NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 13, 1999

• 1407

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues. Good afternoon to all assembled and to our first witnesses. I'd like to call to order this Thursday, May 13 meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, as we continue our study today, here in Vancouver, of Canadian forest management practices as an international trade issue.

I would like to take just a moment to put all this into context. This Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations is involved and has been involved in a number of very interesting topics, for example, climate change, Canada Post, rural telecommunications and numerous others.

Earlier this year we received a plea for help, if you want, from a number of communities and community leaders in the mid-coast region of British Columbia. Those communities asked us to look at how Canada is viewed from outside its borders, in terms of its forest practices. These leaders and community representatives said they cared for the forests, the future of their communities, jobs and the environment. But they felt there had been some misunderstanding, possibly, of their place in the grand scheme of things.

Our response has been to listen to them, to try to understand better where the different stakeholders are coming from, and to try to place all of this—at least in our own minds for ourselves as parliamentarians and for our parliamentary colleagues—in a broader context.

• 1410

So we have just come back from two days in the mid-coast area—the Bella Coola Valley and Williams Lake regions, in particular—talking to community leaders and other stakeholders. We're here now in Vancouver to continue that process, to try to hear a variety of points of view.

So without much further ado, I think it will become fairly obvious to everyone why we're here, as you listen to the testimony and hear the questions from members of Parliament.

I would like to officially welcome our first witnesses: Catherine Stewart from Greenpeace; and from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Karen Wristen, executive director. The clerk has probably let you know that we usually like to have opening remarks of five or seven minutes from each of you. That will allow members of Parliament a chance to ask questions.

We'll start with Catherine because your name is first on the list.

We're operating in one-hour blocks today, give or take a few minutes. We're starting a few minutes late because we got in from Bella Coola a bit late, but we will certainly make sure you have all the time we can provide.

So without any further ado, I'll invite Catherine to start the ball rolling.

Ms. Catherine Stewart (Greenpeace): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you for asking us here today and being willing to take time to listen to our presentation.

My colleague Ms. Wristen and I looked at some of the issues the standing committee has suggested they would like us to address. With your permission, we'd like to try to combine our presentations. I will cover some of the areas of interest and Karen will address others. Then we'll take questions jointly at the end of that, if that's acceptable.

The Chairman: Perfect.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I would just like to put things in a global context.

I'm not sure if all members have seen this report from the World Resources Institute. The WRI is a think tank, basically, based in Washington, D.C. They released this report on the world's last frontier forests a couple of years ago. It's known as a relatively conservative organization. Maurice Strong is on the board of directors, as well as Stephan Schmidheiny and others whose names you may very well recognize, who don't fit exactly into the category of radical, which some people would put Greenpeace in. WRI has placed in a global context the crisis facing the world's forests.

If you look at this map of the world's frontier forests, the dark green areas are the last remaining frontier forests that are in a relatively intact condition covering the planet. This emphasizes the seriousness and gravity of the crisis that's facing our forests today.

Of the world's original forest cover, 50% is gone. Most of the rest of that has been impacted already, not always by logging, but through mining and other development. Only 22% of the planet's original ancient forest remains in large enough intact areas to be capable of supporting biodiversity and the full range of species.

A majority of those remaining intact forests are in Brazil, Russia and Canada. What we have inherited as Canadians can now be defined as a global treasure. It's certainly a grave responsibility for all of us to ensure that careful stewardship is applied to these last remaining forests.

The WRI report also identified the temperate rain forest as the most endangered forest type. It comprises only 3% of what is left of the world's ancient forests.

In British Columbia there were originally 353 rain forest valleys of over 5,000 hectares. Only 69 of those remain intact. Almost all of them are slated for logging within the next five to ten years. According to government scientists, one in ten plant and animal species in British Columbia is at risk of extinction. A 1996 study by the American Fisheries Society indicates that 142 genetically unique salmon runs in B.C. and the Yukon have already become extinct, 624 more are at high risk of extinction, hundreds more are threatened, and 43% of the stocks in British Columbia could not even be classified, simply due to an absence of sufficient data. Mining, of course, has a profound impact on the health and survival of the salmon runs.

The temperate rain forest is the most species-rich of all temperate forests and ecosystems. For this reason, over 50 eminent scientists from around the world have signed a letter asking Prime Minister Chrétien and Premier Glen Clark to impose a moratorium on logging in the remaining intact valley in British Columbia.

• 1415

Of course, Greenpeace recognizes the importance of forest harvesting and the use of wood and paper products in today's society. Any claims that we are trying to eradicate all logging or phase it out as an industry are simply not true. What we do want to see is a fundamental change in practices and protection of some of the most unique ecosystems left.

There is a statement the committee sent to us in preparation for this meeting that says Greenpeace has been trying to convince wood product retailers not to sell wood harvested in B.C.'s forests. That is also untrue.

Greenpeace, internationally and here in Canada, has been tapping into a growing market awareness and a growing sense of social responsibility. The customers of many of the companies we have dealt with do not want to be complicitous in the destruction of the last remaining fragments of the world's temperate rain forests. Those companies are asking and encouraging their suppliers in British Columbia to adopt responsible harvesting methods, in order to meet their customers' demands.

The market for responsibly harvested, ecologically sustainable wood products is growing globally. It is not a market trend that is going to disappear, and it's not a market trend that can be eradicated by public relations campaigns.

It is implicit upon us to ensure the future of B.C.'s coastal communities, forest-dependent communities, and forests, to ensure that practices start to meet ecologically sustainable standards. We would also encourage the seeking of third-party, independent certification.

I note that the committee has expressed an interest in various certification methods, including those of the Canadian Standards Association and the Forest Stewardship Council International. Greenpeace has no quarrel with the Canadian Standards Association certification. However, it will not meet customer demand, because the certification system by the CSA certifies management plans and objectives. It does not conduct on-the-ground verification of the carrying out of those plans.

That is where FSC leaps to the forefront, because part of the Forest Stewardship Council's certification process not only assesses the plans and objectives of the forest company, but ensures they are actually meeting those objectives in their on-the-ground practices. It conducts field audits to verify that the standards of the FSC are being met.

We were also asked about MacMillan Bloedel and TimberWest initiatives, in their declarations of intent to phase out clear-cutting. Greenpeace certainly applauds this as a very progressive first step on the road to sustainability. However, the jury is still out on the actual on-the-ground implementation of this.

We will be monitoring it very closely over the next five years, as the plan to phase out clear-cutting is phased in. But it's not enough to simply say the companies will end clear-cutting and then spread the fragmentation of forests over a larger geographical area. It's imperative that the companies also reduce their harvesting levels and harvesting rates. MacMillan Bloedel has already reduced their harvesting by 10%.

The Government of British Columbia openly acknowledges that the current annual allowable cut in B.C. is 28% over their own scientists' definition of long-term sustained yield. Clearly, a reduction in harvesting has to accompany any phase-out of clear-cutting.

The companies, TimberWest and MacMillan Bloedel, are still over-dependent on old growth. We hope to see increased harvesting of second-growth forests and an end to incursions into the remaining pristine valleys. The practices also need to address places and not just methods of logging, looking at the coast in provincial, national and international contexts, recognizing the rarity of some of these remaining ecosystems, and removing large-scale industrial logging from those regions.

The committee also heard in November, I believe, in the presentation from the IWA and others about Greenpeace's refusal to participate in solutions, such as the land and resource management plan for the central coast currently under way, under the sponsorship of the provincial government. We indeed refused to participate in that process, because terrestrial-based environmental groups had refused to take part in another what we call “talk and log process”. We were not willing to sit down at the table with all stakeholders and debate the future options for areas while those options were being eradicated through clear-cut logging that was being undertaken while the talks were taking place.

• 1420

Our condition for joining the LRMP process was to leave the range of options open by placing all the valleys in contention under a moratorium while the talks lasted. Finally we were given that assurance by the companies active in the central coast area, and moratoriums were placed on the valleys that were not in official study and deferral areas already by the government. That brought us, along with the Sierra Club, to the table.

So we are now part of the LRMP process. I should warn the committee, however, that we don't foresee a consensus-based solution arising from this process. We're prepared to engage in good-faith negotiations, but the parties are certainly very disparate in their viewpoints, and it seems unlikely at this point that consensus will be the outcome. However, we are there, and we are committed to continuing with those good-faith negotiations as long as the moratoria are kept in place.

Finally, I know that the committee has been called on to recommend increased federal investment in defending British Columbia forestry practices. And we have jointly, Sierra Legal Defence Fund and Greenpeace, some recommendations on the potential wise investment the committee could recommend to the federal government both in terms of the future of our forests and the future of British Columbia communities.

On that note, I'll turn it over to my colleague.

Ms. Karen Wristen (Executive Director, Sierra Legal Defence Fund): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address you this afternoon.

I thought I'd begin by telling you a little bit about Sierra Legal Defence Fund and what it is we do. We're essentially a full-service law firm for environmental groups. With respect to the forestry work we do, we operate a specialized forest team, which consists of lawyers and law students and scientists. We have a forester, a fisheries biologist, and a soils geologist on staff. Their major job is to go out into the forest when they've been called by local people who have a concern about the way forestry's being conducted and conduct investigations to determine whether or not Forest Practices Code standards have been met.

It's unfortunate, I suspect there was a miscommunication that occurred. I understand that you did visit Yeo Island in your field trips. By coincidence or whatever, our forest team has been to Yeo Island and has conducted investigations there, has found code violations and reported them to both provincial and federal authorities. I have written to the committee to offer the services of our forest team to assist this committee when it conducted its field trips, but perhaps the communication just didn't arrive in time for you to be able to take advantage of it. It would have been of some assistance to you, I think, to be able to look at that particular situation in some detail. But I'll get back to that in a moment and explain what happened on Yeo Island.

First I'd like to give you an overview of the Forest Practices Code and where we stand with it, because I understand that's a subject of some interest to the committee. The code, as you probably know, has only been in effect a few years and it was essentially a compilation of a number of guidelines that existed already for forestry. What the code really did was to take those guidelines, assemble them all in one place, add a few bells and whistles and make a regulation out of what had previously been merely a guideline.

In effect, what it did was require a forest company wanting to log to do its planning up front, to identify all the other values in the woods that were going to be impacted by its operation and to plan to avoid impact from those values, so that fish, tourism, and other interests that enjoy the forest could continue to enjoy the forest.

At the time the code was implemented, environmental groups had worked very hard with government and with industry to arrive at standards that would essentially end the war in the woods. I'm sure you all heard the media after the code was implemented: the story was we had world-class logging and the war in the woods would be ended. The story since then has been anything but, as you are equally well aware.

The reasons for that are numerous, but the broad-brush picture is that the requirements of the code itself were inadequate to meet the basic requirements for fish habitat protection. Second, the public participation provisions that existed in the code that allowed people to look at forest development plans and determine whether or not their interests were going to be impacted adversely by logging have been rolled back. We're now looking at a situation where companies may not even have to file plans for some kinds of logging, perhaps not for any kind of logging. So basically all the improvements that were made at the front end are being rolled back. Practices are being streamlined, as we say, and the effect of that is to reduce public participation and to eliminate the possibility for those conflicts to be indentified and resolved up front. Those are, in broad-brush terms, the problems with the code itself as a document.

• 1425

On the enforcement side, this is where we have the real problems. First of all, many of the provisions of the Forest Practices Code could be waived at the discretion of a local district forest manager. So we didn't have compliance with the precise terms of the code to begin with. We had compliance in spirit, we had waiver, and we had fish streams being logged and fish habitats being destroyed all over the province.

The second problem with respect to enforcement is the way it's done or not done in this province. And Yeo Island, if I can come back to it, would be a good case in point.

Our forest team was contacted by the hereditary chiefs of the Heiltsuk people on the mid-coast, Yeo Island, where you were this morning, I understand. The hereditary chiefs may not have been the people you met with when you were there. I don't know who you met. But you will probably be aware that in the mid-coast region the first nations have two different forms of government operating simultaneously. They have a traditional structure where names are passed down by heredity, and those chiefs hold and wield certain powers with respect to governance of their people. And we have Indian Act chiefs and councils that are properly elected under the Indian Act and hold certain powers over their people and deal with our governments as the elected representatives of the nation.

There is, to say the least, a great deal of disagreement over who holds what powers and how the two forms of government work together. So I want to make it clear that our retainer was on behalf of the hereditary people, who view it as their job to protect the resources of their houses for future generations. They asked us to come in and examine the logging practices, which you may have seen some evidence of when you were on the island.

When our forest team went there, they found several violations of the code that were quite clear. They found them, they documented them, and they sent that evidence to the provincial government enforcement officers who are supposed to check into these things.

What happened instead of a field visit, instead of interviews with witnesses who could provide evidence of the alleged violations, was that the provincial government called the company and said that in three weeks' time they would be by to have a look at the logging on Yeo Island because those environmentalists had made a complaint again. That gave the company three weeks to rectify the problems that had been identified. By the time the provincial enforcement officials attended, there were no problems left to be seen.

This resulted in a publication on the part of the provincial government to the forest company—not to our forest team, which had originally filed the complaint, but to the forest company—that the complaints had been groundless. That report is now being taken around Europe with the suggestion that complaints being made by environmentalists about forest practices are groundless.

With all due respect to the provincial government, this is an inappropriate method of investigating complaints and certainly will not lead to compliance with such code provisions as we do have left.

I understand, moving on from the code, that the committee was also interested in hearing some comment about the impacts of the current state of the forest economy on communities. I've already addressed some comments to the impacts on first nations communities. It's quite clear that all over B.C. coastal communities are suffering from the declining business economy of forestry. But it's also quite clear that this is a cyclical event.

We passed out today—I think all the committee members have it—a brief containing a couple of reports that the Sierra Legal Defence Fund has created. The one I'm referring to at the moment is called Profits or Plunder. On page 24 of that report you'll see a graph that shows the cycle the forest industry in B.C. has been through since 1975. This graph was created by tracking the performance of eight of B.C.'s major forest companies. You're probably aware there are only about fifteen major companies operating in the province, and these are the eight biggest.

• 1430

You'll see that there were three regular peak and trough cycles from 1975 to date, and they're quite predictable and quite regular. Since this report was created, we've come perhaps to the bottom and are beginning to turn around in this current cycle. So profits are beginning to be shown again, business is beginning to recover, and no doubt there will be change.

The Chairman: Maybe I could ask you to wrap it up. I don't mean to put too many constraints on you, but I want to make sure we have lots of time for questions.

Ms. Karen Wristen: Certainly. I'll be as brief as I can.

The point I want to make about these cycles is that we may be entering a period of recovery, and maybe some of the rhetoric you've been hearing is just that, rhetoric. But we are facing another factor this time that hasn't been the case before. We have come to the point where the overcut has come home to roost. We've been cutting too much, too fast, and it's now becoming very difficult for companies to find economically viable stands of wood to cut.

So we are seeing the industry entering into a point where it has to make some fundamental changes. The change that communities are saying they want is community forestry. We want a change in tenure to community-controlled forestry, rather than large corporate industrial forestry that we've had in B.C. all these years.

That change can be very evidently seen in what happened in B.C. this year. The government offered three community forest tenures. Over a hundred communities in B.C. wanted to apply for those tenures. The actual application requirements were so onerous that in the end, fewer than 20 actually finished the application process, which cost some $40,000, and made application. But I believe there are 27 applications for those three community forest licences.

So there's a very strong appetite here for creative solutions that involve fundamental change. I would caution this committee strongly against moving precipitously to assist an industry that is facing the wall and must change, in a manner that does not promote that change.

As Catherine mentioned earlier, my colleague and I have put together some suggestions for how this committee might creatively devote some federal resources to making meaningful change in industry. Perhaps I'll leave them with the clerk to be passed around, and I'll entertain any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Wristen. I would be pleased to have those copies.

I want to point out to colleagues that we're hearing our witnesses in approximately one-hour blocks. So with the number of members here, I'm going to start out with a five-minute window. I'm sure there will be questions from everybody.

We'll start with you, John, and I would ask you to help me with that.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Just a moment, please. Witnesses have been told that we wanted documents in French; there is no document in French here.

[English]

The Chairman: There may be some documents in French, Yvon. I apologize to you. There may be some that are not.

Okay, John.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, thank you.

I was listening as attentively as I could to what you were saying. We obviously came back from the central coast today. Ms. Stewart, you talked about being a part of the planning team there now. You also indicated that you thought it would be very difficult to come up with a consensus-based solution but that you're at the table right now.

Has Greenpeace actually ever been, at any point, anywhere, any time, part of a consensus-based solution when it comes to this kind of a land use plan?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I would suggest that you name some consensus-based solutions that have taken place in B.C. and I'll tell you whether we were part of them or not, because off the top of my head I can't honestly say I can think of any.

Mr. John Duncan: The first one that comes to mind is the one in the Cariboo—Chilcotin.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Oh, in terms of LRMP processes. No, this is our first time participating in this type of process, this LRMP process, per se.

Mr. John Duncan: As an organization, do you feel you have a mandate to try to develop a consensus-based solution?

• 1435

Ms. Catherine Stewart: We certainly feel that we have a mandate to seek solutions and that our mandate is broader than just looking for strictly ecological solutions. We recognize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, so solutions have to involve solutions for communities, forest-dependent communities, and all other creatures dependent on the forest. Hopefully we can work in that direction.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

We had a lot of discussion during the last day and a half or so on the whole question of forest certification, and I'd like to ask a question.

To me, the environmental organizations can take one of two positions. You can take the position that this is good; let's promote certification as much as possible for as many operators as possible. Or you can resist certification for industrial operators because, philosophically, industrial operations maybe don't fit your vision of what certification lends itself to. Can you give us a philosophical direction in terms of where Greenpeace is coming from on industry certifying?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I think probably the easiest way of defining that would be to say that Greenpeace has looked at the various mechanisms of forest certification that are developing, such as the CSA, the ISO 14000, and the Forest Stewardship Council. We have chosen to try to support the development of Forest Stewardship Council certification, because we feel that the structure, the principles and guidelines of the organization, its independence, and its criteria for on-the-ground verification of practices offer some of the highest and best standards for forest certification globally. The fact that it is an independent and international organization also lends it a great deal of credibility, both among interest sectors and also in the marketplace.

We are currently part of the process that is trying to take the FSC principles and guidelines and, based on those, develop standards for regional application. This is the process that FSC certification generally takes, where the overarching principles are developed in a way that applies to the local situation, and working with other stakeholders, one sets about to develop on-the-ground practices criteria for what will happen in a given region.

So we are involved in that process in British Columbia. The first set of draft standards should be available for public comment within the next month, I hope.

There has been some degree of input from industry sectors, including companies such as Western Forest Products and others, who are taking a strong interest in this. We have no objection in principle to large forest firms such as Western Forest Products seeking certification. Our only standard is can they meet the standards? Will they in fact be able to live up to the principles and guidelines and the regional standards once they are developed and affirmed by the interest sectors in British Columbia? If they can meet those standards, then fine.

Mr. John Duncan: Do I have any more time?

The Chairman: Sorry, John, I'll try to get back to you. But go ahead with a short question.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The whole answer that you gave was predicated on the Forest Stewardship Council. If a company were seeking Canadian Standards Association certification, would your answer be similar, or would you oppose that certification?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: No, we don't oppose certification. If a company wants to get CSA or ISO 14000 certification, by all means, go ahead and get it, but I think the companies have to recognize that it carries very little weight in the marketplace, certainly very little weight with concerned consumers and in the environmental community. The standards are simply not up to those of the Forest Stewardship Council. We would encourage companies wanting to regain market share and a reputation for ecologically responsible harvesting to seek the course of FSC certification.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Gerry Byrne, please.

Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Thank you very much to both of you for appearing before the committee. My apologies, I came in a little bit late. We had a quick arrival here in Vancouver.

I want to touch upon the issue of certification. I want to follow up from my colleague Mr. Duncan.

• 1440

You stated that Greenpeace has no problem with certification and actually feel that it would be a beneficial element to any future strategy for Canadian forest practices. Is that fair to say?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Yes, with a caveat, in that there are still some unresolved issues within FSC International about the conversion of old-growth forests and other issues we are working on, and also of course the development of the regional standards is a multi-stakeholder process. It's potentially possible that we might find that other voices are outweighing our own and that the standards are being reduced to a point that would no longer enable us to support them from an ecological standpoint. But at this point in time we are certainly following that path and actively supporting the development of FSC and regional standards for FSC.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Is Greenpeace right now engaged in affecting the marketplace as it currently exists? Is Greenpeace involved in talking to large purchasing organizations or wholesale retail outlets to provide messages that you feel B.C. forest practices are environmentally unsustainable and that they should be aware of that in terms of their purchasing decisions?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Why would you be doing that in advance of a certification process that you are stating you would support in theory and when the Forest Stewardship Council has not been able to certify any Canadian companies as of yet because they don't have their regional tables done? Is this bargaining in bad faith in the sense as you would describe it, as you've provided in terms of your testimony? You've set forward a standard that you think would be helpful in terms of providing ecologically sustainable forest practices, and you would encourage companies to do so. Yet the message you've just sent us is that you're encouraging companies not to support Canadian forest practices in advance of Canadian forest companies being able to become certified.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: It's a complicated question.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I think it's pretty straightforward, actually.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Let me start by saying that companies can seek certification prior to the development of regional standards. That's the route that Western Forest Products has taken. They have retained an accredited FSC certifier and are looking at trying to get certification for some of their operations, knowing that the standards development process is not one that's going to move rapidly.

