, Mr. Duncan mentioned resources coming into.... In the budget yesterday it was mentioned that Canada was going to link 1,000 museums with the Internet to create the virtual museum. You have every school connected through SchoolNet. You have AboriginalNet to connect.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Is this government?

Mr. Fred Pollett: You have libraries connected. There are good bureaucrats who are putting these in place.

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of mechanisms to get information out. What we would like to do is to use that to create what we call a great Canadian forest tour, so that if you were sitting anywhere in the world you could visit Canada, you could tour Canada, you could talk to scientists, you could talk to parliamentarians, or you could talk to others with regard to the best information available. What we want to do is, using the modern technology, have this information put in front of people so that the best information is forward on forest sustainable management.

In terms of forest shortage, as you know, that varies so greatly across the country depending on who you're talking to and your background of information and so on. That's difficult to answer in relation to sustainability. That's why we want to provide the forum for the experts. We will come out with the results.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I'd like to thank you for coming to this meeting today. I thought I would be able to ask you some questions but I won't do so because as I've understood from the beginning of this meeting, the role of the Canadian Forestry Association is basically that of a go-between. You told us that you were the representatives of the forest. The more I hear you speak, the more I realize that you are the representatives of all the stakeholders in the forestry sector, whether it be Greenpeace, the government or anyone else. You play the role of a mediator, bringing together around the same table all these stakeholders in an attempt to come up with a common solution to the problems of the forest.

• 1155

When we ask you today your opinion on a particular issue, you quite rightly answer that you are not able to provide us with an opinion because your role is essentially to bring the stakeholders together so that they can find a solution. That is what I have gathered from your presentation.

When committee members tell you that they would like to know your position on a particular issue, you say that you cannot answer because it is not in keeping with the role of the Canadian Forestry Association which is similar to the role of a consultant. As I understand it, you bring together around the same table all these groups that may have divergent points of view and help them reach a solution. Is that correct?

[English]

Ms. Susan Gesner: I believe the message I am trying to communicate is that the role of our organization is to provide information from all organizations and opportunities for dialogue.

Mr. Yvon Godin: So no positions, just the opportunity for dialogue. Get people together, let's find a solution.

The Chair: Mr. Pollett.

Mr. Fred Pollett: Yes, you're right.

However, if you look at the results of the past in terms of managing forest congresses and coming out with forest strategies, what we've done is move the yardsticks forward continually in the debate. So, yes, you're absolutely right, that's our goal. And it's a tough one, as you know, in trying to take this stance, because we don't have jurisdiction whereby we can automatically go and say “We want your support because we're trying to inform Canadians and the world about Canada's forests.”

The Chair: Thanks for that.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the guests for being here.

I think with all the questions that have been asked we've narrowed down your role to more of a facilitation and educational process, but I have a couple of direct questions.

I think you've answered to a degree the question about your position on sustainability vis-à-vis certification, which was the question that Brent asked, actually. I'm wondering what your own backgrounds in forestry are.

Mr. Fred Pollett: As for my training, I'm a wetland ecologist, but I have managed forest research for many years and I used to be the director general of science for the Canadian Forest Service at one time. So I have a broad background on the science side. I was instrumental in the whole process of developing criteria and indicators that led to the certification process and also in the implementation of model forests across Canada.

Ms. Susan Gesner: My background is, like Dr. Pollett's, not directly in forestry. I'm a wildlife biologist from undergraduate work, with 17 years with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I also was a high school teacher, and my graduate work was in educational policy development and programming in terms of natural resources management.

For the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, I worked as a forestry consultant. In the last five years I worked with them on the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and I am now employed as an independent forestry education consultant.

Mr. Dave Lemkay (General Manager, Canadian Forestry Association): I'm not a forester, but I have been involved for the last 20 years in forestry and I got into this business because I have a strong sense of our forestry heritage in Canada. My mother's side of the family was the Rochester family from Ottawa. Some of delegates at the conference Dr. Pollett alluded to were my great-great grandfather and a number of other people like that.

• 1200

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I wasn't trying to insinuate that you have to have a forestry background. I was just very much interested to see if you did.

The Chair: We know you didn't, Gerald. Otherwise, you would have disqualified the chair, and that wouldn't have been good.

Mr. Dave Lemkay: If I may, Mr. Chair, with regard to what the association is actively engaged in now, it's been said a number of ways that we are the gatherer and the disseminator of information. The purpose of that, of course, is to try to have sound information and to have all the facts available so that people making decisions at various levels of government and in society can in fact have that information.

One of the strong areas we're involved in is a teacher's education kit. It doesn't necessarily deal with adult decision-making, but as you know, some of the proponents of certain aspects of forestry or ecology or environmental issues are certainly engaging at the school level. We believe it's important to get sound, unbiased, objective information into the schools.

We currently manage the distribution of a teacher's kit that goes all across Canada. We're working very hard on it right now to have it out in time for National Forest Week in May. It's basically a turnkey assembly of activities that teachers can use in the elementary and early high school years to let their students have hands-on series of activities that will allow them to think for themselves. That way, when they're possibly bombarded with information that may be coming from high-paid or high-priced campaigns, they will have an opportunity to think for themselves.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are a few things I want to try to focus in on. Certainly the education aspect is a big part of where my question is leading to.

