Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the committee, I would like to thank you for your invitation, and especially for having me appear live by videoconference.
I would first like to stress one fact that you have probably been reminded of frequently: Canada is a forest nation with considerable wealth. Just one figure is needed to establish this: 348 million hectares. That is the same as 700 million football fields. That is our ultimate wealth in a green economy. But are we making the most of it?
One figure bothers me. I have been a forester for almost 40 years now. Ten years ago, Canada had 360,000 direct jobs related to this industry. Today, that number is 215,000 jobs. So, we have lost 115,000 jobs while we are sitting on this wealth. Obviously, these are significant job losses because they affect regional Canada—Skeena, Kapuskasing, Shawinigan and Corner Brook. Regional Canada is affected by this forestry crisis and this loss of 115,000 jobs.
It is important to do something. Ten years ago, the pulp and paper industry generated sales of $40 billion, while today, that amount is $25 billion. Fortunately, things are a little better on the wood products side of things. Still, in both cases, the profit margins rarely exceed a few percentage points, which doesn't give much leeway. For pulp and paper, this is calculated in fractions of a percentage point. So there is even less leeway.
However, there is a possibility of recovering our primary market. In Canada, forestry is first of all an export industry, with the main client being the American market. This market has improved: it needs much more softwood lumber, among others.
For all wood products, residential and non-residential construction in the United States offers very good prospects that have been taking shape for the past 24 months. Interesting things are on the horizon. This prospect of the American market, which is going well for fine paper used in offices may be extremely appealing. Obviously, fine paper may be the last chance we have to make money. As well, the exchange rate is a real advantage for us. Every dollar in revenue that we earn in the United States is worth more in Canadian dollars.
In the very short term, there is a market that could earn us revenue and enable us to change this attitude of considering resources in a somewhat predatory way. That attitude served us well in the 20th century. We were happy to harvest the forest at the lowest possible cost, but now we need to take advantage of the coming years to move toward something else and realize that the future of the forestry industry depends on the ability of the industry, of academia and of those people responsible for public policy to take the forestry industry into a green economy.
What do I mean by “green economy”? It is an economy that aims to create the most wealth possible with the explicit intention of being concerned about the distribution of this wealth and the secondary intention of minimizing the environmental impact, the risks, and avoiding the breakdown of ecosystems.
All of that may seem very theoretical and very strange.
However, if we look at the most recent Davos forum, Paul Polman, the president of Unilever, explained that the company, which manufactures detergents, soaps and personal hygiene products, has set for itself a vision of doubling the economic impact from a green economy perspective, while reducing by half the environmental footprint of the company's various activities. I think that it is perhaps time that a number of leaders in the forestry industry and the governments form this partnership to adopt such a vision.
A small research project I'm working on makes me think that this is possible. In eastern Canada, specifically eastern Quebec, we are trying to see how the development of forestry bioenergy can galvanize disadvantaged communities and diversify employment.
What do we mean by that? It is in its very early stages, but we are seeing that when we give up petroleum products for forestry energy, where we used to employ one person a year, we could employ up to seven people a year by diversifying the forest production chain toward community heat generating units.
That is something to explore, especially since we realize that it is possible when leaders of the various communities decide to play their role in the context of a green economy. What this does is galvanize their communities because we are creating local jobs and because we need people who are better trained to fill these jobs, since remaining efficient is important.
We also realize that technological innovations are needed. We need systems that use this bioenergy in a way that maximizes heat performance while decreasing the environmental footprint. Organizational innovations are necessary because this forestry bioenergy must be part of the value creation chain for the entire forestry industry. Social innovations are needed because the way communities are organized must take this kind of innovation into consideration.
If this is possible on such a small scale, with a category of specific products, such as forestry bioenergy, I think we could imagine green construction in the same way. We could probably adopt that as an objective in the space of 15 to 20 years, to double the wealth from the manufacture of wood products while decreasing the environmental footprint by half.