Government Operations Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I don't know whether one of the witnesses has the answer to that. One does apparently.

[Andrew Casey]

That is easy to answer. It is more than 50%, which represents $24 billion. Most of our products are exported.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much. So, Canadian wood products, valued at $24 billion, are exported around the world, but primarily to the United States?

[Andrew Casey]

Yes, 70% of our production goes to the United States.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Seventy per cent of our wood product exports, for a total value of $24 billion, goes to the United States.

Mr. Asselin, are you aware that we have trade agreements with our U.S. and other partners which prevent us from giving preferential treatment to one type of material or another because it is a free market where there is free competition? Are you aware of that?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I would be pleased to answer that. We did a study of wood at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, right here, a year ago. We realized that exports are constantly falling and that there was a need to develop our domestic market so that we can use the wood that we have. So, that very subject was studied here. And, in a way, this bill responds to the recommendations of the report on wood.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Since we don't have any figures on the potential development of the domestic market through the use of wood in government buildings, is there a danger that we will jeopardize a $24 billion industry that is covered under our trade agreements?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

No, not at all, because as I was saying, exports are currently falling, and we want to make the wood product market more secure by sending the message that this is a material that must, first and foremost, be used here in Canada.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Should we not be seeking to make the export market more secure through promotion programs and by closely monitoring the market? We could promote our wood products internationally, because we know there is a major market outside Canada. We have a population of 33 million, in the U.S., it's 325 million, and global population exceeds several billion.

So, do you not agree that we should be promoting our exports rather than focussing on the domestic market?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

That in no way prevents us from promoting exports--

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Ouellet, please be quick. After that, I have Mr. Labbé, Mr. Casey and possibly Mr. Warkentin, who would like to ask questions.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Just to complete my point, there is a reason why we are asking that wood be preferred as a construction material here in Canada. There is a need to secure our markets and, internationally, there is no way of doing that. We are not the ones who decide if the market in the U.S. will decline or not. We have no choice but to accept whatever happens and the belief is that, if the Canadian market can be secured, the market will be steadier.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Labbé, please.

[Sylvain Labbé]

I agree with you on those two points. Canada is an exporting country and we should be promoting our exports and developing outside markets. The countries where we sell our products are currently introducing policies on wood use as a means of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

It would be quite inappropriate for us, as exporters, not to at least consider doing what our clients are doing. We will never be blocked because of a greenhouse gas reduction policy. And it's the same in the auto industry; it will never complain about a policy aimed at reducing gas consumption in vehicles. It means we'll be selling fewer cars. But no one will complain about that kind of policy. It's not a matter of favouring--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I'm just going to cut in here, and I do apologize for that--

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

There is Mr. Casey before you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think Mr. Casey wanted to get in on that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'd like--

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Possibly he could get into it briefly, and then you, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Sure.

[Andrew Casey]

Monsieur Labbé said it well, but just very quickly, clearly the Government of Canada is not going to.... This is not our most important market. Our most important markets are outside of the border. But I will say that it's important that we demonstrate at home that we support the use of wood in our buildings. It's an important tool for us in the new marketplace.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That's exactly the point I want to get to here, Mr. Casey.

I'm wondering if you could add some clarification, then. You are supportive of the wood industry, as am I. I come from an area that is a lumber-producing community.

What this bill presents to me is a threat to our international markets. Let's look at the specific wording of the bill. It calls for a preferential treatment for a specific type of building material. In the trade agreements...and you guys are experts on these. In the trade agreements, including the internal trade articles of 504(2) and 504(3)(b), including NAFTA agreements, including the WTO--all of these make it absolutely clear that any specific preferential treatment given by the Government of Canada is in contravention of these agreements.

We have a huge possibility to lose a huge market if this bill is passed as is. I am going to vote against this bill in defence of the lumber industry, in defence of the forest product industry that I represent.

I need to know--because we're here to hear about this specific bill, the wording of this bill--do you support a bill that in its wording would actually contravene our trade agreements, and the impacts that might flow out of that? You and I know very well that the United States is looking for any excuse to shut our border. Would you support a bill that would be seen as protectionist and would then limit our access to an international market?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Casey, unfortunately Mr. Warkentin has left you with no time to answer that question. I anticipate, however, that you, being an experienced witness, will be able to respond to his very good question over the course of the balance of the time we have left.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, thank you. I'm actually tempted to follow up on what my colleague Chris was raising, but I'd like to begin with a bit of a preamble.

It seems to me you've brought to the table.... The leading authorities of the industry are with us here today. But it seems to me that there are things that we could....

You know, in the best interests of the lumber industry, etc., this is a relatively minor point. We have bigger fish to fry and bigger problems to deal with than the moulding and the trim around the decorative use of wood in some of our government buildings.

Now, I say this as a certified journeyman carpenter by trade. I used to be the head of the carpenters union, I worked in three sawmills, and I worked for the forest service for four years, so I have an affection and an affinity for the use of lumber and the use of wood. My first reaction when I saw this bill was how can we possibly dictate the use of building materials for Public Works? It seemed ridiculous to me. But I understand it better now, having listened to some of the arguments put forward.

I, too, have been concerned that if we're using all of this energy, the combined might of the whole industry, to push for something, we'd be better off promoting platform framing in Japan or someplace where they need a lot of homes built, or trying to redraft the catastrophic softwood lumber agreement with the United States to protect ourselves from tariffs and things.

This is the Parliament of Canada. We really shouldn't be seized of the issue of what kind of flooring we're going to put into the next public building that we build. It's almost insulting, frankly, for us to be using our time on this. I mean, are we going to have a private members' bill to dictate what kind of curtains we put in the next building we build? I'm starting to get frustrated with this.

There's a second thing, too. I understand that the logging industry, lumber industry, ranges from among the most responsible industries in the world to the most irresponsible industries in the world. It covers that whole spectrum. I've seen clear-cut logging, as we call it, in Canada, and I'm also well aware that we're defoliating the rain forests so we can get rosewood, decorative timbers, etc.

This committee should probably be looking at a sustainable future, in terms of using inorganic materials instead of organic materials to build with. I'm a carpenter by trade, I made my living for all of my adult life and I raised a family working with wood, but I'm ready to concede that wood, by its very nature, begins to decompose the minute you cut it down. This whole planet has a tiny thin layer of life on it. The ecstatic layer of the planet is so thin and so vulnerable that we could build our buildings with what's beneath that ecstatic layer. It doesn't decompose and we don't have to eliminate habitat, etc.

If we were talking big picture, about a sustainable future, we wouldn't be talking about a better way to cut down more trees and build with material that begins to rot the moment you use it. We would be talking about a way to build things without....

At any rate, I hope we can deal with this quickly and move major amendments to this bill so that it doesn't interfere with our trade relations. And maybe--maybe, as there's really no room in legislation to dictate this kind of thing anyway--we could advise the government to consider the advantages of using wood domestically, when it's appropriate, but that's about as far as I would go.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Martin, I'm not sure there's a question there, but I noticed that Monsieur Labbé, Ms. Berube, and Mr. Casey all wanted to comment.

Among you, you have three minutes.