Evidence of meeting #16 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wood.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Avrim Lazar  President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada
Michel Vincent  Director, Economics, Markets and International Trade, Quebec Forest Industry Council
Hugues Simon  Vice-President, Value-Added Wood Products, AbitibiBowater Inc.
Tom Rosser  Chief Economist, Forest Products Association of Canada

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Good morning, everyone.

We are here today to continue our study of the unique opportunities and challenges facing the forest products industry. We started with a meeting with the deputy minister on Tuesday, and we have four witnesses with us today.

From the Forest Products Association of Canada we have Avrim Lazar, president and chief executive officer; and Tom Rosser, chief economist. With the Quebec Forest Industry Council, we have Michel Vincent, director, economics, markets, and international trade. And from AbitibiBowater Inc. we have Hugues Simon, vice-president, value-added wood products.

Welcome to all of you, and thank you very much for coming today. We really are looking forward to your input into this study.

We'll take the presentations--I assume there's one from each group--and we'll start in the order that's in the orders of the day.

From the Forest Products Association of Canada, Avrim Lazar, president and chief executive officer. Go ahead, please.

11:10 a.m.

Avrim Lazar President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the committee for focusing on the forest industry. We certainly need your support, your help, and your concentration.

We have many economists as witnesses today, but I thought before we go to economics, given that it's St. Valentine's Day, we should start with love. The forest industry is offering the committee members Valentine's Day cookies in the shape of hearts, and let the record show that we're spreading love to all parties.

Just pass them around.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

I have a question on that. Is this a value-added product from the forest industry?

11:10 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada

Avrim Lazar

It's definitely a value-added product, but the value is being added to Canadian wheat. I think the sugar comes from Manitoba sugar beets. I'd say that there is more fibre in our economics than there is in our cookies.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

So it's not a wood product.

11:10 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada

Avrim Lazar

No, it's definitely not made out of pulp. But the butter, of course, comes from Canadian dairy herds. So if it doesn't make you healthy, it should make you patriotic.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are many things that most people already know about the forest industry. Most people know how important it is to Canada. It supports 300,000 jobs directly, and 600,000 additional jobs indirectly. That's more than the automotive sector and more than the oil and gas sector. We are Canada's largest industrial employer.

Most people know that many of those jobs are in rural areas, where finding employment is difficult, and most people know that they're high-tech jobs, paying more than 50% above Canada's average wage. So they're good jobs. Many people also know that we're Canada's largest industrial employer of aboriginals. So these are good jobs in places where it's hard to find jobs, and they help groups who really need jobs.

Most people also know that we're in trouble: that with the softwood export tax and quotas, the structural decline in newsprint and paper demand, the mountain pine beetle, and, most importantly, with the unprecedented rise in the Canadian dollar, we are facing a very severe time of restructuring, with many job losses, mill closures, and very hard times for many communities in Canada.

But most people don't know there is a very bright future for Canada's forest products industry. Most people don't know that global demand for paper is growing by an amount equal to all of Canada's production every year, that as people all over Asia and South America leave their lives in subsistence farming and join the middle class, their demand for paper and wood is growing year after year, and that the North American demand for lumber will rebound. And most people don't know that our competitors have no way of ensuring they will get this increased demand, that this growing global market will be captured.

Russia would like to take this market, but they have problems with infrastructure, gangsterism, and illegal logging. Europe would like to take this growing market, but they have huge problems with an increasing cost structure, as the costs of energy and fibre in Europe have skyrocketed, and they are struggling to keep themselves competitive. Brazil would like to take this market, but they have problems with land use, from landless peasants trying to use the land that's now being used for forests, and also problems with illegal logging and economic stability.

I could go around the world and note that many people would like this market. None of them own it. And Canada is uniquely situated to be able to prosper in this global marketplace of expanding demand, because we have three things the world can't replace: we have the land to grow fibre, and the water and the energy; we have a tradition of know-how and entrepreneurship, which has made us the most successful forest products exporting nation in the world; and we have an environmental record that is second to none in the world.

