NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 26, 1998

• 1103

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. I'd like to call to order this November 26 meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.

We are pleased to have with us today a delegation from the B.C. coastal forestry sector, both company and union. I'll introduce them in a moment.

Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): It has to do with the procedure of the committee. I really am happy these gentlemen are here. But there was supposed to be a report from Carolyn Parrish about the postal franchises. What is your intent as to when that report will be received by the committee? It was supposed to happen today.

The Chairman: Werner, obviously Carolyn is not here; I can't ask her that. I don't know. I was expecting she would be here today, and she may yet be here with that. If by the time the meeting comes to an end she's not here, I can only undertake to—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'll raise the question again just before—

The Chairman: Before we adjourn.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes.

The Chairman: That will be fine. She may be here by then. But your point is well taken.

This delegation is here because they want to bring a message to Ottawa, to Parliament Hill, concerning the tremendous pressure their sector is facing in coastal B.C. in particular, but in B.C. in general and in other Canadian forests generally, from certain elements of the—I don't want to lump all environmentalists—shall we say, more radical environmental groups who operate in different parts of the world.

I think it's important we listen carefully to what they have to say. There are jobs at stake; there's the economy at stake.

• 1105

We really appreciate that we have today, from the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, Darrel Wong, president, and Darol Smith, executive board member; from International Forest Products Ltd., Ric Slaco, chief forester; and from Western Forest Products Ltd., Bill Dumont, chief forester. They have a presentation that I think is in the order of 10, 12, or 13 minutes. Then we'll have lots of time for questions.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Without any further ado, we'll invite you to begin your presentation.

Mr. Darrel Wong (President, Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada): I'll start it off.

My name, as the chairman has said, is Darrel Wong. I'm the president of Local 2171, and my local is the coast of British Columbia, the northern end of Vancouver Island, and the Queen Charlotte Islands. In regard to the gentlemen here today with Western Forest Products and International Forest Products, between those two companies, they represent about 10% of all coast logging and have about 7,000 employees. With me is Darol Smith, who is a full-time employee of Interfor and actually works in one of the logging camps on the coast that has been impacted directly by the situation we'll tell you about.

This is a joint presentation. It's agreed between the industry and the IWA to try to find some assistance to the circumstances we find ourselves in. The initiative originally started back in June, because as a local union we were facing a crisis and had in excess of 2,000 members laid off. I represent my membership, their families, and their communities by coming back here and trying to raise the profile of this issue and asking for your assistance.

As a result of our initiative we had two tours. Alexa McDonough came out in September and toured the mid-coast, which Greenpeace has renamed the Great Bear Rain Forest, and we had John Duncan and six other MPs come out and take a look at the area. It should be noted both of those tours were completely paid for by small local businesses that were concerned about the impacts of the international boycott of our forest products.

We're really working, as I said here, as a true partnership, because as a local union we certainly can't deal with this issue by ourselves, and really, as an industry, I don't think we have the ability to deal with this by ourselves. So we got together and are working to try to find some solutions.

We want to point out that in British Columbia we have some of the best forest practices of anywhere in the world, and we've got the Forest Practices Code, which was implemented about three years ago, which creates these practices.

We want to say that Greenpeace's allegation that change isn't taking place in British Columbia is not true. There have been dramatic changes, and those will be spoken to a little further on.

While the MPs were out in British Columbia, we signed a joint statement to work together with the MP from our area to deal with the destructive campaigns and protests that are taking place, to try to eliminate some of the damage that is being created by the international boycott, and to support the sustainability of our industry.

As I said earlier, we have over 2,000 members laid off. We had another 400 members laid off just a couple of weeks ago. Certainly part of that is because of the Japanese market; there's been a significant downtown in the Japanese market. We also have a softwood lumber agreement, which I'm sure most of you are aware of, that limits our ability to have access to the United States market. The combination of those three things is really causing us great pain.

The difficulty we have with the campaign that Greenpeace and other organizations are working on is that they're talking about completely eliminating our jobs and communities permanently. They're not talking about just changing practices, they're talking about no more logging of old-growth forest in British Columbia and, quite frankly, across Canada, it seems to me.

• 1110

IWA Canada has supported and continues to support, protect, and enhance forest ecosystems, protect biodiversity, maintain sustainable harvest levels, and ensure good forest practices. But we also need to deal with the economic needs of people in the area and across Canada.

In fact, we have a forest policy—I've handed out some copies to the chairman—that actually does document the position of the IWA with regard to forest policy. So we are in fact environmentalists. We're just concerned that where it's at right now is not talking so much about the environment as about raising funds.

We talked to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal community leaders when we did the tour. Quite frankly, they're as disturbed as we are that Greenpeace refuses to come to the table to negotiate land use issues in British Columbia. Instead, they just seem to stand on the outside and take shots at the inside.

We have created some of the highest environmental standards. The people who are living and working in the forest are actually adopting and putting those practices into place.

Last year—you may have seen this on the news—we had illegal blockades at Roderick Island and King Island. We ended up with our membership losing about $170,000 in wages and benefits. We filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace on that, which is currently in the court system. We're hoping we'll be successful on that.

Our concern, though, is that the tactics have now changed. What's happening is that there's an international boycott in the marketplace. That could actually be substantially more damaging than roadblocks.

We believe this issue is of great national importance, and your assistance in countering these activities is required at the earliest possible time. We need the assistance of the federal government because Greenpeace is a multinational organization. They have funding in the neighbourhood of $126 million. They've hired nine new full-time staff in Washington, D.C., to be part of the Canadian anti-logging boycott campaign. With that kind of money, they can mount some pretty slick public relations campaigns that we obviously don't have the ability to do.

With that, I'd like to close. I'll hand it over to Ric Slaco.

Mr. Ric Slaco (Chief Forester, International Forest Products Ltd.): Thanks, Darrel.

First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for arranging the weather to make me feel at home. It's much appreciated.

The company I work for is based in B.C. We're a logging and sawmilling company. We employ about 3,000 people. We produce high-quality lumber products that we ship around the world.

What I'd like to outline for you this morning is a little bit about some aspects of sustainability as related to the forest.

Canada is a nation of trees. We all know that. It provides us with great opportunities. It also makes us a bit unique in that there aren't many other countries that have such an abundance of natural forest.

In B.C., we know that these forests provide a wide range of economic, social, and environmental values to all of us. At present, Canada supplies about 15% of the world's softwood requirements, with almost half of that coming from British Columbia. At the same time, we know that B.C. has some of the most beautiful landscapes and is also home to a wide range and very diverse community of both plant and animal life.

So the challenge for us to find the balance. Can we achieve it in terms of environmental, economic, and social interests?

In my opinion, the answer to that is yes, we can. I'm here today to talk to you about my strong commitment and concern about the sustainability of the resource, and also about the future in terms of opportunities for all Canadians to enjoy some of the benefits derived from forest use.

Though we have lots of trees in B.C., it should be noted that not many, only about a third of them, are considered part of the commercial forest land base. Of these areas dedicated for forestry, we must manage them with care.

• 1115

This hasn't always been the case in the past, but over the years, with changing social values, we've also seen great change in the industry itself. With the introduction of the Forest Practices Code in B.C. in 1995 and through the efforts of forest workers in the industry, I think we can stand before you today and say quite confidently that we have some of the best forest practices of any place in the world. That fact has been verified by independent study, and I am personally unaware of any other country that does it better than we do.

Sustainability is not measured by good forest practices alone. We must also protect key resource values through broad-level land use planning. In some areas, this will mean preservation. In B.C., the province created more than 250 new parks since 1992, more than any other area in Canada. This amount of protected area in B.C. exceeds the protected areas of most other countries and surpasses the levels recommended by international convention.

Decisions about new park areas in B.C. are based on input from a wide range of public interests. This process is meant to be inclusive of all groups wanting to achieve sustainability for the region.

An example of this process is the land use plan being developed for a region in B.C. called the central coast, where Darrel has a large part of his membership. More than 50 different groups representing such interests as community interests, environmentalists, labour, first nations, etc., are all participating in this planning process. This process is open to anyone who wants to find sustainable solutions.

