Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Again I notice there isn’t a quorum here tonight. I am wondering if the government is able to provide more than two members for the debate tonight.

The Chairman called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned consideration of Bill 77, An Act to amend the Crown Timber Act.

On section 5:

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I begin by asking for the consent of the House to withdraw my amendment? I understand we need unanimous consent. I want to give some reason for doing so, if I have the consent of the House to withdraw the amendment. I will read it, just to remind you what amendment I am talking about. You will want to get the flavour.

The amendment I moved was that section 5a(1) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by inserting after the word “agreement” in the sixth line, “shall provide for the yield to be sustained on the basis that at least two trees are planted for every tree cut under the agreement and to regenerating every acre harvested.”

We all know where it came from. It is a good amendment, isn’t it?

Mr. Chairman: The honourable member asked about unanimous consent. Did you want it now or at a later time?

Mr. Martel: I would like to ask consent, then I would indicate why I am withdrawing the amendment; or I can tell you why and then ask consent to withdraw it, whichever is convenient.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let’s do it the last way.

Mr. Martel: All right. Mr. Chairman, you will recall several weeks ago when we were debating this bill I was not satisfied with the term “sustained yield.” Remembering this famous Magna Carta that found its way into the last provincial election, I had no alternative but to support the Premier (Mr. Davis).

You will recall in item number seven of that magnificent charter --

Mr. Watson: That’s a great number. I like a great number.

Mr. Martel: We could leave it in, but we will come to that in a moment too. It involved a commitment to replacing at least two trees for every one harvested henceforth in Ontario and to regenerating every acre harvested. Being naive I believed the Premier, so I moved his amendment. That amendment has a history, because it was my former leader who said one tree for every tree cut. In the middle of an election the government had to do one better so they made it two trees for every one cut.

Mr. Gaunt: Do I hear three?

Mr. Martel: I thought for a while the way the minister was responding several weeks ago that three or four, it didn’t make much difference -- what was the word you were using?

Mr. Young: The spirit.

Mr. Wildman: Symbolic.

Mr. Martel: It was the spirit, it was symbolic. Well, if it is only symbolism then it is a lot of rot; but I believed the Premier where my friends over there wouldn’t.

I wanted also to move that amendment for another reason. Several years ago when I was writing to one of your predecessors about reforestation in Algonquin Park, I was again taking the naive position that we should at least replace every tree that was cut with another one. Frank Miller, our present Treasurer, told me I didn’t know what I was talking about, but it is interesting that the Premier, whom I trust, made it two for one; so obviously Frank didn’t know what he was talking about.

I thought the best way to put it into focus was to move that magnificent amendment Then I read an interesting report. Let me just quote briefly from a commission report. It says:

“When the extent of the resources to be administered and protected are reflected upon and the funds which have for several years been made available to the service considered, it is quite apparent that the forest service of Ontario has been treated quite as liberally, if not actually more so, than have other provinces and dominion. This fact notwithstanding, there is ample evidence the government of Ontario also has followed the practice of extracting too great a toll from its forest resources without returning thereto by way of protection and competent administration the amount which proper conduct of the forest business would demand.”

That statement came in a Canadian royal commission report on pulpwood in 1924. What have we done since then? I thought I would rectify it by moving the Premier’s amendment. So with Miller chastising me, with the Premier making all these grandiose promises, I went ahead. I must say I was soon shattered, to say the least, when we moved the amendment to read the minister’s response, and through him the government’s response, to the Premier’s promise; and then to find the supporters of the government prepared to stand in their place, of all things, and vote against the Premier’s amendment.

That was devastating. That is one of the reasons for my withdrawal. I felt that if they aren’t going to support the Premier and make him credible, why should I? Why should I, if that side of the House is not going to do it over there? I was prepared to do it, but when I couldn’t muster any support from that side of the House, I had no choice but to reconsider my position, which I have subsequently done.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I hope the Premier doesn’t come in before we get unanimous consent.

Mr. Martel: Well, maybe he will support me; it would be something new.

A second factor entered into my decision to ask the House for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. That was a statement prepared for the minister by some of the people in the ministry who apparently know something about forestry. Obviously the Premier didn’t.

I would just like to read into the record a few extracts from observations of the experts in this field. It doesn’t come from me; however, I want to say it doesn’t lend any credibility to the Premier’s words of wisdom back in 1977.

There were four points made about my amendment -- and I want to substitute, if I might, as I go along, the name Davis for Martel and the name Brampton to represent a riding rather than that of Sudbury East. I just want to make those substitutions because I moved the Premier’s amendment.

Mr. Foulds: In the absence of the Premier.

Mr. Martel: That’s right; I wanted to do that. Anyway, if we make those substitutions I will tell members the four reasons why I withdrew. They convinced me that they were right.

I am quoting the memorandum prepared for the minister. It says:

“This amendment in effect redefines the same yield to mean the planting of two trees for every tree harvested and regenerating every acre that is harvested.

“This redefinition of sustained yield conflicts with the definition of that expression as set out in subsection 2 of section 5a, namely, ‘a growth of timber that a forest can produce and that can be cut to achieve a continuous approximate balance between growth of timber and timber cut.’ In our opinion, this conflict that is created in virtue of the amendment proposed by the” -- member for Brampton -- “must be eliminated.”

Not shall or will, “must.” Well, it goes on. It says: “Legislation ought not to be contradictory, since the definition of sustained yield --

Mr. Hennessy: You’re using big words tonight.

Mr. Martel: That’s right; “ ... since the definition of sustained yield set out in subsection 2 of section 5a conforms, generally speaking, with the understanding of that expression by the forest professions across Canada, the US and other countries, we are of the opinion that the proposed amendment redefining sustained yield ought to be withdrawn. It would be most undesirable to adopt in legislation the definition of sustained yield proposed by the member” -- for Brampton, if I am allowed to make that insertion -- “when it would conflict with the generally accepted definition of that expression and reflect unfavourably upon the Legislature and the forestry profession in Ontario.”

Now, I didn’t realize I was doing that. I just thought I was putting into effect what the Premier foresaw for the province.

Mr. Wildman: Would Davis do that?

Mr. Foulds: The Premier was casting that reflection on the Legislature and on the forestry profession in Ontario.

[8:15]

Mr. Martel: That’s the first reason I thought I had better withdraw. It makes sense, but you know who didn’t make sense then.

Secondly, “We are advised that the amendment proposed by the member” -- for Brampton -- “would severely restrict the reforestation effort in Ontario.” I certainly don’t think that’s what the Premier wanted.

Mr. Foulds: I think he did.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur doesn’t have the floor.

Mr. Martel: On past history, when you look at the thing I quoted from 1924 and realize now it’s 1979 and we are going to get around to protecting it, maybe the Premier wanted to continue in the old way. A traditionalist to the end is Bill Davis.

Going on, this is still part two: “The amendment provides in part that the yield is to be sustained on the basis that at least two trees are planted for every one cut. This amendment restricts the method of obtaining regeneration to planting.”

I wish somebody had said that in 1977, the night that the Minister of Natural Resources was in that audience that wildly applauded the Brampton charter. My friend from Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) might have got up, knowing something about it, and contradicted the Premier as well, because obviously he was misleading us.

“We are advised that regeneration is obtained by planting, seeding and silvicultural harvesting systems. The choice of method used to obtain regeneration in any particular case depends upon many factors, such as the type of soil, the nature of the forest being harvested, the type of species to be regenerated and the objectives of management. It is reasonably clear that restricting the method of obtaining regeneration to planting would severely inhibit the reforestation effort in Ontario.” I certainly wouldn’t want to be accused of that, even if the Premier did. I wasn’t prepared to accept that burden of responsibility and so I want to indicate that that was the second reason I was prepared to withdraw my amendment.

The third one is the best. It says, thirdly, “The amendment proposed by the member” -- for Brampton -- “also has implications that are simply absurd.” Now I want to tell you, “simply absurd”; that being the case, I have to divorce myself from the Premier totally.

It further says, “The amendment states that the agreement shall provide that every acre of harvest is regenerated. The underlying word ‘shall’ means that this obligation is mandatory. However, we are advised that when a forest is harvested, about 10 to 15 per cent of its area is removed from forest production for haul roads, buildings and other permanent works.” I wish somebody had told the Premier that sooner.

“The foregoing mandatory provision would require a company to regenerate the area covered by such permanent work.” The Premier didn’t think about that, did he? Can you imagine some trees planted on the roof of some building or in the middle of the road?

Mr. Foulds: In northern Ontario that happens, let me tell you.

Mr. Martel: Here’s the final crunch. “A provision that leads to such absurdity should not, in our opinion, be legislated into law.” You can see why I am prepared to divorce myself from the Premier now. That was it.