As the world becomes more and more conscious of a changing climate and threats to the environment and deforestation, the fact that Canada's forest industry has no deforestation, and the fact that we've done Kyoto seven times over in our mills and are committed to carbon neutrality, without purchased offsets, by 2015, and the fact that all FPAC members' operations are certified by a third party for sustainability, which only 10% of the world's forests can match, will stand us very well into tomorrow's marketplace, where natural resources will be scarce and the most prized quality will be environmental credentials.

So, yes, we're going through a hard time, but global markets are increasing, demand is there, and our competitors have their own problems, and we're going to have unique market advantages that others will not have.

Over the last little while, our competitiveness has been increasing very rapidly. The wood industry in the interior of B.C. is the most productive in the world. We've improved our productivity more than the rest of Canadian manufacturing and more than the U.S., year after year. In newsprint, the number of mills at a top quartile for global cost-competitiveness has tripled in the last few years. We are structuring ourselves for success. We are preparing for success.

In the meantime, as you are all too painfully aware and many witnesses will remind you, we are going through a very difficult transformation. My main message to you is the answer to the question: What is your role? What can government do? What can the federal government do? What is the responsibility of parliamentarians during this difficult, painful transformation?

We would like to suggest the federal government can do three things. The first comes from medical ethics and the principle of “at minimum, do no harm”. From that we are suggesting let the restructuring happen, let mergers happen, and let the industry structure itself for success.

One of the reasons we're having so many closures in a short period of time is that governments--primarily at the provincial level, but there's been some federal activity there too--have inhibited restructuring. Restructuring is terrible and painful, but it's necessary to have sustainable jobs.

Even with all the layoffs, there are still 300,000 jobs inside the industry and 600,000 dependent upon the industry in Canada. Keeping those jobs requires that we are allowed to structure ourselves to respond to the demands of the marketplace. Don't interfere; let it happen. There will be some big companies, there will be some small companies, but it's for the marketplace to decide, not governments.

Our second suggestion for the role of government is to create a business climate that draws investment into Canada and makes people want to invest in Canada. Every single day somewhere in the world someone is making an investment decision. Shall I put my forest industry money into a Canadian mill? Should I put it into Georgia? Should I put it into Uruguay? Should I put it into Indonesia?

Each time one of those decisions is made, either we create Canadian employment or we lose Canadian employment. What the government can do to maximize the number of decisions for Canadian mills is extend the CCA to five years, the window for the two-year writeoff. Doing it one year at a time or two years at a time doesn't help. The planning cycle is five years. If we get two years, two years, and then two years, we never get a five-year planning cycle. We need a five-year secure window so people will make the investments.

Make the SR and ED, the research tax credits, refundable. The very moment industry is in trouble is when we want to be able to innovate our way out of trouble, and that means refundability of the SR and ED.

Join with us in partnership for public goods, research, and market development. All over the world, the U.S. government and the European governments all partner with industry for research, technology, transformation, and development of new markets. That's an area where the government can also help.

Let restructuring happen, improve the tax systems so people will want to invest more, and then partner with us on public goods, research, and market development.

I have one last request. These are very political times, with people making all sorts of political gestures around the minority government, but the people losing their jobs and the people who could keep their jobs are depending upon you to rise above all the partisanship, at least to the extent you can, and come up with an all-party report. We don't need positioning; we need help.

Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Mr. Lazar. That was very informative, and the optimism for the industry is good to hear.

We'll go now to Michel Vincent, director, economics, markets, and international trade. Go ahead, please, sir.

11:20 a.m.

Michel Vincent Director, Economics, Markets and International Trade, Quebec Forest Industry Council

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our address will be in two parts; Mr. Simon will handle the second part.

The Quebec forest industry has a turnover of $13 billion a year and provides direct, indirect and induced employment for nearly 200,000 persons. More than 350 plants are part of the forest industry landscape. This provides work or a reason to exist for more than 250 municipalities, more than 100 of which depend entirely on the industry.

Despite this apparent strength, the forest industry is currently in danger. A number of businesses are shutting down, or, if they haven't already done so, are deciding which ones will. More than 20,000 direct and indirect jobs have been lost since 2005. The stock market capitalization of Quebec public companies has declined $7.5 billion in the past two years. We often blame our problems on the economy, and that's true, but the thing about the economy is that it applies to everyone. Why then, with 10% of processing capacity in the North American sawmilling industry, has Quebec alone borne 30% of the rationalization effort in terms of reduced consumption across North America?

