FOREST MANAGEMENT IN CANADA
Science and Technology Division
Revised 9 October 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
of the Resource
C. Subjects for Inquiry and Debate
Canada is at the crossroads in forest management.
Our countrys forests have suffered from lack of adequate reforestation
and failure to implement appropriate silvicultural practices, and now
they can scarcely meet the growing needs of their users. Viewed from a
primarily economic standpoint for many years, forest management now aims
at identifying objectives and strategies through a concerted effort by
all forest users. As the concept of sustainable development suggests,
we must now, more than ever, work to ensure the sustainable utilization
of species and ecosystems, if humanity intends to provide for the well-being
of present and future generations. This document describes changes and
developments in forest management on a national scale.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
From earliest times, the
forest has been associated with mankinds progress. A special place
for leisure and relaxation, the forest also provides fuel for our fires,
timber for our buildings, food for our tables and, of course, spectacular
beauty. Canada has the third largest expanse of forest of any country
in the world: it is the classic example of a nation whose development
was largely brought about by its rich forest resources. But in recent
years, growing public awareness about the environment has revived and
expanded debate on problems linked to changes and deterioration in our
Viewed not long ago as an
inexhaustible resource, Canadian forests, in addition to being threatened
to varying degrees by air-borne pollutants, are today being intensively
harvested. They have faced repeated assaults by natural scourges such
as fire, insects and disease. The latest data available show that between
1992 and 1996, the forest industry harvested a total of 4.7 million
hectares. During the same period, forest fires destroyed 3.9 million
hectares of productive wooded areas. Over the 15-year period from 1981
to 1995, fires, insects and disease affected an area of commercial forest
that was greater than the area harvested. Natural disturbances destroyed
an average of 1.3 million hectares per year, while 927,333 hectares were
cut each year. In terms of volume of timber, the opposite is true: 170
million cubic metres were harvested annually, while 149 million cubic
metres were lost due to natural phenomena. Also during this period, 5.8 million
hectares were planted or seeded, but the total area of forest lands still
devoid of commercial species more than 10 years after being harvested
reached 1.3 million hectares.
Faced with this situation,
forest industries and forestry experts emphasize their disquiet by pointing
primarily to the economic importance of Canadas commercial forests.
In 1997, these forests provided some 830,000 direct and indirect jobs,
injected more than $60 billion into the Canadian economy and ensured
the survival of some 350 municipalities in Canada. This perspective,
focused on the forest as industry, must not allow us to neglect the intrinsic
ecological value of forest ecosystems. To reduce the value of a forest
to no more than its lumber content is to simplify absurdly its invaluable
role as an environment for life: quite apart from the importance of the
flora and fauna they shelter, forests contribute directly to the purification
of the air we breathe and the water we drink; they protect river basins
from erosion, regulate the flow of water courses and reduce the risk of
floods. Canadas forests also help to control the excess carbon dioxide
in the worlds atmosphere; it is estimated that they absorb more
CO2 from the atmosphere than is emitted by natural phenomena
and industrial activity. Nowadays the classic principle of the single-use
forest has been replaced by the idea of multiple use, an idea that is
being expressed with increasing persuasiveness. Apart from wood shortages,
such phenomena as loss of soil fertility, reduced ecosystem diversity
and the destruction of productive habitats are all evidence of the fragility
of this great natural resource.
The days when we carelessly
expected our forests to give us something for nothing are long gone; the
industry, governments and many other stakeholders are combining their
efforts to ensure that the principle of sustainable utilization of forest
resources is given top priority, both nationally and internationally.
B. Description of
Canada has 4.18 million
square kilometres of forest, nearly 140,000 square metres of forest for
each of its 30 million inhabitants. More than twice as big as the area
of the European Economic Community, and nearly double the surface area
of Mexico, Canadas forested territory accounts for 10% of the planets
woodlands. However, our forests are far from being all profitable and
available for exploitation: only 2.3 million square kilometres are considered
to be productive and non-reserved. British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec
contain about 59% of Canadas inventoried productive forest land.
The prairie provinces have 23%, and the four Atlantic provinces 9%. Most
(80%) of this territory is Crown land in right of the provinces, except
in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, where most forest land is privately
held. Federal Crown land, located mainly in the Yukon and the Northwest
Territories, accounts for 39% of the countrys total area but for
only 9% of its total productive non-reserved forest land.
