CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE
ESPANOLA AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD, ESPANOLA BRANCH
NORTH SHORE LOGGERS AND TRUCKERS ASSOCIATION
CONTENTS
Tuesday 16 August 1994
Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994, Bill 171, Mr Hampton / Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne, projet de loi 171, M. Hampton
Town of Espanola
Ken Buck, finance chairman
Espanola and District Chamber of Commerce
Randy McCulloch, president
Judy Skidmore, board member
E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd
Jim Waddell, manager, forest resources
North Shore Loggers and Truckers Association
Stéphane Fabris, representative
H. et R. Fabris Industries
Huguette Fabris, propriétaire/owner
Peter Duinker
Mainville Lumber Co Ltd
Roma Mainville, secretary-treasurer
Ronald Garnett
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND) for Mr Wessenger
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Arnott
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr White
Hodgson, Chris (Victoria-Haliburton PC) for Mr David Johnson
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND) for Mr Mills
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Sorbara
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Grandmaître
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr Morrow
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Natural Resources:
Cleary, Ken, manager, program development, renewable resources
Wood, Len, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Luski, Lorraine, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0930 in the Pinewood Motor Inn, Espanola.
CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE
Consideration of Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario / Projet de loi 171, Loi révisant la Loi sur le bois de la Couronne en vue de prévoir la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne en Ontario.
TOWN OF ESPANOLA
The Vice-Chair (Mr Hans Daigeler): Good morning. Welcome to the hearings on Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario. Today we are in the great city of Espanola, and it's my pleasure to welcome Mr Ken Buck, who is the finance chairman for the town of Espanola. Is the mayor here as well?
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): No, he's not here.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. I don't know whether you're familiar with the procedure. You have half an hour. You can use the time as you wish. However, we would like you to leave some time for questions and answers; it goes in rotation by caucus. If you'd like to begin, please go right ahead.
Mr Ken Buck: I would like to officially welcome everyone here this morning, especially the members of Parliament. I hope you take our remarks into consideration on this bill. It is a serious bill to northern Ontario, and I would wish you would consider it.
I'm going to ask one question right off the bat. It's always been a bone of contention with a lot of people. It's not all in the speech I handed out. I recognize a couple of MPPs over here: Mr Ramsay and Mr Brown. I would like to know where the rest of the MPPs come from, what part of the province, if that's permissible, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: Normally, the procedure is that you make your presentation and then there will be questions and answers afterwards. Just for your quick information, we do have a good cross-section from across the province. There are several who are from northern Ontario.
Mr Buck: I'll give you a little rundown on my background. I have been on council in the town of Espanola for approximately 20 years, six of those as mayor. I'm a director of FONOM and represented them at meetings or workshops of the Ministry of Natural Resources since February 1993.
AMO asked for a representative on the Bob Carman committee. This committee was a sounding-board for Mr Carman, who was dealing with the government and industry. I was appointed to that committee.
I believe MNR needed a look at some changes made in the act. All the shops and meetings were a learning experience for myself and, I believe, a lot of other people, and that was in more ways than we believed. A lot had started before I became involved, and I am just going to mention some of the reports and workshops I was involved with. There were other papers handed out to us that were previous. Some of them were dated 1992 and, as we know, the act hadn't been changed for a number of years.
The first one I attended was Planning for Ontario Natural Resources -- workshop guide received on the 22nd; the meetings were the 26th and 27th. Frank Wilson was the planning review project coordinator; Forest Values, working presentations, team leader, Laurie Gravelines; Forest Values workshop in October; Forest Values; Timber Production Policy, workshop by Brian Callaghan.
Background materials and support documents that were given to us were sometimes at the meeting or like the ones we got last Tuesday, which tie into the act for today's presentation: Forest Information Manual, Forest Management Planning Manual, Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual, Scaling Manual.
There they are, gentlemen. I don't know how you expect people to read them, take out of them what is important or isn't important and digest them from last Wednesday until this morning, when I still happened to be out of town for about four days this weekend. I picked them up after work on Wednesday. I don't think that's being fair to us; I don't think it's being fair to the general public; I don't think it's fair to anybody involved that receives those and expects to be here to make a presentation and a judgement on those books.
There were other previous documents: Ontario Forest Products and Timber Resource Analysis; Resource Management: Working Together; Water Management on a Watershed Basis: Implementing an Ecosystem Approach; Subwatershed Planning; the report of the Ontario Forest Policy Panel, Diversity: Forests, People, Communities -- I'm sure that you people must have gone through this one; this was put together by a group of people and is one that the government has used considerably, I'm told; it has to deal with forests, people and communities; A Report and Recommendations from Labour, Industry and Government to the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources; Measuring Unpriced Values in Ontario's Forests: An Economic Perspective.
I could go on down the list. I believe I have 25 copies here if anybody wants to pick them up and look at them. But a lot of these were put out quite late. They go down to Developing a New Timber Production Policy; The Timber Resources of Ontario; Forest Management Accounting Framework; Ontario Stumpage: History and Procedures.
There's another page of them here too, but the most important one -- I shouldn't say most important -- one of the important ones in those was the one on timber management. I'll get it right here. I was asked when I came in where I came from, if I was travelling. I said no, I wasn't really travelling but I was just wondering if everybody had all the information we were given. That's a full suitcase of it in that short period of time.
The document I'm talking about is Hard Choices -- Bright Prospects. That one there is one that is, I'm told, being used considerably by the ministry. I don't know whether you people have it, whether you've read it or what, but there is a lot of good information in it.
Last but not least is the document on AOX, zero discharge. There's been no scientific proof of small amounts doing harm to the ecological system, but this government has listened and still listens to a lot of minority groups that feel they know it all and do not worry about any consequences it may have on one and all.
As I mentioned in my presentation at the EA hearings, common sense, let's use it. But it seems it has gone by the wayside.
The government intends to push this bill through this fall. I have read it from front to back and have listed 25 sections that I feel should be amended, and I'm sure that other speakers are going to address many of them. They're also listed over there, 25 copies.
The bill is laying all the costs on the bush operations, large and small, and some are very unreasonable. Along with these manuals we just received, how can anyone in government ask for good, solid input with reasoning and common sense in such a short time frame? Maybe a good, qualified person full-time could, but as for myself, I still work for a living and cannot spend eight hours a day working on it and trying to decode and decipher it.
When I started back in February 1993, we had so many hectares of land to work with. Now with national issues, parks, old growth and whoever knocks on the door and says we have something to protect, it is being cut less and less every week or two. The only ones that might survive are the large companies. This bill is making it so the small operator will be a thing of the past, something like your farmers in southern Ontario.
0940
The saying, "Keep Ontario Green" -- yes, we would like to see some of that. There are over 40 municipalities out there which survive alone on forestry of one type or another.
I'm just going to give a few of my 25 objections to the bill:
Sections 8 and 10, part II, page 5:
Section 8: Pretty broad statements.
Section 10: On whose recommendation?
I'm not going to read the sections out of the bill. I assume you all have the bill.
Section 12: Citizens' committees -- who, what experience? That's on page 6. I was talking to one gentleman last night. He was asked to be on the committee. He said one meeting a month. He said the first month they called three meetings. He said, "I just don't have the time for that," so he resigned. That's what you're going to find with these local citizens' committee groups, if you're going to start having two, three, four meetings a month.
Sections 16 and 17, page 7: In part. Look at the costs. I don't know of any large industry -- I shouldn't really word it that way. This isn't in the speech, but the government does help a lot of large industries. It looks to me like they're singling out the forest industry to be sort of an independent one and you guys all pay the shot.
Section 28: Was suggested to follow the market. That was suggestions that we made at the Bob Carman committee level. That's page 9 and 10. The way it's worded does not say that, and that is for the price of your stumpage and your trust funds and futures funds and that. I believe it was mentioned that if this is what it had to be, we follow the market trend, not look at it occasionally, as the bill mentions.
Section 45, subsection (3): Should be qualified person. I've been around the government long enough. We've been fairly fortunate -- quite fortunate, I must say, in Espanola -- with MNR. But with some other ministries, I don't know where they get some of these people from, but they sure don't have the background or the knowledge to be doing some of the jobs that they're trying to do. I'm not blaming them; it's the shuffle that the government is doing.
Section 45: Trust funds. We tried other methods of funding but the treasury would have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Section 52: Broad statement. How can you harvest anything without damage? I'm not talking that nobody's trying to damage the forest, but when you take trees out you use equipment, you're going to be doing a certain amount of damage, the same as a farmer when he plows a field. Seagulls love the worms. It is just too wide open for any environmental group to stop operations. Someone would be totally out of business before the government gets around to settling it, as our present court system seems to last for ever.
Section 53: The same.
Section 55: Penalties.
Clause 61(1)(d), page 23: A $1 million fine. What company in this province in today's economic condition could afford a $1 million fine? I know they shouldn't get into it. Accidents happen. Things happen beyond control. We are all using new technology, where there's enough money left to put it in. God, we're not in Russia, I hope.
I see very little in here of all the workshops I attended and the recommendations to the Carman committee. I am sorry to say it, but I'm going to call a spade a spade. I feel the present government knew where it was going and what it wanted before any of these workshops and meetings were held.
I believe it will likely leave everyone who is involved feeling the same way, other than certain interest groups, because of the broad statements made in this bill. They can jump in with both feet and have government backing for work stoppage and so on.
I implore you to either hold this bill up or sit down with the residents of northern Ontario and work up a bill which is much more in line with the times and actual facts of timber harvest and living in the north. I believe Mr Hampton is either listening to these groups or has forgotten where his roots come from. His new partner seems to have kept most of hers.
I will give you specifics for Espanola:
Total taxes, municipal and school: $7,553,166. E.B. Eddy's portion is $3,979,154.50, which is 52.68% of the total taxes.
We have some capital projects for 1994, which is over $7,372,168. Some of them I'll list: the Queensway, $327,500 -- these are streets -- Mead Street sidewalk, $25,000; police cells, $40,000, so if any of you are out of line in the next day or that, you're going into the old cells. They're not just as good as what they might be when we get finished with the $40,000 expenditure on them. We don't want to see anybody down there. Library heating; arena engineering.
Multi-year projects: water and sewer, $15,397,000; total allocation, infrastructure, $994,000; Highway 6 servicing, $815,000.
This year the school board is spending $2 million on repairs and renovations to the schools.
I don't know whether you came in that way or not, but across from the mall you'll see a steel structure going up, which is a new Canadian Tire store, which is valued at about $2 million. Tim Horton's is going in along with it, on one side of it, up a little ways, at almost a quarter of a million. There's some talk of some other stores coming in.
These people have looked at Espanola. They've looked at E.B. Eddy. They have felt that we were a solvent town -- I guess they didn't look at Bill 171 -- so they figured to invest their money here.
In these figures, I did not have time to break down what we thought might be the small jobbers' input, as all their operations are not located in Espanola but in an adjacent area. But I assure you that the number of people they employ and the various taxes is quite significant. If you end up shutting most of them down due to the changes in the act and the cost, between loss of taxes and loss of money flowing into the community, it will hit northern Ontario something like the cigarette tax hit you people. Neither the municipalities nor the government can afford that.
E.B. Eddy, to my knowledge, and I'm sure Mr Waddell will possibly point it out, I believe purchases about 40% to 50% of its material from jobbers. Correct me, Jim, if I'm wrong. So let's have a second look or as many looks as it takes before this bill is passed.
In closing, I will add, so you will not think that I am all negative, most ministers of the NDP government have treated Espanola on a very good basis. With meetings, they have made themselves available, and for funding for various projects such as our sewer and water extension, and I thank them for that.
The sewer and water project is also tied in, along with the Great Lakes. These are also part of the Great Lakes cleanup of which I am a member of the RAP team on the Spanish River.
I again request you to study this bill and the manuals and come up with a much more comprehensive one that will still maintain a future for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren and into the future of this great province for hundreds of years. It can be done, so let's do it.
0950
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Following the rotation from yesterday, the government caucus will be first. We have about eight minutes altogether, so a little bit more than two minutes per caucus.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you for the welcome to Espanola. It's a pleasure to be here. I live in Kapuskasing. I'm the elected member for Kapuskasing.
You've covered a lot of area in your presentation. Some doesn't necessarily refer to Bill 171, but I want to concentrate on one question which involves the involvement of local citizens' committees. The environmental assessment recommendations are binding the government, and we have agreed that local citizens' committees should be involved in how the forests are managed.
I just want to get a view from you as to how you think the structure should be. You made some comments that one person had to resign from the committee because there were too many meetings, I believe, during a month. I want to get feedback from you as to how you think the committee should be structured, because from what I understand, we're bound by the environmental assessment recommendations that have said that the local communities have to have citizens' committees that make recommendations on how the forests should be used. I just want to get feedback from you on that.
Mr Buck: I think all these people asked to serve on these committees were asked to serve on their own strictly voluntary time. Is this not so?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr Buck: There is no remuneration or anything for them to be there, and I'm not saying that remuneration is the fact that somebody will serve on a committee. I'm sorry to say that a lot of these other groups out there, environmentalists' groups and all of those groups, are funded; all the shops I was at in Toronto, between the ministry and a lot of those people who were there, were 50-50 or thereabouts in some of our shops. I believe a lot of them were on the payroll to be there. I was not. I was there.
If it happened to be on my day off, one of the organizations covered my expenses for going, but you can only take so many hours out of a week when you are an active person in the community, and I think everybody around this table knows that there are so many active people out there. The rest of the people just sort of sit back and say: "Okay, well, let Joe do it. Let somebody else do it." You can only load the active people up with so much work.
Just who should be on there? It should be some of the people who have a bit of an idea, who know what is going on in the forest, not just all the objectors of everything and anything. We had one person at one of our committees who wanted to stop all cutting of black spruce in northern Ontario. Does that make sense to anyone sitting around this table? That would shut everything down across Highway 11, across the north of the province, because that is their main wood supply that serves a lot of the mills up there. These are the kinds of people we don't need on these committees, I'm sorry to say, but these are the kinds of people who are there all the time.
The Vice-Chair: Now the local member, and also the critic for the Ministry of Natural Resources for the official opposition, Mike Brown.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Perhaps I could just take a moment to welcome my fellow colleagues to Espanola and the fine riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, and thanks, Ken, for coming out today. I think we particularly appreciate, as members of the committee, the listing of the sections that give you particular concern. I and others on this committee have strongly put forward your point about all these manuals and regulations that were provided to many people just some time last week. I realize that it's almost an impossible task for people to go through those and make informed comments about all the sections at this very early date.
I'm interested a little bit in the residual value that, I think you know, is part of this new stumpage regime, and the residual value part of, I guess, this tax -- there's no other way to call this but a tax on trees -- which does not flow back to the forests of Ontario at all, but flows to the consolidated revenue fund at Queen's Park for disbursement as the Finance minister might please.
Knowing what is needed in the forests, as a northerner and someone who obviously knows a lot about forests you would recognize there's a lot of work to be done in the forests also. Would you believe this money should flow back into the forests of Ontario or to the Finance minister?
Mr Buck: I believe this money should flow back into the forests. They have taken, to me, industry and they say, "Industry is going to support the forests." This is what I read out of this bill; this is what I've taken from some of our meetings.
They are not taking into consideration everything from the forest, the forest users. You have your hunters, you have your fishermen, you have your tourist lodges, you have your hikers, you have everything that is being used. A lot of these people are the objectors to taking the resources out, and yet I paid, I don't know, $70, $80 or $90, whatever it was, for a little plastic card so I could go fishing and hunting. I still have to buy my licence, of course, all on top of that. But I have not seen a financial statement that says where any of this money here is going back into the forest to help sustain the forest, and there are no charges for anybody else, other than the fishermen and the hunters, to buy licences to use the forest.
