Natural Resources Committee on June 1st, 2022

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary.

It's great to see you, Chair, and all of the witnesses. To the individual from the Quebec Forest Industry Council, with regard to the use of lumber and the opportunity to use lumber in varied situations, I know that in Ontario, and in other provinces along with Quebec, lumber is becoming more commonplace in buildings. What other opportunities do you see for lumber being utilized in the Canadian economy? It's very exciting to see mass timber, and in my riding I have the carpenters' union and the training facility there. I know they're training the next generation of apprentices to undertake building those buildings, whether it's in urban or rural Canada.

[Jean-François Samray]

You're bang on. There's definitely a need in the construction sector, and we're training a lot of new workers who are diversifying their knowledge and reorienting themselves in construction. Softwood lumber could definitely be used for these types of products.

Canada is a big player, as well, because a lot of the new facilities built for the IT sector.... The companies that are in the web industry want to reduce their GHG footprint, so they're ordering these buildings from Canadian manufacturers. There's a need for the Canadian economy, as well as for exports, answering the need for an energy transition and lowering the carbon footprint of construction.

Canada is really well positioned with the certified forest and the know-how that we're developing on this.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, sir. That was excellent.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time on that one.

We're now going to go to Monsieur Simard, who will have six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am following in the same vein as my friend Ms. Dabrusin and Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Samray, we know that a fairly simple administrative measure, the application of the carbon footprint as a criterion for awarding public contracts, would help to promote the use of wood. It wouldn't cost a penny, unlike everything the federal government invests in the oil and gas sector.

Do you think this would be a good solution to encourage the use of wood?

[Jean-François Samray]

I think you need the right tool to measure it properly. As I mentioned in my speech, the Gestimat software is used for just that, to analyze the life cycle of everything that goes into the construction of a building. We are able to do simulations. Architects and engineers can run simulations to determine the reduction in the carbon footprint of a building constructed with wood compared to the traditional method.

In Quebec, we've started handing out plaques, which building owners can put in the entrance of their buildings to show the extent of this reduction.

The Quebec government has created a database to quantify the carbon footprint reduction in the construction of its building stock.

I think it would be beneficial to use these kinds of measures. It would stimulate communities across the country, as there is wood in every province in Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If you agree, Mr. Samray, perhaps you could send the committee some information on the Gestimat software.

I now want to turn to another topic.

Earlier, we received the minister. I asked him a question in relation to a Toronto-Dominion Bank study that says that almost 50% to 75% of oil and gas workers will be displaced by 2050. We're talking about 75% of workers, that's huge.

I've seen presentations on the bioeconomy. You talked about bioenergy. We know that these are industries that are linked, through biomass, to the forestry sector, which is very promising.

In your opinion, are there job opportunities in the forestry sector for people from the oil and gas sector who will have to be displaced?

[Jean-François Samray]

In order for there to be employment opportunities, there needs to be investment and the context to make it happen. I think the carbon price gives a clear signal to the industry. The International Civil Aviation Organization initiatives are creating a market for these biofuels.

Indeed, the skill required to manoeuvre a distillation column, whether to distill crude oil or to operate a chemical reaction in a bioreactor, is a transferable skill. Skill transfer is practised in several Scandinavian countries, where people go to work in another sector of the industry by personal choice. If they are going to distill something, they like to go to the green economy. It's a personal choice.

There are a lot of transferable skills, whether it's pipe fitters, millwrights, technicians or plant workers. All of these trades are governed by standards and codes. These are totally transferable skills.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

To make this transition to the bioeconomy, there are not many federal government programs, to my knowledge. There is the famous Investments in Forest Industry Transformation program, or IFIT, which is aimed at transforming the pulp and paper sector as well as the forestry sector. My understanding is that this program is underfunded.

In your opinion, could better financial support for the IFIT program make it easier to make this shift to the bioeconomy?

[Jean-François Samray]

Yes, that could certainly be useful. I think you will have some work to do in the committee, because the funding for this program expires this year. It is a fundamental program for all sectors of industry, whether it is critical minerals, agricultural research or petroleum. They all need it to make transitions and have a presence in the market.

