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, March 28, 2000

• 1108

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your patience. It looks like we have a quorum, so I now call this meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our order of the day is a study of Canadian forest management practices as an international trade issue.

We have with us today representatives from the National Aboriginal Forestry Association. I believe it's Mr. Harry Bombay, the executive director, and he's accompanied by Ms. Rebecca McKay, who is a representative of the same organization.

My understanding, Mr. Bombay, is that you're going to be doing the presentation.

Mr. Harry M. Bombay (Executive Director, National Aboriginal Forestry Association): Correct.

The Chair: Good. It really doesn't matter, but you can go back and forth if that's how you choose.

What we normally do, if you haven't appeared before the committee before, is we try to give our witnesses about ten minutes to present a synopsis of their presentation and then we like to get back and forth into dialogue with the committee. So members will have their questions for you and you might find that more to your liking. Anyway, the choice is yours.

Mr. Harry Bombay: Yes, I'd like to say a few things, and I very much welcome discussion on any of the issues that I may bring up or any other issue you feel should be discussed in this setting.

• 1110

The Chair: We'll try to be orderly about it as well, Mr. Bombay. You go ahead. The microphone is yours.

Mr. Harry Bombay: Thank you.

First, I would like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to be here.

The issue of forest management practices as they pertain to international trade is an issue of growing importance to aboriginal people in Canada.

What I would like to do, first of all, is talk a little bit about the National Aboriginal Forestry Association. Our association is a non-governmental, voluntary, non-political, non-profit organization. We exist to promote increased aboriginal participation in forest management in Canada and to ensure that aboriginal peoples derive a share of the economic benefits from the forest sector.

The association is membership-based. We have about 270 members in NAFA, which include first nations, tribal councils, aboriginal forestry enterprises, academic institutions, a number of non-governmental organizations and individuals.

We have a small staff here in Ottawa. We have right now about four or five people, but at times fewer, depending on how we're able to raise funds and pay for our expenses.

As I mentioned, our primary role is to promote aboriginal participation. Our concern about the forest sector is that it does not, at the present time, adequately address aboriginal forestry issues and the values of aboriginal communities throughout the country. So we focus on developing forest management tools for aboriginal communities, and we attempt to influence forest policy at all levels of government and in the non-governmental sectors to ensure that aboriginal interests in the forests are addressed.

Forest management is extremely important to aboriginal communities because our cultures and lifestyles are dependent on healthy forests.

With respect to sustainable forest management, our position is that forest management must sustain our lifestyles and respect our relationships with mother earth. If forest management practices in Canada cannot do this, then they cannot be deemed to be sustainable.

In today's context, aboriginal communities wrestle with the issue of development and the extent to which they rely on traditional economies or adopt industrial models in efforts to improve their social and economic conditions. Most aboriginal communities in Canada take the view that they can find a balance by pursuing contemporary economic development while at the same time maintaining traditional land use activities.

Sustainable forest management, as it has been defined in Canada through such things as the national forest strategy, makes a commitment to a multiple-use approach and therefore an approach that in theory should address the concerns of aboriginal people.

We have worked as an association in numerous policy processes and have insisted that forests must be managed for all these values, particularly those of importance to aboriginal peoples and to the extent that trade issues impact on our ability to carry out traditional activities and to pursue forest space economic development.

We have concerns with current and emerging trade policy. We have no doubt that trade policy is beginning to impact on the way in which aboriginal people depend on forests and how we use forests.

Some of the major trends in the forest sector that are impacting on aboriginal peoples are such things as globalization. In Canada this has meant corporate mergers, acquisitions, in effect resulting in a lot fewer companies in the forest sector but larger companies. As well, technological advancement has meant that fewer people work in the sector. There are fewer jobs being generated, although harvest levels have either maintained their current levels or have increased. The number of jobs created per cubic metre of wood harvested has been decreasing. The effect of this trend is aboriginal people will have less opportunity to develop their own businesses, recognizing that their investment capital is limited and that there will be fewer jobs available for aboriginal people because of technological advancements.

• 1115

The larger companies that dominate the forestry industry are also becoming more demanding in their quest to secure wood supply and to protect their investments in their companies.

Another trend is provincial governments that are turning over more forest management responsibility to these large companies. This devolution of responsibility from provincial governments to forest companies has the effect of devolving or transferring key forest management responsibilities that aboriginal people have over time dealt with governments on. And because forestry companies are taking on more forest management responsibility, we find that we have to deal with forest companies, as opposed to governments, in terms of how our aboriginal treaty rights and our unique forest values are dealt with.

The demand for wood supply has put more competition into the sector in terms of gaining access to forest resources. We feel that we need to have assured access to forest resources to maintain our traditional land use activities and to develop commercial businesses for employment of our community members.

The forest sector has to be regarded as one of the key sectors for aboriginal economic development. Eighty percent of all first nations communities are located in forest-producing areas of the country. Forest-based economic development is one of the few opportunities for aboriginal people to become involved economically in the Canadian economy.

So all these are concerns to us.

One thing that is positive from our point of view is the movement toward sustainable forest management through such things as the national forest strategy and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers' criteria indicators for sustainable forest management. The concept of sustainable forest management holds that aboriginal organizations must be involved in forest management, planning, and decision-making.

Canada's national forest strategy contains 18 commitments intended to address current inequities in the forest sector. The problem with Canada's national forest strategy, however, is that while the commitments made in the strategy are made nationally and have been led by the federal government, forest management responsibility remains the jurisdictional responsibility of provincial governments. Consequently, we see a lot of different approaches being adopted throughout Canada dealing with issues that should be dealt with nationally. And I speak here of aboriginal issues, aboriginal rights, aboriginal title, treaty rights, and the need to address aboriginal forest values on a consistent basis.

Another aspect of sustainable forest management is certification. We know in Canada we have two major systems beginning to address certification through market-driven initiatives. We have the Forest Stewardship Council, which that requires that the customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use, and manage their lands and territories and resources shall be respected and recognized. The Canadian Standards Association certification system calls for evidence that aboriginal treaty rights are being addressed and that there is aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportunities.

Considering the relationship between certification and international trade, it is our view that certification should not be viewed as a non-tariff trade barrier. Certification systems should be welcomed as a means by which sustainable forest management is advanced to ensure that forest practices contribute to the management of forests for the benefit of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal future generations.

One of the efforts taking place internationally through organizations such as the World Trade Organization and through many of the United Nations bodies is the movement to liberalize trade. We have some concerns about that, particularly when it results in both increased concentration in the industry and increased foreign investment in the Canadian industry.

• 1120

As well, it opens up our forest practices to our trading partners as issues of negotiation. It is our view that within Canada, the issues important to aboriginal people have to be dealt with domestically. Aboriginal treaty rights have to be a subject of discussion between first nations and federal and provincial governments. They should not be dealt with in the context of international trade in terms of how they are recognized and provided for in forest policy.