In Quebec, the problem lies in the industry's very structure. We have structural problems specific to Quebec. For example, wood fibre is more expensive in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. However, it should be added that that fibre is also the smallest. So we're also talking about the smallest and most costly fibre, which also generates the least interesting basket of products in Canada.

The problem regarding the cost of our fibre is acute. As a result of this situation, pulp and paper companies in Quebec buy their wood chips at the highest price in the world. This is the only place where there aren't various categories of fibre. In a given region, the price of fibre is the same, regardless of whether it's lumber or timber. It's the only place in the world that operates this way.

Cost is another structural problem. The size of our plants is—

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Monsieur Vincent, could I get you to slow down a bit? The translators are having a difficult time keeping up.

Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Director, Economics, Markets and International Trade, Quebec Forest Industry Council

Michel Vincent

Our plants are too small. In the sawmilling field, the average Quebec plant is one-third the size of that in British Columbia. Consequently, our fixed operating costs are much higher, which makes us less internationally competitive. Lastly, in the past seven years, Quebec forest businesses have invested smaller amounts than those reported for amortization and depreciation purposes. Clearly, in the short term, the price of fibre will have to be adequate and take into consideration the size of trees and the size and quality of our fibre relative to those of our competitors.

In Quebec, we must proceed soon with a restructuring of our fee system in order to obtain different prices for high-quality pulp fibre and sawmill-quality fibre. We have to stop saying that we need to consolidate our industry: we have to do it now. It's urgent. We've fallen behind and we are being outdistanced by our competitors. Too many plants are too small.

In Quebec, there's a link between forest and plant called appartenancy. As a result, businesses do not have an opportunity to rationalize their plants, to reduce the number of plants and to ship wood to those that are still operating. We have to accelerate investment in order to offset this delay. As the Fraser Institute showed us two years ago, Quebec's climate is the least conducive to investment. Governments have to take action to correct his problem.

Lastly, before handing over to Mr. Simon, I would like to propose some solutions. One way of assisting the industry would obviously be to help associations like the CIFQ. We are often the last resort for industrial interests in situations such as this, following all the layoffs the industry has undergone. The idea isn't to replace businesses with regard to membership fees, but at least to take charge of certain types of work done by associations such as the Canadian Wood Council, in particular, which ensures that U.S. and Canadian building codes are consistent and that they do not constitute a barrier to trade. One might think, for example, of assistance for research funding. Up to 20% of research funding is provided by companies, which is currently very hard to maintain.

With regard to new air quality regulations, the industry asks that the efforts made in the past 15 years be taken into consideration and that the reference year be 1990 rather than 2006. A large part of our operating costs goes to fuel used in the forest. We think that eliminating part of the fuel tax used to transport wood in the forest, that is to say off-road, could therefore help us. We feel that, with programs like POWA, businesses could retain their young and specialized labour force without hurting older workers.

We're also thinking of support measures for sylvicultural and logging contractors. The average contractor is currently facing investments of $1.2 or $1.3 million, which requires them to make significant outlays. In the present situation, many of these contractors are handing the keys to their businesses over to the banks. There will be a major problem when the recovery occurs.

I could state a few more points, but I don't want to take up too much of Mr. Simon's time. So I'll turn the floor over to him.

11:25 a.m.

Hugues Simon Vice-President, Value-Added Wood Products, AbitibiBowater Inc.

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you.

My name is Hugues Simon. I'm VP for value-added wood products with AbitibiBowater.

First, let me introduce the company. AbitibiBowater is the result of a merger between Abitibi-Consolidated and Bowater, which happened at the end of October 2007. We have 18,000 employees, and we produce $8 billion in revenues. We manage 53 million acres of forest land, mostly public land. We have 28 pulp and paper mills, and 35 wood product facilities, 28 of which are in Quebec. We're the eighth-largest forest product company in the world in terms of revenues and capital, and we're the largest producer of value-added wood products in Canada.

