Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome, everybody.

Thank you for joining us for meeting number seven of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I appreciate everybody taking the time to be here and logging on early.

To our witnesses, thank you for joining us.

There are a few rules of the road for any of you who may not have done this before. The process will be as follows.

Each witness group will be given up to a maximum of five minutes to make opening remarks. I apologize in advance that if you exceed the five minutes or are exceeding the five minutes, I may have to interrupt you and cut you off. It's my job to do that.

Similarly, when questions are being asked, each person asking questions is given a specific allotted amount of time, so I may have to do the same thing to them or to you.

Interpretation is available. You're free to speak in either official language, and we will be able to hear you.

Because we're online, be cautious. To everybody, please wait until somebody has finished speaking before you start speaking. I know I do it myself, so this is a warning to me as much as to anybody, but it does cause a problem for us, and more so for the interpreters.

On that note, I will welcome our witnesses: the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Tree Canada, Le Consortium de recherche et innovations en bioprocédés industriels au Québec, Carbone boréal, and as an individual, Kathy Lewis.

I will turn it over to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society to start us off, for up to five minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can you give us a quick update on two items? That would be the minister's appearance before the committee, and also the request to have Minister Ng appear before the committee on the softwood issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Minister O'Regan will be here a week from today. On Monday we will be having a panel consisting of provincial representatives. Some of them are still to be confirmed.

Regarding Minister Ng, the invitation has been extended. It does not look like she will be able to accommodate us, or vice versa, between now and next Friday, which, as you know, is our last meeting.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

It's our last meeting of the year, but not of the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Sorry; it's the last meeting before the break, yes.

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, please go ahead.

[Florence Daviet, Director, National Forest Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society]

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me today to share my thoughts on forestry recovery.

My name is Florence Daviet. I'm the national forest program director at the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, or CPAWS. CPAWS is Canada's only nationwide charity dedicated solely to the protection of our public land, ocean and fresh water. We work collaboratively with governments, indigenous communities, industry and other environmental groups to develop innovative conservation solutions.

My presentation today provides recommendations on how the federal government can target forestry recovery funding towards smarter solutions from a climate mitigation and biodiversity perspective, and move beyond business as usual through research, innovation and collaboration.

In our view, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss in our forests while supporting local jobs and healthy communities requires adopting the following four strategies.

The first is to avoid impacts. By its very nature, industrial forestry activity has associated greenhouse gas emission and biodiversity impacts. As a consequence, we need to identify and support those who are willing to implement strategies to limit our footprint, especially in areas that currently have very limited or no industrial footprint or that have high biodiversity values. By making room for nature, we can further multiple objectives: meeting our international goals to protect 30% of land and water by 2030, protecting species at risk, reducing emissions from human activities and reducing the risk of forest fires caused by human activities.

Our first recommendation is to support innovators aiming to implement strategies to limit the footprint in the forest.

The second strategy is to reduce impacts. Climate-smart products come from wood baskets that have stable or increasing forest area and carbon stocks, as well as being managed for other sustainability criteria. Some of Canada's wood baskets likely do not meet these criteria as a result of climate-related and/or direct human action.

Management practices that can help include lengthening rotation ages of the trees being cut; reducing the footprint of specific activities, such as roads; quickly restoring forests where needed; and recognizing the non-timber value of forests through markets and other tools.

We're recommending that we need to support improved science and knowledge on how activities in forests are directly and indirectly causing greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity impacts, and that we need to support as well the development of partnerships and tools to recognize the non-timber value of forests.

The third strategy is to reduce impacts through substitution and demand measures. Wood products provide essential goods and services. The federal government can play a role in ensuring that wood products offset the use of other products that are more detrimental to biodiversity and climate impacts while incentivizing the creation of local jobs.

To do so, they need to continue to advance life cycle assessments that include the ecosystem carbon and biodiversity impacts of the different choices before us, and to support those who are willing to move their businesses in a new direction with more value-added and long-lived harvested wood products that support local jobs.

However, we must not overlook that substitution is only valuable if our overall footprint does not increase. The world currently faces twin biodiversity and climate crises. We know that simply growing our greenhouse gas emissions or biodiversity loss rates more slowly is insufficient to address these crises. Education programs and policy research around reducing consumption and waste needs to continue.