We see that environmental issues are becoming more integrated with trade policy. Canada, when it negotiates and gets involved in discussions on trade policy with other countries, should maintain an interest in the rights of indigenous peoples. They should be a subject that Canada provides for in those discussions, though not leaving them open to negotiation. As with environmental issues, we are concerned that aboriginal rights and indigenous rights issues will be watered down in those trade negotiations.

Another aspect of trade is that aboriginal peoples, like other non-aboriginal people of Canada, will want to develop their economies based on forest-sector opportunities. As a result, we will want to expand our trade as well. It's only logical to expect, as we develop our businesses, that like the rest of the forest sector, which depends on trade, we will want to expand our trade opportunities.

We have seen that trade agreements to date have not dealt with aboriginal issues and our need to conduct trade. The softwood lumber agreement, for example, does not address aboriginal issues in any way at all. In 1996, when the agreement was implemented, aboriginal issues were not a matter of discussion. It did not recognize the fact that we had forest companies that required a softwood lumber quota to the United States markets.

Since 1996 there has been a considerable increase in the number of aboriginal forestry companies seeking markets in the U.S. for their softwood lumber products. At the present time, we have about 40 aboriginal forest-products companies. About 20 of them are impacted by the softwood lumber quota now.

These companies cannot achieve the level of production and marketing they possibly could because they lack a softwood lumber quota. Many of these companies right now are producing at 40% to 50% capacity simply because they don't have a quota to export. The production has been cut back, and therefore the benefits of these mills to these aboriginal communities have not been realized.

We have companies right now that produce value-added products. We are looking at ways in which our trade can be enhanced through our companies doing much of their own marketing. I raise that as an issue because a lot of our forestry companies right now are joint ventures with some of the major forestry companies in this country.

So we are looking at the softwood lumber agreement as something that's of great concern to us. If there is a successor softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States, we feel that first nations, considering their development needs, should be exempted from any need for quota.

• 1125

If there is completely open trade and we enter into a situation where the U.S. levies countervailing duties against Canadian forest products, then we should be looking for such measures as an exemption, perhaps, from countervailing duties to ensure that aboriginal communities are able to achieve some measure of equity in terms of gaining access to U.S. softwood lumber markets.

The softwood lumber agreement is something we have had discussions on with Mr. Doug Waddell. He's second in command at the Canadian Embassy in Washington and is also responsible for negotiations on the softwood lumber agreement. We raised these issues with him. We pointed out that in the subsequent negotiations on the softwood lumber agreement, aboriginal people have to be at the table. We have to have the opportunity to make our case, and we have to work with the federal government in terms of ensuring that provisions do not exclude our participation in marketing forest products to the U.S.A.

There are other trade issues of importance to us—for example, Canada's effort to create a climate for expanded trade through such things as an international convention on forests. The Canadian Forest Service and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have had discussions internationally and through the UN promoting the development of this convention. It's intended to create a level playing field for Canadian forest products companies.

We as well would like to see this convention level the playing field for aboriginal people if the convention is to be pursued and developed. Aboriginal peoples need it to be recognized in these that aboriginal forest-based development will require perhaps government subsidies in their development. We simply don't have the investment capital now.

I think these types of initiatives should recognize that subsidies for aboriginal forest-based economic development should not be considered unfair trade practices. The Canadian government should recognize that there is a need for these subsidies, and our trading partners should not look at them as being unfair but as a means by which aboriginal people are given some leeway in terms of catching up.

I think members here probably are aware of some of the positions that aboriginal peoples have taken in Canada. The Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec have a lawsuit against the Quebec government with respect to forestry practices. Their view is that forest practices in Quebec violate the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and threaten the Cree way of life.

As I mentioned earlier, our position is that forest management has to deal with not only commercial development but also the traditional way of life of aboriginal peoples.

Their lawsuit, and the injunctions they have sought against forest practices in Quebec, I believe should be supported, in the name of sustainable forest management, by the Canadian government. The Grand Council of the Crees, to promote their interests, have undertaken to form an alliance, a very loose alliance, with the U.S. Lumber Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, who have sought—

The Chair: Mr. Bombay, we have the Grand Council of the Crees coming up right after you.

Mr. Harry Bombay: Oh? Then I'll let them speak on that point.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Harry Bombay: But I think it's a good indication of how international trade issues do impact on forest practices in Canada and then on aboriginal peoples.

Those are some of the major issues we have. I think it has to be recognized that in our participation in the forest sector we will develop forest companies producing lumber and we will look to the U.S.A. as the primary market. Our development is based on the continued use of the forest.

• 1130

With that, I would like to throw it up to discussion.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bombay.

I'll go to the opposition first. Mr. Duncan, do you want to go first?

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Sure.

I was going to ask you about the softwood lumber agreement, because I know from our last conversation that quota was your concern. Has your association ever been approached by the Free Trade Lumber Council in terms of endorsing a return to free trade?

Mr. Harry Bombay: Yes, we have. I've met with the Free Trade Lumber Council on two occasions, and I know they've also met with the Assembly of First Nations. They have actively sought first nations' support for their position, which is for free trade. We have not given them our support to this point in time. We feel we need further discussion on this among some of the companies we represent. As a matter of fact, I'm having one of those meetings on April 13 with some of the western companies in B.C. on their position with respect to softwood lumber and free trade versus managed trade. We have not taken a position on it, nor has the AFN to this point in time.

We are looking for, in this whole discussion, the best scenario for aboriginal forestry companies. We're looking for what may be best under either of those two scenarios. I think in a general sense some of the western companies do favour free trade. They do that recognizing that many of them are in joint ventures with some of the larger forestry companies out west. So their position is to be expected.

Mr. John Duncan: So there's nothing preventing members of the association independently endorsing the Free Trade Lumber Council, and indeed you may have members of your association that may independently decide to work loosely with the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. Would that be a fair statement?

Mr. Harry Bombay: We are trying to reach a greater consensus on the issue, but we certainly haven't said to anyone that they should keep it zipped until such time as we do take a formal position. We know that the Grand Council of Crees has taken one position, and some of the forestry companies in the west have taken another. I think it reflects where they are in terms of development and their involvement in the forest industry.

Mr. John Duncan: One of the main things this committee is looking at is the impact of some international campaigns directed against Canadian forest products in the international marketplace. Obviously this can have an impact on all of the players, including you. You have some experience as an organization in the international arena. Do you have some strong feelings about what should be done in terms of these disparaging campaigns that are arrayed against Canadian forest products?

Mr. Harry Bombay: As I mentioned, the aboriginal people across the country are at various levels in terms of their participation in the forest industry. Some of our companies are quite large. NorSask Forest Products, for example, owned by the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, is a fairly large company, and they export probably 85% of their product to the United States. Their position on this issue would probably be quite different from those who are calling for a boycott against Canadian forest products, but it reflects the difference in terms of their involvement, as I mentioned.

• 1135

Those first nations and aboriginal groups in the country who for years have been trying to obtain a larger role in the forest sector within their various areas and have been denied participation through a lack of understanding on the part, perhaps, of provincial governments, or a lack of understanding of the issues they hold, have felt they have no recourse but to take their issues internationally. There are a number of those who have done so.