Canadas forested areas
are classified by type of cover, which is determined by the proportion
of conifers (in terms of surface area or volume). The softwood (coniferous)
forests, concentrated mainly in the north and predominant in British Columbia,
are the largest in terms of both surface area (64%) and volume (77%).
Mixed-wood forests, which extend through the Maritimes, Central Quebec,
Ontario and the Prairies, rank second in area (21%) and in volume (18%).
Hardwood forests (mainly birch and maple) grow in a band across southern
Ontario and Quebec; the band thins in southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan
and widens again in Alberta, mostly in the form of aspen and poplar. Classification
of timber stands according to their development potential remains a challenge
both urgent and important.
C. Subjects for Inquiry
The debate on the management,
use, protection and increased productivity of forest lands. These included
problems in the supply of wood, as well as in the processing and marketing
of forest products. In the same way, we find provincial governments, private
companies and professional forestry associations echoing the concerns
of native groups and owners of private forests about the seriousness of
a large number of problems and the urgent need to safeguard our forests
through intensive protection and management. Pests and fires, air pollution
and deforestation, are all factors that suggest the future may not be
a bright one.
An unusual die-back in maple-sugar
bushes throughout Quebec is one disturbing example. Fewer, paler leaves,
together with their premature loss, gradual decrease in foliage, the slower
scarring of incisions, decreased growth and increased die-off may be linked
to stress caused by air-borne pollutants (acid build-up, photochemical
oxidizers, etc.) and to severe climatic variation (for example, the deep-level
freezing in winters with minimal snow falls, and periods of low rainfall
observed in the early 1980s). In addition to sugar maples, which are very
vulnerable to pollution, white ash, beech, linden, yellow birch and red
maple also suffer from die-back. Coniferous species can no longer be said
to be unaffected: early signs of the blight have been found in fir, white
spruce and hemlock. While the situation has stabilized and the role of
air pollution is hotly debated, a number of observers stress that the
impact of air-borne pollutants can no longer be ignored. Certainly research
must continue, so that we can identify and implement all possible measures
to improve the health of the forest heritage, but we must also act.
International and domestic
demand for wood and wood products increases as population increases. In
Canada, the annual allowable cut (AAC), i.e., the volume of wood that
can be harvested without endangering the sustainability of the forest
resource, had dropped from 276 million cubic metres in 1977 to 207 million
in 1983. In 1995, the AAC was 233 million cubic metres, or 174 million
cubic metres of softwood and 59 million cubic metres of hardwood.
In 1995, the roundwood harvest totalled 188 million cubic metres, including
158 million cubic metres of softwood and 30 million cubic metres
of hardwood. Almost 40 million cubic metres of wood were harvested
on private land. It is estimated that Canada harvested 90% of its AAC
in softwood and 51% of its AAC in hardwood. While hardwood supplies do
not appear to be in any way threatened, the Canadian Forestry Service
considers that at the current cutting rate, the softwood harvest is reaching
the upper limit for sustainable development.
Already, local shortages
of softwood used primarily for the production of lumber have been noted,
primarily in Newfoundland and New Brunswick, but these shortages will
probably be short-lived. It remains extremely difficult to estimate what
Canadas wood supply will be over the long term, because it depends
to a very great extent on a range of factors such as the effort put into
renewing our forests and technological advances that may make possible
a more efficient use of wood resources and open up currently inaccessible
forests. Nevertheless, it is possible to envision a variety of options
that would make it possible to increase the wood supply, including: access
to remote forest areas, more intensive management and silviculture of
forests and plantations, increased protection of forests against natural
loss, more efficient use of wood and wood waste in processing, particularly
in the case of hardwoods, and greater use of paper recycling. Each option,
of course, has its own economic and environmental advantages and disadvantages.
In light of the changing pressures on the forests and the commitment made
by the various stakeholders to manage them sustainably, any new direction
must ensure that forest ecosystems and their related values are maintained,
while at the same time taking into consideration the social context, employment,
local communities and native rights. The result might be that some provinces
lower the AAC, primarily for softwood, even though over the past 15 years
there has been a marked increase of 940 million cubic metres in the volume
of commercial standing timber, an annual increase of 63 million cubic
metres. There can be no dispute about the fact that hardwoods are under-utilized,
however, with their combined harvest of just over one-half of the AAC.