Let me start with the opportunities, because when there are challenges, there are also opportunities. We have a very high-quality fibre in Canada and in Quebec. It's something that will be a very good advantage for our industry in the future. It is not today, and we'll see why a bit later when we talk about the economics. But we're well known for the quality of our fibre. We have the proximity of the world's largest market, in the United States. We are shipping to other countries, but let's keep in mind that the United States is our biggest market. They are in a recession right now, but this market will come back.

We are a leader in forest certification. I will explain what I mean for people who are not as familiar as we are with certification. For example, AbitibiBowater has 95% of the forest that we manage under a third-party certification, which means we have an independent third party that comes and makes sure that what we do in the forest is done in such a way that the forest will regenerate and that it's done responsibly. Canada is a leader in that, and it's something we have to be proud of and it's something we have to tell the world.

In regard to the challenges for the Canadian industry, as you probably know, U.S. consumption of both paper—as Mr. Lazar mentioned—and lumber fell apart last year. We basically went from over two million units of housing being built in the United States to roughly a million today. This is significant, and you will probably see that when you see the results of the companies. This resulted in drops in prices, basically prices dropping more than 30%, while the Canadian currency was improving at the same time. So there was everything needed to produce a perfect storm: a stronger dollar, less demand, and lower prices. So it's no wonder the industry is in trouble and asking for help.

The last thing I will mention in the challenges for the whole country is the big increases in logistics costs. Of course, when we ship overseas, we're affected by the rising fuel prices. When we ship into the United States, having most of the wood operations and paper operations in remote areas, we depend on rail, and as you are aware, in most places, rail is a monopoly and a monopoly is never good for business. It means rising prices. In a market position such as today, when we're shutting down mills, when there is less demand and fewer shipments, prices shouldn't be going up, but they are. So this is a major problem and a monopoly that should be addressed.

As far as the province goes, I'm not going to repeat the things that Mr. Vincent said. As far as wood allocation is concerned, just to make it clear, wood allocation is attached to specific sawmills. For example, in many places—let's take the Lac-Saint-Jean region—we have many, many mills running two shifts or running one shift, because the wood is allocated to specific mills.

So the message there is the same as Mr. Lazar's. Let the industry consolidate. During times when the economy is weak, it's very important to let the strong ones become stronger and to let the weaker ones die. This is how you get a more productive and more efficient industry.

Yes, we do have the highest-cost fibre in the world. That has a big impact, knowing that fibre cost is by far the highest cost in the production of lumber and also a very major cost in the production of paper. The stumpage system is not adapted in the province of Quebec with the quality of the fibre. As Mr. Vincent said, if you buy a big log, the stumpage system charges the same as if you bought a very small one, but the value of that fibre is not the same. Other provinces have a different system that is more adapted, and it is something that will need to be adapted in the province of Quebec.

One of the questions was how do we help. As far as consumption is concerned, we're not asking anybody to help us with U.S. consumption, but to take a leadership role in Canada and to think long term. There are many ways to do that. We can promote wood. Wood is good, wood is renewable, and it is a green product to build with.

The government needs to preach by example. When a federal building is being built, wood is a good option. It's probably a cheaper option or the same cost, but it is a green option and a renewable product. We do not see this in Canada as much as we do in Europe, where some major buildings are made out of wood.

The government needs to continue to support associations. When we say we have to help to promote wood and forest products, we're not asking you to create new agencies. Agencies are in place and the existing agencies are working well. But they need to be helped more so that they can create more development and more access to new markets.

The government should facilitate forest certification for smaller players. We manage 53 million acres of forests, mostly in Canada. We are 95% certified by third-party associations. Smaller players cannot always afford to do that. One way for the government to help is to really take a leadership role in selling this model as a Canadian model, and to go to the world and say the forests in Canada are 100% certified by third parties, and to use that as a good selling tool. It is important that this be done and that it be done by using third-party agencies, not a monopoly. There are many certification agencies that exist, and it's very important that we keep more than one, because having competition in that world is just as important as having competition in logistics.

We're not going to ask you to change the monetary policy of the country. A dollar that is rising as fast as it has really does not give time to industries to adapt. If the economy had been great in the United States, the impact would not have been the same. Again, when you have lower demand, lower prices, and a stronger dollar, the perfect storm does it all.

Companies are losing millions of dollars, and we are restructuring. The message here again is let the companies restructure. It's healthy and it's going to create a better future.