No, I don't think it's unfair, because I think current forest practices in British Columbia are fundamentally unsustainable. Even the B.C. government acknowledges that we are overharvesting and harvesting at an unsustainable rate. What we are saying to companies is put pressure on your suppliers to improve their standards of logging, improve their standards of operation now. Part of that process is starting to change the practices in the hopes that some day they will be able to become FSC-certified.

At the moment, most industrial operators are so far from meeting those principles and criteria that they are going to have to undergo some major changes in forestry practices to even get close. So let's set them on that path toward sustainable forestry, in the interests of communities and forests, and when the standards are in place and when they are closer to being able to achieve certification, hopefully that will follow.

We are not telling companies to only buy FSC-certified boards. We're saying that's a very good indicator of sustainable practices, but in the interim we would ask you to encourage your supplier from B.C. to start changing practices now.

Just let me give one example further to my colleague's reference to the Forest Practices Code. There's a lot of concern right now about the state of Pacific salmon stocks. We're involved in treaty negotiations with the United States. There is a lot of tension around the health of the salmon, and the loss of adequate protection over the last 15 years has mixed up harvesting. Here in B.C., while the government touts some of the world's highest forest practices standards, streams less than 1.5 metres in width get absolutely no riparian coverage protection at all under the Forest Practices Code. Right now those small streams can be clear-cut up to the banks. There's no protection at all within the code. And those are the very streams that often shelter coho and steelheads, some of our most endangered runs.

Riparian standards in Alaska are higher, in Washington are higher, and in Russia are higher than they are in Canada. In other jurisdictions they not only protect all salmon streams, regardless of the size of the stream—that's irrelevant—but they also protect tributaries to those streams from the siltation and the impact of logging that can destroy salmon.

• 1445

So we have a long way to go in British Columbia. Even companies that adhere rigorously to the standards of the Forest Practices Code are still not living up to standards of ecological responsibility.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: What makes—

The Chairman: Gerry, your time is almost up.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: You mentioned that you would encourage harvesting in second growth and potentially third growth, more so than old growth. What makes old-growth forests in your opinion more ecologically important than second growth?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: At the moment they are so rare that we feel we have a responsibility—

Mr. Gerry Byrne: No, but that's subjective. What ecologically, scientifically and ecologically—

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Let me give you one example. Some research was conducted over the last few years by entomologists from the University of Victoria into the canopy of old-growth forests and the type of insect life that would be found there. In the course of their research and gathering of over one million specimens of insects these scientists discovered 300 to 500 new species of insect that had never been identified. They sent samples out all over the world, seeking other scientists who had already discovered these species. So there were anywhere from 300 to 500 brand-new, previously unidentified species.

The entomologists concluded that the conditions for those species' survival was only possible in old-growth forests, that the canopy in second-growth forests simply didn't provide the habitat that was essential to those species' survival. There was no evidence even in older second-growth forests of those insects' appearance. The conclusion of these scientists was that the right conditions could not be created until at least 100 or 150 years of growth in second-growth canopy. And of course on harvest cycles of 80 to 100 years, they won't even reach that point.

We have no knowledge of the import of those species to the health of the forest, of other species, their place in the interdependence of ecosystems, their relevance to the growth of the forests themselves, and their potential benefit to humankind in terms of medicines. We just don't know. But if we cut down all of the last remaining stands we'll never know. So clearly it's vital that we preserve some of our old growth.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerry. I'll try to come back to you if I can.

Monique, then Werner, then Yvon.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): It would be better if you could use your earphones because I am going to speak French.

[English]

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Our apologies to the committee for not having materials available in French. Unfortunately, despite rumours to the contrary, we really don't have the resources we would like to have for translation services.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay: It's up to the committee to have them translated. In future, Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful to have documents in both official languages.

Ms. Stewart, I am well aware of environmental issues because for three years, I have been the official Opposition critic for the environment in Ottawa. During these three years, I learned that it wasn't always easy for the private sector and the environmental groups to come to an understanding. I am quite concerned, because you very sincerely said that you will not accept a consensus. I am concerned because we shall have to try to reach a consensus, even if it's only step by step or temporarily.

You said that some mistakes had been made on Yeo Island, that there were things that were not protected and that you had lodged a complaint. In the end, the government—I don't know how that happened—has corrected these mistakes. Of course, you play an important role, since you managed to have these mistakes corrected.

What I find very disturbing is the fact that we are dealing with issues which might not be resolved for many years; and both the forest industry and the environment are going to suffer the consequences.

You were saying that only 69 rain forests remain out of 353, but the forest industry is not the only culprit. You also have to take into account the natural environmental stress. You have to be careful before putting the blame on an industry; you have to take into account the natural environmental stress. There are the greenhouse gases, climate warming and avalanches in that area. During our two-day visit, we could appreciate the damage ourselves, and I don't think that anybody has tried to hide anything from us; it's true, some things happen.

• 1450

I am concerned by the seriousness of the situation; it's very disturbing to see that. Greenpeace International was here, Ms. Stewart, and all of us have seen things on television. You can't ignore what has happened. However, you have to ask yourself why and what can you do to improve the situation in terms of the environment, animal health, endangered species and the aboriginal people who live on that land.

We were also told—and maybe you can tell us whether it's true or not—that 70 government inspectors regularly survey the forests in B.C. I am not saying that it's enough, that it will ever be enough. You are the watchdogs of nature and it's important.

Can we completely destroy an industry which sustains thousands of people? They have to work in a way which ensures that the environment is maintained and protected. We saw tree plantations in full growth; the way it's done is rather extraordinary. I am convinced that there are still things that can be improved.

Could we not reach a consensus on some issues, not necessarily on everything? When a good initiative is taken, we should not be afraid to say so and to pursue in that direction. That's all I had to say. Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Thank you for those comments.

I think I stated it was unlikely that a consensus would be reached because the interests were so diverse. However, we are committed to staying at the table as long as the moratoriums are in place and negotiating toward a consensus. I'm not hopeful, but that does not mean we're not prepared to try.

With regard to accusations directed at industry, our focus right now is not in looking at past practices, which we all recognize and even industry admits have been rather abhorrent, but looking toward the future. Our first challenge to industry is to say that of 353 valleys, you have already taken all but 69, and at this point in time we think these are so globally rare that it is incumbent upon the industry to behave responsibly and to leave those valleys intact.

Yes, second-growth harvest does show potential, and that's one of the reasons why we're encouraging the industry to begin second-growth harvesting and to shift their focus. You're right that there are a host of problems affecting the earth and the growth of forests, the health of forest diversity and species. It's certainly everything from climate change through to natural landslides. Nothing is quite the same as clear-cutting and slashing and burning these temperate rain forests. Nothing in nature replicates that industrial activity.

We're not out to destroy an industry the province depends upon. We are out to push that industry to change with the times, to recognize the errors of the past, to recognize that some of those errors are still being perpetuated, to recognize the global rarity of the ecosystems in the intact valleys that remain and to embrace change rather than resist it.

When companies do embrace change, such as MacMillan Bloedel, we recognize that. In fact, when MacMillan Bloedel announced their intent to phase out clear-cutting, we went to their press conference with a bottle of champagne and our congratulations. We will certainly support any industry that takes steps toward sustainability, but we will continue to push for more rapid changes because the ecosystems are so much under threat from all the various factors you described. For those that are intransigent, we will continue to push very hard.

I think my colleague would like to make a comment here.

Ms. Karen Wristen: Yes, I would. Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

• 1455

I would urge you, if you have the opportunity, to take a look through the report to which I referred earlier, Profits or Plunder, because most of the issues you have addressed are addressed in this report, principally the idea that we can't destroy this industry and we must find some solution to it.

The industry does feed thousands, but if you look at the figures that we analysed over the last 25 years, the number of people this industry is feeding has decreased by one-half, while their profits have continued to increase. The graph I'm pointing to is on page 24, and the dotted line that you see falling across the page is employment in the forest industry.

For that reason, and because we are now running out of wood because we've cut too fast for so long, the industry must change fundamentally. What we're suggesting is that the solution lies in community forest endeavours that aren't so capital-intensive, employ more people, and feed more people. There is the appetite here in B.C. for those solutions. They will require time to work themselves out, and they will work themselves out at these tables and in other fora. We're on that path, and all of us are participating in that process.

With respect to inspection and enforcement and what part the federal government can play in those solutions, my colleague and I have made some hard suggestions, which you have on paper. One of them is certainly to begin enforcing the law we have. We have two complaints pending before the Commission for Environmental Cooperation right now about the failure of the federal government to enforce the Fisheries Act to protect the fish stock. That's one positive thing this government could be doing. The other is supporting the development of regional standards for forest stewardship certification. If companies do move toward that standard, we will have forestry in this province that everyone can support, and that is where we want to be.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: If I could add very briefly....

The Chairman: Very briefly.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: One of the changes we'd like to see this industry make is to reduce its reliance on the volume harvested and increase the value that we generate from every cubic metre of wood we cut. B.C.'s track record on that is rather appalling. In the fact on sheet that was handed out there's some data around the jobs generated per thousand cubic metres of wood in various jurisdictions, and also the value extracted.

The volume of raw logs being exported from British Columbia is on the rise. So when companies say what about the workers and what about the communities, we say to them, why was it that in 1997 the industry exported around 270,000 cubic metres of raw, unprocessed logs, and by the end of 1998 the volume was close to, if not over, a million cubic metres? In the first eight months it was close to 700,000 cubic metres, so we projected that by the end of the year it would have been over a million cubic metres.

Those are B.C. jobs leaving the province. Greenpeace has been out there protesting that export of raw wood, and we feel that the industry has a responsibility to invest in value-added manufacturing and job creation, rather than just relying on straight volume exports for cash.

The Chairman: Thank you, Catherine.

We'll go to Alex, and then Werner and Yvon.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I was interested in your comments about your trip to Yeo Island, as well. Maybe you can elucidate a little bit. Do you have a right of access and egress on these lands? Do you have the right to enter those lands?

Ms. Karen Wristen: Yes, we do have a right to enter those lands. We were invited in there at the request of the Heiltsuk hereditary chiefs, whose responsibility is the protection of the resources of their community. And it's crown land.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I see. Is that as opposed to the elected representatives of the native people, who possibly didn't want you there?

Ms. Karen Wristen: I believe you're referring to the letter that was written after our visit to Yeo Island by Arlene Wilson of the Heiltsuk Band Council. Is that what you're referring to? No.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Are the Heiltsuk people a community? You talked about the importance of community forestries. Would they be considered a community in your definition?

Ms. Karen Wristen: Of course they're a community.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: You're aware that 90% of those people are unemployed currently.

Ms. Karen Wristen: Yes, there's a very high unemployment rate in aboriginal communities throughout B.C.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: There's a fairly strong feeling in those communities that part of that unemployment is due to some of the actions of Greenpeace.

Ms. Karen Wristen: I'm not Greenpeace. I'm Sierra Legal Defence Fund. What we do is go in and investigate non-compliance with the Forest Practices Code, which we did in Heiltsuk territory at the request of Heiltsuk people, who, yes, want jobs, but want jobs that don't destroy their resources, which they are charged to protect for the benefit of future generations.

• 1500

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Ms. Stewart, you talked about the certification process. Do you take part in some of these processes to develop the actual certification?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Yes, Greenpeace is on the steering committee.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is there likely to be a certification process that will allow some harvesting of rain forests?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: We certainly hope so, and we're certainly working towards that end.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But what you're telling me is we need a moratorium today before we develop the process.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: We think there should be a moratorium on industrial clear-cutting of the last remaining intact ancient forest valleys, yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Irrespective of the fact that we don't seem to have an acceptable certification process, in your mind, is there a process that would allow cutting today within the rain forest?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I have an example. Greenpeace has worked closely with MacMillan Bloedel, who are involved in a joint venture in Clayoquot Sound with the first nations people, the Nuu-chah-nulth. They've created a joint venture corporation called Ehattesaht, and the Nuu-chah-nulth own 51% and MacMillan Bloedel 49%. That corporation has been in the process of negotiating a memorandum of understanding with interests in Clayoquot Sound, including the loggers and environmental groups who were involved in the battle to protect Clayoquot. The draft memorandum, which has not gone through final stages of agreement, would allow for harvesting in fragmented valleys—valleys that have already been affected.

Greenpeace in our materials notes that in areas such as the central coast of British Columbia, some harvesting of old growth may be the only means to forest employment in those communities, which is where we would say there are exceptions to incursions into those pristine valleys. We would rather see them all protected. We recognize there are limited options and would support community-based, ecologically responsible, selective harvesting in some of those regions.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: You spoke about the ecosystem and the canopy of the temperate forest.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: As an example, yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Do you believe those populations are fixed in time somehow? Obviously ecology moves along and the forest turns over. Was that your attempt to lock that sort of thing in space somehow?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: No, certainly not, but the natural evolution of a forest ecosystem is very different from clear-cut, slash and burn.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Well, you use that definition, but as I understand it, the Forest Practices Code is trying to emulate ecology to some extent. So where ecology would do that, they would then turn around and replace it with second growth.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I think that's giving a little more credit to the Forest Practices Code than it actually deserves, frankly.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you, Alex.

I have Werner, then Yvon, and then Gerald.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, ladies, for your presentation on this topic. Thank you for appearing before the committee. I'm very impressed with the articulation of the position you have presented, and I want to clarify a couple of things.

It seems to me, Catherine, that in response to Mr. Shepherd's questions you said you would be prepared to have selective harvesting in old-growth forest. Yet earlier in your presentation, I got the message from you—at least I thought I did—that you were really opposed to any harvesting in old-growth forests. Could you clarify that?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Yes. Basically we think the remaining pristine valleys should be protected, and certainly protected from industrial harvesting. We also recognize that there are very limited options.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Could I stop you? Just what do you mean by industrial harvesting?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Large-scale clear-cuts, traditional methods of—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: But I used the term “selective harvesting”. You would support selective harvesting?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: We would support some. It's difficult to answer in a really straightforward way, because it's partially based on the biodiversity values of given areas. Some are supporting an abundance of wildlife, some are critically important grizzly habitats, and some are supporting endangered runs of coho salmon, for instance. It has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

• 1505

So a case-by-case analysis might lead to us saying, “From a biological standpoint, we don't believe there should be any incursion into this area”, or “From a biological standpoint, we believe some community-controlled selective harvesting in this other area might be possible”. But to categorically say, for all valleys, no or yes is simply impossible. It involves that kind of assessment.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That leads me then into the Forest Stewardship Council and the establishment there of criteria. You've cast your ballot in favour of that certification group rather than the other two. Will the Forest Stewardship Council determine guidelines and standards for certification of old-growth forest as well as second-, third-, and fourth-growth forests?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: That's actually a very contentious issue, and FSC International's meeting coming up in June, I believe, is going to be addressing that very question, but potentially, yes.

I should again emphasize that we're not giving blanket endorsement to FSC. It's an evolving process as well, and we are very much involved in tracking that evolution. We hope it will stay on the right path.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, if you haven't cast your lot completely with the Forest Stewardship Council, are you tracking the work of CFA and of the other certification councils as well?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: We've certainly monitored CFA's development of standards, but not very closely, because the systems are so different. The key point there is the on-the-ground verification. The CFA system verifies the management plans—basically the paper intentions—of the company without actually doing field verification of the application of those standards. Those are two completely different methods of certification.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The other question I have has to do with the way in which you go about doing the work you do. I think everyone in Canada is aware of the fact that things had to change in forest practices. Everybody, I think, agrees that something had to happen. And a lot has happened. MacMillan Bloedel has made a complete about-face with regard to clear-cutting, and that's great.

My question now is of a more sociological nature. It's about the ways in which communities are affected by some of the intrusions you have made into those communities. I'm asking you, what is your goal? What is your purpose in moving into a community, perhaps knowing or anticipating or expecting that the result of this could be a divisiveness within the community that would tear the community so that it would begin to fight within itself?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: It's important to recognize the diversity of opinions that exist in these communities. The characterization of Greenpeace “moving into” an area is often not a reflection of what's actually happened. A good example of that is Bella Coola. I'm sure if you met with the elected council in Bella Coola, you probably heard lots about Greenpeace fostering division in the community. In fact Greenpeace was embroiled in the Clayoquot Sound debate when the elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs of the Nuxalk Nation flew to Vancouver, came to our offices, and said “Clayoquot Sound is not the only forest in crisis. We want your help.” And they invited us into their community.

As it happened, a few years after beginning work in that community and with those leaders, there was an election that led to a change in leadership. However, over the course of a year or two of work with a sector of the community that felt profoundly and deeply and strongly about damage to sites of cultural and religious value, we had developed some pretty firm relationships and had made commitments to those people that we didn't feel we could renege on simply because there was a new elected councillor. The hereditary chiefs were still seeking our support, and to this day are still seeking our support, in transforming forest practices in their region.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Is your orientation then one of promoting one group versus another, or is your overall purpose to get a unification of a community toward a particular end?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Ideally of course we would like to see communities unified, in the same way we would like to see consensus emerge from government processes where our stakeholders are involved. But as a global environmental organization, our overarching objective is to look at these issues in an international context and fight for the promotion of ecological values, recognizing, of course, human beings' place in the ecosystem. Ultimately, we feel that it's up to the communities to resolve their differences. We are one voice in that debate.

• 1510

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So would you act as a catalyst? Or knowing full well that if these differences of opinion exist—and they do, we all know that—and you come out on one side, do you have a plan then afterwards as to how you can heal, if you will, the wounds that have been created through these divisions?

Ms. Catherine Stewart: If there's any way we can help in that, yes, but we don't really feel that it's our place to dictate to the community what path they should take in the healing.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm not suggesting a dictatorship.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: They have to seek a path toward resolution as to the diversity and the differences that existed within the community prior to Greenpeace's involvement. If there's any way we can aid in or facilitate that, then we're happy to do it, but it's certainly not incumbent on us to decide what it should be or what the proper course of action is.

The Chairman: Thank you, Catherine.

Ms. Karen Wristen: May I make a comment?

The Chairman: Make it really short, because I want to get a couple of more members in before we wind up.

Ms. Karen Wristen: I would like to support what Catherine said and tell you what it is we do as an investigative team and what many of our other colleagues in the movement do when we work in these communities, knowing that there are divisions that may well be exacerbated by the focus the world brings to that community when we go in there.

What we do is make sure that everybody gets the information. We go in with instructions from the hereditary council that we're to share the information we develop with the band council so that they can at least develop the same expertise and knowledge base that we have. What they do with it after that is a democratic process. It's up to them to decide how they deal with it. But we just want to keep everybody on the same page and be as open as possible with the information.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Wristen.

We're going to go to Yvon, give a short question to Joe, and then finish with Gerald.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: First, I want to welcome you. Since my colleagues have already asked several questions I had in mind, I will ask you more direct questions.

In the course of that consulting process, we visited a number of places. I have some experience since my father was a forester and my brothers were loggers. Some of them still log, even if they are now 58 years old. For us, the forest is our garden; it's not only a garden for future generation. The forest is what sustained us, our livelihood.

We talk about the old growth forest and of the new plantation, the second one, which is already being harvested. I talked to loggers who use chainsaws and other pieces of machinery. They told me that if we don't cut the old growth, there won't be enough wood for them to continue working. We worry about future generations, but I wonder whether we are not forgetting our own generation. I met loggers who had been affected by this situation, not only during the past two days, but last year too, in January, when I was in Prince George. They asked me why they were prevented from logging, to give the chance to others to do it later on. They have to look after their families, to provide them with food and shelter. They are asking why they should let others have a chance to log.

I'd like to commend those groups who lobby on behalf of loggers. I completely agree with you when you say that it's important for companies and governments to act responsibly and to plant another tree whenever they cut one. Is this what happens today? It's in this direction that we should try to act. It's not thanks to you only that the forest is here. It's here so that we can use it and protect it for future generations.

I'd like to hear your comments on this issue. I am afraid that right now, people suffer the consequences of actions that were too strict and that were taken to try and find an answer to satisfy everybody. I also want to add that we created parks to save the forest.

• 1515

[English]

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I certainly agree it is, and I appreciate your comments. It's imperative upon us to have that sense of responsibility and to anticipate the needs of future generations, not just our own short-term needs. So I appreciate your views on that and share them.

Karen, do you want to—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I am more concerned about the loggers who are prevented from cutting trees than about future generations.

[English]

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Probably the best thing to do would be to refer you to some of the suggestions.

Ms. Karen Wristen: I think first and foremost what governments everywhere have to do is listen to what is being said in the communities.

Mr. Godin, you mentioned that what you heard in Prince Rupert was there isn't enough wood left to cut. You're hearing that all over the province. People know that cutting in the way we've been cutting, with the methods we've been cutting, won't work any more; they want to go back to local control, local jobs, value added. That's what we're hearing. We hope that this government and the provincial government will listen to this and support processes that will change tenure.

