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]

Monday, May 10, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Welcome, colleagues. I'd like to call to order this May 10 meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.

There's a mistake in the agenda that is in front of you today; we had Minister Goodale here last week. Today we have with us Dr. Yvan Hardy, assistant deputy minister, Canadian Forest Service, along with Pauline Myre, Doug Ketcheson, Dr. Carl Winget, and Richard Ballhorn, who are here to assist us in our study of Canadian forest management practices as an international trade issue.

As you know, a delegation from this committee is heading to B.C. tomorrow evening to spend several days visiting with British Columbians, local community leaders, industry representatives, union leaders, and environmentalists to learn more and to better understand the issue, shall we say, of the so-called European boycott—to try to better understand both sides of the issue.

We are pleased, Dr. Hardy and witnesses, that you are with us today to assist us.

Will you be starting the presentation, Dr. Hardy?

Dr. Yvan Hardy (Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources): Yes.

The Chairman: I invite you to take a few minutes, or whatever you need, really, and then we'll go to questions. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

and thank you for your welcoming remarks.

In addition to the persons that you named, Mr. Wally Dowswell from DFAIT has just joined us. Mr. Dowswell is a specialist with the softwood lumber agreement.

I presume that with the people we have here we'll be able to answer any questions.

[Translation]

I decided to make a very brief presentation so that committee members could raise relevant questions rather than have to endure me for hours on end.

[English]

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.

Before I get into the subject, there are two things from last week, two questions that were left unanswered. One was with relation to taxation on private woodlots and the year that the bulletin would come into effect. After checking with our colleagues at Revenue Canada, we can tell you that the year 2000 income tax return would be affected by that bulletin. The other one was a question on the proportion of forests being harvested versus the proportion of forests being lost to insects, diseases, and other natural phenomenon. The clerk has been or will be given a table giving you that information by province and territory.

Mr. Cullen also left us with a question in regard to primary forests and old growth. I will make just a quick remark here. “Old growth” is a term that has been used mostly out west and tends now to involve everything. Very often now, it is referred to as primary or natural forest. In terms of a specific question with regard to stopping the harvest of old growth or primary forests, it will probably not end tomorrow, because today in Canada the vast bulk of our forests is still natural and primary.

With those remarks, I'd like to get into my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will make the presentation in English, but I will field questions and answer them in either language.

• 1540

First, maybe I will give you a few statistics on Canada's forests. I won't bother you with a litany. Ten per cent of the world's forests are in Canada, which has 417 million hectares of forest. The other important number is that only 235 million of these hectares are so-called commercial forest. Forest operations have taken place on only 119 million hectares; that is, of our domain, a little more than a quarter is under management, exploitation. In total, less than 1% of the forests are either harvested or lost to natural phenomena every year; it's about 0.9% a year.

Now, where is Canada in forestry? In the world, Canada is at the forefront of forestry in many respects—in every respect, actually—whether we look at it from the scientific point of view or from the point of view of methodology and so on. Canada has been the first, for instance, to use bacillus thuringiensis for forestry applications. Canada has been the first to use things like pheromones. Today we're first in forest fire information systems.

Also, Canada has been first in many other more social aspects of forestry, like engaging in dialogue and working at the world level conventions and so on. Let me come back to the point with that. I never miss an occasion to say that the CFS, which I represent, has been key in many of these innovations—and always will be.

In terms of other innovations in Canada, I'd like the members here to keep this in mind: Canada is the only country in the world right now with a national forest strategy that encompasses every jurisdiction. There are some countries where forestry is a federal responsibility, and that's their strategy, but in a country like ours, this national forest strategy, which was renewed last year, has gained the support of almost twice as many stakeholders as the previous one did. The previous one had 29 signatories, and this one now has 42 signatories, including provinces, most of the forest industry, and ENGOs as well, so that says something about Canada.

Another thing that says something about Canada is that two countries, the U.K. and the Netherlands, are copying the way in which Canada went about the national forest strategy, that is, having an accord and now having a coalition to see to the implementation of that strategy.

Still on the positive side, Canada is the only country in the world that has its own criteria and indicators to define and measure sustainable development. The criteria define it along six lines, and the indicators are the means of measuring whether or not we're up to par.

We're also part of the multi-country Montreal process of criteria and indicators, which compares us to 11 other countries that grow boreal and temperate forests—with the exception of the European countries that have their own systems.