Let's be fair. If everybody's going to use it, then let everybody pay, either that or put a percentage of it on the general tax bill that everybody is going to pay into and let some of them pay it that way, because they are using it. How do you charge a fellow who wants to go for a walk in the bush? That's pretty hard to do. But if he is going to protect that section of the bush so that he can look at a tall red pine or a tall spruce or balsam or poplar or birch, then he should be paying something for it as well. It is our livelihood here in the north, and I'm going to get off the subject for one second.
The Vice-Chair: We'll have to give Mr Hodgson time to ask a question as well.
Mr Buck: Okay, fine.
1000
Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr Buck, if you want to get off the topic, that's fine with me. I'm glad to be in Espanola this morning. I come from a rural part of Ontario called Haliburton.
Mr Buck: Know it very well.
Mr Hodgson: It's a similar economy to this. We have logging and tourism and a lot of hunters and things like that.
I'm part of the PC caucus and we've been looking at ways to make industry right across Ontario, especially in rural areas, more competitive. That's the bottom line here: We've got to be competitive with the northeastern United States and other areas of the world to sell our product.
I'm also concerned about a large part of our sustainability, if this is what this is called, local jobs and jobbers and independents. I was glad to see that you mentioned this in your report, that you're concerned that this bill will somehow eliminate the small person and therefore some of the competition that drives our economies.
What specifically do you see in this act that does that? I mentioned it yesterday and was referred to section 35 that gives independents a right to have arbitration when they enter into a third-party agreement. You've got a number of amendments here, and I just wonder if you could draw my attention to a couple of specific ones that you'd like to see amended, or is it just the general content of the bill, that only the large ones will be able to define what they can do with their land?
Mr Buck: I will just generalize. The general content of the bill is that it -- I'm talking with some of them who say the way it's drafted, the costs involved are just going to be astronomical. They're not going to be able to survive as a father-son operation or a two- or three-man operation.
Mr Hodgson: Because they are not going to have the resources -- the manuals?
Mr Buck: Not going to have the resources to do all the paperwork, all the legwork, everything they've got with it and all the costs that go along with it. It's going to drive their prices up so they're not going to be able to compete with the large companies to sell them the pulp.
I'll give you one example. One fellow told me that he had a little four- or five-foot stream to cross. He was going to drop a culvert in it. Somebody from MNR came and said, "Oh, no, that's a trout stream." He said, "Hell, there's never been a trout in there for years because it dries up in dry summers." He's got to put a dry bridge across it now if he wants to get the pulp out. That's going to run him, he felt, in the neighbourhood of $40,000 or $50,000 instead of 3,000 bucks for a culvert. I don't know whether everybody knows what a dry bridge is or not, but to my knowledge, it's one that stays away from the water source, so far back from the creek. It's got to be big enough and heavy enough to handle tandem truckloads of pulp. It's not just built out of two-by-fours and a handful of nails.
Mr Hodgson: There would have to be a watershed study as well.
Mr Buck: That's right. Where do these small operators get the resources to do all this? The other act spells it out for them pretty well too. I don't know whether that answered your question or not.
Just for you gentlemen, I don't know how many have got it or how many have it. I was asked where it came from when I came in. That's the stuff I've received in a year.
The Vice-Chair: Have you completed your presentation then?
Mr Buck: Have I used up my half-hour?
The Vice-Chair: Yes. Thank you very much. We do appreciate you appearing before the committee. I understand the frustrations that you experience. I should share with you that we get a fair number of these documents on quite short notice as well, but I do appreciate that it is very difficult to look through these. Nevertheless, we do appreciate your effort to at least give us your initial impressions and if you have further comments to make later on, the committee is always pleased to receive them. So thank you very much again for your presentation.
Mr Buck: I don't mind short notifications, but I do mind them when it comes to and involves thousands of people in our province. This is what ticked me off on this, and I'd rather be at work this morning than be here because I am totally --
ESPANOLA AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter now is the chamber of commerce from Espanola. My list here says Judy Skidmore and Randy McCulloch. You know what the process is. You have half an hour and if you'd leave some time, usually about 10 minutes or so, at the end for questions and answers, it would be appreciated.
Mr Randy McCulloch: I'd like to thank you for inviting us and having us out this morning. I'd like to welcome you to Espanola and hope you enjoyed your stay and will come back and enjoy our great forests.
I'd like to introduce Judy Skidmore who, on behalf of the chamber, is our expert when it comes to the forestry industry and has done a lot of work in it. She will go through our presentation. Afterwards we'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
Ms Judy Skidmore: The Espanola and District Chamber of Commerce has been active for nearly three years, after a lengthy respite.
I must apologize, first off, not having 25 copies available for you. We just finished this presentation at a quarter to 8 this morning.
The Vice-Chair: You can leave one copy with the clerk to copy and distribute to members.
Ms Skidmore: We have a few that we can leave.
Our membership has grown quickly to over 80 members and businesses are joining at a regular pace. Meetings are held the first Wednesday lunchtime of every month with an average attendance of 25 to 30 members. There are 12 directors. The active leader and president of the chamber of commerce is Randy McCulloch of Frank McCulloch Insurance, a long-standing Espanola company with insurance and real estate interests.
Projects of the chamber of commerce within the past couple of years include a biannual info fair, which are government programs and services; mediating local issues such as business licensing and garbage collection; reviewing business community initiatives such as the economic development officer, which we hope to have in place soon; telephone service, because Espanola now has only analog switch service, no cellular and no community 911 service. We also bring international business motivational speakers to the membership and 200 attended the last session.
There are business events and lunches; organizing and printing a community and business brochure, for which I'm a bit overwhelmed as well by the numbers who are here this morning. I just have three copies that I can provide to you; this is our volunteer effort. Organizing forest industry investment information for members on a local, national and international outlook; and as well the Welcome to Espanola sign, which I hope you saw coming in, which we've just managed to put up. And of course, election debates at federal, provincial and municipal elections.
The Espanola and District Chamber of Commerce is a member of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
Our motivation for these activities is the sharing of a common concern for the district's major employer: E.B. Eddy Forest Products. Not only in Espanola, but along the North Shore, Elliot Lake, Manitoulin, east and north of Sudbury, our businesses share concern for the health of the forest industry.
Chamber members share security in the good management of E.B. Eddy Forest Products and the value of its wood reserve as the basis of the main economy in the district. Even if the present owner should change his investment strategy, that is, the owner of E.B. Eddy, we hope that this forest products operation remains attractive enough on a global scale to attract new investment and continue to sustain the community where the Espanola and District Chamber of Commerce and fellow businesses work towards maintaining a good level of employment.
The business community recognizes that we have to do more with less. Successes of the 1980s must be carefully managed to survive the 1990s. Espanola is subject to many forces and the main employer is competing in a global field that effects all of us who serve the mill and its workers.
Our objectives include: In the growing ranks of the Espanola and District Chamber of Commerce, our objectives are to strengthen the business community in the district.
First of all, we need more information. Every policy and direction at the mill has an effect on our business community. We need to know what is happening locally and on a larger scale. Sharing information and networking is a major need. The Canadian and the Ontario media seldom provide information directly to resource-based businesses such as ours. The majority of our media is southern and urban based.
One of our objectives is providing new employment. It is apparent that the resource community in Canada is becoming much more mechanized. The result of changes in the forest industry is an employment levelling. Even if production is increased, it is not likely that communities such as ours will see the kinds of hiring of the past.
The companies and the economy overall still benefit from the products that we make and the commitment to better business practices, but the opportunity for our young people and the many more women who are entering the workforce are not seeing the corresponding work and wages that we expected in the past.
Even with significantly higher education levels, which people in our district are attaining, we will not see the many opportunities in this mill or in other mills across the north. It is up to us, as the business community, the small business, to ensure and to provide those business opportunities, to take up the slack, more or less, of the change in the forest industries. We have to be strong, as small businesses, in the district.
We have to maintain opportunities for families to stay settled in northern Ontario. While we in the business community continue to provide products and services, we have a common concern for the future of our families. Comments are regularly made that our children should have the opportunity to continue to live in this area and it looks like small business and family businesses are going to be our children's best chance. It's the responsibility of our business, the members of the chamber of commerce.
1010
The Espanola business profile: The region depends more than ever on the forest industry, with the decline in the region's mining industry. Of course, I think most are aware of the Elliot Lake situation and other mining decline in the region. The forest industry, farming and tourism and some mining continue to sustain a diversified economy in the region that is comparable to any other in the province. According to the Canadian economic diversity index, the region has about one business for every seven households, which is particularly good for major industry regions. The possibilities for our chamber of commerce to sustain a good employment level is realistic.
The forest industry is our preferred economic base. The forest industry is the traditional industry in this region. The Espanola district communities have been sustained by a huge wood basket that extends across Manitoulin Island, the North Shore and northwards almost to Timmins. The wood basket has been the lifeline for our families for nearly a century, the first central settlement and surely for aboriginal families for centuries before that.
The forest industry pays well, 40% above the national average of $29,000, and has sustained Canada as the major industry to the most attractive economy in the world. There is every indication that we should be able to continue to provide well for our communities, our nation and provide economic forest products of paper and lumber to other building nations around the world.
Our wood crop: The value of a jack pine tree, which is about 70% of the species used at the local mill, averages about $35 to $40, up to $80 for the largest jack pine tree. So at the mill, that's the value of a jack pine tree, about $35 to $40 -- that's what it's worth -- up to $80. That breaks down to $28 for lumber, $8 for chips, $1 for sawdust and shavings, for the average tree value of $37. It's not perhaps as valuable as a BC red cedar, at closer to $20,000 for the best and oldest trees, but still a valuable crop. With a rotation age of 70 years, a jack pine crop is worth about 50 cents to $1 a stem on an annual basis at today's prices. So that crop will compare favourably to most agricultural crops in Ontario.
A group of farmers who recently toured a reforestation site were amazed at the optimism of Ontario's foresters. "Imagine," the farmers said, "sowing a crop to harvest in 70 to 100 years. We agonize every year at the financial possibilities of harvest only a few months away." Yet even with this valuable crop, Ontario annually clear-cuts its forest acreage at a lower rate than the corn production acreage in Ontario's fields.
Our need for investment security: It is on the value of the tree and the security of investment in the future of access to that jack pine that all of us in Espanola are basing our businesses and our future. Our mortgages are amortized over 25 years, and that would seem to be the minimum amount of time to be able to count on business and at least as much as the jack pine's life of 70 to 80 years. Yet in the new Bill 171, tenure is actually and unbelievably being reduced from the 20 years that existed in previous legislation. Counting on five years of the future is not good for our business, our mortgages and our communities. It would seem more reasonable to extend a 20-year tenure, closer to the 70 or 80 years of a jack pine.
I use the security to access in a very general sense because loggers, tourist operators, trappers and prospectors across Ontario have many examples of failed agreements already, where they have depended on certain access and had it denied. The most sceptical of all is surely the bank manager, who is seeing less and less of government's commitments to our communities and now to the forest industry and our business community through Bill 171. Last year, loans extended to forestry across our area were down more than 30%.
This is not a sustainable forest act for our communities. Bill 171 is not sustainable for northern Ontario.
Where is the designation in Bill 171 of our security as a community and as the taxpayers of the province?
If the major forest industry investors have only five years to be assured a return on investment, then each of us who will service that investor will have only three or so years to ensure return on our investment. That will destroy our business. The banks will need more security than this bill gives us for the level of investment needed in northern Ontario.
Jobs priority: Where in Bill 171 is the designation of the traditional community wood baskets?
Where is the priority given to forestry jobs in Bill 171? Surely somewhere in this part of the province that is larger than western Europe there is somewhere that can be provided with job security enough in Bill 171. That is, somewhere within this whole province, in northern Ontario, there must be some areas of wood that can be actually designated for forestry as a priority as opposed to other priorities.
There is agricultural zoning yet no forestry zoning, no working forest for Ontario.
Bill 171 fails at sustaining jobs in communities, yet there is no threat throughout northern Ontario to sustainable forests.
The Ministry of Natural Resources report, the FIAG report, last year indicated that an additional 50% of our forest could be cut and still be sustainable.
In addition to high salaries and wages, wealth creation in the forest industry provides one of the highest economic multipliers in Canada.
The Dobey multiplier, used by Statistics Canada and forestry accounting firms, indicates that the multiplier in the forest industry is between four and five. The 1,000-plus forestry jobs in Espanola and district in the forest industry translate to about 5,000 jobs by the time the full value of the tree is tallied in the Canadian economy.
In a recent study that I had the opportunity to chair for Mattawa, the loss of forest access resulted in $4,000 per cubic metre of wood in taxes and services, and I believe tomorrow in North Bay you'll hear more about that particular study.
Value-added products in the forest industry is an attractive prospect for communities and businesses, such as ours in Espanola.
In order to commit to investment by existing small businesses, we need security in the future of the industry. Many people invested in northern Ontario in the front-end value added; that is, the seedling and reforestation industries. Within a decade the government has built confidence in a new industry and the future, in new learning and technology, and then destroyed that investment and destroyed that hope.
Instead of new programs for learning in forestry, Bill 171 initiates punitive measures and new doubt, and in an industry that is completely subjective in its guidelines and regulations, unlike other industries where government and private industry have cooperated on standards such as the OPS, the Ontario provincial standards.
The bill has really presented a punitive nature. It has not given us the kinds of learning opportunities and cooperative methods that we need for that security for the future. It is taking our confidence backwards instead of forwards.
In summary, Bill 171 has provided the opportunity to integrate several years of hearings across the province into new legislation, yet Bill 171 fails to provide any sustainability for our communities and jobs. That is the real challenge in Ontario.
While portraying the bill as covering social trends and fads that have no real basis in Ontario's ecology and environment, we are running the risk of destroying our chances to build real sustainability.
Does this bill give Ontario and Ontarians what they need?
Bill 171 fails to meet the needs of our business community in the ways that it needs to ensure we can build a future here.
Our recommendations for Bill 171 include that: In Bill 171 there should be community woodland designations to sustain traditional forest communities; secondly, we need in Bill 171 a level of job security; and thirdly, in Bill 171 we need to provide for leadership and a positive outlook with commitment to learning and cooperation in the forest industry.
1020
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: How much time do I have, Mr Chair?
The Vice-Chair: Two and a half minutes.
Mr Brown: Okay. Randy and Judy, good presentation. You raised some issues that actually were raised yesterday. I raised some in regard to the tenure and additional wood allocations. In tenure, when we're exploring that issue, the evergreen system that is now in existence seems to me to be the one that would give us the most assurance of continuation in the Espanola area. Am I hearing you correctly? Is that what you're hoping to see in this bill?
Ms Skidmore: The tenure issue has been somewhat confused. I've consulted a number of people about what the bill actually means in terms of tenure and I've received different answers. And not being a legal expert or a constitutional expert, I guess the impression that we were left with was that within the bill itself the actual security has been reduced. Now, the opportunities exist for that security to be increased within the regulations, but the main focus, of course, will be the legislation, and that is where tenure/security for the future/access to the wood supply must be very clearly defined and clearly outlined. Without that, we're facing a lot of potential problems.
Mr Brown: Yesterday, just to be helpful, we were told by ministry officials that they thought -- well, they more than thought. They said that this could be done through the agreements with the individual FMA holders. I'm uncomfortable with that notion because it's something that can be negotiated on and on, whereas if it was legislated there is far more certainty to the companies that are involved.