I think it reflects regional differences in the way in which aboriginal issues are dealt with in forestry. There are some places in the country where we cannot even get our foot inside the door when it comes to business opportunities or employment opportunities, or when we try to raise issues of forest management and our traditional land use. I think a lot of these types of campaigns have reflected a lot of the regional differences across the country and the way in which provincial governments have either accepted and welcomed aboriginal participation or denied it.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the areas of challenge we face is the jurisdictional relationship between the provinces and the federal government. It's an ongoing concern. You did indicate that in some provinces the relationship was better than in others. Have you been able to rate any of the provinces in terms of that relationship and who's good and who's bad?

Mr. Harry Bombay: Yes, I have. One particular provincial government that seems to be working quite well in partnership with first nations is the Government of Saskatchewan. I mentioned that the Meadow Lake Tribal Council owns NorSask Forest Products. It is probably the largest producer of lumber in that province right now, and it's owned by a first nation.

There are other first nations in that province that have developed partnerships with the provincial government. I'm referring here to some of the first nations in the Prince Albert Grand Council territory. The Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, for example, is in the process of obtaining a forest management licence agreement that is an area-based tenure in the northeast side of the province and coincides with that first nation's traditional territory.

The agreement with the province is that they will manage the FMLA. They will develop forest-based industries. Already, the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation has a joint venture with two other first nations and Weyerhaeuser with a company called Wapawekka Lumber, which opened last spring. This fall that same first nation, Peter Ballantyne, will open a second mill called Meetoos. It's a joint venture partnership with Ainsworth.

This is all coming about as a result of a receptive attitude on the part of the provincial government to work in partnership with first nations, to recognize that it makes good business economic sense to work with first nations in this way. It recognizes as well that first nations have to have a stake, that there has to be equity of participants in the industry.

I think there we have some good examples of how it can be done, how we can address forest multiple use and aboriginal treaty rights and work jointly with, in partnership with, the non-aboriginal people in the forest sector.

• 1140

I think there are some good examples in other parts of the country as well. We have parts of B.C. where first nations are being very active in forest management activities. There are some good joint ventures, such as West Chilcotin Forest Products in Anahim Lake, B.C., which is a three-party joint venture involving the aboriginal community, which is the Ulkatcho First Nation; Anahim Lake, which is the non-aboriginal community; and their industrial partner, Carrier Lumber. The three of these parties have a one-third interest in West Chilcotin Forest Products. They have been able to incorporate both aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests in the forests and have been running a successful forestry enterprise. They do have some problems with the softwood lumber quota, though.

It does indicate that there are ways and means in which these types of partnerships can address key issues on the ground that involve aboriginal people.

Mr. Julian Reed: Would you care to comment on where you're having more difficulty? Do you want to mention it? You don't have to. I'm curious to know.

Mr. Harry Bombay: We recently did an analysis of partnerships in the forest sector where aboriginal people are involved. We found that in some provinces the first nations and industrial partners take a very businesslike approach, and they develop joint ventures to meet their common goals.

In certain provinces there's still a very paternalistic approach to aboriginal people. In the province of Ontario, which is the largest and has the most aboriginal people, we see very little evidence of partnerships involving first nations people. There seems to be a lack of understanding in terms of how these two groups can work together. Certainly the provincial government has not been proactive in terms of promoting policy that would encourage aboriginal participation and give recognition to key issues, such as treaty rights in Ontario. This unwillingness to deal with the key issues has been a major barrier in terms of working out these types of partnerships.

I think Ontario is the third-largest producer of forest products in this country, and I think with the right types of policy development work in that province things could turn around. In that province some discussion is taking place north of 50, and I think efforts are being made to discuss forestry development in a more meaningful way with aboriginal people. Yet the evidence is not there that they're willing to put the right kinds of measures in place.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bombay and Rebecca, for being here. It's a very solid and rather useful presentation.

I'd like to hear your comments on this. On the one hand, there is your request to be involved in and at the negotiating table at the WTO, the softwood lumber agreements, the international trading agreements, and things of this type. On the other hand, there are your suggestions with regard to the aboriginal peoples land claims settlements and things of this type and how they would interrelate and be dealt with domestically. Do you have a plan as to how you can operate on both of these fronts virtually at the same time and be consistent in your approach and also help the government?

We're all faced with a similar kind of problem. It's not unique to you. It's here for all of us. With the background you have, the thinking you've done on this, and the statement you made this morning, I have a hunch that you ought to be given an opportunity to tell us exactly what kind of process you would advocate in order to do this.

Mr. Harry Bombay: I don't think the two things I mentioned are inconsistent in any way. What I said was that with regard to aboriginal treaty rights, they have to be dealt with domestically in terms of how they're played out in the forest sector. But when we go to the international table, I think we have to reserve that right to deal with them domestically and that they should not be a subject of negotiation at that table. When we do negotiate and bind ourselves to certain actions through international trade agreements, we have to make provision in there for our domestic implementation of issues that are key to aboriginal people.

• 1145

So I'm saying that it has to remain in the backs of the minds of people who sit at those tables that aboriginal issues should remain domestic and should be dealt with in the context of what Canada is all about.

In terms of a plan, I think certainly we have to involve aboriginal people in the negotiation of those rights and what they mean in terms of sustainable forest management.

In terms of how that's accomplished internationally, I think it should be a matter of process that aboriginal people be a part of these international negotiating teams so that as issues arise the right person can be there to work with the Canadian government in presenting the aboriginal peoples' point of view.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have a second question. Perhaps my information is incorrect. If so, please correct me and clarify the situation. Was there not some sort of movement made by the aboriginal people to boycott the purchase of lumber from Canada until such time as the treaty negotiations were completed? Is that correct?

Mr. Harry Bombay: I believe this has been a suggestion. As far as I know, there is not a wide call for that among first nations and aboriginal people across the country. In response to Mr. Duncan's question, I pointed out that because of their lack of agreement with other levels of government, some aboriginal people have caused some first nation groups to take that position. It could well be that if at some time in the future we don't receive consideration of our development needs and our traditional uses of the land, this type of movement could become more pervasive across the country. Right now it seems to be focused in one or two areas of the country.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bombay, for being here. I would like to ask just a quick first question before I come to my main question. Do you have an idea, to put it simply, of what percentage of the total forestry industry involves at some level aboriginal forest workers, sawmills, anything related to forestry? Of the total multi-billion-dollar industry, do you have any idea what percentage you would comprise?

Mr. Harry Bombay: That's a pretty tough question. As I understand it, there are close to 300,000 people employed in the forest sector right now. We estimate that there are about 12,000 aboriginal people employed in the forest sector.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: So it would be about 4%, then.

Mr. Harry Bombay: That's in terms of employment.

There are vast differences in various parts of the country. In the Atlantic region we find that our employment levels are probably less than that, and there are probably other areas of the country where they are less. In other parts of the country, such as in Saskatchewan, our percentages are significantly higher.