In terms of areas that are not going to be destined for parks, the goal is to maintain the long-term health of the forest ecosystem because much of the amount of area that we practise forestry on is small. If you use the central coast as an example of that, almost 90% of the area of the entire central coast is available in essence for conservation value, whether it be through a park or non-forest use. The industry is only seeking about 10% of that land base for its long-term sustainable area to practise forestry on.

This same area of the central coast has now become the target of the preservation groups Darrel referred to. This area is not small; it's roughly the same size as Switzerland.

This area also has a long history of forest use by both natives and non-natives. To say that forestry activities in the central coast are going to remove all the trees is completely far from the truth. That also extends itself to B.C. We know because of the diversity of our forests and the management we practise that there will always be an abundant old-growth forest there.

If you look at the principles developed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers on sustainable development, I'm quite confident that we're achieving those criteria of sustainability today. In addition, through the process of continuous improvement, we'll continue to make changes in our forest practices that will benefit society.

Nearly one million jobs in Canada rely on the forest sector. It's the single most important source of trade that stretches right across Canada. I believe the Canadian people want us to practise good forestry, protect important resource values, and promote the use and sale of Canadian wood.

I'd like now to turn it over to Bill to tell you a little bit about what we're up against.

Mr. Bill Dumont (Chief Forester, Western Forest Products Ltd.): Thanks, Ric. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for agreeing to meet with our delegation this morning.

Western Forest Products, my employer, is one of B.C.'s oldest forest companies. We've been in business, with our predecessor, since 1857. We employ, as a result of our operations, about 10,000 British Columbians, and we have sales of more than $1 billion to markets in Europe, Asia, United States, and the rest of Canada.

We're not here today to beat up or slag Greenpeace as an organization. We are here today to raise a major concern with you regarding their market boycott campaign against Canadian forest products. I'd like to go over with you some of the issues and pressure we're facing as an industry as a result of this boycott action.

• 1120

Targeted are the customers specifically of B.C. forest products. The campaign began in Europe, has recently shifted to the United States, and as recently as within the last month has moved into Japan. This is a hardball campaign against anyone who purchases products from the targeted companies and the targeted region.

I'd like to provide you with one example. Our company worked with a major manufacturer of a new type of rayon material that was to be developed from a mill in Port Alice using chemical cellulose products. This was to create a new fabric that would be a major competitor for cotton in the world. It was a use of our highest-value product in a factory that was to be built in Austria near the Hungarian border and supported with EU money.

We worked for ten years with this company to develop the technology, which is very new and innovative and has the potential to create a huge new market for Canada in the use of wood products in fashions for women and in other high-tech areas, such as plastics derived from wood.

In fact Greenpeace made this new factory and the company who was developing this technology a major target of the boycott campaign, to the point that when the Chancellor of Austria was intending to open the factory—it was a $150 million investment—they threatened to disrupt those openings and in fact we lost that customer. That hurt our mills significantly, because this was going to be the highest-value wood product that we had ever produced specifically for that market.

As recently as October, when the campaign shifted to the United States, one major retailer of Canadian forest products was hit 85 times in one day and their phones were jammed by 28,000 phone calls to disrupt their business. Customers going in to buy Canadian forest products in that store were harassed as they went in and lobbied not to go there and purchase anything at the store because they were selling Canadian forest products.

Next week, this same organization is opening 12 new stores across North America—again, a major retailer of Canadian forest products—and there has been a call to arms by these major environmental groups to disrupt all those store openings.

Two weeks ago in Japan our customers and many other customers of B.C. forest products companies were hit in a major campaign that started in Tokyo. Pressure was put on and materials published that suggested that B.C. and Canadian forest products were not from sustainable forests and they should stop dealing with us because we're not environmentally responsible.

Make no mistake that this is hardball pressure against our customers. There is a paper floating around that shows eight pages of tactics that range from pressure on CEOs of purchasing organizations to disruption of their business organizations. We've had customers in Europe who have had people chained to their fences for as long as a month, disrupting their employees coming into work. This is a serious campaign, which we believe is not warranted. Action must be accelerated by the federal government.

I think it's fair to acknowledge the efforts of many governments, including the B.C. and federal governments to date, on dealing with this issue. We have some very dedicated people here in Ottawa who know this issue; they know how serious it is. But we would like to see many more resources applied to this campaign.

I think if there is success in dealing with this small area of British Columbia, we could see the rest of the campaign shift to Canada because of one factor: most of Canada harvests natural forests. With the exception of the Maritimes, most of those natural forests are old. This is a target of the general overall campaign.

• 1125

We have developed an eight-point action plan that we would urge this committee to consider to get additional resources into the hands of those who are taking action now in this campaign, and establish a renewed effort that includes labour, industry, first nations, and communities as well as governments who are involved in this issue. These action committees include the following:

There should be an increase in the number of trade missions to specifically promote Canadian forest products. We should never undertake this campaign in a defensive manner. We should do it to position Canada as one of the most responsible forest nations in the world, and we provide sustainable forest products. We would like to see the federal government establish federal forest trade offices in key markets, particularly the United States, which buys more than half of the forest products produced in Canada.

We would like to see the federal government expand its tour program. We have found the most effective way is to bring customers and opinion leaders and media from our markets to British Columbia and the rest of Canada and show them on the ground the kinds of forestry practices that are going on.

We also believe the federal government should develop a marketing program to support buying of Canadian wood as a responsible environmental choice.

We would also suggest that the government expand its Canadian delegates speaking tour, bringing academics and others who are aware of our forestry practices into the marketplace to talk to our customers, opinion leaders, and governments in those markets to promote the use of wood.

We also think the federal government should expand its promotion of forest certification. This is a method by which a third party comes in and assesses forest practices against an agreed-upon standard and then can use that for marketing them.

There are also several other issues related to this, including the toughening of laws to prevent foreigners from interfering with forestry operations in Canada. Basically, these people are brought over to get arrested, become martyrs, and then they're paraded around in Europe and other places as victims of bad forestry practices.

We believe that while this has overtones of environmental issues, it is really a trade issue. This is being used to prevent legitimate trade by Canada with important customers around the world.

In general, we are calling for a much higher level of activism. I want to make it clear that the action that has been taken to date has been helpful, but the campaign has intensified and we need more action now.

In front of you are representatives of both labour and industry. I think this is an important message. There are allies in this issue that are not normal allies all the time, but we have come together because we see this as a threat to our livelihoods and a threat to our reputation as responsible forest managers.

Thank you very much for the time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dumont, and thank you to all.

We will start the questions immediately, and we'll start with John Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the presenters.

Mr. Dumont, when you were talking about the intensification of the campaign you were talking about how this can spread from British Columbia to the rest of the country. Has that not in fact already occurred in terms of what's happening in purchases by offshore or U.S. customers?

Mr. Bill Dumont: Yes. Those promoting the boycott tend to focus on the targeted companies. In fact, to make it easier for the media and our customers they tend to either say British Columbia or Canada in the same breath that they focus on this disputed area in British Columbia. That's the concern.

If you look at the banner that was put up in front the Prime Minister and the Queen in the opening of Canada House in London this summer, you can see that it said “Save Canada's ancient forests”. It didn't say British Columbia. The campaign tends to get confusing in the marketplace for customers. Is Canada the action, or is it British Columbia—or is it specific companies?

That's why we're here. We think this would spread and will become a national issue.

• 1130

Mr. John Duncan: Just to clarify some statements that Ric Slaco made on the so-called Great Bear Rain Forest, so designated for the mid-coast of British Columbia, an area the size of Switzerland, you said there were more than 50 different groups involved in a land use planning exercise in that area. They're all part of a democratically nominated planning team, and it's my understanding Greenpeace has been invited to participate in that process and they have refused to come to the table. Is that correct?

Mr. Ric Slaco: That's correct. The process you made reference to is a land use planning process. It's sponsored by the Government of British Columbia. It's a fully open and completely democratic consensus-based community process. It brings together a wide variety of interests—anyone who really has an interest or stake in determining sustainability for a region.

