Evidence of meeting #17 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 mills.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ian de la Roche  President and CEO, FPInnovations
Jean-Pierre Dansereau  Director General, Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec
David Coles  President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
Emilio Rigato  As an Individual
Keith Newman  Director, Research, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
Pierre-Maurice Gagnon  President, , Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec

12:25 p.m.

As an Individual

Emilio Rigato

Yes, I agree, but--and I say this humbly--some of it's directed to the pulp and paper industry that exists in Asia and China and South America. It doesn't exist in North America as it did. I believe now it has to be a biofuel, biofibre industry. We are not--and no one is--a leader in that yet, but we should be, because we have the best fibre in the world to get us there, and then we can export that technology.

Finland doesn't export paper so much as the paper machines and the technology. They are six million people, and we all buy from them.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

I think you're right, and this may be part of the transformation that the forest industry is going to go through. There are going to be world markets for wood fibre in many respects.

It was written up a couple of weeks ago. Don Roberts from CIBC World Markets talked about how in South America and in places in Asia and in Europe, indeed where forestry had taken place, because of the need for food and agriculture products, those trees are not being planted any more. Canada is actually in an ideal position if we get ourselves ready to take advantage of that, so you're quite right about the wood fibre. We're going down that road, and I'm sure that provincial and federal governments want to do more where they have this industry as one of their main economic drivers.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Harris. Your time is up.

We go now to the official opposition, to Mr. Tonks for five minutes.

February 28th, 2008 / 12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate all of the deputants. It's not often that we have the full spectrum of stakeholders from the industry. We have private woodlot representatives here. We have representatives of labour. We have those who are involved in innovation and development of a strategic response to what has happened in the industry, in the sector. Last meeting, Mr. Chairman, we had representatives of those that are involved in making suggestions with respect to capital programs and independent business and so on.

I appreciate the analysis that Mr. Rigato has given. I didn't notice anyone nodding this way with respect to his overview. So I take it that his rather clinical analysis is accurate and that we need a very quick stimulant with respect to bridging research and development with the commercialization and the advice that goes out to those who want to invest, those who want to be part of the industry, to make some quick decisions with respect to new markets and new products.

I'm reminded of an analysis that's strong on the analysis but not on the prognosis. Mr. Rigato has referred to the biofibre industry and the questions that have come out, for example, “Yes, in terms of our pulp industry, we are past the point of reinventing that part of it, but there's part of the sector that we can reinvent.”

So this is my question. If we had a national summit, would it be possible to accelerate that strategic plan so that the government could buy in, private capital could buy in, existing woodlot owners could buy in, in terms of the proposals that have been made to change the Income Tax Act, in terms of that full gamut of responses? Then we'd have some sense of destination, as opposed to, “Well, you know, we'll just have to let the mills close. We'll put out more EI and change the EI benefit. We'll just keep hanging on.” Would it be possible for that national strategy, that strategic plan, to come out of that if we had that summit and could it bring all of you together so that you could come back to this committee and say, “There's the blueprint for action”, and everyone would know how to buy in?

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Mr. de la Roche.

12:30 p.m.

President and CEO, FPInnovations

Dr. Ian de la Roche

Thank you for those comments. I think they're very relevant, and the idea of a summit is well taken. I just participated in a Quebec summit with my colleagues, and it brought the parties together to try to get alignment and everybody starting from the same page. I think that is important, because there's clearly a bright future, but there's a tough road to go. I don't think it's a question of forgetting about pulp and paper and moving on to something else. I think the pulp and paper stream is incredibly important, but we have to do different things differently.

For instance, we talked about the highly valued long fibre--black spruce, let's say, if you're in northern Ontario or Quebec. It makes the world's best product. We can take it to our advantage. Eucalyptus from South America cannot make highly filled papers going over 40% or so, or specialty papers that can be bioreactive, but we can do that. Technology is being developed on that. So the transformation of the way we're doing our existing business is a very important thing that we shouldn't forget.

Second, we have to diversify our value streams. When we talk about biofibre and the bioeconomy, we're talking about making chemicals and new biocomposites. There are 1.5 trillion tonnes of cellulose being produced on the planet every year. It's renewable. It's one of the most abundant large molecules you can find.

AV Cell, for instance--one of the members here is from that area of New Brunswick--is making rayon for clothing. It's a joint venture between Tembec and an Indian company, and it's clothing Indians in India.

So there's a whole array of things. We're talking about new shelter systems that will provide relief shelters around the world in some ways. But it does takes looking at it, which we haven't done in the past. I think it's one of the big reasons why we've got into trouble.

I heard the statement about not renewing or investing in our mills, but we lost a connect with our customer. Our customer is looking for solutions, not two-by-fours. We need to come up with solutions and packages that are built around the fact that we're the greenest place in the world, in terms of certification and everything else. We're green in our manufacturing. Within five years our industry will be completely fossil-fuel neutral. We will be adding biofuel energy to the grid. So it goes on and on. Wood is the most sustainable building material you can find.

One aspect is water consumption. The number one constraint that's going to impact the world next when we talk about energy is water. We just heard today about the pollution in China, in Hubei province. It's overwhelming. It's going to stop it.

We have 20% of the world's fresh water resource in Canada. If you build a structure in steel versus wood, you use 10 to 11 times more water to produce it than if you had built it in wood. There's such a hell of a future, it just blows me away.

We haven't talked too much about the people who work in this area. How do we empower them? How do we give them a passion so that students will come back into this industry and see this bioeconomy? How do we motivate them? What about the training, the education, the freedom to really think?

My talk today is on technology and innovation. Innovation is people. It's the people on the shop floor all the way to innovative thinkers in the senior management of companies, and what have you. That's what we need to be pushing.