Our fourth recommendation is to fund innovative partnerships that look at these three strategies, including demand considerations, to find solutions, and also to promote and support life-cycle assessments that include ecosystem carbon and biodiversity effects.

Finally, and very importantly, is a strategy for supporting indigenous communities. Across Canada, many indigenous governments and communities are seeking to manage forests with a lighter footprint while ensuring livelihoods for their community. In some cases, this includes looking at implementing indigenous-protected and indigenous-conserved areas and promoting non-timber values; in others, it includes more traditional forestry practices. Traditional knowledge of the land will be a vital part of improving forest management. Supporting indigenous initiatives that consider the strategies mentioned will be a key part of ensuring that this recovery also supports increasing equity and reconciliation efforts.

We recommend supporting partnerships with indigenous communities seeking to manage forest lands with a lighter footprint, including restoring damaged forest areas with important non-timber values such as food security.

As has been noted in recovery recommendations for other sectors, supporting the recovery of the forestry industry should be linked to improving our knowledge of the climate and biodiversity impact of our activities and finding ways to keep doing things better for nature, climate and communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you. You were right on the five-minute mark, which is greatly appreciated.

We go now to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, with Ms. Abusow.

[Kathy Abusow, President and Chief Executive Officer, Sustainable Forestry Initiative]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

As noted already, my name is Kathy Abusow, and I'm president and CEO of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. On behalf of SFI, I'm pleased to be here with you today.

For those who don't know, we're a non-profit that advances sustainability through forest-focused collaboration. Collaboration is part of our mission and is essential for this sector's economic recovery. I'll return to this theme later in my remarks.

We're a global leader in setting standards in conservation, collaboration, community engagement and environmental education with the forest sector, the conservation sector, resource professionals, local communities, indigenous peoples and government. We do so to solve national and global sustainability challenges, including climate change and species recovery, while growing opportunities to employ youth, improve indigenous relations and be part of a circular economy with products sourced from renewable and sustainably managed forests across Canada.

I'm going to speak to you a little bit about green jobs, the two billion trees and collaboration as part of the forest sector's economic recovery.

Project Learning Tree Canada is an initiative of SFI, and we've placed over 3,500 youth in green jobs in the forest conservation sector since 2018. In so doing, we've achieved gender balance and provided work experiences for over 500 indigenous youth across 80 indigenous communities. We have also engaged 200 forest sector companies in the SFI forest network and the Canadian Parks Council network.

Up until the fall economic statement was announced, we were very concerned that our program and other job creation programs—which have been growing in relevance and reach in supporting skills development and work experiences to grow a diverse and resilient workforce in the forest sector—would come to an end due to lack of funding for the youth employment and skills strategy. Therefore, I'd like to really congratulate the hard-working public servants from various departments who crafted the fall economic statement. We know that in order for the forest sector to recover, its workforce needs to be resilient and diverse, and this funding really helps. The additional $575 million for the youth employment and skills strategy will go a long way in supporting all youth in finding high-quality innovative jobs in the forest sector and providing it with the diverse and resilient workforce that is needed for the future.

The forest sector is part of the renewable and circular bioeconomy. There is a growing field of opportunities and career opportunities for youth and the next generation in this sector, and we are focused on collaborating to find the career pathways, the educational pathways, the skills development and the work experiences to support that.

In terms of the two billion trees, I want to speak to the role that the two billion trees initiative can play in economic recovery for the forest sector as well. While planting and managing two billion trees will be important to addressing climate change, it also supports job creation and green infrastructure. It's a low-cost solution to many of Canada's significant sustainability challenges.

As the committee will be well aware, healthy forests store carbon, but Canada's forests have been devastated by climate change, including the damaging forest fires and a steep increase in pests and disease, which become a carbon source, not a carbon sink. Therefore, these factors undermine our nation's climate recovery, species recovery and clean water and also damage our ability to have sustainable harvest levels. As a result, they damage our ability to have the sustainable, resilient economy we want.