Ms Skidmore: Absolutely. The legislation has to be very clear and it has to be even further. In the past that was always a problem. People are allocated wood supplies. I'm not talking about major companies; I'm talking more along the lines of independents. But of course acreage is allocated. Actual cubic metres of wood is something that they are left with and that's always been a guess as well. When they find out partway through their operation that they actually have up to 20%, 30% less wood value, because our inventory is so poor anyway in Ontario, every which way you look at it there is no security for the contractor and to get that return on investment. It's simply eroding investment. It erodes the communities. It erodes the service industries, such as our own. It's just not good enough. We have to increase our security. We can't go backwards, and that's what this bill seems to be doing.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much for your presentation. I enjoyed it very much. We had a good opportunity to see your community. Last night we went out and had a good opportunity to sit together and chat about some of the concerns.
If there are no changes to this bill and Bill 171 passes as is, what do you see happening to your community over the next few years?
Ms Skidmore: If I might refer again to the study that I just completed in Mattawa, which I believe is one of the first ones which actually assessed the amount of financial contribution locally by the independents, in that particular community the financial contribution of the independents was almost equal to that locally of the major mills cumulatively together. And that's the first area that gets hit: the independents. They're the ones who can't pay their mortgages for these huge machines, and that, again, hits the gas stations, the mechanics, the fuel suppliers, right down to the grocery bills. So immediately you get a general eroding of the health of that business sector.
Now, the mill itself may be able to sustain itself by its other affiliated investments, through a major corporation or through another investment network, but locally you would get layoffs and a decrease in the tax base, and you're seeing a lot of that happening now. So we can't have a bill that increases that. We've got to have something that -- and I'm sure it's there. People are saying all across the north what needs to be in it; we just really can't understand why it's not there.
Mr Carr: What was your input to the bill up to this point? Have you been involved at all in dealing with the ministry and giving your input up to this point?
Ms Skidmore: Input I guess has been fairly limited. I think that there is a real lack of organization in northern Ontario by the people who should get the input first. The independent foresters: There is no organization in northern Ontario which overall brings in the input of the independent foresters; the silviculturalists, those kinds of groups have never been assisted by government in organizing and bringing forth their voice. If you look at the input that government takes, you'll almost never see an independent forester on the list. Never.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Judy, thank you very much for, first of all, presenting. Always a pleasure to do business with you. Actually, it's been a while since we've had an opportunity to deal on things, so I wish you the best in the future.
I just want to clear a point that was raised in your presentation, and I imagine it's going to be a point that will be raised by others, and that speaks specifically to section 23 and 24 of the act, what you call the evergreen clause.
Under the present Crown Timber Act, the 20-year provision that you talk about was never in the act. It was in the actual signed FMA that the forest company got into an agreement with the government. So if I'm E.B. Eddy or Malette timber or whoever, I sign an agreement with the government through the FMA. In the FMA that's where you get your tenure to the land. So it was never in the timber act and it's not in this act either.
The other thing is that there are two kinds of licences in the act. The first one, under section 23, is what used to be the FMA. And the terms and conditions under section 23 that E.B. Eddy and other people will sign into, it'll be basically the same kind of provisions that we have now so they keep the tenure that you talk about.
The five-year provision that you're worried about, and I heard you in your presentation presenting on that. You talked about you're worried that people would only be given five years to get tenure over the land. We're talking there about people who used to hold what are now called district cutting licences orders in council, which is a totally different thing.
You would know, being from the north like myself, that one of the problems that we have in forestry is the allocation of wood on crown units and also the allocation of wood sometimes within some of the FMA units; that those units are not used to what the amount of forest is available.
The idea under section 24 of the act is to give the ministry the ability to be able to get access to some of that wood that maybe we couldn't get now because of the way that the system is set up. Because there are some operators, for an example, that got order in council some years ago and they've become sort of barons of particular tracts of land that local mills cannot get access to.
Ms Skidmore: I'd like to meet them, Gilles.
Mr Bisson: Eh?
Ms Skidmore: I've never met them, these barons.
Mr Bisson: Well, no -- the time is a little --
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to leave some time for an answer, Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: Yeah. I just want to clarify -- the point that I want to make is strictly this: The evergreen clause that you talk about was never in the existing act; it was in the FMA agreement that they signed with the ministry, and that will remain under the new contract that they'll sign with the government. They'll get into the same type of agreement; they'll still have tenure.
And forest companies, as you well know, E.B. Eddy and Grant and the rest of them, do a good job of forestry, take their responsibilities quite seriously and will continue to do so under this act. The five years, like I say -- and I'd ask you to go back and take a look at it -- is in reference to district cutting licences and orders in council. That's what the five years is about, and doesn't refer to the agreements and FMAs.
Ms Skidmore: I quite agree that the issue is very unclear in actually how this act doles out tenure.
Mr Bisson: It's very clear.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Skidmore, you have the floor.
1030
Ms Skidmore: In the past that has been a problem. I know and you know the area where both of us have our backgrounds. There are one tenth of the OIC people now as what there used to be. They are being destroyed. They are losing all of their confidence in the future. They're losing everything.
Now, what we have to do, because we had an act which was not good, not clear and did not provide for security, we can't go backwards. We can't say, "Just because the last act was no good, we're going to reproduce it in this act, so don't worry about it, we're not getting any worse." We've got to have an act that is better.
Northern Ontario is being undermined. We are losing our population, we are losing our young people, we are losing the expertise in forestry. Gilles, that's what we've got to turn around. We've got the opportunity, a wonderful opportunity, to do it in this act. Let's do it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Unfortunately, the time has run out. We certainly appreciated your presentation, and we encourage you to continue to be involved in this. Good luck with your chamber of commerce in this area. It's always good to see the business people get organized.
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD, ESPANOLA BRANCH
The Vice-Chair: Our next presenter is E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd, Espanola branch. The presenter is Jim Waddell, if I'm not mistaken, manager of forest renewal. We received a copy of your presentation, and it has been distributed.
Mr Jim Waddell: Good morning. I'm making this presentation on behalf of E.B. Eddy Forest Products. Our company, as you probably know, is owned by George Weston Ltd. In Ontario we have the following facilities: a pulp and paper mill here in Espanola; a paper mill in Ottawa; sawmills in Timmins and Nairn Centre, which is just east of here. We also have paper mills in Hull, Port Huron, Michigan, and British Columbia.
In northern Ontario we have about 1,600 full-time employees; we provide indirect employment to hundreds more, who derive their livelihood from operations associated with the harvesting and transporting of wood purchased by our company from other companies and small contractors. We buy wood from as far west as Thessalon, north to Timmins and east to Mattawa and Pembroke.
While I'm making this presentation on behalf of our company, we are also extremely concerned about the impact that this bill will have on the small, independent contractors in this area, who supply us with up to 50% of our fibre. I believe that many of our concerns are shared equally by the small contractors.
In northern Ontario we have three forest management agreements, totalling 1.3 million hectares of forested land, or an area roughly the equivalent of Prince Edward Island. I want to assure you that we take the responsibility of managing these lands very seriously. Therefore, Bill 171 is of the utmost interest and importance to our company, and we appreciate the opportunity of giving our input today.
I'd like to speak first to the public input process. Our company strongly supports the process of public consultation and local citizens' committees as proposed in the bill. Two and a half years ago our company was the first company in Ontario to establish its own local citizens' committee; we call it our forest advisory committee. In fact five or six of our members are here today on their own time and their day off. We have 23 members on this committee, and they represent the general public and other interest groups who use the forest in this area.
Since Bill 171 is the most important forest legislation in Ontario for the past few decades, it must be given ample scrutiny by all interested parties. While we certainly support public hearings before your committee, the time frames we have been given are totally inadequate.
This draft bill cannot be properly evaluated without reading and understanding the draft regulations and the draft manuals that are an integral component of this bill. Mr Buck has stolen my act by lifting up his draft manuals. I have the four manuals here, which I have not had the opportunity to read, as we only got them last week as well. Some of the other presenters here may not even have seen them. It's a tall task to ask us to comment intelligently when we have not had the opportunity to read them. So we must express our concern about the haste in which these drafts have been produced. Portions of the Forest Management Planning Manual, for example, are not finished.
We believe this public review process has several major flaws. The time period available for reviews is inadequate, the draft manuals, which are key elements of the bill, are going to have major rewrites done to them over the next several months, and no opportunity was provided by the MNR for any interested parties to provide input to the draft regulations.
A public review process that is based, as is this one, on the public having access to only a small portion of the material, in our view, is inappropriate.
I'd like to speak now to the draft legislation. E.B. Eddy is fully supportive of the purpose of this act: "to provide for the sustainability of crown forests and, in accordance with that objective, to manage crown forests to meet social, economic, and environmental needs of present and future generations."
However, we do have some very serious concerns about this draft and where it may take us. As drafted, we believe this legislation will have a negative impact on the forest industry of this province because of the high degree of uncertainty and insecurity it creates in several key areas.
The first of these is tenure. The previous two speakers have already mentioned tenure, but it is one of the most important requirements to the futurity of Ontario's forest industries.
We must have assurance of long-term wood supply. Without appropriate tenure, capital investment simply will not occur. Who is going to invest multimillions of dollars in sawmill or pulpmill or boardmill, either to improve the existing facilities or to create new ones? Who would wish to invest money in forest renewal if you have no assurance that you will retain management rights to these forests?
Security of tenure is absolutely essential to industry, and yet this bill appears to dramatically reduce tenure in a number of ways, first of all, in the length of time. Now, as we've previously said, current FMA holders have a 20-year evergreen licence which, subject to a five-year review by an independent team, may be renewed each five years. This system of tenure is quite acceptable to the industry. It creates the necessary security of tenure for the company and helps to create a positive investment climate.
Under this bill forest management agreements become sustainable forest licences and the minister is free to set the term of the licence as he sees fit. This makes industry very nervous, as we could receive a licence with less years of tenure than we currently have. We have voiced this concern to the ministry people involved in preparing this bill and we were assured, as Mr Bisson has mentioned here a few minutes ago, that they anticipate that the existing 20-year evergreen licence concept would continue in the new scheme of things but that the Carman exercise would deal with the tenure question.
We have raised the tenure question with the provincial facilitator, Mr Carman, in our negotiations. We have written to Bob and we have spoken to Bob. We have raised this as our number one concern. As recently as last week, we called again and Mr Carman indicated to me that he is not in any position to assure us of the tenure matter; he cannot make any commitment on tenure. We find that most disturbing. On the one hand, the minister can set any term of tenure he wishes on the licence; on the other hand, the provincial facilitator is telling us that he is not authorized to deal with tenure at the current time. This uncertainty of tenure is totally unacceptable to industry and it must be corrected.
1040
The second issue of tenure that very much concerns us is the powers of the minister to suspend or cancel the licence. Subsection 56(1) allows the minister to suspend or cancel a forest resource licence in whole or in part for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons we can certainly support, but others are most troublesome.
For example, the licence can be suspended or cancelled if the licensee fails to comply with the Forest Management Planning Manual, the Forest Information Manual or the Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual. As we've said, these manuals were written in haste, they're in preliminary form only, and we have not had time to review them, so we really don't know how difficult it's going to be to comply with these manuals. There's no indication provided as to what degree of latitude would be permitted for non-adherence to the manuals.
Another section allows the minister to cancel if the licensee fails to provide information to the minister as required under the act or regulations. What information is required? We don't know. Section 16 requires a licensee to keep such records as prescribed in the regulations. Our review of the draft regulations does not show any reference whatsoever to such records, so we're totally in the dark.
A section of the draft regulations permits the minister to suspend operations if he considers such operations to be detrimental to the future production of forest resource. No explanation of what this means. "Forest resource" is defined in the act as "trees in a forest ecosystem and any other type of plant life prescribed by the regulations." This could be blueberries, it could be raspberries, any other type of plant life. This section appears to leave the door open for suspension of operations for any number of reasons.
The third issue on tenure is that a section of the new act allows the minister to sell, lease, grant or otherwise dispose of land under licence. There is no apparent limit or cap and there's no apparent compensation to the licensee. Again, we're at the minister's whim.
The fourth section of tenure that concerns us is that when a licence is transferred, assigned or charged, the minister can reduce by 5% the amount of forest resource entitled to be harvested. We fail to understand the rationale for this reduction at all.
The fifth area of tenure that concerns us is the minister's right to amend a licence. Subsection 31(1) allows the minister to amend a licence in accordance with the regulations. The draft regulations allow the minister to amend the licence in a number of ways that could seriously impact the viability of the licensee.
These regulations allow the minister to change silvicultural and other standards previously agreed to. They allow him to dispose of forest resource, including timber, that the minister feels is surplus to the needs of the licensee. They allow the minister to grant a licence to a third party for this so-called surplus and then require the original licensee to enter into an agreement with the new third party to resolve any issues that may arise. They also allow the minister to amend the area of the licence. These are tremendous powers given to the minister.
The sixth issue on tenure that really disturbs us is the statement in the regulations that "Any licence shall contain the following terms and conditions," and I've picked out four or five here that are particularly onerous.
They allow the minister to state the requirements for the sale of any species of the forest resource harvested to any mill, conditions that limit the harvesting of the forest resource, conditions with respect to harvesting and utilization practices, the requirement of the licensee to pay for the cost of wood measurement, the forest renewal and other silvicultural work which the licensee is required to carry out in accordance with approved prescriptions. Finally, and the one that really frightens us, the minister can designate any part of a licensed area as an area of concern or special area in which either no forest resource or limited forest resource harvesting may occur and in which no road or other means of access for the purpose of harvesting may occur.
In theory, this allows the minister to take five or 10 or any number of townships in your licence and set them aside as a roadless area, as a wildlife preserve or whatever. There is no cap on this. Any or all of these requirements could potentially seriously impact the licensee's tenure and his ability to remain competitive. In summary, it appears that tenure under this act will be most uncertain, it'll be quite insecure and very unattractive to industry. Under this act industry is taking on many additional responsibilities and obligations but it appears that our tenure is seriously weakened.
The second major area of concern we have is definitions. There are many key concepts and words throughout the act and regulations that either lack definition entirely or are so vague and fuzzy that their interpretation and application will be difficult if not impossible.
For example, subsection 8(2), "The minister shall not approve a forest management plan unless...satisfied that the plan provides for the sustainability of the...forest," but nowhere in the act is there any definition of "sustainability". This apparently is going to be written and defined some time in the future.
Other examples of key words that are not defined or are defined in such a vague way that they're next to useless are "forest ecosystem," "loss" and "damage," and there are many other examples.
The third major area of concern we have is the uncertainty that is created by the punitive nature of this act. In the last four years the forest industry has undergone many in-depth reviews by independent groups: the environmental assessment hearing, the five-year review and so forth. These reviews have all shown that Ontario's forest practices are appropriate for our forests, they are being successfully applied by competent professionals and that industry is doing a successful job of forest renewal. With this track record, why is this bill so punitive in nature?
On June 20, 1994, the minister is quoted in Hansard as saying: "I don't want to leave the impression...that I think we need to take a hard line with the forest industry in this province. On the contrary, I think that too often the forest industry is unfairly criticized."
This act does not appear to mirror Mr Hampton's words. There are administrative penalties proposed ranging from $2,000 to $15,000 and what we feel is unfair about these is that the application of these penalties will be based on procedures outlined in the draft Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual. Preliminary examination of this manual indicates that the penalties will be applied in a manner that is a heavy-handed one and revenue directed.
Also, under this bill the courts can impose fines of up to $1 million. The punitive nature and the potential size of these penalties and the lack of definition all add to the atmosphere of uncertainty this bill will create.