My background is in the forest industry as well, and on many occasions I've spoken to classrooms and schools. I think part of the process out there is that we have that urban-rural split in Canada, which we're all well aware of, and a real misunderstanding of the long-term sustainability of forests. I've seen it within industry and outside of industry that people become alarmed when you start cutting trees.

For those of us who have cut trees for generations, a couple of hundred years, it's hard to convince people that you can actually.... I mean, they look at a 100-acre clear-cut, not 10,000 or 100,000 acres, as a big clear-cut.

There are all kinds of things we can do as foresters and as people working in the industry to improve our own relationship with the general public, but it's difficult to convince them that you can cut that forest. What I've done personally—I want to get this out—is take people into a clear-cut that's 20 years old. You know, the stumps are gone. This has not been planted; this is just regeneration in Nova Scotia. I tell people, look, this is an area that was cut off. This is the diversity. This is what's coming back here. The poplars will die out, certain other species will die out, and you'll come back to your original Acadian forest. In other places you will get species that are unwanted—your maple, your white spruce, and so on.

But how do you do that? Can you get enough kids out of the classroom and into the field to convince them? Because I don't think you can do that with a movie or with a textbook.

Ms. Susan Gesner: Allow me to address Nova Scotia specifically. That's my home, so I'm fairly familiar with it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Very good. I feel better about you already.

Mr. Fred Pollett: This lady's grandfather invented kerosene.

Was it your grandfather?

Ms. Susan Gesner: My great-grandfather.

In Nova Scotia in particular, the Canadian Forestry Association is working on.... Our logging for wildlife program is designed for contractors, small sawmill operators, private landowners, the new forest technicians group that was just started in Nova Scotia, and anybody else who will be going onto the landscape and changing that landscape through harvesting or forestry activities of any kind.

The Nova Scotia Forestry Association delivers a training workshop to those people and talks about the benefits of careful planning and careful management of the forest. The people who have participated in Nova Scotia today are people from Bowater Mersey, Stora Enso, Kimberly-Clark, the new technicians group, the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Nova Forest Alliance, and classroom teachers from Cape Breton, from Middle Sackville, from Bedford, from HRM, and from across the province.

• 1205

What that program does is bring a variety of those sectors together—not organizations, but sector representatives—to learn about the impacts of forestry, good and bad, or whatever. Then, when they leave there, the forestry technicians will be working with people on the forest cuts and the other sites, the teachers will be teaching in the classrooms, and that sort of thing.

To step back in order to speak at a national level, Nova Scotia's logging for wildlife program reflects the new forestry guidelines and regulations that have just come out within the province. There is a similar program in New Brunswick. It does the exact same thing, delivered through the Canadian Forestry Association in New Brunswick, in conjunction with a community college there, and it addresses the same issues.

It's the same thing in Ontario. Ontario has its logging for wildlife program delivered through the Ontario Forestry Association. We see the same players, with the same impact. And I could go on, because we have it in a number of other provinces.

The Canadian Forestry Association brings those people together to discuss those issues. As Mr. Duncan reminded us, it says on our website, where we talk about sustainable development, that we “promote the understanding and cooperation and the wise use and sustainable development of Canada's forests and related resources”. So that is our premise. We provide opportunities to have those kinds of discussions around sustainable forest management.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Just before breaking, I'd like to give Mr. Duncan the chance to ask a very brief last question.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a very short question, but it's in three parts. I promise to be really short if you promise to be short too.

First, if you organize a conference and it comes up with a conclusion, do you subscribe to that conclusion? Yes, no, or maybe?

Mr. Fred Pollett: Yes and no.

Ms. Susan Gesner: There you go.

Mr. Fred Pollett: I'll send you that, okay?

Mr. John Duncan: Secondly, your website sounds absolutely exciting. It's not even mentioned on your current website, however. What is your timeframe?

Mr. Fred Pollett: As Susan mentioned, we are now just going public again. We're going out with a campaign to look for support from the public. We have to start raising capital, and that capital will be directed toward this particular initiative. Our hope is that if we sit down here next year, we will be well underway toward having a good start on that. The technology is there and the knowledge is there, so if we can raise the support, we're there.

Mr. John Duncan: WC Squared has virtual forest tours now. We need to catch up.

Mr. Fred Pollett: I know that.

Mr. John Duncan: Thirdly, how do you define “objective” in this subject area? Is it objective to say we should sustain the volume of forests that exist as of today, or should we have more forests on the planet than we do now? That's food for thought.

The Chair: It's a rhetorical question.

Mr. John Duncan: In a sense it is rhetorical, but....

The Chair: It's fair nonetheless.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you for coming. You may have noticed that members of Parliament have greater ease at dealing with interests that are specific and directional, but we found that your presentation and your dialogue were informative on their own. Thank you for coming from wherever it is that you came. I'm glad that, for the first time in two weeks, we haven't been interrupted in our hearings.

Mr. John Duncan: Being from the opposition, I could have told you we wouldn't be interrupted. You didn't ask.

The Chair: That wasn't the opposition we were talking about.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.