Evidence of meeting #20 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quota.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Duncanson  Analyst, Forest Products, Jennings Capital Inc., As an Individual
Stephen Atkinson  Managing Director, Paper and Forest Products Research, BMO Capital Markets, As an Individual
Simon Potter  Partner, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, As an Individual

4:55 p.m.

Managing Director, Paper and Forest Products Research, BMO Capital Markets, As an Individual

Stephen Atkinson

To start off, just to put things in perspective, basically, as I said, the lumber mills in the Prince George region of course will run flat out to clear out the beetle wood. When you look at a situation like a Canfor that is going to run it's lowest-cost wood, then clearly you're going to shut down those lumber mills in the southeast quadrant. What happens then is that it'll put some of the pulp mills in danger, whether it be the Kamloops mill, whether it be the Celgar mill, and then that supply comes into question. That would be the first thing. Another point is to ask whether those mills, even though they are relatively low cost versus the east, can pay a 15% export tax during, shall we say, a price war environment. The answer is no, they can't. That would be one area.

In terms of northern Ontario, in terms of lumber mills and so on, I haven't looked at a number, meaning how many mills or how much gets knocked down. I look at it from the point of view of housing starts, and we've gone over two million, but as we all know, interest rates have run up, and obviously we're on the downside of the cycle and we see that in the pricing, which has been brought out today. To my mind, if you're reduced to a 30% market share, and let's say you were running at 34%, okay, you're going to lose a chunk there. If the U.S. housing starts themselves go down to 25%, then you can see that it's a multiplicative impact. That's what I would see happening. Certainly the same thing would apply to Quebec.

Very quickly, on raw logs, really what happens there is this. Let's say you're paying a duty--pick a number again, 15% or 5% or whatever it is. If you can bring in the log without any duty to the United States, then of course it makes sense to put the lumber mill there and create jobs south of the border.

5 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Potter.

5 p.m.

Partner, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, As an Individual

Simon Potter

Mr. Julian, your question to me is whether I have concerns about a deal that would have us one day face Lumber V, start from scratch, and have to go through all this litigation, which we've paid $100 million for, again.

The answer is yes, that does pose problems, and I can add to the problems. The fact is, the CIT rendered a wonderful judgment on July 23. It's in appeal, and the settlement, if we have it, doesn't look as though it's altogether final. We also have the constitutional case of the coalition, which is not yet even pleaded, so we might have to live through that again one day.

We also have the fact that Canadian industry is giving away a billion dollars, $500 million of which will go to the people who will use it to finance Lumber V. Does that cause concerns? Yes, but it's not the real question. The real question for a CEO, who has to ask whether he wants to be in the 95% or the 5%—and I submit that's the real question also for the government and for this Parliament—is whether he is prepared to swallow those problems.

I submit that the answer is very likely yes, if there is an assurance of peace for seven years, and if some of these other problems can be fixed. But the answer is very likely no, if you're going to be starting from a bit less than scratch. Nevertheless, if you have to go through litigation all over again, starting in two years or three years, then the answer becomes no. So I think that clarification on the termination clause is an essential component of the answer to your question. Some people will say, I will swallow those problems if I get my seven years of peace.

From a governmental perspective, an aspect of that peace that has to be remembered is the unbelievable friction we have had in the lumber dispute over the past many years. That friction has infected commercial relations between the two countries and has risked leaking into other cases. It did leak partially into wheat. One of the benefits of getting the peace, if it lasts long enough, is to let that friction die down. So the real answer is, do we have a termination clause of two months or seven years?

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Thank you, gentlemen, very much for coming today. Your testimony is much appreciated.

I think we've all seen today how complex this issue is, and that we're all learning as things move along. On August 21, I'm sure we'll hear from witnesses who have had a little more time to look at this. I'm looking forward to that. So thank you all again.

Until August 21, the meeting is adjourned.