Evidence of meeting #21 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 need.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Joe Comuzzi Conservative Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Yes. We'll get that report for you.
The other area, Mr. Irving, on which there has been a lot of debate at this table, concerns bigness versus smallness: a small, individual town, the single-industry town that I think is prevalent in your area, versus the concept that you need huge mills in order to be successful. I think you are the perfect example of the small industry, small town. Would you talk about that to us, sir?
President, J. D. Irving Limited
I don't think that necessarily everything has to be a super mill on all scales; it depends on the product. Clearly you need to be of a certain scale in some products, but in the case of the lumber business, maybe a medium-sized mill is more efficient because of the resource, the transportation distances, and other local advantages that you might have. So I don't think every mill has to be a super mill. With something like a pulp mill, which is in more of a really global business, you might have to get to a bigger, different scale.
Communities are more and more realizing that it is the region: as opposed to one community, it's two or three communities. Today, with the great roads we have in most towns, you can travel 30 miles to work. A lot of these small communities are consolidated. Two or three mills become one mill. I think we have to encourage the communities to have that mindset.
President, Local 2693, United Steelworkers
I just need to make a really quick comment. It takes two sides to negotiate, and I'll be on the federal government's back and the provincial government's back until our members start getting the money that's been promised to them.
The second point is that if the industry was in dire straits before the softwood lumber deal, maybe there should have been loans from the federal government to help the industry out to get through that and get away from negotiating a bad deal that affects our members, affects the provinces, and affects everybody else. There were other ways of getting around it, other than negotiating a deal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. I'll now get to the motion.
I'll start by thanking all the witnesses for being here today. I appreciate it very much. They were very worthwhile presentations. We'll let you leave table. We have to get to a motion, and we have less than ten minutes to deal with it.
Thank you again, very much, all of you. It's much appreciated.
Now we'll go to Mr. Trost.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I fully read my motion into the record, I want to give some acknowledgement here.
Even though this is under my name, this is very much a joint effort of more than one member. Mr. Allen and Mr. Harris have taken the initiative for the Conservative Party on this side. Mr. Comuzzi....
Conservative
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I'll move the motion, and then it can be discussed.
I'll move the following motion, with one small grammatical change. I move that the committee has heard evidence from a number of representatives of the forestry industry and believes that it would be in the public interest for the Minister of Natural Resources to convene a round-table conference on the future of the Canadian forest industry.
Conservative
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
My apologies, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say thank you to my fellow members who worked on this. This idea actually was not mine; it was Mr. Comuzzi's. Since he's not a regular member of the committee, he asked me to move it. Mr. Allen and Mr. Harris have also been working on pushing this forward.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
David, coming from southern Saskatchewan, is still learning what a tree looks like. We're very patient on this matter.
Basically, the rationale behind this is very simple. I think we're doing a good job here in committee. I give credit also to Mr. Boshcoff for pushing to bring this issue forward. We're doing a good job in committee to produce a report that will be helpful to the industry, an industry we have responsibility for.
After the witnesses, particularly on the one day when we had repeated calls for a round table, I feel that this needs to be moved to a higher priority level, to a more visible level. I think this would be a way of getting more buy-in from more parties higher up in the food chain. This could be done rather non-controversially, and there could be positive recommendations. We've laid some of the groundwork here, and it could roll forward. Hopefully, it will be accepted by all committee members.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Trost.
We have a list with four members on it already.
Mr. Alghabra, go ahead.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Trost for submitting this motion. I certainly support what it's trying to accomplish. From what we heard from the witnesses, we know that a round table is certainly an important recommendation.
My concern is that this might be pre-emptive. We've just been conducting a comprehensive study. This may be one of the recommendations that will come out of the study. In fact, if we just leave it as a round table, without a framework as to what areas to focus on and what areas to consider, which I think our report will include, then it would just be a symbolic gesture and would pre-empt our report.
I wonder if Mr. Trost would delay this or would be willing to accept the fact that this recommendation could be part of our report. As it stands on its own, I think it would be pre-emptive. Right now it would be incomplete and not comprehensive enough or substantive enough for us to proceed with.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Trost, you've heard the suggestion by Mr. Alghabra. Do you want to respond?
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I'm not off-the-top opposed. I would like to hear from the other two parties. I'm interested in more of a consensus resolution than anything. I would like to hear from the Bloc and the NDP, if they're thinking along similar lines, and put this later, perhaps at the end of the report. I would like, if possible, four-party buy-in if this is going to go ahead.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'll just tell you who is on the list. There's Monsieur Ouellet, Madame DeBellefeuille, Mr. Boshcoff, Ms. Bell, and Mr. Tonks.
From the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur Ouellet, you are first on the list, but either of you could respond.
Go ahead.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to echo what has been said. We feel that it is not out of order, but it is not necessarily important to discuss this now, to decide whether or not it should be part of a report. If the report were to be drafted in one, two or three months, it is clear that it would not work. However, this is not the case. This is our last meeting and we're beginning the report immediately.
We will therefore continue to work on the report as soon as we get back. I don't see a big difference between taking this position today and casting a shadow on our report, because it will appear as though that is the only important subject. It is definitely one of the things we will address in the report, but other important topics will be addressed as well.
I'm worried that it will give the impression, after so many weeks of work, that this is the only important thing and that the report is not important. Personally, I find that the timing is wrong, it is too quick. This is not how a committee should work. I understand that the motion was introduced a long time ago, but it is too late to adopt it.
Conservative
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague. When Mr. Trost explained his motion, I was struck by something in particular.
Mr. Trost, you said that your proposed round table would bring together major industrial players. But what struck me in the study that we have done is that the small and medium-sized players are important and that they are the ones who will help get small communities back on their feet.
I see that we do not have the same concept of the usefulness or the role of this round table. Therefore, I am not in favour. I will go with Mr. Ouellet's statement that it is a good recommendation to suggest for the report.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm inclined to support the motion in one respect, because we have heard that there is a crisis, and a crisis basically means there is an emergency out there. My problem with it is that I do want to see the report, and I would have liked this to be one piece of the report.
There was a similar motion passed yesterday in the finance committee that my colleague Mr. Mulcair also pushed for in that committee. That motion was passed to be part of the report, and that's a similar study to this.
That's just so people understand that it's not coming just from this committee, and also the natural resources minister could, if he wanted to, without us telling him to start this round table study immediately.
If we're going to ask for a round table to happen from this committee, I would like to have, as others have said, a framework to it as well. But I am inclined to support the motion if we had those things.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Chair, point of order.
For the blues, the motion that was adopted yesterday by the finance committee was tabled by the Bloc Québécois, not by Mr. Mulcair. The addition concerning the summit was tabled by the NDP. I want this to be clear.
