In the development of ownership conditions, the realization of the
valuable assets in timber growth had not been overlooked by the home
government, care of supplies for naval construction giving, as in the
United States, the first incentive to a conservative forest policy.
Even under the early French rule, the grants of land were made under
reservation of the oak timber fit for naval use, as is evidenced from a
landgrant made in 1683. This reservation led to considerable friction as
it hampered the colonists in making their clearings on the best lands.
Later, the reservation was extended to include other timber needed for
military purposes, and when the British occupation began, these
established rights of the crown were not only continued, but
reservations of larger areas for the timber were ordered, notably around
and north of Lake Champlain. In 1763, and again in 1775, the home
government ordered reservations to be set aside in every township.
But the great timberwealth seemed so inexhaustible that the governors
paid little attention to the wise instructions of the home government
for the creation of reservations, and whatever regulations regarding the
cutting of timber were made, failed to be strictly enforced. In 1789,
the policy of reserving to the crown all the timber as far as not
granted, and giving licenses to cut, was inaugurated; but not until 1826
was even the revenue feature strongly enough realized to attempt
systematically to secure the benefit of it, namely by allowing anyone to
cut timber “such as was not required for the navy” who would pay a fixed
rate for what was cut; a surveyor-general of woods and forests being
appointed to collect the timber dues with the aid of qualified “cullers”
(1811). There was even an attempt made to prevent waste by doubling the
rate of timber dues on all trees cut which would not square more than 8
inches; this restriction probably remained a dead letter for lack of
supervision.
Lumbermen, however, found it cheaper to buy the land, making only part
payment, and after cutting the best timber, forfeiting the land;
contractors who had the monopoly for cutting the timber for the royal
navy cut also for their own account; corruption and graft pervaded the
administration, which enriched its followers with the revenues obtained
from the timber licenses and otherwise. The strong hand which, in the
absence of a strong government, lumbermen were driven to use in order to
protect themselves from piracy by their neighbors, or else to
perpetrate such, brought about many bloody conflicts. The general
maladministration of the so-called “Family Compact” besides other
grievances, caused the revolution of 1837, which, although readily put
down, led to the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in
1841, and to reform of the abuses. It was then, that, after the new
governor-general, Lord Durham’s admirable report on the situation, the
home government turned over the administration (in part at least) and
revenues of the crownlands to the several provincial governments. At
that time in New Brunswick, where a thriving export trade had been early
established the dues on $2 million worth of production were involved,
and in Quebec and Ontario the income amounted to between $200,000 and
$300,000.
But even then, the immediate revenue, and not any concern for its
continuation animated the administration of the public or crown forests.
The free-hand sales for nominal sums were changed into licenses to cut,
and in order to secure larger returns these were by and by put up at
auction for competitive bids, the premium or “bonus” being paid for the
limits, (i.e., a limited territory on which the holder or licensee had
the exclusive right to cut), in addition to the fixed dues or charges
per unit for the timber actually cut. Later, to discourage the holding
of timber limits for a rise of prices, an annual cut of first 1,000,
then 500 feet per square mile of holdings was required. To still further
accelerate the use of the licenses to cut, the Crown Timber Act of 1849
limited the license to one year, and provided for an eventual limit in
size of the grants. All these provisions forced to more rapid cutting
and overproduction, and depression in the lumber market was the result,
the supply in 1847 being 44 million feet to meet an export of 19
million.
New rules were promulgated in 1851, introducing a ground rent system, a
set price being paid per square mile of limit, and doubling the ground
rent for unused limits each year. Needless to say, the impracticability
of this geometric progression in ground rents became visible in a few
years.
The final present systems in the disposal of timber limits, varying in
detail, were gradually perfected in varying manner by the several
provincial governments, but they agree in general principles, in that
they grant limits for a certain time, some by the year, others by
periods, usually 21 years, during which certain conditions as to
establishment of mills and amount of manufacture without waste must be
fulfilled, and a ground rent, a bonus, and timber dues for all timber
cut are to be paid by the limit holder, details and prices varying and
being changed from time to time. A diameter limit below which trees are
not to be cut also mostly prevails. Lately, sales by the thousand feet
B. M. have been inaugurated in Ontario, and sale by the mile is to be
abandoned.
As a rule licenses become negotiable and can be transferred upon paying
a small fee per square mile.
The governments reserving absolute rights to change conditions of this
contract at any time, the interest of the licensee is to cut as fast as
he can; other unsatisfactory conditions leading in the same direction.
A Department of Crown Lands in the Dominion government and in each
province (in Nova Scotia the Attorney-General acting as head)
administers the lands. Scalers or cullers attend to the measuring of the
cut. The revenue derived by this system by all the provinces amounts now
to round 4.5 million dollars per year, Ontario leading with about 20,000
square miles now under license, (mostly pine), producing in 1910,
$1,835,000; the yearly average for the decade ending 1910 was 1¾ million
dollars, and some 41 million dollars have altogether accrued since 1867;
Quebec, with over 70,000 square miles under license, (mostly in spruce,)
producing only about $700,000, nearly 30 million dollars having accrued
during the 43 years, or at the rate of $418 per square mile, two-thirds
of which from dues.
Since land for settlement is, as in the United States, obtainable by
homestead and other entries, a good many fraudulent applications under
guise of settlement have curtailed the revenue, until now closer
scrutiny of the fitness of land for settlement is made.
The retention of the lands by the government is naturally a feature
which would permit and should have earlier induced conservative forestry
methods, but the immediate revenue interest has had and still has a more
potent influence than considerations of the future.