There was one hooker in there that almost caused me to change my mind and it was the fourth hooker. The fact that the industry might object was almost enough to get me to say the Premier was right. If they couldn’t live with this amendment, maybe the Premier had something going for him after all. Obviously we reflected upon it; we met and we thought despite what the forest industry says, the professional foresters who work for the ministry know better. Despite what the Premier says, we can’t go along; we have to separate ourselves from him.

I might indicate too, Mr. Chairman, there was one further reason for the withdrawal. That was the work of the minister himself. The minister, with his staff, is about to make a statement that I think is going to be pleasing to us from the point of view that it spells out very clearly what we are going to do. The proposed amendments that the minister is prepared to make are attractive to many of the people to whom I have spoken in that they will provide us with an opportunity to make the companies accountable. That accountability will be written into law. They will indicate what has been done in various reports which will be made available. It will be forthcoming in the minister’s statement to us just where we can check, not aggregate figures but in fact area by area, agreement by agreement, what has been cut, what has been regenerated, how much has been successful, how much has failed. So for the first time in Ontario we will know through the reporting mechanisms what is going on; at least I hope that is the case.

I am also pleased with what the minister has had to say about how they intend to make this act work, to guarantee that in fact the companies will be held accountable. I hope the minister will explain the system, the mechanism for making them accountable.

All kidding aside, I am hopeful we are going to have a much better bill than we would have had if we had accepted the original bill presented to us.

Finally, I would ask the minister, and I have given him a copy of sustained yield, why it is indicated in the memorandum that the definition of sustained yield is the one acceptable in Canada and in the United States. I looked up the definition in use in the United States and it is somewhat different. I have a concern about that definition, because it deals primarily with timber. Maybe under this act, that has been deliberately so defined because of the name of the act, the Crown Timber Act.

I would have hoped we might have seen that sustained yield means achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of high level annual irregular periodic output of the various forest resources without impairment of the productivity of the land. Maybe the minister could explain why they chose the definition for sustained yield they did. It seems to me that yours is restricted to timber. I would hope that we are talking about more than just timber. I would ask the minister if he would comment.

With those few remarks, I would ask if the committee is prepared with unanimous consent to accept my request that the amendment I placed be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Martel previously moved an amendment to section 5 of the bill. This, of course, was stacked to be voted on at a later time. He has now asked for unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment. Is there unanimous consent by the committee?

Agreed.

Are there any further comments on section 5?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This will come as a great surprise to everybody. I have a small statement to make and a couple of amendments to move.

Just before I do that, I would like to deal with the last matter the honourable member from Sudbury East mentioned. The reason we are using the definition of sustained yield that we are is because the forest management agreement, as the honourable member said, relates strictly to the production of timber. The matters of the other products of the forest are covered, or will be covered, in the land-use plans that will cover all the areas in which there will be forest management agreements. To simplify matters, to make the agreements deal strictly with timber management, we have adopted the definition which is in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, because some time has elapsed since previous discussion of this bill, I would like to make a few remarks. I appreciate there is some justifiable concern by members because the bill does not go into detail concerning forest management agreement and the processes and requirements concerning the administration and monitoring of its implementation. As has been mentioned, the draft copy of the proposed agreement has been made available to any who are interested. It provides the terms and conditions which would be entered into.

There is, however, an aspect of the agreement and its implementation which is relevant to the broader picture of forest management in Ontario. The areas which would come under agreement are part of the crown forest lands covered by the forest production policy of my ministry.

I might remind the House that this policy, adopted in 1972, has a target of producing 9.1 million cunits annually by the year 2020. Of this total, 7.1 million cunits can be expected to come from crown land. When compared to the 3.9 million cunits produced from crown land in the fiscal year of 1971-72, the time of initiation of the policy, the increase will be 82 per cent. The present annual cut from crown lands is 5.6 million cunits.

We are therefore involved in bringing about some very significant increases in productivity which must depend upon increased efforts by all concerned. I emphasized previously that the performance required by a company in respect of harvesting, regeneration and tending treatments will be set out in the ground rules of each agreement. Not only are the treatments prescribed, but so are related standards by which their success or failure is to be judged. It will be appreciated that these treatments must relate to the particular forest conditions of a company area.

For instance, treatment for black spruce forest on peat soils will differ from that for jackpine on sands. Our prime concern is that forest lands are regenerated and kept productive. On an annual basis, therefore, the treatments will be known and monitored yearly, because they must conform to the conditions of the agreement before payment of the invoices.

My ministry has developed a certification procedure for these treatments; we shall therefore have an annual documentation of what has been performed. This certification will be done by registered professional foresters from both the company and the ministry staff. In itself, the carrying out of a regeneration treatment, even though done to the best possible prescription, does not ensure that productivity is maintained. Whether the regeneration is from seeds or from planted trees, there is a period required for establishment.

We have determined that within five years from the time of regeneration treatment, the new forest shall be assessed to see whether it conforms to the specified standards and is acceptable. This does not mean after every regeneration treatment we just walk away and forget about it until the fifth year. There will be intermediate assessments. If the trees in the planted area were all to die in the second year after planting, for instance, it would be considered a failure and a retreatment would be called for immediately. Generally speaking, however, it is not until the fifth year that a final decision can be made as to the success or failure of an area.

Every fifth year, the sum of the effects of management practices relating to forest productivity, the harvesting or depletion, and the successful regeneration and new growth or additions to the forest during the past five years, are assessed. From these assessments the allowable cut for the next five years will be determined. This is the essence of what is meant by sustained yield. The actions or treatments for regeneration during each five-year period and their success have an immediate and measurable effect on a company’s allowable cut.

At the end of each five-year period, the performance of the company shall be reviewed and if its obligations have been satisfactorily performed the agreement will be extended a further five years; that is, a company will have a 20-year agreement as it did when the agreement was initiated. This is why it has been termed an evergreen agreement.

[8:30]

However, if the obligations are not satisfactorily performed, the agreement will not be extended. The company will only have a 15-year period remaining, but will have to perform the obligations which were in default before the agreement can be extended; otherwise the agreement may be terminated.

A company’s performance will therefore affect both its allowable cuts and its tenure or term of agreement.

Needless to say, the monitoring and information system required to ensure we are up to date on treatments and their results must be modern and efficient. That is why my ministry is actively developing such a system to be in place for these agreement areas as well as our own crown units. I believe the requirements we have already formulated for the silvicultural treatments of harvesting, regeneration and tending, and the reporting of these results in relation to the productivity of the area, are important enough that they should be reflected in the legislation.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I will move an amendment to subsection 1 of section 5a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, that will provide some legislative assurances in respect to some of the foregoing matters.

In particular, the amendment will provide that the forest management agreements must set out the silvicultural specifications that are to be observed and performed in respect of harvesting, regeneration and tending of the forest areas to which the agreements apply. In addition, the agreements will set out the standards of regeneration to be achieved. These provisions will provide the necessary yardsticks to assess the success of treatments that are performed to improve forest productivity.

In keeping with these assurances, I will also move an amendment to section 5a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, that is aimed at keeping the House better informed on the progress being made under the agreements in regard to management of the forests.

In this respect, two reports will be tabled before the House. The first will report on the areas harvested, regenerated and tended under the agreements in each year of the period of the agreements by working group areas for each agreement. This will enable a comparison to be made between the mandatory silvicultural treatments specified in the agreements and the accomplishments achieved in these respects for the year in question.

The second report will report on the relationships between the harvest and growth, including successes and failures of regeneration of timber during each five-year term of the forest management agreements.

Members will appreciate that this relationship is the essence of forest management on a sustained yield basis, an objective that all members have indicated they support.

Finally, I will move an amendment to section 5a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, that will require the tabling before the House of each forest management agreement and each amendment thereto. This disclosure of information and the statutory assurances in respect of the content of forest management agreements aimed at regeneration and productivity will keep the members of the House and their constituents informed in respect of this new approach to forest management in Ontario.

I understand there are two further amendments to come from the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), which she asked me to comment on at this time.

Mr. Chairman: It might be better if you waited and replied when the amendments were put.

According to my notes, when we were last sitting and discussing this bill there was an amendment placed by Mr. Foulds, adding a subsection to section 5. The chair had not placed the amendment. I wonder what the honourable member wanted done with this particular amendment.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, in view of the information I have about the amendments the minister will be placing at this time, I would withdraw the amendment I put, but I would make two points in doing so. One is that the minister’s amendment, to give him credit because he has better legal advice than I do, is actually somewhat better because he added the term “not only to lay a copy of the agreement but any amendments to the agreement.” I think it would be neater, legislatively, if I withdrew this on the condition that it’s referred to in history from now on as the “Foulds-Auld” amendment, just as the amendment that has been withdrawn previously will go down in history as the “Davis-Martel” amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I take it, then, the member is withdrawing his amendment? I will now place the minister’s amendments.