Important subjects like
the recycling of newsprint and the cutting methods used in forestry are
arousing a great deal of interest among both managers and users of our
forests. Already, 15 American states have passed regulations requiring
a minimum recycled-fibre content in newspapers or magazines. A further
16 have set goals for recycled-fibre content, varying from 16 to 50% by
the year 2000, without imposing these by regulation. Twenty-seven of these
states account for nearly 80% of total American consumption of newsprint.
Since the United States constitutes the largest market for Canadian pulp
and paper producers, this irreversible trend toward recycling demanded
rapid adaptation by the Canadian pulp and paper industry and the fledgling
recycling industry. According to Forestry Canada, between 1988 and 1993,
the number of de-inking plants has risen from 1 to 16, and 40% of all
newsprint in Canada is produced using recycled fibres, compared with 3%
in 1988. An increased use of recycled fibres has therefore already had
serious repercussions for the forest industry itself, and for the resource
as a raw material.
In 1906, Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
then Prime Minister, was demanding an end to the destruction of our forests,
which were already suffering because they were not being replanted. Deforestation
and lack of forest management have at least received increasing attention
in recent years. In 1981, with the publication of the Forest Sector
Strategy, the federal government launched a campaign to intensify
forest management. The Strategy was formulated around four major themes:
wood supply, marketing, research and development, and manpower. The area
it was hoped would be reforested was to grow from 200,000 to 500,000 hectares
a year, and the areas for clearing the undergrowth, thinning and fertilization
were to expand from 100,000 to 400,000 hectares a year.
It very soon became plain
that such a strategy could only be implemented in collaboration with the
provinces, industry and private woodlot owners. As a result, agreements
with a value in excess of $1.5 billion have been reached between
the federal government and the ten provinces. The purpose of these agreements
was to ensure a secure wood supply by increasing reforestation of "not
satisfactorily restocked" (NSR) forest lands and by encouraging the
application of intensive forest management techniques. By the end of the
first agreements, in 1989 and 1990, about 1.5 billion trees had been planted
on more than 800,000 hectares. In addition, 500,000 hectares had been
thinned, fertilized and cleared of undesirable flora. The first series
of agreements produced significant economic and social benefits, such
as the creation of more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs, primarily
in rural areas.
The agreements also provided
funding to Research and Development programs which had as their objective
to the development of new products, the improvement of species through
genetic research, the evolution of new silvicultural techniques, and,
in general, an increase in our knowledge of forest management. The Canadian
Forestry Service continued to be involved in the problems of fire, insects,
diseases and the effect of toxic substances on forest vegetation and soil.
In addition, it carried out basic research on forest renewal, forest ecology,
and remote sensing. The provinces concentrated primarily on reforestation,
classification of forest sites, and training for forest managers.
Early in the 1990s, the
federal government signed a second series of agreements with each of the
provinces and, for the first time, with the two territories. These forest
resource development agreements totalled nearly $725 million, which does
not include amounts allocated under subsidiary agreements. Unlike the
initial agreements, the new federal-provincial/territorial agreements
removed the emphasis from reforestation (which is considered primarily
the responsibility of the provinces and industry) and placed it instead
on the enhancement and development of already established stands.
In the April 1993 budget,
the federal government stated that these agreements would not be renewed
when they expired, and at the end of 1995-1996 it withdrew from the direct
funding of the development of Canadas forests. This situation was
of particular concern to small woodlot owners who, especially in the east,
had received very valuable assistance under these agreements, enabling
them to set up conditions favourable to the sustainable development of
private forests. For instance, when the federal government withdrew, woodlot
owners in Quebec were deprived of $19 million for forest management,
and the provincial government was forced to consider new approaches to
funding for private forests. The Government of Quebec will now defray
60% of the total cost of private forest development work an annual
expenditure in the order of $24 million. The industry agreed to pay 20%,
or $8 million, while private producers will continue to pay 15% of
the cost, as they did in the past. Finally, the Fédération des Producteurs
de Bois du Québec and the Regroupement des Sociétés daménagement
du Québec (RESAM) have agreed to find the remaining 5%, which amounts
to about $2 million annually.