Again, Canada, with DFAIT, has been first at the forefront of the UN—UNCED—in the exercise around sustainable development. We have been a key player in the intergovernmental panel on forestry and now in the intergovernmental forum on forestry. Canada has been and still is pushing for a legally binding national forest convention which would level the playing field in terms of what should or should not be done in forestry and in which part of the country. This very often is part of our problem here with groups or people who do not agree with some policy; there are no basic rules, so you can have any kind of judgment.

• 1545

Another thing that I believe is important, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is the fact that there are many trends affecting us nowadays. For a long time, Canadian forestry adapted very well to the changing environment. The only difference is that the environment then wasn't changing as fast as it is changing today, where, in the global environment, communication and mass media and so on make it possible for almost anybody to see what's going on.

I will name some things very quickly. “Stop clear-cutting” is definitely a trend across the world, not only in this country. “Protect more forests” is another. There are people who would like to see all natural forests put aside so that we would get our fibre from only the so-called second-growth forests or plantation forests. There is definitely a changing attitude in the public vis-à-vis the role of forests. Even the Canadian public doesn't see the forest as only a place where you get a supply of fibre for producers. There is green consumerism.

We'll have occasion later on today to talk about certification. That market is definitely developing. There is more demand to have wood that is certified as coming from a substantively managed forest.

I should add competition to this list. The demand has grown and will keep growing, but at the same time competition has grown. I will just give you a few of the sources. Western European countries, after World War II, went into make-work projects and planted forests. These forests are now 50 years old, mature, and ready to harvest. In some cases, these forests have more than doubled the capability of countries to supply themselves. New technologies have allowed new species, especially tropical species that were not in the game of making pulp, paper, and other products. Now, with new technology, you can make high-quality paper with those species, so we have new competitors. Plantation forestry is doing the same thing. There are new players out there.

How do we face the competition? In many ways: through technology, through science, and so on. I presume you are aware of this federal-provincial initiative called IFPP. It's a program of partnership exchange that has as its objective the correction of misinformation or partial information or biased information in Canada. Every year that program is very active. DFAIT is key, with more than 90 posts at our missions across the world involved in correcting information, bringing people here, giving information, and so on.

Mr. Ketcheson here is just back from a tour in Europe with a couple of colleagues; it was about certification. He will tell you more, I'm sure, if he is primed with the right questions on the subject. But from what we know and from what we see in Europe, certification is now there, not that people are making judgments on the quality of forestry in this country or in other countries. What people are saying is this: give us insurance in the form of certification to show that your products are coming from a forest that is managed according to these rules.

A couple of people in this room will be going next week to the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is another of these trends. Foreign governments or bodies like the Council of Europe are dealing with a motion that could affect our trade. In this case, the Council of Europe has a motion on the table that consists of rescinding contracts with Canadian producers using wood from “non-sustainable” forests. So how do we know... Next week there'll be a workshop, the theme of which will be to debate that and to increase the partnership between the two countries so that the right information is conveyed.

• 1550

The Council of Europe, as a matter of fact, will have a delegation here in September in order to see for themselves what we're doing. Also, next year, always on that principle of getting the information out and having our forest management well understood, Canada will host a workshop for forest communicators on how to get the good news out.

We're in a time of transition. As I mentioned, the demand for wood is higher. There's no doubt about that. But more and more, what is at risk of being missing is the so-called socially acceptable wood, wood that either our own citizens, through their organizations, or other outside organizations will kind of “allow” us to harvest. That puts some additional pressure on our lands. A recent example of that is what happened in Ontario with “Lands for Life” and now with the legacy program. After an exercise of looking into what we're doing in the forests of Ontario, the net result is that Ontario still has the same industrial capability for processing but has, to be exact, 2.4 million less hectares dedicated to forest reproduction, meaning that new schemes, new approaches, and more intense approaches will have to be found if we want to keep these mills going.

Here is something interesting that happened at the right moment. Two weeks ago, the world forestry commission, which has been holding consultations across the world, came out with its report on their two or three years of consultation. Interestingly enough, they say, for example, that primary forests should be kept for protection and biodiversity and that Canada is well engaged in increased dialogue between the forest user and the forest dweller, and so on. If you get a chance, I would encourage you to look at it—to see the global trend.