Hon. Mr. Auld moves that subsection 1 of section 5a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may enter into an agreement with any person for the management of crown timber on a sustained yield basis and for carrying out all operations necessary for such management and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing every such agreement shall set out,

“(a) the silvicultural specifications that are to be observed and performed in respect to the harvesting, regeneration and tending of the forest areas that are subject to the agreement, and;

“(b) the standards of regeneration to be achieved on the forest areas that are subject to the agreement and may provide for;

“(c) the cutting of crown timber and the prices therefor;

“(d) the cutting of killed or damaged crown timber and other crown timber that, in any other crown timber that, in the ministry’s opinion should in the interests of economic forest utilization, be cut with such killed or damaged crown timber subject to such prices, if any, and to such terms and conditions as the minister and such persons may agree upon;

“(e) the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of any road necessary to such management and operations;

“(f) a reduction of the stumpage charges to be paid by such person for any increase in the volume of crown timber that was cut and is the direct of any silvicultural treatment applied at the expense of such person; the preparation of plans, rules and reports of any other documents to such management and operations; and

“(h) such other terms and conditions as the minister and such person may agree upon that are not inconsistent with the regulations and, except in the case of a provision made under clause (b) or (f), any such agreement should be subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in the regulations.”

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, after long hours of negotiations between the three parties on this, I don’t really have any problem with accepting the amendment as laid out by the minister, except that I wonder why it hadn’t been brought forward in similar form to begin with.

However, I do have a problem relating to the comment that he made in introducing these amendments. I’m not sure whether my remarks come exactly under the amendment as put, but I want to make them, and the minister can take cognizance of them now because I don’t believe they come up under the other two amendments.

In his remarks before he put the amendment to section 5, he spoke about the actions or treatments to ensure regeneration and growth during each five-year period and their success having an immediate and measureable effect on a company’s allowable cut. I am not going to regurgitate and reiterate the argument we made the last time we debated the bill about the mere fact that if somebody does not live up to his regeneration agreement with the minister, the minister, in his wisdom, whoever he or she may be, is going to say to company A, “You didn’t live up to your agreement. You had five years and you didn’t do enough silviculture, you didn’t do enough regeneration, you didn’t do enough aerial seeding and you didn’t do enough tree planting; therefore we are going to cut down on your allowable cut.”

The immediate effect of that is on the people in the immediate area; the employees of that plant are the ones most directly affected. The company is going to say, “All right, the Minister of Natural Resources has said we didn’t live up to our agreement, therefore we can’t produce X tons of pulp and paper or kraft or whatever it happens to be, and therefore you are all laid off.”

My friends to the left and myself, as well as the minister’s own members, would be the first ones breathing down his back or breathing down his neck, saying, “Why are you doing away with their allowable cut? All you have done is created massive unemployment by doing this.”

I say to the minister again, and I won’t go through it all again, this does not solve the problem of them not living up to an agreement. He has to hit them in their pocketbooks, where it really hurts.

The second part of that equation makes no sense at all, and I say this with respect, perhaps, to the lawyer who drew this amendment up. It makes no sense, I would think, to anybody engaged in the forest industry. I find it hard to believe that the minister’s advisers, some of whom are sitting in front of him, would agree to that, unless all the educational process I have been through in 12 years of talking about forests and trees is worth naught. He has told us, and I think my friends the members for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), and Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) would agree, that the allowable cut is based on the mature timber in the forest. One cuts out those trees that have reached a certain age, at which if they aren’t cut they are going to die anyway. They should be cut, because like some of us in this chamber they are going to pass away.

Now is the minister saying that if they don’t do the regeneration properly the government will cut back on their allowable cut so those trees that should be cut won’t be cut? Is that the gist of what he is saying? That is certainly the way I read it. If one doesn’t do one’s regeneration, if they aren’t good boys, if they don’t live up to the contract, first of all the people who are going to suffer are the employees in the communities where these pulp and paper mills and timber companies are located.

Secondly, he is going to create a situation in which those trees, that supposedly are mature and should be cut, in the wisdom of the ministry and the wisdom of the timber management branch of the companies we are dealing with, will not be cut because the company has not lived up to its agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go on as long about this as I did before, but I would ask the minister to either reconsider or give us a couple of good reasons, tonight, why we should accept this amendment as is and why we should accept his word on the basis of the regeneration agreement not being lived up to. Why would he not use some punitive measures that are not going to affect the employees of the company, are not going to hurt the forest as such in terms of not using the mature stands that are there; but which would really put the onus and the punitive burden on the companies through some kind of monetary action if they don’t live up to these agreements. That would get their attention a lot faster.

[8:45]

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think the honourable member is forgetting what I mentioned previously, as I recall. First of all, the allowable cut is not measured primarily or only on mature timber; it is really calculated on all age classes of timber. The important thing to remember is that any decrease of the allowable cut in five years is going to be relatively small when you look at it in that light. The really effective part of this, in our opinion, is the board of directors of that company now finds that instead of a 20-year evergreen agreement they only have 15 years.

They still have the same investment in their operation. If I were an investor I would be wondering what sort of management there was in this company. I think there can be a very real or apprehended penalty on the part of the company and its board when it sees they still have this large mill, or whatever operation it is, but instead of a 20-year agreement they now only have a 15-year agreement, and if they don’t sharpen up it is going to be a shorter one.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We have been through this debate before. We all know the history of regeneration in Ontario, particularly in the last 36 years. We know you haven’t come down heavily on any company involved in the pulp and paper or the timber industry. We really don’t expect you are going to do so now. They don’t expect you are going to, so I really say to you again that when you say it is going to affect their allowable cut or their 20-year agreement, as it is they have been getting along on five-year agreements and it hasn’t hurt them.

There is a psychological impact. I can understand the investor’s concern when they only have a five-year contract, but you don’t really mean to tell me you expect Great Lakes, for instance, to put $200 million in Dryden without some kind of guarantees, either out on the table or in the boardroom somewhere between yourself and them, or the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), or the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) or whoever. You don’t really mean to tell me you are going to say to them, “If you don’t live up to a regeneration agreement, Charlie, we will cut you back to 15 years. If you don’t do that, we will cut you to 10; and by the way we want you to invest $400 million in Reed Paper in Dryden.”

I know I still have a little bit of naivety and that sort of thing, but I don’t think you really expect anybody here who has been involved with these things to really believe or agree with that argument, and nobody does.

Let us say Great Lakes doesn’t live up to their agreement. In 15 years you come along and say: “That’s it. You don’t have an agreement any more. You have got to sell your $400 million investment to somebody.” What if nobody comes along who wants to buy it?

It doesn’t make any sense. We are not dealing in reality. We might be dealing with some nice theoretical situation somebody has dreamed up somewhere, but we are not dealing with the political realities or the economic realities, or certainly the historical realities of what has happened in the resource business, particularly in the forest business in the province.

I can tell I am not going to win this point with the minister. Perhaps I should put an amendment and hope my friends will support me. I really don’t think what you are proposing in this amendment, and what you have said in your remarks to it, is going to affect anything a tinker’s dam in really forcing these companies to live up to these kinds of agreements.

I can tell you, I will bet even money right now, that in five years we are going to have at least half a dozen timber companies which have not lived up to their agreements for one reason or another. The minister of the day is going to wring his hands and say, “Isn’t that terrible? My God, we have talked strongly to them, but do you people over there really expect us to put men out of work because they didn’t live up to their regeneration agreements?”

He is going to say to the member for Sudbury East, for example, “Do you really want us to cut back on their timber limits so they have to cut down on production and 200 of your constituents will be out of work? Do you really want us to do that?”

We will then be in that same position as the people on that side of the House who have 36 years of experience -- and they do it very well -- of making all the mistakes and blaming it on the opposition. I just say one more time: “It isn’t going to work; it isn’t going to fly, Wilbur.”

I think the government should change this aspect of it. There should be some monetary penalties in this whole thing, because what the government is trying to do by way of penalizing the company is only going to penalize individuals who work there and the communities they support; and it is going to have very negligible effects on the companies themselves.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I pointed out previously that this is really a new ball game. I don’t disagree with the honourable member. In the past, and currently, timber licenses are on a 21-year period subject to renewal for another 20 years. Up to the present time, if somebody was not performing, it involved the crown itself as the responsible agency. We discussed that earlier. There is a great change in this approach.

I would agree that nobody is going to walk into any company at the end of the 21st year and say, “Well, fellows, you haven’t done anything; you are out of business tomorrow.”

Mr. T. P. Reid: Even in 10 years it’s not going to make any difference.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That’s right. The pressures that will be exerted on every member in this House from the public and everybody else might not be as great in Cornwall, where there are other industries as well as Domtar, as they certainly would be in those communities in other parts of the province where pulp and paper or whatever kind of timber industry involved is the economic base of the whole area.