These processes have been happening across the province; they take a long time. They're usually at least two years in the making. The goal is to develop a comprehensive land use plan that identifies key areas for protection and at the same time identifies areas for resource use. To my knowledge, Greenpeace has not participated in any of the plans across B.C., and in particular, they're refusing to participate in this local process.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a letter in front of me and I am going to quote a little bit from the letter. I'll ask for comment from anyone who thinks it's appropriate. I'm not trying to put words in the mouth of any aboriginal group, but this was an open letter sent from the Heiltsuk Tribal Council to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club of British Columbia, Forest Action Network and Sierra Legal Defence Fund. I'll quote a couple of sentences:

Your organizations continue to pay lip service to the fact that we have been here since time immemorial. The ignorance displayed towards us as a people when your organizations think they know what is best for us, is appalling.

I don't think I'll quote any more from that letter, but this is coming Arlene Wilson, who is the chief councillor for the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. I know from the contacts I had when we were invited by the IWA to the mid-coast that this was a rather prevalent opinion among any of the leadership I met.

Would anybody like to comment on this?

Mr. Darrel Wong: I'd like to start on it. We've actually provided a tape to the chairman of the committee, which we took on the tour that John referenced, and it deals specifically with Archie Pootlass, who is the chief of the Nuxalk Nation out of Bella Coola. On that tape he specifically states that Greenpeace has refused to come and talk to them and has refused to come to the table. It also has Frank Johnson from the Oweekeno Nation saying they are not coming to the table and they should, as well as one of the other councillors from the Heiltsuk Tribal Council who's also indicating that if they—Greenpeace—or other organizations have concerns, they should specifically come and talk to the people who live and work in the area about those concerns instead of doing it in the manner they're currently doing it.

Mr. Darol Smith (Executive Board Member, Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada): If I could add to that, also on the tape you'll hear one of the on-the-ground workers say they've started a road and they've built a dump, and that's referring to the place where they dump the logs. They've started the road and built the dump, and now there's a two-year moratorium on it because Greenpeace won't come to the table. I understand the company I work for has spent well over $1 million trying to develop that area and now we can't go to work in it.

From the workers' point of view, it's very frustrating. I've seen tremendous improvements in the way we harvest timber in the past 10 years and I would put our standards up against those of any country in this world.

• 1135

Mr. John Duncan: Do I still have time?

The Chairman: You have a couple of minutes to go, John. We'll come back to you if you have more after that.

Mr. John Duncan: There's a magazine called B.C. Report produced in British Columbia, and there's a little article in here from the November 16 edition. I wanted to read one sentence out of that article, because it's a quotation from Ronald MacDonald, who was the Liberal member of Parliament in this place in the last Parliament, and he's someone who I don't think is subject to overstatement. He is now the CEO for the Council of Forest Industries in British Columbia. What it says is:

Such comments exasperate Ron MacDonald, the new CEO of the Council of Forest Industries. “We're [regulated] by a system that has almost put us out of business, and it's still not good enough for them”, says the former Liberal MP. “I think Greenpeace's ultimate objective is not to have a tree felled in B.C.'s forests.”

That is how he is portraying the dimension of the problem within his jurisdiction.

The last thing on this round is that I'd like to show the committee members how sophisticated this campaign is getting. This is the English version, this is the Japanese version, and these publications are also in French and German and other languages. Make no mistake, this is a worldwide campaign, and we need to ensure that we recognize this is a serious issue.

The Chairman: Thank you, John. We can come back to you later, if you'd like.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Roy Cullen, please.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen.

I have a range of questions, but I'd like to start off with just a few comments, because I think your intent here today is to achieve some kind of result and I think all of us recognize the challenges facing the B.C. coastal industry. It's unfortunate that some of the members from this side didn't have a chance to see the Great Bear Rain Forest. I know this committee, under the leadership of our chair, went out to Prince George last year, I think it was.

So I think you have a committee that's quite sensitive to the needs of the forest industry. In fact, many of the members here are from ridings that have extensive forest industries, and I think the notion that it starts somewhere and will expand, and I think all Canadian forest products producers could ultimately be impacted— But I hope it's not going to turn into a partisan affair, because I think that all of us here have the same objective, and that's to try to do what we can to improve the overall state of affairs for the natural resources sector.

Having said that, I'd like to touch on a couple of points, and then we'll have a second or third round, I presume, Mr. Chairman.

You touched on the softwood lumber agreement—and this is going to come up again later, I'm sure—but just so we're clear on this, everyone knows that the industry pleaded for the softwood lumber agreement a number of years ago, and the trade-off was five years of trade peace in softwood lumber. There's no ambiguity about that; I know perfectly well it was the case. We know that the quota allocations are going to be problems and there are some issues there. But I think we should understand that it was the industry that wanted the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, and I think it would be worth while to review it at some point and ask where we go from here once that softwood lumber agreement expires.

We also know that in B.C. the coastal problems are exacerbated of course by the Asian meltdown, and by some of the provincial government policies, which we won't dwell on here since it's not our role.

But I'm wondering if we could try to focus the discussion. I see you have some motions, and maybe that will help focus it as well. But there seems to be some notion floating around that the federal government was somehow funding Greenpeace activities and in fact were supporting some of these activities. I've done a bit of research on that and I can't come up with anything. I don't find the federal government supports Greenpeace financially, except for perhaps a minor misdirection in 1994 to WCWC, which hopefully we've learned from. Apart from this, if you have any specific knowledge of how the federal government supports Greenpeace, I certainly would like to know about it.

• 1140

I think we need to acknowledge that the federal government has been quite active in this area. For example, in the international forestry standards area, we are the leaders in Rio. We're going to build the path, and it's always best to be in the driver's seat.

We've been involved very specifically with the Forest Stewardship Council in trying to develop codes. I'd like you to maybe comment later on this whole codes question. Is there hope, and will there ever be hope that, for example, codes that Greenpeace would promote and accept would allow any kind of logging in any type of rain forest or old-growth forest? Clearly, if they don't, that's a problem. I suspect they won't. So no matter how far we go with our own stewardship and our own eco-labelling—or whatever the latest buzzword is—with Greenpeace or other agencies, saying there's no logging in old-growth forests or coastal rain forests, this could be a problem.

But the federal government is quite active. I was around when this government supported the opening of an office by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association in Brussels, and I happen to know, based on a whole range of feedback, that they're doing a very credible job of trying to get across in Europe the message of Canadian forestry practices. We've also been very active in the international forestry partnerships program, and this deals very specifically with the motion you have here.

Let me qualify all this. I think we all understand more needs to be done, and more could be done, perhaps. But I think we need to put it in some context. The international forestry partnerships program really responds to a need. I've heard from Jack Munro, the former head of the IWA, who talks very explicitly, as do the industry people, about the value of bringing Europeans, or whoever the customers are, right to Canada.

We're doing a lot in this area. In fact, there's a group coming through in the fall. I think we need to do more, but I understand there was also a trip to Europe in May that Western Forest Products and Interfor were on. They were there to try to respond to a specific request of the coastal industry about the need to get the message into Europe.

The Forest Sector Advisory Council is basically enabled by the federal government. It is union and industry leaders working together and advising the federal government. I understand they have a meeting on December 13. I hope your leader, Mr. Haggard, will bring this up at that meeting with the ministers of industry and the Minister of Natural Resources.

So having said all that, maybe I'll have a few of questions now and we'll come back to a couple. We can start with these three.

In your view, will Greenpeace or any of these environmental agencies ever accept any logging in any old-growth forest or any coastal rain forest?

Secondly, do you have any specific evidence of our government supporting Greenpeace financially?

By the way, I'm surprised B.C. Forest Products isn't here. They've been more directly affected right off the bat, but maybe you could comment on this. It sounds like this program has been targeted to B.C. Forest Products. I have two questions. At this point, has the Greenpeace initiative on the Great Bear resulted in any mill closures, any mill downtime, any shift reductions? Is Home Depot a customer of Western Forest Products or Interfor? I know it's just a thin edge of the wedge, but I'd like to know how effective their program is. Is it having any effect at all?

Maybe I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman. We can come back for another round.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

If you nix anything, I'm sure Mr. Cullen will maybe raise it later. I thought it was quite a set. Please proceed.