Given the potential benefits of the IFIT program in terms of jobs and greenhouse gas emission reductions across Canadian communities, I think it deserves to be funded to the extent that it can deliver. Given that one in ten applications for funding is successful and that applications for projects that would be feasible are in the billions of dollars rather than millions of dollars, I think the market is vibrant and we need to move forward.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Samray.

Canada has a hydrogen policy, and it focuses primarily on blue and grey hydrogen. In Quebec, we can produce green hydrogen from hydroelectricity, but also from biomass.

Do you think it would be interesting to explore this pathway, green hydrogen, for the forestry sector?

[Jean-François Samray]

There are residues on the cutblocks. Recent fires in the American West have shown that when these residues are left on the cutblocks, they become a fuel just waiting to catch fire and burn down entire forests.

In Quebec, the spruce budworm ravages forests over thousands of square kilometres. This is wood that could very well be used to produce biofuel. I think there is an opportunity here that the sector should explore. We just need to send the right signal.

It would be interesting to open a pilot plant to demonstrate that it can be done and to measure the costs. I can give you the example of Sweden, which opened a pilot plant called GoBiGas to produce biofuel. They had to shut down for a while, but I heard this week that they are going to start up again. I think that's the kind of program that should be encouraged.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time there, so we're going to Mr. Angus, who will have six minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. London, I want to start with you because right now much of the critical minerals are coming out of Congo. We know of massive human rights abuses and human rights campaigns against Tesla and others, and we know that China is playing a massive role in trying to corner the market.

There is an opportunity for Canada, but I guess I'd ask the question of how important it is that we actually have really high standards. We have high standards in environment. We have high standards with work, but in terms of the environmental footprint.... We know that Borden mine has gone green. They've stopped using diesel. Diesel has a huge impact on worker health.

If we're going to be promoting energy with the batteries, how important is it that we actually try to get the sector to be showing that we can do this big production mining with clean energy?

[Ian London]

That's an excellent question. I'm going to take it in two parts.

I think it's fundamentally important, because folks like Tesla and all the manufacturers are looking for, one, trace provenance—that is, traceability—and a reduced carbon footprint. A part of the contributors to carbon footprint is how we move material all over the world. It's not the carbon footprint that went into the actual mining; it's shipping it across. We're shipping it overseas where they're doing the processing and we're buying back product, etc. It's fundamental that we move these products and advance these energy-efficient, greener mining operations.

I was also describing this from a critical materials perspective, and we heard something from all of our colleagues today, which is, how do we reduce our energy consumption? It's by using more energy-efficient agricultural equipment. We also talk about electric vehicles or e-mobility. Yes, it's nice to assemble a plant, but we're bringing everything in from everybody else.

Why can't we capture the technology and the spinoffs that come from it, which would then make the mine much more economic and the environmental footprint much more acceptable or reduced?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

You're speaking my language, sir. I've lived in northern Ontario and have watched so much of our resources go out. The issue of value added is huge for us. Just down the street from me, the SMC mill, which is the first cobalt processing plant, is setting up. We have opportunity.

We see how recyclables and waste are being handled at the Rouyn smelter and the Garson SMC mill. The importance of having a supply chain that we can offer the world, showing that we're using clean energy, that we have the higher environmental standards, that we have better worker conditions.... Do you have recommendations that you could send to our committee on what we could actually bring to government to say that it's not just saying that we're going to support the extraction, but it's how we extract and how we develop them that is going to be the key in dealing with the climate crisis?

[Ian London]

Absolutely, and it's more than just extraction. It's the value added along the line.

For us, because of the nature of this, it should be understood that it's not just a commodity. If we don't understand what our customers demand and what their customers demand.... That's what China built. They were in the raw material business 30 years ago. Now you buy all your washing machines and computers from them.

It's interesting leverage for Canada, while reducing the footprint at the same time.

I will submit a 10-pager on that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you so much for that.

Mr. Samray, I want to turn to you to ask this question, because I haven't heard your being asked about how climate is affecting the forests.

I live in the northern, boreal region. Would you say that the climate crisis is having an impact on the forests of northern Canada now?

[Jean-François Samray]

It definitely is. That's for sure. At the end of the day, we can see that the northern limit is going higher and higher. There are trees that are growing in what used to be the tundra, and now there are trees with leaves that are now growing into boreal forests, which is something we haven't seen before.

