World Wildlife Fund;
Federation of Ontario Naturalists
Mr John McCutcheon
Ontario Professional
Foresters Association
Ms Riet Verheggen
Canadian Institute of
Forestry
Mr Bruce Ferguson
Ontario Forestry
Association
Mr Erik Turk
Grant Forest Products
Inc
Ms Faye Johnson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist
(Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair /
Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North /
-Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk
PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni
(Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton
PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe
North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist
(Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North /
-Nord PC)
Substitutions /
Membres remplaçants
Mr Howard Hampton
(Kenora-Rainy River ND)
Mr David Ramsay
(Timiskaming-Cochrane L)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part /
Autres participants et participantes
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa
PC)
Clerk /
Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff
/Personnel
Mr James Flagal, legislative
counsel
Mr Jerry Richmond, research
officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1542 in committee room
1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon. I call the standing
committee on general government to order for the purpose of
considering standing order 124 resolution: proposed legislation
entitled An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of
Professional Foresters, Mr Chudleigh.
Our first order of business
is the report of the subcommittee.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): I will read the report.
Your subcommittee met to
consider the method of proceeding on Mr Chudleigh's proposal,
pursuant to standing order 124, to consider draft legislation
entitled An Act respecting the regulation of the practice of
Professional Foresters, and has agreed to recommend:
(1) That the committee meet
on Wednesday, June 21, 2000, to consider Mr Chudleigh's proposed
legislation.
(2) That notice of the
hearing be placed on the Ontario parliamentary channel and on the
committee's Internet Web page.
(3) That the deadline for the
receipt of requests for those wishing to make an oral
presentation be 5 pm on Tuesday, June 20, 2000.
(4) That time allocated to
those making oral presentations be set at 15 minutes for groups
and 10 minutes for individuals.
(5) If there are more
witnesses requesting to appear than can be scheduled in one day,
the committee will continue its consideration of the matter
before it at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
(6) That the Chair and clerk
of the committee be authorized to schedule witnesses and to make
whatever logistical arrangements that are necessary to facilitate
the committee's proceedings.
The Chair:
Can I assume you move adoption of the report?
Mr Dunlop: I
move adoption of that.
The Chair:
Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All
those in favour of the subcommittee report being accepted? It's
adopted.
PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS LEGISLATION
Consideration of the
designated matter pursuant to standing order 124 relating to Mr
Chudleigh's proposed legislation entitled "An Act respecting the
regulation of the practice of professional foresters."
The Chair:
Mr Chudleigh, do you wish to make a brief comment before we
entertain a deputation?
Mr Ted Chudleigh
(Halton): Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. I'll be very
brief. Committee members remind me that briefness is good.
First of all, I'd like to say
that this bill was brought forward in our last term, I think it
was the 36th Parliament, by Mr Ramsay. Just before the House
prorogued it ran into a few technical problems and there wasn't
time to redraft it. Much of the background work has been done by
Mr Ramsay, and I think the bill, under standing order 124, will
go forward in the names of the committee, as opposed to an
individual name. Is that correct?
The Chair:
Actually the Chair has to sign it and all other members of the
committee who wish to sign can sign as co-sponsors.
Mr
Chudleigh: So it won't attract only a single name and
although we have moved it forward in these past few weeks-I guess
entering into months now-certainly David Ramsay deserves full
credit for his work in initiating this bill in the last
Parliament.
The history of the Ontario
foresters has been long and revered in Ontario. It goes back to
the Foresters Act of 1957 and I think there was probably one
before that as well. It's a proud tradition in Ontario, that of
the foresters.
I've had the opportunity, as
parliamentary assistant to natural resources, to tour a number of
our forests. I was particularly struck with the Madawaska
highlands, in visiting that area, and the quality of the forest.
Sixty to 80 years of management has produced a truly magnificent
forest, one that we can be proud of from anywhere in the world. I
think you only have to compare with other parts of the world, for
instance, Russia, where forest management is not particularly
prevalent.
Now, with the Ontario Living
Legacy announced by the Premier in March 1999, they have an
assured use for the forests. Along with the Ontario Forest
Accord, it is certainly time that the Professional Foresters Act,
2000, was considered by this
Parliament and that we proceed to ensure that tradition of
forestry is kept up to date and that the foresters who are
signing plans for forests and woodlot management are every bit as
capable and as credited as the high standards that Ontario
foresters demand.
TEMBEC INC
The Chair:
That takes us to our first presenter, from Tembec Inc, Mr George
Bruemmer.
Mr
Chudleigh: Mr Chair, Mr Ramsay may want to make a
comment when he arrives, so you may give him that
opportunity.
The Chair:
I'd be pleased to do that.
Good afternoon and welcome to
the committee.
Mr George
Bruemmer: Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be
here today. It's been a long road for the OPFA to bring this bill
to this point and it's certainly a privilege to be part of the
process to get it through.
I've been a registered
professional forester in Ontario for 18 years and a member of the
OPFA throughout that time, four of those years on the executive
of council of the OPFA in the mid-1990s when the association
decided to go forward with this licensing initiative.
I have spent my career
working both in the forest industry and in the provincial
government, all in Ontario and I've practised forestry. I
graduated from Lakehead University in 1982, spent several years
in Thunder Bay, five years in Chapleau, four years in Cochrane
and the past six years in the Mattawa area. I've worked in many
parts of the province, from one end of it to the other, and I've
been part of the association for all that time.
Currently, I'm the research
and development manager for forestry for Tembec corporately,
based in Mattawa. I enjoy the biological, social and economic
complexity of forestry in Ontario, and I like trees. I have to
say I'm extremely proud of the effort, the perseverance and the
determination the association has put into this effort to this
point in time. I think the reason for that is that this bill is
good both for the forests of Ontario and for the people whose
quality of life benefits from those forests. I think that takes
just about everybody here certainly and everybody in the province
into that equation.
I'm sure by now I've already
blown any hope you may have had of hearing an objective
presentation on this particular subject, but I hasten to add that
I'm not here purely to share my own personal views on the subject
of licensing. I'm here to speak on behalf of Tembec.
To do that, and to keep
myself honest, I'd like to read some excerpts to you from a
presentation that was made to this committee about a year and a
half ago by Jim Lopez who is now the vice-president for forest
resource management for Tembec and my immediate supervisor. Jim
is not a forester and has no particular allegiance to the OPFA,
but I think for reasons of personal conviction as well as
corporate interest, he has a strong interest in good forestry in
Ontario and would have been here to say so himself if he could
have, but got tangled up in scheduling conflicts that he couldn't
change. I'll read excerpts from what he spoke to the committee
about in December 1998:.
1550
"A little bit about the
background of Tembec. I'm here representing a member of the
industry, not necessarily the whole industry. Tembec operates 10
mills within Ontario with over 2,500 employees in the province."
That number keeps growing. "The company operates a total
of"-about 23 mills, I think, at last count-"throughout Canada and
has 6,000 employees in the country. The company is currently one
of the largest operators on public land throughout eastern
Canada." We have operations stretching from BC and Manitoba,
Ontario, Quebec and in New Brunswick as well.
"Our company has been
recognized recently by a number of environmental groups as one of
the leading forest managers in the province, and we've been
recognized in some publications as such ... . Tembec has been one
of the first forest companies within Canada to receive Forest
Stewardship Council certification ... for our forest management
practices on private land in Ontario. We're quite proud of what
we've accomplished, and we're interested in any legislation
that's going to continue to advance sustainable forestry
throughout Ontario.
"I'd like to make several key
points. One is we believe Ontario has one of the most progressive
pieces of forest management legislation in the world in the Crown
Forest Sustainability Act, a piece of legislation that we believe
is second to none in Canada and maybe throughout the entire world
...we think Ontario should be proud of it and boast this
legislation, because it bodes well for the future of forest
management on public land in the province.
"We believe also there is a
community of foresters in Ontario who are very professional and
highly committed to the sustainability of the forests in this
province. It's exciting. It's interesting to see the passion that
our foresters have for managing the forests while still
contributing to positive growth in the forest industry and
employment in the forest industry in this province." I'd like to
think that he's speaking about me personally when he says that,
but I haven't got him to acknowledge that yet to this point in
time.
"The licensing of
professional foresters is about establishing some standards for
foresters, because these people are on the front line of forest
management in this province. Therefore, we think a set of
standards should be held up to these people if they are to manage
our resources for the future. We believe licensing professional
foresters is also another important step"-if not a critical
step-"in establishing the credibility of Ontario in the critical
eye of the world community toward forest management.
"There's increasing public
awareness in Ontario, Canada and indeed throughout the world for
forest management practices, and there's now increasing
accountability on governments and companies to practise
sustainable forest management. Companies are increasingly
aware"-as we are-"of potential boycotts of our products, potential bad publicity,
bad advertising ... throughout our marketplace, threatening the
very viability of our operations. So we think it is the time for
foresters, companies and indeed the government to become more
proactive in ensuring that we hold high standards for forest
management practices in our province and that indeed we're proud
of them and we put those standards forward for the world to
see.
"Many of the forest
management activities over the last several years have now been
transferred to sustainable forest licences ... and forest product
companies"-like Tembec.
"This means we're responsible
for planning"-for the harvesting, for the renewal-and for the
public consultation-that goes into forestry activities on crown
land.
"There are a number of other
activities that used to be carried out by the Ministry of Natural
Resources in the past. If we're going to have this happen, we
have to make sure that we have professionals carrying out these
activities on the front line."