Specifically, one of the recommendations we have made for the federal government in terms of helpful recommendations that could help this process of change is when money is going into economic diversification for British Columbia we should be looking at the value-added kinds of industry we could have here.

Raw log exports this year are higher again than they were last year, more than a million cubic metres, and 300,000 cubic metres is what it took to support the Eburne Sawmill, a state-of-the art sawmill on the Fraser River that closed last year. We're exporting three times what would keep that sawmill going in one year, and why? That's 300 jobs in one mill times three, nearly 1,000 jobs a year in raw log exports. That's not right, and it should stop.

If we were to devote spending to assessing what is on the ground.... Our federal database for information about what we have here and what we're destroying day by day is woeful; we don't even know how to protect it, because we don't know what's there. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans needs field habitat assessment officers who can be out there collecting the data, doing the investigation and enforcing the standards that we do have.

We need desperately a federal endangered species act so that for those species already at risk.... We have salmon and orca whales now listed as threatened and endangered species; we need measures that can be implemented immediately to protect those species and their habitats.

There are a number of other suggestions that we've included on this list. One of the most important ones, though, is investing in solutions, and in our respectful submission that would certainly include investing some money in the development of this forest stewardship certification program so that regional standards can be developed and we can get behind them as an environmental movement and say this is the answer to the B.C. forest industry's woes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Wristen.

Joe Comuzzi, then we'll finish with Gerald Keddy. We're running a bit overtime here, but we appreciate your indulgence.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): I have one short question, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Wristen, you're a lawyer, I assume.

Ms. Karen Wristen: Yes, I am.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: When you have these things the federal government should do, all of your recommendations with the exception of one involve the increasing of funding. That's usually a legal term to get the lawyers involved with the funding process. Are you in that area?

Ms. Karen Wristen: No. In fact we won't even accept federal government funding or provincial government funding.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: I say that in jest. I was here several years ago when we did much what this group did in the last few days. That's when the European Community was putting a barrier against any products that were produced in British Columbia, including the fur trade. Are you familiar with that?

• 1520

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Several years ago the EEC did place restrictions on the importation of seal products, yes, with an exemption for any indigenous—-

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: But they were also at the same time canvassing the foresters. Anyway, there were some definite results at the time. What I want to ask you as a question is I'm told some of the companies changed from the clear-cutting process and went into the more selective type of cutting, and if they had been remiss in the reforestation they increased their efforts in reforestation. They tried at that time and continued through that period to try to correct some of the errors they may have made in their operations. I was led to believe that some of those things were corrected, some of those were operating very well. I didn't hear either of you allude to the progress that had been made in the last several years with the forestry industry. Maybe it's not going as fast as you wanted to go, but has there been a substantial movement forward? When you cut a tree down you have to plant a tree. That's pretty simplistic. What do you guys think? What's your analysis of that?

Ms. Karen Wristen: Certainly there's been progress. I expect that the other witnesses I see are going to be testifying before you are going to tell you all about that. We only have an hour with you, and we'd really like to tell you what's wrong with it.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: We believe you on what's wrong. We'd like you to give us an analysis in your opinion of what's right, too. Are there some things right?

Ms. Karen Wristen: Certainly having companies move from at least a position where the only possibility is clear-cutting to saying they will look at implementing selective retention strategies is an improvement, but we'd love to see it pan out on the ground. What we have seen, with all respect to the various levels of government that have been involved, is more smoke and mirrors than actual on-the-ground protection. We're seeing salmon at risk. We're seeing salmon runs dying off, and it's still legal to drive a truck through a coho stream. I can't call that an improvement, because the actual on-the-ground experience is not changing yet. But people are starting to talk about moving in the right directions, and that's good. And we're still part of the process, so that's good too.

The Chairman: Thank you, Joe.

Gerald, last word's to you.

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

I've listened intently to the discussion here, and I thank you both very much for coming. There are several areas where there seems to be a discrepancy sometimes in what you're saying and what other people have been saying, a discrepancy in some of the things that have been written and some of the things that have been said. But specifically in the community discussions...there's a lot of discussion about communities here, and although I come from the other coast, I certainly live in a very small community and there's a lot of discussion of stewardship and responsibility.

I've been a logger and a woodlot owner and a farmer. I'm the fifth generation on that piece of land, and we're still logging the same property. Mind you, when the trees are cut they grow back and it takes some time.

Specifically, when you come to discuss communities and the people who live in them, what community—and you can answer these at the end, whichever one of you chooses—do you represent? I don't take community as greater community. I mean community such as Bella Coola or Vancouver. What community, what name, and what place?

There's a discussion that you're not advocating the ban of B.C. forest products, or I would assume any other Canadian forest products. However, there has been discussion where you said your supporters have been dealing with suppliers and customers in other countries and they have chosen to ban. I don't quite understand if there's an intricate connection there, but I can't quite put my foot on it.

• 1525

There are a lot of statistics here, and some of them are a bit confusing. Certainly on the number of animal species, I would hope that one animal species would be too many to be lost, or one plant species. But sometimes it's very difficult to prove they're in danger. It's easy to say, but it's very alarmist and very difficult to prove.

You've stated that there's no natural occurrence, and I have to say that I've been up close to a forest fire and I've seen mature red spruce explode before the fire ever gets to it because there's so much heat there and fireballs go up in the air and land 100 yards or 200 or 300 yards farther downwind and start another fire. They're extremely destructive. And there's blowdown. We've had a case in the Christmas Mountains in New Brunswick—Yvon probably is well aware of it—where six or seven million cords of wood were blown down in one windstorm in one afternoon. It becomes a massive salvage operation.

We spent some time here, and I like to think that I have some knowledge of good forestry practices and some knowledge of trees and how to cut them and how to get them out of the woods and how not to impact on the environment. Certainly we flew over thousands and thousands of acres of logged area, starting in the interior of B.C. yesterday, and perhaps we flew over some areas that were not logged with extremely sustainable logging methods, or where they could have done a better job. I saw a lot of regions, and I saw some good planning and I saw some good forestry practices.

When we came to the coast here and understand the amount of land there is available to cut and the companies are saying they're not clear-cutting any more, that they're cutting 35-hectare plots—we were on a lot of small plots—and there were riparian strips around every stream of any significant size.... I won't get into the argument that a metre may be better than a metre and a half, but at the same time, you have to set a standard somewhere.

On the road-building, the only erosion I have seen since we've been out here.... And I will say that I've been out here before; I was out here and I had an extensive run of the area in 1988, and the only erosion I saw at that time was natural erosion or slides coming down off the mountains. And that included the Queen Charlotte Islands, where some of the islands had been cut completely, with no riparian strips at all, but there was no erosion.

It's always easy to be an adversary, but it's never easy to find solutions. I'm hearing you say you want to be part of a solution, but I'm not necessarily convinced or I'm not necessarily seeing that you really want to make this step.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: There are quite a lot of issues to take on. Let me touch on a few of them, at any rate.

I'd really like to encourage you to read some of the information we've given you, because it's certainly difficult to summarize all of these very complex issues in a short presentation. I also encourage you to contact us if there are questions you still feel need to be addressed after you've had a chance to read through some of the printed and written materials.

First off, on the markets issue, I'd like to distinguish between what you could call a boycott and “buycott”. A boycott is when you go to companies and you say don't buy wood from British Columbia. That's not what we're doing. A “buycott” is when you go to companies and say “You shouldn't really be buying from the companies that are engaging in these practices. You should take responsibility as a consumer and encourage those companies to change. Perhaps you should suggest that if they don't change you may not be able to continue buying from them some day.” But use your strength as a consumer to put pressure on your supplier, to meet the standards that your customers are demanding from you as a major retailer or wholesaler of wood products, for instance. And that's more along the lines of what the Greenpeace campaign has been about.

We have not been calling for some blanket boycott of all B.C. forest products. Because once a customer cancels a contract, they can no longer wield that influence. If they cancel a contract with B.C. and go to a Scandinavian supplier, then obviously Interfor or Western Forest Products is not going to be as influenced by what that company is saying, unless of course they're trying to seek that business back. But certainly when a company is in a position to say, “You are our supplier, and we want you to help us meet customer demands”, then they can exercise a great deal of influence in the transformation of the forest industry practices.

• 1530

In regard to the staff and the data and who's right and what's true, I recall that back in 1992, Greenpeace called for a 50% cut to the cod quota on the east coast, and John Crosbie called us demented and said there was absolutely no foundation in science and no foundation in fact to even suggest that such a massive cut to the cod quota was required. I hate to say I told you so, but in 1993-94 we spent—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Yvon Godin: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chairman: Order.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Just to put that in perspective, sometimes the people who are identified as radicals, naysayers, or extremists can be making suggestions for a more precautionary approach to our management of natural resources that, in the context of present-day reality, is seen to be above and beyond what's required, and one or two or 10 years later, in hindsight, can be seen to be exactly what was required and then some.

So we are strongly advocating a precautionary approach towards the management of our last remaining intact forest valleys.

As for fires and landslides, ecosystems are really different, and there are certainly natural disturbances, but the extent of the openings caused by natural landslides or fires, in a very wet forest and ecosystem, simply isn't equal to the disturbance that can be and has been caused in the past by the huge openings created by industrial forestry. It's a different ecosystem type from the boreal, for instance, so you don't see those kinds of massive forest fires over huge acreages.

The Chairman: I'd like you to wrap it up, Catherine.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like to know about the community you represent.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I represent the community of supporters of our organization across Canada and around the world—the community that has voted, with their dollars and their voluntary support, to help Greenpeace and other environmental organizations pursue the interests of the environment.

I think Karen might have a few final words as well.

The Chairman: I know you've indulged us with quite a bit of extra time, and members have had really good questions.

Is there a really quick point, Karen?

Ms. Karen Wristen: I simply wanted to leave a copy of this briefing note with you that responds to the communities questions. I don't know their names, but 100 communities in this province want to see community forestry. More than 100 of them applied for the licensing process for community forestry. So there is a strong community-based interest here for change.

And I don't speak for any particular community at all; I speak for clients who've retained me on particular files.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. If 100 communities applied for community forestry, didn't 100 communities also say they approved of the current forestry practices?

The Chairman: That's a point of debate, but it's a good point to have on the record.

Mr. Mayfield promised to ask a very short question, and then we're going to take a one-minute break and rotate our witnesses.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): I thank you for your indulgence. I'll be brief and I'll ask our witnesses to be equally brief.

You mentioned your concern for species involved in forestry practices. I can't hold you to this letter you have referred to. I don't think you're the author of this letter, but you have referred to it. In the third paragraph it says:

The State of the Environment Reporting office of British Columbia reported in 1966 that one in ten plant and animal species in B.C. is facing extinction. Logging is cited as one of the major causes of species decline.

Can you tell me which species? Have any species gone extinct? Are there three, or two, or can you mention even one that has gone extinct as a result of logging?

Ms. Karen Wristen: I certainly can't name species for you without having records here that I don't have, but—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Are you saying there are species that have gone extinct, even though you can't name them?

Ms. Karen Wristen: There are species that have gone extinct in Canada.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: As a result of logging?

Ms. Karen Wristen: I don't know if logging could be cited as the sole cause of extinction of any single species.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: So this doesn't mean logging has made any species extinct then. Is that correct? Would you say that?

• 1535

Ms. Karen Wristen: Logging has contributed to the extinction of species, and if it continues at the rate it is continuing and the way it is continuing—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: But can you mention which species that would be?

Ms. Karen Wristen: It would be those 300 to 500 insects in the canopy of the old-growth forest.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I thought that was more, not less.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I think it's very important to note, however, it's almost impossible to prove cause and effect in the extinction of species. Is it an industrial chemical? Is it climate change? You know there's a host of factors that need to be taken into consideration. But we can trace direct impacts of some industrial practices on some species. We've lost 100—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: It seems to be a general flag you're waving, and you're not able to back it up. That concerns me.

Ms. Catherine Stewart: I don't think it's a question of backing it up. I think it's a question of taking a precautionary approach. When you know 142 runs of salmon are already extinct, and you know that logging has consequences for salmon streams, then you know that continuing the practice of clear-cut logging in areas where stocks are at risk of extinction is ill-advised. It's that simple.

If I could just say one more thing to the committee, my colleagues at the Sierra Club of British Columbia contacted me today and asked me to extend their profound apologies to the committee, as they won't be able to send a representative. I believe they're on the schedule, but they had some difficulties with travelling and won't be able to make it. They wanted you to know they will be submitting a written brief, and they extend their apologies for not making an appearance today.

The Chairman: Thank you to both Ms. Wristen and Ms. Stewart.

Just on Mr. Mayfield's point, perhaps you could supply the committee with some examples of species, pursuant to Mr. Mayfield's questions, that are, shall we say, generally referred to in the letter.

I now invite Richard Slaco, Bill Dumont, Linda Coady, and Sandra Lavigne to the table, please.

• 1538

• 1541

The Chairman: I'd like to call our meeting back to order.

We'll have approximately an hour with representatives from Interfor, Western Forest Products Ltd., and MacMillan Bloedel. Their names are on the witness list and in front of you.

We welcome you to the committee and ask you to make a few opening remarks. I know there are three of you, so hopefully you can try to keep it to five minutes or less. We'll just go in the order you're listed.

Mr. Slaco, I invite you to start. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Richard Slaco (Chief Forester, International Forest Products (Interfor)): Thank you and the rest of the committee for the invitation.

I am the chief forester for International Forest Products, which is a B.C.-based logging and sawmilling company. Our business employs over 3,000 Canadians and we're very proud to produce wood products for sale to international markets.

I understand that the intention here is to provide some brief comments. I intend to do that in terms of some general statements, and then perhaps focus on one element that I think is very important in this discussion. Likewise, I gather, my colleagues will also be making subsequent comments, and the bulk of the presentation time will be for questions.

First of all, if there is one common bond we share right across Canada, it's our spectacular public forests. The Cariboo and central coast area you had the opportunity to visit is a very vast area of forest, and with that huge area of forest comes many demands.

On behalf of Interfor, I can say we take our commitments to manage those forest lands very seriously. We certainly intend to do and have done a large degree of management in the areas we look after. We understand that what we do will not necessarily satisfy all interests. I think that's very clear.

More important, in talking about what we do, is the fact you had an opportunity to see the forest yourselves. Rather than speaking about our practices, on which I have contained some information in a written brief for you, the opportunity for you to see for yourselves what we do, in terms of activities, and come up with you own opinions is of great value. It's something we do quite often with our customers who have concerns.

What I'd like to emphasize about our company is that we are not apologetic. We are actually very proud, and the workforce and many of the voices you heard on your trip emphasize that they're a very proud workforce, in terms of the type of activities they do and what they represent. This is not to say we're complacent or we know everything, in terms of our forest management practices. It does say we are positive in our outlook and our attitude in moving forward. We recognize the need for change, and the process of continuous improvement will ensure constant innovation and efficiencies necessary to run a modern and competitive business. Understandably, we recognize we can't do the job alone. Partnerships will be necessary, some of which we have yet to develop.

• 1545

Many of the common values that Canadians seek from our forests are those described in the principles of sustainability as defined by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. I believe these principles are a guide to finding the balance to meet the needs of both current and future generations. In simple terms, we must practice good forest management and protect our important resource values. However, to be successful we must do more than that. We must be proactive in promoting the use of Canadian wood products. In the short time I have I would like to highlight this aspect.

In my opinion, a critical component of our future is tied to the marketplace. The future demand for Canadian wood will be the driving force behind our ability to pay for our good stewardship. With this in mind, I believe we have a good story to tell.

Wood is the most environmentally friendly building product in the world. Wood coming from well-managed Canadian forests is an attribute to be heralded, not chastised. We want the world to be interested in our forests as a sustainable source of supply. At the same time, this may provide for some unique opportunities. The storage of carbon in a young forest is an important element in dealing with global climate change, and is one of those.

Right now I'm not personally aware of any other country that does a better job of managing and conserving its natural forests than we do.

I would say in conclusion that I would urge this committee to work with the federal government in promoting the use and sale of Canadian forest products.

With that, I'd like to pass it on to Bill Dumont.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Dumont.

Mr. Bill Dumont (Chief Forester, Western Forest Products Ltd.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Bill Dumont. I'm chief forester with Western Forest Products. I'm accompanied here by Sandy Lavigne, who is our environmental programs coordinator. She is responsible for shepherding the company through the achievement of certification. We're working on three systems. So she's available and very knowledgeable about the status of certification across Canada.

I want to thank you and the committee again, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Western Forest Products and the company's 4,000 workers, I want to express our sincere appreciation for taking the time to visit our beautiful province and see our sustainable forest practices first-hand.

Noel, the tree I've brought with me today, is another friend. It is not another gift from our forest, even though the B.C. forest industry provides more than $4 billion in tax revenue to the government treasury each year. And no, it's not really an early Christmas tree. I brought it to illustrate a point about Canada and British Columbia's ability to grow trees. We have some of the best tree-growing areas in the world. I'd like you to note that starting from the top down to the first side branch is the growth on a Sitka spruce tree that is eight years old. That occurred last year. That tree grew six feet in one year.

We have forest areas in coastal British Columbia that can produce one truckload per hectare of timber every year. So that's one area of two and a half acres that produces one load of logs every year. This is a very important point not to forget. We talk a lot about logging and the issues around logging. But we also grow one heck of a lot of trees in Canada. This is the kind of capacity that's approaching tropical growth rates. We can do this in coastal British Columbia. We also have third-growth forest growing now. You saw some of these yesterday and today.

My own parent company has annual sales of Canadian dollars of close to $1 billion. We market in 60 countries around the world. Our customers produce thousands of products, ranging from beautiful fabrics, plastics, film, fine writing paper, food additives, musical instruments, products that make pharmaceuticals more effective, that produce healthier food and generally improve our quality of life, along with quality lumber and building materials. All of these items come from our forests.

• 1550

For some time, however, we have had pressure from interests who do not agree our forest management is acceptable in today's context of concern over the environment. There has been direct action by these interests to have our customers stop doing business with our company. In some instances that has been successful. It's about time the world got a better understanding of the care and attention we are devoting to sustaining our forests.

Our system is based on sustaining ecosystems, while ensuring all parties have a say in the decisions. We have a complex and comprehensive set of laws that govern all our practices. As you have seen, the first nations have an interest and want a greater interest from both a cultural and an economic direction. Their interest in being more involved in forestry is dramatically increasing.

In cooperation with many community volunteers, our company has operated four salmon hatcheries in coastal British Columbia for the past two decades. In 1998 we celebrated the release of our 10 million salmon fry, in the same year our chairman planted our 75 millionth tree. We've been planting trees for 50 years in British Columbia and releasing salmon into 19 rivers for the last 20 years.

We're also in the midst of working toward independent third-party certification of our forestry activities, to address customer interests and market issues. We were doing all things consistent with the Montreal process and in cooperation with the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers' criteria indicators. We also work in the context of many sustainability initiatives by the province of B.C.

In our opinion, much of what is occurring in the marketplace with the boycott issue and international forest boycott campaigns is really the failure of UNCED in Rio in 1992 to reach an agreement on a forest convention. We need our political leaders, such as yourselves, to shepherd a forest accord on a national and international basis.

We understand the trends and importance of environment to our customers and societies, both locally and internationally. Our customers have made it very clear they want to source environmentally responsible products from environmentally responsible forest companies.

The issue you are hearing views on this week is not about conflict between environment and development; it's about resolving conflict through positive response and change. The industry workers, communities, first nations and companies that service and manage these forests are committed to sustainable forestry. We also need our federal government to consider strengthening and revitalizing its involvement in the arena of international trade and forest products. My recommendations here are not to be critical of existing programs. We're asking for an increase in what is being done.

We also need to invest in the integrity of sustainable development and the conservation of Canada's and the world's forests, by ensuring well-informed programs are in place in key missions in the marketplace. We need high-level interaction between government and all stakeholders, especially between such groups as Greenpeace, international NGOs and the forest sector.

Small steps have been taken by both Greenpeace and the Sierra Club of B.C. to join processes in our province. We need to encourage more of these proactive efforts. It's very important to have more federal assistance in ensuring accurate and timely information on our forest practices. It's also critical that the federal government work on the concept of equivalency and international mutual recognition for certification, so they do not become technical barriers to trade.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you and the committee will not soon forget your visit here. We would like you to remember how significant the growth capacity in our forests is, and the tremendous future we face with good and continued market access. Thank you again for coming and taking an interest in this important issue.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dumont.

Next if Linda Coady, from MacMillan Bloedel.

Ms. Linda Coady (Vice-President, Environmental Enterprise, MacMillan Bloedel): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Linda Coady. I'm vice-president of environmental enterprise with MacMillan Bloedel.

• 1555

MacMillan Bloedel is a Canadian forest products company with sales of approximately $5 billion a year. We employ several thousand Canadians here in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan, and in Ontario. Our company is currently undergoing a restructuring process, which is seeing it exit the paper and packaging business and focusing exclusively on being a building materials company.