In terms of equity participation, our percentages would be much lower. We have, as I mentioned, about 40 mills that are either owned outright or jointly owned. But they're small mills, and most of them probably employ between 10 and 50 people. One or two of the larger ones might employ 300 or 400 people.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: So typically—just give me a yes or no to this—aboriginal involvement involves a partnership with some larger non-aboriginal company. That's the more common scenario.

Mr. Harry Bombay: That's the more common situation right now, yes.

• 1150

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Okay.

I'd just like to go to the certification. We've asked different witnesses to give us their views on where this might all be going. You mentioned CSA, ISO, and FSC. I suppose the Europeans have a pan-European system they're developing, and there are others.

Some have suggested it's better to have numerous different systems, and somehow the global forestry community should evolve some kind of protocol to link them together. Rather than having the FSC as the single system for the world—or ISO or any other—to have numerous systems is better, with some kind of protocol to link them together. The alternative is to have a single system.

You're right when you say that certification and the whole business of international trade and responding to consumers and so on is a function of how well evolved the certification system is, but where do you see it all going?

Mr. Harry Bombay: Yes, I do see the probability of numerous systems. I think we need a leader in the pack, though, and that leader should be very independent of industry and governments. Because this is a market-driven initiative, it should work on the values of the consumers, and integrate a broad range of environmental and indigenous peoples' issues.

I think the trend will continue for certification. More people in the marketplace will demand it. I also hope aboriginal issues will remain a significant element of certification. From the point of view of people who have demanded boycotts of forest products, perhaps they'll see the value of working with certification systems, in terms of getting their key issues addressed.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: You mean as opposed to working outside in the media.

Mr. Harry Bombay: Yes. I think at times you have to do that. Everybody does that, and I can't see any reason why aboriginal peoples wouldn't use that approach. But I think the boycott issue is linked to certification because it indicates to the general public that indigenous peoples' issues are an element of sustainable forest management.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. I have to close off any other questions here because we're at the end of our time for this next group.

Mr. Bombay, I want to thank you very much for the forthright manner in which you answered all questions. I can assure you that your presentation will weigh in with the rest of the considerations, as we draw to our conclusions. Thank you very much for joining us, and to you as well, Ms. McKay.

Mr. Harry Bombay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We'll take a maximum of two minutes, colleagues, while the next group comes up.

• 1154

• 1157

The Chair: We're back.

Colleagues, we have with us the Grand Council of the Crees. They've already heard how we proceed, so let me tell the gentlemen who are at the table: Romeo Saganash, director, Quebec relations; Mr. Jeff Quaile, who is the environmental analyst; and Robert Epstein, adviser.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Point of order.

The Chair: I will hear your point of order.

[English]

as I'm reading the names.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I would request that now and in the future, during our discussions, we address Counsellor Romeo Saganash by that title. He practices lawyer in Canada. Just as we address doctors by their titles when they appear as witnesses, we should address our witness as Counsellor Romeo Saganash.

The Chair: That is a good point of order. The documents that I have here only give the name Romeo Saganash. I said Mr. Romeo Saganash, Mr. Jeff Quaile and Mr. Robert Epstein since nothing indicates whether they are doctors or lawyers and I did not know whether that was the case or not. These witnesses are all valuable and we accept them as they are.

Thank you, Mr. Guy St-Julien.

[English]

Thank you to the three of you gentlemen. I noticed you were in the back. I was about to say, before I had this appel au règlement, that you've probably heard that what we'd like to do is to give you an opportunity to speak for about ten minutes. You may require a little more or a little less. That would be up to you. What we prefer as a committee is to engage in a dialogue, so the more time you take, the less time there is for questions and answers. The choice is yours. We usually keep the questions and answers to about five minutes apiece, depending on how many questions there are. Those are some of the time constraints. Other than that, the floor is really yours.

I gather, Mr. Romeo Saganash, that you're the one who's speaking. Are the others joining in?

Mr. Romeo Saganash (Director, Quebec Relations, Grand Council of the Crees): Maybe in the questions and answers.

The Chair: But not in the presentation itself...? Okay. The microphone is yours.

Mr. Romeo Saganash: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Wachyia and good afternoon.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

On behalf of the members of the Grand Council and the Cree Nation, we would like to thank all the committee members for inviting us today to explain our views on forest management practices and international trade.

We note that our invitation to appear before this committee came two days after the Grand Council representatives met privately with the assistant United States trade representative and the director of Canadian affairs to discuss this very subject: trade and the unsustainable forestry practices it supports.

Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, it seems that once you start speaking out about the social and environmental injustices of Canada in the halls of foreign governments, domestic doors finally start to open.

• 1200

These are important facts. The same day we received our invitation for today, we also received a call from the president of the Canadian Lumber Council. In case you did not know, this same person also heads up a company called Tembec, one of the 27 forestry companies that the Grand Council has before the courts. We find it ironic that despite us having sued this company for its part in over $500 million in past forestry-related damages and despite us having a judgment in the Superior Court of Quebec that characterizes this company's operations in Quebec as being “inoperative and unconstitutional”, he chooses to make direct contact with the Grand Council only after we criticize the industry's practices in Washington.

The domestic reaction to the first of what will be many trips to the United States in the coming months is the confirmation of a belief we had all along. Canada's unsustainable forest management practices are more than just an international trade question. These practices raise issues of human rights and global and environmental security. Given that the federal government has recently joined with the Government of Quebec and the forest industry to remove a judge from a case that threatens the forestry status quo, forest management practices have become linked to the integrity of our justice system.

We should point out that our activities in the U.S. and Europe have come about because we have exhausted our domestic avenues. For example, six years ago we were here before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources addressing the impacts that forestry activities were having on Cree hunters. At the time we said, and I quote:

Our presence before your committee today serves to demonstrate that the mechanisms provided for under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement

—our treaty with Canada and Quebec—

have failed to address forestry issues and I should think that it is not from lack of effort on our part. Submission after submission has been made and disregarded by federal and Quebec authorities.... All the while, almost one family hunting territory per year has been and continues to be wiped out.

When we gave the submission six years, ago the rate of logging in the James Bay region was approximately five million cubic metres per year. On the ground this translated into over 400 square kilometres of cumulated clear-cut lands per year. Today the annual harvest from the territory is nearly eight million cubic metres, with over 800 square kilometres being clear-cut.

So here we are again—déjà vu—before yet another parliamentary committee, with the same message that we have had for the last 15 years. Canada's forest management practices, and in particular Quebec's, are not environmentally or socially sustainable. It is obvious that no one in government is willing to address our concerns or to listen to what the Crees have to say, but we take solace in the realization that there is a growing chorus of others who are coming to recognize the importance of what the Crees have been saying for so long.