"We believe this act would be
a measure to help narrow the gap between crown land and private
land forest management over the long term. This may be a somewhat
controversial statement, but we believe there is a large gap
between the management of private land as opposed to crown land.
There is no standard for private land management right now in
terms of forestry practices. While we are not encouraging the
government to legislate this, we are encouraging the government
to make sure that there are professional, licensed foresters out
there who are available for people who have private woodlots who
want to practise forest management on these private woodlots. We
think making these professionals available to those individuals
would go a long way"-towards improving the standards of practice
on private land.
"I'd like to point out that
licensing is not a threat to our company. We do not feel that
this is going to impede our ability in any way to carry out our
business in Ontario."
That concluded Jim's comments
to the committee a year ago.
Again, without trying to put
too much of a personal bias on closing statements, what will
licensing do for foresters in Ontario? I think, first of all, it
will ensure that foresters who claim to know what they are doing,
in fact do. So when companies like Tembec or government or
private landowners hire registered professional foresters, they
know that they're paying for high standards of professionalism
and professional integrity.
Second, licensing will help
these foresters to stay on the leading edge of their competency;
in fact, it will require them to do so.
Third and finally-and we hope
rarely-licensing will provide meaningful recourse against
malpractices by foresters who claim to be professionals when, in
fact, they are not.
This is very good legislation
for the forests of Ontario and, by extension, for the people of
Ontario. I think it's very fair as well for those of us who live
and work in forestry in Ontario, whether we're foresters or
whether we're not. I hope you'll make it law.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Bruemmer. Maybe I should say, just before we start
the round of questioning, that this is a somewhat unique process
we're going through. I think we've only had two bills previously
under standing order 124. Perhaps, if you have any suggestions to
offer to the specific wording of the draft bill, if you've had a
chance to read it, you and the other presenters, that would be
very useful to us, because in theory right now we're preparing
the bill for the first time to send into the House. We're not
debating a bill that's had first reading. We'll be getting that
subsequent to these hearings. So we have a very different ability
to make changes at an early stage. If there's anything you've
read that you'd like to see changed, I hope you'll take that
opportunity, if not now then soon, to share with us.
With that, we'll start the
round of questions. We have a couple of minutes for each
caucus.
Mr David Ramsay
(Timiskaming-Cochrane): I'm just very pleased that
you're here to support the bill. As you know, I consider this a
very important area of professionalism in this province,
representing a northern area that's very dependent upon the
forest industry. Your company has a presence in my new extended
riding now, Timiskaming-Cochrane, and you're right. Your company
has a very good reputation within the industry and within the
community, especially in tackling some of the challenges that
forestry companies have had as of late and not just dealing
directly with the management of trees. I very much applaud that
you're here to support this, because I think the industry as a
whole will be better for this bill. I think it's about time that
we recognized the professional work that our foresters do. I
thank you.
Mr Bruemmer:
Thank you on both counts.
Mr Howard Hampton
(Kenora-Rainy River): Is it OK if we start asking
questions? You have no problem there? You don't mind if we
actually get right down to the nuts and bolts?
The Chair:
Please do.
Mr Hampton:
One of the issues that I've often heard raised in the past by
people who work for the Ministry of Natural Resources was that
there wasn't sufficient government commitment to forest
management and forest renewal and the forest ecosystem. Many of
those people were foresters. They would come and they would say,
"We are underfunding forest renewal, forest management and the
forest ecosystem by $200 million a year," or $300 million a year
or $400 million a year, yet when push came to shove, they would
sign on the dotted line.
Now that most of the forest
management is operated by private, profit-making companies, how
is this bill going to protect a forester who works for-gee, in my
hometown-Abitibi Consolidated and who is concerned that the
company is not doing the job that should be done in terms of
forest renewal or forest management or the forest ecosystem generally? If he or she
doesn't want to put their name on the dotted line, does this bill
provide any protection to them?
Mr Bruemmer:
I think it does. I indicated earlier that I've worked both in the
provincial government and in the forest industry. I've always
resented the label of "company forester" or "government forester"
or "consulting forester."
1600
I think what this bill will
provide is a title of "professional forester" that will apply to
all of us. That distinction, where the OPFA has been around for a
long time, didn't necessarily have the teeth, on the one hand, to
discipline members who are signing, perhaps despite their best
professional instincts, things that they don't feel they should
sign, and, on the other hand, it's not protecting them either. I
think if we're licensed as professionals in Ontario and if there
is occasion-and we hope that doesn't happen-where a professional
forester feels that something he or she is being asked to do by
his or her employer is not correct or is not professional and it
doesn't meet the standards of the association, then that
individual has the association to fall back on for support in
either making the individual's point, reassuring that individual
that whatever is being proposed is OK, or supporting that
individual in making changes to whatever is being proposed in
whatever they're being asked to sign.
Mr Hampton:
Could I ask a supplementary?
The Chair:
Very briefly.
Mr
Hampton: Someone's name is Bob Jones and they don't feel
that in a given forest area either adequate funding is being put
to work or adequate strategies are being employed, so he refuses
to sign an annual work schedule or refuses to sign off on a
particular piece of work that has to be run by the Ministry of
Natural Resources. The company then disciplines that person. They
fire him or they demote him. How would this bill help that person
who is trying to observe professional standards?
Mr
Bruemmer: I assume if that did occur the individual
would have an appeal. I try to put myself personally in that type
of situation. I would go to the OPFA and say: "I'm doing what I
think is right. Can you please assemble a group of other
professionals to either reassure me that what I am doing is not
right and I should sign the thing and get on with it or that what
I am doing is right and then support me in taking recourse, if
necessary, against whatever I've been asked to do that I don't
agree with doing."
If somebody has been
demoted or fired-I don't know of any major companies, certainly
not Tembec, that would resort to that. I've never heard of it
happening. But if it did, I think a profession that is licensed
has more weight in adjudicating disputes like that between
individuals and their employers, and that's something that I
don't think we've had here before.
Mr Dunlop:
I'd like to comment on the fact that I'm happy to see Tembec at
the table here today making comments. I come from the county of
Simcoe and we have one of the largest regional areas of forestry
in southern Ontario. I think it's 30,000 acres. I know Tembec
bids a lot on the timber from that area. I think the Ministry of
Natural Resources originally managed it for the county of Simcoe,
and I believe the county has looked after it from January 1995 on
their own.
I just want to make one
quick question to you. It's something that I often hear and I'm
wondering how foresters would react to this, that is, the damage
that is done by the equipment taking out logs. I often hear that
as a comment from people who did it on private lands as well as
these county lands. It was something that we had to look very
carefully at. I wondered if you could comment on that at all.
Mr
Bruemmer: I guess I would use a personal example. I own
30 acres in Mattawa which I bought when I moved there. I'm not
familiar with Simcoe county per se so I can't speak to that. The
30 acres that I own had clearly been logged in the past, either
once, or probably twice, and had clearly been logged solely for
the purpose of product and product value. It wasn't clear-cut.
Perhaps visually it didn't look that bad to an untrained eye, but
it had not been managed in the sense of other considerations
being taken into account when the cut was planned. The visual
impact is always there initially-it passes very quickly-but if
the proper planning has gone on and if the proper practices have
been applied right through the piece, then I think the negative
visual impact is fairly short-lived and the recovery from that
impact is very quick.
It's hard to ever convince
anybody that cutting trees is visually a good thing. But if you
take those same people back there-and that's really how I got
into the business, with a very negative perception of what
forestry or cutting was-and then you go through there in a
sequence, from one year, five years, 10 years and so on, if it's
done well, ultimately it looks better and the forest does well
for it.
I take my kids on my little
30 acres and plant trees every year and try to reclaim it. I
don't know whether the landowner was interested in having
foresters help him or not. If he didn't have the opportunity, he
does now. I regret that he hadn't taken the care at the time. I
hope that in Simcoe at least-and I know with the activities we've
had there, it's been a precondition that it be planned properly
and executed properly or we're not going in there.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for coming before us, Mr Bruemmer.
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND FEDERATION OF ONTARIO
NATURALISTS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the World Wildlife Fund, Mr
John McCutcheon. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. We
have 15 minutes for your presentation.
Mr John McCutcheon: I'd like to
thank the committee for giving me permission to speak to you
today on behalf of our support of the licensing of the profession
of foresters. My name is John McCutcheon. I'm a director and a
member of the executive committee of the World Wildlife Fund of
Canada and a board member of the Living Legacy trust. I've been
asked by Ric Symmes of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists to
speak to you in support of this program and I wondered if I could
read a letter that I just received from him.
The Chair:
Please do.
Mr
McCutcheon: "Dear John:
"Thank you for the
opportunity to review the proposal by the Ontario Professional
Foresters Association, and your remarks concerning the licensing
of foresters in Ontario. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists
has a longstanding interest in the health of Ontario's forests
both north and south. We believe that the licensing of foresters
will be beneficial to this interest. Please convey this support
to the committee as part of your presentation.
"Founded in 1931, the
Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON) is dedicated to the
protection and conservation of wildlife and nature in Ontario. We
have 15,000 members and 104 local member groups in Ontario. Over
that 70-year period, we have participated in key events and
decisions that affect forests and all the biodiversity they
support. We were an instigator of the Guelph conference of 1941
that triggered decisive action to restore forests and control
erosion in the Ganaraska, Norfolk county and creation of the
conservation authority system. More recently we spent years
contributing to the timber environmental assessment hearings.