I've worked for the company for five years. I became involved with it in 1993, when MacMillan Bloedel was involved in a major social controversy over logging in Clayoquot Sound. As you may recall, there were protests at that time over MacMillan Bloedel's logging operations in Clayoquot. That resulted in 800 arrests in the largest incident of civil disobedience in Canadian history. Later it resulted in our company being the focus of efforts by environmental groups to organize an international boycott of our products. So market pressures are something our company has been coping with for a long time now, going back to 1993.

My role with the company has been focused on helping it and our workers and customers and shareholders and communities deal with those pressures. One of the ways we decided to deal with them was by changing some of the ways we do business, in particular, some of the ways we practice forestry.

Therefore, last year, as I'm sure you're aware, we announced some changes to our corporate forest management policy that basically contained three main elements: first, a commitment to phase out clear-cut harvesting over the course of the next five years and replace it with an ecologically based system known as variable retention; second, to increase the conservation of old growth here in British Columbia's forests beyond what is required by law or regulation; third, to achieve forest certification of our products.

More recently, since that announcement, my role with the company has been focused on that second objective of increasing the conservation of old growth. My focus on that is on market mechanisms for increased conservation. In that effort I'm working a lot with first nations, environmental groups, and some of our customers to develop some new lines of products from B.C.'s old-growth forests that can be sold in markets on the basis that these products help conserve old-growth forests in British Columbia. As you can see, it's a bit of a flip from where we started our discussion with some of these groups several years ago.

I've provided the committee with some background on some of the initiatives I'm involved with for our company. I particularly want to draw your attention to the fact that I spoke last week in San Francisco on a panel to a large number of big U.S. corporations that were named in the ad that appeared in the New York Times before Christmas—I don't know if you're familiar with it—that was urging American corporations to take the pledge to go old-growth-free. I was down there with others from British Columbia to talk with these companies about our practices.

Secondly, I would draw your attention to an invitation in our background package from a group called Forest Trends, of which I am the Canadian director. Forest Trends is a global organization involving the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, and the World Bank. Its focus is on market mechanisms for responsible consumption of forest products, conservation, and sustainable forest management. We are convening a workshop here in British Columbia next month, in Victoria, to look at this whole issue of market-based mechanisms for conservation and how we can get more of that happening in British Columbia.

I think there is a role for the federal government in exploring these issues because I think we would see issues around climate change and the carbon potential in forests come forward as a possible revenue stream to help finance additional conservation in our forests. I would therefore recommend or ask that you look at that background material and be open to discussing opportunities for federal involvement and moving forward on some of those projects.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Coady.

We appreciate all the presentations.

We'll go to Dave Chatters, then Carmen, and then Monique.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the witnesses, not only for coming today but for their efforts in organizing our trip for the last two days. Essentially, our trip was to address the issue of boycotts or buycotts, or whatever term you would choose to use, on Canadian forest products, particularly those from British Columbia.

We just heard a very conflicting message from the last set of witnesses in comparison with what we hear from you and what we saw in the last two days. It is quite curious that what is being said by the two sides is so different. I would like you to address, for one thing, why there is so much difference. Why, in fact, are you continuing to destroy salmon streams? Are you violating the Forest Practices Code on Yeo Island, where we were this morning? I want to hear your response to some of those things.

• 1600

I would like particularly MacMillan Bloedel to address the issue of clear-cutting versus retention harvesting and how you accomplish that on some of the terrain we were in this morning, on those kinds of mountainsides. How can you possibly selectively harvest those locations?

Last is the issue of the million cubic metres of raw logs that are being exported from Canada. I'd like you to respond to that.

The Chairman: Are there any takers?

Mr. Bill Dumont: Let me address the first issue, regarding Yeo Island.

When the campaign heated up over the last two years regarding our forestry operations on the central coast, we started to get complaints to government regarding our forestry practice. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund made complaints to government and other government agencies on four separate occasions, last year particularly.

In all cases, investigations were undertaken by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the B.C. Ministry of Environment, and the B.C. Ministry of Forests. The latest charges that were claimed regarding forestry practices at Yeo Island involved six items.

On three occasions investigators from the government, both accompanied by us in some instances and by themselves, completed a lengthy investigation and concluded that with the exception of one problem on which we were given a warning ticket because we had not graded the road properly according to the inspectors, the incidents that were claimed to have occurred did not occur.

For example, a statement was made that we had used culturally modified trees to build bridges on Yeo Island. That's a very serious charge, because we highly respect the culturally modified trees as part of the heritage of the local indigenous people. To suggest that workers, who are Heiltsuk people, had built a bridge using one of their cultural artifacts is a very serious charge. The tree was looked at by an archeologist as well as by government inspectors and the charge was found to be frivolous. But it took us several months to address this issue. These are not easy things to deny on the spot.

No violations of the federal Fisheries Act, the Forest Act, or the Forest Practices Code in any of the four main charges were found against the company. A warning ticket was issued regarding road maintenance.

I delivered this report to the Heiltsuk people. We've also had reports from the government. We are inspected over 1,100 times a year by the government. Every day, someone from the government enters somewhere on our forest lands, as many as three times a day. We have a compliance record that shows in excess of 99% of the time they inspected us, there was no issue. Where there was an issue, they were very minor incidents where a warning ticket or a ticket was given.

Mr. Richard Slaco: I wouldn't mind answering that from our perspective and perhaps.... You know, you brought up the issue of conflicting points of view. We're going to get that. It's very easy to be a critic. The type of work that we do, however, is very open, as Bill referred to, in terms of public process and inspections. We are quite willing and in fact encourage people to come and look, as you did yourselves, to see what we do. But we're not going to be able to stop the critics. In fact I think it's a normal part of the process.

We're not looking for confrontation. It's very easy to want to go out and refute everything that's being said. I don't think that's necessarily a wise use of our energy. I think we have a very good story to tell. I think we do a very good job, and I think we should be talking and focusing on the positives. However, when statements are made, I think we have a very good answer.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you, Dave.

Carmen, then Monique.

• 1605

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There seem to be some synonymous terms here, but I want to make sure I get your definition of them.

The forest industry seems to talk in terms of forest management practices, and organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund seem to be talking about ecosystem management practices. I think at this stage of the game they've come to mean one and the same thing. That's why I said I think they are synonymous terms. The forestry industry doesn't seem to use those terms very easily—ecosystem management practices—yet what I understand to be the case is that the industry has made tremendous strides in making the transition and accepting responsibility for ecosystem management.

I think I'm correct there, but if I'm not I'd like your comments.

Companies like Lignum, your own company Western Forest Products, Interfor, and MacMillan Bloedel seem to have committed to what in effect would be “good ecosystem management programs and practices”. Yet this morning we've heard some very damning testimony directed at the forest industry. Certainly your companies are major players, so I would say it's directed at you. You heard that you're responsible, because of your ecosystem management practices or lack thereof, for destroying or allowing the destruction of hundreds of species of animal, plant, and insect life. You've heard that. I'd like some comment about that.

You've also heard, at least what I interpreted to be the responses, that any certification program, at least in the minds of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, would not necessarily bring down the barriers to trade. I'd like your comments on that, because you're certainly, from my understanding, committed to that process.

If you could answer those questions, it would help me. The reason I ask those questions is because I don't think anyone who's going to be part of the balanced solution to the kinds of problems that have been aired, just here today, can contribute to those solutions without some hard, objective, cooperative thinking and cooperative action. Your comments, please.

Mr. Richard Slaco: I wouldn't mind making some comments about your first question, regarding ecosystem management.

I think it's fair to say in that public forests the level of forestry practised, not only here in B.C. but in Canada, has quite clearly made a focused effort to draw attention to management based on the long-term health and maintenance of the forest ecosystem. Certainly the definition Canada has used for sustainability makes that quite clear. And any company, ourselves and the rest, that has made a commitment to move toward sustainability has built on that foundation. I don't think there's another forest jurisdiction that has done more in terms of working at the ecosystem level, both in terms of their stands and in terms of our management as well as at the landscape level.

Mr. Bill Dumont: On the question of fish, I recently retired as chair of the Canada-British Columbia salmon enhancement task group, of which I was a member for five years, so I have some intimate knowledge regarding fish. I've also not been the father of ten million fish, but I was quite involved in our salmon enhancement program.

It is true that we have some very serious challenges with our salmon stocks in British Columbia. It's also true that there are endangered stocks as a result of logging. But actually, the most serious problem in terms of salmon in British Columbia in terms of small streams has been in our urban areas. Vancouver had 22 salmon rivers in it, and there is one left that is viable. The lobby effort by B.C. and Canada is going in through the salmon enhancement program to try to get these urban strains back.

• 1610

Sure, we've made mistakes and impacted on salmon, and I think you saw some of the old practices and some of the new practices. These statistics are easy to quote and state off, but they have to be analysed much like the question of endangered species or threatened species. Many of our salmon stocks are indeed threatened because they are already small and they were always small. Some streams are not good ecology for all species of salmon.

So it's a matter of using the data. I agree with you that it makes no sense to fight over these issues. It would be better if we could sit in forums and work on mutual problems and resolve these issues.

Small steps are being taken in British Columbia. The fact that Greenpeace and others have agreed to sit in these forums is that small step, and I believe the solution must be a respect for both points of view and many points of view and working together on some specific projects. That's why you're seeing a lot of effort concentrated on forest certification, because I believe forest certification is quite correct. It will not solve all these issues, but it will lead to some mutual recognition that we're working in the social, economic, and environmental areas that need attention. Certainly certification has brought us closer to the environmental community, because they have a big stake in it, and so do we.

Ms. Sandy Lavigne (Environment Programs Coordinator, Western Forest Products Ltd.): I'd like to continue to address your point about certification acting as a barrier to trade.

With regard to FSC certification, I think what we're trying to achieve in British Columbia is a representative process for developing a standard that would be credible and operational. We're working on this at this time to avoid that very problem. What we're trying to ensure at the same time is that this is on par with the standards development processes that are going on around the world so that we're treated fairly through the standards development mechanism and we're recognized for all the different initiatives, either legislated or otherwise, under these standards.

The Chairman: Thank you, Carmen.

Monique Guay, please.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay: On behalf of all my colleagues and the staff who is with us, I'd like to thank you, gentlemen, for taking us on this two-day tour. You answered all our questions to the best of your knowledge and you were very honest. You didn't hide anything from us and we could see everything we wanted. In this regard, I have no reservations about the two days we spent together.

I am going to try to be brief, Mr. Chairman. Richard, you indicated that we need first to promote Canadian lumber around the world. I'd like some clarifications. What else could we do other than what is already being done by our embassies? I commend you for the initiatives you have already taken, for instance, when you decided to stay away from clear cutting for five years and to maintain the old growth forests. We all know that there is more to be done, but it's a good start.

Bill, we talked a lot about boycotts these past two days. For the record, I'd like you to give me the name of those countries who seem to boycott your products or are about to do so. You don't have to worry about giving this information to the committee.

You declared a moratorium which is going to be in place for about a year. I'd like you to describe a bit to the committee what were the impacts or the results of this moratorium.

My last question is about certification. I'd like to know what is your timeline and how you propose to go about this. I realize that this is a very costly undertaking. Thank you.

• 1615

[English]

Mr. Richard Slaco: In your first question, regarding the promotion and sale of the Canadian wood, I think this clearly is a role for the federal government to participate in. It certainly isn't the only source. I believe many others can share in that responsibility. But clearly an advantage of the federal government is their international reputation, the fact that they do have extensive embassies and trade networks already. I'm looking at the interest in terms of expanding many of the existing programs. I think we have started fairly well in terms of the exercise of bringing customers to Canada to see for themselves what we do.

I think we can expand our knowledge base of people that work in our embassies and through the trade offices in terms of describing the virtues that our wood offers. As well, because of the fact that we have such an extensive amount of forest, this is a very good news story that benefits so many others. If we keep it to ourselves, we're not really benefiting from the opportunity of the other industries that are also co-opting in the benefit of what we do.

We have terrific wood products. We have a great environmental product, and we just need a vehicle to enhance our ability to promote the sale of it. I think we can do that with an environmental platform.

I'm telling you what I think. I can't necessarily tell you all the mechanisms for the federal government, but I believe that's the process we had started on, to try to work together with the departments in coming up with appropriate plans that would do that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Lavigne.

Ms. Sandy Lavigne: I'll let Bill talk about your first two questions. I would like to address your question on certification.

There has been a lot of impressive progress with regard to certification in the province, and many companies in B.C. are beginning to move forward with actual certifications. Actually, today one of the B.C. interior licensees just announced an ISO 14001 certification, and MacMillan Bloedel has recently announced the first CSA certification in Canada.

For our part, we were the first to apply for FSC certification of our forest operations, and we're continuing down the path of ISO 14001 and CSA as well. Those are generally the three certifications that are available in B.C. at this time. We view ISO 14001 as a basis for our environmental management, and we're working on the others as a sustainable forest management component.

In terms of timelines, we're planning on field assessments for various systems later this year. We're working on indicators and criteria for those and planning on having some type of certification in place by the year 2000.

Mr. Bill Dumont: I'm reluctant to share publicly specific customer information regarding our business, but I can tell you that some of the major concerns are in the central European marketplace, where the environmental NGOs have some of their strongest support. For example, Germany provides somewhat in excess of 60% of funding for the large environmental groups, so our problems have been there.

As I mentioned earlier today, one of the difficulties when you're facing a boycott is that you know which customers you've lost or will not do business with you. You do not know the business you may not have gained as a result of it. We've had a fairly loyal group of customers. We've lost some that we worked with for a long time, one particular one in Austria. But we're finding that if we can get them here....

• 1620

The program sponsored by the federal government has been extremely helpful in bringing tours of customers and opinion-makers from Europe on tours of British Columbia. In fact there was one last week to the central coast by German publishers and paper manufacturers.

On your last question, regarding the moratorium impacts, Interfor, MacMillan Bloedel, and Western Forest Products have agreed to stay out of almost 100 areas in the central coast during this negotiating process with the communities and stakeholders. This has resulted in some layoffs of workers. If the market had been stronger through 1998 we would have faced considerably more economic difficulties by agreeing to this moratorium. It is not something we took lightly, but we were convinced that our customers wanted us to consider reducing conflict and promoting cooperation, and that's really what our attempt has been to do. We're still looking forward to getting cooperation with the environmental community on these issues.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

We have Gerry, then Yvon, then Gerald.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

Ms. Coady, MacMillan Bloedel has made a corporate decision and strategy to cease and desist in clear-cutting. Is it MacMillan Bloedel's feeling that clear-cutting is indeed permanently destructive to habitat and unmitigatable in terms of ecological damage?

Ms. Linda Coady: No, it is not, but it was our assessment after a major internal review involving outside advisers on this for a period of several months as part of our current corporate restructuring that it was not a practice we wanted to continue any further on our lands in British Columbia.

MacMillan Bloedel is clear-cutting in other parts of Canada. That has to do with the specifics of how the lands we own have always been harvested in the past and what we feel are the needs in the future in those areas. So we were very careful in making that announcement to acknowledge publicly that we were not condemning all clear-cutting by any means but we were saying we felt it was time to try a different approach in the forests that we manage and own in British Columbia.

I'm sorry, I know a member asked a question earlier and I haven't been able to jump in to respond. They asked, how can you not clear-cut on steep slopes? That was something we had a lot of discussion of and have done a lot of work around. Although I'm not a forester and a logger, I can say our loggers and foresters have been able to develop methods for that involving variable retention in steep slopes and in viewscapes. I can provide this committee with a couple of videotapes of the kinds of projects we've done in those areas. So we do believe it is possible. It is a great credit to our workers and our loggers that they have been able to figure it out and we have had terrific enthusiasm from our workers for these new methods. They are really embracing them.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: If it wasn't ecologically driven, what was the driving factor in that position?

Ms. Linda Coady: I didn't say it wasn't ecologically driven. There were ecological factors. We're just saying it's not an inappropriate method across the board.

In the case of areas where we manage, we wanted to take a different approach that would be more ecologically sensitive than clear-cutting. MacMillan Bloedel is one of the oldest companies in the province. It was founded a long time ago by H.R. MacMillan, who was a former chief forester of British Columbia. He was able to select, at a time when the land was available, some very prime tracts of forest in British Columbia that are now either owned or managed by MacMillan Bloedel. We have therefore in all of our holdings a much higher incidence of controversial areas because of their ecological characteristics. It was only more recently that other companies have joined us in these waters. We were out there for several years ahead of time because of the nature of our holdings here.

So those experiences were a major factor in shaping our impressions of the future, as were the comments we got from our customers, as Bill Dumont has referenced. Customers of Canadian forest products do not want to be caught in a never-ending debate with numbers around this stuff.

• 1625

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I'm sensing then—and correct me if I'm wrong—that a major part of the decision taken by MacMillan Bloedel had to do with potential consumer behaviour, that notwithstanding there are ecological concerns regarding clear-cutting, the move to selective cutting was born out of the potential to generate a niche in the marketplace or to defend one's marketplace.

Ms. Linda Coady: That was a factor, but I would not say it was the only driving factor. I think the reflection of that is that consumer attitudes indicate changing social values, and we feel that social values around forest issues have changed quite significantly in Canada as a whole, but in British Columbia in particular because of the old-growth forest. We felt the need to respond to that, although not to the extent that we would endorse everything the environmental groups wanted us to endorse, because if we did that we would go out of business.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: But it's true to say that MacMillan Bloedel has had a relatively exceptional level of interest and scrutiny by environmental groups in the past based on your tenure to certain lands.

Ms. Linda Coady: That's true. Until the Great Bear rain forest campaign surfaced, and my colleagues got involved, we were the only company under that kind of scrutiny.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chair, I want to reference some information that was presented by Greenpeace regarding the Great Bear rain forest.

The Chairman: What page is that?

Mr. Gerry Byrne: It's the centrefold. It's a beautiful picture because it's British Columbia. It's a map and it says regarding Canada's rain forest, this “map shows that the only remaining unlogged coastal forests of significant size in British Columbia are on the central and north coasts”. It's a thematic map referencing how much is gone. It presents a picture that 53.1% of British Columbia's coastal forests are now gone.

Could the witnesses collectively respond to that? In our tour we only viewed the mid-coast region of British Columbia. It appears that based on the information of this map, we're to understand that 53.1% of British Columbia's coastal forests are now gone.

Mr. Bill Dumont: Mr. Chairman, it is an infamous or famous map. Many people are aware of it. I'm aware of it; I've seen it before. If you look at the map, you will notice that a lot of Vancouver Island is yellow, suggesting there's no timber left. In fact, 70% of our company's operations are on Vancouver Island. You used to be able to use facts to your favour. You can also use technology. That is a satellite-generated image that only goes to a certain size on the map, and as a result it appears quite alarming, as though there are no more forests left.

British Columbia does not convert its forests to something else. There is still 100% or perhaps 93% of the coastal forest that is still here. It's of different ages, just as it was 600 years ago or 300 years ago, before the Europeans came. There were young forests, there were old forests, and there were middle-aged forests. Since the Europeans came and we started to log 150 years ago, we have harvested approximately half of the old trees. But the trees that our company logged in 1857 when we first started cutting are now approximately 150 years old. In fact, we are starting to log them for the second time.

So let's get it straight. British Columbia has not converted or lost half of its coastal forests. Man has been involved with about half of those forests. That's conservation. After 150 years of logging, we still have more than half of our original old-growth forest on the coast. We also have preserved 10% of it. In the central coast, out of the process that's going on now, I expect we will add probably 2% or 3% more.

• 1630

In the case of our company, we have approximately 52 years of old timber supply. At the end of that 52 years, almost 40% of the forests we manage will still remain in old-growth condition. That's because we don't intend to log them for environmental or social reasons. I expect this may increase.

So the suggestion that we've lost something and it hasn't been replaced by anything else is ludicrous. You have seen areas that were logged 80 years ago on the central coast. They are still forest. They're different ages. They're different in character, but the values that are important in that forest are still there.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I'll give a little wrap-up.

So basically what you're telling us, which appears consistent with the evidence we collected from first-hand observation, is that the 150-year-old regrowth that currently exists on land we saw personally would be considered part of that which is now gone; it is non-existent.

Mr. Bill Dumont: Exactly.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Good point.

I have several more questioners. So, Yvon, please. Then I have Alex to get in here, and then John, and John and Gerald.

Okay, Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: We have been told this morning, and Greenpeace confirmed it this afternoon, that a consensus had been reached not to log in about a hundred forest areas, I believe. As I understand it, this agreement applies until June 1999. What's going to happen after June 1999? Is the industry going to start logging again in these areas if another agreement is not reached?

I read in today's papers that 18,000 jobs have been lost in B.C because of Glen Clark. This claim was being made by people in the federal department of fisheries. I am a bit confused.

Your company has agreed to change its forest practices to protect the forest and its future and to prevent quick cuts. As I understand it, Bill, it seems that the solution is not a second and a third plantation.

I'd like to have some clarifications. First, what will happen at the end of June 1999, when the agreement with Greenpeace expires, if no other consensus is reached?

I am going to repeat my second question because I think it's important. In B.C papers, we can read that 18,000 jobs have been lost because of the government's actions. Greenpeace is also involved, as well as the communities and everyone. We have to save the forest. I'd like to have some clarifications from the industry.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

Mr. Richard Slaco: I'd like to address the question regarding the agreement. The agreements actually involve different companies and different time periods. Our company started the process of trying to engage the conservation groups to participate and come into the process that is going on in the central coast, the land use planning process.