For example, last year's report of the Senate subcommittee on boreal forests, entitled Competing Realities: The Boreal Forest at Risk, boldly states, and I quote:

The world's boreal forest, a resource of which Canada is a major trustee, is under siege.... Highly mechanized timber harvesting is proceeding at a rapid pace, as is mineral and petroleum exploration and extraction. At the same time, the boreal forest has been asked to provide a home and a way of life for aboriginal communities, habitat for wildlife, an attraction for tourism, and a place where biodiversity and watersheds are protected.

Add to this Dr. David Schindler, Canada's most distinguished freshwater scientist, who ran the Experimental Lakes Research Centre in the boreal forests of northwestern Ontario for over 20 years. Just last week he was on CBC radio warning that logging in the boreal forests across Canada was occurring at a level twice what would be considered sustainable.

• 1205

On March 21, the same day Dr. Schindler made his comments, a columnist in the National Post wrote:

According to Statistics Canada's latest figures, the logging industry—for all the devastation it causes—only accounts for about one half of one percent of the GDP. To make that one half of one percent happen, our governments spend more than $2 billion annually in direct forestry subsidies, about what they receive in stumpage for the trees, and several times as much in indirect subsidies. That makes logging a great cost—not a great benefit—to forested provinces and to the country as a whole.

[Translation]

Canadians aren't the only ones who are worried about the precarious state of our boreal forests. Indeed, last month, the World Resources Institute, whose head office is in Washington, published its review of the state of Canada's forests. The report, entitled Canada's Forests at a Crossroads: An Assessment in the Year 2000, stated under the heading, viability:

Even if, taken together, these measures suggest that a more intensive management has produced an improvement in the regeneration rate, we are nevertheless maintaining the actual harvesting rates by cutting large zones of primary and old growth forests. There are obstacles to expanding activities to new regions because most of the areas that are leased carry restrictions on commercial forestry activities. Moreover, the leases that already apply to the forests in the far North, forests that require a great deal of time to regenerate... According to case studies, the logging rate in Canada's boreal forests would have to be reduced by 10 to 25%...

To add to this ever-growing chorus of protests, let us not forget the work done by Richard Desjardins, a well-known Quebec songster, whose film L'erreur boréale, gave rise, in the province, to a public movement in favour of reforming unsustainable forestry practices. Last month, at a press conference, Mr. Desjardins expressed his wish to have the issue of forest management in Quebec debated during the next election campaign. That is certainly within the realm of the possible when we see the results of a recent poll undertaken by researchers at Laval University, which indicated that forestry workers in logging towns in Quebec are twice as likely to criticize present forestry practices than those living in urban centres.

Closer to James Bay, we find the following statement made by Jean Roy, vice-president of forestry activities for Norbord, taken from one of that organization's publications, where he says that it is possible for the written code to have a legal basis. Here is a quote:

If you read the James Bay Agreement and the Forests and Environment Act you will see that they are perhaps incompatible. We must therefore listen to and take into account what they are stating.

At the present time, with so many people saying the same thing—we can certainly include among them the opinions of Mgr Drainville, Bishop of Amos, published yesterday in Le Devoir—we are beginning a new round of negotiations on the softwood lumber trade between Canada and the United States. According to the Canadian industry, with the present agreement, they are experiencing losses of about 1 billion dollars per year. There is, therefore, a great deal at stake in these talks.

[English]

The American lumber industry claims that low environmental standards, long-term monopolistic tenure agreements, low stumpage fees for public timber, and industry incentives—Quebec, for instance, just committed $100 million to provincial pulp mills in its budget two weeks ago—have made it nearly impossible for them to compete with the flood of cheap Canadian wood on the U.S. market.

On the Canadian side of the coin, the industrial lobby is calling for a return to free trade, citing NAFTA, recent increases in stumpage fees, and strong support from the U.S. construction industry as justification for free and open trade in softwood lumber.

• 1210

In typical closed-door WTO fashion, seats at this poker game are limited to those who can afford to pay the ante. In other words, negotiations will start and end with short-sighted economics and with little intention for those concerns falling outside the bottom line and profit margins. For the Cree Nation, destructive forestry practices now threaten our economic and cultural future, yet we are not considered part of the trade discussion.

In 1998 the forestry industry in Quebec exported $10.1 billion in forest products, second only to B.C, as you may know, and 87% of these exports were destined for the U.S. In documents submitted in court by the Government of Quebec, nearly 20% of this wood originates from treaty lands under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. That treaty, signed by Quebec, Canada, and the Crees in 1975, came about as a result of a dispute over resource development—the James Bay hydroelectric development project—and addresses the future exploitation of resources in the region.

The agreement opens the door to Cree employment in development but makes future resource exploitation subject to protection of the environment and the Cree way of life on the land. This is expressed in the principle of conservation set out in the treaty. Let me quote that provision:

[Conservation] means the pursuit of optimum natural productivity of all living resources and the protection of ecological systems of the Territory so as to protect endangered species and to ensure primarily the continuance of the traditional pursuits of Native people, and secondarily the satisfaction of the needs of non-Native people for sport hunting and fishing.

That is section 24 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

That definition of conservation, formulated in 1975, has since become known as “sustainable development” and is at the heart of the treaty. Our right to our way of life in an environment that will sustain it is recognized by the Canadian Constitution, and as such, has paramountcy over the rights of companies to exploit the natural resources. Moreover, it brings into question the ability or the right of the Government of Canada to exclude the Crees from any negotiations that have a direct impact on the treaty rights of the Cree people.

In the words of Justice Croteau of the Superior Court of Quebec:

...when the Canadian Parliament adopted the Constitution in 1982 its modifications in 1983 and the Law of Application of the JBNQA (James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement), it chose to limit its sovereignty.

This judgment was made against the motion by the Government of Canada requesting to be dismissed as a defendant in the ongoing case concerning Cree rights and forestry activities in the James Bay territory. The limitation of sovereignty regarding Canada's obligations towards the Crees and forestry that Justice Croteau refers to must also be applied to trade negotiations that will have an adverse effect on the boreal forest, which in turn violate Cree constitutionalized treaty rights.

By virtue of Canada's signature on the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and its adoption of section 35 of the Constitution, the government is legally compelled to uphold the rights of the Crees under the treaty. Instead, Canada continues to ignore these rights and works with Quebec and the forestry companies to further economic interests at the expense of boreal forest and Cree rights in those forests.

We believe our treaty rights in the James Bay territory constitute a legal encumbrance over the forestry resources. Thus we challenge Canada's right to negotiate trade agreements over softwood that include wood from the James Bay territory.

Thus far, Canada's record in carrying out its fiduciary imperatives on our behalf is shameful, particularly its role in the coup to remove Justice Croteau from our forestry case because he had the guts to recognize and apply the law—the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

• 1215

Even with the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement in place, logging on our lands has increased by 45%. Now the companies and their government-appointed lobbyists at the Canadian Forest Service, Canada, and Quebec all expect us to swallow this nonsense about free trade. The only free thing about this proposed trade is the fact that governments and companies do not have to take responsibility for the damages they cause to the Cree people.