Along with World Wildlife Fund and Wildlands League, we played an
important role in Lands for Life, leading to the historic Ontario
Forest Accord in 1999.
"We believe that it is
important that persons giving advice on forest management have
adequate qualifications, including a broad understanding of what
makes a healthy forest ecosystem and that practitioners keep up
to date. They also need to have professional standards and an
association to stand behind them when they are asked to approve
measures that compromise those standards. For this reason, FON
supports the licensing proposal, and asks that the committee do
the same."
That's from Ric Symmes, the
executive director of FON.
The World Wildlife Fund is
an international organization with offices in 70 countries, head
office in Gland, Switzerland, and over six million members
worldwide-a very large organization. We have 50,000 members in
Canada.
I brought along an annual
report for you to look at when you get a chance, both for the
World Wildlife Fund and for FON. That will give you the
background of where we are and the interest that we have
certainly in forest.
Directors in the activities
of the World Wildlife Fund in Canada as a worldwide organization
have a mandate to support sustainable forest use, and we are
founders of the forest stewardship accord. Again, there's a
pamphlet for your information that looks like this. The
information in this pamphlet describes the aims and objectives of
FSC.
1610
Licensing will give added
credibility to the certification process which helps the forest
industry to compete with marketing green products. I think that's
a very important part of where we feel we are supporting this
program.
WWF fully supports the
professional foresters bill, which would create licensing
legislation for Ontario professional foresters. WWF has a working
relationship with forestry companies and professional foresters
in a number of countries and provinces. We feel that a licensed
body of foresters would bring a better balance in the use of
Ontario forests. Environmental issues concerning the need to
respect wilderness and wildlife are defined in the association's
terms of reference.
Under the present
conditions, foresters working for forestry companies can come
under pressure to react to shareholders' demands and the
direction of management. Foresters employed by the ministry are
subject of course to changing political priorities. Due to
government restructuring in Ontario, there is a reduced ability
to monitor forestry practices and the need for an independent,
accountable body. If foresters were licensed and subject to the
rules and regulations of the professional foresters association,
they would have the support of their own association for taking
an unpopular stand, just as George commented a minute ago.
This would be similar to
the rules for accountants', lawyers' and doctors' associations,
which set standards and maintain professional conduct by their
members. We see very little negative aspect in licensing
professional foresters. There does not appear to be any
additional costs to the government or the public. There's a
strong probability too that young people considering a course in
forestry would be encouraged if it meant they would be a member
of a certified body.
Industry, on the other
hand, is under pressure to reduce costs with highly mechanized
equipment that can very quickly do severe damage to the
ecosystems in which they are working. Woodlot owners in southern
Ontario must have access to foresters who are governed by the
rules of their profession, who they have confidence will give
them the best advice in managing their woodlots, advice that
would include specifications for best conservation practices.
Again, there's a book that's just been produced by FON which you
would find very interesting on that subject.
WWF is a voice for the
rapidly growing segment of Ontario's population who are concerned
about our public lands, our forests and waterways, and who feel
it is essential to have an independent licensed body which is
dedicated to forestry practices that will sustain our vast forest
areas and the flora and fauna situated therein for generations to
come. WWF has made significant strides in developing a good
working relationship between conservationists and the forest
industry through joint membership of the Ontario Forest Accord Advisory
Board in settling unresolved issues emanating from the Lands for
Life process.
The Living Legacy trust, of
which I'm a member, with representatives from forestry and the
environmental community, is providing money in support of
responsible intensive forestry, value-added forestry, increasing
employment and fish and wildlife research. Both of these
initiatives have resulted in greatly reduced confrontation in the
north and increased productivity. Would we feel comfortable with
unlicensed doctors or accountants? I really don't think we would.
The same applies to foresters, with the responsibility and the
accountability that is the basis of this bill. Thank you.
The Chair:
We have two minutes per caucus for questioning. This time we'll
start with Mr Hampton.
Mr
Hampton: Do you agree with me that there is much more to
forestry than simply industrial forestry, simply the harvesting
of trees for industrial purposes?
Mr
McCutcheon: Yes, I do.
Mr
Hampton: Would you agree with me that the forest is also
very important for environmental reasons, and, let us say, for
First Nations people, it is important for cultural, historical
and traditional reasons, as well as being a home?
Mr
McCutcheon: Yes.
Mr
Hampton: Does it trouble you that, as I read this
legislation, it reads almost as if forestry were exclusively an
industrial undertaking?
Mr
McCutcheon: In looking at the objectives which we have,
we find that sustainability is mentioned many times.
Mr
Hampton: But sustainability can be defined narrowly or
broadly. Let me give you an example. Right now in this province
there are four protests going on by First Nations against
industrial forest companies. One is in my constituency. It
involves the people of Grassy Narrows who are confronting Abitibi
Consolidated. Two more are happening north of Timmins where two
other First Nations are confronting, odd as it may seem, Abitibi
Consolidated. Their complaint is that the foresters for that
company and MNR simply regard the forest as an industrial
resource. They fail to take into account the cultural,
traditional and other environmental aspects that affect those
aboriginal people who are very much still land-based. I don't see
anything in this legislation that refers to that broader scope of
sustainability. Does that trouble you?
Mr
McCutcheon: No, I don't think so. In speaking to the
people who we have been in contact with as far as the
foresters-and we're working very closely with them on the Ontario
forest board-we find that as far as sustainability and what it
means to them, it is very much in keeping with what our feelings
are about the subject.
Mr
Hampton: The scope of practice, section 3(1), "The
practice of professional forestry is the provision of services in
relation to the development and management of forests," doesn't
say anything about conservation of forests. It doesn't say
anything about the long-term sustainability of forests. It says,
"the development and management." That seems to me a pretty
narrow definition of what forestry is about.
Mr
McCutcheon: Development today, if you're looking at
sustainable development for the future, you have to take into
account all of the various aspects that you've just
mentioned.
Mr
Hampton: If I read further, it says:
"and includes
"(a) the designing,
specifying or approving of silivicultural prescriptions and
treatments, including timber harvesting." That's mainly
silviculture and the treatments necessary for silviculture and
harvesting. Then it says:
"(b) the appraisal,
evaluation and certification of forests ... " It doesn't say
anything about sustainability; it doesn't say anything about the
broader concept of sustainability.
"(c) the auditing of forest
management practices;
"(d) the assessment of
impacts from planned activities on forests and urban forests."
Again it doesn't say anything about that broader concept of
sustainability.
"(e) the classification,
inventory and mapping of forests ...
"(f) the planning and
locating of forest transportation systems ... ."
None of those things
mention the word "sustainability." None of them mention the
broader aspects of the forest environment. Wouldn't you find that
a bit troubling?
Mr
McCutcheon: Certification is something that is being
promoted not only by our organization but others as well. That
certainly brings into play the whole aspect of
sustainability.
Mr
Chudleigh: I'd bring to your attention the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act, which in conjunction with this and the
standards that the professional foresters association will set,
will answer many of those concerns, to ensure that the forest is
managed in the total aspect of the forest range as opposed to the
prime use and enjoyment of a harvesting company.
I think the broadness of
that is sustained by your presence here, Mr McCutcheon, and that
of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the World Wildlife
Fund, in your support for the bill. I don't think it's all that
usual that foresters and these two organizations sit down
together. It pleases me greatly that we've been able to come up
with a piece of legislation that finds that kind of support. I
appreciate very much your presence here today.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I see this act as
basically to increase the accountability of the profession,
thereby the implication being increasing the probability of
sustainability and so forth. Is there anything in this bill that
you would like changed, amended, added or deleted?
Mr
McCutcheon: I would ask for your indulgence, in that I
don't have all the details. Mr Hampton is pretty right in some of
the things he said that I couldn't answer as well as I would.
We-both organizations-would like very much to be a part of being able to
contribute to maybe defining things better as far as conservation
is concerned, if that would be helpful.
1620
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I look to the Chair.
The Chair:
In what way?
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I look to the Chair as far as
process.
The Chair:
We would certainly welcome the input. Of course the bill will
then have to go through second reading debate and we'd have an
opportunity to discuss it again there.
If your answer meant that
there might be some amendments you wish to offer to this bill-I
think you were alluding to a more broader involvement in the
whole issue of sustainable forest, but I don't want to presume.
Perhaps you could clarify whether you thought you might actually
have some amendments to offer to this bill and the certification
of foresters.
Mr
McCutcheon: Talking on behalf of WWF and FON, and likely
Wildlands League as well, the people there are much better
informed on how they would deal with the specifics of clarifying
the bill. We would certainly want to make sure that the
conservation aspect of it was pretty clearly defined.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for coming before us today. We appreciate
your perspective.
ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Ontario Professional
Foresters Association, Ms Riet Verheggen.
Ms Riet
Verheggen: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and good
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Riet Verheggen and
I'm a registered professional forester. I'm here in my role as
president of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association.
I believe that the question
that needs to be answered today is, why do we need this new
legislation, the Professional Foresters Act, which will govern
the practice of the professional forester in Ontario? I believe
this legislation is critical to the long-term sustainability of
Ontario's forests. Ontario's forested area is equal to the land
masses of Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands
combined. Yet existing legislation in Ontario does not impose
academic or professional standards on anyone practising forestry.
This lack of legislation and gap in accountability can lead to
unsustainable forest management practices.