We recognized that some of our activities in some of these areas of controversy were a concern. So early last year we began a series of discussions with them to try to make this type of thing happen. At the same time, we had to be very respectful of our workforce and our first nations communities in terms of making any decisions in this regard. But we worked quite hard in trying to find an appropriate compromise. We did that, and it was a written agreement. It started in June last year and it will end in June of this year.

In our case it involved us not operating in several areas that were identified as key concerns to the conservation sector. It also recognizes the principle that we would be respectful of the company's interest to try to maintain viable operations in that we would be looking for areas that would be acceptable to harvest and identify several of those in the process.

• 1635

The agreement expires in June. We haven't made a decision in terms of where we're going. One of the conditions of the agreement, of course, was to have full participation by the conservation sector in the planning process. That actually didn't start to happen until several months ago. We had anticipated that would be happening almost a year ago in terms of process.

So we're not sure at this point in time where we are going to move in this direction. We intend to consult with our workers and communities in terms of direction. As well, I can tell you that we have initiated a dialogue in terms of a request to contact and have some discussion with those same conservation groups.

For your interest, there were four groups that signed our agreement—B.C. groups—but Greenpeace was not one of them. However, we do intend to entertain discussion, and at this point in time we haven't made a decision.

The Chairman: Do you have a brief comment, Mr. Dumont?

Mr. Bill Dumont: Yes. We don't have a written agreement. We have a verbal agreement where notes were taken at the session by a facilitator.

What we have said is that if substantive progress and good faith bargaining has taken place prior to June 1999, we will continue not to operate in the areas of interest to the conservation community until the end of this process, currently scheduled as the end of this year. We expect it will go into sometime next year before the B.C. cabinet makes a final decision on this.

We have not had a lot of discussion and negotiations since that agreement was made. We're disappointed. Like Interfor, we also will have to review our options over the next few weeks and enter into discussions with the groups. We're not looking for a fight. We're not looking to foster a conflict. But there are many first nations crews that are supposed to be working in these areas that are not, and we have to weigh these concerns with the workers with the concerns of the environmental community. We don't know what we're going to do. We're actually thinking about it right now.

In terms of unemployment in the forest sector in British Columbia, we lost half of our market in Japan. It collapsed. For western hemlock—half of all the trees we cut on the coast are hemlock—the price fell in half and half the market was lost.

When job losses are talked about in the British Columbia forest sector, I think these large numbers reflect layoffs. They do not reflect job loss, and that's the difference. There's some fairly free use of the words here. I'm not convinced that there has been any significant job loss. Some major mills and some sawmills have closed, but that's less than a couple of thousand, as opposed to 18,000. Our company has increased employment significantly over the last 20 years.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dumont.

I'm going to ask John, Gerald, and Alex to be very brief with their questions because we're really getting behind—and I'm pointing at you, Gerald.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a letter here from the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. I'll read a couple of sentences. It says:

Our efforts to provide for our people, both for economic and sustainable reasons, are being continually undermined by your organizations.

This letter was written November 19 and sent to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club of B.C., Forest Action Network, and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. The letter goes on:

Your organizations continue to pay lip service to the fact that we've been here since time immemorial. The ignorance displayed towards us as a people when your organizations think they know what's best for us is appalling. The subversive and manipulative tactics each of your organizations are carrying out within our community is unequivocally without honour.

When we were on the mid-coast, we certainly heard from aboriginal leaders and from leaders from within the communities, and also from the workforce, obviously. I came up with a much different impression and characterization of the degree of community support for the forest industry activities, for forest management as it's being currently practised, than what was characterized earlier this afternoon, before your presentations. Here's your opportunity to give us maybe an alternate view of community support as opposed to the statements made by...I guess it would be Catherine Stewart from Greenpeace.

• 1640

Mr. Richard Slaco: From the perspective and the comments I made earlier, I made it quite clear that our future is going to lie in partnerships. Those partnerships are going to be with a wide range of groups. I would suggest that not only first nations, but communities, environmentalists, and others are going to be part of this process.

Our desire as a company is to find ways to run a viable, stable business with a secure timber supply that makes sense in the social context under which we work here in B.C. I think the efforts on our part are to try to balance off a lot of different needs, and the first nations are just one of those. Sometimes we don't always satisfy their interests, but I think there is a growing trend and, certainly from our company's perspective, a much greater degree of interest and positive action towards working towards resolution in this regard. As I say, sometimes it's not always at the speed that others would like to see, but it's certainly on a trend line that is moving forward and addressing some of those specific concerns.

We need to have the public's acceptance of what we're doing, and that's why we take those issues and comments quite seriously. I listened very carefully last night and heard quite clearly that we have some room to improve, but at the same time I think we have demonstrated the willingness to do that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Gerald, then Alex.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll try to get directly to the point here. Listening to what everyone has said, we keep coming back to the fact—and I want to comment on Richard's earlier statement—that the future is tied to the marketplace. I think that's probably something that has been echoed by all three presenters. Then directly behind that statement would also be echoed the fact that the marketplace is indeed affected by an increased international environmental awareness. I want to try to get away a little bit from the dichotomy of the two groups we've talked about and talked with so far and ask them specific questions on that international marketplace, and specifically forestry certification.

If we look at the Forest Stewardship Council, the International Organization for Standardization, and the Canadian Standards Association, is there a role there for the Canadian government, through the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organization, or whatever body, to try to have some uniformity of certification? We seem to have three groups that aren't really coming together—they may be getting slightly closer. Do we have a role there for the Canadian government and politicians?

The other issue is that there has been a lot of discussion about the value added because of certification. Are you seeing that value added? We had this discussion earlier today on the Swedish model, where certification has been brought in. They thought they could get a 2% to 4% premium on their product because of that, but the marketplace simply wouldn't supply that 2% to 4% premium. That's a real hindrance if you're trying to make a profit on increased costs.

The Chairman: Is that your final question, Gerald?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The final question is back again to the war in the woods. If we take this full circle and the willingness to sit down at the table, understanding that the table is not going to be set as it was in the past, can certification be the avenue to prevent that?

• 1645

Mr. Bill Dumont: On your first question regarding compatibility or agreement on the three systems, in government lingo there's something called mutual recognition. That is a concept where Canada would recognize, for example, the shipping laws of the United States or Great Britain. Without doing a great deal of analysis, you accept that those laws are legitimate and acceptable, because they've been put in place with a process that's acceptable to Canada.

It's our company's belief that the solution to the differing standards of certification is through the concept of mutual recognition. When you get to the concept of mutual recognition, government must be involved. These certification systems are currently not government-driven. There is a market mechanism at the current time.

It would be premature for governments to get involved until the certification issue is clear. I can count eight systems in place now around the world—there was one announced the other day by the Asian nations in Southeast Asia. Until there is some clarity in where this is going, it's probably premature. I would say to let the marketplace answer that question, but encourage and facilitate in Canada, for example, meetings between the CSA and the FSC national committee. Canada can sit there and watch and facilitate it.

I think we should get prepared for mutual recognition, but the hand of government should be fairly gentle at this point, when it's not clear what's going to happen.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dumont, and thank you, Gerald.

Last question to you, Alex.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Ms. Coady, I was interested in your comment about the ad in the New York Times. We heard from the environmental groups that they were interested in the certification process. They even thought it might be possible to find a certification process for the old-growth forest. I've heard that your company has entered into a moratorium in these areas. Yet after all that has happened, this kind of ad shows up in the United States. What's the message there?

Ms. Linda Coady: I believe the ad in the New York Times was sponsored by a coalition of environmental groups. It has been our experience that the farther away from British Columbia and Canada the environmental groups get, the harder their line is on old growth.

I find that B.C. environmental groups understand the social and economic context of forest issues in British Columbia. They understand that you cannot just pursue an agenda that is exclusively ecologically driven, and they're sensitive to that, in our experience with them. Everyone is changing. This has been a very polarized situation. In our experience with them, in trying to find some points of convergence, they respond to that. They understand the social and economic context.

But it's my experience that when you go elsewhere in the world, and particularly down to the United States, which is really the area I've had more experience with, the groups down there tend to have more of a black and white perspective on it. It's just “No old growth, thank you very much, period, end of story”.

The American companies I spoke to last week in San Francisco were not aware that if they had signed a pledge card that said “No old growth, not ever or we're going to eliminate it”, it meant de facto that they were eliminating products from British Columbia because of the nature of our resource here. They were not aware of that. They thought old growth represented a small percentage of the forest we harvested in British Columbia.

It's very important to have those kinds of conversations with customers, so they're clear on what the options are. There isn't an understanding in the United States that in Canada most of our forests are still original forests in many instances, particularly in British Columbia. There are variations in the traditions of environmental groups on these issues. The farther away you get from British Columbia, the harder the lines seem to be drawn.

• 1650

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Coady. Thank you, Alex.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses, who were very helpful.

We will take a two-minute recess while we rotate our witnesses. We know we're behind schedule, but we appreciate everybody's patience.

Thank you.

• 1651

• 1656

The Chairman: I call this meeting back to order, as we continue our study of Canadian forest management practices as an international trade issue.

I'm pleased to welcome to the committee Mr. Joe Foy, who is here on behalf of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Mr. Foy is the campaign coordinator.

Thank you, Mr. Foy, for helping us today. The clerk probably mentioned that you should have short opening remarks, and members will then follow with questions. So I invite you to come in. Thanks for being here.

Mr. Joe Foy (Campaign Coordinator, Western Canada Wilderness Committee): Thank you very much to the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I understand that my opening remarks should be somewhere around 10 minutes or so. I'll try to keep them shorter than that.

The Western Canada Wilderness Committee is Canada's largest membership-based wilderness preservation organization. We've been around since 1980, and we currently have 27,000 members across the country, with most of them here in British Columbia. We work toward wilderness preservation in this country and sustainable land use practices.

I am a fifth-generation British Columbian, and my family basically has remained in the southwest corner of B.C. Therefore I have seen and my family has seen and passed down stories of what this province once was, ecologically, and what it is today.

I have to tell you, speaking to this federal committee, I have tended to see the federal government, especially of late, as having a role to play in marketing B.C. forest products, but an almost non-existent role, and less and less of a role, in making sure forest practices are protecting the landscape and the future of Canadians.

Sometimes, as I've rambled around my local valleys, I've felt alone, as I have watched the forests stripped from the hillsides and my local salmon streams damaged. My vision of what the future of this place should be is diminished.

It's especially embarrassing for me to see that apparently the biggest things that get movement toward changes in forest practices are the actions of non-Canadians. People outside this country are beginning to be embarrassed to be seen taking Canadian wood products out of their local lumber stores. That's embarrassing to me.

That's not to say that during the 10 years I've been working on these issues I haven't met some extraordinary members of Parliament. I really miss, for instance, the Conservative member of Parliament, Bob Wenman, who really worked hard in the early 1990s to see the Carmanah Valley protected, and it was eventually protected as a provincial park.

• 1700

There are a number of Canadian MPs who have really worked hard, but in general, on forest practices and what's happening out in our forests, basically I see the Canadian government as a non-player. I just see the Canadian government as a mouthpiece for industry, telling our markets it's okay to buy this wood.

I've brought with me, and I've passed out, several of the information newspapers we've produced over the last number of years. The ones I would bring to your attention are, first of all, this newspaper advocating a national park, the Stoltman National Park, right next to Whistler. In the centre page you can see a map similar to the kind of map you were talking about earlier. It shows the original extent of the ancient temperate rain forest in the southwest corner of the province on the left, and on the right it shows what's been logged to put in our cities, farms, and fields, and to put in our tree plantations, and it shows you in green what we have remaining as ancient temperate rain forest.

Let me tell you, when you cut down an ancient temperate rain forest, you lose stuff. First of all, you lose the really profitable, high-quality timber this industry relies on to cut down and sell around the world. What you remain with in this part of British Columbia is high-elevation, expensive wood to get at.

So this kind of map matters. You lose some other stuff. In the river valleys, which are mostly coloured yellow, you have less salmon. You have to spend money on fish hatcheries and salmon restoration. You have to take taxpayers' dollars to try to keep those salmon runs running and going. You know what? In those yellow areas, you lose species. In my corner of the province, we have a famous endangered species, a spotted owl.

Do you know, because Canada doesn't have an endangered species legislation, it's basically left to the Province of British Columbia to protect this endangered critter, which requires old-growth forests? Do you know that British Columbia couldn't get its own biologists to sign off on a recovery plan for this endangered species? And do you know that, instead, what the government has done is crafted, along with industry, a management plan for spotted owls? They've done that because you can't get the biologists to sign off on the plan the government put in place, because they know it's an extinction plan.

That map matters. It matters to me when I walk my local forests and I see the fish and wildlife, tourism opportunities, and forestry opportunities disappearing because of overlogging and lack of regulation. It matters to people outside the country, too, who are embarrassed to be part of this.

Now, really, I should be talking to the provincial government, because they appear to have the legislative tools.

I brought with me some other newspapers, too—“The Fight to Own B.C.'s Forests”.... You know, it's got so bad here in British Columbia the corporations are now advocating that we give over our public lands to them as private lands. Do you know that? Do you know those lands my great grandfather did not sell to the corporations, nor did my grandparents, nor did my parents...do you know my kids would like to have a part in managing those lands, and those lands are now up for sale?

When those lands get corporatized, there is no forest practices code. There are no restrictions on raw log exports on those lands. People outside the country like to know that too. Which way is management of B.C.'s forest lands going? I tell them. Power is flowing from governments into the hands of the corporations.

• 1705

I brought with me a newspaper on Canada's Great Bear rain forest, and I'm embarrassed to say our organization too has realized that the power has moved from the governments into the corporations. That's why we show pictures of Home Depot demonstrations; we show the logos of the corporations, because the market campaigns that we see being operated now around the world appear to have more effect than average Canadians' pleas to their governments to take action.

How could the federal government take action? How could you ensure that people wouldn't be embarrassed to buy B.C.'s forest products? How about real endangered species legislation? How about my government enacting endangered species legislation that covers all the land until such time as my provincial government enacts strong endangered species legislation and you can step back? How about enforcing your federal fisheries laws and not waiting for the damage to occur, but step in before it occurs?

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Foy, for that.

I have Werner, Gerry, and Monique. Werner, please.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Foy, for appearing before us.

I think one of the points we have to register here, as we have throughout this afternoon and the last two days that we've been in various parts of the mid-forest in British Columbia, and the west coast in particular, is the feeling that there seems to be a confrontational atmosphere. I think you've generated that here this afternoon as well.

The confrontation is between the marketability of forests, the consumers on the other hand, and the interests you have. It seems to me we're all living in the same province, trying to appreciate one another and do things that help each other. I'm wondering just exactly what you intend to achieve with the almost confrontational tone you have demonstrated here, even this afternoon.

Do you believe that by being confrontational, as you are here this afternoon, you will actually help us to help you do the thing you want done?

Mr. Joe Foy: Well, I've told you I'm a fifth-generation British Columbian, and I know from my own relatives the kinds of strong debate this province has gone through. My great-grandfather came here to work in the coal mines. He lasted four years before he was killed in those mines. And I know there were some pretty ugly strikes, where the Canadian military was pulled in or heads were broken. People died. A guy named Ginger Goodwin had his brains blown out. But I know the results of that confrontation were rights for working people.

I'm proud that the current confrontation to protect our salmon, our rivers, and forests has had probably less injury than one of my high school rugby games. But I don't know any other way, short of taking you physically out to my local valleys, I can convey to you the pain of watching those places die.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So that's your answer? Okay, that's fair that it's your answer.

The question I also have is, how can we develop a cooperative spirit with you in your valley?

Mr. Joe Foy: A great way would be to enact endangered species legislation that gives the poor person the same rights as the corporation to say, this is the law, you're breaking it, see you in court tomorrow.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Were you in the room here when the other witnesses were here?

Mr. Joe Foy: Yes, sir.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So you heard some of the things the corporations are trying to do? Does that in any way assuage your feeling that they're not doing anything worthwhile?

Mr. Joe Foy: Well, as I said before, I'm embarrassed that some of the actions that are taken are taken because of changing markets and not because of the many thousands of Canadians who have asked that their rivers and streams and forests be protected.

• 1710

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's not my question. My question is, are these people doing something that would go in the direction of what you're wanting to achieve, the preservation of species, the preservation of forests, to manage the forests in a way that you could support?

Mr. Joe Foy: Specifically, I think we have to give kudos to MacMillan Bloedel for helping to resolve the Clayoquot Sound conflict by staying out of intact areas. I am still shocked by the amount of clear-cut logging that continues in this province, by the amount of the industry focusing on old-growth forests, and in parts of the province, like the southwest corridor where we only have a handful of remanent intact valleys, that roads are still being pushed into those valleys. In those regions where endangered species are clearly being driven to extinction, like in spotted owl country, I think it's a tremendous shame.

It's not going to be very easy to look our kids in the face and explain how the hell we allowed ourselves to get as low as we've gotten.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The tenor of my questions isn't intended to suggest that all is well, nor to suggest that all is bad. And I'm getting the impression that almost everything is bad. Everything isn't bad, I don't think. Would you agree that perhaps we are moving in the right direction and that continuing on the path we're on now is actually a positive way, or are you saying there is no hope?

Mr. Joe Foy: I'll give you something. We're moving in the wrong direction. Our endangered species list continues to grow. As a matter of fact, our fish returns continue to drop. There is a smaller land base for our wilderness tourism operators to operate in, and every year the trees that are left are more expensive to get at because we continue to overlog. The situation gets worse.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm now confused. I was—

Mr. Joe Foy: Oh, one more thing—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Just a moment ago you said you were happy that MacMillan is out of clear-cutting and now you say it's worse. I'm not sure what the real message is here.

Mr. Joe Foy: No, no. If we're going to get anywhere we're going to remember what I said. I didn't say I was happy that MacMillan Bloedel got out of clear-cutting; it has not gotten out of clear-cutting. I said it was important to thank MacMillan Bloedel for stepping out of the intact areas in Clayoquot Sound and helping to resolve the issue there. I think it's important to thank people when they do the right thing. But I think it's extremely important to show that any indicator you wish to look at, forest employment, fish coming back to our streams, a list of endangered species—by any indicator we're getting worse.

One of the problems is the federal government is not taking any, or very little, action to manage the nation's forests, although it presents a face to the world that it is. That's a problem.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Werner.

Alex, you're next, then Monique.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: First, on the issue of endangered species, that is obviously close to your heart. Our scientists are telling us that although this debate is somewhat skewed, we continue to find new species that haven't been defined before. Be that as it may, as you probably know, the original proposal for endangered species legislation at the federal level was somewhat difficult to evolve because it has a federal-provincial jurisdictional problem, and your spotted owl, of course, can't tell the difference. How can we resolve that?

Mr. Joe Foy: Oh, it's quite easy to resolve, I believe. It simply requires members of Parliament to decide what's important in this world.

I notice that the federal government is quite willing to threaten Premier Clark with expropriating a military base, but it doesn't seem to be prepared to step in and protect endangered species, even species as important to the nation as salmon.

• 1715

I think Canadian values would support it. I think the Canadian public image that we present to the world would support strong federal endangered species legislation across our nation. I think that, for whatever reason, members of Parliament do not think it important enough. And because they don't think it important enough, we're going to lose some very important things. We're going to lose what it means to be a Canadian, in my estimation, if our national government stops leaving environmentalists like me to try to hold the fort...and steps in and does their job.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I don't think it's quite as sophistic as you would have us believe. How do we, as a federal government, impose our legislation on provincial government lands?

Mr. Joe Foy: Well, you do so on.... You've figured out a way to at least get your foot in the door on salmon, which travels up the rivers and into the forests. Basically, I'm telling you that unless the federal government makes it a priority and we act like a nation that wants to hold onto its fish and wildlife, we're not going to.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I hear what you're saying and I respect your concerns. What I'm telling you is that it isn't quite as easy as simply saying make it happen.

Mr. Joe Foy: You know what? It's not easy. I know that. Let me tell you this—just a really quick one. I saw a fellow out in the Walbran Valley who sat in a tree—I don't know—for a week. When the RCMP came to get him, he stripped naked and escaped through the woods into the water. A lot of people laughed about that. That was pretty funny. But the part of the valley where he was sitting in his tree...that got protected. What he did wasn't easy. But he had to do it, because other people in comfortable places said it was too hard for them to work. I'm telling you, there are Canadians across this country who are doing whatever they can think of to try to hold onto some of these natural wild places. It's not easy.

The Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, Alex.

Monique, please, then Gerry, then Yvon.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay: I can see that the loss of endangered species is a very sensitive and emotional issue for you and I can understand that, but you have to look at both sides of the coin. If we completely eliminate the forest industry, it will not solve all the problems we have with endangered species. It's absolutely not true. The current environmental stress is not necessarily caused by the forest industry, there are also natural phenomena that we cannot control, such has global warming, avalanches, climate change and the thinning of the ozone layer. All of this has to be taken into account when we talk about the issue of endangered species.