The two billion trees investment, including the $3.1 billion of funding promised in the fall economic statement, will help restore forests that have been degraded by climate change and keep our forest stock whole. In addition, it creates the opportunity to increase our tree canopy in urban centres and municipalities across Canada. I know that Tree Canada is also on this panel today and will likely speak about the important role that urban trees play. SFI collaborates in sustainably managed forest landscapes and will be playing an even more significant role partnering with organizations, including Tree Canada, in urban forests in the new year.

Finally, I'll speak on the point of collaboration. It's part of our mission. It's critical to the success of economic recovery. I hope that the standing committee recognizes that investments should be made in organizations that are able to collaborate to help sustain our forests and to sustain economic recovery. I hope part of this solution will be looking for track records of success to innovate, to collaborate and to advance all of these important goals that have already been stated: a circular economy, forest products from renewable resources and the ability to address climate change.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

You're quite right. Tree Canada is on the panel, and they are up next.

[Léo Duguay, Chair of the Board of Directors, Tree Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee, and I also want to assure you that we'll work together as closely as possible.

In looking forward to this presentation, I took a look back at some old notes, and I'll start off by saying that governments really do matter.

I refer back to a 1982 presentation by Environment Canada, “A Framework for Forest Renewal”; a 1984 presentation by the federal New Democratic Party, “Program for Fair Recovery: Job Security in the Forestry Industry”; and a 1983 study presentation by Frank Oberle, who was a member of Parliament at that time in the riding currently represented by Bob Zimmer.

All of that led, in 1990, to the formation of a ministry of forestry, the first one and only one, which was headed by Frank Oberle. In 1991, through a direct government grant, Tree Canada was formed as a 100%-funded government organization.

You should be thanked and everyone should acknowledge that your starting this in 1991 has led to a Tree Canada that has planted over 82 million trees in 700 communities across Canada, a lot of them represented by you. To note, we have morphed from a fully funded government organization to a fully privately funded organization.

We're extremely proud of this and I can only add that planting trees—and we've planted a lot of them—is a good thing for people, it's a good thing for the economy and it's the best bang for your buck you're ever going to get.

I'll turn to Danielle St-Aubin, our CEO, to continue our presentation.

[Danielle St-Aubin, Chief Executive Officer, Tree Canada]

Thank you, Léo.

Trees play an essential role in creating positive outcomes in urban settings because they have a direct impact on the quality of life of Canadians. This includes from an environmental perspective. They help reduce the heat island effect; they manage stormwater by intercepting rainfall and reducing runoff; they prevent soil erosion; they offer food and shelter for birds and other wildlife; and if the right tree is planted in the right place, they can help slow wildfires.

Urban trees are also very good for the economy. They attract tourists because they offer recreational benefits. They provide employment in the forestry field. They also help individual homeowners, because they can reduce their heating and cooling costs, and properties with trees are generally valued higher in the real estate market.

Trees are also good for our health. They absorb particulates in the air, making it more breathable for people with respiratory illnesses. They motivate us to play outside, no matter what our level of income is. They help patients in hospitals heal because of the psychological impact on people's moods and emotions.

Those are just a few of the benefits, and as Canada continues to urbanize, trees in urban settings will increasingly rise in importance.

Unfortunately, tree canopies in cities are under a lot of pressure, and the burden to mitigate these pressures is placed squarely on the shoulders of municipalities. Many of these pressures are outlined in the Canadian urban forest strategy developed by the Canadian Urban Forest Network, of which Tree Canada is the secretariat. These pressures include climate change, which causes extreme weather events. These events can leave municipalities struggling to clean up and replant millions of dollars' worth of trees.

Lack of genetic diversity and monoculture practices leave our urban forests vulnerable to insect and disease infestations. Examples of this are Dutch elm disease and the invasion of the emerald ash borer.

Development, even smart development, often means that woodlots get converted to either non-treed environments or single-tree environments.

Infrastructure issues, such as a lack of space below ground, mean that trees struggle to survive.

Lastly, of course, is resources. While the federal and provincial governments make contributions related to individual emergencies and perform some research, there has been a lack of a sustained long-term commitment to urban forest stewardship, which is why the announcement of the two billion trees initiative is so welcomed and so critical. With all these competing priorities, urban forests are not often at the top of the list for municipalities.