As far as helping workers is concerned, Mr. Vincent mentioned that many mills are shutting down in Canada. It's important to help the workers. The lumber market is going to come back. The industry is going to consolidate and it will need a qualified workforce.

There are dangers when you consolidate and lay off thousands of people, knowing that most of the facilities in the wood product industry are remote from big cities. People move to Montreal, to Quebec, to Toronto, and to Ottawa. When we do have projects, it is already a challenge to find qualified workers in the regions. So having programs to continue to train people in the forest industry is a must. As Mr. Lazar said, we have a bright future, but let's make sure that we have a nice qualified workforce to help us.

One example of this is to facilitate the immigration of people to work in the forest industry here. It's the same as is being done in the farming industry, where people from Mexico come here to help in the summer season. Yes, companies are already looking at this, but if you ask for high school degrees in some regions, you won't get people with high school degrees. When you have to go with less educated people, you don't always find the same quality of workforce.

On the softwood lumber agreement, the agreement works. It seems odd to say that today, when prices have never been this low. However, let's not blame the softwood lumber agreement for the collapse in the U.S. market and the collapse in U.S. housing.

What is very important again is to take a leadership role and to think long term. There are a lot requests for the provinces with option B, the option whereby specific companies have quotas. Some companies are not able to ship all their quota volume right now because it is a collapsing market or it's a high-cost mill or for whatever reason.

Let's not try to protect specific companies, but let's try to protect the industry. Let's facilitate the ones that need more quotas to get more and let's let the ones that don't use them get less. Basically when this agreement was signed, the initial period was from 2001 to 2005; based on their history, they were given a quota, and going forward, a new calculation would be needed--for example, in Quebec we'll take the last three years. Let's stick to that, and let's make sure the stronger ones can become even stronger during bad times, because that's the only way we can get the industry to become more efficient and to survive in the long term.

To finish, I fully support what was said by FPAC and QFIC. It is an industry problem; it's not a company problem. This industry needs help, but the support and the leadership role has to be for the wood product business, not for specific companies; we have to let those companies restructure again, because that's the only way we'll get a strong forest product industry in Canada.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Simon.

Gentlemen, we'll go straight to questions.

Mr. Boshcoff, you have seven minutes.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our committee.

I will outline my questions, which will be divided among you, and that will save us a bit of time in getting a response within the time limit.

This committee unanimously voted for and encouraged and ultimately was successful in getting the Prime Minister to advance the $1 billion forestry aid package from July to today. Mr. Lazar and Mr. Rosser, first, how much direct assistance will the forest industry receive from this? Second, the deputy minister for natural resources was here on Tuesday, but regrettably did not have many details about the process and distribution of that $1 billion. What insights into the details and conditions are you aware of?

Mr. Vincent, with regard to the putting together of that package, how were you and other industry associations consulted?

Mr. Simon, how much trouble is the Alberta forestry industry in, and are you aware of closures and layoffs in that province? From the issues that have been raised as solutions, what would you do with that $1 billion or more if the money were to be reconstructed in availability?

Thank you very much.

11:40 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada

Avrim Lazar

The transfer to the provinces is not in any way a direct support to the forest industry. It is a transfer to the provinces. I asked a colleague from the Ontario government whether he knew what the terms and conditions were; he said “No; we're getting it in general revenue”, so the provinces can do with it what they wish.

I think the intention is for them use it to help affected workers. What the industry needs from the government is a business climate that will assist in bringing investment into Canada and partnerships in areas like moving to eco-energy, market development, and research and technology. This $1 billion program does not do that; it transfers money to the provinces. We would be very happy if the provinces use it to help affected workers, but our priority is helping workers keep their jobs, not helping workers who've lost their jobs; the idea is to sustain the jobs.

Of course those who lost their jobs should get help in finding new employment, but the first priority should be keeping the jobs. That's why we have put out these recommendations.

11:40 a.m.

Director, Economics, Markets and International Trade, Quebec Forest Industry Council

Michel Vincent

The answer is quite simple: the associations have not been consulted at all.

Let me speak on behalf of the Quebec Forest Industry Council; we have not been consulted at all. Had we been consulted, I would have said exactly the same as Mr. Lazar: the best way to help a worker is to make sure that he keeps his job.