In conclusion, there is quite a challenge in front of us in regard to forestry in Canada. Again, I have my bias. The first 100 years of the CFS have been very interesting, but I predict that the next 100 years will be much more interesting. The challenges are more numerous, things are moving more quickly, and the level of science needed to support new technologies is increasing.

Mr. Chairman, I'll stop with that. I hope I was faithful to my promise not to be too long. We're open to every question that you want to address.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Hardy. We certainly appreciate this as some of us get ready for a trip to B.C.

Werner is first, followed by Reg.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Dr. Hardy. I want to commend you on two things: number one, your brevity, and number two, the fact that you didn't read from a piece of paper. You actually know your stuff without having to wonder about who put this all together.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I thought that was very impressive.

To make sure that I understand them, I want to ask you about some of these numbers. On page 1, you indicate that less than one half of 1% of Canada's forests is harvested each year. Is that 1% based on the 417.6 million hectares or on the 235 million commercial hectares?

Ms. Pauline Myre (Acting Director General, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources): One half of 1% of Canada's total forest is harvested, so that's based on the 417.6 million hectares.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So actually that number should be doubled, because roughly half of it is commercial. Even though you have 417 million hectares it really doesn't mean anything in terms of commerce, because you can't harvest it anyway. So if you did want to harvest it, you would be restricted to 235 million. Is that correct?

• 1555

Dr. Yvan Hardy: That's the commercial forest.

Ms. Pauline Myre: Yes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The 235 million hectares.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Yes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So that's one half of 1% that is harvested. Really, though, it should read that closer to 1% is harvested.

Ms. Pauline Myre: If you're basing it on the commercial forest only, yes.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes. It's still a very small proportion. I just wanted to make sure I understood the numbers.

The question I have, then, has to do with certification. There seems to be a resistance to the certifying process. Why is there difficulty with that process?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: With respect to the resistance, I believe that things have moved very quickly. The initial resistance was the absence of market. A process was launched in Canada by the early 1990s, but there was no taker at the market end of it. In the past year and a half, somehow the situation has changed. Now, more and more, the buyers are saying that they believe we're doing a good job, but they are asking us to please prove it to them. The process we have to get true certification—and Mr. Ketcheson can speak at length on that—is a long one. To get CSA certification, I would say that it's at least 18 months from the beginning to end. We have some kind of vacuum right now.

Doug, would you like to go a little further with that one?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson (Director General, Industry, Economics and Program Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources): As Yvan said, first of all, it's terribly complicated to develop a standard from which to certify against. It's interesting that the Forest Stewardship Council, which is the group that's been at this the longest, has a target of 25 million hectares in the year 2002 and have only got to 18 million hectares worldwide, which is really a drop in the bucket relative to the world's forests.

In Canada, the process has been long in regard to getting the standard together, and the processes for CSA or for FSC or other approaches... Also, once you have a standard, it takes a long time to get certified. But recently the Canadian industry has announced that over the next three or four years something like 70 million hectares will come under certification. It's starting to move, but it has been a long and difficult process. I think it's fair to say that it has taken longer and has been more difficult than anyone contemplated when they were getting into this endeavour.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Have the standards been established?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: The Canadian Standards Association has a standard for Canada for sustainable forest management. To this point, one company has achieved certification. Also, one company in the maritimes has achieved certification under the Forest Stewardship Council standard. A number of companies—I don't have the acreage or the number—have achieved certification under the standard of the International Organization for Standardization—ISO 14001—which is a somewhat easier challenge than the other two.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Why are there three different standards?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: I think that there are various perspectives on certification arising over time. The international environmental movement was really the first group of interest to pursue certification, and they supported the Forest Stewardship Council approach. Currently, though, there are many approaches to certification, depending upon national interest, national perception. The Canadian industry chose to pursue an approach through the Canadian Standards Association through ISO. In Britain, you have a UK standard. In Sweden, you have a Swedish standard. In Finland, you have a Finnish standard. It's quite common for there to be different approaches to development of standards.

• 1600

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, that just confounds the issue in my mind, because if the buyer wants a certification and that certification is nationally determined, what does the standard really mean? Is it any different from what is there today without a standard?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: I think there's general recognition that standards need to be referred to international definitions of sustainable forest management. Given the wide array of circumstances one finds around the world with forests and the history of forest use, it's quite natural that you'll have domestic approaches.