The situation is not much
different in New Brunswick, where the Federation of Woodlot Owners has
estimated that the government contributions required to continue development
programs in private forests is around $27 million over five years. In
August 1996, the federal and New Brunswick governments agreed on a new
forestry management program under which they invest $12 million in equal
shares over the next three years. This program is solely for the benefit
of private woodlot owners, whose contribution to the funding could reach
$3 million over the course of the agreement. The program focuses
on reforestation, precommercial thinning and cleaning, and other types
of forest management operations. The federal governments contribution
comes from the $300-million Transition Fund announced as part of the reform
of employment insurance.
For over 15 years, Canadian
softwood lumber exports to the United States have given rise to major
trade disputes between the two countries. Canadas chief economic
partner essentially accused Canadian provinces of subsidizing the softwood
lumber industry by selling lumber from Crown land the main source
of supply at an excessively low cost. The United States maintained
that this harmed the American softwood lumber industry.
To avoid American reprisals
and to compensate for the low stumpage fees charged the industry by the
provinces, towards the end of 1986 Canada and the United States signed
a memorandum of understanding whereby Canada imposed a 15% tax on softwood
lumber exports to the United States. Implementation of various countervailing
measures, such as increasing stumpage fees or transferring forest management
responsibilities to the industry, has made it possible to eliminate the
softwood lumber tax in British Columbia and the Maritimes and to reduce
the Quebec tax to first 6.2% and then 3.1%. The Canada-U.S. agreement
had the advantage of keeping revenues in the country that would otherwise
have been collected in the United States. The federal government was able
to transfer the money to the provinces so that they could increase reforestation
efforts and develop silvicultural programs. After some five years of this
system the Canadian government estimated that the provinces had sufficiently
readjusted their stumpage fees and unilaterally decided to terminate the
memorandum of understanding. It stopped collecting the surtax as of 4 October
1991, as the bilateral agreement allowed.
decision, the United States decided to collect countervailing duties in
an amount equivalent to the tax formerly collected in Canada. Between
December 1991 and June 1992, the United States International Trade Commission
and the U.S. Department of Commerce made a series of findings that there
were indirect subsidies to the Canadian softwood lumber industry, a situation
considered detrimental to American producers. Countervailing duty of 14.48%
(subsequently reduced to 6.51%) was imposed on Canadian softwood lumber,
regardless of its province of origin.
In May 1993, a GATT Panel
ruled that the United States had been wrong to impose fines on Canadian
softwood lumber exporters and that, accordingly, it should refund the
$15 to 20 million collected between October 1991 and March 1992. On 17 December
1993, a joint tribunal established under Chapter 19 of the Canada-U.S.
Free Trade Agreement rejected the reasons given by the U.S. Department
of Commerce for imposing a 6.5% countervailing duty on wood imported from
Canada. The Department agreed to eliminate such duty on 6 January
1994. The United States then requested the formation of an Extraordinary
Challenge Committee to review the judgment of the joint tribunal. In a
decision handed down on 3 August 1994, the Committee affirmed the
earlier finding that Canada did not subsidize softwood lumber exports.
Approximately $800 million in countervailing duties was refunded to Canadian
softwood lumber producers.
On 15 December 1994,
the governments of Canada and the United States established a bilateral
consultation process on forestry matters and on the North-American softwood
lumber trade. This process led, in April 1996, to a new Canada-U.S. agreement
on softwood lumber under which the United States undertook not to institute
trade proceedings against Canadian softwood lumber exports over the next
five years. In return, Canada agreed to set a threshold of 14.7 billion
bd ft for deliveries from British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta.
Above this threshold, it collects US$52 per thousand bd ft at
the border on the first 650 million bd ft and $104 for additional
quantities. The money collected by the Canadian government is returned
to the provinces in a proportion equal to their deliveries of softwood
lumber to the United States.
for International Trade set the allocation of export quotas for each of
the four provinces on the basis of recent export figures, as provided
under the Accord. In 1998, British Columbia softwood lumber producers
obtained 56.1% of the initial quotas; Quebec producers 25.7%; Ontario
producers 10.5% and Alberta producers 7.5%.
Canadian exports to the United States represent about $8 billion
In 1987, the Canadian Council
of Forest Ministers (CCFM) developed a National Forest Sector Strategy
for Canada, which recommended the creation of a federal department,
to have exclusive responsibility for forests and the forest industry.