11:40 a.m.

Vice-President, Value-Added Wood Products, AbitibiBowater Inc.

Hugues Simon

First of all, I wouldn't be able to tell you some specifics about Alberta. We do not have any facilities in the province. What I can tell you is that mill closures are happening everywhere.

If we look at our company, we have announced closures in many provinces, from British Columbia to the Maritimes. As far as where the money should go, yes, the billion dollars was for employees who lost their jobs.

There are many ways to help, as was mentioned in a few examples. Tax credits help build a better market, facilitate the use of wood. One way can be to give an incentive to people who build with wood, the same as was done with cars that use less fuel. If you build an energy-efficient green home, you could get a tax credit, the same as the car. Those are ways.

We understand it is difficult with the softwood lumber agreement to give money to the industry. Again, let's find ways to look at the long term and see what leadership role can be taken, so that we develop, yes, more markets, but also preach by example in Canada.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

There is a large amount of infrastructure from all of these plants that have closed. It seemed to me the capital investment, even though the facilities may be aged, the restructuring that you talk of in northwestern Ontario, of which there are at least four that may start up again, carving out specific niches.... I am wondering if, as opposed to a general catch-all aid package, giving specifics to those companies that want to restructure, that aren't going to be competitive with existing plants next door, that are going to do corrugated paper, fine paper, or some other niche--recycling perhaps--would be as good a way of the government directing its assistance in line with what you have just identified.

11:45 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada

Avrim Lazar

Unfortunately, when governments try to direct investment, even when it is very well-meaning and very well thought out, it very rarely works.

So we would prefer, and this is a unanimous view from our membership, that no subsidies, no direct grants be given to any companies or to keep any mills operating.

But there is a way of keeping the mills open, and that is by encouraging investments in them. If, for example, the CCA were extended to a five-year window, the rapid write-off, or the SR&ED credits became refundable, then when, and only when, companies make the decision to invest in Canada, they will be rewarded for that. The decision of which mill to invest in will be made on the basis of the marketplace, not on the basis of the give and play of government policy and politics.

If giving money to individual mills would work, we might be interested, but the truth of the matter is that part of why we're in the difficulty we are in is because provincial governments tried to dictate industry structure and ended up driving us to a very inefficient position, and because the federal mergers policy, the Competition Bureau, has put a chill on mergers and driven us to an inefficient position.

So yes, you can influence whether jobs are kept in Canada. You can influence whether there are more investments in northern Ontario, not by targeting support, but by making support conditional on an investment in Canadian mills, but not saying which mills. Making support conditional on investment is best achieved through the CCA, which costs nothing, unless someone actually invests, or through making the SR&ED refundable, which in effect costs nothing unless we invest in innovation, and is just a question of accelerating the refund.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Is there anyone else who'd like to answer?

Go ahead, Mr. Simon.

11:45 a.m.

Vice-President, Value-Added Wood Products, AbitibiBowater Inc.

Hugues Simon

Let's keep in mind that projects need to be viable by themselves. Giving money to a specific mill to restart tells you that without any help you don't have a project. So you're only buying a bit of time, and the economics will come back to you and the same decision is just being delayed sometimes.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you.

Mr. Rosser.

11:45 a.m.

Tom Rosser Chief Economist, Forest Products Association of Canada

I was just going to comment on an earlier question of yours, Mr. Boshcoff, related to Alberta.

If memory serves, and I'm working from memory, Alberta since 2003 has seen the loss of about 3,000 direct jobs at facilities in that province, which would be about 10% of the Canadian total, roughly proportional to its share of the industry.

As Mr. Simon had said, the facility closures and job losses we've seen in the industry over the past few years have been spread literally from coast to coast across the country.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff.

We go now to Madame DeBellefeuille, for seven minutes.

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentations.

Mr. Vincent, could you tell me, for my information, how many members sit on the Council?

11:50 a.m.

Director, Economics, Markets and International Trade, Quebec Forest Industry Council

Michel Vincent

The Quebec Forest Industry Council represents the vast majority of players in the primary processing industry. The exact figure escapes me, but we must have about 150 or 160 members. For example, AbitibiBowater represents one member. So we have major members, as well as smaller ones that only own one plant.