Thank you.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you.

Mr. Tonks, your time is up.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

We needed a little passion in it and I think we just got some, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. de la Roche.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Very good.

We'll go now to the Bloc Québécois and Monsieur Lemay for up to five minutes.

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Thank you for being here.

I represent the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Need I remind you that we have experienced the softwood lumber crisis? To give you an idea of the context, Abitibi lumber would make its way to the Outaouais region to be processed by the CIP. We emptied out our forests. We have a company called Tembec.

I listened intently to Mr. de la Roche. My position is clear. We don't need a summit. The people around this table who believe we still need a summit are wasting their time. We know about the solutions. The problem is the fear of implementing them. When are we going to stop selling 2X4s to the United States? When will we stop using cement, brick and metal in our buildings?

You were referring to Finland; I will tell you about Sweden and Norway. I went there, as president of the international cycling association. I travelled around, and they are forced to build infrastructure out of wood. Tembec just invented and patented a new product. It takes two to three years to do research and development. I fully agree with Mr. de la Roche. It takes two to three years to set up a new product. Tembec just discovered this. What it needs at this point is to stop selling 2X4s and set up a factory to build wood structures out of biofibre.

We are not trying to blame the current government nor the previous one, but we want it to get involved. The only thing we are asking for is to stop being impervious to the situation in the regions. Clearly more mills are going to shut down, and I think the union is well aware of this.

What do we do in the here and now to stop looking back and start looking forward? What is the solution? That is the question I ask of each one of you: if you had to implement one solution immediately, what would it be? Forget about the cost and imagine there is no limit. What would you like to see implemented immediately, regardless of cost?

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

We'll start with Mr. Newman.

Perhaps everyone can be brief so each group gets 45 seconds to answer.

Go ahead.

12:35 p.m.

Director, Research, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

Keith Newman

It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Lemay, that I do not agree with you as far as the summit is concerned. The solutions are indeed widely known: added value, research and development, etc. We've been aware of this for 20 years. I recall that when I started at the union, there was talk of added value and people wondered why we could not produce some. There are psychological reasons why we only did what Mr. Rigato said we had done: tapping the resource in the most basic way possible. I would say that it's that type of attitude which we mainly have to change. It is hard to do when you have a century's worth of thinking in a given direction.

If I may I'd like to draw a small parallel, because we are here before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We are currently experiencing exactly what Mr. Rigato said, in the western oil fields. Today, in 2008, we are experiencing the same thing, and in fact it is undermining our manufacturing industry.

Let's get back to the forest industry. People believe mindsets have changed, but I would say that that is not the case. We need a summit to shake things up a little, to get everyone around the table and bury the past, and turn towards the future. Pre-19th century mindsets no longer serve us. That is the reason we believe we need a summit, something major to get people to think differently.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Monsieur Dansereau is next for one minute, please.

12:40 p.m.

Director General, Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec

Jean-Pierre Dansereau

I think it is necessary to implement national strategies for the development of the forest industry, but also for the development of forestry circles. We need forests to support this industry. As I was saying earlier we need to support the idea of a summit, on the condition that this summit provide the needed momentum so that we may come up with these strategies.

Over the last few years, I have been very much involved in the national forest strategy. I couldn't help but notice that forests are a shared area of jurisdiction in Canada. This creates difficulties when it comes to coordination. It also complicates things for the federal government which, for all intents and purposes, is practically absent from debates on forestry resources. Could the various levels of government work in a more coordinated way to predict market effects and try to act proactively instead of being subjected to them. That would be a good idea.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Merci. We have to go now to the next questioner.

Mr. Comuzzi, for six minutes.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Comuzzi Conservative Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the presenters this morning; all of their presentations were excellent. Thank you very much for coming. You represent different aspects of the forestry industry, and that's very important when you're trying to establish where we should go.

As I'm sitting here listening, I have an overwhelming desire to ask all of you what the hell went wrong in this business? It just didn't happen overnight. I can't believe we have three research areas in all of Canada that we've funded at the federal level for several years, and the entrepreneurs and the union people are now in an industry that all of a sudden is in dire straits. I'm going to discipline myself and not ask that question.

12:40 p.m.

A voice

I have an answer.

12:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Comuzzi Conservative Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

I've changed my method here. The price of pulp this morning is $880 a tonne U.S. That's pretty good, isn't it?

12:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Emilio Rigato

The highest it has ever been.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Comuzzi Conservative Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

And the demand is unbelievable; China wants all the chips we can produce.

Is that basically, Mr. Anderson, what that report says?

12:40 p.m.

As an Individual

Emilio Rigato

Pardon my interruption, but we have three pulp mills in Ontario that are shut down permanently--three.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Comuzzi Conservative Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

But if we're talking about the commodity price, and the price is the highest it has ever been, where is our argument? There's something that doesn't make sense.

12:40 p.m.

President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

David Coles

It really makes sense.

First off, to the question the government side raised about our blaming this government, the answer is absolutely not. There has been a capital strike in Canada by the pulp and paper industry for 30 years. We have been yelling and screaming. So we're not blaming them; they should facilitate the change.

The Canadian dollar was at 65¢, and we had freeloaders. The pulp and paper industry was a freeloader; it did not compete at a dollar value. They're now at a dollar value. The price of short fibre pulp in South America is $225 on the dock; short fibre pulp costs in Canada, if we're lucky, $450 or $500.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Comuzzi Conservative Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

I have to stop you there, because I'm going to run out of time and you're taking up a lot of time already.

Okay, there's an answer to that question. The commodity price is $880 or higher than it has ever been in the last little while, and yet we still can't produce, or are unable to produce, or there are some reasons in there why we're not producing to fill the market demand.

Is that a fair statement?