Ontario needs a strong
self-governing professional forestry association to support
government and private sector actions pertaining to
sustainability, to ensure that the highest standards of practice
and forest science are adhered to and to strengthen the
accountability of professional foresters.
Increasing public demands
on the use of the forests and its sustainability require proper
application of silvicultural guidelines and implementing the
highest standards of practice, using the best available science.
The passage of this bill will help to ensure that the public
interest is protected and that the sustainability of Ontario's
forests is improved. The bill will hold professional
practitioners publicly accountable for their actions and their
forest prescriptions.
The role of the forester is
very important to the management of Ontario's forestland. In
1994, as most know, the class environmental assessment for timber
management on crown lands in Ontario decision was made. The
decision included 115 legally binding terms and conditions that
the Ministry of Natural Resources was directed to implement. The
board in their decision recommended, throughout the decision, the
strengthening of a forester's involvement in the management of
Ontario's forests. Specifically, term and condition 2 and 3
direct that timber management plans be prepared in an open and
consultative manner by a registered professional forester, who
should be the plan author, entrenching the RPF status as plan
author. In 1995, as Mr Chudleigh already mentioned, the Crown
Forest Sustainability Act further entrenched the status of the
RPF, enshrining in the legislation the requirement that all
timber management plans be signed by RPFs.
The Professional Foresters
Act will also enhance Ontario's international competitiveness by
ensuring the province's continued excellence in forestry
practices. The use of licensed professionals in certification and
other forest management actions will increase and enhance the
credibility of Ontario's forest management activities and better
position the forest industry in world markets.
This legislation will also
change the Ontario Professional Foresters Association from a
voluntary organization to a self-regulated professional body
responsible for all licensing of professional foresters in
Ontario. The OPFA will only then be able to ensure that qualified
professionals are practising forestry and that they meet rigid
academic and professional standards.
With reference to
consultation, the association has consulted extensively over the
last four years. First, the OPFA carried out extensive
consultation with the membership itself in 1996-97, resulting in
an 81% vote in favour of licensing. The members have followed and
continue to follow the progress of the association relative to
this initiative and continue to support the governing counsel in
its efforts to achieve the licensing initiative and
objective.
In addition to this, over
90 external organizations have been contacted with respect to
this licensing initiative and not one organization has come
forward as being against the proposal. Key issues were identified
and addressed. They include:
The bill should focus on
public interest not personal gratification of the association or
its members.
The bill should be
sensitive to others who might be affected by the scope of
practice and that there is a need for grandparenting provisions
and special permits.
The bill should ensure to
keep bureaucracy to a minimum.
Mr Chudleigh and Mr Ramsay both spoke to those
points this afternoon.
Also, extensive
consultations with provincial government ministries over the past
year have resulted in additional restructuring of the bill to
make it less bureaucratic and easier to administer.
Finally, a recent yet
unpublished survey of Ontario landowners indicates that in excess
of 80% of the respondents support the need for licensed or
certified land management professionals.
The OPFA will be the
association to implement the bill. As you may have noted, the
most significant powers of the association include the power to
license professional foresters in Ontario, to oversee adherence
to professional standards of practice and the code of ethics, and
to respond to complaints against members through the application
of a public complaints and discipline process.
The Minister of Natural
Resources, however, has significant power over the activities of
the association and its regulations and can require the
association to do things as the minister deems are required.
Further to Mr Hampton's
question, it is important to note that the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act is pre-eminent legislation and in cases of
overlap the CFSA will take precedence.
Through this legislation,
Ontario will reinforce its position of one as a leader
internationally in our sustainable forest management practices.
This legislation will ensure that silvicultural standards and
guidelines are properly applied on crown lands.
Any professional forester
practising in Ontario will have to become a member of the Ontario
Professional Foresters Association and adhere to academic and
profession standards. All non-professionals who carry out some
forestry practices will be licensed through special permits.
The administration of the
association will be open to public scrutiny through the
appointment of members of the public to the governing council and
the legislated committees of the association.
There will be increases in
accountability through public complaints and discipline
processes, with a provision to protect individual rights.
Private landowners will
maintain the right of determining how to manage their properties
and they will have the choice of engaging RPFs. Unfortunately,
today there is a lack of any substantive regulatory regime of
silvicultural standards on private lands. However, should the
landowner engage a licensed professional forester, then both
professional and silvicultural standards will be met.
Grandparenting guidelines
will require that those holding special permits will be required
to practise to the same high standards that are set for
professional foresters.
This bill will not affect
others in doing their work. It will recognize only those
situations where there is a need for professional forestry
experience and expertise.
In conclusion, we need this
bill, the Professional Foresters Act, to help ensure the
sustainability of Ontario's forests. In turn, this will help
ensure the continuing social and economic benefits that are
derived from the forest and the continuing health of forest
communities. The credibility of Ontario's forest industry will be
increased and its international competitiveness improved.
Accountability to the public will be more focused, overall
management costs will be reduced and forest health will be
improved.
The Professional Foresters
Act is a good bill. We believe that it is good public policy and
we ask you to support it.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That leaves us a bit under two minutes per
caucus, so time for one question, perhaps, from each caucus. This
time we'll start with Mr Wettlaufer.
1630
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): Ms Verheggen, I'm an outdoorsman and
one of the most hideous things that I see when I go fishing up in
Mr Hampton's riding is clear-cutting. A couple of years ago I was
in Germany and I was very impressed with some of the conservation
that I saw over there. They go in and they clear-cut. They then
open-pit mine and turn right around and plant the trees that were
indigenous to that area, and they leave it for another 40 or 50
years until it can be harvested. In the interests of
sustainability, do you see that this act would achieve some of
that conservation?
Ms
Verheggen: In terms of sustainability and conservation,
the policies and guidelines are set out by the government. The
guidelines for how work will be done are there because the public
wants certain ways adhered to. So I see that basically this bill
will ensure that the foresters adhere to the policies and
guidelines of silviculture standards that are in place. If those
silviculture standards are such that clear-cutting to a certain
standard is allowed and the renewal efforts are set out certain
ways, that's what we do in Ontario to promote the forests that
are in Ontario, which are substantially different than the
forests that are in Germany.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: What are the academic standards, out of
curiosity, for a professional forester right now? What are the
expected academic standards for a forester?
Ms
Verheggen: Basically you require a bachelor of science
degree in forestry from a recognized university.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Do you know, as far as your registry, how
many have those credentials versus those who don't who are
practising forestry, roughly? Do you have any idea?
Ms
Verheggen: I don't have the numbers. I know there are
approximately 800 members of our association and some of them are
practising, some aren't practising, and some are students, for
instance. We haven't done a survey, because we don't always know
who, of the people practising are not registered professional
foresters. I don't have those figures.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I'm just wondering about the magnitude of
the task as far as grandfathering and how long they would be under special permits,
only because I belong to a similar organization, the College of
Psychologists, and we went through this exercise in the last five
years. It's extensive.
Ms
Verheggen: I think it will be extensive now. In my view,
the organization of forestry in Ontario is a pretty tight-knit
group. You're basically working for the industry, working for the
Ontario government or consulting. The OPFA has a pretty good list
of who the consultants are. But we would have to do a lot of work
to figure out exactly where everybody is and what everybody is
doing.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Is there enough space in programs out
there that if people want to upgrade and therefore become
accredited they can do so?
Ms
Verheggen: Yes, there is.
Mr
Hampton: I want to go back to the scope of practice,
clause 3(1)(a), "the designing, specifying or approving of
silvicultural prescriptions and treatments, including timber
harvesting." I think that's mainly industrial forestry, isn't
it?
Ms
Verheggen: Yes, developing silviculture prescriptions
and timber harvesting.
Mr
Hampton: I'll go down to (f), "the planning and locating
of forest transportation systems, including forest roads." That's
mainly industrial forestry too?
Ms
Verheggen: Yes, it is.
Mr
Hampton: "The classification, inventory and mapping of
forests ... ." The people who are most interested in forest
inventory are usually forest products companies because you want
to have a sense of what harvestable timber there is, what species
etc?
Ms
Verheggen: I agree with you at the current time, but I
think that's changing. More and more people are interested in
terms of what the forest inventory is and what the values of the
forest are. So I would say that it extends beyond the forest
industry.
Mr
Hampton: "The assessment of impacts from planned
activities on forests ... ." In my experience that's mainly
industrial forestry too.
Ms
Verheggen: It's the impacts of the industrial forest,
but in terms of the assessment of those impacts I think that is
more far-reaching in terms of how that's done.
Mr
Hampton: "The auditing of forest management practices."
Again we're concerned mainly with industrial forestry?
Ms
Verheggen: On that one, I think we're concerned with the
implementation of the forest management plan that has been
approved in the field by the registered professional forester.
I'm not sure exactly where you're going, but the plan is signed
by a registered professional forester and the plan, as you know,
deals with many areas that extend beyond silvicultural
prescriptions and deal with other values.
Mr
Hampton: It's mainly the other values I'm concerned
with. One of the things that bother me is that I've read through
this entire act-I even had my green pen out because I wanted to
underline it if I found it. I wanted to look for some references
to forest conservation, forest preservation or forest
sustainability. I don't see any reference to those things. You're
right; it does refer to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. It
says that where there is a conflict, the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act will prevail. But you're defining here the
scope of practice, and the scope of practice, as I see it, is
mainly defined in terms of industrial forestry.