The challenge for the coming years will be to find ways in which these various standards can be weighed against each other to provide the necessary certainty to the market about just what we're dealing with or what they're dealing with. I think the message on certification is that it's early days. A lot of time and energy have been put into it, but it's early days. Over the next ten years or so, we'll see a great development in the development of standards. I'm certain that we'll see a fair bit of coming together of the various standards relative to how they're viewed or not viewed.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm sure that's right. This European Council and their boycott of certain imports and certain lumbers is directly related to these standards, to the comparability of the different standards. I quite agree with that, and I wish you well.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: Thank you.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: You need a lot of luck—and a lot of patience too.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: I need all the help I can get.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: What efforts are being made now? You've just returned from the European Council. Exactly what is the potential for agreement or for coming together for a more or less common standard or for at least a standard that is comparable with those of other countries?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: At this point, I think, the driving force behind bringing standards together will be the market. In our visit in Europe, we found that there seems to be absolutely no doubt that certified products are going to be demanded in terms of marketing products in Europe. Having said that, there will be a number of approaches that are acceptable and the market will cause the proponents of the various approaches to come together.

Certification is a market phenomenon that's at arm's length from government and is voluntary, and that's where the participants want it, as far as I understand things. Market forces will determine which of the certification schemes are going to have credibility, but it's also market forces that will drive those certification schemes closer and closer together because there just will not be... Certainly in the European situation, I don't believe there will be one standard that can serve the whole demand. If retail companies, which are the driving force behind demanding certification, want to fill their stores with certified product, they're going to have reach out to what's available. In doing that, they will demand that the certification schemes come together so that they can sort through them and judge them.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay. Related to that, I think, is the whole question of expanding the consumption, I guess, of wood for construction, for house building and things like that, in various parts of the world. More lumber or more wood is coming into the marketplace. There isn't a shortage of supply in Canada and there's the certification problem, so I'm just wondering how these two things come together. On the one hand, you want to promote the use of wood, and on the other, there's a delay on the certification, and the market forces, as you say, will determine the certification issue. It seems to me that there's a potential for a bit of a problem here.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I don't believe that there will be a real problem. What is being described here is an emerging trend that has started to emerge over the past 12 to 18 months. It is clear that buyers will be seeking it, and countries are getting ready to respond to that.

In the meantime, that market is not very big. We're talking about maybe one person on the market at this point. If we look at it in an optimistic way, by the time the Canadian wood industry gets its act together and has some certified products out there, we should be on time for the expanding market. We're talking about a horizon of probably 12 to 18 months.

• 1605

As government, we can encourage—and our minister is quite vocal about this—industry to move forward. At the same time, we can offer the technical support of organizations like ours in order to solve some of the technical problems around certification.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'd like to move into softwood lumber.

The Chairman: Werner, could we come back to you?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Sure.

The Chairman: Reg, and then Paul.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Thank you, colleague Schmidt, for introducing the subject, because I will concentrate my questions on softwood lumber. I understand that Mr. Ketcheson is the spokesperson.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: Actually, Mr. Dowswell is the guru.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: All right.

How are you, Mr. Dowswell?

As you know, in the last three or four months especially, the U.S. Commerce Department has again started to harass our transporters of wood products through the United States. They started with two products that they say are value-added products and either do not conform with the established quotas or should be included in the quotas that were allocated three and a half years ago. Now they are up to 22.

Are you part of the team that will be negotiating this new agreement with the United States? That's my first question.

The Chairman: Reg, these are really important questions and we're going to go ahead with them, but I just want to say that most of today's meeting is on the B.C. preparations. Okay?

Mr. Réginald Bélair: B.C.?

The Chairman: Yes.

Nonetheless, this is very important, so please go ahead, Mr. Dowswell.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: This affects B.C. quite a bit too.

The Chairman: The European boycott of B.C. forest products... but that's okay, Reg.

Go ahead, Mr. Dowswell.

Mr. Wallace H. Dowswell (Director General, Export and Import Controls Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Mr. Chairman, rather than taking up the time of your committee on this, I can save time and talk to—

The Chairman: We're going to do this, Reg, as a separate meeting.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That was going to be my last question, actually.

The Chairman: Okay. Go ahead.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: Mr. Chairman, I could also stay behind for a chat on the side after you've finished your other discussion if people want to pursue softwood at this time.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: We don't want that on the side; we want that as a major subject. That's a big, big—

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: Okay.

The Chairman: It'll be a separate subject area.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: Okay.

