Good things: Good to…

Good things:
Good to consider sustainable packaging
77% of crown forest certified by forest industry
Important to maintain focus on working with Indigenous communities and providing jobs for Indigenous youth
Reducing carbon footprint by using wood materials instead of fossil fuels
Mentions importance of scientific evidence

Overarching comments:
Failed to mention long term cumulative impacts for logging to soil, wildlife, water
Lacked detail in terms of what species will be harvested
Lack of numbers in terms what is meant by sustainable harvesting
“Sustainable practices” where is the evidence???
Very repetitive, not very informative
Lacks details of plans, eg. how will you work with Indigenous communities?
What is the evidence for innovative solutions?
What methods would be used for increasing harvest?
What is meant by regulatory burden? What policies are being removed?
Over ambitious targets? Is there demand?
Lack of mention of economic and intrinsic value of ecosystem services of unharvested forests like carbon capture and wildlife habitat
No mention of circular economy and increasing investment in recycling infrastructure
What are the implications for NAFTA and federal trade policy?
No details of which trees, what age of trees, what species of trees, impacts of increased logging infrastructure. Without limit and information we cannot say this will continue to be sustainable.
Reads more like a sales pitch than information
Predetermined narrative that we should be able to extract resources from the environment as we determine is needed
needs more context in terms of caribou impacts, particularly forest logging roads
What will be the mitigation measures to deal with adverse impacts of increasing extraction by this extent? What role will env assessments play?

Specific comments:
Concern re lack of sources and citations. Particularly for cited numbers
What are the concerns around building tall buildings with wood?
Page 19, how is cutting 30 of 38 million m3 sustainable?
The implication that a forest fire is worse than logging is questionable (pg 30) and requires scientific evidence. Just because there’s no fire doesn’t mean the ecosystem is intact.
Page 8, details for trees planted. What species, where? Etc. What efforts are being made to ensure these planted trees survive?
Odd comparisons of settler versus indigenous forest use
Implication that Ontarians have the right to fish, hunt, etc without concern to impacts on at-risk species is incorrect (page 29)
Page 14- case study promotes mill but does not describe environmental impacts
Page 18: removing policy barriers: which policy barriers are being referred to here? How are they redundant?