The federal government implemented this recommendation in 1989 by passing
the Department of Forestry Act, the first piece of federal legislation
to introduce and define the concept of sustainable development, which
is to guide the orientation and activities of Forestry Canada. Forestry
Canada became an independent department in 1990; however, its independence
was short-lived: under the new government structure implemented in June
1993, it was integrated into the new Department of Natural Resources and
returned to its former name the Canadian Forest Service.
The new Department of Natural
Resources basically maintained the same major objectives as were set out
by Forestry Canada in its 1990 strategic plan. By providing national leadership
and forging solid partnerships, Natural Resources Canada is relying on
its economic, scientific and technical expertise to: establish the principles,
practices and knowledge required to develop resources according to the
concept of sustainable development; enhance the international competitivity
of the resources sector and its environmental performance; and contribute
to the improved health and safety of Canadians.
In light of the interest
raised by the concept of sustainable development, the increased importance
of environmental issues and the changing public attitude toward natural
resources management, and after consulting many organizations and individuals
ultimately involved in the management of Canadas forests, the CCFM
presented the new National Forest Strategy, entitled Sustainable Forests:
A Canadian Commitment, in March 1992. The goal of this strategy was
"to maintain and enhance the long-term health of our forest ecosystems,
for the benefit of all living things both nationally and globally, while
providing environmental, economic, social and cultural opportunities for
the benefit of present and future generations." The five-year
evaluation and review of the strategy led to the adoption of a new version
in July 1998. The strategy has nine elements, which address all aspects
of the production, use and management of Canadas forests. These
elements, which are intended to be a framework for realizing the forest
vision expressed by all stakeholders at the public consultations, are
One Forest Ecosystems:
Two Forest Management:
Participation: Many Voices
Four The Forest
Industry: A Global Competitor
Five Forest Sector
Science and Technology Management: A Team Approach
and the Workforce: Living with Change
People: Issues Relationship
Woodlots: A Growing Opportunity
Nine The Global
View: Canada on Stage
In order to reinforce the
impact of the strategy, the federal, provincial and territorial members
of the CCFM, as well as representatives of industry, labour, private owners,
aboriginal people, the universities, professionals and environmental groups,
signed a second Canada Forest Accord. By signing the agreement,
the parties not only endorse the National Forest Strategy and its fundamental
objective of commitment toward forest sustainability, but also commit
themselves to taking a series of measures to ensure its implementation.
Canadas Minister of
Natural Resources is legally required to report annually to the House
of Commons on the state of forestry in Canada. Since 1991, eight annual
reports on The State of Forestry in Canada have been tabled in
the House and have provided a very specific picture of forestry resources
and the industry, at the provincial, national and international levels.
These six reports provide specific and valuable information on a variety
of themes related to forests and the forest industry, including biodiversity,
wood supply, paper recycling, relations between trade and the environment,
scientific and technological developments, private woodlots, government
initiatives such as the model forests network and the community-based
tree planting program, the opinions of professionals and Canadians in
general on various aspects of forest management, and international considerations
Forestry Canadas second
report to the Parliament of Canada, tabled in June 1992, was very innovative
in introducing a new descriptive terminology of Canadas forests
as well as a series of environmental, economic and social indicators.
The purpose of these indicators, like that of better-known indicators
such as the Consumer Price Index and the Gross National Product, is to
provide a quantitative index for monitoring the progress of measures and
actions taken to ensure that the environmental, economic and social values
associated with Canadas forests are upheld. Canadian efforts with
respect to the indicators of sustainable development finally yielded results
in 1995, when the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers approved a new
national framework of criteria and indicators based on earlier experience.
The Canadian approach identifies
six principal sustainable forest management criteria: conserving biodiversity;
the state and productivity of forest ecosystems; conserving soil and water;
contributing to global ecological cycles; providing multiple benefits
to society; and accepting societys responsibility for sustainable
development. Each criterion is subdivided into a number of elements to
highlight a particular aspect, which can then be measured according to
one of 84 specific indicators, some of which are discussed in the fifth
and sixth reports to Parliament. The national framework is particularly
important as a similar approach is being developed at the international
level. Already, Canada and nine other countries, which together manage
90% of the worlds boreal and temperate forests, have completed the
development of a complete set of criteria and indicators. Ultimately,
this method of measuring each countrys progress toward sustainable
forest development will probably be the focal point of national and international
certification programs currently under development for forestry practices
The certification of forest
practices and products intended for consumers also attracts much interest.