The Chairman: Reg, if you like, we can ask our witness to make a comment now.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: If you're telling me I'm out of order, it's fine with me.

The Chairman: No, I'm not telling you that.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: No? I don't know.

The Chairman: It is a valid question and we will be addressing it later, but the member has asked this honestly and with sincerity. We'll ask Wally to say something about it.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: Sure.

The Chairman: Thank you, Reg.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: I think your particular question was about whether I am going to be a member of the team negotiating the follow-up to the softwood lumber agreement. We'll find out about that. As you know, the agreement is over in March 2001, so it's premature, I think, to assume that there is a renegotiation of that agreement. That has not been decided yet. In order to determine where we go next, there has to be a whole series of consultations with stakeholders over the next period.

Did you want a comment on the customs issue?

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Yes. That was a leading question, actually, because my question, if I can rephrase it, really should be this: are the Americans preparing the grounds for the next negotiation by harassing transporters at the border?

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: That is a leading question. I can't speculate on what their motives are, but it does reflect, I think, their point of view, which is that some of these exports that have increased since the start of the softwood lumber agreement are, in their view, as they contest, products that should be captured by the softwood lumber agreement. As you know, we in the government have taken a view counter to that and have contested it. Minister Marchi has made several comments on fighting some of these recent cases.

I will just add, though, with respect to the question of there being 22 products, that we're not aware of that. That seems to be an exaggeration as to what actually—

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Seems to be?

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: We expect it is an exaggeration.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's not what I've been told.

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: That's why I'm correcting it. Thank you.

• 1610

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Okay.

I'll redirect my next question, to

[Translation]

Mr. Hardy, could you tell the committee what is happening internationally? How is Canada promoting our forest products abroad at this time?

From the political and public relations perspective, what measures have been taken to correct the situation? Currently, in Europe there are groups engaged in depicting Canada in a very negative and harmful way. What are we doing to counteract such efforts?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: I'll begin by answering your last question and I'll ask Mr. Ballhorn to make comments.

Together with the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers we have launched a very dynamic program to respond immediately to any false, partial or distorted information broadcast in Europe regarding Canadian forestry. This is being done in several ways, mainly with the help of Canadian missions all over the world, both embassies and consulates. In each embassy, there is at least one person who knows the files from A to Z and who has the necessary documents to respond to the most current questions.

There is also a Canada-wide network that is able to respond almost immediately to support these people. Every month, an average of 60 interventions occur without anybody realizing it. The information is given to the purchaser, the journalist or to anyone concerned, and it is always up to date.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Do we have the collaboration of foreign police forces?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Occasionally we do, on request from the ambassador, when there is a boycott, or when people chain themselves to a ship and things like that.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: There are also illegal seizures of cargo.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Decisions are made locally, and our embassy, after consultation, decides on the best measures to take. In some cases it may involve police action; in other cases, we can keep the boat offshore at 2 degrees below all night, and anyone chained to the mast might think it's a good idea to unchain himself. There are different methods.

[English]

Mr. Ballhorn, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Richard D. Ballhorn (Director General, International Environmental Affairs Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): On the trade promotion side?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: On the IFP program and the trade and promotion—

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: Right.

Essentially it's a basic information program; you're basically trying to combat the negatives and the incorrect messages and put out, I would say, the correct message and a positive image for Canada.

This is concentrated in a limited number of countries where the environmental pressures are the strongest; there are a limited number of places in Europe, in the United States, and occasionally in Japan. It's been mostly a phenomenon of the United States, the two coasts, and western Europe, about four or five countries. It's led very much by very strong environmental groups. They're very good at getting attention, although they often get more attention from our papers reporting the thing than they do from their local papers.

Sometimes we get maybe an excessive sense of the importance of these demonstrations with regard to how much they get picked up. Our own media is more sensitive to them than the media is in, say, Germany. Sometimes we will see something in the press here and ask the embassy in Bonn about it, and they will say, well, it happened, but it got no press, no media coverage. Sometimes the impact is less than we think.

Forestry is an issue that raises money for NGOs. It's an issue that has a lot of resonance in Germany—that's probably the strongest area—and also somewhat in places like Austria and the Netherlands, and a bit in the U.K. as well. In the U.K., it has been much more at the retail level, where there's been pressure on retailers to resist clear-cut forest products and go for certified products.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Could you tell us about the impact of those boycotts or hijacks?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: There are a couple of levels of things. There are things where—

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Is it going to alert people in Europe? That's what you're saying. It's minimal?