Ms
Verheggen: You could view it that way. As I look at it,
it's been enshrined in the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, as
you say, and in that act you go across biodiversity and
conservation.
Mr
Hampton: All those things are in the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act. I don't deny that.
Ms
Verheggen: It's that umbrella that the foresters act
will work under.
Mr
Hampton: But why is the scope of practice here defined
essentially as industrial forestry? Of the items that are set
down, you have:
"(a) ... silvicultural
prescriptions and treatments, including timber harvesting;
"(b) ... certification of
forests," meaning, I gather, certification of a forest management
plan, extraction, harvesting;
"(e) the classification,
inventory and mapping of forests ...
"(f) the planning and
locating of forest transportation systems ... "
As I read the definition of
"scope of practice," it is still very much in the language of the
forest industry. In the context of the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act, in the context of many of the things I think
people in Ontario want to achieve and probably need to achieve if
we want to continue to have a forest industry that is welcome to
sell its products in the United States or in Europe, isn't this
language a bit outdated?
Ms
Verheggen: I think the language is there to make sure we
were not being an exclusive organization and recognizing that in
the management of forests you need expertise from ecologists,
biologists; you need input from the public; you need-
Mr
Hampton: I'm an environmentalist from the United States
and I'm trying to keep Ontario forest products out of my
jurisdiction. I hold up the Ontario Professional Foresters Act,
2000, and nowhere in the act does it refer to "forest
conservation" in the scope of practice of a forester. Nowhere in
the scope of practice of a forester does it refer to "forest
sustainability" or "ecosystem sustainability." Nowhere does it
refer to "forest preservation." If I'm hellfire bent to keep
Ontario forest products out of my jurisdiction, I think I'd look
at this and say: "This isn't about sustaining forests or
conserving forests. This is strictly about industrial forestry,
and that's the scope of practice of foresters in Ontario." Refute
my argument.
Ms
Verheggen: I would say to you that basically this piece
of legislation is to guide the standards and practices of the
forester in terms of silviculture and forest management. It is
within the forest management plan context that you will see and read the
objectives of conservation, making sure we address all the
environmental concerns.
The Chair:
I'm afraid we've gone well over, Mr Hampton.
Mr
Hampton: Why wouldn't we put them in this bill?
Ms
Verheggen: Pardon me?
The Chair:
I was just saying we've gone well over.
Mr
Hampton: A rhetorical question: Why wouldn't you put
them in this bill?
Ms
Verheggen: They could be in the bill.
Mr
Hampton: Shouldn't they be in the bill?
Ms
Verheggen: When we went through previous versions of the
bill, as they went through consultation, the scope of practice
became more defined based on the consultation we had.
Mr
Hampton: More industrial?
Ms
Verheggen: Is the bill now more industrial? I wouldn't
call it more industrial. It's certainly more defined.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for coming before us. By the way, compliments
on your Web page and, in particular, your statement on the Oak
Ridges moraine, at a personal level. Thank you very much for
that.
Ms
Verheggen: You're welcome.
1640
CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Institute of
Forestry, Mr Ferguson. Good afternoon. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Bruce
Ferguson: Thank you very much. I think you've got copies
of my paper that I'll present here. I'll be brief.
My name is Bruce Ferguson.
I am the current president of a national non-government
organization known as the Canadian Institute of Forestry /
Institut du forestier du Canada. Our head office is in Ottawa. I
live in Peterborough. I have been a registered professional
forester in the OPFA for over 25 years and an active member of
the Canadian Institute of Forestry for over 25 years as well.
Thank you for the
opportunity to bring the viewpoint and support of the Canadian
Institute of Forestry / Institut du forestier du Canada (CIF/IFC)
members to you on this important matter of licensing professional
foresters in Ontario. The CIF is a national organization of
forest professional practitioners from all types of forestry
careers and all across Canada. There are 23 CIF sections or
chapters from the Yukon to Newfoundland and Labrador. We are
2,400 members who are foresters, technologists, technicians,
ecologists, biologists, researchers, academics, all of whom are
dedicated to the sustainability of Canada's most valuable and
world-famous resource, our forest ecosystems. CIF members are
very proud of their involvement in supporting Canada's national
commitment to sustainable development and sustainable forests. We
are also proud of our world-famous journal the Forestry
Chronicle, which is published six times yearly. I've got a copy
here that some of you no doubt have seen. Should anybody want a
copy-this is the millennium issue from January-February-we'll
gladly give you copies. Perhaps you could just pass it around
while I talk.
The mission of the
institute is fourfold: to advance the stewardship of Canada's
forest resources, to provide national leadership in forestry, to
promote competency among our members, and to foster a public
awareness of Canadian and international forest stewardship
issues. I'll come back to these objects in a minute.
Firstly, I would like to
tell you that CIF is in its 92nd year as a credible,
non-government and non-partisan organization. Last fall at our
Banff annual conference the Prime Minister of Canada delivered a
video presentation praising the CIF for its contribution to
making Canada a world leader in sustainable forest management.
The CIF is involved in many affairs, including as a signatory to
Canada's forest accord, participating on the executive committee
and others of the National Forest Strategy and implementing what
we can do in the action plan to it, to mention just a few of the
strategy committees that we're involved in across Canada.
I'd like to point out just
one strategic direction of the National Forest Strategy, which is
number 2.17, wherein all of the signatories to the national
strategy would encourage the establishment of legislation where
it does not exist regarding the professional practice of forestry
and registration and accountability of professional
foresters.
The CIF also serves as
secretariat to the Canadian Federation of Professional Foresters
Associations. CIF and its members continue to actively promote
and support the accreditation and licensing of professional
practitioners in all provinces of Canada. Not only do we advocate
the licensing of professional foresters as in some of the other
provinces; we also look for the certification of our forest
technicians and technologists so they're all in a professional
classification.
There are seven
professional foresters' associations in Canada. Of the big four
forestry provinces, only Ontario lacks the level of legislation
to regulate the practice of foresters and forestry. Ontario has a
bountiful forest, reasonably well managed and yet full of
challenges to resolve over the coming years to truly have a
sustainable forest. A forest must meet the needs of many future
generations, not only their socio-economic requirements but, most
importantly, for the health and beauty of the planet.
Canadians repeatedly in
polls and surveys put the environment high in their expectations.
As forest stewards we must perform our duties and
responsibilities with the highest standard of professional
knowledge. Forestry too often is seen as just a science-based
practice. What often goes unseen is the dedication of all forest
practitioners towards preserving forest ecosystems for all life
forms and the intrinsic values people place upon the forest. This
is also true for those who have never even walked in Canada's
majestic forests.
There was a recent survey conducted in April-May
2000 by Environics-the one that Ms Verheggen spoke to-in which
50% of the interviewees were contacted in Ontario. The interviews
were with rural landowners and questioned them on their land and
forest stewardship. Environics noted this survey had the highest
first-call response rate of any they had ever conducted and
people were very willing to talk about their views on
stewardship. Of worthwhile note was the very high endorsement
that they believed forestry professionals should be certified or
licensed to practise: a full 82% supported this.
The CIF has long advocated
and promoted organizations of forest practitioners to pursue
"licence to practise" and mandatory continuous learning. The bill
in Ontario will do just that and raise the public's impression of
how well our forests are being managed by knowing that
professional forest stewards in the province are committed and
self-regulated by law.
As you can tell, I am
hitting upon the four primary objects of the CIF/IFC. I have had
the good fortune of travelling throughout Canada, especially in
my home province of Ontario, and I have always come home with the
profound feeling of how every forest practitioner I've met has
had a great enthusiasm and love of forestry. The public should
know and see this and be proud that we are responsible and caring
managers devoted to the best available science in our pursuit of
the best practices and sustainability.
In Canada and worldwide
there is a rapidly growing recognition that sustainable forests
are paramount and an assurance must be given to society.
Independent forest certification organizations are certifying
forests around the world, including in Canada and Ontario. To
ensure the credibility of these certification schemes requires
that the public must know that competent and regulated forest
professionals are doing their job to the best of their ability.
How will Ontario and Canada benefit? By continuing to raise the
benchmark of forest sustainability and by continuing to market
Ontario's forest products worldwide with a consumer assurance
that they are purchasing products from certified sustainable
forests managed by professionals with the highest standards.
Accountability is linked to
our mandate, our code of ethics and the mandates and codes of all
professional organization bodies. Licensing will help ensure that
a professional who meets the academic and professional standards
of the association is practising proper management. The
professional organization has the responsibility to ensure that
its members are meeting the high standards and practising
according to the rules and regulations laid out.
In summary, the CIF/IFC
fully supports the adoption of the Professional Foresters Act,
2000, in Ontario and can say without reservation that it is of
national concern that Ontario continues to stay on the leading
edge of forestry. Crucial to this is the licensing of
professional foresters. These dedicated men and women are ready
to assume the responsibilities of a regulated practice in the
public interest of managing towards sustainability of Ontario's
forests.
Thank you for this generous
opportunity to speak in support of the bill.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That leaves us a bit over a minute, a minute
and a half per caucus, so time for one quick question each. This
time in the rotation we will be starting with the Liberals.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Mine will be very quick. Thank you for
coming and supporting this bill. I apologize for my lack of
knowledge of forestry. Are other provinces regulated the way this
bill outlines for Ontario or is Ontario the first?