Mr. Darrel Wong: I wouldn't mind starting on it. First of all, and more specifically, the issue I would like to deal with is partisan politics.

We, as a local union, went to as many people as we could. We went to our local MP, John Duncan, which for the IWA is rather a unique thing to do. We're generally attached rather closely to another party, but we are looking at this as an overall issue on the coast. We're looking at it as an issue across Canada. We believe it's not a one-party issue; it's an issue that everybody in Canada is either affected by or is going to be affected by. So we certainly don't want to leave an impression that it's a single-party issue. We don't think it is.

• 1145

The second issue is that as a local union, we are specifically being targeted in this boycott campaign. They specifically said they were going to ensure that nobody worked in the mid-coast of British Columbia any more, which is the Great Bear Rain Forest. That brings it home directly to Darol, who works there, and to me because that's my local union's jurisdiction. That has a direct impact and is very personal. It's my members and their families who are phoning me right now saying “What are we going to do?” I have over 2,400 members who are laid off, and more are coming.

It's not all Greenpeace's fault, but it sure doesn't help when you have an international boycott targeted on your local union and your specific area. That's tremendous pressure. So we decided, as a local union, we had to do something. We've been doing everything we can to raise the profile of this issue. We're working on that area. We're not saying people aren't doing things, we're just saying we'd like to see more done. We congratulate the government for some of the things they've done and other parties for what they've done, but right now we're still impacted seriously. We are here to ask for help to try to assist the people who don't work any more.

Right now, nine mills have permanently closed in British Columbia this year. There are indefinite closures on two more. That doesn't count all of the logging operations; that's just the mills. It's serious.

Mr. Bill Dumont: Maybe I could respond to your question. I thought I'd made it clear in my presentation that we don't want to denigrate the work that's been done to date, and you eloquently outlined all the programs that are in place. We're calling for a higher level of action because in the last three months there's been a significant increase. The campaign has shifted to the United States. That's half our market.

We in industry are not going to disclose internal business interests with respect to the boycott, but I wouldn't be here if we weren't being impacted. My first example of this work with a major factory in Europe was evidence that the boycott does have serious ramifications. With respect to Home Depot or any of the major retailers in the United States, any of those that get pressure will eventually take some action. We are concerned because part of the tactic is to find one sensitive customer who'll say they are abandoning us as a customer. That's the domino effect we're fearful of.

Ric also has experience with customers on this issue.

Mr. Ric Slaco: As I said earlier, since we are a company that sells worldwide, there isn't a place in the world in which this campaign hasn't been considered a threat to our customers, with them receiving information. It's certainly causing us to have to respond. My perspective on this is that the work we're doing is a lot of response, when because of the good forest practices we have across Canada and Canada's reputation for being a leader in terms of sustainability and sustainable development, we have an opportunity to promote the very fact that we have a wonderful, environmentally friendly product to sell to the world.

By having a reactionary type of exercise, which is largely what's happened over the past, where we've been reacting to it rather than promoting it, we're missing a wonderful opportunity. By being reactionary, I think we're going to lose too, because we have customers who are sensitive to this issue and the tactics Bill outlined earlier are a concern to them.

• 1150

But let's look at the positive and see what we can do about it. The suggestions we're making are to be much more proactive in what we do and the product we can offer the world.

The Chairman: It that okay for now, Roy?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, we'll come back.

The Chairman: Pierre de Savoye, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): I'm acutely sensitive to what you're saying, because if British Columbia is targeted by foreign measures today, Quebec could be next tomorrow or the day after. As you mentioned, Canada is a country that greatly exploits its forest resources. You might only be the first victims if we don't close ranks. Therefore, I'm prepared to do so.

At the same time, it seems to you that upon closer scrutiny, the Greenpeace campaign is not really targeting environmental issues, but rather market issues. Since I'm always a bit curious and I'm trying to understand what's going on here, and since I imagine that you've conducted your own research and have formed an opinion, can you explain to me what Greenpeace's aim is exactly?

I'm trying to find the right way to put this. Greenpeace's action places you at a disadvantage. Who benefits from this and why?

[English]

Mr. Bill Dumont: I think you have to look very closely at the rhetoric that is in the literature for the campaign. It changes, but there is a fundamental document in which they outline their long-term objectives of opposition to any industrial-level forestry anywhere in the world and the promotion of product substitutes. They believe 80% of the world's forests have been destroyed and the residual wildlife and plant life in the remaining forests must be protected.

They are also opposed generally to plantation forests, any activity in natural forests or old-growth forests. Currently they have started with old-growth forests, but if you look closely, they promote alternatives, and this includes cement and all the different competitive items to wood. That is really the fundamental objective here: stop all operations in industrial-type forests, including those that are based on plantations.

You don't see that in the specific campaign. Today it's old growth in the central coast of British Columbia, but it does shift and it's really an opposition to the current extensive use of wood fibre in the world.

They do not want to see agricultural lands converted into forestry, which is what is happening in Chile and other parts of the world where trees are intensively farmed, such as New Zealand, that sort of stuff. So that's the underlying objective.

Who would be the beneficiary of this? They believe conservation would be the beneficiary and that there are enough alternatives to wood in the world to use, such as hemp or other bases of fibre.

It's very important you understand that the foundation of their campaign is much broader than the current focus.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you for that clarification.

You state in your presentation that you have the support of environmentalists and Aboriginal people in British Columbia.

• 1155

Can you tell us in a few words what contacts you maintain with these groups and what action you've undertaken, and give us a bit more information about the results of your talks with them?

[English]

Mr. Ric Slaco: I think most companies in British Columbia recognize the importance of first nation communities and their interests and rights. We are working closely with all groups in terms of our practices. Clearly, any type of work that goes on in British Columbia involves a consultation process by law.

We have found, as companies, that it's in our best interests to find and work on joint venture opportunities, because as a society and a part of Canada, they are legitimately interested in many of the same things, if not all of the same things, as any other Canadian. That includes an opportunity for a good environment and an opportunity to sustain themselves through some economic activity. The forest has a long history for them, so we have a lot of compatibility. The companies here could give you many detailed examples of partnerships that have developed in that regard.

On another point in regard to first nations, as a community they represent a spectrum of society that is going to have a variety of different viewpoints. You may find some examples of dissident individuals or segments of the society who will speak out against some of our activities, but I can say with quite a deal of confidence that the elected chiefs who represent the people of those communities are clearly on side in the areas we are operating in.

In regard specifically to local B.C. environmentalists, recognizing that this particular area on the central coast was a sensitive area, there was a call and a concern that forest operations weren't going to impair the opportunity for some of those areas to become park areas through the land use planning process. Both our companies are operators in that area, as well as others, but we've taken the lead in negotiating with those local B.C. groups to come up with an agreement that essentially defers some of our activities they've lifted out as a great concern, while this land use planning process is going on. We actually have some agreements with them.

It should be said that we don't always agree on everything, but I think the important part here is we are extending every effort we can to come up with a solution that includes environmental interests—those at least that want to find a sustainable solution that works for people.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It seems to me that the environmental issue is at the heart of our concerns here. Greenpeace is not the New York stock exchange but an organization that is concerned with environmental issues. Therefore, since certain environmental groups in your province support your action and since the First Nations approve of them, wouldn't it be a good thing for these groups to confirm what you've just told us? That way, the recommendations you are making to us would be founded on a very broad consensus, as far as this committee is concerned, and that seems to me to be a very important factor from a political standpoint.

[English]

Mr. Bill Dumont: I absolutely agree with that, and if we had developed a little more time with the coalition we would have them sitting here with us today.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

Just before I pass it to Ben, I want to say that a video was mentioned earlier. The delegation, through Mr. Duncan, provided the chair with a video, which I will attempt to have broadcast on OASIS for all members. I will send a memo to all members giving particular times when it will be on so all members will have a chance to see this, assuming there's nothing libellous or anything in there. I'm sure it would be very helpful for all members to see that.

Mr. Serré, please.

• 1200

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): I will say a few words in French for my colleague opposite so that nobody will shout at me as they did yesterday.