• 1615

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: It depends on the groups. Obviously there are things at which protesters are out with balloons and everything else and are actually out there blocking things. There are other cases in which, by writing letters, etc., they are actually putting pressure on the wholesalers, retailers, and importers to buy products. That's basically informational. Again, by and large, it's something that we work on with the Canadian buyers or shippers. It's not something that the Canadian government necessarily takes the lead on. It obviously has to work with the person trying to sell into Europe, which is the target of the protest. That's how we tend to co-operate.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: A last question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: The European Council will be debating a motion or a resolution dealing with Canadian forest practices. This has to come from somewhere. They would not debate this if there were no interest in the matter.

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I wouldn't say there's no interest. Of course there is, and it's something that's in the public. Sometimes these motions are the product of members of parliaments having a particular interest in overseas forest issues. Sometimes it's also focused on other countries, not just on Canada; sometimes it's focused on the tropical countries, on the southeast Asias.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Do you know which country is sponsoring the motion?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: That's where I'm not sure of the details, but I think the forestry service might be aware of it.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Yvan, is it Belgium?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I'm told that my colleague is saying that it is Germany.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: But he's saying that it's Belgium.

The Chairman: It's Belgium or Germany, Reg. Is that okay for now? We can come back to you if you like.

We'll go to Paul Crête and then to Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Could you repeat the name of the gentleman over there for me please?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Wally Dowswell.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Dowswell, you said that the lumber agreement expires in March 2001, but you said especially that we might not have to negotiate a new agreement.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul, we'll allow just a small question. The meeting focus is the European boycott of forest practices... if you read that... We'll allow a short question about that.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You said that we might not have to negotiate an agreement. Does this mean that the Canadian government is currently looking into the possibility of following the recommendation of the Conseil du libre-échange du bois d'oeuvre, directed by Mr. Dottori, president of Tembec, which recommends that we should review the option of coming back to full free trade rather than to negotiate a specific agreement?

[English]

Mr. Wallace Dowswell: As I was mentioning, at this point the government has not made a decision as to what will happen at the termination of this agreement. We are starting a process to consult stakeholders on the range of options, which includes seeking industry's views on whether they want to have an agreement of this type or have no agreement or what. There is no presumption of one or the other. The Free Trade Lumber Council, with Mr. Dottori, is one particular group proposing its views. We will be speaking with them over the next several months... six months in the entire process.

The Chairman: If I may, I will say that this committee has agreed to study this issue, but it's separate from this. We will likely be starting that in the fall, once the minister's preliminary consultations have started.

Okay, Paul?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Regarding Europe, could you give us a more detailed picture of the countries that are the most aggressive in defending the environmentalists' point of view, those that are the most involved in these matters and that launch international actions? I suppose that you are in touch with the members who represent each party of the House in the Council of Europe. If there are representations to be made, they could be done by our membership. I would like to know what your position is regarding this.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: We have already named the most aggressive countries, Germany, the United Kingdom and Holland. These are the three most active countries regarding this issue.

• 1620

Communication with the European Council or the European Parliament occurs more regularly among officials than among parliamentarians. The forestry people whom I represent, and our colleagues from External Affairs are frequently in touch.

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, we have looked into this, and Belgium is promoting this motion.

Mr. Paul Crête: Is there any specific action against those countries, Germany, the United Kingdom and Holland, to neutralize their efforts? Is there any specific strategy?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: The motion tabled before the Parliament of the Council of Europe resulted in two things. First, there will be a task force sitting in Paris next week as we requested. We told them: "Very well, you want to pass a motion on Canadian forestry, but it may be useful to know something about Canadian forestry, and we are offering you an opportunity to learn about it from representatives from Parliament, industry, the public service, etc.. And moreover, why don't you come and visit us?" Thus, a delegation of parliamentarians from the Council of Europe will come to Canada and travel in our forests.

Mr. Crête, every time that critics from outside come to visit us on the ground, they always leave with a better opinion than the one they arrived with because they finally understand how we operate.

Mr. Paul Crête: You have already mentioned those things. Is there no specific lobbying operation for the most aggressive countries?