There's a change in the forest and there's a need to make a change in the way that we're evaluating that forest.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

What we're seeing here, besides increased fires and increased insects, is stress on some of the traditional boreal trees that we cut. We're seeing that stress on them. We're seeing that things are moving, but they're not moving quickly enough to keep up with this transition. The forests are not moving as far north as they probably need to, so we have to look at the economic and environmental impacts of that.

I have two questions. One is about the modelling you're doing of the boreal region now. The other question is about my region and the James Bay lowlands, which is one of the world's largest depositories of carbon, but part of what holds it is its first-generation wood. It hasn't been cut. There's the need to maintain large, continuous sections of the boreal forest to hold the carbon imprint. Have you looked at that as well?

[Jean-François Samray]

Mr. Angus, if I may answer you directly, the thing is that Canada is such a huge country, and we hold 30% of the certified forests of the world. There's enough room to do some conservation and enough room to garden our forests in a more dynamic way in order to make them resilient.

We can do both. It's not either-or.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Absolutely. I have mills pretty much in my backyard. I want to know about the long-term plans, because we're seeing stress now where we have to have a plan 20 years down the road for what forests we can cut, what forests have to be protected and where are we going, given the impacts we're seeing.

[Jean-François Samray]

Natural Resources Canada is doing some research on the types of trees that will be better off when we do some replanting. That is part of the job that needs to be done as well.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Sorry, we're out of time on that one.

To our members, to our witnesses, with the way that the clock has been a bit messed up with, I don't think we have time to have another full round. I'm going to suggest that we thank our witnesses at this point and let them go.

Just before we go in camera for drafting instructions, I did want to take a minute to clarify a statement that I had made on Monday. If the witnesses want to go, please do that.

On Monday there were some questions raised about how certain decisions were made with this. We'll talk about this perhaps more at the subcommittee to determine how we want to proceed if this is going to be the last session for this study, or if we want to continue it. Nonetheless, I was asked some very specific questions about numbers. Numbers often tell different stories depending on what numbers you're using. And this is in part in response to comments made that this may not be a legitimate study because of numbers I threw out there.

I just want to make a couple of comments. I did send a note to the committee—we just got the translation back, so I've sent it to your P9 email addresses—explaining the process that we've used in choosing witnesses for this study, and actually for our previous studies in this Parliament so far. It's also based on a model that the committees used in the previous Parliament as well.

In brief, we get witness lists from each of the parties. We then have gone through them looking for themes and the priority of the witnesses listed, and then we look at the balance of parties in the House. That has been the structure used so far for our two previous studies, as well as in the 43rd Parliament. If we want to discuss that either at the subcommittee or at any point, we can talk about being more specific or refining that, but that's how the witnesses were selected for this one.

I did want to say, though, on the numbers that I gave you the bottom-line numbers, including for today, but the background behind it is as follows. Again, this may open up more questions, but I want to at least give a sense of where we started from. This is thanks in large part to our analysts and our clerk for providing me and working through these.

The Liberals started with 20 witnesses being invited. Five of those overlapped with the NDP witnesses, and one overlapped with both the Conservative and the NDP witnesses. There were 17 witnesses invited by the Conservative Party, with an overlap of one with the Liberals and the NDP. The Bloc had six who were invited with one overlapping with the NDP. And then when you look at the NDP, the NDP actually had 16 who were invited, but six overlapped with the Liberals, one with the Bloc, and one both with the Liberals and with the Conservatives. That's where it gets kind of messy, because there were witnesses who were unavailable or who had to cancel at the last minute, with three of the ones suggested by the Liberals cancelling, five from the Conservatives, two from the Bloc and six from the NDP.

In the numbers I shared on Monday, that's what we ended up with, but it wasn't through our not attempting to try to get robust lists of witnesses provided by the parties.

I just wanted to correct the record so to speak. What I gave you was very much the bottom line of what we ended up with, but through no lack of attempt on my part and that of the team to develop robust witness lists for the study so that it would be a very fair and robust study.

I see there are a couple of hands up, and my intention is that we then go into closed free questions or comments, but I just wanted to speak for the public record because I think it is fair to paint a bit of a broader picture than what I painted on Monday.

Mr. Angus, Mr. McLean, and then Mr. Simard.

Charlie.