[English]

Gentlemen, I'm very pleased to have you here today. I represent a riding in northeastern Ontario of which Temagami is a part. I'm sure anybody in the logging business in this country has heard of Temagami. I have been fighting radical environmentalists for the last 15 years, and I call them radical because that's what they are.

I've seen firsthand tree spiking, a blockade, logging equipment being damaged, bridges giving access to logging roads being blown up. I've seen it all. I was in Germany and I've seen the misinformation there, firsthand, in the media—20-year-old clear-cut photographs and the like. So I haven't learned anything new in terms of the issue this morning.

But before I ask my question, I'd like to add a few things to what has been said, just to make members realize how serious and how organized these people are.

The Green Party alone in Germany—the last figure I have is from 1996—raised $60 million U.S. So Pierre says they are not the New York Stock Exchange, but they're getting pretty close to it. They're very well financed. They have lots of money and they'll never accept any compromise. I've dealt with those groups—Earth First!, Earth Roots all those groups—for the last 15 years. You give them 10% and they want 20%. Then you give them 20% and they want 30%. It's never-ending.

I believe that it's all a gimmick to raise money. If they agreed to good forest practices, as I believe we have now, they would have no issue to raise money. There are no more seals; they can't raise the issue of seals. It's the same all around. It's a gimmick to raise money.

I was looking at the Ontario structure of the environmental group. I was on a television program with Tim Gray from Earth Roots and I challenged him to tell us how much he was being paid as the director of Earth Roots, and I asked him where they got their money. Of course, he never told us how much he was getting paid.

Through my research I found five different environmental groups who were dealing with the Temagami issue: Earth Roots; Timiskaming Environmental Action Committee, and blah, blah, blah.

Now, on each of these groups' boards, there are at least two, and sometimes three, cross-references. In other words, the boards of these five groups are run by about 20 people. Two of Earth Roots' board members sit on Timiskaming and vice versa. We're dealing with the same people but they give the impression that it's five different organizations representing a whole bunch of people.

My point is this. There's not a member in this room who doesn't understand the issue, who doesn't know that we are faced with a huge organization and that the challenge is immense. My point is what can we do about it?

When we put it into perspective and look at the kind of money they raise and the capacity they have because they can use people's emotions, like on the issue of the seals or whatever— They use emotion, and we have to deal with facts and reality. That's a lot harder to sell.

I agree with Roy that as a federal government we've come a long way in the last five or six years. I remember we dealt with this issue five years ago on this committee and there were some results after that.

I look at John's recommendation and basically I agree with it all. I agree the federal government should do more. My question is have you done a cost analysis of those recommendations? What would they cost? My second question is would the union—the industry—be willing to partner with the federal government in paying for those programs?

We have, as the federal government, limited resources too, and I believe the unions have a few bucks, a lot of money in pension funds and whatever. If you want to save your jobs, I think you should be willing to put something into it. The industry is sinking. I think you should become a full partner financially to help with these programs.

• 1205

My third question is why not make sure the natives are full partners in the strategy to counter those groups? When we were dealing with the trapping boycott, I think bringing natives to Europe worked very well because, again, we were playing just the same game as those groups were. Europeans look at our natives as a minority group, and I think they are listened to more than we would be as an industry or as a government. I'd like to have a few of your thoughts on that.

Mr. Darrel Wong: I'd like to start on that, if I could.

First of all, the greatest thing for us would be to have this committee actually come out to British Columbia, specifically to the Great Bear Rain Forest, to see exactly what we're doing. We'd love to be able to show you, because that would then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are doing a good job.

On the second issue of the union providing some funds, like all unions, the IWA generates its income when its membership is working. Quite frankly, our membership's not working. I've actually just laid off two people on my staff, I laid off two other people on my staff earlier this year, I'm probably going to have to lay off a couple of more staff in the next couple of months. As a local union, we're broke. We need assistance from a larger group in order to be able to deal with this issue. We don't have the resources. On the pension plan that you mention, well, that's the membership's money for pensions, and we don't have access to it. It's strictly locked in for pensions—and I think that's by law. So there isn't any money in the IWA, either locally or nationally, to do some of these things.

On the second issue with regard to the first nations people, we're working with first nations all through our local union. We have negotiated a number of agreements to find employment for first nations people, and are being very successful in some of those areas. The downside of that is that when the economy or the industry collapses around us, it's not only white loggers who are put out of work, it's also first nations loggers who are put out of work and first nations people working in sawmills who are put out of work. It's everybody. Unemployment isn't colour-coded. It can affect whoever happens to be working, and there are a lot of people unemployed within my local and within the rest of the province right now.

So in response to that, we're here because the federal government has a greater and bigger ability to be able to deal with this issue than what we have individually.

Mr. Ric Slaco: I'd just like to add to that.

We recognize that everyone has to play their part. We're not asking that this be put in the lap of any one group, and clearly not that of the federal government. We have a very clear role, a leadership role, to play in promoting what we do. By way of this exercise here, we're just asking for some awareness, if it isn't already there.

The fact is that the campaign has intensified. The federal government does have the ability, through its embassies, to do some additional things. We think there's a good, effective opportunity for partnership. It will involve resourcing on our part—I think that's without question—and we're already expending money on this issue. But I think it's more the idea that we have a good message developed, and it's the message that we want. We have to then go about doing our respective parts so that we're working towards one objective. That objective is to sell more Canadian wood because of its good value.

Mr. Benoît Serré: As you know, there was an election in Germany, and the new Chancellor had to bring the Green Party into the coalition in his cabinet. I'm actually really worried, because I was there during the election. I saw the campaign that the Greens ran during the election, and we're in for a rough ride. Let's have no doubt about that. It's not going to be a cakewalk, but I just don't know how we can counter that. We are up against something that's bigger than— Even the Government of Canada doesn't have the resources to counter the kind of money that these people are putting out.

• 1210

What would you think if the federal government were to set up a coordinator, a committee, a council, whatever—I don't know what it would be called—specifically to develop a strategy to counter that in partnership with industry, unions, first nations, whoever? It might be a group of six or seven people who would try to coordinate all this strategy.

Mr. Darol Smith: Maybe I can answer part of this, if you don't mind, Darrell.

As Darrell said, we're here because we need the help of the federal government. We don't have a lot of funds, and we don't want to have to come back here asking for a bailout six months from now because we have all of our workers unemployed for a long period of time. We want to save our jobs. We want to go to work tomorrow morning and the day after that. We're ready to work with any group that's willing to work with us. That's our participation. We're also working very closely with our aboriginal nations. When you look at that tape that you have, you'll see three native chiefs who are basically shadowing our position on this.

Mr. Ric Slaco: The suggestion that you make is a good one, in my opinion. I think it's clearly one of the helpful ideas coming out of a session like this. We need to have some coordination and clarity on what we want to do. And to respond to Darol's needs, we need to do it quickly so that we can have some effective response to this.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ben. We can come back to you if there's more.

We'll hear from Gilles Bernier, and then Reg.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know much about natural resources. I also don't know much about forestry. On the east coast, I know we had problems with the forest industry, and the provincial government took action a few years ago. To make a long story short, we had what they call clear-cutting. In some years there's a lot of snow in New Brunswick. Sometimes when the springtime comes the snow melts too fast and creates a lot of water. I remember a lot of small communities that got flooded. Finally, it cost a lot of money to taxpayers in New Brunswick to move those people to higher ground. Those are a few of the problems that we had on the east coast.

Now, I'm not familiar with what's going on out there on the west coast, Mr. Chairman, but I met with two of the people who are sitting here this morning, Mr. Wong and Mr. Smith, in my office yesterday afternoon. I saw the tape they delivered to you this morning, and I was kind of laid back about what I saw. We all have to understand, as a committee and as Canadians, that the forestry industry is one of the largest industries in Canada, if not the largest. We export a lot of wood all around the world. To have a group of radicals—I'll use the word that Ben used—punishing one of our biggest industries here in Canada is nonsense. How do we counterattack that?

One of the things that Mr. de Savoye commented on was letters. The tape talks about local groups like environmentalists, aboriginal groups and all of those. Instead of just having letters, it would be nice if the committee was also able to meet with those groups.