Let us ask this. Is this what the Canadian Lumber Council tells their U.S. lobbying friends in the construction industry: “Don't worry about the social and environmental damage—the Crees will pick up the costs”? Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm here to tell you not any more. The Cree Nation will take matters, including those related to international trade, into our own hands from now on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saganash.

Let me go immediately to questions and answers. Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much, Mr. Saganash, for your very articulate presentation. It was rather a bleak picture and I read some impassioned feelings about this thing. From what I see here, I can understand why that would be the case.

We just heard about the aboriginal entry into the forestry business and actually having sawmills and developing and harvesting forests. Is your concern primarily with non-native forestry practices or do you do your own forest harvesting?

Mr. Romeo Saganash: Our presentation mainly deals with the non-native practices that are being carried out in our territory, but we do have one forestry company in the Cree territory. Contrary to what happens with other forestry companies, the forestry activities of this particular company, the Mishtuk Corporation of Waswanipi, are approved every year by the Cree Nation. There's an element of consent there. Their practices are regulated beyond what the present regulations provide for, so there's clearly concern in their case about Cree rights in the territory and especially constitutional rights.

One element that is important to reiterate here is the fact that when the James Bay Crees signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975, there was a promise there for the Crees to be able to pursue their traditional way of life, among other things. What is happening with the forestry industry and the forestry practices being applied in the territory is that we can no longer even exercise those constitutionalized rights of the Cree people. In spite of the fact that they have constitutional rights, when the forest is clear-cut and there are no more forests, how do you expect the Cree family to exercise those hunting, fishing, and trapping rights? The Crees depend on the trees in the territory, and that is the main element we are fighting against at this very moment.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record as saying that certainly myself and my colleagues, and I think this committee, are very much committed to sustainable forestry management practices. We're all concerned about that. When you create a picture like this that says it's not sustainable, it's not socially and environmentally sound, if that's actually a verifiable statement, then I think you have a very strong case. We are jealous about the preservation of our forests and we need to be very conscious of this.

On the other hand, it seems to me that there's so much rhetoric that's been kicked back and forth—I'm sure you are aware of it—that we sometimes wonder where the truth lies in all of this kind of stuff. Sometimes I think extreme cases are painted and perhaps other cases are painted the other way in a biased kind of way.

I really am impressed with the way you're trying to cut a swath here, but what we really have to come to here is what is sustainable forestry management practice. I judge from your earlier comment that you think you have it with your particular company but that these other companies are not doing it. How would you suggest we bring about a commonality, an agreement, if you will, about practice?

• 1220

Mr. Romeo Saganash: The promise of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was supposed to be a balance between development.... Development is subject as well to the environmental and social protection regime that's in place under section 22 of the agreement. That's the legal and constitutional framework the parties have put in place in the James Bay territory since 1975. This constitutional and legal framework is not being respected.

The forestry companies and both Canada and Quebec are allowing this to happen. The forestry companies act as if Crees have no rights in the territory. They even act as if their rights are superior to our constitutionalized rights, and that's the main problem. There's no balance between the existence of Cree rights and Cree people in the James Bay territory and the development that's taking place in the territory. We have to come back to that balance in the first place.

The second point I want to mention is that Canada has a clear obligation toward the Cree people. In one of the provisions of the act that approved the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement adopted by the Parliament of Canada, there was a recognition, an admission, that Canada has a special relationship with the Cree people. Not only has the Government of Canada refused to protect Cree interests and Cree rights in that context, it acted against Cree rights and Cree interests, in our fight against the present forestry practises in the territory, for instance.

Canada and Quebec and the forestry companies have all ganged up against the Crees so that the status quo may continue in the territory. It's amazing how all of this is continuing to happen.

On December 21 we finally had a judge rule that the present forestry regime that's in place in the territory is not only inoperative but also unconstitutional because it does not respect Cree rights and it does not take into account Cree interests in the territory. Forestry companies, the Quebec government, and the Government of Canada have moved to get this judge out of the case. Although we tried to play by the rules of the game, when the courts rule in our favour, they move to remove the judge from the case.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'd like to focus this on forestry practices. I think we're dealing now more with Cree rights. That's a constitutional matter that has to be dealt with, but we're dealing with forestry practices here and that's what I'd like to concentrate on.

Mr. Romeo Saganash: My point basically was that the forestry practices in the James Bay territory do not take into consideration Cree rights, although the legal and constitutional regime in place provides for that. It's a major problem in the territory.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: It is an honour for me to see Counsellor Saganash here in Ottawa to defend the James Bay Cree. I know that you are economic partners in Canada and in Quebec. Since your territory comes under the James Bay Agreement, do you have any specific requests to make of the federal government? We know that Ottawa is the trustee for the James Bay Agreement, that was signed on November 11 1975. Ministers Rémy Trudel and Guy Chevrette, as well as the member for Abitibi-Est, André Pelletier, PQ members in Quebec, want the federal government to stay away from the forestry sector because this comes under provincial jurisdiction and is not their business. Do you have any specific demands relating to the forest industry in Quebec to address to the federal government?

Mr. Romeo Saganash: I have two things to say and then my colleagues may wish to comment.

• 1225

Firstly, I do not agree with those who state that forestry is solely a provincial responsibility, because forestry and logging activities, whether in Quebec or elsewhere, have impacts on areas of federal jurisdiction, including waterways, Native rights, and migrating birds. Many areas of federal jurisdiction are affected by this type of activity or development.

One of the things that the federal government must do now, is to implement not only the Canadian Environment Protection Act, but also the federal process provided for under section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Secondly, as I said earlier in English, it is scandalous for the federal government, in view of its responsibilities and fiduciary obligations towards the Native people, including the Cree in particular and especially in view of the existence of the James Bay Agreement, to go against its obligations to the Cree on the issue of forestry practices. I told you about the many cases that we brought before the courts, where the Government of Canada and the Native people and the Cree were on opposite sides, even though the federal government is obliged to defend our interests. It is absolutely scandalous, and it has to stop now.

For example, last week or a few weeks ago, the Attorney General of Canada stated that the courts should not differentiate between ordinary Canadian citizens and Native people. They say that everyone is the same. The Canadian Constitution says the opposite and the Supreme Court, for a great many years now, has brought down rulings that go against the interpretation made by the Attorney General of Canada. This has to stop now. I hope that as government members and members of Parliament, you will convey that message.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, you may ask one more short question.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Counsellor Saganash, it is true that a number of problems affecting the Cree have been solved, but we must face up to a number of facts and not hold back. I would like you to tell us about your excellent publication La forêt: un mode de vie pour les Cris. In this magazine you deal with the environment and logging camps. We note that logging companies leave masses of residue along the roadsides and do not undertake reforestation in certain areas. In some logging camps, there are parts of old barrels, old cars and buses. Garbage has been left in your hunting and fishing grounds. What is the Quebec government doing to protect the environment? Are they conducting inspections or demanding a clean-up? Are they ensuring respect for the Cree territory?