Maybe you should ask the provincial government to make the legislation on endangered species stronger. I know that in Ottawa, there is a bill being contemplated on endangered species. So we are making some progress in this regard.

I would just like to know what concrete solutions you suggest. Would your group be interested to sit down with the forest industry, with other environmental groups and with first nations, to explore what can be done to preserve those species? Do you favour joint action rather than confrontation? It doesn't lead you anywhere.

• 1720

I'd like you to suggest concrete solutions. I don't think that two hundred men and women sitting naked up in some trees will do anything to save these species. It's not a concrete solution. It worked once, but it's not going to work every time. It's an isolated action which cannot be repeated every time.

Isn't there a way, for the short and the long term, to try and find appropriate solutions, measures that could be easily taken, that could be implemented on the ground, and that your group could contribute to, while at the same time lobbying your provincial government to make some progress?

[English]

Mr. Joe Foy: First of all, confrontation is the only thing that's worked. For years we've worked to protect areas. In 1993, something like 900 Canadians were arrested at Clayoquot Sound. The years 1994 and 1995 were the biggest years for park protection in Canadian history, here in British Columbia.

I'm sorry to say that confrontation does work. The situation is desperate. Everything has been tried. We look for legislation because it seems that the only way we can get through the courtroom door is when environmental activists are dragged there, because there is no environmental legislation that gets us through the courtroom door.

The only thing that has worked is confrontation—peaceful confrontation. And because the federal government is here today, it seems reasonable to me that rather than talk about what the provincial government may do or what kinds of studies I can sit down with the companies with, my message to the federal government is, get in the game with endangered species legislation and strong enforcement of fisheries habitat protection.

So far, you have not been in the game. As long as you're not in the game, then confrontation, market campaigns, and the like seem to be the only doors that actually gain protection of the landscape. That's a shame. That goes absolutely counter to what I was brought up to believe about Canada and Canadian society and the way our government should work.

Look at the parks that were protected, look at any gains we've made on forest protection in the last 10 years, and I will show you that they have all been connected, sad to say, to confrontation.

I'm proud to say that through hard work, I think, everybody on all sides has kind of developed this strange theatre in British Columbia that has made it a safe, non-violent confrontation. I think that also says a lot about Canadian society.

The Chairman: Do you have a supplementary question?

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay: As I said earlier, there is a bill on endangered species being contemplated at the federal level. However, the federal government has no authority in some areas that come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. There can't be any overlap. This is the problem.

Second, you talk about confrontation. Confrontation is important in some situations, but once it's done, once there has been some kind of reaction and some awareness within the media and the public, you have to be able to sit down and negotiate to reach a consensus. You cannot have confrontation for ever, because it does not get you anywhere. It's going to last for a week or two and then, the media are going to get tired of it and forget the whole thing. At one point, people have to sit together, and try to find practical solutions to make things move. In any case, I think you have a lot of courage, sir.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Monique.

A short concluding comment, Mr. Foy, and then we're going to get on to other questions.

• 1725

Mr. Joe Foy: I think I've said everything I need to say on that subject, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Gerry, please.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Thank you very much. I want to say that I think it's been a very personal, very emotive set of testimony that you've provided us with, Mr. Foy. One of the key elements to your testimony here this afternoon was your very significant issue with land ownership, with land tenure. You feel very strongly, I think, that you want to maintain public access, that there should be no corporate interests per se owning what are currently public lands in B.C.

In relation to first nations land claims, it's become apparent to us that first nations are prepared to engage in forestry, that many first nations feel that forestry can be conducted in a responsible, sustainable manner. First off, land claims in many respects provide some ownership to nations that have provided legitimate claim to those lands. Does that goal run counter to what you are suggesting is in the best interests of B.C. and Canada?

Mr. Joe Foy: We regard first nations and corporations as two very different groups of people. We support the treaty process. We recognize that first nations will regain control and management of lands, and I am pleased about that. I like to feel proud of my country, and I think as long as we have the current situation, where treaties are not resolved, it's a black mark. We think that with real power, which is what first nations deserve, comes the power to make mistakes. We support resolution of treaties, and we will criticize poor logging practices or failure to protect ecosystems on whatever part of the Canadian landscape they may occur and by whomever. I hope that makes our position clear.

Corporations, on the other hand...once land is corporatized, it can be flipped around. Gosh knows who owns it, what country owns big hunks of our area, and that's a problem for us. So we regard the corporations and first nations as very different.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: You've also mentioned in your testimony that you feel very strongly that Canada should pay attention to international concerns about our forest practices, that the call by the international community or certain members of the international community voicing concerns about Canadian forest practices should be heeded by both provincial and federal governments, and that action should be taken accordingly. What's your understanding of international forest practices? I refer in particular to European forest practices. Should we emulate European forest practices, those being some of the strongest voices addressing concerns about Canadian forest practices?

Mr. Joe Foy: I think Europeans have totally trashed their landscape. I don't know when the last bear was seen in Great Britain, but I think for a few centuries they've had to go offshore to get those hairy hats that they like to wear over there.

We think it's probably prudent to listen to the markets, because unlike some countries, a lot of what's going on in our local watersheds is driven by U.S. dollars and Deutschmarks and Japanese yen. When I first got started in the environmental movement, we were trying to emulate our U.S. environmental counterparts, who had laws, like endangered species legislation, and who relied a lot on their courts. We found very quickly that we didn't have laws, that we couldn't get into the courts.

Then we noticed we had something that I think the U.S. folks don't have. Their market tends to be internally driven by their own dollar, while our trees seem to be coming down financed by foreign countries. Therefore, we could see that if those foreign countries reacted in a way that demanded better forestry practices, we would have better luck in Canada there than we would have trying to beat our heads on the courts with no laws to support us.

• 1730

Mr. Gerry Byrne: As a short follow-up question, if I'm reading it correctly, though, Joe, what you're suggesting to us is we should pay very close attention to citizens of countries who basically, to use your words, have destroyed their forests. They use tenure processes that are completely privatized, and in many respects rely on plantation technology and plantation techniques to manage forests. The corporations based in those countries are actually the ones that are principally driving B.C.'s or Canada's forest industry. I just want to make sure I have it straight.

Mr. Joe Foy: I'm telling you I think there are people out there that get it. I know my mom does; she's from England. I know my wife does; she's from the Philippines. What they both told me is, you know, we toasted it, big hunks of it, where we come from, and that's why we kind of became refugees to come here to B.C. My mom piled out of there after the Second World War. It was an eaten-up, used-up piece of country. She came here and saw the beauty and the bountifulness of this place. In the jet age, with people coming back and forth, I think a lot of people get that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerry.

Yvon, Philip, and Gerald, I'm going to ask all to try to get to their questions quickly.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There were many questions raised. I think we went around it and around it. First of all, I appreciate some of the work you people do. Honestly, I appreciate that. But still, I come from the background of a miner. I was a miner for 15 years. If I were to listen to everybody, we should leave the mine underground. If we listen to other people...in my family—I said it previously—my father was a woodcutter. My brothers were woodcutters. If we listen to other people who are not living from that, it's just like this—leave the forests alone and all of that. Maybe the foresters or the woodcutters say we should have less environmentalists around too. But it's your job and I respect that.

What solution would you have to all of this? I have people telling me they love their job, because it's getting strict, and I believe you have to get strict. My part of getting strict is this. You cut a tree; you replant it. Well, Mother Mature is there to make sure everybody can make a living around this world, not just having the pleasure of looking at things growing and not have work to feed their families. I have a problem with it if we're just going to say, well, leave this there or leave that there, don't do this, don't do that. We cannot all be environmentalists. We just cannot. I mean, you're going to need other people to do other things.

We still need some wood to build houses. We still need some wood to do other things. We're still mining because we need some steel. But I'd like to have an answer from you as to what solution you would have to all of that. If we were to listen concretely to what you people are saying...shut down everything because we like nature, Mother Nature. We like to see the bears, we like to see the big trees, but we don't want anybody to work. I've got a problem with it, and I'd like to hear your reaction to that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

Mr. Joe Foy: Well, I come from a blue-collar family. Jobs and the sort of person who has to make it on their own concerns me. Do you know the biggest employer in the province of British Columbia is the tourism industry? A lot of my friends and the people I know work in that industry. They work in everything from ownership of big places like this, right down to somebody who'll serve you a cup of coffee.

Some of the valleys I have in my neighbourhood are so overlogged, they're welfare valleys. They don't produce any jobs for anybody anymore. They suck taxpayers' dollars because they've been so overlogged they look like a bloody big Christmas tree farm. I had to hold myself back over there when I heard you folks discussing 150-year-old second-growth forests. My gosh, 150-year-old second-growth forests that we've cut down—I don't know what that is. One hundredth of one percent, one thousandth of one percent of the province of British Columbia? We've had such a steep curve of logging here that we've converted many valleys, which could have been sustainable logging areas for the local communities for generations, to massive sink holes for government money to try to fix up the salmon streams, while we sit back on our butts and wait for 100 years for the trees to grow back because of the high rate of logging.

• 1735

What's the solution? Our solution would be a provincial forest practices code that forces the chief forester to maintain a sustainable rate of harvest. The chief forester is under no such legal constraints and therefore doesn't have a sustainable harvest. A solution to get us all off the logging roads and yelling at each other would be some rules like endangered species legislation. Then when a forest company moves into an area, everyone concerned has some faith that there's an honest broker there making sure the species don't disappear.

So I'm suggesting legislation that ensures the blue-collar forestry worker that all the valleys around their town don't get logged out; legislation that requires, watershed by watershed, that those valleys be logged on a sustainable basis. We don't have that, and you can see it all over the landscape, as people in the industry are moving further north, just as in a past generation they had to further west.

I come from a blue-collar family. There's a tourism operator in the Upper Pitt Valley. You probably wouldn't know where that is, but it's about 50 kilometres as the crow flies. He was a commercial fisherman. He got driven out of that job because the salmon collapsed. Now he's got a little lodge. He's trying to invite sports fishing people. A local logging company comes and logs over his drinking water supply. Well, there are no regulations to protect him. He has no ability to protect his little business.

This is every bit as much about employing people as it is about protecting the landscape and the fish and wildlife, because they're all connected. Right now we are left to the corporations. Government is a bit player. What you're seeing is the corporations and the people duking it out in the international markets, with no rules, because government won't set the rules and allow us our time in front of the judge when we think the rules are broken.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Foy.

Philip, please.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I took some interest in having a look at the paper you brought here. I was looking at the picture on the bottom of the front page and the caption to the right of it saying:

Thousands of clearcuts already scar the high, dry Lillooet country. Plans are afoot to rapidly push roads and clearcuts into its every remaining wild corner.

I was thinking of a couple of things as I looked at this picture and read that. I'm thinking of the fires that were in Lillooet last year. There were hot fires that were dangerous, extremely costly to put out, and extremely costly in terms of the resources that were lost in those fires. I'm thinking also of a provincial survey that shows that on average, say, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin—I don't remember for the Lillooet district. On average a particular area would be burned about every 150 years.

I'm also thinking of the clear-cuts there that are part of the effort to restore forests after insect kill. There are about 800,000 hectares of insect kill in that district, which translates into nearly 2 million acres. We flew over that part of the country yesterday, and you can still see areas of dead trees that have not been dealt with.

In talking with the forestry companies, they're saying that with volume-based tenure, the motivation was very high to get in and get the timber replanted and get out. They're greatly encouraged by land-based tenure, which allows them to plan, say, on a 200-year cycle in which their plan is to remove about a third of the forest every 80 years, and in that way have a perpetual cycle. That would mimic the natural disruption of fire and bug kill.

• 1740

It seems to me that as I talk to these foresters and they talk about preserving the wildlife that's there...I was thinking particularly of the western caribou in the Ulkatcho Mountains and the research that's gone into the lichens—the arboreal lichen, the terrestrial lichen. I'm wondering how you defend this statement when the natural causes are so widespread that we should just watch it burn and be eaten by bugs and forget the devastation to the natural inhabitants, the wildlife there, as a result of that. Do you not see some room for stewardship to manage this area so that over the long haul not only people can benefit, but the land and the resources and the wildlife as well?

Mr. Joe Foy: Oh yes, I do. I paint two visions, though, as we go forward to manage that Lillooet region. One vision would be under an overarching federal endangered species legislation that says, go out and make your plans, but they can't contravene the strong rules we've put in place, backed up by our biologists, to protect things like—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I've never heard anyone say they want to contravene the rules. As a matter of fact, what I've seen is the research emphasizing the importance of this type of preservation.

Mr. Joe Foy: But there is no federal endangered species legislation. There are no rules. I can't go to court and defend caribou. So if I and others like me were confident that my federal government took concrete action, through legislation, to protect those caribou, so that if I felt the law was being broken I could go to court, that relaxes everything. But that's not the case.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Fine. But certainly under the code these companies are operating under, provisions are there for charging these people for that kind of destruction.

Mr. Joe Foy: That's not my understanding, and that's not what's happened in B.C. I can't think of a single case where species that are in decline, like the caribou or the spotted owl, have been subject to a successful court case—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I don't think the caribou are in decline, though.

Mr. Joe Foy: Of course they're in decline. Across the province we have far less woodland caribou than we once had.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: The herd there, or numbers...?

The Chairman: Rather than have a conversation with the witness, we'll let the witness wind it up.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Okay, I've made my point.

The Chairman: Mr. Foy, is that okay?

Mr. Joe Foy: Yes, fine.

The Chairman: Okay.

Gerald, you may have a short comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't have any questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerald.

On behalf of our committee, Mr. Foy, I'd like to thank you for the time you've taken to be with us this afternoon and to provide us with your important perspective on the matters at hand.

Mr. Joe Foy: I appreciate the time you have given me. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: We'll take a two-minute recess to recharge our batteries, and we'll invite our next witnesses to the table—Rick Jeffery, Robert Germyn, and Chief Ed Newman.

• 1744

• 1749

The Chairman: Colleagues, in view of the time and patience that everybody has exhibited, we're going to split the time for the next hour. We'll start with the Truck Loggers Association, and then we will follow that up, with the balance of the time, with the Heiltsuk Nation.

Mr. Jeffery, thank you for being here. We would invite you to make a short presentation, if you would, and allow members an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Rick Jeffery (Vice-President, Forestry and Government Relations, Truck Loggers Association): Thank you for the invitation to speak before your committee today. My name is Rick Jeffery. I'm representing the Truck Loggers Association.

When I grew up, my father told me I should always tell the truth. So I'd like to tell the truth about something I heard earlier today. I sat on the spotted owl recovery team. I was also part of the group of people who came up with the spotted owl management plan. It is not a plan for the extirpation of spotted owls. It's a very good plan, and it contemplates the recovery and protection of spotted owls. I want to set the record straight.

• 1750

I'd like to start by telling you a little bit about who the truck loggers are. We are small and medium-sized forestry businesses that operate on the coast of British Columbia. We have over 700 member companies. We employ over 10,000 people. We cut over half of the annual allowable cut on the coast of British Columbia, and we generate over $2 billion in activity every year on the coast. So we do have a stake in how our forests are managed. We're also mostly British Columbia companies, small and medium-sized companies.

As I like to tell the story, we're the daughters of the mothers of the grandmothers who first came here and first started logging on the coast of British Columbia. We have a long, deep history here.

The two things I want to speak about today are certification and timber pricing.

On the certification issue, we believe right now there is a role for the federal and provincial governments in taking the certification agenda forward, and I believe it is a joint role.

We are at a crossroads right now in the certification process. We have increasing pressure from our consumers, client groups, people who buy our products, to meet certification. However, there are several different certification programs out there. One is the Forest Stewardship Council, which is a program for which we're currently trying to draft regional standards. It's a performance-based system. The other system we have in place right now is the CSA-ISO system. It's a management system. The two don't reconcile very well.

I think the role that both governments can play here is to try to help us reconcile those two systems. We have essentially three ways to go. These two systems can continue on and agree to disagree or they can attempt to educate the clients and consumers about what the differences in the systems are and try to deal with it that way, or we can try to merge the systems. It's my association's opinion that merging these systems with strong leadership from our governments is probably the way we should be going.

Having said that, it is with much chagrin and disappointment that we note that the federal government and the provincial government haven't been able to come up with an agreement on some federal-provincial sharing around forestry money. It was our hope that the program would have had a certification component and a marketing component to it. So we're disappointed, and we hope that somewhere along the way your committee can recommend a revisiting of that agreement and maybe put some pressure on people to hammer something out. I'm not intimately familiar with where the stumbling blocks were, but it's a disappointment and a lost opportunity.

The second thing I want to talk to you about today people might not think of as a traditional forest practice, but in our minds it is. That's the practice of how we price our timber. We currently have a softwood lumber agreement in place with the Americans. It's a very difficult agreement. It has brought hardship on many of the companies in British Columbia. It has caused us difficulty in adapting to the economic times we have. I have loggers in forest companies who have not worked since early last fall. Lots of that is market-access driven, specifically by the Americans, and it is a bit distressing that we have our hands tied by the softwood lumber agreement and the quota system, and by our friends, the Americans.

• 1755

Our suggestion is that we need to look at timber pricing policies that move more to market influences, so we can have a defensible timber pricing system here in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada that will erode the Americans' ability to take us on in their different courts.

The final thing I'd like to say about this is I believe the Americans will not need a softwood lumber agreement when this one expires. I believe the coalition, if it has any strategic thinking—and believe me, it does—will use the certification argument to freeze us out of their markets. This would be their argument: don't buy old-growth timber that isn't certified, from British Columbia or any other Canadian jurisdiction. If we're not ahead of the game on certification, we won't be in those big American markets.

That concludes my presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jeffery. I will turn the floor over to Monique Guay.

On the softwood lumber agreement, the committee will bend its attention to that a little later this year. We appreciate your comments for the record.

Monique Guay, please.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay: Thank you for your presentation. Could you give us a bit more details about you have done? I didn't really understand, but I am sure that it is very positive. How many jobs were lost recently among truckers?

[English]

Mr. Rick Jeffery: That's hard to quantify right now. Most of the down times are market-driven at this time. It's not that people have lost their jobs; it's just that they don't have jobs to go to until the economic times improve.

I would say, though, that on the coast we traditionally cut about 19 million cubic metres from crown land. Last year we cut 12 million. This year we will probably cut somewhere between 12 million and 13 million. Much of that is driven by market access to America and to eroded markets in Asia and other places.

The fact of the matter is we have a limited ability to adjust our timber pricing and the economic circumstances because of the softwood lumber agreement and the anti-circumvention clause. Therefore, in British Columbia we haven't been able to substantively alter those timber pricing policies to create the employment and economic activity in the forest industry that we would have liked.

It doesn't really answer your question fully, but I could quantify those numbers if you'd like.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay: Is it up to the forest industry to negotiate an economic agreement with the United States or does the government have to be involved? What's your perspective on this issue?

This is my last question. I'd like to know if you sat at the negotiating table with the forest industry to look at all the problems you are confronted with. I know that you depend a lot on the forest industry in terms of jobs. These are my two questions.

[English]

Mr. Rick Jeffery: We are very active in discussions with industry and government on a full range of forest policy matters, from treaties to timber pricing to forest practices to wildlife management—across the whole range. We will continue, as an association, to do that.

I'm sorry, I forgot your first two questions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Monique Guay: It's all right. I am happy with this answer. I don't remember what was my first question.

[English]

The Chairman: We can come back.

Gerry, please.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Thank you very much, Rick. Your particular sector has indeed been hit by a number of different circumstances.

• 1800

One of the things I think the committee wants to focus on is the role of international boycotts, or potential boycotts, on the B.C. forest industry.

Could you describe for the committee any experiences you've had, or your industry sector has had, where there have been protests and action taken? Can you relate some of your experiences?

Mr. Rick Jeffery: There's a direct-line relationship between any kind of boycott that results in people not buying products from big sawmill and pulp industries on the coast. As soon as those kinds of boycotts happen, we don't log. I can't cite specific examples for you, but when trade decreases we work less.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Do you feel there has been a decrease in the amount of work available to you as a result of actions taken to date? Is it measurable, or has it just not materialized?

Mr. Rick Jeffery: It's very material, measured in a number of different ways. It is probably never measured in an accumulative way, but we have a protected area strategy here, which was in large part internationally driven and in large part driven by agreements Canada has signed.

I just remembered one of your questions.

So we've seen AAC reductions because of that. We have a forest practices code that says impacts in delivering the code will be 6% across the province, but in our particular area it will be around 8%. A lot of those forest practices are driven by international pressure. That's one of the reasons why we think certification is an important issue. We have a very commanding control of the forest practices code right now, but it doesn't focus on results as much as we'd like. It focuses too much on “You should do it this way”, or “You will do it this way”. That's not necessarily a good system.

Being entrepreneurs or small businesses and having a market bias, we believe we would be better off through certification systems, where the certification system says “Here are the kinds of results we want to see”, and as long as we achieved those results, we'd maintain our certification. So we would get out of this command-and-control forest practices environment and more into a client-consumer-driven set of forest practices. That's why the federal government members need to become very active in this. You are our trade representatives.