Mr
Ferguson: No, we would be the fourth. Quebec and British
Columbia have had it for many years, and recently Alberta. So of
the big four I was referring to, Ontario being up there, we're
the only one of those that are not. There are other professional
forester associations in Canada with the same sort of right to
title, and there are two or three of the small provinces that do
not have any, like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, for example. The
numbers are few, but they're working on it.
1650
Mr
Hampton: I'll get on my soapbox again. I heard you in
your comments mention forest sustainability several times. In the
scope of practice it says, for example, "the assessment of
impacts from planned activities ... ," ie, logging. It says, "the
appraisal, evaluation and certification of forests ... ." I think
that means certification of the forest management plan, ie,
logging. You want this to stand up, right? Shouldn't there be
something in here about the assessment of forest sustainability,
assessment of forest conservation, assessment of ecosystem
sustainability?
I understand what the Crown
Forest Sustainability Act says. The language here says to me that
this is 80% about industrial harvesting, and I'm not sure that's
where foresters want to be as we enter the new millennium. I
don't think you want your scope of practice defined that way as
we enter the new millennium.
You used the words "forest
sustainability" a lot, you used the words "forest ecosystem," but
it's not in your scope of practice. Doesn't that bother you?
Mr
Ferguson: What I would like to see is a broader
objective of what our forest practices are about. I would concur
that I would like to see some improved wording in that
regard.
I don't think this in
particular does limit it to just industrial forestry, in my mind.
I never read it in that context at all.
Mr
Hampton: I'm taking it as somebody who says: "I'm a
California environmentalist. I want to keep those damned Canadian
forest products out of my state." So I go to the Ontario
Professional Foresters Act, 2000, and I read the scope of
practice and there's not one mention in the scope of practice of
forest sustainability, forest conservation or anything about
protecting the ecosystem. I say: "These people up there are not
worried about forest sustainability. They're not worried about
forest conservation. This is 90% extraction." Refute my
argument.
Mr
Ferguson: I would just comment further as to what Ms
Verheggen mentioned. We have to operate within the acts, regulations, policies and
procedures of the provinces and, as such, if we are doing our job
as a forester in preparing and writing the prescriptions in any
kind of plan, whether it's a 10-acre wood lot or a million-acre
crown licence, we would do so in concert with the assistance and
advice of many other types of professionals we would need. No one
has the gain on all of this.
Mr
Hampton: Wouldn't you want that defined in your scope of
practice?
Mr
Ferguson: That we would work with many other
professionals?
Mr
Hampton: No, those general things: forest
sustainability, forest conservation.
Mr
Ferguson: Those would be my words. Yes, I would.
Mr
Hampton: I'll get off my soapbox now.
Mr
Ferguson: We're in the new millennium. I would like to
see the same.
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): Thank you very much, Mr Ferguson, for
coming here. I want to ask you a question with regard to the note
you made on page 3 about the Environics survey and actually tie
that in with a comment in Ms Verheggen's presentation which
talked about private landowners. The reason I'd like to tie those
two together is to ask you, with regard to those two pieces of
information, what you see as potentially your responsibility
under this act with regard to public education. When I say
"public education," I'm really talking about private landowners.
Do you see a role for you under the umbrella of this piece of
legislation?
Mr
Ferguson: The other professional forester organizations
in Canada, like in British Columbia, for instance, have a public
awareness and public education component to the organization.
There is never enough of that. In concert with other
organizations such as ourselves, the Canadian Institute of
Forestry, the Ontario Forestry Association, the Canadian Forestry
Association and so forth, we're developing bigger and better
plans to get that communication out there. I think the OPFA will
have that as well.
Mrs Munro:
In other words, you would see that this legislation would provide
you with an avenue to bring through the issues of conservation
and sustainability?
Mr
Ferguson: Most definitely.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for coming before us. We appreciate your
bringing the national perspective to these hearings.
ONTARIO FORESTRY ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be the Ontario Forestry Association,
Erik Turk. Good afternoon, Mr Turk, and welcome to the
committee.
Mr Erik
Turk: Mr Chair and members of the standing committee on
general government, thank you very much for inviting me here
today and giving me the opportunity to address the committee on
what I think is a really important piece of legislation for the
people and the forests of Ontario. I am a registered professional
forester, and I serve the Ontario Forestry Association as their
executive director. I speak to you today on behalf of our board
of directors and the membership of our association.
The Ontario Forestry
Association supports this bill. We support a bill which will
provide the profession of forestry with the power to license
registered professional foresters in Ontario and will promote
high standards of sustainable forest management.
The Ontario Forestry
Association is a non-profit association with over 1,000 members
across Ontario. Our mandate is to raise awareness and
understanding of all aspects of Ontario's forests and to develop
a commitment to stewardship of forest ecosystems. We promote the
need for a balanced perspective on forest issues. We are the
association for people in Ontario who like trees, whether you're
a cutter or a keeper.
Our association has two
main program areas. We have education programs that focus on
young people in Ontario. We coordinate the delivery of balanced
forestry and environmental education programs for elementary and
high school students across the province.
Second, we are involved in
landowner programs for woodlots and woodlands. We provide
information for forest landowners, primarily in southern Ontario,
but also across the province. We represent these private forest
landowners in support of licensing of professional foresters.
Our association continues
to be involved in assisting landowners to manage their private
woodlots in a sustainable manner through providing educational
materials and also administrating forest management programs. Our
number one forest management program is the managed forest tax
incentive program, otherwise known as MFTIP, which is
administered by the Ontario Forestry Association and the Ontario
Woodlot Association on behalf of the Ministry of Natural
Resources. MFTIP is a voluntary program that provides lower
property taxes to participating landowners who agree to conserve
and manage their forests through preparation of a forest
management plan.
Professional foresters are
involved in the preparation of these plans for landowners, for
MFTIP and for other purposes. Professional foresters are also
involved in the provision of a wide variety of consulting
services on both private and public lands.
In carrying out these
activities, landowners need to be aware of the sustainability
aspects of the activities taking place in their woodlots, and
professional foresters need to understand their obligations for
the promotion of the highest standards of sustainable forest
management. Landowners must be aware of this obligation and
understand that they have recourse in the event that the highest
professional standards are not maintained. Accountability must be
established and enforced. Professional accountability will
increase value for our members who use forestry services provided
by foresters.
In Ontario, anyone can
describe himself or herself as a forestry consultant. They are in
business as individuals or as staff of companies and agencies and may not
be held subject to professional standards. It is critically
important that standards be set and that landowners understand
there is an independent professional body with the power to
license professionals and monitor performance. The Ontario
Forestry Association does not suggest that all forestry
consultants be licensed. We do subscribe, however, to the concept
of a registered professional body to license professional
foresters and to hold them accountable for their work.
A large majority of
landowners are concerned about their forest properties. All have
a sense of responsibility and pride of ownership. Landowners want
to do the right thing. Our recent experience with MFTIP indicates
that landowners take great pride in developing quality forest
management plans and working with qualified consultants. In
surveys conducted with participants in the program, many have
said that the knowledge they gained about their forests from
working with foresters was very valuable both economically and
environmentally.
Will licensing make a
difference? We believe it will. Foresters involved in private
land forestry will promote and implement high standards of
sustainable forest management. This action alone will make a
difference on private lands when foresters are directly involved.
The development of these standards will also set the bar for
others involved in this type of work. In addition, landowners
will have recourse in the event of poor workmanship and sloppy
practices. The Ontario Professional Foresters Association will
then be positioned to inspect work relative to standards and
determine if sanctions are required. The accountabilities will be
clear, as foresters will be required to adhere to professional
standards set and administered by an independent licensing
body.
1700
Our recommendations: We
feel that professional foresters should be licensed in Ontario.
We support the bill. We feel it's good policy and will be good
for Ontario, for the public forests, for the private forests and
for landowners. We urge that this committee support the bill and
have foresters licensed in Ontario.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. That leaves us with about two minutes per
caucus. Mr Hampton, we'll start the questions with you this
time.
Mr
Hampton: I am troubled by the fact that the scope of
practice of foresters, as proposed, would not include the
assessment of forest sustainability, the assessment of forest
conservation strategies and the assessment of forest preservation
strategies. Are those within the scope of practice of a
forester?
Mr Turk: I
feel they are, and the elements you mentioned in the current
scope of practice, as it is to decide, all contribute to the
determination of sustainability and conservation. So all of
those, the elements of the scope of practice, really add up to me
to mean the words "sustainability" and "conservation."
Mr
Hampton: As I understand the importance of the term
"scope of practice" in this legislation, you can be held
accountable for those things included in your scope of practice.
Is that right?
Mr Turk:
That's my understanding.
Mr
Hampton: You could not be held accountable for those
things that are outside your scope of practice.
Mr Turk:
I'll agree with you there.
Mr
Hampton: I gather registered professional foresters in
Ontario, as this act reads-it's debatable whether they could be
held accountable for forest sustainability, because it's not
mentioned. It could be an argument for debate.
Mr Turk: I
think the applicability of sustainability also depends on the
desires of the landowner, and, in this case, on crown lands in
Ontario, that would include the people of Ontario, who help
determine what sustainability is.
Mr
Hampton: But my point to you is, if it isn't in the act
it then becomes a matter for debate. I could say, "I think you
should be held accountable for something called forest
sustainability or forest conservation," and your lawyers could
say, "Well, it's not in the act, and we don't think they should
be held accountable." So it becomes a debatable point, whether
it's included, to what extent it's included and what falls under
that rubric.