It generally consists of an audit conducted by an independent agency to
verify that a product or process is complying with highly specific criteria
and requirements. Various aspects of a product, its "life cycle or
production cycle," can be evaluated before it receives approval.
Certifications are supposed to protect the environment by making consumers
aware of the repercussions of forest activities. Since the approval process
is primarily market-oriented and voluntary in nature, it is viewed as
compatible with free trade in that it does not create discrimination between
suppliers or establish a prohibition. In Canada, there are two distinct
paths leading to the certification of forest products. In 1993, the Canadian
forest industry launched the development of a certification process for
the forest sector. The task was entrusted to the Canadian Standards Association
(CSA), an independent agency that develops standards for manufactured
products. The Association established a Technical Committee on sustainable
forest management consisting of representatives of all parties with an
interest in forest matters. It is responsible for determining the elements
that are to be incorporated and complied with in the audit and approval
The CSA standards reflect
a set of guidelines, criteria and indicators for sustainable development
agreed upon by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM). Thus,
the certification process should be credible, practical, applicable, verifiable,
accessible, and also lead to the continuing improvement of forests and
forest management. The standards proposed by the CSA call for compliance
with the six major ecological and social and economic criteria for sustainable
forest management approved by the CCFM in 1995. These standards were submitted
to public consultation across Canada in the spring of 1996 and have been
tested in the context of control-audits. They were adopted and published
in October 1996, thus making Canada the first country to have practical
standards, developed by the stakeholders, for sustainable forest management.
The standards are compatible with the environmental standards developed
by the International Standards Organization (ISO), in particular ISO 14000
on environmental management.
In parallel with the CSA
process, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC-Canada) undertook, in January
1996, to adapt to the Canadian context a certification process it was
developing on an international scale. This process is based on a set of
principles and criteria for sustainable forest management that is to serve
as a frame of reference for the development of national and regional standards.
The approach taken by environmental NGOs is aimed more at labelling forest
products intended for the consumer than at issuing a certificate of compliance
that the producer can show to the retailers. It is based more on the performance
of the entire production chain than on the system of forest management
implemented by the producer, the latter being considered less rigorous.
Some stakeholders, however, believe that the approaches taken by the CSA
and the FSC are complementary and that Canada could benefit by integrating
them into a single system to the extent that forest product companies
and environmental NGOs find some common ground for agreement. Certification
of Canadas forest practices and products thus continues to be of
crucial importance both in ensuring the quality of the environment and
in maintaining and developing the countrys export markets.
The current state of Canadas
forests and their importance for the community on the economic, social
and environmental levels dictate that intensive action must be taken by
all to ensure that sustainable development practices with respect to this
renewable resource are implemented as we head into the 21st century. Despite
all the efforts made and the progress achieved over the past few years
in forest management in Canada, certain challenges remain the primary
one being to ensure a balance between maintaining a natural forest and
the ambition to make the forest as productive as possible by managing
it very intensively, as the Scandinavian and European countries have done,
frequently to the detriment of nature and its incomparable diversity.
Although they have been profoundly changed by human intervention over
the past 175 years, Canadas forests are still in relatively natural
condition. They are so extensive that Canada will probably be able to
keep them this way for the benefit of their users and the environment.
1899 The Canadian
Forestry Service (CFS) was set up.
1900 The Canadian
Forestry Association was set up; it later became a national federation
of independent forestry associations across Canada.
December 1979 The
Federal Policy on the Canadian Forestry Sector was published.
for administering the Canadian Forestry Service was entrusted to an
Assistant Deputy Minister at Environment Canada.
The portfolio of Minister of State (Forests) was created, and the CFS
was transferred to Agriculture Canada.
June 1986 The House
of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Forestry tabled
its first report, entitled Forest Resources and Industries in Eastern
Canada. The report included 27 recommendations, including one urging
the government to envisage the creation of a federal Department of Forestry
in the near future.
December 1986 An
agreement negotiated by representatives of the Canadian and American
governments entails the imposition by the Canadian government of a tax
of 15% on the softwood lumber exported to the United States.