Monique was asking about the role of industry, the province, or the federal government negotiating on trade issues. You have to excuse me, but I'm from Victoria, which is even farther west of here, and when I look east of the Rockies and at Canadian history, I sometimes want to be a western separatist.

Having said that, I think there's a very important role for the federal government to play in pushing trade issues. I think they were very cooperative in this last round in trying to meet the industry's needs. The quota system that evolved was supported by industry. The problem now comes in implementing and administering the system and who gets quota and how it's managed.

We can talk about separatism later if you want, Monique.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jeffery.

Next is Gerald, and then we'll finish with Yvon.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jeffery, you started by stating you have 700 members and you represent somewhere around 10,000 people.

• 1805

Mr. Rick Jeffery: Yes. To be more specific, we have 700 member companies; 400 of those are industrial members who are anything from a single truck driver to forestry consultants to large-scale logging companies. When I use the figure of 10,000 people, that's the employment attributable to them. We also have 300 industrial members that would be companies like Finning, Wire Rope Industries, and Petro-Canada, and we don't include their employment numbers in our membership.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

Do you lease land directly from the Province of British Columbia, or do you subcontract through one of the major forest companies?

Mr. Rick Jeffery: There's a full range of tenure arrangements for my membership. Some of them are licensees who have contractual arrangements to log crown land like the other licensees do. Some of them are contractors. Some of them are subcontractors. Some of them own private land. There's a full range of activity.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Are there any first nations logging groups—

Mr. Rick Jeffery: We have several first nations logging companies and several joint ventures.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: —that you represent?

Mr. Rick Jeffery: Yes, they are members of our association.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have one last question, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rick Jeffery: We don't propose to speak for first nations in any way, shape or form, however.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, but there are first nations businesses that belong to your association.

Mr. Rick Jeffery: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I got from your statement that you felt the system certification was an avenue that we certainly should follow, and that there's maybe some room for some political or some federal involvement. But on the forest practices code, the provincial code in B.C., do you and your group feel it has gone far enough, that it's strict enough, that it's being implemented, that it's making a difference?

Mr. Rick Jeffery: The landscape certainly looks different now than it did in the pre-code days.

To answer your question, I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done on refining the code, but the code will be a central element in any kind of a certification process that we go forward in.

Lots of people talk about a results-based code. I mentioned command and control. I think those are the kinds of things that we really have to start to look at: Is it the end product? What is the vision? What do we want our landscape to look like? Allow people like the companies that belong to the truck loggers and the forest management companies out there to find the ways and means to achieve those ends, rather than having guidebooks and regulations and that kind of approach, which essentially fetters innovation and fetters productivity increases, and in some respects isn't site-specific enough to allow you to manage properly.

For the record, I'm a professional forester, by the way.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerald.

Yvon, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I should have asked this question to the industry representatives, but since you live here, in B.C., and because you talked about pricing and quotas, I am going to ask you. Did the provincial government have a choice or was a deal imposed by the United States? Quotas and prices were an issue. I hear this quite often. When we were in Prince George, last spring, we were told the same thing. In fact, I should have asked this question to the industry representatives, but if you could answer, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: It's a good question, and we'll let the witness answer. But for the record, again, this committee will address this issue under a separate mandate in due course. It's a good question nonetheless.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The only reason I raised the question is because he's talking about price and quotas and stuff like that, and I want to see his view as a logger.

Mr. Rick Jeffery: For the record, we are part of the industry, although we're a different segment of it.

• 1810

On the coast here, the American market constitutes 35% to 40% of our output, and because in the interior that number ranges up around 90%, I would say we were basically forced into having to negotiate a deal with the Americans, and they had all the leverage.

If you want to talk about whether we should have made timber pricing stumpage adjustments or whether we should have gone to a quota system, my response would be that quotas constrain markets, and that has a lot of bad consequences. We're starting to live with those consequences, and when we get rid of this deal—and hopefully we will—we're going to have to face up to a lot of those consequences. We've artificially increased the price of lumber. People have gone in and stolen market share from us, and we will be hard pressed to get that market share back.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Did the Americans really impose a deal? Did the government of B.C. have a choice and could have taken a position which would not have cost so much hardship for us? I don't know if I am expressing myself clearly enough, but did the Americans leave us any choice?

[English]

Mr. Rick Jeffery: The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports is the biggest lobby group in America. They've spent $60 million in Washington. We don't have a hope against them. They are very strong; they are very powerful. We're talking large companies that have vast holdings of land. This deal has increased the asset value of their land. It has given them an artificial pricing that has benefited them. They're not going away, and we've been in battles with the Americans for upwards of 200 years on softwood lumber issues. They forced us into a deal, no ifs, ands or buts.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Thanks, Mr. Jeffery, for helping us out.

Mr. Rick Jeffery: Thanks for having us.

The Chairman: Committee members, we're not going to recess or anything. We'd now like to invite Robert Germyn, band council member, Heiltsuk Nation, and Chief Ed Newman, who is a senior hereditary chief, Heiltsuk Nation. Welcome to the committee meeting today.

I notice that you've been here for a little while and have heard some of the discussions we've had. We appreciate that you've come a long way to help us understand better what the issues are as you see them. We invite either you, Mr. Germyn, or Chief Newman to make a brief presentation so that we have lots of time for members to ask questions.

Mr. Germyn, do I take it that you'll start? Thank you, sir. Please proceed.

Mr. Robert Germyn (Band Council Member, Heiltsuk Nation): It is a great honour and privilege to be able to come here today and speak to you all.

I echo the comments of our counterpart, Rick Jeffery. I guess it's not often that you get to hear those comments in terms of the perspective of western separatists. It's understandable, knowing full well that we have MLAs in the legislature riding around on Harley-Davidsons today. It's understandable why there would be a chasm and a split politically in terms of a lack of getting together on a lot of concrete issues.

Having said that, I'll let the chair know that the Liberals weren't part of that. They didn't participate, according to the local media. I can't speak for all the other parties, but there were some members who didn't participate in that ride today.

The Chairman: I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but thanks for the information.

Mr. Robert Germyn: But you're here, and I think it's good news for all of us that there's an interest. It's serious business in terms of your responsibilities in formulating policy regarding your jurisdiction over natural resources, and we have some serious concerns.

I come from the community of Bella Bella. I don't know if you're able to fly in there, but there are 1,650 band members in the community and there are about 150 non-native people living there in the capacity of resource professionals in fields such as education, health, and professional trades, whatever service they would provide to the band in that capacity.

Having said that, we're also quite actively involved in the resource sector, which Ed will follow up on. We have a fish processing plant from which we export perhaps 2 million pounds of salmon in a year and around 150,000 to 200,000 pounds of herring roe and kelp product, the bulk of it being exported, 90% into the Asian market. In the salmon area, 100% of our chums go to South Africa. So we're a little active on both fronts in terms of exporting raw resources—our resources in the export field.

• 1815

Having said that, we understand somewhat the conditions that are out there right now and the tremendous pressure brought to bear on the forest sector in terms of their responsibility as licensees, as good managers, good stewards, and good businessmen in this country. The contributions they're making hopefully will not go without notice in terms of their commitment to work with first nations. We're quite happy that we're able to develop a relationship with Western Forest Products as a licensee.

In terms of involvement, I believe you flew out to Yeo Island this morning. I won't say too much about it, other than the fact that WFP was one of the first companies to come into our area under the auspices of the dialogue that transpired with Chief Ed Newman, and he'll probably tell you a little bit about why and how that happened in terms of the activities that are going on out there.

Having said that, we are also actively pursuing a forest licence and we are also involved in a joint-venture initiative with M and B, which will hopefully result in more processing, more jobs, at the end of the day. I would like to lay out five points here for consideration, which would formulate the policy objectives that reflect somewhat some of the conditions in the forest sectors. The federal team here may have some jurisdiction or some influence in terms of shaping those policies.

To start with, I'd like to remind the committee of the forest principles agreed to by Canada at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, as stated in paragraph 5(a):

5.(a) National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity, culture and the rights of indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest dwellers. Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an economic stake in forest use, perform economic activities, and achieve and maintain cultural identity and social organization, as well as adequate levels of livelihood and well-being, through, inter alia, those land tenure arrangements which serve as incentives for the sustainable management of forests.

Having said that, we're currently governed by the Indian Act. Many of you are familiar with the Department of Indian Affairs. We also have jurisdictional discussions with other crown federal agencies, such as the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's often been said by some of our chiefs and elders that we're people of the salmon, and undoubtedly you may have had some salmon in Bella Coola in your stay overnight. If you haven't, it's unfortunate. Maybe we'll have to invite you into Bella Bella, if you have the privilege of coming back some day to try some of our known delicacies.

Having said that, the forests are where those salmon come from. They are very integral to our culture and our identity as a first nations people. They are very critical to the survival of our culture, both socially and government-wise, in terms of our organizational structure from a traditional perspective. We look at things from a holistic perspective, a little bit differently from the way government would manage. But it's an integrated process that incorporates a management system that's been exercised over the course of 10,000 years, and it's been provided through an oral tradition, which has been recognized recently, in 1997, by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw decision. I won't talk about that right now.

I would like to talk about some of the provincial initiatives in terms of the concerns we have. There's an ongoing timber supply review going on. We have concerns with regard to what the crown objectives are there. Primarily, there are a number of outstanding tools that are used as management decisions to allow the chief forester to make decisions on the allowable cut in terms of shaping long-term sustainability and forecasting what kind of production the forest will yield.

One of the considerations is the socio-economic base case analysis. We have been suggesting that we would like to know more about how they utilize and exercise that tool. The other one is an arc assessment, which is an archaeological assessment that's been undertaken by the province to allow for the province to work with industry and first nations in terms of determining how they would entrench and protect CMTs. You may have seen CMTs in your travel. I don't know if you have. But if you have, you can nod. So you have a bit of understanding and background, a perspective on that. There's a cultures act that guarantees and entrenches protection of CMTs.

• 1820

So what we've found out is that the document the province has produced is quite flawed, although they haven't released it formally; they say it's in draft form. We've been trying to urge them to work more closely with first nations and to take the knowledge and the awareness we would have from our perspective to present information as to how to shape and structure that tool to be useful for both ourselves and industry. Industry has stated also, and they've agreed with us in meetings, that it's no good to them; it doesn't do anything.

The arc assessment overview was supposed to be a predictability tool to predict where you might find CMTs. It's flawed in terms of the government's commitment to spend money to do the job right. They didn't adequately address the resources. The contractor they hired was deficient in terms of timelines in delivering the contract. There was no field testing, and there are a number of ongoing concerns with regard to overarching implications this has in terms of land use, for example. There is currently a land use process going on, on the central coast, which you may have heard last night in Bella Coola. I'm not aware if they talked about the central coast regional management planning process that's ongoing right now.

So a lot of activities are going on.

There's also a number of streams and systems in our area, which you may have flown over, which we have concerns over in terms of fish inventories and enumerations. We have heard, and have said, that the province seems to not have a lot of information, and Fisheries seems unable to make a commitment to the mid-coast. We feel it is a strong prerogative that a strong emphasis should be maintained for whatever influence the natural resources committee may have in terms of motivating and providing general management direction for DFO, in terms of enhancing and restoring systems that may have been damaged, pre-code, prior to the....

In terms of some systems during what we call pre-code, there's a recognition that there may have been damage to some systems from some activities that were prior to the amendments and the entrenchment and implementation of the forest practices code in 1995. So there's an outstanding grievance about these issues, which we call pre-code. There seems to be a stall on that. There's no commitment from government to spend money to do work.

I don't know if it's a jurisdictional issue. If it is, there needs to be discussion. I understand that there is a strong commitment from the province to work with us, but they don't seem to want to cough up and commit to doing the work in that regard.

Industry has expressed a willingness to work with first nations. We have expressed that at various tables.

Also, in regard to the composition of the licensees, which has implications, we have applied for a forest licence, and we've actively pursued this for about 25 or 30 years. I'm a young fellow, and Edwin can probably tell you a little more of how we've hit a stone wall. We have not been very progressive, other than to work as employees for companies. Many of you, knowing full well how economics work in the fabric of Canadian culture, in terms of the economic industries that drive our economies.... Successful industries are usually quite large, quite integrated, and quite flexible to meet the challenges of change in market conditions.

We feel it would be more than reasonable for government to pursue and allocate to us on the basic principles of assertion of title and ownership, which we believe we can prove if we had to go to a court of law to prove we have full title over, sovereign authority over, our territories.

What most recently has been compelling and disturbing from our perspective also are the deals that are going on. This has treaty issue implications also, which are natural resource related. In terms of establishing and achieving a crown objective by way of the socio-economic, we're probably not factored into that one. The disposition of crown assets, which has a problem around the aspect of the protected area strategy the province has embarked on.... All of you may be familiar with Clayoquot. I don't know what was said here earlier today, having missed the Sierra and Greenpeace presentation. I caught the tail end of the wilderness committee....

• 1825

Fully $83 million in compensation was granted to industry for rights as stakeholders—privileges—to cut trees, which were taken away. They will be compensated for that. This has implications for treaty, pre-empting or infringing or taking away from potential lands that may be allocated to first nations.

It's quite a complex issue, and I don't pretend to have all those answers today, but I wanted to touch on them to raise your awareness of some of the challenges before us as first nations to work within a concept and a framework that allows us to evolve and develop and have the respect and dignity of all Canadians, as well as having sustainability and developing our own economic institutions that allow us an equal footing to have the credibility, integrity, and pride that goes with ownership.

I'll let Edwin conclude.

The Chairman: Most of the questions will relate to international issues, so I hope Mr. Newman will address those in his comments as well.

Mr. Robert Germyn: In terms of the international, we've found great difficulty in trying to provide strong leadership and will from our perspective, having been on the periphery of industry while trying to get our foot in the door. So we've been very active in this sense. I actually went to Europe on a forestry mission with Mr. Bill Dumont and a number of UBC professors and participated in a trade-related mission regarding some of the allegations of bad forestry practices in this country. We refuted some of those allegations on the basis that we're putting forth our best foot under sound science, which we believe is the best for it.

Having said that, most recently, if you haven't been told by any of the foresters on this side of the divide, the forest practices code has been amended; there are 41 new amendments. One of the more positive aspects of that change is that there will be required sign-offs on the forest practices code, in particular the biodiversity emphasis. Earlier groups may have talked about biodiversity and the values of biodiversity, which have an integral impact on us also.

So that's a welcome step. The Ministry of Forests is not stepping forward on their own, but the MOE is having to sign off with them, which may have some interesting parallel contrasts, because the MOE, the Ministry of the Environment, is charged with that responsibility of caring for the environment and maintaining a balance of biodiversity and the biodiversity emphasis, and somehow those two will come together. So that's a positive view.

I might note that the province just recently made the announcement that it will cut over 200 positions within the ministry, which many of you may be aware of. So there will be tremendous challenges for the province to meet their obligations and commitments to work within the context of the new forest practices code amendments and provide good, sound management decisions on the environment and maintaining biodiversity in terms of development plans produced from forest companies and industry.

It could be quite overwhelming, because the conflict is not over. It would appear that there is going to be ongoing conflict, and the resolve is not here today. But some good, sound footwork and foundation was put forward with the introduction of the code, which is a start. It's a good starting block. Some in the industry believe it's too restrictive, but in terms of the responsibility for those crown resources, from our perspective as first nations, we believe sometimes things won't be entrenched enough, having had experience in the fish sector. Most of you know what's going on on the west coast.

I don't think I need to say any more.

The Chairman: Mr. Newman, do you have a few comments?

Chief Ed Newman (Heiltsuk Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the honour of coming before you today.

I am one of the hereditary chiefs of the Heiltsuk Nation, which at one time was made up of 11 tribes. After the epidemic that devastated the Indian people on the coast, there were only eight of us left, who came together in the village we now occupy, which we call Bella Bella.

I hate to say this, but for the last few years, I haven't even known the name of my MP, and yet before now, the MPs we used to have in the past regularly came to our community to listen to the kinds of concerns we're going to speak to you about here today.

The poverty that exists among our people, when there is so much wealth around us.... There's forestry, trees, and there's a fishing industry going on, but very little of the benefits from the harvest of those resources flows through our community. For many years there has been a big logging industry in our territory. Not one cent of the benefits from that harvest flowed through our community.

• 1830

It wasn't until about two years ago that we trained 17 people to become loggers, and yet in the past, our people were loggers. They took part in the logging industry. They operated logging camps. But when the big companies came in and the unions took over the industry, our people were pushed completely out—completely out.

My job as the chief negotiator for the band in their land claims treaty process is to talk about what we want to achieve through the process. I'm 73 years old. I've been involved in politics for over 40 years of my life. This is not the first committee I've come before. I used to go to Ottawa to go before committees as president of the Native Brotherhood of B.C. So this is nothing new to me.

But when Indian people go before committees, not much attention is paid to them. Not much attention is paid to the problems they bring before these committees. It doesn't seem to mean anything.

We're trying to achieve three things through the treaty process.

One is economic stability. That's what everybody wants—economic stability.

We're looking for social stability, because we're a total welfare community. The health benefits we receive are lower than the standards enjoyed by other Canadians. Our education system is lower than that enjoyed by other Canadians. Our housing standards are lower than those enjoyed by other Canadians. Through the treaty process, we hope to change that.

The third thing we're looking for is certainty. I think that's something everybody wants—certainty. The third parties in the process want certainty. The governments want certainty. The aboriginal people want certainty.

We have rights that have been recognized by the highest courts in your system. They have stated that we are the owners of this land. I'm not a stakeholder; I am an owner. That's the way I look at myself.

For many years our people didn't know what to do when the white man first came, because we saw all the wealth around us disappearing. It wasn't until 1913 that our chiefs had the first opportunity to speak to a commission. It was the McKenna-McBride Royal Commission. Our chiefs had the opportunity to express to that commission their concerns about the land and resources that were going, even though at that time they stated they had nothing to do with the things we were concerned about.

Our vision statement and the treaty process came out of that hearing. The statement was made by one of our chiefs, my uncle. I'm going to only read you one paragraph of the statement he made, and I want you to listen to it. He said:

We are the natives of this Country and we want all the land we can get. We feel that we own the whole of this Country, every bit of it, and ought to have something to say about it.

Nobody ever comes to ask us when they want to do anything in our territory.

The Government have not bought any land from us so far as we know and we are simply lending this land to the Government. We own it all. We will never change our minds in that respect, and after we are dead our children will still hold on to the same ideas. It does not matter how long the Government take to determine this question, we will remain the same in our ideas about this matter.

That's part of our vision statement. We take that message to the schools. We talk to our children. We tell them, “We want you to prepare for two things. If we fail, we want you to prepare to carry on the fight. If we're successful, we want you to be prepared to implement a treaty agreement.

• 1835

In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case confirmed Chief Bob Anderson's assertions that first nations owned the land and resources. When it found that aboriginal title exists, subject to first nations meeting the test as stipulated by the court for proving its aboriginal ownership, the Heiltsuk people had no problem proving how we used that land and that we owned it. Our fish traps are all over the territory. They are still there. The culturally modified trees are all over the place and we have them mapped. We can prove how we used the land. We can prove that we used the trees to build houses, that we used them to build canoes, that we used them to build totem poles and to make clothing for ourselves from cedar bark. Those things we can prove.

I'd like you to hear the present situation in our communities, and it's a sad story. This situation would not be acceptable in any white community. Your government would not allow it to happen. The economic state that the Heiltsuk people find themselves in today is characterized by a high unemployment rate of 66%. At times it's higher. But when the Government of Canada comes out with unemployment rates, the highest is the unemployment rate that Indian people have. Income levels for private sector employment, for those who are fortunate enough to work, are well below the poverty line.

The fishing and forest industries are the only two natural resource sectors that offer any real economic opportunity to meet our employment and economic needs for the immediate and long term. The average annual income for saw workers is $3,528, and for fishermen $8,515. The minimum annual income required to meet basic needs is $20,000. Now, that's a sad state of affairs. It's a sinful state of affairs. Yet we see our resources being mismanaged. Mismanagement of the forestry has a ripple effect in the ecosystem. Most of our streams in the mid-coast no longer produce salmon because of the poor logging practices.

We have done surveys under water and we find that where there is a logging operation, the area at the bottom around that logging area is dead; there is no life there. Yet nobody talks about that. At the treaty table the provincial government says they want us for partners in the co-management of the forestry. I don't want to be partners with a manager who has a poor record.

I have to say this. The provincial government and the federal government ought to be ashamed of the record of managing the resources, because you are the people who create the problem. You issue the permits that create poor logging practices. You are supposed to be the watchdogs through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to make sure that poor logging practices don't happen and that the fishing streams are being protected. That has not been the case. It's a sinful record.

With that I'll stop. We should be compensated, I guess, for all this, but the Government of Canada doesn't want to talk about compensation. But when I saw in the paper last week how MacMillan Bloedel got compensated $83.7 million for losing some trees in the park's area, I wished we could be compensated for something like that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Newman and Mr. Germyn. We'll take a few moments now to allow a few questions from members, and we'll start with Mr. Schmidt please.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Robert. Mr. Newman, it's really a pleasure to meet you. We've heard all about you in the last two days as we flew around from Bella Coola and Bella Bella this morning, and I was looking forward to it very much when we heard you were going to be here, Robert. I thought, oh boy, you can see what happens here, because we were so impressed with what we saw right on the forest floor, and it was good.