I'll turn it over now to my colleague, Dr. Adrina Bardekjian, our manager of urban forestry programs and research development.

[Dr. Adrina Bardekjian, Manager, Urban Forestry Programs and Research Development, Tree Canada]

Thank you, Danielle.

There are things we can do to support this critical asset. Beyond our own research and experience, we've been active in participating in think tanks, engagement sessions and various working groups. We'd like to offer a few high-level recommendations.

First, develop a national strategy for urban forests across the country, which could include tree protection policies, minimum percentage of canopy cover and baseline best practices.

Second, examine taxation and incentive programs to promote good urban forestry practices and stewardship by individuals, community groups, municipalities, developers and builders.

Third, create or appoint a national body to serve as a catalyst for research communications, education and advocacy, and as a central hub for urban forestry information and knowledge exchange.

Fourth, raise the level of awareness of urban forestry issues to diverse audiences and stakeholders, such as the public at large, other allied professionals and policy-makers.

Fifth, examine municipal needs and undertake practical research projects to support their efforts.

Lastly, develop professional industry standards for urban forestry and arboriculture on a national level to ensure safe work practices.

The urban tree canopy is an important part of our green infrastructure. Trees increase in value if they can reach their full potential. In order for that to happen—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to interrupt and stop you there.

[Dr. Adrina Bardekjian]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We'll move on to Consortium de recherche et innovations en bioprocédés industriels au Québec.

[Mohammed Benyagoub, President and Chief Executive Officer, Consortium de recherche et innovations en bioprocédés industriels au Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank Mario Simard for making our appearance before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources a little easier.

For people who aren't familiar with the Consortium de recherche et innovations en bioprocédés industriels au Québec, or CRIBIQ, I'll say that it's a consortium that brings together industrial partners and public research centres. Our main mandate is to financially support the industrial research that mobilizes these businesses and research centres, and to promote innovation among producers and processors of bio-sourced products from forest biomass.

CRIBIQ currently has a portfolio of 300 businesses and financing of approximately $145 million, and about 40% of our investments are related to forest biomass development.

With regard to today's topic, the bio-economy and its role in economic recovery, we are convinced that industrial sectors linked to the bio-economy can play a major role. It's an important link in the industrial and economic recovery in a post-pandemic context.

We need only think of the revitalization of resource regions or Canada's economic sovereignty. Everyone knows that at the beginning of the pandemic, we were faced with a shortage of a number of products, including very advanced materials used in the manufacture of many products needed in the health sector or hygiene products, among others.

So I think that bioproducts can play a fundamental role, as the bio-economy promotes the ecological footprint. Earlier, we talked about the life cycle issue. In most of the projects we've funded, the life cycle analysis has shown clearly that the development of these bioproducts can play an important role in reducing waste and greenhouse gases, in addition to limiting the relocation of high value-added products, since most of the jobs associated with bioproducts must be close to biosources.

We want to take advantage of this forum to offer some food for thought that can strengthen the role of the bio-economy in Canada's post-pandemic recovery.

I'll turn things over to my colleague and co-founder of CRIBIQ, Laurent Roger Bernier, to talk about our three recommendations.

[Roger Bernier, Microbiologist and Agronomist, Consortium de recherche et innovations en bioprocédés industriels au Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Benyagoub.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Greetings, as well, to the other participants.

Our first recommendation is to introduce tax incentives, such as special tax credits, for the commercialization of bioproducts to make this commercialization much more competitive.

In 2010, several U.S. companies had already approached elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives to call for the introduction of a tax credit for the production of bioproducts. Following this initial request, Iowa introduced a tax credit of 5¢ per pound in 2016 for products with a minimum of 50% bio-based material content. More recently, Maine, Nebraska and Minnesota have adopted similar tax schemes, introducing a credit ranging from 3¢ to 8¢ per pound for certain products still derived from biomass, with other states, such as Illinois and Kentucky, in the process of adopting similar legislation.

Our second recommendation aims to strengthen consumer confidence in a label attesting to the renewable nature of bioproducts, following the example of the U.S. BioPreferred program, which I had the opportunity to contribute to by labelling certain biosourced molecules produced in Canada.