Mr. Romeo Saganash: The answer is quite simple. It involves enforcing the law. Even if they aspire to sovereignty, they can't even be sovereign in their forests. Even though they are having a hard time enforcing their laws, they are making no investments whatsoever to ensure that these laws and regulations affecting forestry are respected. They have swung ever closer to the other extreme by literally giving away the forestry resource to the logging companies. The law must be respected on our land.

Having said that, we must remember that the problem can't be solved by enforcing the law holus-bolus because it must be amended. The legal and constitutional framework that we have had since the James Bay Agreement, that is, since 1975, provides for a forestry system that is separate from the system in the rest of the province, which is not the case at this time. The Quebec Act on the Quality of the Environment contains two separate chapters: one for the rest of the province and the other for the territory covered by the Agreement. This is the case because of the existence of a separate legal and constitutional framework that resulted from the signing of the James Bay Agreement.

• 1230

We maintain that since the present constitutional system gives specific rules and rights to the Cree, the forestry must adapt to those rules, and not the opposite. At the present time, the Forestry Act first applies, after which come the provisions of the James Bay Agreement, whereas the opposite should be the case.

[English]

Mr. Jeff Quaile (Environment Analyst, Grand Council of the Crees): Could I add something to what Romeo just said and to Monsieur Guy St-Julien's question concerning the garbage you see in the Crees and Trees document?

According to Quebec statistics—and I'm just giving you approximate figures, because I don't have them before me—the enforcement of fines in terms of the total dollar cost was approximately $600,000 for the province in 1995. By 1998 that dropped to $47,000. One would like to think, well, that's great, because the forestry companies are doing a lot better. But at the same time the staff at the Ministry of Natural Resources has been cut. The budget and the number of people involved in enforcement have been cut by more than 50%. At the same time the amount of harvesting, in the Cree territory particularly, has increased.

So I don't see these things aligning there. I don't see the dramatic drop in fines being issued aligning with the increase of harvesting activities.

They're not doing enough. That's simply what's going on there. The companies are gaining more and more access to the forest, and at the same time the budgets of the government to monitor these companies are shrinking. If you want to talk about forest management practices, that's the simple answer. It's happening in Quebec, particularly in northern Quebec.

Thanks.

The Chair: Let's go back to Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I just want some clarification. In your discussion, Romeo, there was reference to the Canadian Lumber Council president. Is that actually what I know as the Free Trade Lumber Council? Is that one and the same? So that's in the affirmative.

You talk about Tembec as one of the 27 companies the Grand Council has before the courts. I was looking at the map here. Is Tembec known by another name? Because I don't see it there. They're not on this map.

Mr. Jeff Quaile: This is from 1995. I believe either we never got it in our map—one problem we have is getting data from the Government of Quebec—or they've changed their name since then. They didn't appear on this map, but they would be along the eastern border of Ontario. They operate mostly on the community lands of Waskaganish. That would be the most southern community on the James Bay coast, if you look on your map.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Jeff Quaile: They operate in that territory there. As I say, this document is out of date. If you look at the figures on harvesting, they've increased by as much as 45% since we put this out in 1995. This was written in 1995.

Mr. John Duncan: Thanks very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Quaile, I'm just passing curious. Did I see your name attached to an organization called the World Resources Institute? Have you been a contributor to those studies?

Mr. Jeff Quaile: The Grand Council is involved with Global Forest Watch Canada, which works with the World Resources Institute. Global Forest Watch Canada came together to develop that report you're referring to, which we make reference to in the document.

Mr. Julian Reed: Canada's Forests at a Crossroads?

Mr. Jeff Quaile: Yes. Our contribution to that was regarding first nations aspects, and there's one small mention in one of the sections of cutting in Quebec increasing. And yes, you did see my name there; you're right.

• 1235

Mr. Julian Reed: Okay.

Mr. Jeff Quaile: We work hard.

Mr. Julian Reed: I'm sorry; I haven't read the whole thing yet.

A statement or a quote taken from it is in the submission by Mr. Saganash, and it says:

Case studies estimate that the rate of logging in Canada would have to decline by 10 to 25 percent in the boreal forests of Canada.

Can I flip that over? That tends to indicate that if logging were reduced by that amount, it would sustain. But can I turn that turtle and say, what about regeneration practices? If regeneration practices were improved and could be improved, which I believe they can, would that act as a countervail against the need to reduce harvesting?

Mr. Jeff Quaile: In part, yes. But the other thing you have to remember when dealing with first nations peoples and the Crees in particular is that no matter what you do as far as regeneration goes, you're going to clear-cut areas that Crees depend on for hunting and fishing.

At the current rate, there's just too much clear-cutting going on. Even if trees were to come back, as they are planning at the current planning cycle right now, in say ten to fifteen years, a whole generation of Crees who want to teach their children their traditional ways of surviving on the land is lost. If you have all your area around you being clear-cut that much, it doesn't matter if you come in the very next day and follow the machines and plant those trees; you're still going to lose at least fifteen to twenty years. We're not even sure about the science on it, but at least fifteen to twenty years, conservatively, of use of that land for Crees to be able to further their culture and teach their children how to survive on the land will be lost.

Mr. Julian Reed: Has any alternate technique been developed, put forward, or proposed that would allow sustained harvesting and also allow the continuation of the traditional way of life? Or are we saying we should stop all harvesting on Cree lands?

Mr. Jeff Quaile: I'll quote the Senate report. I don't know if most of you gentlemen and ladies have read that, but in their report they suggest that I think 20% to 25% across the country be blocked off, with no logging whatsoever. That seems to fall in line with some of the reports from other groups.

But I'm not exactly clear on whether you can continue these activities at a lesser rate and still make money in the boreal in the far north. You'll note from the figures Romeo provided at the beginning the increase from 5.3 million cubic meters in 1995 to over 8 million, and then we say the amount of clear-cutting has gone from 400 to 800 square kilometres. You look at that and say that can't be right, because it's a doubling of land clear-cut, but it's not a doubling of the total harvest amount. That's because the density of trees in the far north is less, so the further north you have to go, the more land you have to clear to get the same amount of product.

I don't believe it's economically sustainable, but that remains to be seen.

Mr. Romeo Saganash: I'd like to add an element to that discussion as well.

One of the things the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provided for was that all development activity, including forestry activity, is supposed to be subject to environmental and social impact assessments. So far companies in northern Quebec have refused to go through environmental and social impact assessments, but that's what the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was supposed to provide for, and that is one of the issues we have before the courts as we speak.

Obviously one of the reasons this regime was put in place is that we know there are a lot of unknowns with respect to development activity in the territory vis-à-vis the hunting, fishing, and trapping way of life of the Cree people. There are still things we don't know today.

• 1240

One of the ways that's being looked at, one of the activities that's being carried out right now in northern Quebec, is the Waswanipi model forest project. They've undertaken studies to look at different aspects—for example, to what extent forestry can take place in a given trapline in order for that trapline to be sustainable, and so on.