The fourth area of major concern to us is the uncertainty that there will be increased industry costs. We aren't able to determine what these are because the act and regulations are very vague in many key areas, the manuals are still an unknown quantity and it is quite unclear what new roles and responsibilities the industry is expected to assume.
It appears in some cases that the ministry is simply trying to offload some of its current responsibilities to us, along with the inherent cost. What is clear is that this draft bill provides the minister with enormous powers and that can translate into additional responsibilities and costs to industry. In today's highly competitive international marketplace, Ontario's forest industry cannot be further disadvantaged by the imposition of more government costs.
1050
In summary, the public input process is badly flawed due to the inadequate time available for review of the documents and because of the preliminary nature of the manuals.
Bill 171, in its present form, is bad legislation for forestry in this province. It requires major revisions. The bill lacks clarity, it is process-oriented, it gives the minister sweeping powers and is unnecessarily heavy- handed towards the forest industry. The legislation has the potential to create a climate of uncertainty and pessimism that will negatively impact investment and development on the industry in this province.
Our company has two requests to make to this committee: First, please set aside this legislation until all parties have had appropriate time for adequate review and the manuals can be finished; and secondly, please listen carefully to the thoughtful concerns you will receive from the forest industry over the next few weeks and try to incorporate them into a revised act.
I thank you for this opportunity of presenting the concerns of E.B. Eddy to your committee.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation. Before I give the floor to the different caucuses, we might have a little bit of extra time available. Has Antoine Fabris or Huguette Fabris or Stéphane Fabris arrived at all, anybody in the audience, the next two presenters? We can take a little bit of extra time then in terms of questioning, since the next presenter is not here. We'll start with the Conservative caucus and Mr Hodgson, about five minutes each.
Mr Hodgson: Five minutes? Good. Thank you very much, Mr Waddell, for coming before us this morning. As I mentioned before, a lot of the presentations we see are from different groups, and I would just like to thank you for this proposal. The summary is very powerful, and I can assure you that we will listen carefully and thoughtfully to all the concerns from the lumbering industry.
We've been told by the ministry staff that this is results-oriented, and as you've clearly pointed out, it's process-oriented and gives the minister sweeping powers. But you also talk about how it adds to our lack of ability to compete in the international market. You have mills and do business in the United States and in Ontario. I won't go into some of the other factors that make it so it's hard to do business in Ontario.
We've mentioned the tenure before, and this is an excellent review of the tenure and the problems with it and how it threatens tenure and how that's linked to investment and security and the jobs and sustainability in our communities in northern Ontario.
The one area I'd like to have you explain further that hasn't been explained in detail in your report, you just mentioned that you have a citizens' committee, and as you're aware, this act, although manuals aren't made up on it, calls for citizens' committees to develop multi-use strategies for the crown forests.
Can you give me your opinions on that and tell me about your community committee, how it works, what the criteria are for selecting them and what powers you give it and if that would be an appropriate model, as you see it, envisioned under this act?
Mr Waddell: First of all, maybe I could ask the members of our forest advisory committee who are here today if they would please stand. Thank you. I did not solicit their coming, by the way.
Mr Hodgson: That speaks well.
Mr Waddell: In terms of how did we select our members, we advertised for four or five members from the general public in the local newspapers and then we tried to contact every major group, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the snow machine club, OFAH and so forth, and we asked them to appoint a member. We were overwhelmed with the response. Everybody we contacted was interested in having a person on the committee.
We meet once a month, and it is strictly an advisory committee. However, they do make recommendations to us and we try our best to accept these recommendations and we have promised them if we cannot accept any recommendation we will come back with a full explanation as to why we cannot accept the recommendation. Over the two-year period, I think we have about eight recommendations in place now that they have made to us.
The main function is just coming up. They will provide input into our new timber management plans that we are working on right now and the draft plan is due next summer.
I would think, depending upon the representatives that you can pick, and we've been well blessed with people who really feel for these issues and who are intelligent and come well prepared for the meetings, and we have some very interesting meetings, local citizens' committees can really contribute to a well-rounded series of recommendations.
I don't know if I've answered all your questions there or not.
Mr Hodgson: Yes, you have. It's people who live in the communities and actually use the forests and you've solicited their help and advice.
Mr Waddell: Absolutely. Every one of these citizens lives within a few miles of our forest management agreement area.
Mr Hodgson: Sort of unrelated but kind of related is the definition. You called for a definition of the concept of sustainability. Yesterday, the first day of the hearings, we were in Sault Ste Marie and we heard a number of groups call for the definition of sustainability in terms of an ecosystem. They wanted the manuals to be more definitive in terms of recognizing, as we mentioned earlier, blueberries, but they were talking about all species in the forest.
Is that not a slippery slope to an area where we don't have enough scientific information to stop forestry practices? Are you concerned about that at all?
Mr Waddell: Very much so. For some of the environmental groups that is their platform. They would like to say, "Until we have a complete inventory of all resources, don't do anything," and of course that's an ideal situation, but we're a long way from reaching that. Until we do reach that situation, which may be several decades away, I believe we have to proceed in forest management with the best information we have available today and with the most commonsense approach, to try to continue to carry out timber harvesting without negatively impacting on the other forest resources.
Mr Carr: Any time left?
The Vice-Chair: A quick question.
Mr Carr: Page 13 was a very powerful summary, and I hope, if it's possible, I can get another copy of that to send around to some of my other colleagues.
I was interested, though, in what percentage of your costs, because as you know you've got labour, you've got WCB costs, taxes and so on, would be in terms of the cost of land. Do you have a percentage figure that you could give us?
Mr Waddell: That would be land?
Mr Carr: Yes, acquiring land.
Mr Waddell: The acquiring of land?
Mr Carr: Yes, the cost of the land in terms of -- for example, as you know, what's going to happen with the leases. What percentage of your costs now are you paying out?
Mr Waddell: Of course, the land that we have in our forest management agreements is all crown land. The direct cost we have for that is what is known as the area charges, and that works out to $102 per square kilometre per year.
Mr Carr: And what's that percentagewise? Very small to your overall cost of operation?
Mr Waddell: Relatively, to your finished product.
1100
Mr Carr: What do you see happening if this bill comes in? What do you see happening to your costs then?
Mr Waddell: I would like to make one thing clear, that we have no objections to the stumpage forest renewal charge concept or to the forestry future fund. We believe that both of those concepts are good and we have supported them in our discussion with Mr Carman. It's how they may be applied that concerns us and the other issues that I have in here.
I think the major cost impact to both large and small companies will be in the process-oriented requirements that this bill dictates. So much of that is in these manuals that we haven't had a chance to absorb that it's very difficult to begin -- I can't begin to put a figure on it. But over the last few years the process part of our lives has just increased almost weekly and we see this bill, these regulations and the manuals as only compounding that.
There's no question in our minds that there is a definite impact to cost here and I'm not talking about the cost of renewing our forests. We're quite prepared as a company to do that and we always have been.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. It's good to see you again. I've run into you a number of times over the years as a former president of what they now call CEP, so it's good to see you making a presentation.
I want to touch a little bit on one item, the second recommendation on page 13, and hopefully that you're going to bring forward a number of ideas and suggestions, put them in writing and get them to us on what amendments you think should be put in there. That'll be helpful in seeing the final draft of Bill 171 because there will be amendments that will be dealt with in the middle of September and we'd like to hear from yourself and anybody else in the area, if there's something that you might think of after you leave the meeting.
I just want to go back to page 10. You've used two words there, the "sustainability" and the "ecosystem." It seems like you're looking for a broader definition or explanation of those two words. I want to get your version of how you would define it, in as small an amount of paragraph as possible, and whether you feel that these definitions would have to be in the legislation or could be in the manuals that were produced around the end of July and distributed some time after August 2.
Mr Waddell: I'm not sure they'd have to be in the legislation, but I think the manual itself would be satisfactory because that is a little more flexible and I think there are some advantages in having some flexibility in these definitions as the years go by. But we just haven't seen any definition of these terms yet and it's worrisome to us.
I don't think, Mr Wood, I am prepared to try to give you a definition of sustainability or forest ecosystem here, and I think this is the problem that most of us face. They're new terms, they're very complex and certainly it would take some heads to go together to come up with a definition that would be acceptable. But it's got to be done and it has to be something that the majority of the users of the forest can accept and that you can define it and apply it and recognize when sustainability is or is not being achieved. At the moment I can't do that for you.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Thank you for your presentation. It's been 25 years since I've been to Espanola. Everybody else was going to Woodstock. I was coming to Espanola, and it has changed. I'm very pleased with what I see in Espanola.
I'm a former president of a CPU local in Guelph, Local 1199, so my background is in the paper industry. But I'm one of those, I guess, damned environmentalists, and Howard Hampton, the minister, has a lot to do when he goes to caucus to satisfy everyone. I'm one of those people who says, "As far as I'm concerned, in the future we will not be cutting any trees," and Mr Hampton has to try to satisfy me when he comes to caucus.
He does have a tough job when he does come to the caucus meetings with proposals such as Bill 171, because he is not satisfying my needs and, as far as I'm concerned, he's not satisfying the people I represent in the Guelph area who elected me. So, again, Mr Hampton can say that he's going to try and protect the industry. As far as I'm concerned, he's not protecting my interests. I'm not trying to stick up for Mr Hampton, but his job is a tough job when he comes to caucus with all the varying views and different views that do go on in the caucus meetings.
As far as --
The Vice-Chair: The other representatives have now arrived.
Mr Fletcher: Oh, they have arrived?
As far as Espanola and what's going on in this area, when you picture your citizens' committee, the input from the citizens' committee -- and I think you may have answered it already but I wasn't quite sure if that's the way it was going -- are they people who use the forest products, who are associated with the forest products industry, or are they just people away from the forest products industry who are on this committee? You say you have about 25 people.
Mr Waddell: Yes. Obviously, in a town of this size where the great majority of the people who live here work for E.B. Eddy, we do have I believe two or three members who are company employees, and they are unionized employees, by the way, so they're quite free to speak their minds.
Mr Fletcher: Union or non-union, I think you can speak your mind. I don't think that has anything to do with it.
Mr Waddell: Certainly the other members of our committee all use the forests in one aspect or another: for recreational purposes; there is a licensed trapper on there, for example; and the great majority of the other people all use it for fishing, hunting, cottaging, tourist camps; we have a fly-in operator, that sort of thing. I think I can safely say there is nobody on that committee who does not travel through our forest management agreement areas and have an interest in maintaining the environmental aspects of it.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'd just like to follow up on something that Mr Fletcher has touched on. Being from Kenora and having Boise Cascade, of course, as our major industry in that area, I'm very interested as well in the citizens' committee. Just as a comment and maybe a suggestion, do you have any criteria, like written criteria, as to how this committee is formulated -- you were mentioning some of the people who are involved -- criteria on involvement that you could possibly submit to the committee that we could take a further look at?
Mr Waddell: I'm afraid we don't. I'd be happy to give you a list of the members of the committee and the organizations they represent. We really went to the organizations, like Canoe Ontario, FON, OFAH, explained to them what the mandate our committee was and asked them if they could appoint an appropriate representative, obviously somebody who was willing to spend the time and who had a real interest in forest management, and almost without exception we've been very happy with the members appointed.
With the members we got at large, we did advertise in the paper and we did interview a number of them to determine what their background was, their level of interest and so forth, and then we offered the positions to the ones we felt would fill the bill.
Mr Miclash: Great. I think, Jim, with what you've given us here, and along with that list, it would be very helpful to us just to get an idea, as you say, of the backgrounds and the people you did approach for that membership. Maybe the clerk could possibly get that? Thank you.
Mr Waddell: I'll just mail that to you, Frank.
The Vice-Chair: To the clerk, please.
Mr Brown: I think the first thing I should do, Jim, is make a request on behalf of the committee Chair, who would like one of your posters.
Mr Waddell: The moose poster?
Mr Brown: The moose poster.
The Vice-Chair: I mentioned that coming in yesterday. I like the poster.
Mr Waddell: We'll hand-deliver it to you personally.
Mr Brown: He's the only Liberal member on the committee not from northern Ontario, so we want to see that he gets a picture of a moose.
I think your comments on tenure are very good. I explored this issue a little bit yesterday in my comments in Sault Ste Marie. One of the illustrations I gave was our recent difficulties with the treatment program for jack pine budworm. I wonder if you could tell the committee what E.B. Eddy's involvement was and how much forest ended up not being on your limits, that didn't get treated because the government wouldn't do it -- that's clearly how it was -- and how that impacts on tenure. That's really the point I was trying to make.
Mr Waddell: The jack pine budworm, for those of you who don't know, is a very serious insect pest to the jack pine tree and can wipe out or seriously damage large sections of forest in northern Ontario. We had a serious infestation in the 1984-87 period, and at that time the Ministry of Natural Resources carried out very adequate spray programs over hundreds of thousands of hectares in this area of the province. Even with that good spray program, something like 7% of the volume of jack pine in this general area was destroyed.
1110
In the early 1990s, the budworm returned, and it became very obvious in 1993 that we were going to have to spray in 1994. We put on quite a campaign with MNR to spray. We met with the minister on a couple of occasions but, frankly, Mr Hampton told us there just wasn't money available. So it was a case of E.B. Eddy either picking up the tab for it or our forest getting unprotected.
The ministry was able to supply us with the biological insecticide known as BT to carry out spraying on 21,000 hectares, which is what we did on the lower Spanish forest management agreement area. We believe the spray was quite successful. We paid the entire cost of the spray program other than for the BT. The ministry supplied us with some technical assistance and advice, but the actual cost of the spray program the company absorbed.
There's no question, as Mr Brown has suggested, that if we did not have security of tenure, we would not have spent that money this year. Why would we? We fully anticipate that we will be in business and we will be harvesting those trees some time in the future under the 20-year evergreen concept licence we have now. With Bill 171 we're not quite so sure. I can't give you a figure on the balance of the area outside the lower Spanish forest management agreement area that should have been sprayed, but I suggest to you it's probably two to three times the amount of area we sprayed; 50,000 to 60,000 hectares might be an appropriate figure. But there certainly was a large area outside of our own agreement area on crown management units that the ministry did not protect, did not spray.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. That will have to conclude your presentation. We certainly appreciate your thoughts and encourage you to continue to be involved in this, as I'm sure you will be.
NORTH SHORE LOGGERS AND TRUCKERS ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: Stéphane Fabris will be presenting for the North Shore Loggers and Truckers Association. We have simultaneous translation; I understand the presenter will be using French. If you prefer to make the presentation in French, il y a la traduction simultanée. Les machines sont en fonction.
Mr Stéphane Fabris: The presentation will be in English. My name is Stéphane Fabris. I am a representative of the North Shore Loggers and Truckers Association. I'll be speaking here just briefly to voice our concerns concerning Bill 171.
(1) The manuals relating to Bill 171 were received by the association on August 11, 1994, which left no time for the association to meet and discuss the contents. Only the executive of the association had the opportunity to briefly view parts of the manuals. There has been no time for the proper professional review of the government proposals involved. The association would require a longer time span to review the documents once they have achieved a more complete stage, as they aren't complete at the present time.
(2) The the MNR is currently, by its own account, understaffed and behind schedule in all aspects of forest management, including, specifically, the current five-year planning process on regeneration. With Bill 171, is the government attempting to transfer all of its obligations to the industry so that it no longer has to account to the public for past practices? By shifting the accountability of forest management to industry, the MNR will now be able to point the finger directly at industry and avoid any direct responsibility.