I don't know if I'm at the right place. I don't have any questions for the gentlemen; I had many questions yesterday, and they know where I stand on the issue. But I would have a question that is more or less to the committee. If it's not appropriate, though, I would maybe do it on my own.

Mr. Chairman, I know some of the members of this committee went to B.C.—that was last May, if I remember right—about forestry. I think it was more or less like a fair, where they could see the new technology, the equipment and all of that.

The Chairman: The one on forestry technology, yes.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Would it be too much to ask the committee if it would be reasonable for some of us to go out there to see firsthand what's going on with the forest industry in B.C.?

• 1215

The Chairman: We've received from Mr. Duncan a notice of motion on a couple of items. Maybe at that time, Gilles, you could at least give a notice of motion to that effect, and then we can actually discuss that issue maybe as early as next week. I'm sure there'll be a consensus if the idea has very good merit.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I thought about that yesterday, Mr. Chairman, but by the time I finished talking with those people, I think it was too late to do the work that needed to be done. But if that's the case, I'm willing to wait and to do the proper work and to present it—

The Chairman: We'll ask you for a motion to that effect a little later on in the meeting. How's that?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, many questions have already been asked. I would like to dwell on a few other points, notably the Sunpine decision in Alberta. Are you aware of that case, Mr. Dumont? Yes. First of all, I would like you to give me a brief assessment of the decision that was handed down and tell me whether your company was involved in that, whether financially or in terms of human resources.

[English]

Mr. Bill Dumont: I'm not exactly sure of the issue. Is this the one where there was a recent court case?

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Yes, the case was brought to court by environmentalists who were successful in blocking the construction of a bridge to access mature forests.

Mr. Bill Dumont: The judgment indicated there would have to be an environmental assessment sponsored by the federal government for all the bridges in question.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's right.

Mr. Bill Dumont: Certainly we're aware of this judgment in British Columbia. It's not related to the issue we're here today for, but it is, I think, a tactic that could be used in other parts of the country.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: If it stands—

Mr. Bill Dumont: If it stands, it could be devastating in terms of our operations.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Absolutely. So you were not involved.

Mr. Bill Dumont: Our company is not involved, but we certainly are aware of the judgment, and it does cause some concern.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Bélair: My second question is about the work of our Canadian embassies abroad. Your introductory remarks lead me to believe that there were some deficiencies there or at least that you were not fully satisfied. You spoke mostly of the position that we should adopt vis-à-vis Greenpeace's behaviour. Could you elucidate that? In one of your recommendations, as a matter of fact, you allude to this indirectly. What should we do to enhance our reaction and thwart their tactics?

[English]

Mr. Bill Dumont: I think the elevation of this issue to this committee and to higher levels in government is exactly to try to heighten the activity level in our embassies. Some of our embassies have done a first-class job. People are on top of the issue, and they communicate with us exactly what's happening. In other cases I have a sense that it's not taken as seriously—

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Would those be embassies in major countries?

Mr. Bill Dumont: Yes, exactly. In some of our major markets there is a great deal of awareness of these issues. There are other ones, for example in Japan, where the staff are aware of it, but they're probably not prepared for what's going to come down the pipe towards them.

What I would recommend as a first step internally in government is that all those in the embassies who are on the front line of these trade issues get together and have a conference in order to understand the exact nature of the boycott and the tactics that are used and to share the experiences we found in Europe. Europe is the best equipped in terms of our embassy and high commission staff to understand the seriousness of the issue. I think it's important that as the campaign shifts, all the ones who are in jurisdictions, particularly the United States and Japan, also be brought up to speed and take this very seriously.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: More could be done.

Mr. Bill Dumont: Exactly.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: I will address my next question to Mr. Wong.

• 1220

A while ago my colleague asked if you were somewhat willing to participate financially in any endeavours the federal government could take. Has your union ever considered chipping in, let's say, 10¢ an hour, 25¢ an hour? You said you're practically broke, so the membership could participate in this way. Has this been considered in the past?

Mr. Darrel Wong: Yes. In fact, we we actually put together a document, which I showed you earlier, entitled The forest is the future. This is a policy we put together. We went to our membership a few years ago and got $1 a month from each member for a 24-month period.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: How many members do you have?

Mr. Darrel Wong: In Canada, overall about 50,000 if they're all working. Certainly the majority are in British Columbia, with the next largest area being Ontario, where there are about 12,000. We have about 1,000 in Manitoba, 2,000 in Alberta, and the balance are in British Columbia.

So that's one of the first things we did.

Second, we have had some involvement in some of the tours to Europe and to the States in talking about this situation. We also put together a couple of videos, which we've utilized both across Canada and internationally. So we have put a fair amount of emphasis on and a fair amount of effort into this issue. We're certainly prepared to continue to participate. I didn't mean to say we're not prepared to participate in it. I'm just saying that our participation probably isn't going to be anywhere near as large financially as what we had hoped for—

Mr. Réginald Bélair: No, we don't expect that, but we expect something.

Mr. Darrel Wong: I agree. We're here today and we were here in June, and obviously we would like to stay involved and to participate. That's the critical point for us. We don't think our membership gets as clear a voice unless we actually are involved directly in what's going on.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: I will direct my final question, Mr. Chairman, to the companies. You have certainly seen the ads on television about metal studs. I take it for granted that Greenpeace would publicize such material to counter your own actions. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Are you prepared for that?

Mr. Ric Slaco: That's an excellent question, and I think we have an excellent answer for it. Wood has been demonstrated to be the most environmentally friendly building product, whether it's in terms of its sustainability in its production, energy use, or the pollutants one would create as a result of creating an alternative product. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind.

And that has been demonstrated. If you look at Europe, for example, they've started a pro-wood use campaign because of its environmental benefits. The Canadian Wood Council is in on this issue. We've highlighted this as an opportunity for us in Canada to extol the virtues of using wood, especially wood coming from Canada. I think that's a good thing, and we would like to see some promotion of that. That involves us, and I think it would benefit all of Canada and the federal government to participate in that program.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bélair.

Werner Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think John wanted to ask a short question, and then I'll ask mine.

The Chairman: Okay, John.

Mr. John Duncan: I would like just to make a comment, more or less. For clarification purposes, I don't think this came out, Darrel, in your testimony, but the national president of the IWA is in Europe right now.

Mr. Darrel Wong: That is correct. He's in Germany right now concerning this same issue.

Mr. John Duncan: That's at the expense of the union, is it not?

Mr. Darrel Wong: That's correct. As I said, we were in the United States last week, and we met with a number of unions down there, again raising the profile of the issue. So it's not that we're not spending any money on it. I was just concerned that we can't match the kind of contribution we're looking for here. We're certainly not trying to negate our responsibility to work on this issue, and we are putting a lot of effort into it.

• 1225

Mr. John Duncan: I think in comparison—and maybe you'd want to comment on this, Bill—Greenpeace revenues last year were $126 million. They don't have to produce anything; they just have to carry out public relations and campaigns. Bill, did you not have a number of what some of our spending has been nationally to counter the aggressive campaigns we've seen?

Mr. Bill Dumont: I believe one of the programs Mr. Cullen referred to has an expenditure level in the area of $1 million a year, but I'm not familiar with the exact numbers the program—

Mr. Roy Cullen: Which program is this?

Mr. Bill Dumont: The partnership program and those things. We estimate that of the $126 million, roughly $100 million is raised in Germany, and about $20 million plus goes into the forest campaign annually. So we're talking big dollars on this issue.

Mr. Benoît Serré: John, does Greenpeace have tax-exempt status in Canada?

Mr. John Duncan: Greenpeace does not have tax-exempt status in Canada. It was taken away in 1995.

What we now have, in a sense, is an unlevel playing field with our trading partners, because what Greenpeace and other organizations are doing is creating a non-tariff trade barrier to Canadian products, and they're doing it by being subsidized in a way that they aren't in Canada. It's most inappropriate.

I think as a nation, we should be complaining very seriously to those countries that we want a level playing field. It was taken away here for mixing politics with charitable status. They're playing the same politics in those other countries. That's certainly where I'm coming from. And they're playing it against us. We should be yelling at the top of our lungs and lodging an official complaint on the trade issue front.