Mr Turk:
That's the real value of the word "sustainability." It requires
the input of public. The professionals must definitely advise on
it, but it also involves the input of public desires and public
needs.
Mr
Hampton: The Crown Forest Sustainability Act defines
forest sustainability, right? It has the indicia of forest
sustainability. Yet, as I read this bill, it's not within your
scope of practice or, being charitable, it's debatable whether
it's within your scope of practice. It's in the title, the Crown
Forest Sustainability Act, and the definition section spends a
lot of time defining it, yet it's not within your scope of
practice.
Mr Turk:
If the Crown Forest Sustainability Act is the expression of the
people of Ontario's desire to have a sustainable forest, that's
the document that defines sustainability, as it does.
The Chair:
We've gone well over. Mr Ouellette.
Mr Jerry J.
Ouellette (Oshawa): Thanks for your presentation. To
follow up on the scope of practice and that area, being a
former-or, well, somewhat still; I just had I don't know how many
thousand cubits delivered. I haven't had a chance to look at it
yet, but being a cutter/skidder operator I know a bit about the
forests and some of the practices. My area of concern would be
with regard to natural progression. The forestry industry appears
to be based on what's going to be the fastest producer. Normal
progression in a forest gives us a coniferous forest, which then
leads to a soft deciduous and then to a hard deciduous. Is your
practice promoting those habits? Because, what I see a lot of in
the forest industry is, "What's going to give us the best
economic value?" I have some concerns about that.
Mr Turk: I
think that professional foresters would be the best people to
consult with about what the proper progression of the forests
are. I think that foresters would include both biological and
environmental aspects and keep those in mind, in addition to including
economic considerations.
Mr
Ouellette: As well, the wise use of a forest is so
critical to a community as a whole. I know that, and I've been
told, although I haven't seen it, that there are quite a few
sticks of number one cherry essentially going to be assigned for
firewood, as opposed to being used for what it should be, as
veneer logs or proper saw logs. In those practices, do you have
anything that would promote the wise use of the forest?
Mr Turk: I
think it would be foresters' responsibility to ensure that in
cases where landowners have made decisions to harvest forests, as
they may make decisions to maintain it for conservation, that
they do get the best end use if there is harvesting involved.
Mr
Ouellette: I know in the region of Durham there is a
cutting bylaw which essentially says that you have to have a
licensed individual come in and survey the land prior to any cuts
on private land being allowed. Essentially, what that requires on
a 10-acre plot is three to five one-acre plots, and you have to
categorize and list the size of the trees etc. Should this
legislation proceed, are these requirements something that you
envision would pass throughout the province?
Mr Turk: I
think that would not be a result of this legislation. I think the
forests of Ontario are very diverse across the province and that
different municipalities can manage those forests
differently.
Mr
Ouellette: One of the problems in the region of Durham
is that-OK, Mr Chair-there are no bylaw officers who are trained
in any way, shape or form and have no idea of how to enforce an
act like that. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I apologize for missing your oral
presentation, but I did read your brief and consulted with my
colleague. He basically wanted to relay to you, and I agree, that
we thank you for your input. We believe, as you state on page 3,
that foresters involved in private land forestry, even though
they don't have to, will eventually increase the standards, as
well as have recourse, if their own processes aren't sufficient,
to go to a certified forester. So basically, on behalf of both of
us, thank you for being here.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for taking the time to come before us here
today.
GRANT FOREST PRODUCTS INC
The Chair:
Our next presentation, Grant Forest Products, Inc, Faye Johnson.
Good afternoon, welcome to the committee.
Ms Faye
Johnson: Good afternoon.
The Chair:
Perhaps the clerk can assist you with that.
Ms
Johnson: Just a bit of a backdrop for my
presentation.
Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address
the standing committee. My name is Faye Johnson and I also am a
registered professional forester. I have been a registered
professional forester since 1985.
By way of a brief
introduction, I graduated from Lakehead University in 1982. I
worked for the Ministry of Natural Resources from 1979 as a
student, starting out as a tree planter in northern Ontario, and
worked with the MNR until 1996. In 1996, I moved to Grant Forest
Products in Englehart, where I work today as a woodlands manager.
I guess you could say that I am an industrial forester.
I'm here to represent Grant
Forest Products. I want to tell you a bit about our company. It's
a northern Ontario, privately owned company. We're the
fifth-largest producer of oriented strand board in North America
and we own two mills, in Timmins and Englehart, where we utilize
two million cubic metres of trembling aspen on an annual basis.
As a matter of fact, our Englehart facility is the largest OSB
facility in the world. To put that into perspective, it's a
little less than 10% of the province's annual allowable harvest.
Of the oriented strand board that we make, about 95% is exported
to the United States. We employ about 1,200 people, directly and
indirectly, most of them in northern Ontario.
1710
This overhead shows you
graphically where we get our wood supply from. As I've said, we
utilize only trembling aspen at the moment. The dots represent
the volume of wood, the biggest dot being where we get the most
volume, and the littlest dot being where we get the least volume.
You can see that our woodshed ranges from Pembroke in the south
to Big Pic, which is close to Geraldton, in the northwest.
I and Grant Forest Products
support the licensing initiative because it increases
accountability for forest management practices to help ensure the
continuing sustainability of Ontario's forests. For me, that
means that when I hire a forester, I'm hiring someone who is
confident in acting to a prescribed level of conduct. Also,
because we do not have a sustainable forest licence in our name
alone, it is important to me that foresters working for
sustainable licence holders are managing the land base in my
interests and are also working within a prescribed set of
standards.
Secondly, I believe that
licensing will increase the level of accountability for
foresters, thereby increasing the level of credibility. These two
factors should work together to decrease the number of
confrontations on land use within the province. This will make
the implementation of forest management plans more effective and
more efficient. This will also lessen the risk to local
communities, especially in the north, that are dependent on the
stability of jobs over the long term.
Thirdly, the employment of
licensed foresters should increase credibility in the development
and implementation of certification standards and systems that
are developed on a national and international level. As I
mentioned, our markets are almost 95% American. That would be in
the neighbourhood of US$250 million annually in sales. It is
important to Grant Forest Products that Ontario and its forest industry be seen as
credible at an international level.
Lastly, I would like to say
that I feel this bill complements at least two pieces of
legislation: the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and the
Environmental Assessment Act. This bill reinforces both the
provincial and national objectives of forest sustainability,
which in my view is in the public interest.
When you think about it,
the first professional foresters act was legislated in 1957. That
was more than 40 years ago and before I was born. Sometime before
that, we legislated the Crown Timber Act. Since then, we've
changed our management practices many times. Even in my lifetime
as a forester we've changed them many times, all the while
evolving when better science and better information was made
available and warranted change.
The Environmental
Assessment Act of the 1980s really helped to move forest
management into the public eye. That was a positive move. The
CFSA also legislates requirements for public involvement. I think
that the licensing of foresters is a logical step in that
evolution.
The public will continue to
become more interested in its forests. I believe that at some
time in the not-so-distant future, they will demand that
foresters are licensed. They will demand a higher level of
credibility and accountability. If we become licensed now, we
will be in a position to evolve and grow with the requirements of
today's society and the requirements that they will place on
foresters and forest management at the local and global
levels.
Grant Forest Products
supports this bill. We believe it's good for Ontario, its forests
and the forest industry. We urge that this committee support it
as well.
The Chair:
That leaves us with, I think, more than enough time for
questions, maybe three minutes per caucus, starting with Mr
Ouellette.
Mr
Ouellette: Thank you for your presentation.
In regard to the scope of
practice, I see that the forestry industry is changing
significantly. I can recall being in Foleyet and seeing rooms
this size with aspen going to waste. I asked the cutters why and
the response was, "We don't have market for it."
Now, I know that in
Gowganda they have a mill that produces the large. It goes down
to three inches at the butt, which is what they require for, I
think it is, finger-joining. The same in Hearst, whereby the
changes that are taking place there now have the cedar mills that
are promoting cedar shingles and other areas. I hope that there's
a lot more promotion of the wise use of our forests by the
industry.
The one thing that I would
recommend and say to most of the presenters is that right now I
know that there are I don't know how many cubits of black cherry
rotting in Sault Ste Marie. I just mentioned the aspen in
Foleyet. When I talk to the other companies there is a real void
in the industry in the communication method, so that all the
participants know where the market and the buyers and the sellers
are. A promotion of that, I think, would be one way that we can
promote wise use of the forest. Do the foresters actively promote
or work in those areas to ensure that those sort of things still
happen in the future?
Ms
Johnson: Do you mean on a community-by-community
level?
Mr
Ouellette: Right now I know that in order for them to
get the fibre they needed in Sault Ste Marie, they had to buy
black cherry. He has no market for that; he doesn't use it. It's
sitting in the yard rotting. Right now there are probably all
sorts of individuals within the forestry community looking for
that product.
Ms
Johnson: As you can see from the map, we've pretty well
used the majority of the aspen in northeastern Ontario, and it
only makes sense, especially in the management units where we do
not utilize the aspen fully, that we work with the other
companies that are harvesting conifer to harvest stands, take the
aspen out and deliver that aspen to us. Then the lower priority
becomes the stands of pure aspen that we keep for future use.
Mr
Ouellette: What happens with the non-utilized product on
your licence?
Ms
Johnson: There are very few units where there is a
non-utilized product. In the Hearst area, perhaps Kapuskasing, we
run into that. We try very hard to ensure that the non-utilized
product stays standing.