In our document we show the trapline system in place in northern Quebec. There are over 300 traplines. That system of resource management is recognized under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement as a system of control and management of the resources in the territory, including all natural resources. So to what extent can you cut a trapline in order for it to be sustainable for the Cree hunter and trapper who depends on it? Those are the kinds of issues we still need to look at, and a lot of unanswered questions with respect to that remain.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Julian Reed: Do I have time for one more?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, you're usually very cooperative.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you for your presentation. You made a number of excellent points.

I just want to focus in, if I could, because I've asked all the witnesses questions related to certification, in particular. We tend to think of forest certification as mostly an issue of international trade. But it also is very relevant to communities within the forestry area and to the regions.

Do I take it from your presentation—because I don't recall that you mentioned it—that the state of certification in your territory is at ground zero, that there is no certification of any forest areas whatsoever? If there is, could you tell me a bit about it, and how certification, one system or another—this is less important to my question—would or would not advance the issues you have raised?

Mr. Jeff Quaile: I can't say for sure about ISO 14001 standards. That can happen without any participation with the Cree, so I don't know about that.

As far as the CSA is concerned, I'm not aware of any initiatives. There certainly hasn't been any contact with any of the Cree communities to participate in the CSA, and the same would go for the FSC. I think it's a much broader issue than coming to grips with product labelling and sustainable management systems. We're talking about fundamental treaty issues here, and thus far I haven't seen any certification schemes that address what the Cree are facing right now in terms of treaty rights. That's something that may be useful in the future, but there are fundamental treaty issues that have to be worked out first before we can discuss a certification system.

Mr. Romeo Saganash: The essential point is that the treaty issues and treaty rights that are recognized under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement take precedence over anything else—regulations, laws, and certainly certification. In the same way that the Cree need to be involved in negotiations on secession, they need to be involved in all other issues, such as free trade, trade talks, certification, and so on. You need the Cree at the table. It's as simple as that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm sorry. I had forgotten Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Good afternoon Mr. Saganash. I listened very carefully to what you had to say. Some questions came to mind. And I have already heard some answers during the discussion.

• 1245

I will begin by making a comment. I am very much aware of the environment and the crucial balance that must be kept among wildlife, vegetation, and even water, as you say in your document. We know, however, that there are important areas where your group and the Quebec government are at loggerheads. How will you manage to resolve these differences with the Quebec government so as to ensure a certain level of economic activity, respect for your community, and, above all, respect for, and a balance within, the environment?

Mr. Romeo Saganash: Thank you. I'm aware of how important your question is. Firstly, you must understand that the Cree have never stated that they wanted logging to cease on their land. It is important to point out that the Cree have never said that they are against development per se. They want this development, in whatever form it might be, to respect their rights and the interests that are set out in the agreement or elsewhere. That is an essential part of the answer to your question.

In the document that we brought with us today, we state that we have been submitting briefs to committees here and in Quebec City for the past 15 years. We have been saying more or less the same thing for the past 15 years. We need a separate system for the territory covered by the James Bay Agreement because specific rights have been given to the Cree and these rights, that have been entrenched in the Constitution since 1982, as you no doubt know, must be respected. That is what we have been saying for some time now.

Almost two years ago, we attempted to settle these issues through negotiations with the Quebec government, but they did not lead to any concrete results. We were therefore forced to go before the courts. It is clear that the Cree have always left the door open to any proposal. What is worrisome in this case, is that for almost six months now, the Quebec government has not been in touch with us; they are no longer taking our calls. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Quebec government has closed and barred their door. I find this troubling.

The Quebec government, and this is something that our youth in particular are seeing more and more often, prefers to deal with those who threaten to blockade the roads or who actually do stop traffic and sign agreements with these people rather than agree to talk, to negotiate and sit down with those who use the democratic means at their disposal to defend their rights and interests, and by that I mean the courts.

This is a political choice that the Quebec government has made with respect to the Cree. I see it as petty political revenge, because the Cree said too much and spoke too loudly during the last referendum campaign in Quebec, in 1995, by holding their own referendum. That is what is unfortunate in all of this. I said that we have always advocated a separate system for the territory, a system that would respect the provisions of the James Bay Agreement, an agreement which is a treaty, and which respects the rights and interests of the Cree living there.

I would like to add something to that answer, if I may. In judicial proceedings currently before the courts, the Quebec government and the Canadian government, through the Attorney- General of Quebec and the Attorney-General of Canada, are arguing right now that the James Bay Agreement is not a treaty, that it is no more than an administrative agreement signed with the Cree.

• 1250

If that is the argument, it can be maintained that the constitutional obligation that Quebec had to settle the Aboriginal issue in Northern Quebec, following the 1898 and 1912 annexations, has not been fulfilled to date. If this is Quebec's argument and if this is Canada's argument, then there are huge problems facing us now in Northern Quebec.

Mr. Serge Cardin: You spoke of a separate regime. Would it be based strictly on the agreement that was signed or would it also be based on the actual conditions of the Northern forest, which also calls for a separate logging regime? You are asking for a separate regime based on the Cree community, but you also said that the door was open. Have any offers already been made for these two regimes? I imagine that, in negotiations, one is prepared to sacrifice some things in order to get others, but generally speaking, in order to reach a comprehensive and rapid solution to a problem... Naturally, we cannot start negotiating here, but you said that the door was open. Do you have some hope that it could be settled quickly, if we disregard what you said a few minutes ago, namely, that this might almost be a means of getting even? I think that people might show goodwill on both sides and arrive at a solution fairly quickly.

Mr. Romeo Saganash: We gave the signal a long time ago, and I do not think that we need to repeat it indefinitely. We have said, and we say it again today before you, that we have given the signal but the Government of Quebec has not given any signal in this file.

Our position is not unprecedented. The environmental protection system in Quebec basically has two components: one for Southern Quebec and the other for Northern Quebec, because of the James Bay Agreement. The hunting and fishing system in Quebec have two components: one for Southern Quebec and one for Northern Quebec, because of the James Bay Agreement. The same reasoning applies to forestry, in my opinion.

The Chair: Thank you. We have only two minutes remaining. Mr. St-Julien, please ask a very short question; the answer will also have to be very short.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Saganash, what is your reaction to the announcement made by the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources to temporarily extend the harvesting plans until forest inventories are completed? Why temporarily?

Mr. Romeo Saganash: The bill that is currently before the National Assembly was basically written by lawyers from the companies. It has the effect of countering the arguments now being made by the Cree before the courts. We are arguing that forestry is subject to environmental impact studies as well as studies on the impact on the social environment, as prescribed in chapter 22 of the James Bay Agreement. The bill has the effect of completely eliminating this possibility. Therefore, its main purpose is to counter the arguments that the Cree have raised before the courts. That is the only reason why the bill was tabled.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

[English]

to all three of you, even though, Monsieur Epstein, we saw your presence here and you spoke well in what they call “body English”. And a special thank you to Mr. Saganash and Mr. Quaile, and to colleagues from both sides of the House.

The meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.