July 1987 A new
National Forest Sector Strategy for Canada reflecting the views of a
great many individuals and organizations connected with forestry, was
published under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.
May 1988 The Standing
Committee on Environment and Forestry devoted an entire day to public
hearings on the question of wildlife objectives in forest management.
1 November 1989
Bill C-29, creating a Department of Forestry, was passed by the House
23 February 1990
The new Department of Forestry Act came into force.
August 1990 The
21st International Union of Forestry Research Organizations World Conference,
which regrouped almost 2,000 forestry research delegates and scientists,
was held in Montreal.
November 1990 The
Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Forestry and Fisheries
tabled a report prepared by the Sub-Committee on Forestry entitled Forests
of Canada: The Federal Role. The report contains 24 recommendations
aimed at defining and structuring the mission, mandates and initiatives
of the new Forestry Department.
April 1991 Forestry
Canada tabled in Parliament its first annual report on the State of
Forestry in Canada. As required by the Department of Forestry Act,
this and subsequent annual reports will inform Canadians about the health
of their forests and provide them with insight into the concerns and
policies of the federal government.
The federal government announced that it was unilaterally withdrawing
from the memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber exports to the
United States signed on 30 December 1986. It would therefore be
ceasing to collect the 15% surtax on softwood lumber exports to that
March 1992 At the
National Forestry Congress in Ottawa, the CCFM adopted a new National
Forestry Strategy entitled Sustainable Forests: A Canadian Commitment;
members of the CCFM and a number of forest sector representatives signed
the Canada Forest Accord.
June 1992 After
investigations and analyses, the United States Department of Commerce
levied a 6.51% countervailing duty on softwood lumber from Canada.
June 1993 Under
the new government structure announced by Prime Minister Kim Campbell,
Forestry Canada and Energy, Mines and Resources were combined to make
a new Department of Natural Resources.
December 1993 The
binational panel set up under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement rejected
the reasons given by the U.S. Department of Commerce for imposing countervailing
duties of 6.5% on softwood imports from Canada. The duty was removed
on 6 January 1994.
June 1994 The House
of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources tabled a report entitled
Canada: A Model Forest Nation in the Making.
24 November 1994
Bill C-48, An Act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and
to amend related Acts was passed by the House of Commons.
December 1994 The
governments of Canada and the United States set up a bilateral consultative
process to discuss forest issues and the North American lumber trade.
April 1996 The
governments of Canada and the United States signed a new Canada-United
States Softwood Lumber Agreement. The United States made a commitment
not to initiate trade proceedings against Canadian softwood lumber exports
for the next five years. In return, Canada agreed that, when softwood
lumber deliveries from British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta
exceed the 14.7 billion-board-foot annual threshold, the first
650 million board feet exceeding that threshold will be subject to a
levy at the border of U.S.$50 per thousand board feet, and additional
quantities subject to a levy of U.S.$100.
October 1996 Publication
by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) of the first set of practical
standards, developed by the stakeholders, for sustainable forest management
(National Standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-Z808-96, Sustainable Forest
Management: A Guide Document). The Canadian standards are consistent
with the environmental standards developed by the International Standards
Organization (ISO), in particular ISO 14000 on environmental management.
July 1998 The revised
version of the National Forest Strategy was adopted and a second Canada
Forest Accord was signed.
Bourdages, Jean-Luc. Sustainable
Forest Development: A National Strategy. BP-318E. Research Branch,
Library of Parliament, Ottawa, November 1992, 18 p.
Bourdages, Jean-Luc. Paper
Recycling in Canada: A New Reality. BP-356E. Research Branch, Library
of Parliament, Ottawa, November 1993, 18 p.
Canadian Council of Forest
Ministers. Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics 1996. National
Forestry Database (annual publication), Ottawa, 1997, 51 p.
Canadian Council of Forest
Ministers. Sustainable Forests: A Canadian Commitment. (1998-2003)
National Forest Strategy, July 1998.
Canadian Forest Service.
The State of Canadas Forests. Eight annual reports to Parliament
from 1990 to 1997, Ottawa.
Natural Resources Canada.
Strategic Outlook 1995-96 to 1997-98. May 1995, 12 p. and
Standing Committee on
Natural Resources, (Robert Nault, Chairman). Canada: A Model Forest
Nation in the Making. Ottawa, June 1994, 75 p.