Anyway, I'm interrupting Werner. I'm sorry.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Werner, you have the rest of John's time.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much. Thanks, John.

I'm very, very thrilled with the nature of the discussion that's taking place here this morning, and I really appreciate the unanimity that exists, both between industry and the union on your side of the table, and as far as the political element is concerned, on the opposition side and the government side. I'm really thrilled with that.

I was particularly impressed, Bill, with your statement when you said we don't want to take on Greenpeace head-on, because that's a useless battle. I think that's correct.

I would like to move into another area if I could, a more positive thing. Whether we like it or not, the symbols we create and what we've talked about so far are really an indirect confrontation with Greenpeace. Whatever way you couch this, it is going to look like that. So I'm asking the question, and it was sort of asked before, about wood products vis-à-vis alternate building products.

I just returned from Chile and discovered there that there's a cultural dimension to this use of building materials. How do you build houses? It has a cultural component attached to it.

I certainly want to agree with all the stuff John said and all the other questions you read about Greenpeace, but I'm wondering whether there is another dimension that maybe should be looked at here, which is to come to grips with the ideal building product being wood, wherever, all over the world; and rather than confronting Greenpeace with this thing, to say to the people, how would you like to be even more environmentally friendly and do in fact use wood? So then there is this real trade that happens in terms of a whole new shift in the orientation toward building.

I've been in Europe, I've been in Japan, and I've been in other places. And we all know that the kind of construction we do here in Canada using wood products is very different from what is practised in other parts of the world. Consequently, we tend to use wood more here in our construction of houses, for example, than they do in other countries.

Is there a way we can move this thing into a totally different dimension that would encourage and excite everybody, including the workers in those countries, the families who are very, very poor in those countries? The answer isn't in viewing masonry and stuff in what they're doing, but rather to get into the wood product. So perhaps there's a whole new way in which this could be done.

• 1230

Mr. Bill Dumont: I think that's a very interesting proposal. In fact, it's part of the eight-point program we've outlined here, which is basically the promotion of wood as an environmentally responsible building material.

I think that move is afoot. I know Chile is increasing their forest sector tenfold through the use of plantations. They will be a major competitor of ours of another 20 or 30 years, when their plantations come on stream.

So wood use is in fact expanding. The world demand for wood expands by the amount of the annual harvest in British Columbia every year. But more than half the wood in the world is still used for fuel. So getting a shift from fuel into building materials for wood would, in our opinion, be quite an environmentally sensible solution.

I think it's important, if the committee does come to British Columbia, for you to hear the perspective of Greenpeace and the other environmental interests. Their views are legitimate. Obviously we don't agree with them, but they have a viewpoint that I think is important for you to hear. I would ask them that question.

Mr. Ric Slaco: I would just like something that I think is topical on the point of the environment. One of the main environmental concerns that's being raised these days is global warming. You can look at wood and its advantage in terms of trees being a tremendous source of carbon absorption. There's the fact that when you use a building product like wood, you're storing carbon. It has wonderful applications that come into play in terms of its environmental friendliness on that particular subject.

So all those points you raised, I think, are excellent from our perspective of taking a very strong proactive nature to this whole issue.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: There are two reasons for raising it. That was one. The other one is to take away the fuel that fires their resistance, if you will. The very thing they're attacking is the bad things you do to the environment. Well, the very thing you're doing is the opposite.

That's what has to be turned around. I think as long as we keep thinking in the way we have been thinking, they will always be in the winning seat. But if we take this other way around and show that we're better at the very thing they're trying to do and get them on side, then I think it might help us a little bit. It's going to take a bit of doing, but I think that's what we have to do.

Mr. Darrel Wong: Just on that issue, the IWA started passing resolutions in 1939 on sustainable forestry. The membership of the IWA and the people who work and live in the forest need to have sustainable forests. It's their only long-term future. They're the ones who hunt and fish in the forest. They want the forest to survive. They want their children and their grandchildren to be able to go to work.

So we have a good story to tell. We have the proof in order to be able to show people. Our ability to be able to get out and tell the world, I think, is the critical point we need.

The Chairman: Thank you, Werner.

I'll allow a final question to Roy. Then we'll go on to maybe some of the business that John and Gilles want us to look at. We need to wind the meeting up in the next short while.

Roy Cullen, please.

Mr. Roy Cullen: There's so much still to discuss. My colleague mentioned the Sunpine case. I know it's off topic, but our federal government— We appealed that decision. There were a number of us on this side who worked behind the scenes to make sure we did so.

We talked about metal studs. It's been known for ages within the forest industry that on a life cycle basis, wood is clearly a demonstrably better product environmentally. If Greenpeace is saying to take metal studs over wood studs, then I hope the industry is going gangbusters on that. I know the Canadian Wood Council has done a lot of work on this, as well as Forintek, you name it. So we have to, as you say, get the message out.

But there's at least one thing we haven't really touched on. We talked about some collaborative measures. My own personal take on it would be that if we're looking at some new approach, then we need to look at incremental resources. What are all the stakeholders doing now? How would we top that up?

• 1235

One stakeholder that's been left out so far is the province. I know I don't know what the IWA has been representing to them, but we all know for a fact that B.C. has become one of the highest-cost producers in the world. Mr. Wong, just for the record, I don't think you were trying to represent that the mill closures in B.C. were a result of Greenpeace or the Great Bear Rain Forest. We know why those mills are shut down: it's the Asian crisis.

The softwood lumber agreement didn't provide much allocation to the coast because it went on historical patterns. What else could one do? Now the Asian markets have dried up, so they're trying to move product to the U.S. and Europe. You're facing obstacles in Europe with these potential threats. You can't move product into the U.S. very well because a lot of the quota isn't there. It's just so we understand the issues.

I accept that we have a serious problem here. I talked about some of these programs. Some of them work very collaboratively with the province. So I think they clearly have to be part of the solution. I'm glad to hear that Glen Clark has set up another committee or something to try to address some of these problems.

For the record, with the fact that you haven't come up with any federal government sources of funding for Greenpeace, I guess my presumption is that there isn't any. I know at the press conference yesterday, the media seemed to be floating that one around.

In fact, there's Mr. Duncan's point. We, as the federal government, eliminated the charitable status for Greenpeace in 1995. With respect, Mr. Duncan, as for suggesting that we could tell the U.S. government that they should do the same thing, it's a matter of domestic policy. I suppose one could make representations, but if the U.S. government came to Ottawa and said we should reinstate the charitable status for Greenpeace or something, I'd tell them to go take a hike.

Let me just focus on something that may be a new twist. The new CEO of MacMillan Bloedel is Mr. Stephens. I think that's his name. John is an ex-MacBlo person.

Mr. Stephens has been thinking outside the box, if I can use that expression, on a number of issues. He said they were going to eliminate clear-cutting. Years ago, we would have thought that was impossible. He's now talking about auctioning timber to deal basically with the U.S. countervail issue. Frankly, I'm not sure if anything would please the Americans, but at least he's thinking.

With respect to the rain forest or old-growth forest, is there any way on that one from a producer point of view—just think outside the box—or is it just sort of black and white? Maybe you could comment on that.

Mr. Darrel Wong: I'd like to start off on that. First of all—I'm going to keep this really brief—I don't agree that the United States will ever stop trying to have some type of a tariff, whether it's on B.C. forest products or other products. I don't think that's going to fix our problem. I think we have to be pretty clear on that.

With regard to the issue of working with the provincial government, we're doing that on a daily basis. Really, coming to Ottawa is the unusual part for us.

So we're trying to expand our horizons in getting additional people involved to raise the profile of the issue and hopefully be more successful with a larger group being involved.

Mr. Ric Slaco: I have a forester's comment on practices. I think the one we all try to do—certainly it's our intention—is to apply a practice that's most ecologically suited to a site. I don't think you can say that one practice fits all. You have to be very specific and unique, and allow the professional foresters to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis.