(3) The draft manuals are very vague in what will be required of forest operators. The proposed legislation might impose the cost of forest surveys on small operators. Why should we alone pay for a survey, inventory or study which will benefit all sectors of forest users? The current inventory maps are woefully out of date. We are being penalized for past inadequate ministerial management and planning.
(4) Small contractors are increasingly worried by the amount of discretion and power given to district MNR personnel. With Bill 171, minor field technicians will now have the power to levy administrative fines, yet these same ministry personnel are never held accountable for their own actions which may cause irreparable harm to the forest.
(5) What kind of information is contemplated being furnished by forest licensees according to the Forest Information Manual? Most of the members of our association do not have the facilities, time, money or background required to provide the MNR with the additional paperwork. Bill 171 marks the end, in effect, of the small independent contractor.
(6) Small independent contractors lack the expertise and training to prepare forest management plans. The cost associated with hiring outside expertise would drive a lot of the members, or most of them, out of business.
(7) What role will the MNR play once Bill 171 is enacted, apart from policing?
(8) Bill 171 does not address how funds will be allocated from the forest renewal fund. Our membership fears that funds collected within one district or management unit may be applied to another area to the detriment of the producing unit's forest.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Now we give each caucus some time to ask questions, and if you'd like to give some answers, it's up to you.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for your presentation. I missed the first couple of minutes, but thank you for coming forward with ideas and suggestions, and you've raised a number of points.
What changes do you think should be put into Bill 171 in terms of protecting the small, independent loggers or contractors? What do you think we should put in there? I know the present Crown Timber Act, written in 1952, hasn't addressed all the concerns, because since I have been elected I've heard a number of independent loggers and small contractors asking, "Where is our future and what is happening?" So it hasn't happened under the present legislation. What would you like to see in the proposed legislation that would give some security to your operation or other individuals you're working with in your associations?
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to respond?
Mr Fabris: No.
1120
Mr Wood: All right. I'll just make another comment and then turn it over to another who wants to ask some questions.
After the environmental assessment hearings were held and the recommendations were finalized, on page 30 of the manuals the terms and conditions, local committees recommending how the forests should be managed, are spelled out in the manuals. I know you said you only received them a few days ago even though they were distributed some time around August 2.
The makeup of local committees -- I'm sure you're going to have a chance to read it later on -- is spelled out in there: how they should be appointed and what representative groups they should come from. The government of Ontario has agreed that this is what should be done and we're bound by the environmental assessment. It's spelled out in those manuals. That's the comment I wanted to make.
Mr Bisson: I just want to respond to a couple of the things.
Failure of sound system.
Mr Bisson: I guess I don't get a chance to speak is what it comes down to. Hooray.
I want to comment on a couple of the points you made because I think they need some clarification. I would make this offer: If your association would like to have the opportunity to sit down with somebody and pose the questions to get a little more input on this, I'd be prepared, if you want to contact me, to try to arrange that. I recognize that a lot of committees -- and this is not the fault of this committee; I think it's always been the case for the past number of years under all governments. At times, by the time the committee goes on the road and information is presented, there's not enough time for associations to deal with it. That's the failure of the system under all governments; we've all had the same problem to deal with.
In regard to the question of licences, when you talk about the smaller operators who are now cutting under district cutting licences etc, you make the point, and it's a valid one, that you sometimes don't have the expertise within those operations to do the kind of work in terms of reforestation that has to be done under this act. But what the act provides for, and this is what I want to clarify, is that the operator has a choice: He or she can apply for a licence under section 23 or section 24.
Basically, section 23 is what E.B. Eddy operates under now. It's a forest management agreement. They sign an agreement with the crown that they're going to have tenure on land for a period of 20 years. There's an evergreen clause in it, just as there was in the old one. You would sign that agreement and would go along doing business the way it needs to be done.
If you're a smaller operator and you don't want to do that, under the act you're going to be able to apply for a licence under section 24 and then you can enter into an agreement with the crown to be able to do the reforestation for you or to help you do the reforestation. That's really the choice of the independent operator. If the independent operator decides, "I want to enter into an agreement with the crown that the crown will help me to manage the unit, how I approach the cutting and the reforestation," and the crown does it in actual fact, then the crown will assume that responsibility in a licence it signs with you. Then the crown will draw on the trust fund, the same way that E.B. Eddy or anybody else would.
The whole idea is to make sure that when we approach cutting, we look at it over the long term and that there's money at the end to be able to do the work that needs to be done.
That's the first thing I want to say. I wouldn't want you to leave here thinking that independent operators -- a lot of those people are in my area; I come from Timmins and a lot of friends of mine are in that business -- would have to all of a sudden hire foresters and do all kinds of things they may not have the expertise to do now. You'll have the ability under this act to deal with that. It'll be the choice of the independent operator.
One last point --
The Vice-Chair: Sorry, Mr Bisson. If you want to make a presentation, you're going to have to get on the list of presenters.
Mr Bisson: One second, Mr Chair, on a point of order.
The Vice-Chair: No, Mr Bisson.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You've got to listen to a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, a point of order.
Mr Bisson: As a committee, the opposition has an opportunity to point out failures in a bill and I have the opportunity as a government member to point out --
The Vice-Chair: What is your point of order?
Mr Bisson: That's what I'm saying. The role of the opposition is to be able to point out --
The Vice-Chair: There's no point of order. Did you want to respond? Mr Brown.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, I have a question.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, your time has run out. Mr Wood asked questions earlier, and you had sufficient time to pose questions but you took the time to make a lengthy presentation. You had the opportunity to ask questions.
Mr Bisson: When there is a lengthy presentation --
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, I'm --
The Vice-Chair: Could we have some order, please. Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Chair. First I'd like to thank you for coming today and talking to us. I think the members should understand that you represent a group of people who employ people throughout the entire North Shore. Most of your operations are located in the smaller towns like Spanish or Blind River. Your own family is a major employer in the city of Elliot Lake, in a place that needs employment desperately, and you're one of the few bright spots in the economy of the area.
Over the last period, you faced a doubling of your area charges. Your stumpage fees have gone up. At the same time your services from the ministry have gone down. This has been a very interesting time to be in your business, I take it. I think that's a yes.
I was interested in Mr Bisson's analysis of how the crown management unit is going to work because I have asked that question of ministry staff and have not received an answer. My answer from the ministry staff is, "We still have to work all of this out." Later on in the hearings I think we'll have the ministry staff back and find out if Mr Bisson's analysis of how this is to work is correct.
Mr Bisson: My analysis is always correct. You know that.
Mr Brown: You tell us so, Gilles.
Anyway, thanks for coming. We appreciate the presentation. We share your view that the manuals have not been put out, that the regulations have not been put out, in time for any kind of informed review --
Mr Bisson: Is this a question or a presentation? Is there a question in there?
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, I didn't heckle.
The Vice-Chair: You have the floor.
Mr Brown: All I'm suggesting to you is that as we go through these committee hearings, hopefully more people will have had an opportunity to give us informed information regarding the manuals and the regulations and the obligations that are put on the industries that are operating in our forests. If not --
Mr Bisson: Is there a question?
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, come to order, please.
Mr Brown: If not, we're going to have great difficulty proceeding in an informed way with this legislation.
The Vice-Chair: Did the Conservative Party want to make any statement or question?
Mr Hodgson: I'd really like to thank you for coming in this morning. I share a lot of the concerns you've mentioned. And it's been mentioned before about the manuals not getting out to people so that your organization could meet and come up with concrete proposals, but I look forward to you sending those to us, and I'll go through it.
1130
The fund allocation and the definition of that: That's a good point, and I look forward to hearing either Mr Bisson or the ministry staff defining exactly how that's going to happen in the future. The cost of preparing the work plans, I believe, is what you're getting at, not the actual cost of replanting the trees. You can contract that out to the ministry.
Interjection.
Mr Hodgson: Yes, defining what you can do when you go into that area, and do you have to account for all the different ecosystem factors? That hasn't been spelled out yet that I can see. I look forward to seeing that, and the cost to the independents or the small forester.
Mr Fabris: Not only cost; just the knowhow, how to go about it.
Mr Hodgson: I was wondering if you've discussed allocation with anybody because, as you mentioned, this industry benefits everyone in Ontario. There has been a deficiency in the mapping or the data collection, and you've got to have a base to start with if you're going to audit it at the end. You're suggesting that the government is getting away from its accountability for past practices and is going to point the finger at industry and say, "You've got to update our inventory, tell us what's out there, and then audit it."
Has there been any discussion on maybe the allocation of trust funds being used in general to bring in this inventory so it's not borne by the person who actually goes out and does the work in the field, if he contracts it out? On a small chunk; I'm not talking about the big forest management areas but on crown land in general. I'd like to see that examined in the future, if you could send us your comments on it on the financing of it.
Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it.
Mr Fabris: Thanks.
The Vice-Chair: If you have any further comments, if you can leave them with the committee or send it to the clerk of the committee later on, it would be appreciated. We do appreciate your presence.
H. ET R. FABRIS INDUSTRIES
The Vice-Chair: I understand that Huguette Fabris is here now. Huguette Fabris va parler. Vous allez faire votre présentation de la part de H. et R. Fabris Industries.
Mme Huguette Fabris : C'est correct.
The Vice-Chair: Alors, vous avez une demi-heure. Vous pouvez prendre les 30 minutes vous-même ou peut-être, si possible, laisser du temps pour des questions et réponses à la fin. Alors allez-y.
Failure of sound system.
Le Vice-Président : Je m'excuse pour cette interruption. Peut-être que vous voulez recommencer votre présentation, et on va vous donner les 30 minutes comme prévu.
Mme Fabris : Merci. Je suis Huguette Fabris. Je suis propriétaire avec mon mari, René Fabris, d'une entreprise familiale. Nous sommes établis à Elliot Lake depuis les derniers 37 ans et nous employons, à l'année longue, entre 20 et 30 employés. Alors, je m'adresse aux représentants du ministère des Richesses naturelles.
Vous conviendrez qu'il nous est difficile de commenter sur le projet de loi 171 étant donné que nous avons reçu le manuscrit le 11 août 1994, ce qui laisse bien peu de temps pour étudier et comprendre tous les nouveaux changements auxquels le Ministère veut bien nous soumettre.
En vertu du projet de loi 171, concernant les nouveaux plans de gestion forestière, quelle assurance le Ministère donne-t-il aux producteurs forestiers ainsi qu'à la population face à la régénération de la forêt ? Dans le passé, on a augmenté toutes les charges liées à la foresterie mais sans toutefois faire plus de plantations. Avec le projet de loi 171, le gouvernement s'assure de rendre le travailleur forestier responsable d'un système qui lui a échappé au cours des ans.
Le Ministère va-t-il seulement agir en dictateur envers le travailleur forestier, ou fera-t-il en sorte que tous les usagers de la forêt aient leurs responsabilités morales et monétaires, y compris toutes les personnes qui se servent de la forêt comme élément de plaisir ?
Quant aux droits de reboisement et droits au fonds de réserves, comment seront-t-ils taxés ? Il ne faut pas oublier que nous n'avons aucun contrôle des prix du marché ; nous sommes des travailleurs à la source. Nous avons un revenu qui est minime. C'est pourquoi il est utopique de penser que nous pourrons faire face à toutes les conditions de travail que propose le projet de loi 171.
Ce sera un défi sans relâche que de rester en activité ; l'élimination graduelle se fera des petits entrepreneurs forestiers. Force est de reconnaître que pour toute petite compagnie de bois de coupe, il y a les efforts ardus de familles complètes qui s'y rattachent : c'est-à-dire des parents et des enfants qui ont dû, au détriment des crises économiques, faire face à de constants problèmes financiers pour rester concurrentiels sur le marché du travail.
Nous sommes en accord avec une grande protection de nos forêts, une bonne gérance, et surtout, une régénération constante de nos ressources naturelles, mais le gouvernement doit travailler en collaboration avec nous.
Le Ministère peut bien mentionner des montants exorbitants d'infractions dans le relevé du projet de loi 171. Nous avons des revenus qui sont minimes, alors la réalité est toute autre.
Nous prions le gouvernement de réviser le projet de loi 171, de nous donner surtout le temps nécessaire afin de nous renseigner et d'étudier son contenu. Merci.
Le Vice-Président : Ça termine votre présentation ?
Mme Fabris : Oui.
Le Vice-Président : Merci.
Mr Brown: Welcome, Madame Fabris. I guess my comments again relate to the lack of opportunity you've had to look at these regulations and manuals. You've had them since Monday, I guess.
Mrs Fabris: We received them on August 11.
Mr Brown: So neither you nor the association has had really an opportunity to go through them in detail.
Mrs Fabris: No, we just had a fast look.
Mr Brown: We, of course, have had the same difficulties. These committee hearings were originally scheduled to start at least next week, which would have given a little bit of time, but that was not to be. The government House leader insisted that we come out this week.
1140
As we go through this, hopefully people will have had some more opportunity, and the parliamentary assistant has indicated that there'll be another workshop later on, as we go through and have a look at these, for the forest companies to be able to look at these regulations, but your particular group will have some difficulty, I assume, getting input into those regulations.
I think you made a good point in noting that the government has doubled the area fees. They have increased stumpage radically already.
Mrs Fabris: And on the aggregate too.
Mr Brown: You've also seen diminished service from the ministry in terms of helping you mark trees, or whatever it is that you need done. That's had quite an impact on your bottom line, no doubt.
Mrs Fabris: Yes, it did.
Mr Brown: Do you know how many employees are involved in the group? Not just your company. I think you told us that was from 20 to 40.
Mrs Fabris: In logging I'm sure there is a thousand for sure. There are people from Echo Bay up to Espanola. Oh, yes, definitely.
Mr Brown: For many of the smaller villages and towns through this area, you are the major employers in those communities. I look at Spanish or Blind River, Thessalon.
Mrs Fabris: Yes, definitely.
Mr Brown: It's hard, as a northerner, not to look at this as a real redistribution of the way money's being spent by the government. Certainly by demanding that the forest companies spend far more money in this area and the government provide far less services to the companies, it seems to me that what we're seeing is a transfer of revenue from northern Ontario to southern Ontario.
I just wonder in our resource-based economy whether that will have -- well, I know it will have a very difficult effect on our producers and our incomes and our standard of living in this area. I don't really know what the question is here, but it seems to me that we're in for a very difficult time as people adjust to this new regime.
Mrs Fabris: There is always a limit regarding the money. You cannot spend more than you receive.
Mr Brown: You made a good point about market price. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, and you have to stay in business both times.
Mrs Fabris: Yes.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. Up to this point, recognizing that you haven't had any time to go through the regulations, have you had any discussions, though, prior to that with any of the ministry officials knowing this bill was coming out? Have you had any feedback to them?
Mrs Fabris: In July we met with Mr Hampton in Sault Ste Marie, and it lasted about 45 minutes. I hope you understand everything.
Mr Carr: Yes, fine, perfect.
Mrs Fabris: We didn't know at all what it was about, just a rough aspect of the new bill. He told us there's going to be a hearing in the north in August. That's all we had, but I went myself in July. I don't remember the date. We drove to Sault Ste Marie. But it lasted 45 minutes.
Mr Carr: I guess you don't know then, having not had too much time to study the bill, whether some of the things you talk about got incorporated in the bill.
Mrs Fabris: No, not at all.
Mr Carr: You don't know. One of the presenters this morning said that he felt that this bill -- I'll use a direct quote from his summary -- "gives the minister sweeping powers and is unnecessarily heavy-handed toward the forest industry."
Would you be able to comment on your perception or is it still too early in terms of whether you read the bill? Do you think that's a fair statement or would you be able to comment on that?