I believe with the combination of things we are doing in these amendments to foster regeneration, we will have a much better lever. We will not be going into court trying to collect damages and trying to prove what those damages are because of a shortfall in regeneration in four or five years.

I think pressure is exerted on the company in the area by those people in the area. Pressure on the boardroom of that company will be really quite significant. In the event it turns out we are wrong, then this Legislature meets frequently and there may well have to be some further amendments, but I think it’s worth a try. Of course there is no argument, the companies will all enter into an agreement.

Mr. Foulds: I have a couple of comments I would like to make. I am not quite as cynical as my friend the member for Rainy River in saying that these agreements won’t work, although he has been in this Legislature four years longer than I have, and four years from now I may be as cynical as he is with regard to these agreements.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Wait four more years.

Mr. Foulds: Exactly. I can understand that. I prefer to think of myself as a happy and hopeful pessimist, but I share some of the concerns, because as I said at some point in the previous debate we are in danger of putting all our eggs in one basket and seeing this as the nirvana of the forest management process. I am not sure, even with the amendments the minister has presented, which admittedly strengthened the bill considerably, we are going to reach that. I hope you received my note and that one of your people is considering the question.

Hon. Mr. Auld: You didn’t sign it so I didn’t respond to it.

Mr. Foulds: Sorry; I was the one who sent you the note asking how you felt about adding the words “in perpetuity” in your definition of sustained yield on page three.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Normally I don’t respond to anonymous letters but in this case I will.

Mr. Foulds: I’ll sign it. It would be after the word “balance” in line three of the new section 5(a), subsection 2 of the act, and before the word “between”; so that at least we have the idea in legislation that sustained yield carries on forever, in an evergreen way just as the agreements will be evergreen agreements, in fact permanent agreements if the conditions are met by both parties.

I don’t think that interferes with what you are trying to achieve and the flexibility you want in the legislation. I would like you to consider that seriously, because I have some worries about the continuity of funding. As I read through the draft agreements between the minister and whatever companies will sign them, I was reminded of something I had forgotten. The agreements do not have to be lived up to either by the crown or by the companies involved if -- and I am looking for the -- well, I will just read the two sections that concern me. Section 27(a) in the draft agreement says: “Where an assessment that has been made under subparagraph one indicates that the said parts not stocked in accordance with the ground rules, except where such parts have not been treated with the treatment by the company in virtue of the lack of an appropriation by the Legislature of Ontario, the company at its expense agrees to then reforest such lands in accordance with the ground rules.” Over on section 32(1): “The obligations of the minister to pay moneys under this agreement are each subject to the condition precedent that moneys are appropriated therefor by the Legislature of the province of Ontario...”

Now I can accept, with faith, hope and charity, that those things are going to happen, but in fact in treating the crown forests since 1962 we haven’t appropriated enough money in the Legislature for the government to carry out the reforestation. We in the opposition, even though we are the majority today, cannot increase that appropriation, and that gives me some concern, because it’s the continuity of funding that I think will be important for the continuation of silviculture in the future, in perpetuity.

I understand, for example, that Manitoba has established a trust fund; I think it’s $9 a cord they charge for all woods cut. The fees go into a trust fund for silvicultural purposes. I know it has not been the practice of this government to designate funding. It has always put those returns into general consolidated revenue and I have some sympathy for that; however, I really do think we have to seek in legislative form some way of saying there should be a balance between growth of timber and timber cut in perpetuity, so that we genuinely do have sustained yield.

[9:00]

There are a couple of other points not related to that which I would like to make. I think they have been met by the minister’s statement. One is it is clear now the annual statement will be for each individual agreement, although we will get them compiled so we have both a summary and an evaluation of the success or failure. I think it was important for the minister to underline that would be for each agreement.

I have a suggestion I would like to make. Although I am not going to make it as an amendment at this point, I think it should be considered seriously. The five-year audit the minister mentioned, the five-year review, should be done by an independent group. It should not be done merely by a company forester and a ministry forester, but perhaps by bringing in a professional forester from outside of the province and one from the academic community. That way, that audit which is tabled on a five-year basis will be seen to have the stamp of approval of professional foresters other than those who, frankly, have a vested interest here in Ontario.

I know when we discussed this with the minister’s officials I actually wanted to introduce an amendment in legislation which would indicate that the agreement -- actually, I’ll wait until we get to the next amendment before I go into this one.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, my advice, through my legal adviser, who is sitting in front of me, is that in perpetuity is redundant, because the definition of continuous or sustained yield in the current jargon really says it all.

Secondly, and it seems to me the Treasurer mentioned this in the House not too long ago in connection with something else, one government cannot bind the succeeding government. Anything the Legislature can do in a statute, it can undo in a subsequent statute. The point about guaranteeing a sum of money in perpetuity for reforestation just could not happen.

Mr. Foulds: I understand that. That’s why I wanted the legislative format for the sustained yield.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Anything the Legislature can do, the Legislature can undo. You can produce a format for a sinking fund and a subsequent government can come and amend or repeal that act.

Mr. Martel: We are trying to guarantee some money to work with so the chairman of management --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Some Chairmen of Management Board of Cabinet have been very generous. Some, I know, wish they knew which ministry they were going to be in after they were in the management board post.

In connection with the five-year audit, frankly, I would think that is not going to be done as an arbitration board exercise. Our foresters and the company foresters will look at the results and the report will come to the ministry. The ministry will then say to the company it is doing a great job or it is not doing a great job. I would say I would prefer it this way, rather than in effect conceivably having a two-to-one split on some factor affecting the performance.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Did the member for Port Arthur want to finish a point? If it was a different point, the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Bolan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to raise several points with respect to this amendment, in the nature of comments and questions I will ask of the ministry.

The longer we seem to struggle with this bill the more apparent the deficiencies of the reforestation program which this province has undertaken, or failed to undertake, over the past number of years become. I think it’s an axiom which is accepted by many in the forest industry today that 15 years from now Ontario won’t have any trees.

If you were to walk out on the street and say that to somebody, or if you were to address a bunch of school children and tell them that the province of Ontario is running out of trees, they’d cart you away in a straitjacket until they started looking at some of the facts, and at some of the people who are very much involved in this. It becomes very apparent that, given the mess we’re in right now, we are running out of trees.

In 1973, after finally realizing that the ad hoc policy this government had was simply not getting anyplace as far as reforestation was concerned, the government introduced what is called the forest production policy. It sought to intensify forest management and sustain the forest industry with an annual cut of 9.1 million cunits of industrial roundwood by the year 2020.

Since then we have been deluged with a number of statistics on the amount of regeneration which has taken place in Ontario. For example, it was said that in 1977, 173,000 acres were treated for regeneration; in 1978 the government had planned to treat 185,000 acres; in 1979 the government treated 193,000 acres.

But these statistics, Mr. Chairman, are really meaningless; they mean absolutely nothing unless the survival rate of trees is reported to us as well. What I would like to know, as I’m sure many of us would like to know, is how many of the acres being regenerated are judged to be successfully regenerated? Just as important, if not more important, how many of these acres are judged to have regenerated forests? How many of the acres which were treated by the ministry, let’s say in the year 1979, have been treated a second or even a third time because they may not have judged to have been satisfactorily regenerated after their original treatment?

In other words, the ministry’s treatment acreage may be going up but how much of it is repetitious? It’s fine for the minister to say the program is treating more today than was treated two or three years ago or five or 10 years ago or whatever the case may be, but how much repetition is there in the acres which are being treated?

We could not find this in any published statistics. All the statistics the ministry puts out respecting regeneration do not include an assessment of the rate of failure. By finding out the rate of failure we can get to know that much more about regeneration.

I think it should be mandatory that the government include in its reports dealing with reforestation a separate category listing the percentage level of failure for every acre planted. This will increase the level of knowledge for the general public but will also aid in the plans for reforestation of cutover lands. I cannot stress too strongly that knowledge of the survival rate is vital to the regeneration program.

In an article by Professor Hearnden called Regeneration in Ontario, Professor Hearnden reported that in the cutover area many trees were planted without any form of site preparation, and I will have more to say about that later. They either died from moisture stress shortly after planting or were later suppressed by competing vegetation.

Hearnden also suggests that a part of the high failure rate was due to the fact that a very large program exhausted Ministry of Natural Resources manpower and supervisory capability, resulting in poor handling and planting practices.

He then goes on to state that nursery and field cold storage units are being installed at all major production and planting centres to reduce handling and storage problems. What I would like to know is, how can this end the overextended aspects of the planting program that resulted in the exhaustion of MNR personnel capability?

This information does not come from the government report but rather from an article in the magazine called Pulp and Paper Canada. Yet Hearnden is a ministry official and the Ministry of Natural Resources simply must be aware that this information exists. If it does, why is it not published by the ministry and why is the ministry consistently only reporting information which it feels is favourable to the government?

