Right now, I see four sources. I gave you the example of hardwood that, for all kinds of reasons, don't have the quality of wood required to meet the current structure. However, that doesn't mean that, with biochemistry, applications couldn't be found for them in bioproducts. I'm not an expert in this area, but I know there are cases where this is starting to happen. You have to do it by all means.
The second source is burnt wood; about 920,000 hectares of forest have been burnt. For the lumber industry, the ability to get that wood is very low, and after a year, the wood is no longer good. As a result, there are about 900,000 hectares of wood left. What can be done with it? With climate change, there will be more burnt wood. Wouldn't that be something to tap into?
Then, on the Côte‑Nord, the industry is less interested in fir, which is dismissed because it doesn't meet the sawmill's needs. So what other needs can it meet?
The final source is construction waste, which currently ends up in landfills. Because it's made of wood, it emits methane, which is the worst way to produce greenhouse gases. In that case, can we think about creating a circular economy by recovering this material for other things, such as bioproducts and energy?
I'll leave it to the experts to decide, but, as you can see, there are possible solutions. We have to roll up our sleeves and help each other. We need to support the message we're hearing and, in my opinion, we have to give a message of hope. We have the technology to make that transition.