Mrs Fabris: The bill itself?
Mr Carr: Yes. That statement that was made that it gives the minister too much --
Mrs Fabris: As a small operator, we feel it's too much responsibility. I don't know. I know for sure my company and everybody else, there is a limit. We won't be able to hire other people to make a pleine gestion plan, and do this and that, because the money isn't there.
Mr Carr: Right now, maybe you could just give us a bit of an overview so we understand exactly what is happening to your company and the industry, particularly people like yourselves, the small --
Mrs Fabris: What's happening with my company? Myself, I'm very lucky. Our two sons are involved. It's a family business. I do all the office work and that's the way we could survive.
But if we have to pay, to hire a specialist to even marquer les lignes -- line mark, you know -- if we have to spend more money to prepare all the cutting plans, we won't be able to survive through that, because the money just isn't there.
Mr Carr: Hopefully, not to defend the government, but I know when bills and regulations as detailed as these are put together, it's very difficult to get them out and meet time frames, and they change. Hopefully, some of your concerns will be taken forward and you will be listened to, because I think people like you are the ones who start businesses that have really built this great province of ours and I assume that they would want to get the input from you.
Hopefully, even though you haven't had too much of a chance now, your thoughts and concerns will be taken forward. As it gets on and you get to understand the bill and the regulations, if you would forward it, we'd be pleased to look through it and help with any amendments that you think might be helpful. Good luck.
Mrs Fabris: Thank you. The feeling we have is that the government is acting more like a dictator than working with the government, what should be.
Le Vice-Président : Juste une seconde. Alors, ça fonctionne comme ça : il y a d'abord quelqu'un de chaque côté. Il y avait d'abord les Libéraux, les Conservateurs et maintenant les représentants du gouvernement. Monsieur Bisson, vous avez à peu près cinq minutes.
M. Bisson : Je vais essayer de ne pas avoir une chicane cette fois-ci. Premièrement, Madame Fabris, j'aimerais vous remercier pour venir faire votre présentation. Vous avez touché sur un point ; beaucoup de monde ont touché là-dessus, pas seulement sur ce comité mais, comme mon collègue Monsieur Carr a mentionné, beaucoup de comités où moi j'ai siégé, puis des comités même dans le temps des autres gouvernements. C'est toujours la plainte qu'on n'a pas assez de temps pour être capable de faire la revue des matériaux pour faire un commentaire.
Spécifiquement, sur la question qui nous concerne aujourd'hui, le projet de loi 171, combien de temps pensez-vous que les opérateurs indépendants et les compagnies comme E.B. Eddy auraient besoin pour faire une critique ou une revue ?
Mme Fabris : Moi, je ne peux pas parler pour des forêts ce matin. Je parle pour des gens dans notre situation. Dans notre situation ce matin, il y a moi qui ai pu venir ici, puis il y a mon fils, parce ce que tous les autres gens travaillent. Ils ne pouvaient même pas perdre une journée de travail.
M. Bisson : Je comprends. Mais quand même, la question que je demande, c'est une question de processus. Combien de temps avant l'arrivée du comité aujourd'hui pensez-vous aurait été nécessaire pour avoir l'information ?
Mme Fabris : Premièrement, c'est que tu rencontres les travailleurs forestiers, qu'on leur téléphone. Ça, c'est en fin de semaine que ça se produit, parce que les gens sont tous dehors au travail. Ce que ça veut dire, c'est que tu vas commencer à les appeler en fin de semaine. Tu as besoin d'un mois pour les rassembler, et puis, à part ça, pour pouvoir engager des spécialistes pour t'expliquer, parce que les gens, il ne faut pas rêver : quand ils nous arrivent avec un gros livre comme ça, c'est des gars qui ont travaillé 14, 16 heures par jour et ils ne le lisent pas. Ça fait qu'il faut que tu engages un spécialiste qui lit les points puis qui te l'explique, ou que le gouvernement vienne te l'expliquer.
M. Bisson : Je pourrais vous faire une affaire. Je comprends votre situation. Si ça vous aide et que votre association a besoin d'avoir l'opportunité de s'asseoir avec quelqu'un pour aller à travers, pour l'expliquer puis avoir un dialogue pour être capable d'avoir des réponses à vos questions puis de faire des commentaires, vous pourrez communiquer avec moi ou avec Monsieur Wood. On serait préparés d'organiser que le Ministère siège avec vous pour avoir une opportunité de vraiment regarder puis faire vos commentaires.
En attendant, si vous avez des commentaires directement à cette législation à ce point-ci et après ce processus-là, passez-les directement au comité et nous autres. On pourrait s'en servir quand ça vient aux révisions du projet de loi. Enfin, si vous avez besoin d'aide, on est préparés à vous aider pour que vous obteniez --
Mme Fabris : Il y a un point que j'ai mis là-dedans, puis vous, vous parlez bien français et je peux en profiter. C'est toujours nous autres, les travailleurs forestiers, qui payons. On aimerait, comme j'ai mentionné ici, que tout le monde soit responsable des forêts, hein, tous ceux-là, même ceux-là qui ramassent les bleuets, qui ont autant de responsabilités morales que monétaires.
M. Bisson : C'est une question qui est intéressante, mais je sais, comme une personne qui vit dans le nord -- c'est moins comme politicien -- j'arrive puis je dis qu'une charge surplus faisant affaire avec une licence de chasse ou pour ramasser des bleuets, je pense que beaucoup de monde dans le nord de l'Ontario --
Mme Fabris : Mais vous ne vous gênez pas pour nous autres, par exemple.
M. Bisson : Oui, mais c'était le système qui a été établi avec le temps. Présentement, une des affaires que vous avez dites dans votre présentation, c'est que vous avez une crainte que vous allez avoir plus de responsabilités mises sur vous comme indépendants --
Mme Fabris : Définitivement, oui.
M. Bisson : -- et vous voyez que vous avez besoin d'aide parce que vous n'avez pas les moyens pour être capable de procurer les forestiers et autres personnes. Êtes-vous au courant que la législation vous donne l'opportunité d'utiliser le Ministère et qu'eux-autres, à la fin de la journée --
Mme Fabris : C'est récent ça ou --
M. Bisson : C'est dans la législation.
Mme Fabris : C'est dans la législation. Comme vous voyez, on l'a reçue jeudi.
M. Bisson : Encore, le dernier point : Je vous fais l'offre. Si vous voulez avoir une opportunité de mieux étudier le projet de loi, je vous demande de faire ça, et si c'est nécessaire, on pourrait procurer --
Mme Fabris : Avec votre nouveau plan 171, est-ce qu'il va y avoir plus d'employés au ministère des Richesses naturelles pour surveiller ça ?
M. Bisson : Non, pas nécessairement.
Mme Fabris : Pas nécessairement.
Le Vice-Président : Probablement que non, hein ?
M. Bisson : Quoi qu'il arrive, c'est qu'il va y avoir plus d'habileté d'être capable de répondre parce que beaucoup de cet ouvrage va être fait directement par les compagnies forestières les plus grandes, ce qui va donner la chance au Ministère de travailler plus, je pense, avec les petits.
Mme Fabris : Okay.
M. Bisson : Mais, si vous voulez, on est prêt à s'asseoir avec vous pour l'expliquer.
Mme Fabris : Okay.
Le Vice-Président : Merci de nouveau pour votre présentation. C'est bien apprécié. Comme Monsieur Bisson l'a dit, si vous voulez encore des contacts, vous pouvez avoir ça avec le Ministère et bien sûr aussi avec notre comité par l'entremise du greffier.
Mme Fabris : Merci.
Le Vice-Président : Alors, merci de nouveau.
This concludes the hearings for this morning. We'll be back in this hall at 1:30 this afternoon. Thank you very much and we'll see you later.
The committee recessed from 1152 to 1331.
PETER DUINKER
The Vice-Chair: Could you take your seats again, please. The general government committee will continue its hearings on Bill 171. I understand that the second presenter, Professor Duinker from Lakehead University, is here. If you wouldn't mind taking your seat now. I think you were here this morning and you know what the proceedings are, half an hour. If you'll leave some time for questions and answers at the end, sir, it would be appreciated. Please go right ahead.
Dr Peter Duinker: Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to make a presentation today in Espanola. You might have expected to hear from me or my colleagues in Thunder Bay, and indeed you will hear from my colleagues in Thunder Bay. I'm not here because we wanted to spread out the professors across northern Ontario or because I wanted to get to you first before they did. I'm here because I won't be in Thunder Bay next week and I'm vacationing on Manitoulin Island. I should be out taking in the grain on my dairy farmer host's farm, but he granted me leave today to come and make this presentation.
By way of introduction, I'm a professor of forest management and policy at Lakehead University's faculty of forestry. Let me indicate that I am making a presentation on my own behalf only, not as a representative of the faculty of forestry. I represent no one but myself. I also want to indicate that I am the former co-chair, with Margaret Wanlin, of the Ontario Forest Policy Panel, which, you may recall, toured Ontario in 1992 and submitted its findings to the Ministry of Natural Resources just over a year ago.
For starters, I would like to highly commend the minister and staff for moving forward expeditiously with a forest sustainability act. I'm careful in choosing that word. I don't think it's overly hasty, although some elements of it perhaps seem to be, and many speakers have already indicated not having had enough time to look the materials over.
In my presentation, rather than being comprehensive, which professors are quite likely to be -- and I can imagine writing a whole essay on every section of the act; maybe I'll do that soon -- I'd like to just highlight a couple of key strengths I see in the act and then I want to make a few comments on some potential weaknesses.
First of all, starting right off with section 1, the purpose of the act, I think this is an excellent statement which corroborates what the forest policy panel found when it undertook its work. It's a statement of forests first.
This is a forest sustainability act, not a forest industry act, not a community development act. It's an act which is dedicated to seeing that the forests are managed sustainably but in the context of sustainability of the material and social benefits which we receive from the forests.
I believe that language is very consistent with directions being taken across Canada today, especially here in Ontario. Perhaps it feeds off the work of the panel, and may I remind you that the work of the panel was published in this document some 13 months ago with the title Diversity. It could as easily have been called Sustainability, because it's all about that. It's also very consistent with the government's own declared policy framework for sustainable forests, which has been published on this foldout piece with language almost entirely taken from the Diversity report. I was quite happy to see a purpose of that nature.
The second point I'd like to refer to is subsection 8(2). This indeed is the teeth behind sustainability. On the one hand, it might make one very nervous that "The minister shall not approve a forest management plan unless the minister is satisfied" that it provides for the sustainability of the crown forest, but it is consistent with the message of forests first. In various interpretations I suppose it could be a misused element, but I think it has the right flavour.
There is an oblique or an indirect reference to what "sustainability" means. Perhaps that's as far as this act has gone in defining sustainability. It says in two places, 8(2) and just above, in 7(2)(b) as well, having "regard to the plant life, animal life, water, soil, air and social and economic values" and so on. But as many have indicated already to you, and certainly will, we need to go much further, perhaps even in the act, in defining sustainability.
My third point refers to sections 12 and 62. Section 12 speaks to local citizens' committees, and 62 speaks to forest management boards. Having done some research in the field and having heard from people when we were doing the forest policy framework exercise, I am quite pleased to see that the act itself speaks to citizens' committees as advisory structures and perhaps even forest management boards that may be delegated some responsibility by the minister. These are excellent directions in the pursuit of public participation at stronger levels.
The fourth comment I'd like to make may be somewhat obscure to those who aren't forestry professionals. Clause 13(1)(c) calls for the provision of forecasts of the future forest structure and condition. I'm very pleased to see this, having observed that too seldom do we find foresters making explicit projections about how they expect their forests to evolve, even if they have considerable amounts of uncertainty when particular treatments are prescribed and undertaken. I'm very happy to see that kind of language in the act.
I'm also very happy to see something like section 19, which calls on the minister to provide to the Legislature and people of Ontario state-of-the-forest reports. We've had four such reports from the federal government already annually, reports to Parliament on the state of Canada's forests, and it's high time every province got into the same business of letting its citizens know what is the state of the forests.
My final example of strengths I see the act having is sections 45 to 48, the matter of trust funds. Finally, we have a method in Ontario to ensure that sufficient funds are dedicated to regeneration silviculture. Here we have a money cycle that's dedicated to the forest rather than the situation we have at present and have had for some time where silvicultural dollars had to compete with funds for roads, health, education and all kinds of other things that the people of Ontario would like to see done with the public funds. I'll return to several of these points below, but in general I support the enabling capacity of the legislation.
Now on to some reservations and difficulties that I have. The first one is that if this act is indeed going to be known by its short name -- and it indeed will; it won't be known by its long name -- the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, I believe it should have language of a conceptual and philosophical nature as a basis for forest sustainability. It has precious little to say about the concept of forest sustainability except the few things that it does. I would like to suggest that the act provides a splendid opportunity to codify that basis as it exists in Ontario's policy as of April 1994 in the Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests. My proposal would be to put that policy framework in its entirety as the opening language of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.
In section 2, "Definitions," the one I picked up on was that of "forest resource." The language of "forest resource" has been on the tongues of professional foresters and the rest of the forestry community for at least 20 years, and it does not mean something as dangerously narrow as "trees and other plants." That is not a commonly accepted definition for forest resources. One usually thinks of much broader concepts.
I know that gives difficulty if one opens the door to other elements of the forest being looked at as forest resources, because it implicates other legislation. However, my proposal would be that the possibility for other forest resources to be named in regulation should at least be open.
1340
I already mentioned section 19, the state of the forest report, and that reads, "The minister shall from time to time...." I believe the public of Ontario expects a schedule, and I believe they want to see a state of the forest report pretty soon. My proposal would be to publish a schedule in the act something along the lines of perhaps the longest interval between reports might be five years; they could be more frequent, but no less frequent, and perhaps even indicate by when the first one will appear.
I also want to come back to the matter of the trust fund for forest renewal. The objective there is to guarantee sufficient dollars for renewal, and that's great. The "how" seems to be answered by dedicating a fund which is tied to timber harvest. I don't know what the formula might be, but it may have some combination of area harvested or volume harvested. So the reality is to try to bypass the consolidated revenue, where silvicultural dollars have to compete. I presume that Ontario was looking at the models used in Saskatchewan and Manitoba in thinking about silvicultural trust funds.
What the act does not indicate is how many of these trust funds there will be. In fact, the act says the minister may establish "a" trust fund; maybe that means several. But either way, if there is one trust fund for the entire province or even one trust fund for each company operating forest management agreements or whatever the new language is to call those licences, I see some potential problems. The minister has incredible discretion about what happens to the moneys coming in as forest renewal charges, and I'm concerned, especially if these are at the company level -- and companies have a lot of forests -- that rich forests may be used to subsidize poor ones. In other words, forests that have a lot of timber to be harvested may be used to subsidize regeneration in forests that yield relatively less.
Secondly, forests easy to regenerate may be used to subsidize forests that are difficult to regenerate. On one hand, that may look attractive to do, but on the other hand, each forest is unique and it has unique people associated with it. This may look like an opportunity to move funds around from forest to forest in a way that may cause some problems. I believe that the minister may be susceptible to lobbying regarding how much of the funding goes where when it comes to allocation of the money back to the woods.
So my proposal would be to simplify the trust fund concept and establish one trust fund for each forest management unit, of which there are some 100 at the moment in Ontario. I would argue that all the money in each trust would go only to the forest that generated the money by virtue of the timber harvest. Each forest has its own trust fund. That would alleviate some of the problems of moving money around from forest to forest.
My major concern with the entire act has to do with section 66, which is the Forest Management Planning Manual. Some have indicated they've already received the draft copy. We've heard that it's an incomplete copy. Mine may have been mailed to me, but I haven't seen it yet.