But moving from that issue, the thing that's most common for all of us is the fact that Canada has a lot of natural forest. As we outlined earlier, I think the bigger concern right now is the ability and right of Canadians to make decisions about the management and harvesting of our natural forest. I think that's what's being questioned.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay. I'm curious about the U.S. producers. In the U.S., they have rain forests and old-growth forests. They have many of them. In fact, I remember a story about some members of the U.S. Congress who came to Vancouver. They were shown all this terrible destruction in some of these old-growth forests, and it turned out some of them were in Washington, Oregon and northern California.

• 1240

I'm wondering if the U.S. producers are being attacked as well—their old-growth forests, their rain forests. They would have some interest, I suspect, in anything to turn the taps off Canadian lumber moving into the U.S. markets. Would they be behind any initiative to support Greenpeace or any environmental movement in this particular initiative?

Mr. Bill Dumont: The industry in California in the redwood forests is under an even more intensive attack, and the impacts on environmental activism generally across the border in the Pacific northwest are the reason we're here. We have seen the devastation caused by the reduction on the U.S. national forest. The cut has dropped from 15 billion to 3 billion board feet in a matter of five years. Basically, we're talking in the range of 50,000 plus employees in that sector who have been affected by the spotted owl, the reduced harvest levels in the California forests, the major hits in Oregon and Washington.

The same is occurring in Alaska, but the fact is the groups promoting the boycott believe they have solved the problem there.

If you look at the numbers and the impacts, that's why we're here. We can see the trend moving north. Redwood is now banned in many sales areas in the U.S. because of these intense campaigns against it.

It's interesting that the campaign does become a species-directed campaign. For example, in Japan right now they are focusing on western red cedar, but it does shift to western hemlock, to different companies, to different jurisdictions. It moves around, depending on how effective they believe it can be. Redwood was probably the first target of this in spite of the fact that there are huge reserves of redwood now established in parks.

Don't get us wrong. We are as proud of our natural heritage in British Columbia as anyone, especially those who work in the forest. We want to see representative areas preserved, and in fact we have been promoters of getting to this 12% in British Columbia. It has been tough. It's hurt our bottom line at times, but we're not insensitive to the fact that a majority of Canadians and others internationally want to see our old growths preserved so that they're available for people to see 200 years from now.

The question is that we need to have a balance between what we utilize and what we keep and preserve. It's part of our heritage. My grandfather was a logger, and his heritage is part of that as well. It's important to first nations. We've made a lot of changes and we don't see the changes as a result of the campaign.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I won't belabour this, because I know we have to go. I would like to know whether the IWA in the U.S. and the U.S. producers might be a natural ally. Or are we already lost there? I'd just like to throw out my good friend Jack Munro's favourite expression: wipe your rear end with a spotted owl. I hope I haven't offended anyone's sensibilities. It was a line he used a lot and it really brought it home. It's so true.

We talk about metal studs or wood studs. We use so many products. Yes, we need to be environmentally sensitive, environmentally responsible. We have to somehow find solutions where we're caring for the environment, but we recognize that we have a lot of dependency on the products that come out of the forests, which are a renewable resource.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I want to bring to closure this part of the meeting.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank our delegation for appearing. I trust that we will meet again, one way or another.

You're welcome to sit there or take a little break from the table. We're going to take a couple of minutes to do a bit of business and then we'll say good-bye to you informally after.

• 1245

You've helped us to come to a much better understanding of the issues facing the coastal forestry sector. We know that you are environmentally conscious, that you are concerned about the forest heritage. You face a very radical movement that in most cases comes from offshore. So with that, we'll thank you.

I had notices of motion from John Duncan and Gilles Bernier.

Mr. John Duncan: Everybody probably has a copy of my four motions.

The Chairman: Do you want me to mention now that I've only received these today, and by our orders, we can't deal with the motions? It would be part of our practice to let the proponents say a couple of words about their motions so that we understand what we're going to be dealing with. We'll do this, hopefully, Tuesday or Thursday, John.

Mr. John Duncan: If you look at the brief that we were presented with today—

The Chairman: Page 6 is the beginning of the eight items.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, and the first six deal with international marketing strategies. I'm recommending that the standing committee adopt those as recommendations to the government.

The second motion deals with bullet 7 of those eight recommendations in “A Call to Action”, and it deals with the toughening of laws to prevent foreigners from illegally blockading forestry operations.

If you go to the Greenpeace website, for example, and look at all of the information in there, a lot of the tactics involve getting arrested. And when you look at the consequences of those arrests, it's almost always misdemeanour trespassing charges or no charges at all. So if there's never a punishment for the action that's substantive, then there's only an incentive, really, to carry on. There are so many things that flow in the way of public relations from actually portraying yourself as getting arrested.

Motion three deals with bullet 8, which is the final bullet. It essentially talks about the federal government monitoring and guarding against trade barriers. And these are the trade barriers that I described as non-tariff. I'm not sure, but the people who came here today may view them quite differently.

Motion four is the most important motion of the four from the standpoint that this committee is actually requesting that the presenters today come back to the committee with a plan and a budget on how they see an international marketing and countering of this boycott offensive to best work.

Philosophically, if we can get the plan developed not by the bureaucracy but by the stakeholders, and then adopted by the political level and implemented through the bureaucracy, we're further ahead than where we are now—even though I'm not, like the presenters, trying to denigrate in any way what's occurred till now through this motion.

The Chairman: Pierre, did you have a question about John's motions?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I have a few comments, and I won't go any further than that.

On motion one, “adoption” of the first six points doesn't seem to be very strong. Perhaps “implementation” would be stronger.

On motion two, you're referring to foreigners. Would you—

The Chairman: We're not debating, by the way. We're just informally discussing the motion.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: No, I just have some comments. I think it can be roused for the next meeting.

• 1250

You're referring to foreigners. Are you suggesting we should have laws that apply to foreigners but not to Canadians here in this country? That could be discriminatory. Furthermore, if it applies to foreigners, they cannot block— so let's hire local people to do that.

Mr. John Duncan: Can I make a comment on that?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Perhaps I can just get my comments over with. I have no problem with motion three.

On motion four, are these people from the industry and the union able to do what is requested here? Would it be useful to the government? Shouldn't we rather ask the people from the department to do this? They should be more able to do that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Pierre.

We'll have Roy, then John will wrap it up on that one.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a one o'clock meeting.

The motion raised a number of questions that I'm not sure I can deal with effectively here today. On the question the colleague opposite raised about foreigners and illegal blockading, it becomes a jurisdictional thing if you are going to implement anything along these lines. And I agree you couldn't just limit it to foreigners, but where does the province come in, the local police authorities, etc.?

I don't understand motion three. That's my ignorance. I'll read the brief more carefully.

On motion four, my own personal view is that if it has any chance of flying, it has to be a plan that reflects what's been done today, who's doing what and that sort of incremental funding that reflects all stakeholders. It has to be within the context of the fiscal framework we're all working within. That would be my take on it, anyway.

The Chairman: After John, very briefly, we'll deal with Gilles' notice.

Mr. John Duncan: Basically, on motion two, the concern about foreigners being targeted, if you want to work in this country you have to have a work visa. If you want to put Canadians out of work, you shouldn't be allowed to do that as a foreigner and get away with it. And if Canadians went to the U.S. and put people out of work at a work site, we'd be back at the border within five minutes. That's my point.

In terms of motion four, of course this has to be within a fiscal framework. Of course the department would have to take whatever is here and try to work with it. It's not trying to override everything that the department's doing. It's strictly a solicitation of a comprehensive plan from the stakeholders. That's all it is.

The Chairman: Thank you, John. This is an important area and we want to do the right thing.

Gilles gave me a notice of motion we can deal with. It's just a notice that a delegation representing the national resources and government operations committee travel to British Columbia to look at forest issues and practices related to the mid-coast of British Columbia. We'll leave it at that and discuss it at the same time next week.

Dave Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Werner asked me again to raise the issue of the parliamentary secretary, who committed herself—and we all heard her commitment—to present that report to this committee. Since the implementation is to take place on December 1, there was some urgency to that. I would certainly ask the chairman to follow up on that issue.

The Chairman: I will. I understand she's ill today. I will attempt to get a message to her as soon as I can and hopefully we can resolve that next week. Thank you for raising Werner's point.

With that, colleagues, thank you for your attention.

This meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.