This type of information should be available to the public. There are many things which came out of the first conference on regeneration. I was sad to see that some of the constructive ones which did come out have not been adopted, or for that matter even considered by the government.

One of the speakers who took part in this conference was Professor Hearnden from one of the northern universities. He stated there were two major aspects that must be overcome before regeneration in Ontario forests will be successful. If the minister thinks that flogging this bill before us is the end-all and cure-all of the reforestation problems this province has, he certainly has another think coming. Believe me, it’s only the beginning.

Professor Hearnden identified the two broad groups of problems as institutional and natural. Those are the two types of problems which he identified and said must be overcome if the regeneration programs in Ontario are to be successful.

Under the natural group, he believes there is a great difference between soils and site conditions which produce different forest growth rates, yields, rotation ages and species suitability. The result is that there is a great need to develop a number of different silvicultural activities that can be applied on a relatively small scale. Until these diversified conditions are recognized, any reforestation program based on simple large area clear-cut and plant routines will continue to have large failure rates.

[9:15]

A second major natural obstacle to silviculture following logging, according to Hearnden, is the “incredible volume of residual wood in cutover areas.”

The residual wood includes the stands of species not wanted or tree lengths or portions left in the extraction process.

A study conducted by someone involved in it has found that full utilization of stands in typical operating areas would increase the yield by 23 to 72 per cent.

The second group of problems is probably the most crucial for the regeneration problem and this falls under the category of the institutional problems. The institutional deterrents are the provincial government and the forest industry itself.

As far as the provincial government is concerned, I think it’s quite clear that over the years the government has lacked a comprehensive forest policy, together with no statutory commitments to the principle of the sustained yield.

The bill, and the amendment to the bill which is being presented by the government tonight, will go some way in solving the statutory commitment but it by no means is even starting to bring us to where we really should be had we followed good reforestation programs over the years.

One of the other problems is that crown management units overlap regions and districts. Additional company management units and Forest Resources Inventory-based map units are all directed towards the protection, the sale and the disposal of land, timber and natural resources rather than towards sustained-yield management.

Another problem is that almost all administrative regions are totally unrelated to any natural or geographic aspect of the land upon which the regions have been superimposed.

The government has also allowed a system of tenure which has enabled a few large companies to control major portions of crown land, which has created for all intents and purposes a monopoly situation. The effect of this has been to create a major psychological deterrent, because the sheer signs of licences held provided the feeling that an unlimited amount of timber exists.

Also, the unit forester-manager should be a key person in forest regeneration. However, it’s been found that few of the foresters today reveal any continuity of management experience.

There is also a total lack of accountability in the forest-management program. It’s impossible to identify the person responsible either for designing or implementing programs. In fact, as Professor Hearnden mentioned, the faceless committees appear to be the protective means of ensuring that no one can be expected to perform effectively.

The second group generating institutional problems is the forest industry itself. There are three main points I would like to bring out on this.

First is the lack of commitment. Industries hold a short-term perspective. That short-term view translates into a cut-out and get-out mentality: go in, get the timber cut and get it out. Again, this approach has been created by the views of the industry in this regard.

There is another interesting report by Professor Ken Armson called Forest Management in Ontario. He devotes a fair amount of space to the discussion of the need for a single system of documentation for regeneration and its assessment.

He reports this is absolutely necessary for management decision-making. A regeneration assessment is a form of inventory so that we know what we have. In itself it is not a productive exercise, but the information it yields should be in so far as it improves management decision-making. In the same report Armson recommended that an assessment of planting stock be made within one or two years of planting.

I realize the bill does have something to do with that. Armson suggests also that standards be developed to determine the survival rate of the seedlings. Then he sets out certain percentages which should be considered with respect to the type of survival one would expect.

There is another very important question which is raised in this report. It is the question of pre-cut and post-cut surveys. Should these not be undertaken for all cuts? Before you go in with a cut and level, is it not wise, if we are going to make sound decisions with respect to regenerations and the treatments of those areas which are cut, that we have a pre-cut survey?

Our decisions as to the type of cutting and subsequent regeneration treatments have been made without appropriate prior knowledge. The cost of such pre-cut or post-cut surveys would more often be offset by the far more costly failures which can occur in regeneration because of the improper judgements which are based upon sparse or faulty knowledge.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I wonder if the member is going to proceed much longer? As you know we are dealing with an amendment here. This sounds more like a speech that might be given on second reading of the bill. I know the bill has been altered considerably and it may be a good speech, but I am trying to relate it particularly to the amendment we have before us.

Mr. Bolan: I am relating to the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking of regeneration; I am speaking of silviculture; I am speaking precisely of amendments which the government is bringing in now, amendments which should have been brought under a bill about 30 years ago. I feel very strongly that the remarks I am making now are all directed at the amendment. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment had not been brought in by the member for Sudbury East, followed by the amendments which the minister has now brought forward in substitution for that, I wouldn’t even be talking about this. The whole question would have been handled by two-for-one. However the door has been opened again, and as far as I am concerned we can take another kick at the cat. That is precisely what I intend doing, subject of course to the ruling of the chair.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am not going to argue too much with the member -- the member is not going to sit down now, is he? I didn’t mean him to be that brief, but I would appreciate it if he might just limit his remarks to the section which he says he is covering.

Mr. Bolan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing my appeal. If we are going to get into this question of sustained yield and the question of regeneration and reforestation, I think it is only fair to examine other jurisdictions. What we might try to do, even as we are debating this amendment right now, is to consider some of the good features which other jurisdictions have. I get the impression it is something which this ministry hasn’t really got into to any great extent. It could very well be that Ontario should incorporate into its forestry policy some of the best ideas from other provinces.

For example, in British Columbia 95 per cent of the productive forest land is held by the crown. It is managed for sustained yield. Most of the areas are managed either as tree farm licences or as public sustained yield units.

The tree-farm licences are areas in which the annual cut has been reserved exclusively for the holder, usually for renewable periods of 21 years. In exchange, the licensee must operate in accordance with a working plan to treat forest lands that must be approved by the forest service.

These forestry treatments can be recovered as an offset against stumpage, providing stumpage rates don’t go below their predetermined minimum. Then there is the public sustained-yield unit, which is another method of management.

Alberta has a very comprehensive forest regeneration program managed in accordance with the principle of sustained yield. All harvesting in Alberta requires forest-service approval, and the companies must fulfil certain guidelines.

For example, it requires that no more than one-half of the forested area in a watershed can be cut at a time. The area reserved from the first cut cannot be harvested until regeneration of the first cut has grown to at least 1.8 meters. All forest management agreement holders are required to reforest their cutover lands, and quota holders may elect to pay a fee and have the forest service do the regenerating.

All site preparation must occur within one year of logging. By preparing the seed bed the chances of a fire hazard on harvested areas are reduced. All regenerated land must be surveyed for success every seventh year after logging. Private companies may receive preplanting stock if they first supply the necessary seed. These are some of the methods used in that province.

Saskatchewan also has a very aggressive reforestation program, as has Quebec. I think one of the most interesting programs is that of Sweden, where forest owners are required to ensure that forests are regenerated after clear cutting by harvesting in a manner which will encourage some natural regeneration and by artificial seeding or planting.

About 60 per cent of the land is artificially regenerated, mainly by planting. Seeding is used only to a limited degree. It is anticipated that in Sweden 75 per cent of the cutover land will be planted by 1990 rather than the current 60 per cent.

One aspect of forest treatment that occurs in Sweden, which either does not occur in Ontario or certainly is not emphasized, is drainage ditching. Between 1971 and 1974 an average of 4,000 kilometres of forest-drainage ditches were dug each year. In addition, $1.5 million is spent each year on the maintenance of existing ditches. I think this might be an interesting point, because the forests in Sweden are mainly coniferous -- 37 per cent scotch pine and 46 per cent Norway spruce, with some white birch.

In Ontario the black spruce requires damp soil to grow in. When large areas of trees are harvested the water table is drastically upset because the trees are no longer there to draw the water up from the soil. When the trees are harvested by machine -- another area which is causing very grave concern in the reforestation programs -- those machines leave large ruts which fill with water, which means spruce are unable to regenerate. Perhaps drainage ditches in areas with large concentrations of black spruce would go a long way in alleviating the problem.

[9:30]

Another very interesting thing in Sweden is that commercial thinnings are a major portion of the forestry industry activity, especially as a source of pulpwood. Between 1956 and 1961 alone, 58 per cent of the harvested material came from thinnings and only 42 per cent from the final crop itself. That is a healthy percentage. Perhaps Ontario’s pulp manufacturers should take note of this.

I want to deal with one more country by way of comparison, and that is Finland. In Finland there is a private forest act which regulates forest practices on private land. Incidentally, private land in Finland amounts to about 65 per cent of the productive area.