For example, the first language about the manual in section 66 says that it "may" contain provisions respecting determinations of the sustainability of forest ecosystems. Well, that means it may not, and I would argue that if this Crown Forest Sustainability Act is to have teeth, it had better provide provisions for the determination of sustainability of forest ecosystems. So while that provision is worded as it is and while so many of us have not seen the manual and are concerned that it's that manual that will actually see the achievement or non-achievement of forest sustainability, whether Bill 171 actually results in legislation that can secure crown forest sustainability depends almost entirely on the contents of that manual. So I can only feel confident about the act when I can feel confident about the manual.
In addition to suggesting a language change to "shall contain" for the manual, I would urge you to ensure, if you can, that the Forest Management Planning Manual receives a proper review by both the forestry community and the general public of Ontario before it is declared fit for use.
So in summary, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act may represent some considerable progress beyond the Crown Timber Act, but it has some significant flaws that I suggest need rectification, and if they aren't, it may indeed be a step backwards, depending on how things play out.
I like the enabling element of the act. Forestry is changing so fast these days. If something needs to be changed to keep pace, it can do so under regulation, which I think is a little more expeditious a process than coming before the Legislature to change legislation. But the Forest Management Planning Manual, in my view, will remain the hinge in whether this is successful or not.
With that, I thank you for the opportunity and welcome questions.
Mr Hodgson: I'm pleased that you came to see us today. I know you're going on holidays next week. That's great.
I enjoyed your report. You've covered a lot of the specific areas. I would just like to go back to the first part of your report. You talked about the concept of sustainability in terms of the forest as a whole ecosystem.
This act, as you know, is trying to do two things. One is it's trying to say to the world markets that all products coming out of Ontario are from sustainable forests in terms of marketing, and it's trying to make sure that the forests are sustainable in the future as an ecosystem. It's also trying to be sustainable in terms of jobs in the local communities.
You've had a lot of experience studying the forests in Ontario. I wonder if you feel that they should have a specified timber amount as a component of sustainability in terms of jobs that are presently in the area, if that's one of the goals of the act or if you think that should be a goal of the act.
Dr Duinker: I missed what you said you thought should be there, or you were asking me.
Mr Hodgson: Well, an amount, a sustainable amount of product that you can extract from the forests of Ontario: if that should be defined or if it should be left open.
Dr Duinker: With respect to the act, that should be left entirely open. I could raise a number of examples. Let me choose one from farming, which is close to my heart.
If a farmer manages a field, that field has an inherent, let's call it a maximum level of productivity, given the climate and the soil. If the farmer chooses to use no weed control and no fertilizer, the farmer will get so much grain. If the farmer chooses, however, to use those kinds of things in various amounts, he'll get more grain. Now, if we talked about crop sustainability and applying rules on that farmer's crop yields, could we establish a single useful level of crop production? I don't think we can.
1350
In fact, the situation is even more complex and more bizarre for forests. The productive structure of a forest to grow anything, especially timber, is partly a function of its climate and soils -- which we hope won't change, but given predictions of global warming, that even may change -- but it's definitely a function of the current forest that's there now, and across all of northern Ontario, all the forests have current forests on them, even the ones that have just been harvested, with new stands growing up. Given that situation and the fact that different intensities of forest management will over the long term yield different amounts of timber, it is impossible to establish a reasonable maximum or minimum level of timber production from any of the crown forests in Ontario.
So it could not be in the act. In fact, as most foresters would urge, it is, under this act and the previous one, left in the hands of the local forester and the stakeholders to determine what is the right level for that forest, given the possibilities to implement silviculture and the conditions of the forest structure and the growing conditions of the soil and the climate.
Mr Hodgson: That's one of the suggestions that we were hearing yesterday in particular, so that's good that you answered that. Um --
The Vice-Chair: A quick question.
Mr Hodgson: No, go ahead. I'm fine.
The Vice-Chair: You're fine?
Mr Hodgson: They will take the time.
Mr Bisson: On two things: one is just an answer to one of the things that you raised, and the other one is a question. First of all, you were pleased that the minister, under the act, will have to report from time to time to the Legislative Assembly the state of the forests. I should maybe point out that through the class EA it was determined that this has to be done every five years, from my understanding, and I'm looking for clarification from the ministry and a nod. I think it's every five years. Okay.
You talked about citizens' committees. One of the presentations -- I can't remember which one; it was either yesterday or today -- talked about that some people see that not so -- well, let's get to the chaff. Some people see that more as a problem than as a benefit. They figure that the people on committee are not people who are totally versed in understanding what it is about forestry. They may have an environmental interest or a community interest and don't see that as a very useful process. What are your thoughts on that?
Dr Duinker: For the folks who have traditionally gained livelihood from the woods, especially through timber, and for the folks who have traditionally been in control of the decisions, the establishment of local citizens' committees does indeed present a challenge, for some maybe even a problem. As a matter of principle, I'm in favour of them, since the crown forests belong to the people of Ontario and this, in my view, represents a reasonable mechanism to find out what some of those citizens think ought to happen and which way the forests should be managed.
It would be highly risky to engage groups of citizens fresh, having given no thought to the circumstances of the woods, to how forest management operates, and ask for their considered opinions hot off the spot. I don't think that's the plan. I don't think that's the way any of the ones that have operated so far in Ontario -- and we have a lot of experience building up now -- have operated. Foresters and others close to what's been happening in forestry have been bending over backwards helping people understand the realities of how forests are managed, what their values are and so on. I think, given sufficient attention of that sort, local citizens' committees can be highly effective.
Mr Bisson: Do you see a conflict between environmentalists and the forest industry? I guess that's what I'm asking.
Dr Duinker: Yes, I see a lot of conflict, and I also see a lot of -- how shall I say? -- constructive dialogue when the conditions for that seem to be right. We have examples all the way from the national level to the local level. Some time ago -- maybe the group still exists; I don't even remember the name -- 10 industrial CEOs in the Ottawa area joined up with 10 leaders of environmental organizations and put a dialogue together, and they were astonished at how much common ground they had. Right down to the local level there are a lot of examples in Ontario where folks with a preservation and environmental point of view are getting together with folks with a utilization point of view and working their differences out.
Mr Bisson: Do we have time for one more question? Just in regard to the question of the trust fund, you're not the first one to raise that. You're the first one to suggest multiple trust funds. But under what's proposed in the legislation, each forest would draw down on an account that would be tied to that trust fund. You don't see that as being an answer to some of what you talked about?
Dr Duinker: If there is only one trust fund, no. I found the paper trail on how the trust fund will work in sections 45 to 47 incredibly confusing. It's not clear to me at all how this thing will really work, because money's going in and out of that pot and into other pots. But if an individual forest does not draw to the degree to which it has contributed, then we may be in trouble, especially if the minister has discretion over where those moneys go. Can you imagine if a forest in Lanark county near Ottawa was subsidizing regeneration in a forest near Kenora? That may be great from the standpoint of the whole forest estate of Ontario, but the folks who plant trees or do silvicultural work in Lanark county may not be too happy.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to pursue that and then go further, because I'm quite intrigued by your suggestion that we have a trust fund established for all the different crown management units. You said that you thought there'd be a lot of problems there, and now you just gave that example of Lanark versus Kenora, but wouldn't you want to manage the forest of Ontario based upon need? Also, in a better forest, wouldn't you get better natural regeneration anyway, as we're moving towards that? So that forest has a bit of that advantage anyway, if it's a better forest to begin with, and you might want to come back to some of the forests that don't have as good a soil base and other factors and try to help it, or maybe it was ignored in the past. Would there be anything wrong with trying to balance out a little bit some of the different crown management units?
Dr Duinker: No, I'm sympathetic to that argument. If you could find a way to do some of that and remove the possibility that a minister could be taking lobbying as to where silvicultural dollars go with respect to jobs and equity, all that sort, I suppose it would be reasonable to let that happen.
It turns out, though, that most of our forests, especially in northern Ontario but maybe even in the more southerly parts, are so big that you can find good growing sites and bad growing sites right within the same forest. We have forests of over one million hectares. We have some around the 20,000-30,000 mark too. But if it's over a million hectares, there are good sites and there are bad sites.
I would just as soon see the silvicultural money that got generated by good sites that were easy to regenerate used to subsidize regeneration inside the forest on the bad sites within that forest.
Mr Ramsay: So that would be good forestry practice.
Dr Duinker: Absolutely.
Mr Ramsay: What you're afraid of is the politicizing of forest regeneration.
Dr Duinker: Yes, indeed.
Mr Ramsay: Maybe you could have some sort of protection in the act, an amendment that would state that it would be based on prescriptions from the MNR foresters or consultants, depending on who's done the work on that, so that you put in some safeguard against the politicization of that.
Dr Duinker: Yes. I don't want to go too much further with this, because maybe I'm missing something that I haven't read into it that I should have or maybe there is a stack of regulations coming behind the trust funds that I'm not aware of. But I've raised the red flag.
Mr Brown: First, I should congratulate you for choosing Manitoulin as a place to vacation.
Dr Duinker: I used to live there, Mike.
Mr Brown: All right, okay. Pursuing the trust fund, my understanding of the trust fund -- and maybe the ministry could help me if I'm wrong -- is that there's been an arbitrary value placed against each particular forest or species of so much: $6 or whatever in the case. But they were to encourage good forestry so that if you had good forest practices and it actually was only costing you $3 to do that, the company then was rewarded through the trust fund mechanism for doing the most responsible job. Am I wrong? Could somebody tell me?
Interjection.
Mr Brown: No, I'm right.
Dr Duinker: Do you have an idea about how the reward works?
Mr Brown: I'm not sure how the reward works and maybe the ministry could help us. But the other point is the forestry futures fund which, I understand, is half the area charge, which is supposed to look after events like forest fire destruction or some kind of natural problem and to regenerate forests. It's occurred to me that the third element of the government's stumpage fee is a -- I'm trying to think of the name of it, but it's based on what market price is.
Mr Bisson: Residual value.
Mr Brown: Residual value. That may be a very good mechanism to be putting into the forest futures fund. There are things, obviously, that happen in forests that no man has any control over. That money could then be spent productively in the forests of Ontario to improve the situation. Do you have any thoughts on that particular point?
Dr Duinker: I haven't given that one much thought, but two thoughts that came to mind are -- at least one -- that the fluctuations of the market and the fluctuations of the weather, wind throw, insects and disease may be out of sync sufficiently that the market side of stumpage may not put money in at the right time to be drawn out to do the renewal needed for these calamities.
1400
Mr Brown: I guess what I was suggesting is that the fund would build if you weren't using it, to a time where it may be appropriate, and that may be a time when the market is down. I look at this present economic circumstance we've been in. Certainly, although sawlogs have been pretty good, for a long time the pulp and paper businesses had some pretty tough times, and it was in a good time, I think, to be doing some more reforestation rather than less. But the way the present dollars flow, that just hasn't happened. It's been a low priority with the government and it hasn't spent the money. As a northern MPP, I would have liked to have seen the jobs that could have been created in the forest during that time, and that mechanism might be the one to use. It's just a thought. I've been trying it out on various people.
Dr Duinker: It sounds not bad on first reflection, but I won't go any further until I can examine it.
The Vice-Chair: Again, thank you very much for coming before the committee, and not only for choosing this area as your holiday ground but for interrupting your holidays to appear before the committee.
Dr Duinker: My pleasure.
The Vice-Chair: We certainly appreciate that and we look forward to the continued cooperation between yourself, your faculty, the ministry and the Legislature. So thank you very much.
Dr Duinker: Thank you.
MAINVILLE LUMBER CO LTD
The Vice-Chair: I understand that Mr Mainville has now arrived, if you'd like to take your seat please. Il y a la traduction simultanée si vous voulez vous exprimer en français. Il y a cette possibilité aussi.
Mr Roma Mainville: It doesn't matter to me one way or another.
The Vice-Chair: It's up to you, whichever way you wish to choose. You do have half an hour, and if you'd like to make the presentation first and then leave some time for questions and answers from the committee members, it would be appreciated.
Mr Mainville: I guess maybe you heard everything and this just may be a repeat. I was going to go to sections 16 and 17. Does that mean that we're not going to be needing foresters any longer? That's a question to section 16:
"The holder or former holder of a forest resource licence shall keep such records as are prescribed by the regulations.
"The minister may require the holder of a forest resource licence to conduct inventories, surveys, tests or studies in accordance with the Forest Information Manual."
Does that mean we don't require foresters in the bush any more?
The Vice-Chair: Perhaps if you want to put all your questions or whatever you have on the record, and then perhaps the parliamentary assistant might want to give you some answers.
Mr Mainville: I thought you wanted to deal with them one at a time.
The Vice-Chair: Not quite, no. We'd like to have your presentation first and then each party will either give some answers or make some comments or questions.
Mr Mainville: I just prepared that fast because I thought the meeting was on Thursday, so therefore this morning I just had to scratch up a few fast questions. It's my mistake for not keeping up to --
The Vice-Chair: It happens to us too, so don't worry.
Mr Mainville: But anyway, the way I read that, the onus is going to be on the companies for the surveys, inventories, tests, studies of the forest, which in the past used to be the responsibilities of your local foresters. I figure that the way it's worded in there, the onus is on the operators from now on. Am I right?
The Vice-Chair: Perhaps with the permission of the committee, since it is the government's turn anyway, if we can have the parliamentary assistant try to answer some of these questions, probably with the help of the officials.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for coming forward and answering these questions, but I'd ask Ken to come over and maybe clarify the questions that he's asked on sections 16 and 17. Ken Cleary is from the ministry.
Mr Ken Cleary: If I understand the question correctly -- well, there were two questions that I heard. One was, will there still be foresters in the bush? The answer is most definitely yes. The answer to the second question, which was, what information will the licensees be required to provide: The requirement for that information will be set out in the Forest Information Manual.
The Vice-Chair: Do you want to continue, Mr Mainville?
Mr Mainville: That still doesn't tell me whether the foresters will be taken out of the ministry or the onus left on us. I guess your pamphlet, stuff like that, is not all completed, is not out yet, is it?
The Vice-Chair: Some of it, but not all of it. Mr Wood.
Mr Wood: In that particular question, I understand you're saying, is the Ministry of Natural Resources still going to be involved in forestry? If that's the question you're asking, yes, the ministry is still going to be involved, in cooperation with all the stakeholders and the companies out there. The Ministry of Natural Resources will still exist, with a budget, and be assisting to manage the operations, yes.
Mr Mainville: My next question is, "The minister may establish in writing a trust to be known in English as the forest renewal trust...." Just a little further on in there they indicate that they will probably have trustees. So then again it's other jobs that are going to be made up and they will more than likely eat the trust that's for the renewal of the forest. That's the usual practice of the government, to always appoint somebody and first thing you know there's nothing left for the reforestation anyway.
The Vice-Chair: As I say, normally you kind of finish your presentation, if you have some other points, because then that will give the parliamentary assistant an opportunity to respond to several points at a time.
Mr Mainville: My other point farther down the road was on 55 and 61. But on establishing those trust funds, it's just like what the present government did with your Outdoors Card. They borrowed money two years in advance and now they haven't got that money to spend in the ministry so therefore they're going to attack the loggers, I guess, for more money in other ways. The way I see section 45, the forest trust fund, it'll just be a fat job for somebody. There's not going to be anything left for the reforestation anyway.
On section 55 and 61, in reference to the fines, I figure those fines are absurd. The way I see those $15,000 fines that are set up in article 55, it will be, MPPs have been hinting that they've been underpaid, so I can figure that they're gunning for about a $15,000-a-year raise, because those fines, I'm darn sure there's no small operators can afford that.