This program, which is managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, was designed to increase the purchase and use of bioproducts. Since its inception, the program has contributed approximately $393 billion and more than 4.2 million direct and indirect jobs to the U.S. economy.

In Canada, it would be appropriate to put in place a similar program for forest biomass products made. It would be managed by Natural Resources Canada. In our opinion, the two main components of such a Canadian program could be, first, mandatory purchasing requirements for federal agencies and their contractors, and second, a voluntary labelling initiative for bioproducts.

Finally, still in the area of bioproducts, our third and final recommendation comes from the observation that, unlike other industrial sectors such as agriculture, aeronautics or electronics, Canada has a less developed chemical industry. A national program should be put in place to facilitate the recruitment, in our university research centres or in government laboratories, of scientific researchers from large private chemical or biotechnology companies that specialize in the industrial conversion of bioresources into high value-added products.

This would have a ripple effect on the participation of large companies in projects here in Canada and would develop or strengthen our research and development infrastructure.

This concludes my remarks. Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Villeneuve, from Carbone boréal.

[Claude Villeneuve, Professor, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Carbone boréal]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm pleased to meet with you today to talk about Carbone boréal. I prepared a slide show to illustrate some of the phenomena to support my remarks. I don't know if you can project it. If not, I'll fly solo, if I can put it that way.

Basically, it is scientifically well known that the increase in human greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, contributes to climate change. This accumulation has been monitored daily at the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory since 1958, and there has been an increase of more than 100 parts per million in the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere during this period.

However, this increase is remarkably accompanied by an increase and decrease each year, which are always of the same magnitude and which in fact correspond to the photosynthetic activity of the northern forests: the boreal forest, the Canadian forests as well as the Russian and Scandinavian forests in particular. These forests capture carbon between the months of May and September. Then, because they are inactive in the winter, the increase in concentration varies from six parts per million in a single season, while the increase each year is about two parts per million.

So northern trees have a huge role to play, and it's a very good idea to plant more trees. There have been proposals to plant two billion trees, but that's not the way to do it, without taking into account the real contribution of these trees to the fight against climate change. First of all, we need to quantify the contribution of these trees; it's not just magical thinking. There are rules and methodologies for doing this. Each species has its own characteristics. There are still many unresolved scientific questions about the real contribution of the forest in increasing carbon stocks.

Certainly, planting trees where there are none increases the carbon sink and carbon stocks. However, for this to be integrated into a quantified climate change proposal, the species must be known and planted in such a way that their carbon capture can be measured and reported in a standardized way. In addition, we need to make choices about which species will survive climate change, because in Canada, in various regions, even if we work very hard, the average temperature will rise by three to five degrees Celsius. That means that species that are surviving well today in today's ecosystems may not survive 50 or 100 years from now.

The choice of species must also allow the trees to continue to provide the ecological services they provide to the forest. So it's important not to plant just anything, just anywhere.

Lastly, existing forest carbon stocks must be maintained. Trees shouldn't be moved or cut down because trees have been planted.

Lastly, as my colleagues at CRIBIQ have said, we need to maximize the use of forest products, not only as long-life softwood lumber, but also as a supply that competes with products made from petroleum chemicals.

To work effectively, we need more science, a long-term vision and the ability to use our resources intelligently. Carbone boréal is a research program launched in 2008, based on the afforestation hypothesis—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Villeneuve, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up very quickly.

[Claude Villeneuve]

Okay.

Carbone boréal is a university infrastructure. So, it's a project that provides information on the long-term impact of afforestation on climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, sir.

Last but not least, we have Ms. Lewis.

[Dr. Kathy Lewis, Acting Vice-President, Research, University of Northern British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, and good morning or good afternoon, as appropriate.

I am very pleased to be speaking to the committee from the traditional territory of the Lheidli T'enneh.

I'm currently the acting vice-president for research at the University of Northern British Columbia. Prior to that I was chair of the forestry program. I'm also a professional forester with a background in forest health.