In practice it means that a regeneration plan must be prepared and approved before harvesting commences. Before they even start to cut there has to be a plan in place for all to see. Usually the plan provides that sufficient funds will be set aside from the sale of the timber to regenerate the site. As a result of this accepted practice, reforestation is a part of the harvesting cost. The farmers, that is the landowners, must deposit money in a regeneration trust fund before undertaking a clear cut; this is only refunded when a new crop has been successfully established.

I point out these programs in other parts of the world, and also in other parts of this country, because we are obviously not getting anywhere, in spite of the many efforts we have made at reforestation.

One of the big problems is the question of planting, the planting operation itself. The number of trees planted in 1912 was something like 76 million. In 1977 that number was 45 million. I realize there are other regeneration treatments to supplement tree planting, but perhaps the minister could answer why there has been such a drastic cutback.

The Ministry of Natural Resources, as the minister knows, maintains seed collection areas, seed production areas and seed orchards. However, only 10 per cent of the seeds used in Ontario come from these areas. The origin of the other 90 per cent is identified only on the basis of broad, general regions. This can be one reason for the high failure rate of seedlings. Soil types are different all over the province and often will not support seeds gathered from other regions. It is important to plant seeds from the same area, a fact that is recognized by other provinces.

For example, in British Columbia seeds are normally returned to the area in which the seed was collected. In Alberta the use of seeds is restricted to a radius of 80 kilometers and an elevation difference of 150 metres from the original source. In Manitoba there are designated seed zones from which young stock is grown for planting back in its respective zones; and seed is obtained from best natural stands, some of which are already reserved exclusively for this purpose. New Brunswick has encouraged the establishment of cone selection programs, seed regeneration and the reservation of seed production areas.

What I would like to know is what plans this government has when it talks about the money from DREE that will be allocated to nurseries? What plans does it have for that money?

On the minister’s own admission, Mr. Chairman, the black spruce tree has not put out good seed crops for 11 years. Generally, black spruce generation from seed is rather difficult, but it’s easy through the vegetative propagation. Where logging is done manually, natural regeneration of black spruce is easily established prior to the cutting by deciding to do a commercial clear-cut. Where the trees are harvested mechanically, natural regeneration is difficult because a thick layer of moss forms a seed bed and damages the seed bed for both natural regeneration and artificial seeding and planting. One solution to this is strip clear-cutting, followed by soil scarifying.

As you know, Mr. Minister, jackpine seldom regenerates satisfactorily after cutting. The seed beds usually must be prepared by scarifying. The control-burn is a successful and inexpensive way to promote natural regeneration.

Clear-cutting in blocks or strips can be used in old jackpine stands for regeneration. When you are doing this strip-cutting or clear-cutting, you might want to look again at the way they do it in Sweden, where they checkerboard it. This has a secondary effect, which I think your wildlife people will tell you about. It’s not only secondary to what we are talking about tonight but also of vital importance. This experiment was carried out in Sweden and the moose herds jumped tremendously as a result of this checkerboard pattern type of cutting.

So it was also a benefit and break for the moose as well as practicing good and sound regeneration programs.

Mr. C. I. Miller: You’re giving a lesson to the minister tonight.

Mr. Bolan: Many of these solutions are set out in various reports; they were covered in the second conference on regeneration of 1979 and the timber revenue task force of October 1975. Several suggestions were made by Professor Hearnden at the Black Spruce symposium in September 1975. I think one of the biggest areas where we are failing is in the question of research. I think research in this area is crucial. How can we develop plants that will grow faster in specific regions, and how can we develop machines that are designed solely to accommodate the Canadian northern climate and soils as well as determine and develop the most effective methods of harvesting and regenerating naturally areas best suited to what trees if we don’t have research? This is an area which should be stressed and it’s an area where the ministry should be very much concerned.

Another point I would like to mention again is on reforestation and concerns seed collection and dispersement. This can be tied in with research, but it is important for its own sake. Ontario collects seeds then disperses them. The ministry will proudly state that it has dispersed several hundreds of thousands of bushels of seeds; but it’s useless. It’s useless because seeds will not just grow anywhere. They require specific soil conditions.

I would urge the ministry to consider some kind of a system which is similar to that of Alberta, where seeds are moved no further than 80 kilometers from where they were originally collected.

There is no question we could go on and on about this. I have 10 more pages which I would proudly read; however, I have to respect those others who would like to speak on the matter tonight.

I want to leave you with these final words. What once was to be an heritage of bountiful trees and unlimited resources in the forest industry, is left as a legacy of a few scrubby, burned-out bushes. That, to me, is synonymous with 36 years of the type of rule which this province has received. I think the condition of your government is as bad as the reforestation program of this province. The bill is going to help things somewhat, but believe me it is not a panacea for the lumber industry and for the pulp and paper industry. We would hope to see more measures brought forward to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I have two specific comments on the actual amendments before us. I might add I have consulted with both Professor Hearnden and Professor Armson about the amendment before us.

One point about which I wanted to get some clarification is that in this specific amendment before us, I noticed clauses (b) and (f) are exempted from the prescription and regulation of the amendment. To some extent, I can understand the necessity of that with (b). I am not sure I understand it in relationship to (f), because (f) relates to the reduction of stumpage fees. I can understand you might want some flexibility in terms of a formula there. I would make a very strong plea in that you can argue back they should be prescribed in regulation because of the rigidity that might give you, but both those, particularly clause (f), should be public knowledge.

Mr. Chairman: Order. There are a number of private conversations which are very distracting. The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is really important that if there is a reduction in stumpage fees as a result of the conditions outlined in clause (f), that should be public knowledge tabled in the Legislature so we can get an idea of whether the cost benefit is worthwhile.

I have one other point. I want to make it very quickly, simply because it had been my hope, if not the hope of others, that this bill be completed tonight. Why is it necessary, and forgive me if this is one of my hobby horses, to use the word “may” for the last set of clauses, that is clauses (c) to (h)? Why can’t it be “shall”?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could address himself briefly to the question we discussed privately. That is the question of agreements. I would like him to address himself publicly to the question of the kinds of agreements we are now discussing in the bill. It is my understanding the ministry eventually hopes to get the 10 major pulp and paper companies into these kinds of evergreen agreements. The concern I’d like the minister to address is why we cannot make them mandatory over a series of years, phasing them in. If that is not possible, what are we going to do in the interim to cover those areas that are not covered by these agreements, and therefore we have no assurance there will be regeneration. In short, what are we going to do to catch up with the 20 per cent or more that will never be under the terms of these agreements?

[9:45]

Hon. Mr. Auld: I wonder if there are any other comments on this section.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Nipissing has left, no doubt to --

An hon. member: He is here.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Oh, I’m sorry; I thought you’d gone to restore your tissues.

There are a number of matters he touched upon. In the interests of brevity, I might indicate that some of those matters were touched upon in my opening remarks tonight, having to do with annual reports on the work done and the invoices paid, which will be tabled. He spoke of some of the problems of regions and so on. Those were addressed in the first forest regeneration conference, and pretty well answered in the second last year at Kapuskasing.

As far as staff and the number of people doing reforestation is concerned, what we will have in these agreements is the staff of the companies doing a great deal of the work, aided and abetted by our own relatively modest staff, which will be involved more in supervision.

As far as the methods and some of the problems to which the honourable member referred, about using mechanical equipment and so on, those are addressed in either the operating manual or the ground rules to which I referred in one of the previous meetings of this committee on these amendments. This includes the fact one of the bases of these agreements is that the best regeneration work is done by the harvesters so that he combines the two and does not create unnecessary work for himself.

I should remind the member the forest management agreements are the result of Dr. Armson’s work. The Armson report has been referred to. He is sitting here in front of me, as he is now on our staff. His recommendations were modelled to a great extent on the agreements in Alberta and BC, along with experience, visits and reports on the Scandinavian countries, where there are some similarities and some great differences.

I don’t need to go into seed collection, which is highly regulated, and some of those other matters. The main thing the forest management agreements will provide is a commitment that will provide a sustained yield as we had mentioned. Going back to those regeneration symposia which were held in Thunder Bay and Kapuskasing in the last two years, they were specifically designed to outline our problems and also get input from the industry on theirs.

There is provision in the agreements to deal with programs like DREE. Of that $71 million, of which roughly $60 million-plus is for roads, $5 million of the remainder is for nursery expansion and improvements to increase efficiency.

The member for Port Arthur wanted to know the reason for the exemptions (d) and (f) subclauses. I won’t try and paraphrase this, but it has to do with certain provisions. I’ll read it so there is no misunderstanding.

“In the absence of any exceptions, the regulations under the act will apply to a forest management agreement. One consequence of such an application is that the price for crown timber, determined under the regulations, must be paid by the company which has entered into a forest management agreement. This consequence is not wanted where killed or damaged crown timber is to be salvaged, and the price for such timber is less than the price determined under the regulations.”