Mr
Ouellette: So mostly it's trembling aspen you mentioned,
but what about birch or any of the other products that are still
in those areas that you've been assigned?
Ms
Johnson: They remain standing.
Mr
Ouellette: So you don't have other methods? Because I
know birch is in large demand. The price of birch right now is
rather high. There are companies out there actively seeking-as a
matter of fact, I know someone who is looking for 6,000 board
feet of white pine, so if anybody knows of any, talk to me after
I leave.
So they're not being
utilized, then? You just said the birch on your licence is not
being utilized.
Ms
Johnson: Presently, birch in some of our areas in the
northwestern part of our woodshed is not being utilized, and it
is left standing. We may have the opportunity in the future at
Grant Forest Products to utilize birch, and at that time it will
all go to our two mills.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Ouellette. Mr Chudleigh, you had a quick
question?
Mr
Chudleigh: Just a quick one. If you were asked by a
European environmentalist to substantiate that this wood came
from a sustainable forest that was managed in a
conservation-conscious manner, could you do that?
Ms
Johnson: Sorry?
Mr
Chudleigh: Could you confirm to that European company,
to their specs-will this act help you do that?
Ms
Johnson: This act will help us do that. As I said, it
complements other legislation that we have in place. I'm thinking
in particular of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. As I've
said, we receive our wood from areas that are held by other
sustainable licence holders, such as Tembec, and they have moved
towards certification. That's something that we are also looking at
very closely right now. In a lot of those areas, I could say that
the wood comes from a certified forest also.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Thank you for your presentation. I'll ask
you a question that really refers back to what Mr Hampton asked
earlier. I find his statement a lot less disagreeable now, as I'm
learning throughout this afternoon.
In my association, for
example, in the College of Psychologists of Ontario, it's right
in our code of ethics and our standards and procedures that there
are certain environments that, if it's detrimental to our
clients, we have to refuse, even if we lose our job or whatever.
We have to refuse those conditions. In other words, we have to go
to bat for our client. In my college, there is very little
protection for us by our association. We're sort of expected to
do this but left on our own legally. Given that analogy to this
bill, from your experience as a forester, are there any
protections-getting back to what Mr Hampton asked earlier-for
someone who says, "I can't do my job well here in a public forest
because of the cuts in resources," or whatever? How would you
comment on that? I confess I didn't quite comprehend the initial
discussion-
Ms
Johnson: I think George spoke to it briefly, but the way
I would deal with it is much the same way he would deal with it.
First you have to ensure, as a forester, that what you want to
stand up for is actually defendable. You have to ensure
that-although we practise to a standard, perhaps we are being too
idealistic. I think that's where our professional body can help
us and determine if we are being too idealistic or being
realistic. If, after that discussion, it's decided that it is a
realistic problem, then I believe that with the bill as it reads
there would be protection from the association in terms of not
being able to be fired, if that's what you mean, by your
employer.
1720
My employer, Peter Grant,
is an engineer. He supports this bill. They have the same kind of
protection with the engineers. As a matter of fact, Peter Grant
will not hire a forester unless they are a registered
professional forester. He really believes there should be a high
standard, and in supporting this bill I think he believes the
standard should be even higher. As a result, I don't think I have
to worry about being reprimanded by him, because he's a very
professional person. I'd like to say that about a lot of the
companies.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: That was my next question: How
representative would Peter be?
Ms
Johnson: I've worked for both the Ministry of Natural
Resources and the forest industry. When I made the decision to
move to the forest industry as a professional-because I really
believe I became a forester because I'm an environmentalist and I
want to manage the forest in a sustainable manner and I'm very
interested in forest conservation. I believe you can do that with
harvesting. I believe that I am an environmentalist. When I
decided to take the job with the forest industry, as a
professional I was concerned that perhaps I would have to change
my standards. I was very happy after a few years to realize that,
no, the industry standards in my view are at least as high as the
standards of the government.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Johnson. I appreciate you, taking the
time to come before us here this afternoon, and particularly for
adding a little colour to our surroundings.
With that, colleagues, we
are now at the stage of committee consideration of the draft text
of the proposed legislation. I'm going to call for any comments,
questions or amendments to the draft section. Mr Hampton
apologizes. He had to leave for another engagement. I think it's
safe to say-and I did have an opportunity to speak to him
briefly-that his one concern is the definition under "scope of
practice." I think we might have an opportunity to ask the House
leaders for rapid consideration of second and third reading if we
can digest what we've heard here this afternoon and perhaps make
appropriate amendments.
Mr
Chudleigh: If it's appropriate-and I understand this is
not an extremely formal process-I might suggest that under
section 3(1), in the second line-perhaps I could read the whole
thing:
"The practice of
professional forestry is the provision of services in relation to
the development, management, conservation, and
sustainability"-adding those two words-"of forests and urban
forests where those services require knowledge, training and
experience equivalent to that required to become a member under
this act and includes,"
That way the conservation
and sustainability is in the preamble to the scope of practice
before it gets into the identification and is therefore assumed,
I would expect, to be part and parcel of (a) to (f) in the
consideration of the duties of a professional forester.
I don't know if it's
appropriate or not. We might get some comment from our assembled
guests on that as well.
The Chair:
That might be something we could do. First I'll ask Mrs
Bountrogianni if she is amenable with that proposed change. It's
not normally done that we would invite witnesses back a second
time for a show of hands-
Mr
Chudleigh: We have a lot of knowledge in the audience
here. It would be a shame to waste it.
The Chair:
I don't see any shaking heads back in the audience there to
adding those two words to the definition. I think it would
probably capture Mr Hampton's concerns. I obviously can't speak
for him, but that seemed to be the gist of his question. Perhaps,
either from legislative counsel or from you, Mr Chudleigh, I
wonder if, in looking at the bylaw powers on page 31, sections 18
and 19, that would then resolve any other lingering concerns Mr
Hampton or others might have. It tells me there that the body can
define the standards, qualifications etc pertaining to the
membership. They could certainly flesh out further definition of
those two categories.
I don't know if you wish to comment on whether that's a correct
assumption or not?
Mr
Chudleigh: It would appear so.
The Chair:
Do we have agreement to make that change to the draft bill?
Mr
Chudleigh: Can we make that a motion?
The Chair:
If you wish.
Mr
Chudleigh: Fine.
The Chair:
Mr Flagal, have you been able to digest that?
Mr James
Flagal: I think I have. If I understand it correctly, on
the second line it would read, "the development, management,
conservation, and sustainability of forests and urban
forests"?
The Chair:
Correct.
Mr Flagal:
OK, and I would also point out that the bylaw powers in section
53(1)-
Mr
Chudleigh: Page?
Mr Flagal:
Page 33. That would also be another ability for the council to
speak to those types of standards, that allow them to prescribe
governing standards of practice for the practice of professional
forestry, where they could flesh out those things.
Mr
Chudleigh: I just got the sense that perhaps Mr Hampton
would like to see it in the scope of practice, as opposed to in
the governing standards of practice that would be implemented by
the association. This would make it part of the act. The others
would make it as part of their operating standards. I think it
would be stronger placed in the scope of practice.
Mr Flagal:
It's not a change. It's another example of where they can flesh
out those particular principles.
The Chair:
Are there any other comments or proposed amendments to the bill?
Ms Munro?
Forgive me, Ms Munro, since
Mr Chudleigh made that as a motion, I should see if there are any
further comments about the amendment. Seeing none, I'll put the
question.
All those in favour of Mr
Chudleigh's motion? Carried.
Having gone through that
formality, Ms Munro?
Mrs Munro:
It becomes redundant. I was trying to jump in there before you
called the question, as part of the discussion.
The Chair:
Uh-oh. We can amend an amendment.
Mrs Munro:
No, I just wanted to comment on the logic that is inherent if you
look at development, management, conservation and sustainability.
They together, obviously, complement each other. I think one
could make the argument that the only way you have development
and management is in fact if you have conservation and
sustainability.
The Chair:
Any further comments on sections 1 through 69 of the act?
Shall the committee adopt
the text of the draft bill, as amended?
All those in favour?
Opposed, if any? The text is adopted.
As was mentioned earlier,
my name will appear automatically as a sponsor of the bill, but
there is an opportunity for all the permanent members of our
committee to have their names added as well. I wondered if, by a
show of hands, anyone else wishes to have their name appear as a
co-sponsor?
What I will do, over and
above the four members who are here, is have the clerk contact
directly the other members of the committee and offer them the
same opportunity.
Clerk, all four members
present indicated that.
I'm going to ask, in light
of the fact that this is the last week the Legislature is sitting
and the very positive response we got from witnesses of all
stripes today, whether the committee would see favourably to my,
after tabling the bill, requesting immediate second and third
reading and approval of this bill. Would that be something-
Mrs
Bountrogianni: Have you talked to Mr Ramsay? Would he be
OK with that?
Mr
Chudleigh: I understand he would be, but I can't speak
for him. I didn't speak to him specifically about that issue.
Mrs
Bountrogianni: I know that he's fully supportive of the
bill. He had no questions. He was fully supportive.
The Chair:
Perhaps what I can do, if there's no opposition from the members
present, is seek similar approval from the other members of the
committee. If they so choose, I think we could prevail on our
respective House leaders to look favourably on unanimous consent
to that.
With that, that concludes
our consideration of this act. Thanks to all the witnesses and
thanks to the members of the committee.
The committee stands
recessed to the call of the Chair.