The forest bioeconomy provides significant opportunities for growth and transformation of the forestry sector. This transformation, however, requires Canada to become much less dependent on solid wood products and pulp, less susceptible to highly variable commodity markets, more invested in a diversity of wood and forest products and highly committed to the mitigation of climate change.

The first opportunity I will mention is the enhanced utilization of harvested trees. The forest sector has already made great strides in the development of composite wood products, cross-laminated timbers and bioproducts such as chemicals. We've also seen a tremendous increase in biomass-based energy systems such as wood pellets and wood gasification. These have the potential to greatly enhance the revenue generated from every harvested tree and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by using mill waste instead of fossil fuels. Just as an example, at UNBC we've been able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 66% using these systems.

One of the limiting factors in expanding the development and production of these innovative products and energy systems is that much of the wood supply is near rural communities that lack the infrastructure to support significant business development and that have suffered economic downturns due to dependence on a single industry. While capital investments have been made federally to support technology and product development all the way through to commercialization, the connection to economic diversification and development in rural communities is lacking. This requires enhanced community control over forest resources, which is a provincial jurisdiction, to ensure both environmental and community sustainability, but it also means place-based community development research, entrepreneurship support and capital investment to support local small- to medium-scale businesses.

Similarly, investments in wood product development have produced very exciting innovations in engineered wood products made from smaller bits of wood. These products have been shown to have superior seismic performance and are much more carbon-friendly than steel and concrete. One of the limitations in integrating these products into the construction industry is the lack of training programs for architects, engineers and especially the construction workers who are able to work with these engineered wood products.

A second opportunity for the forestry sector is through forest ecosystem diversification driven by forest product diversity. Canadian forests have experienced unprecedented natural disturbances caused by wildfires and pests, due in part to climate change. Severe impacts from these disturbances have been directly linked to the lack of forest diversity. The forest industry, despite the innovations mentioned previously, remains largely dominated by dimension lumber and pulp, which require a narrow suite of conifer species. This industrial model was established at a time when timber supply was seemingly unlimited, and as a whole it has not kept up with changing market conditions, shrinking forested land base and uncertainties due to factors such as climate change and global trade. The reliance on softwood lumber has resulted in a homogenization of species and age-class structures in forests, which makes them much more susceptible to damage by fire and pests.

We can change forest management practices to enhance diversity—for example, by allowing non-commercial species as part of the composition in forests—but without changes to the industrial model, which is fed by these commercial species, this just exacerbates our growing timber supply problems. Therefore, we need more investment in development and marketing of a wide range of forest products that use multiple species to create an economic demand for diverse products and therefore diverse forests.

Finally, the third opportunity for the forest sector is through its role in mitigating climate change. I believe the committee has already heard from Dr. Werner Kurz, who has found that depending on what happens to timber growing stocks, our forests could become carbon sources or carbon sinks. It's becoming increasingly important to look to our forests to enhance carbon sequestration as a means of mitigating climate change. Recent research from B.C. has shown that when the economic price of carbon emissions and sinks is combined with timber prices, traditional clear-cuts flip from being the most economical to the least economical harvest practices. As we work towards meeting our Paris Agreement targets, the benefits of promoting the retention of intact forests, as well as wider adoption of partial harvesting practices, must be more fully considered.

In summary, I believe that the transformation of the forest sector will require a better connection between agencies responsible for economic development and those responsible for natural resources, greater investment in diverse forest products to create a demand for diverse forests, and an enhanced role for the forest sector in climate change mitigation through adaptation of forest management practices that are driven by carbon accounting as well as timber pricing.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lewis. We appreciate that.

That's the last of our opening remarks. We're now moving to the first round of questions for six minutes each, starting with Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Allow me to thank all of the witnesses today. It's a fantastic amount of information we were given here, and its quite enlightening.

I'm going to start my questioning with CPAWS. I really appreciate that we do need to set land aside in Canada for biodiversity, making sure that there is no footprint that is actually just industrial at the end of the day.

Can we talk about fire's role in the natural ecosystem? Part of what we're hearing here is that we've over-managed these forests by neglecting fire. As a result, the fires are much more intense than they used to be. Can you comment on that? If we just set land aside and did not manage the fire outcome there, what would the natural evolution be in that case?