I think I mentioned this, in a previous meeting of this committee, when somebody asked me about the prices paid for salvage. I think I mentioned it was everything from two or three cents, or 10 cents on one occasion, up to something like 35 cents or 40 cents.

“(b) Where a company which has entered into a forest management agreement harvests a volume of crown timber that is equal to a volume of crown timber that it produced at its expense, and the price for such timber is less than the price determined under the regulation -- that is, 10 per cent of the regulation price -- this is the improved production per acre.

“Consequently, the general principle of the regulations under the act will apply to a forest management agreement and must be qualified by excepting the provisions of the forest management agreement that are made under clauses (d) and (f) of section 5a whereby a price for crown timber that is less than the price determined under the regulations is agreed upon. In the absence of the exceptions, a conflict would result, namely the regulation would oblige the company to pay the price for crown timber determined under the regulations, and the agreement would oblige the company to pay a price for the same timber that is lower than the price determined under the regulation.”

The exemptions are aimed at avoiding this conflict. I see the honourable member understands it clearly. If he reads Hansard again and then reads the regulations --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That was my experience and I think I understand it now.

Mr. Foulds: The minister does not persuade me as easily. As I read the exception underneath, the provisions made, under the regulations mentioned -- the very last words -- “apply only to these agreements”, I don’t see why the regulations cannot include clauses (d) and (f), from the minister’s explanation. I might be able to accept clause (d); clause (f) does not address the question I asked. If they cannot be in regulation we’re not talking about the general crown management unit, we’re talking about these specific agreements.

I am particularly anxious that we have the knowledge of the reduction of stumpage fees as a result of whatever deal is made between the ministry and the company as a result of these agreements. I think it should be mandatory that the reduction the minister agrees to, as a result of the silvicultural treatments supplied at the expense of the company, is made public so we can evaluate whether the cost-benefit has been to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Auld: To try and sum it up briefly, we’re talking about two things in the agreement. We’re talking about the charge that will be made for the timber which is produced per acre in excess of the previous yield, the incentive to the company.

The second part is the price that will be paid for salvage. Depending on its location and its condition, it could be any one of a number of prices. I think the member accepts the necessity for that. I can assure him that information will be part of the reports which will be made having to do with the annual work done and returns received. I will undertake to provide him and the House with a report of how this will be done and how it will be done by regulation, so there is no misunderstanding. The information will be made available to the House.

Mr. Foulds: If I could make this, as someone in recent history used to say, perfectly clear -- if it is perfectly clear the reduction in the stumpage charges under clause (f) will become public knowledge as a part of the reporting mechanism, then I will be satisfied and let the point go.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is right in the agreement. I can’t put my finger on it. Do you know which section it is? It may vary from company to company or from area to area. We’ll find that in a minute.

Mr. Wildman: Like my colleague, I had hoped this bill would be passed or be close to being passed this evening, but it appears since the debate has been somewhat protracted, it will not be.

There are some specific things I wish to raise with the minister. In relation to his amendment, I must admit I came prepared this evening to speak to and to support the “Davis-Martel” amendment. I don’t think I’d be betraying any caucus secrets when I say I was a little bit less than enthusiastic about withdrawing that amendment, despite the government’s abhorrence of its own leader’s proposal.

Mr. Chairman: It’s withdrawn.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, it is withdrawn. I wish to speak to the amendment put in its place by the minister.

When I was speaking on second reading I said I was rather sceptical about the effectiveness of this bill. The amendment proposed by the minister makes it clearer and gives us a greater access to information about what is going to be required of the companies, but it does not deal with my scepticism.

The member for Port Arthur said that after another four years he might be as cynical as his colleague from Rainy River. Frankly, I haven’t been here as long as the other two and perhaps I’m more cynical than the two of them put together about this whole process. When one considers that in Finland the government charges the companies $35 a cord for pulpwood stumpage and the onus is on the operator on top of that to ensure adequate regeneration at his own expense, one wonders whether or not this approach being used in Ontario is really an effective one or one that really deals with the requirements for sustained yield.

In this province companies put up a real clamour when stumpage is increased from $2 to about $5.30, even though that includes ground rent and fire protection fees. If that’s the case, I wonder how much effort and financial resources they’re going to put into producing sustained yield.

[10:00]

That really leads me to the concerns raised by my colleague from Rainy River about what happens if and when it is found the companies, after five years or 10 years, or whatever, with the inspections and the reporting, have not done what they had agreed to do under the forest management agreement. I agree with him, frankly, that we will all be put under tremendous pressure because of the effects on jobs in one-industry towns if the allowable cut is reduced. When you reduce an allowable cut, you reduce jobs.

The amendment as proposed doesn’t deal as adequately as I would like to see with those concerns. Even in other provinces of this country, such as British Columbia or Alberta where, I think, the legislation has more clout, it has been questioned.

For instance, Toovey suggested in BC that public opinion, rather than industrial performance in terms of regeneration, will have a greater effect on the security of tenure for the cuts in the province. In other words, if it is popular to reduce a company’s allowable cut if the company doesn’t fulfil its obligations there, then that will happen. If it is unpopular, if there is a clamour raised about the effects on jobs, then that probably will not happen.

I wonder what assurance the minister can give us. I don’t think his reply to the member for Rainy River really dealt with that adequately.

In Alberta, where the forest service handles the planning and approving and inspection and the industry does the job on the basis of sustained yield, they have a requirement, I believe, that the industry have these measures in place and be well on the way to regeneration within two years after harvest, rather than the five years suggested here. I wonder whether the minister can explain why he prefers the five-year period to the two-year period.

As I said, I am concerned about these penalties under the proposed bill for undercutting or, for that matter, overcutting and unsuccessful regeneration. What happens if bad weather has made it impossible to regenerate? How is that going to be determined? I am still a little sceptical.

I am particularly concerned about the black spruce because, coming from the north, the black spruce really is the most important species we have. It is 40 per tent of the total productive forest in the province. In terms of volume cut and value to the economy, it is the most important. It is being consistently depleted and we face a crucial need for regeneration.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have been informed by foresters who are in the know that if even less than 10 per cent of the current peat land cutover had been planted in 1977-78, it would have taken all of the provincial nursery production in black spruce in that year. I would like the minister to comment on that. Is that correct? Would that be a correct projection? If not, can he tell us where we stand right now in terms of nursery production and our ability to produce the requirements?

It required seedlings and seed. Is it correct to say that even if we were to use all of what we are now producing in nursery stock for black spruce we wouldn’t be able to regenerate or plant more than 10 per cent, or not even that much, of the cutover peat land? If that is the case, I wonder how he thinks his amendment and the agreements he is proposing are going to change that situation.

Obviously, we have to develop successful techniques for natural regeneration and for direct seeding. I would like to know when, in these agreements he is proposing in the report, it is going to be done. How much of the further research required is going to be the responsibility of the company and is that going to be incorporated in the agreements?

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for Algoma finished?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have much more to say, considering the length at which other members, particularly one member, went on. I don’t think I am wasting the time of the House.

I am concerned also about what emphasis is going to be put on advanced growth as a potential component of regeneration in the various forest-management agreements, because conventional clearcutting really tends to destroy seed trees and much of the advanced growth. So we end up in a situation of having to collect seeds for seed production and for the production of planting stocks.

I think we have to preserve advanced growth and retain adequate seed sources. In order to do that, we are going to have to have better methods of creating acceptable seed beds and better methods of harvesting. Because if we are not going to harvest adequately, or if we are going to destroy the advanced growth, then we are going to end up having to have more and more artificial reseeding.

When you talk about mechanized harvesting, I would like to know what provisions are going to be made in the agreements for ensuring that we preserve advanced growth.

Conventional harvesting methods also eliminate seed sources and produce cutovers that are susceptible to extremes of heat and drought and leave potentially good seed beds covered with logging debris, which in many cases precludes adequate regeneration.

I would like to know if the black spruce stands we have will be assessed for advanced growth prior to harvesting, in order to plan and implement effective harvesting and regeneration methods. Also, will the logging slash be removed? Will it be part of the agreement to require that the logging slash be removed from cutovers, preferably during harvesting, to expose potential seed beds and facilitate site preparation?

Obviously, in order to preserve advanced growth and to deal with the question of slash, I think we are going to have to emphasize winter operations because that would seem to be the best way of dealing with that in terms of preserving it by working in deep snow cover.

I would like to know what attempts will be made, or what emphasis will be put, on the use of bulldozers equipped with shear blades to slice off the living moss layer to create receptive competition-free seed beds for black spruce when the ground is frozen.

Those are the specific questions I have. I say again, Mr. Chairman, I remain sceptical, even with the amendment, which is a great improvement on the previous bill. I think all of us in this House and in the province owe the member for Sudbury East a genuine vote of thanks for bringing the Premier’s ludicrous and contradictory proposal to the floor of the House in order to ensure the minister would bring forth an amendment which would specifically state the kinds of approaches that are going to be used by the ministry.