On section 61, it's the same. That's even more atrocious: $100,000, $100,000, a $1-million fine. I guess you guys want the small operators to quit and get out of the way. Maybe the best thing to do is maybe all of us quit and go on welfare, have somebody else work and foot the bill.
Section 66, clause 66(4)(c), the operator is going to require minimum qualifications in order to be engaged in forest products. What is expected as minimum qualifications? A forestry engineer or what?
The Vice-Chair: He'll have time to respond a little bit later.
Mr Mainville: That's all I have to say.
1410
Mr Wood: On the trust accounts that you raised under section 45, in any trust accounts that are going to be there, how many there are going to be, there has to be somebody who is responsible for this. The trust funds are set up, accounts have been set up under the budget legislation that was introduced and had third reading in June. I don't believe that the companies that will be monitoring those and reporting to the Finance minister will be using up all the money in that. There will be money available for reforestation.
You just made a comment on the sportsmen's cards. The option was that you could buy it for one year, two years or three years and buy the licences at the same time, but there were options there over a period of -- whatever they wanted to do.
You've raised, on 55, the fines, and also 61. The fines that are spelled out in Bill 171, some of those fines are there right now under the existing legislation, under the timber act, although 40 years later they've been amended to give a better value to the forests and the damage that might be done out there in the forests, and it relates to what is happening 40 years later from when the timber act was put into effect in 1952.
The $1-million fine is something that -- it could go up to $1 million in the courts, but right now I understand under the existing legislation, a company could be shut down if it refuses an order and continuously does damage out in the bush, and rather than having the minister give a direct order that E.B. Eddy in Espanola must shut down their operation because they've damaged the bush to the point where it can't be replanted and harvested in future years, they can be charged through the courts and the courts will decide on the penalty and what it costs to repair the damage done. It's brought up to today's standard, which the feeling is that the $1 million is not that exaggerated for refusing a direct order to stop work where there's damage being done.
Section 66, maybe I could ask Ken Cleary if he wants to --
The Vice-Chair: Have you got an answer for that?
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, if you want to give the answer, it's up to you.
Mr Bisson: I just wanted to come back to sections 16 and 17 and section 66. I'll start with 66, the last one. You raise under clause (4)(c) about the minimum qualifications for a person engaged in forest operations. What they're referring to there in that section is that the Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual may contain provisions. Let's say that you had a specific situation going on in an operation where for some reason a specific kind of work had to be done that has to be done in a certain kind of way because it's something -- I don't know, you need a biologist to do a particular kind of a job or you need a forester to do a particular type of process in regard to doing the work that you're trying to get in.
It allows that you may for some reason want a biologist actually to go in and check something out or actually to do some work; it doesn't mean your interpretation, which is that you have to have a minimum qualification to be a forester to work in the forest. That's not what it means. It's only specifically to certain tasks as may be prescribed in the Forest Operations and Silviculture Manual. That's basically what they're getting at there. The operative word is "may"; it doesn't say "shall." Just in certain cases.
Getting back to sections 16 and 17, section 16 says, "The holder or former holder" -- pardon me?
The Vice-Chair: You've got about a minute left.
Mr Bisson: About a minute? Okay, I'll just try to go very quickly. "The holder or former holder of a forest resource licence shall keep such records...." What that means to say is that if, let's say, you were E.B. Eddy and you had a forest management agreement as we know it today, you have to keep the records of the work that you've done in the bush and all of the things that you've learned so that we can all sort of share in that knowledge. That's basically what the intent is.
But if you're a small operator and you decide that you're going to get a licence under section 24 of the act, which is like the DCLs of today, and you enter into an agreement with the ministry to do the forest management plan for you, in that case the ministry would have to keep those records, not you. So basically all it is is so that we have that information available to us so that we can all learn how to do our jobs better within the forestry industry. That's basically all they speak to.
In section 17, "The minister may require the holder of a forest resource licence to conduct inventories, surveys, tests" etc: Again the operative word is "may," and it is in a case where for some particular reason -- we heard this morning about the situation with the spruce budworm. There may be some reason why we need to do particular studies about something that may be happening in the forest at a particular time. It gives the ability -- and again, the operative word is "may" -- that the ministry, through the minister, can order particular surveys to be done if they're needed, but it's not a matter of course. Hope that explains it.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Did you want to react to that?
Mr Mainville: No, we'll have to wait and see when everything's all completed.
The Vice-Chair: Good point, yes. Mr Ramsay, for the Liberal Party.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to pursue this and maybe get Mr Cleary to answer this, because I understand why Mr Mainville might be a bit concerned about this when he refers to clause 66(4)(c), "minimum qualifications for persons engaged in forest operations." I wouldn't mind hearing your interpretation of that, because I would sort of read that the same way. It doesn't talk about any specialty types of jobs but minimum qualifications for persons engaged in forestry operations. I'd like to get your opinion, Mr Cleary.
The Vice-Chair: Through the parliamentary assistant, I guess, with the agreement of Mr Mainville, because it's your time.
Mr Mainville: It doesn't specify who has to be qualified; it just says "persons" have to be qualified.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Cleary, did you want to comment?
Mr Cleary: As we contemplate it now, there is only one type of worker that we are anticipating would be certified for the time being, and those are tree markers. Certainly, Mr Bisson's comments were in line with that, but as I understand it now, tree markers are the only workers we would be certifying.
Mr Ramsay: That's at this time, but the possibility could be there for the future that you start to certify other workers in the forest operations.
Mr Cleary: That's a possibility. If you look at other provinces, BC, for instance, I believe certifies its tree planters. So yes, that is a possibility.
Mr Hodgson: Thank you very much for coming in. I enjoyed your comments. We've had similar concerns about the financial viability of this act on small operators and people who don't get to go to public meetings during the daytime because they're out working, and if you form citizens' groups, they're working long hours and they don't have their input.
When it comes to implementing this plan and these manuals, I share the same concern that somebody's got to pay for it, and whether you enter into an agreement where you pay the ministry to do the work or -- ultimately it's going to fall back on the competitiveness of your business. Somebody's going to have to pay for it. If you don't have the expertise to do it, either you're going to have to hire the ministry to do it or hire somebody else.
1420
There's two types of licences. I understand what Mr Bisson's saying, but it's a slippery slope from here to get to the point where -- I feel there's a legitimate role here, that the government sets the standards and the industry does the work, and it's audited and it's enforced by the ministry, the enforcement. But your concern about the forester leaving the forest and doing it like they do now I think is legitimate; that's the way we're heading for in the future.
Mr Mainville: This has been going into a downslide for the last couple of years, because you don't hardly ever see a guy in the bush any more. And if something goes wrong, well, then, we're the ones that get nailed to the wall for it.
Mr Hodgson: Right, and on some of the smaller crown areas, it's not financially viable for the MNR to send a person out and do the actual work. They can't get the return, and yet that would create jobs for independents and local people in small businesses.
Mr Mainville: Yeah, they don't have to be there every day; just once in a while just to more or less line us up. That would be a great help, but the way I see it there now, they won't even be involved; just collect the dues and that's all. Probably if they get a chance, they'll nail you with a fine: all the better for them. Your foresters will become police and executioners.
Mr Hodgson: And judges onsite.
Mr Mainville: More or less.
Mr Hodgson: With a fine. But I appreciate your comments. We'll be looking at this in detail. Hopefully we'll get into more detail on it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you again for appearing before the committee. Your presence is much appreciated.
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, there's been quite a bit of discussion today about community advisory committees, and we've also heard from E.B. Eddy about how theirs operates. We do have one gentleman who would be willing to talk a little bit about that committee and how it works here in Espanola, if the committee would be willing to hear him. His name is Ronald Garnett.
The Vice-Chair: We have a bit of time left. Is it agreeable with you? Fifteen minutes?
Mr Bisson: Ten.
Mr Brown: Ten or 15.
The Vice-Chair: Ten or 15 minutes? Agreeable? Won't be too long.
RONALD GARNETT
Mr Ronald Garnett: Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I do appreciate this. I had no intention, actually, of speaking. Rather, I came here to listen today.
I'm very interested and quite concerned about the citizens' advisory committees that will be formed or are being formed at the moment. I'd like to point out that I've been on the forestry advisory committee with Eddy's. Now we're starting our third year and, boy, we have learned a lot. I'd like to just let you all know that in no way do they pay me. I don't even come from Espanola, so I've got no direct interest, you know, in the immediate community. I'm from Sudbury and I volunteered for this position. We meet on a very regular basis, once a month at least, and we have two or three field trips during the year as well.
During my time with the forestry advisory committee, I've learned so much about the forests. Our first field trip -- and Derek, you may be interested in this -- I was aghast at all these, you know, the scarification, the logs all over the place, and I thought, "My God, what are they doing to this wonderful country of Canada?" It's only going on these field trips and listening to our guest lecturers from MNR, foresters coming from other areas, ministry as well, that you start learning about what it's all about. As I say, we're going into the third year and I'm learning; just learning. I haven't learned. Also on the team we have biologists: Keith Winterhalton, he's the one that practically regreened the area around the Inco-Falconbridge mining sites. You guys that were here before, you may have seen the moonscape. If you look at it again today, it is different. People like this are on the team. We have prospectors. We have trappers, canoeists. We've got a gentleman who is an engineer on water tables. He's been with us as well.
What we're actually doing, once again not working for E.B. Eddy, is we're watching. We're like a watchdog team. But at the same time they're putting a lot of good people at our disposal to teach us what's going on. We're a completely diversified group. We'll argue with each other. I don't think anybody would want us as children -- if a parent would want us as children in any way whatsoever. Chaotic. But we're learning.
Now, back to that first trip, all the logs and everything; I thought, oh my God, what's happening here? Since then we've learned that the forest needs these trees on the floor for the next generation to feed on. If you give an area like that two or three years, four years, five years to start regenerating, which they do, you start thinking, oh this is nice and fresh; this is new; something's happening here.
I'm leading up to something, so give me a couple more minutes.
Then I find that Eddy is leaving nice stretches for the moose paths. That's part of our moose guideline planning. We're discussing all these things.
As I say, we're becoming quite expert in our own little way. And then the notice comes that they're going to be forming citizens' advisory committees and I think, here I'm on an apprenticeship course, going into my third year and still learning; what's going to happen to these new groups that are going to be brought in; you know, the citizen advisory groups? Who's going to teach them before they're in a position to start advising? Please think about this when you start forming these groups.
Are they going to have a generous company like E.B. Eddy -- which doesn't pay me, by the way. Are they going to have somebody like this that's going to teach them before they can start helping people to make decisions? And really, that's what my cry is all about here. I am just a volunteer, but I can see this thing getting out of hand if the proper approach isn't made.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We do have room perhaps for one question each caucus.
Mr Brown: The composition: How many members are on this committee and what interests might they represent, Ron?
Mr Garnett: Thank you for that one as well. There are approximately 25 of us and I should think on average 18 turn up at each meeting. One thing I want to get across is the fact we have two aboriginal people on there as well stating their views: one from the Wikwemikong tribe -- Michael; he's behind me at the moment -- another one from Massey.
I noticed actually in the talks this morning the aboriginal side of things did not come up at all, and we are looking at some very, very experienced foresters as well among these people. So that's got to be taken into consideration where we operate. The meetings are exceptional for the different types of people we get there.
Mr Hodgson: I share a lot of the same concerns I brought up this morning. Are you suggesting some type of apprenticeship program as part of the criteria for being on these advisory boards when they're set up?
Mr Garnett: Well, I'm only a public at large. I know it's the largest group that you guys look after, actually, or are responsible for. For me, this is the first opportunity I've had seeing Canadian forest, and what I'm saying is, going into our third year, I still need a lot of training but I feel as though I've got a damn sight more training than anybody else has got. So, yes, I think if you follow the same type of plan that Eddy's promoting, I don't think you could go far wrong. I feel, then, very comfortable that these citizen advisory committees would be -- you know, taking them from all the various areas. Like I say, we've got canoeists, we've got every type of person across the board who uses the forest putting their input into it.
Mr Fletcher: I agree with everything you've said. I think that's the way it should work. When you have a company that is doing something in the forest, it should make sure that people know what to look for and what they're seeing. I had a chat with a fellow this morning -- I don't believe he's here any more -- and we were talking about this. As I was saying yesterday in the Sault, forest fires are good for forests. When trees rot, it's regenerating. I agree with that. I think that's the way it should go.
Unfortunately, not every company is like the Eddy company. But I'm not saying that every company is bad. It's just that they take a different approach sometimes. You're right, perhaps this is a good plan, this is the way it should go, and perhaps this is what the ministry should look at it when it is developing, the way that this has been working. Wholeheartedly, I agree. I think that's exactly what should happen.
I've swallowed some of my beliefs, and that's one of the reasons I'm on this committee. I asked to be on this one just to hear what was going on because my beliefs were not the same as everyone else's. But I think, again, as a preservationist or a conservationist, whatever you want to call it, I think there has to be some meeting of the minds. As the presenter before us said, the preservationists and the companies were getting together and finding common ground. I think that's exactly what has to happen. There has to be that common ground where we can all work together for the benefit of what we have and to make sure that we have it.
I congratulate the Eddy company for what it has been doing on its own initiative. Not everyone is like the Eddy company. But I do agree that's the best approach to take, and I think it's admirable. Thank you for enlightening me.
Mr Garnett: Could I respond? Thank you. I presume you were joking this morning when you said you came up here and you don't want to see trees cut.
Mr Fletcher: No, I wasn't.
Mr Garnett: Oh, well, I'll still answer you, then.
Going back to my first opening remarks about all these dead trees lying all over the place, you know, the garbage, shall we say, that's left after the harvesting, on this committee we don't go to the places where Eddys tell us to go. We ask them: "Let's look at this. Let's look at that." Some of the guys, hunters in the bush, trappers -- I've told you -- everybody else who's in there, they say, "I'd like to go to such-and-such an area," and we go. It may not be the most pristine, as aesthetically good-looking as some, but we go, and they allow us to do that.
Now, we also asked to see an old forest; old was 80, 90 years, about 90 years of age. That forest was terrible aesthetically, I think healthwise, safetywise. So we have to cut the trees. That's my feeling.
Mr Bisson: Or they'll burn.
Mr Garnett: They don't all burn. You can't set fire to everything. Some do, yes, but you don't want forest fires.
Mr Fletcher: Five hundred years ago we didn't have -- and again, my point was, the reason we fight forest fires today and the reason that we have forest management is because of the economy that we have and the economy --
The Vice-Chair: I don't think --
Mr Fletcher: -- that the forest people are in. Five hundred, 600, 700, 800 years ago we didn't have that economy around.
Mr Mammoliti: A little more aggressive, Chair, please.
The Vice-Chair: It's been going all right so far.
Mr Fletcher: I don't disagree with you. A lot of the forests can take care of themselves. But because of what we're doing, because we have moved into the forests, we do have to manage them. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Interjection.
Mr Fletcher: When you clean them up, then I think --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Fletcher.
See what you started when you responded? I'll let you two continue afterwards.
Mr Garnett: Can I just have one quick one?
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bisson also had asked for some and I told him no.
Mr Garnett: That's okay.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We do appreciate you coming before us and sharing your experience.
Interjection: And thanks for the posters.
The Vice-Chair: And thank you, to E.B. Eddy, for the posters, yes. We did receive 25 posters. The clerk will take them to Toronto and you'll get them in your offices, because I think it will be a little bit easier to transport from there.
The committee stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1435.