Legislation that would require a tree to be planted for every one cut down?
That sounds too good to be true! And upon further examination… something Michael excels at…we find out it is.
Below is the transcript of Michael’s critique of this latest Green washing tactic by the Government and as always the official Hansard will be posted when it’s available.
Michael Examines the Zero Net Deforestation Act
2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 12, Number 5
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 5 — ZERO NET DEFORESTATION ACT
(continued)
M. Sather: Yesterday the member for Nechako Lakes had challenged me in my assertion that Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act, does not cover timber-harvesting lands.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
[ Page 3717 ]
If one looks in the definitions of the bill, “deforestation” means “the human-induced removal of trees from an area of forest land to such an extent that the area is no longer forest land…”
So if it’s no longer forest land, that doesn’t incorporate our timber-harvesting lands, because they still are forested lands, even when the harvesting takes place. Certainly, it’s clear, as it was pointed out in the news release from the ministry, that this act does not cover timber-harvesting lands.
Yesterday when I finished my speech, I was querying in my own mind as to whether this bill would cover private lands. But for the same reason, it would not, because normally private timber-harvesting lands also remain forest land.
As the definition of forest land, of course, means that an area of land that’s not been forested since at least December 31, 1989…. Now, it might be an exception on private lands with regard to those lands that they’ve turned into housing developments, perhaps. I’m not sure, but by and large, no.
The minister says that they have identified about 750,000 hectares of lands in the province that would be covered under this act. There are 25 million acres of timber-harvesting lands, so 750,000 acres is 3 percent. We’re talking about a very, very small part of the lands that could conceivably become and very arguably should become covered by this act in order for it to have any meaning in terms of doing what its stated intentions are, and that’s to fight climate change.
There are some things happening out there on the land base that may have relevance to this act, and the minister, perhaps later at third reading, will elucidate more clearly what would take place on the 750,000 hectares and, more importantly, where. To me, I’d like to know where these lands are, and of course, I would like to know what is taking place.
There are some interesting developments out there. For example, there’s a U.K.-based multinational company called Reckitt Benckiser, which is the maker of Lysol household spray and, I guess, a number of other cleaning products. They have taken it upon themselves to purchase land in the Fort St. John and Prince George areas. They are apparently in the process of a large afforestation or tree-planting project. They intend to use this afforestation project to partially or wholly offset their greenhouse gas emissions from the processes that they use to produce their product.
I have some questions that I would like to know about this project or other ones like it. What is the nature of these lands that they’re afforesting, that they’re replanting? Are they agricultural lands? Are they lands that are in the agricultural land reserve? Some questions would come up around that if they were, but I’m not saying outright that it wouldn’t be a good idea. But certainly I would — particularly if they were lands in the agricultural lands reserve — want to look at that very, very carefully.
Perhaps those are some of the kinds of things that the minister is talking about with regard to these 750,000 hectares. We need to learn more about that to get some sense of, you know, what the reality is behind this miniscule amount of 750,000 hectares.
At least within that tiny amount, what is the reality of what presumably is supposed to happen in order that this bill can actually, in fact, do something to deal with what I think we all recognize in this House is a very, very significant problem — the issue of global warming, of climate change?
Now, another suggestion has been made that I think could hold a lot of promise for a zero net reforestation initiative or act. That’s the suggestion with regard to beetle-killed forests. I know, up in the 100 Mile area, a lot of those trees are falling down pretty quickly, within two or three years, and there’s a need, presumably on some of those stands, to reforest them. These could be considered.
First of all, if we’re looking at an area that’s been logged by a forest company as part of their contract to replant, that’s not what I mean. I mean other lands that are Crown lands, and it’s up to the Crown to take care of them. Planting trees on these lands could be considered additional. Madam Speaker may know that additionality is important with regard to offsetting emissions. In other words, what that means is it has to be a project that wouldn’t be done in the normal course of affairs. It has to be additional to that.
This would result in greater carbon storage or sequestration and might eventually be marketed as credits. The problem is, though — and that may be a very worthy suggestion, and I hope to hear from the minister — that it can’t be covered under this act because, again, it doesn’t qualify as deforestation.
That’s something that I hope the minister will look at, because he’s talked about carbon credits as being one of the things that should be involved in dealing with climate change. So this might be a way. This might be one way where we could extend it. Certainly, there are a lot of beetle-killed forests out there right now. Although some of them probably appear to be regenerating naturally quite well, my understanding is that there are a number of others that are not.
These lands could perhaps be replanted under the net deforestation agreement, and it certainly would be much, much larger than the 750,000 hectares the minister has mentioned. But unless the government is willing to amend the bill to allow that to happen, we’re stuck with some unknown quality of a very small amount. It’s simply not up to the mark in terms of the challenge that we face.
[ Page 3718 ]
We face a huge challenge, and it’s an imminent challenge, with regard to climate change. I would hope that the government is taking the challenge seriously. This bill, though, leaves me with some questions about their commitment. Although it sounds good — just if you look at the name, it sounds good — the actuality of what can be achieved under this act is not significant.
So with that, Madam Speaker, I think I will conclude my remarks and allow other speakers to have an opportunity to address the subject.
