Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation.
I would like to start by delivering my main message: the federal government should consider the potential of developing an industry based on forest biomass, including specifically forest residues and unmerchantable wood that has been affected by infestations or forest fires, by putting in place policies to promote the sustainable use of natural resources to produce renewable energy and bioproducts, for example.
That being said, it is possible to see the potential of Canada's forest products industry, which by 2035 could become a source of shared prosperity, perform better economically than today, be innovative, attractive and socially responsible and create stable, well-paid jobs, with a growing emphasis on skilled labour. It could also play a key role in greening Canada's economy and become a model of sustainable development practices, with a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, carbon sequestration, aquifers and water in general.
However, this will not happen overnight. It will have to be put in place gradually. We can envision the development of this industry in four phases.
We are already hearing about one phase, which involves cogeneration units and projects like those being carried out by Domtar, Cascades and other companies, based on existing pulp and paper or forestry facilities. That is the focus of much of FPInnovations' research. There are also pellet units. However, I feel that right now they are essentially geared to the export market.
In the longer term, if we look 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, we start to talk about biorefining, which would produce biofuels and even biooils such as diesel or pyrolysis oil, as in Finland; that remains open right now. That has not yet been put in place. Later, in 15 to 20 years' time, biorefineries would produce not only biofuels, which are commodities, but also chemical molecules. We can envision about 4% replacement of petrochemicals such as phenols.
We can do this kind of thing by diversifying, but on the basis of the traditional niches that already exist, and by developing new industries based on bioenergies and, eventually, bioproducts and nanotechnologies. Remember that nanotechnology is a strength. We also need to position ourselves as a world leader in R&D and innovation, based on networks of researchers who are recognized—chairs should be more highly valued—and cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary skills. We should do more to develop interprovincial cooperation and international cooperation with the United States, our neighbours to the south, and especially Europe.
As for my proposals, I would like to present 10 points that explain how this could be done.
First, Canada should set up a national research program that reflects provincial and regional specificities and involves the universities, provincial research centres, technology transfer centres—where there is a need—industry players and the economic and financial community. We do not have anything like this now.
Second, FPInnovations, our national laboratory, must be sustainable in the long term. Right now, funding is established every two years, which is similar to what happens with federal government budgets. This funding must be secured and the organization's connection with the universities optimized.
Third, there needs to be an ad hoc positioning of the universities, which, while maintaining their ability to innovate independently, should be coordinated with FPInnovations through an official connection between the FIBRE network, the paper associations, FPInnovations and the new Innovation Framework, where academics are notably absent.
Fourth, appropriate funding should be guaranteed for demonstration projects, which are critical to techno-economic validations in biotechnology and nanotechnology but are often prohibitively expensive. The idea is to reassess the notions of managing and sharing risk between governments and industry. This would be something progressive. We could think about making innovative use of existing facilities, given the decline in publication papers. How can we use the equipment of plants that are closing?
Fifth, we need to build bridges between the various agricultural, forestry and other sectors, even the fisheries sector, with regard to converting biomass into energy and bioproducts as an integral part of the bioeconomy. I imagine that this has already been defined for the committee.
Sixth, we need to promote provincial and regional cooperation through incentive programs. It should be specified that regions must join together to receive funding.
Seventh, we need to increase international cooperation by taking part in international networks, promoting exchanges of researchers in leading-edge technology and keeping international researchers who come to Canada to do a doctorate or post-doctorate.
I believe that this is a way to optimize Canada's financial resources, which are limited compared to those of the United States, China and Europe. It is a way to get a good return on our investment.
Eighth, we have to market new technologies and new products faster by promoting connections between businesses and universities and expanding the model of technology transfer centres. All our current networks have difficulty with this. We have great projects, but we do not do a good job of transferring the results. Transtech Innovations in Quebec is an extremely interesting example. It is collegial, but that can be beneficial.
Ninth, we need to attract the most promising young people—as my friend Bruno said—by promoting the forest industry as an industry of the future, not the past, an industry that uses renewable natural resources and leading-edge technologies with a view to sustainable development with a significant positive impact on climate change, both to the general public, which is not well informed, and to the international community for the sake of Canada's image.
Lastly, we need to develop sustainable forest use in a world that is hungry for renewable energy and bioproducts, and therefore biomass—which is increasingly rare—by ensuring that forest resources are processed as much as possible in Canada and used in Canada. Energy and bioenergy give the highest return on investment at the local level.
In conclusion, my proposal gives you an idea of some of what is needed for Canada to develop a strategy and a policy that would promote the development of this industry. It would do a great deal to help transform the forest products industry, and it would have a very positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It is also in line with the current vision of the provincial and federal governments.
There is still a great deal I could say. I did not want to talk numbers, but in the discussions that follow, we can give you all the numbers you want, such as the costs associated with biomass and energy. What we lack right now are the financial resources to be able to build long-term projects.
Thank you for your attention.