The articulation you've given, in terms of the five points you had and, Mr. Newman, the points you made as to exactly what you want out of the treaty process—I think you've expressed the kinds of things we all want: social stability, economic stability, and certainty. We're together in this.

• 1840

The thing that also impressed me so much was the ability you have to stand alone. You can defend yourself very, very well and you articulate the position extremely well, and I want to commend you for that.

I also want to ask you to what degree...like the co-management. That was a rather interesting point you made, Mr. Newman, that you don't want to be a co-manager with somebody who does a lousy job. I agree with that. I don't want to be co-manager with a group like that either. You have now a relationship with Western Forest Products. I don't know if you're co-managing there or just what's happening there, but obviously there's a pretty strong cooperative element going on here, one that I thought was pretty powerful.

I'd like you to comment on just exactly how you feel that cooperative element is doing. Are you co-managing? Is the ultimate intent here to do something else? Just what is the relationship? Because obviously you have a vision for your people. You also have visions for this business enterprise, I'm sure. So what could that be?

Mr. Robert Germyn: Are you referring in a sense to the co-management cooperative kind of thing we have with Western?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes. Let's talk about that and maybe expand it from there.

Mr. Robert Germyn: I guess Ed can talk a little bit about the history of some of the discussions he may have had in regard to fish with Bill Dumont, who happens to be their fish person, I guess. He was probably with you on this trip.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: He was here in the afternoon, yes.

Mr. Robert Germyn: We went to the Marble River, actually, on the north end of Vancouver Island, and we were quite impressed with some salmon restoration. They took some of our people down there and toured a facility.

We are also operating and currently running one of the most successful small hatcheries, we believe, on the coast. It's been quite successful. Ed will tell you a little bit more about that and the initiative. It was before my time.

Again, I'm a young person here. I'm trying to build on the new stuff here and go forward in terms of the positive. There's potential to do some work with industry. It would seem that vision is fleshing itself out through a process of working and coming together with community chiefs, council, and industry. I don't know where it will end at the end of the day, other than...industry has expressed the willingness to work with us to do some projects. We haven't targeted one yet, but we're looking at the potential to do a prototype project that would enhance a system or restore a system, but we haven't factored any concrete—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Specifically, I think I'd like you to comment on the three points Mr. Newman made—economic and social stability and certainty—because I think that's what you're working towards; at least I would imagine so. Do you feel that's going to give you those things?

Mr. Robert Germyn: Well, you have to be a realist in the world, and the vision is to be at a Canadian standard, if that's the standard and if everyone is happy with that.... I don't know if that's acceptable at the end of the day, but it would seem that's reasonable to try to achieve as an objective right now. If your unemployment rate is 8% or 9% nationally, then it would seem we're a far cry at 66%.

Having said that, you have to look at other alternatives—new industries, new sectors, and diversifying, value-adding, which we're doing. We don't believe in just taking a resource and cutting a tree down or catching a fish for the sake of catching that resource. We like to value-add, and that's why we're in processing. We have a processing plant that breaks that material down. It adds value, it adds labour, employment opportunity, and it creates more of a social circle, which also creates spinoffs to secondary sectors, to the service, retail, and it creates an evolution. If that theory in principle can work for a Canadian society, we have tremendous potential in terms of the resources we would have access to, to develop on the forest side. So we're looking quite seriously at value-added.

Ed.

Chief Ed Newman: I don't think our present situation at Western Forest Products is going to bring about the three things we're looking for, because we are a minor player. It is not going to be until we become a major player that the kinds of things I'm talking about will come about. Until we become the senior or the major player, and Western Forest Products becomes the minor player, we won't achieve the kinds of things we're looking for in a treaty.

There's no secret—and we make sure everybody hears what we're saying—that through the treaty process we want to take over the total management of the resources in our territories, not just logging, but fishing and all those things that are important to us, because we are a stable community. We're not going to go anywhere.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's right.

• 1845

Chief Ed Newman: I know in Ocean Falls they got into trouble. They moved; they're gone. We're going to be there for a long time, and we have to make sure we're going to be looked after first. We're going to make sure we're going to be looked after first, because nobody's going to look after us unless we fight for the kinds of things that are going to bring us economic stability, social stability, and certainty.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I appreciate that. I think that's all very well, and I really admire what you're saying. But I would like to ask, because at the moment you're a minor player, as you say, with Western Forest Products, but there's something that can happen in between here.... As Mr. Germyn said, we have to be realistic. How can you move from being the really minor player to a major player? Do you intend that your relationship with Western Forest Products will in fact be one where you play an increasingly larger role in that operation and Western will have to be a lesser one, because it's a zero-sum game?

Mr. Robert Germyn: Well, I guess you're almost pre-empting a meeting with Western in making that statement.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, I don't know. Are you having a meeting like that?

Mr. Robert Germyn: We have ongoing discussions in regard to our involvement and our interests over the resources. As Ed said, we're not really quite happy about our situation, but it's a step; it's a small step. I would like to envision that one day we'll be in control of the majority of the resources in our territory and have certain management principles that would be entrenched in terms of sustainability and maintaining the biodiversity and the ecosystems—things that all Canadians would be proud of, not just first nations. The rest of you also would benefit in terms of our success. Our success then becomes everyone's success. That's been a real vision, but a stretch on a vision. We have a long way to go, and it's a challenge. That means goodwill extended on all parts, and willingness to listen and hear each other and try to work through the differences.

As Ed said, there are some grievances that may occur from time to time in terms of stream systems with industry practices, some past practice. Even current situations may present themselves, but we've got to fix them and work together to resolve them. I think that's where the goodwill will come in, to reach out and try to develop those systems.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think that's a good observation.

I think I'll stop at this, Mr. Chairman. I want to just end with this question. Is it an either/or proposition? I used the term “zero-sum game” before, and I heard you say, Mr. Newman, that it's either all or nothing. Is it really an all or nothing game that we're into here? Or is there a chance that we can work together to the point where we can be equal partners in what we're trying to achieve?

Chief Ed Newman: What's on the table today isn't close to being equal partners. What the federal government and the provincial government are offering is a quantum placed at 5%, which is not going to bring about the three things I'm talking about. It's not going to meet our needs. The people in the mid-coast have to be treated differently. In the mid-coast we make up a vast majority of the population. There are very few white people in the mid-coast. As a matter of fact, our regional advisory board is Vancouver-based because there are not enough white people in the mid coast to make up a RAC. So we should be treated the same way as the Inuit, who because they outnumber everybody, they have large tracts of land. We should be treated the same way in the mid-coast.

We're looking at equal opportunities, the parallel process. We are going through the treaty process, but eventually, as part of the settlement, we want to get a chunk of land with trees on it. It's going to make it possible for us to achieve the three things we're looking for.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Alex, you're next, then Yvon.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Thank you. It gives me great honour to talk to you, Chief. I'm from a long way away in Ontario. We don't have a lot of these problems—at least seemingly not.

I look at the objectives you seek—economic stability, social stability, and certainty—and I suppose it's a matter of degree, but I know if I talked to my own constituents they would tell me these are all objectives they would accede to as well.

I should ask you a question about your culture just from my understanding. That is, what was the original attitude toward land in the sense that your people believe they own the land per se, or do they just occupy its space? Is the system of land ownership we're talking about today consistent with the historical culture of your people?

• 1850

Chief Ed Newman: Yes, our ties to the land and the resources are very important. We didn't separate the land from the animals or the sea, nor the area we claim, which is 32,000 square miles of land and sea. We know that land and the sea looked after us before the white man came, and continues to look after us to this day. It's very important to us, and we used all of it.

We had villages all over our area—harvesting areas, processing areas. We moved from one to the other in different parts of the year, so we used the total area. The maps that prove our use of the land will show this; that we had fishing traps where our people went out to fish and dried fish all over the place. How we used the trees is all over the place. Old village sites are all over the place.

Our area is marked out as rock paintings that mark the graves of our ancestors. Our ancestors are buried all over that territory. So the whole area is sacred to our people. We have strong ties to the land.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I understand what you're saying. I've always sat back and wondered about the white man's attitude towards land. We have ownership in the sense that we divide things up in square hectares and we say that we somehow possess them. But in reality we all, humans, come and go, but the land stays the same. I wonder about the fixation this whole process has about ownership. Anyway, that's just me thinking out loud.

What I am concerned about is the way the world seems to be changing today. Quite frankly, the possession of real estate is maybe not the be-all and end-all. In other words, today it would appear that the possession of knowledge and the possession of technology, some of these things, seem to be driving the economy. I would hope that your people will be part of that process—in other words, not get mired in the concept of land ownership, which to me is not going to be as important as the possession of pure knowledge in a competitive global environment.

It leads me to another question, and that is, to sell your resources you're going to have to deal in this global environment. Some of the questions the committee members were wondering about dealt with the problems the forest industry in general in British Columbia is having in marketing some of their products internationally. I can tell you that these interest groups, which we now call the civic society, are all connected through the Internet, and they all talk to each other, whether they're in Europe or the United States, and they're using this knowledge base to actually prevent some of the practices that I think you and your people see as supporting these three objectives.

Chief Ed Newman: Before the white man came to our territories, we had a system in place that looked after our people. We had a bartering system in place by which we bartered with one another. It wasn't international, but it's the same for a lot of other countries in the world. They didn't barter internationally for a long time. But we had a system.

The Heiltsuk people were famous. If you read their history, they were famous as traders. There's the Gladstone case that was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. It proves the Heiltsuk people have an aboriginal right to harvest roe and kelp commercially. It was noted by the early traders and early missionaries that we were trading that with our Kwakiutl neighbours to the south. We have a history of being the middlemen in trade on the coast because we're situated in the mid-coast. Namu is one of the Heiltsuk territories that was famous as a trading area in the mid-coast between the north and south.

So we were traders before the white man came. Given the kind of opportunity we're talking about, we won't have any difficulty getting into and meeting the changes we have to meet in these changing times.

• 1855

As you know, I just came from a negotiating table. I've been sitting there with the federal government and the provincial government for two days now. We were talking about education. How can we improve the education of the aboriginal people enough—the Heiltsuk people? The Government of Canada did not use education to try to better the lives of Indian people because it was trying to use education to do away with the identity of Indian people. It was trying to use education to assimilate us into white society. Today we want something different, because we want to meet the needs you're talking about today.

At the end of the statement I read to you by Bob Anderson, it talked about how they wanted to control the fishing licences because they saw the salmon being depleted. He said we were here a long time before the cannery people came here. We should have the right, and we have the right, to have those licences, so we can sell our fish to anybody we want. So he had that vision a long time ago. We still have that vision today. Given the opportunity, we can meet the kinds of things you're talking about.

The Chairman: Thank you, Alex, and Mr. Newman.

I have Yvon, Gerry, then Gerald. Yvon, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I am happy to meet you today. I think I have a good relationship with the Pabineau, in New-Brunswick. I come from the north-eastern region of New Brunswick and I have a rather good relationship with the chief.

There is something I wonder about. It's true, we don't know your culture very well nor your concept of ownership. My question is very simple. As far as I am concerned, I was born here in Canada, my parents were born in Canada and I feel that Canada belongs to me. This land is also my land. I was born here. Maybe its not the case of my great-grandparents who came from Europe, but when you are born here, you feel somehow that you belong, that this is your home. Here in B.C., I don't feel at home, but I do in New-Brunswick. It's my land.

Today, in 1999, there are people who, like me, were born here and feel at home in this country. Is there room enough for everybody? Could we try to find a solution together so that everyone can live off the land?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

Chief Ed Newman: I agree with you. This should be a place for all of us to live, but so far it hasn't been that way. You came to Canada—your parents came to Canada, your ancestors came to Canada. They tamed this country. The white man was sort of under the impression that there was nobody here when he came and nobody owned the land, so they took possession of it. My grandfather also said they didn't go to anybody else's country to take up land. We've never done that. Yet people came here and took over our land and we were put on reserves—more or less put in concentration camps, so the government could control us. We were no longer a part of this country.

When I was a young man, I wasn't considered a citizen of this country. I was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Immigration. Did you know that? My father went to war in the First World War. He went overseas. I asked him one time why he fought for the country when he wasn't even a citizen. He said, “Maybe things will change for you some day”. A lot of Indian people did that. They went to fight for a country that didn't recognize them as citizens.

I don't know how this chief you know in New Brunswick feels about you saying you're the owner of the country. I don't know what he tells you. But as far as the Heiltsuk people are concerned, we own that land.

• 1900

The federal government's position is that the third parties, privately owned lands and parks, are not on the table. That's the government position. The position of the Heiltsuk people is different. We own all of it until somebody deals with us on it, because my aboriginal rights are all over my territory, and the highest courts in the land have said that. It has never been extinguished. So until somebody tells me how to deal with that, I feel I own all that land, because my rights are all over the place. They've never been taken away and they're protected by the Constitution.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I want to clear up one thing. I never raised that question with the chief from New Brunswick. It's just that the way you're going with it, I felt I had to raise that question. I just said I have a good relationship with the chief in our region, but that question was not raised. I will raise it with him when I see him.

Chief Ed Newman: I have met the people from New Brunswick at the conference in B.C., and they're concerned about the way they're being treated back there, the same as us.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We had our difficulty. On the 5% that you talk about, they went to court and won a good big court case, and then they went back and it was reversed. I don't disagree with you; they do have difficulty.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Chief Ed Newman: In Delgamuukw the Supreme Court of Canada stated that we are all here to stay, but we have to deal with the Indian people fairly in negotiations.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Newman and Mr. Godin.

Gerry is next, and then we'll go to Gerald.

Mr. Robert Germyn: Can I do a brief presentation on that?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Robert Germyn: One of the problems in transitioning the economy is the equality of access to opportunity. I think the challenge is to relinquish some position, whether it be in the form of interim measures...and we haven't had a lot of success with that, and that hasn't been raised here.

The other aspect is the potential infringement with the potential talks—you may have heard them, and this is going off in a different field. The privatization or the potential...the discussions are going on with industry and government and the province, and I don't know how much they disclose to the federal cabinet or this committee in terms of how that land selection process is going, but what it seems to have framed is a concept in everyone's mind, which I heard earlier today and I was a little bit concerned as it was raised, on the privatization. Not to set off any alarm bells, but we have very strong concerns about that if they're putting forward lands for compensation for lost logging opportunity over here that may have been the only first nations' opportunity to access opportunity. Then we're stuck with Mr. Shepherd's analogy: how do you get into a high-tech sector with no capitalization or access to capital markets? It becomes very challenging. So you start with resources and you build and you try to work into them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Germyn.

Gerry Byrne, please.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Thank you very much, both of you, for appearing. I would like to seek some clarification on some issues regarding your first nation's relationship with several of the environmental activist groups that have an interest in forestry practices in B.C.

I believe we've heard testimony here today that Greenpeace and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund have a very positive working relationship with the hereditary chiefs. This is what I'm seeking clarification on, in part—hereditary chiefs with other first nations. There is a letter before us that has been tabled and read into testimony, written by Arlene Wilson, who is chief counsel for your tribal counsel, stating that “the subversive and manipulative tactics that each of your organizations”—and I reference Greenpeace, Sierra Club of B.C., Forest Action Network, and Sierra Legal Defence Fund as being those organizations—“are carrying out within our community is unequivocably without honour.”

How would you describe your relationship with various environmental activists?

Mr. Robert Germyn: That's a good question, Gerry. It's a very challenging one for our community. I don't know how big the community is where you come from; I don't know too much about you, but as you can see, the size of our community is not that large, so any major issue that comes forward has the potential to fracture and split people down the middle in terms of issues. No matter what the issues are, I think that probably happens in all communities, and undoubtedly this has happened in our community.

• 1905

You've read that correspondence from Arlene that environmental groups have come forward and pursued their interests, which they're more than entitled to, and have not gone about the process of doing their work in an appropriate fashion or a manner that would be deemed acceptable to first nations in terms of the protocol that would be required. Greenpeace still hasn't reconciled their relationship with the band. They violated the trust and breached the trust relationship they had with the tribal council.

Edwin will probably speak from the perspective of the hemas and the traditional chiefs in terms of the directives and the initiatives that are going on there from the enviros. But generally speaking, they come in with what are in their minds good intentions to assist us to make good decisions. It's almost like a colonialist bioscientist: you do this, we know, but we have a Ph.D. in biodiversity and we're telling you this is wrong; it goes against your principles. It's almost hypocritical, almost hypocrisy, in terms of having non-first nations telling us what our culture is. Who knows best but our own? We have them. They're quite active and integral to our system of government today. And they're quite involved, as you've heard Edwin.

He's their chief negotiator as well as hereditary chief, so I will ask Ed to follow up.

Chief Ed Newman: There are some concerns about the way environmental groups have operated in the past. I've been sued by Paul Watson on one occasion, so for a long time I've had no use for environmental groups. The reason is they come into an area and they want to stop everything. In an area like Bella Bella, we can't afford to stop everything. The position of the chiefs is quite clear: they did not want to stop the logging. The thing they were concerned about was the poor logging practices, the destruction of fishing streams. They wanted better management practices put in place to control the bad logging practices, and they've made that quite clear.

Now, we're prepared to sit down with anybody to talk about ways and means to try to improve the logging practices in our territory, because to us it's important. It has to be there. We want it to be there for all time, because we're going to depend on it to improve the lives of our young people. The vast majority of our population are young people, who have no jobs, no future, so we can't afford to stop everything. I want to make it quite clear that the chiefs' position in Bella Bella is not to stop the logging practices, but to try to make sure that better logging practices are put in place and that salmon streams are protected.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Just as a quick follow-up to that—I appreciate, first off, how divisive this can be, in the sense that at times people have challenged and almost expected to second-guess their own cultures and their own values to equate to somebody else's expectations.

As background, I come from Newfoundland, where Mr. Paul Watson and Greenpeace originally came forward with a position that there should be no seal hunt whatsoever, whether it be for Newfoundlanders or for native people, for the Inuit or Innu. Subsequent to that, after the seal hunt, the industry component, was basically destroyed, Greenpeace came forward and said it's now okay to have the seal hunt, notwithstanding the fact that there was no industry left to support. So their positions can change quite often.

If you had the opportunity right now, if your territory was settled—we went to Eel Island this morning—would you conduct logging practices in much the way it's being conducted at that particular location? Do you see the industry as having changed?

Mr. Robert Germyn: I'll try to answer that. The crew we have on Yeo Island are fully trained in the new forest practices code, 1997, and that's all they know. Prior to that, most of them were fishermen, so they value the importance and integrity of fish. When they're out there, they're very conscious of the environment and the ecosystem, and they're very wary, even more than a normal person would be, because of the tremendous value salmon have to our people. They try their best to work within the constraints of management to make sure they're not damaging any systems.

• 1910

Ed might want to respond.

Chief Ed Newman: On Friday we had a meeting with German business people who came over to look at the logging industry and Western Forest Products. One of them asked us the same question: How would we manage if we took over some of the logging management through the process? Would we manage it the same way as Western Forest Products? My answer to him was no.

They flew around our territory. They saw the damage, especially around Jenny Inlet. The damage up there to that salmon stream is irreparable, I think. There's a lot of damage in there. We would not manage it the way the present logging companies are logging it or the way the provincial government manages. We would try to make some changes to make it better.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerry.

The final cleanup hitter will be Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gerry asked both questions I had in mind. I would like to take just one second to thank both members of the Heiltsuk Band for coming down and speaking to us. All of the members listened with a lot of attention, and from what I took from your discussion, it was a discussion about empowerment. Part of that empowerment is responsibility, and part of accepting responsibility is having a way to provide for yourselves and your family and your band.

I just want to expand a little bit, because I think maybe those of us from the east coast have a different perspective on Greenpeace from those members from the mid-west or the west coast. And that perspective is not an entirely gratuitous one.

Gerry can speak better on this than I, but certainly I've been in a good number of outports in Newfoundland and in Inuit communities in northern Canada, and it's hard for anyone to imagine. It's complete devastation. There are still some Newfoundlanders sealing, but very few, and in a lot of communities, there's absolutely no source of income.

We're off the subject, Mr. Chair, but it's—

The Chairman: Gerald, how could we stop you?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That did it. That stopped me right there.

It's the old risk versus benefits. When you listen to the message some of the environmentalists are saying.... I hesitate very much to lump them all into one group, because I'm sure there are individuals who really are very good and helpful and mean exactly what they say. But if you look at the fact that there are 6.5 million seals on the east coast of Canada and a cull of 600,000, and if you ask who caused that, who generated it, it's no problem to understand that it came from the international community—a few Canadians, but a lot of expats, Germans, Americans, and people who have nothing to do with the country or the environment. They don't have to live there. On the east coast we call it cultural genocide, but I think you've already talked about that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy, thank you very much for saying that.

On behalf of us all, thank you, Mr. Germyn and Mr. Newman, for helping us to understand better the concerns of your community and the concerns of those who try to make a decent living in the mid-coast region of B.C.

With that, we're recessed, not adjourned, until tomorrow morning at 8.30, same place.

Thank you all.