Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks very much, Mr. Weiler and Mr. Cannings.

We'll move on to Mr. Simard for two and a half minutes, please.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

My question is for Mr. Connors and Mr. Doherty. I would like to quickly return to the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

I am familiar with the Quebec forestry regime, which has been modified to make way for the auctioning of wood. There is therefore no longer any reason to believe that we are contradicting American claims. Even though the WTO has ruled in our favour, the United States is dragging the conflict out at length. The problem has gone on for too long.

Let's take the example of Resolute Forest Products in Quebec. It is subject to tariff measures that result in nearly $200 million being retained by the Americans. Last time, this was settled by a ransom, so to speak, as the Americans kept almost $1 billion that should have gone to forest producers.

Mr. Connors, I would like to understand the situation in British Columbia. I'm not very familiar with the forestry regime in British Columbia, but I'd like to hear about it from you.

Is the mid-market guarantee and financing program suitable for you in its current form?

[Rick Connors]

Thanks very much, Mr. Simard.

Perhaps I should defer to Mr. Doherty on this, because Unifor has more operations than we do. We're actually not in the manufacturing of softwood lumber. We just get impacted because we're specifically in the forest management and logging aspect of it.

Would that be appropriate?

[Scott Doherty]

Sure. Thanks, Mr. Connors.

I'll answer the second question first. The liquidity program is working. It has provided some relief, obviously. As you indicated, every time we've gone in front of the tribunal on the softwood lumber, we've won. There is absolutely no merit to this. This is a trade dispute. Basically, a number of forest companies and producers in the United States have been able to convince the trade commission in the United States to put these duties in place, but there's no merit to it whatsoever.

I do believe that we addressed the dispute much better than we did last go-round, and the government's liquidity program helped. We've seen a number of forest producers.... You mentioned one. I think you were talking about Resolute, with the $200 million. A number of forest companies were able to survive through this without having to take curtailments just simply because of that, but it certainly will help to get that dispute resolved and, hopefully, in a much better way this time around, so that we're not actually giving more money back than what's supposed to be coming to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Doherty, and thank you, Mr. Simard. That's all your time.

Mr. Cannings, we'll go over to you for two and a half minutes, and then we're going to have to end this portion of the meeting and move into the in camera session.

Mr. Cannings, the floor is yours.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to stay with Mr. Connors for now. He talked a lot about trying to use some of the less profitable wood or the waste wood. That's something that we've been talking a lot about here in committee. I know that it's a big issue in my riding. People don't like the process of burning slash, for instance. In British Columbia, that produces as much carbon in the atmosphere as all of our cars put together.

I have a project going ahead in my riding. A company is going to be producing renewable natural gas through the processing of forest waste. I'm wondering if you can comment on that. I'll ask a question about pellets later, but can you comment on programs that are happening in your area around using that forest waste?

[Rick Connors]

Thanks very much for the question, Mr. Cannings.

Primarily, the programs in our area are not of the biofuel or the processed bio-type of industry, let's call it. We're mainly focused on pellets in this region. In particular, in our case, we've been seeking funding for what will be the world's first 100,000-tonne torrefied pellet plant, which will be utilizing technology out of Montreal. There's actually a plant in Bécancour. We're trying to develop this 100,000-tonne pellet plant there to basically prove...because it does rain in B.C., contrary to public opinion.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Not much in my area.

[Rick Connors]

No, not much.

However, it's a big concern. I don't mean to say that this would utilize all the pulp. We realize that we're talking about a very small amount, in particular in our area, where you're talking probably $18 to $20 worth of transportation costs per cubic metre to get it to the coast to tidewater. That makes the price of pulp absolutely.... You can't do it. The pulp mills can't afford to pay the price it costs us to take pulp out of these very difficult areas and appraisal areas to remove it.

We need to look for those. Utilizing slash piles, making sure that the deck pulp.... Because they can't afford to take it out of the bush, sometimes they deck it. Then it's there forever, creating all kinds of wildfire management problems if forest fires were to get into those areas. We do need to continue that. Our focus has typically been in the area of the production of pellets, to utilize that waste stream. Torrefied allows us to use even more of the forest floor, because we don't have to have the quality of wood going into the process as you would on a white pellet basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Connors.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cannings. I'd [Inaudible—Editor], as you know, but that's all the time we have.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's actually after 12:30 now, so we're going to have to stop this portion of the meeting and suspend.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

One second, Greg.

Then we will move into the in camera session.

I do want to say thank you to all of our witnesses for taking the time to join us. As you can see, we never have enough time, but your evidence is particularly helpful to us as we are wrapping up this study.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Hold on, Mr. Zimmer. I just want to thank the witnesses.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

It's just that we had a whole bunch of time taken at the start for technical issues. Is there a way to add some time?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Well, we can't, because we have to wrap up at one o'clock. We are going to have a discussion on committee business once the witnesses are gone.

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have been patient here. We restructured it in respect of the committee members who were here and in respect of the witnesses as well.

It was my time to speak, Mr. Chair. If I could just take those few minutes to introduce the motion that we talked about, I think it would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. McLean, I'm not trying to be difficult. I hope you appreciate that. But it is after 12:30, and we don't have.... Everybody's being a little bit shortchanged here because of the time constraints. That is not uncommon, as we all know.

Perhaps we can have a discussion in our next segment. If we don't have the people to resolve things, then we can deal with it at a future meeting, but I think for the time being we should stick to the schedule and suspend the meeting.

Again, I want to say thank you to all our witnesses. I appreciate your taking the time.

Mr. Connors, that goes to you in particular. Enjoy your retirement, sir.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, please. We've had all kinds of interruptions in this meeting, and we've tried to get through this, but we put it late in the agenda so that we could actually raise it at this meeting, in the public part of this meeting, in complete deference to all the witnesses who are here.

Mr. Chair, I think it is incumbent upon you to entertain this at this point in time.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. McLean, honestly, I understand where you're coming from. You know, if you have questions for the witness, but I mean, understand.... We all know what the discussion is that we're having here. We're about to go in camera and talk about future meetings and the like. Then—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, I think this would be quick, Mr. Chair. We just have to raise it as something we want to have on the agenda here, as part of this meeting. If it slides into this meeting, you can take it out of the other part of the meeting. That's fine with us as well. But if you wouldn't mind, we'd like to get this motion very clearly on the record, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Why don't we let the witnesses go so they don't have to sit here and listen to this not-so-interesting discussion?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.