In bringing forward that amendment, I would like the minister to be able to explain to us what specifically is going to be required under the forest-management agreement in terms of site preparation, adequate harvesting and research for silvicultural advancement.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, am I now winding up on this section, because I find a number of questions have been asked several times? I am not really anxious to take up the time of the House to answer them several times.

Mr. Chairman: This is committee; we understand, go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member for Algoma, first of all I have to tell him he was not correct in citing Alberta as having a two-year period of assessment, compared to five years. As I understand, in Alberta, the seeding or planting has to be done within two years of cutting, but it is not assessed for seven years. In Ontario, we will, as I mentioned earlier, be dealing with annual reports and assessments every five years.

The honourable member brought up a number of very good points about harvesting. One of the reasons we are in the forest management field is because it is accepted by foresters everywhere that the best way to operate a forest is to integrate the harvesting and the regeneration. A great deal of time and money and effort is saved and a better result is achieved. As I have mentioned several times, there will be as part of the agreements in effect, a method practice manual, as well as the ground rules. A number of the practices which have been mentioned by the members for Algoma and Nipissing and others in this House will be covered in those documents, which are prepared by the staff. They will in effect be, as much as is humanly possible, an assurance of good, consistent practice around the province.

There is one other thing about the backlog. The agreements are based on two things. One is the regeneration of the cut from now on, and the second is about 10 per cent a year of catch-up on what is called not satisfactorily regenerated areas, of which there are a number in the province. To achieve this I think it’s fair to say we will need a variety of things -- an increase in nurseries, seed collection and so on -- which have been started and will continue as the agreements are entered into and as the program expands from the figure we have this year of $4.3 million. Unfortunately, I don’t think we will expend that completely because we will not have the act in place as soon as we had anticipated when the budget was put together about a year ago. This will go, in today’s dollar, to something in the order of $20 million or perhaps $25 million a year as we phase it in. It’s a major program.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier I have a further amendment to section 5.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Auld moves that section 5a of the act as set out in section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(4) If the assembly is then in session, the minister shall:

“(a) within five days after entering into an agreement under subsection 1, or an amending agreement, lay before the assembly a copy of the agreement or amending agreement as the case may be;

“(b) after the end of each year of an agreement entered into under subsection 1, lay before the assembly a report in respect of the areas harvested, regenerated and tended under such agreement in the year it is ended; and

“(c) after the end of each term of five years of an agreement entered into under subsection 1, lay before the assembly a report in respect of the relationship between the harvest and growth, including regeneration of timber during the said term on the areas subject to the agreement, or if the assembly is not then in session, at the beginning of the next ensuing session.”

Any comments? The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, we certainly will support this amendment. From listening to the minister tonight and in the past weeks when we have been dealing with it, I am of two minds. One is that the minister is well intentioned and indeed perhaps regrets the sins of the past Conservative administrations in this regard. Or, second -- and sometimes I feel this most strongly -- he really doesn’t know what he’s doing and is bringing in some necessary legislation, unbeknownst to himself and his colleagues as to what he’s really doing.

We are happy to see this. We are happy to see that the information will be laid before the assembly. We think that information is of vital interest and concern, not only to the members but to the public at large. We welcome this amendment and hope for a speedy passage.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment considerably strengthens the bill and I am very pleased by that.

There are three points I feel I must make. One is I really would feel comfortable if the report mentioned in clause (b) and the five-year report mentioned in clause (c) at some process was clearly signed by a certified professional forester.

I understand and we discussed in private the difficulty of having the report that is presented in the Legislature signed by a certified professional forester because the minister has to sign any reports presented to the Legislature. But if in the course of the accumulation and the finalization of the data that is presented it was clearly shown, even as an addendum to the report, that a professional forester had signed a statement which said, “I have gone over the information in this report and to the best of my knowledge” -- or some wording like that -- “the facts as stated in the report are accurate,” and so on, I think that that’s not asking too much. I would like that incorporated as part of the report.

When we had our discussion it was mentioned that the management plans presented by the companies for the ministry were signed by a professional forester, but when I was rereading the draft agreement over the weekend I did not find at any point a clear statement of the report of the success and failure of the areas harvested, regenerated and tended is actually to be signed by a professional forester. It was my understanding from a private conversation, which I would like to get on the public record, that there is going to be a professional forester designated for each of the agreements that is entered into, partly to solve this problem where the agreement lands may encompass more than one district and partly to overcome the problem where the district manager, good fellow though he may be, may not be a professional forester. He may have come up through the ranks of another branch of the ministry.

So I think it is important for two reasons: one, that we are assured in the Legislature that a professional forester is putting his reputation on the line, as a professional forester, in certifying the silvicultural accuracy of the information that we have presented to us.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is included in the manual. The yearly accounts will show the work done and the payment therefor, which I mentioned and which is one of the two things that will be tabled as a result of that combined amendment, the Auld-Foulds amendment. The certificate having to do with the forestry treatment will be made by a registered professional forester, although the report submitted to the House, of course, will be also signed by the minister.

Going back, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the question the member for Port Arthur raised a few minutes ago and which I said was in the agreement, if he looks at page 13, section 23 -- I won’t take the time to read it but it is there, “as the treatments and increases are certified in detail” and so on. I think that is the reference I was trying to find a few minutes ago.

Mr. Foulds: One of the things that bothers me frankly -- and you will forgive me for being just a little cautious on this -- are the words “signed by a professional forester on behalf of the company.” The reason that I want the accumulation of data signed by a professional forester is that it has clearly been shown to the public, if you like, there has been an auditing of it independently of at least by a professional forester within the ministry. Maybe we then have two guys on the line with their professional reputations.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That, of course, is done in the same way as a chartered accountant does, really.

Mr. Foulds: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I mentioned, our people will be doing their own checking and audit so I would assume that that would take place. If there is any problem about it -- and we cannot find any at the moment -- I will deal with it. I don’t think we are going to be finished tonight. I don’t know what the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) is going to deal with in these amendments.

I think I can make that assurance.

Mr. Foulds: I have one further comment if I might and that is on another matter I raised previously. I understand legalistically why in clause (c) we cannot insert the word “before” instead of the word “after,” the very first word, but I think what happened is in the minister’s statement he said that during -- if I could find the actual reference.

Why did I throw away your new statement and keep your old one? On what page do you talk about the two agreements?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Page 23. Or sorry, page 13, section 23.

Mr. Foulds: No, no. In your statement.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Which statement?

Mr. Foulds: The new one, the one you made tonight.

Hon. Mr. Auld: “The first report will report on the areas harvested”? Page nine.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, “will report on the relationship between the harvest and growth including success and failure of regeneration of timber during each of the five-year term enforced management agreements.”

The problem I want to outline is how do we get a handle, or do we get a handle only after the fact, on whether the ministry has made an honest judgement about whether the company has fulfilled its obligation in the first five years? I guess it gets back to the problem raised by the members for Rainy River and Algoma. To use the vernacular, when the ministry has not had the guts in the past to threaten a company with enforcement when they did not meet cutting practices, how do we know they will not extend the agreement another five years?

If the ministry reduces the 20-year agreement to 15, instead of giving the extension of five years because of nonfulfillment in the first five years, and if a company doesn’t fulfil in the next five years, how do we know the ministry will make the tough judgement that needs to be made to ensure the company does the reforestation, so the timber mining that has taken place in the past will not take place in the future?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to remember one of the bases of the forest-management agreement approach is it’s of at least equal concern on the part of the company that there is a sustained yield so they can continue to harvest it.

It would seem to me that with the information which will be available to this House in terms of annual reports plus the five-year audit which will, I would assume, be like other audits and be produced towards the end of the fifth year and will be tabled, there will be public interest in the areas in which that company operates and there will be no shortage of both professional and amateur foresters who will comment on the progress. I made no comparison, Mr. Chairman, and I won’t, but I don’t know of any way we can give a better basis of information on which outside judgements can be made than what is to be tabled.

There are two key points. There is the basic interest of the company in having a continuing supply of material -- otherwise a company loses a large investment and that isn’t the purpose of their exercise -- and secondly there is an incentive not just to regenerate but to regenerate and improve production per acre or square mile, or whatever it may be. I think there is a very big incentive.

Mr. Foulds: First of all, I’d like to make one comment about the diligence and cooperation of the staff of the minister and the minister himself, over the last couple of weeks over the matters arising because of the amendment of my colleague from Sudbury East. I believe they are dedicated to making these agreements work.

I guess that brings me to the three biblical things: faith, hope, and charity. We have to have some faith that what has not happened in the past will happen in the future. I would put that, in my case, at about 40 per cent. You have to have some hope it will occur; that’s at 100 per cent. And we have to have 120 per cent charity with regard to what has not happened in the past.

Motion agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Auld the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.