Has there been collaboration with Canadian parliamentarians who will go to Europe to pursue this very matter, who will go to the Council of Europe and participate in the work of the Council of Europe and who often have privileged contacts with members or ministers? This kind of influence can be brought to bear elsewhere than just in the general assemblies. Is any specific effort being made for this?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: For instance, your colleague Byrne, the parliamentary secretary, is following current events in Europe and often travels to Europe to bear the Canadian message.

You've said a lot about different countries. Obviously, we must identify those countries, but as a general rule, these actions are not initiated by the governments of those countries but by small groups or various kinds of groups operating in those countries. You said that there is continuous activity going on. Mr. Ballhorn and I described the PIPF program, but apart from that, there is the United Nations network that we are following very closely and where we can have an enormous influence on the debate. We have regular and sustained contacts with countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

Canada has just launched what we call the Costa Rica Initiative, aimed at clarifying the contents and consequences of a possible world forestry convention. This keeps us in constant contact not only with officials worldwide, but also with pressure groups and with industry.

Thus, Canada is very active. We're probably never active enough, Mr. Crête, but with the limited means at our disposal, we don't let many things get by.

Mr. Paul Crête: Have you heard whether the film called L'Erreur boréale is having an effect anywhere in Europe? Has this film been requested for foreign countries? Have you done anything to protect us against its negative effects? You said that there were small groups involved. We don't necessarily need many people; it's enough to have people who know how to communicate efficiently to get very impressive results.

• 1625

Mr. Yvan Hardy: To my knowledge, since L'erreur boréale came out, there was a mention of it in the press, an article in a newspaper in northern Italy. That is all we saw in the press. As long as this film, L'erreur boréale, is not translated into another language, it will probably stop there.

Ms. Myre tells me that Sweden is using it.

Ms. Pauline Myre: I was told this morning that Sweden was using pictures from the Erreur boréale film in its meetings with certain purchasers of forestry products. So, in Europe, they're beginning to use it. Once they'll have translated it into other languages, it may become even more popular.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Regarding the final part of your question, the material for counteracting this disinformation is already prepared. We're working closely with Quebec on this, within the program I've mentioned, that seeks out the hot spots, for all practical purposes.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Paul.

Roy, Gerald, and John.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Hardy, gentlemen, thank you very much.

[English]

I'm sorry I missed your presentation.

The Council of Europe is different, of course, from the European Parliament. It's based in Strasbourg. Do we have any on-the-ground presence in Strasbourg? If not, how do we cover that off from the point of view of the diplomatic corps?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: We used to have a consulate there. We no longer do. It's covered out of Berne, Switzerland, to my knowledge. So the ambassador to Switzerland, I think, is also accredited in terms of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So this motion, then, before the committee of the environment...

There was an issue before about asbestos. I don't know if you're aware of that. The Council of Europe set up a similar process to hammer asbestos products. There's a lot of overlap between the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.

What's your best intelligence right now in terms of this particular initiative of the environment committee at the Council of Europe? What are they after? Is it forest management practices generally in Canada? Is it ancient forests? Who is behind it? Can you brief the committee? We're going to be going over there in the not-too-distant future. Who are the main players? What are they up to?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I can only speculate on that one, but my experience with the European Parliament is that they usually don't need to be the messenger for somebody else. The Green Party attracts some people with very strong views. In Brussels, I know, whenever I've had to meet with them, it's been easy to see they're people talking from their own convictions.

Now, their convictions were usually matched by their ignorance of a particular situation. Europeans tend to compare whatever they see with what they have in their own country. What they have in their own country usually is very nice and cute, but it's very bad in terms of what's going on in the environment.

Actually, I forgot it, but I wanted to bring you an image from the latest report from the Swiss forestry administration. It shows with pride a nice picture of a mountain with rocks on top, then some pasture and a clump of trees here, a clump of trees there, and a road going through. If we compare that with what we're doing, I would call that a clear-cut turned bad. Our clear-cuts regenerate into trees. That clear-cut, which likely was done 500 years ago, has been totally converted to some other use. The biodiversity is gone. Instead of having worms in the soil you have lambs that graze, lambs that eat everything. But it's cute. It's nice.

Very often the motive is what looks nice, but sometimes what looks nice is not so nice. That's where the education of parliamentarians is very important. For any critic, actually, it's very important.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Good. Thank you.

• 1630

The Chairman: Thank you, Roy.

Gerald, please.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'd like to thank the delegation and Mr. Hardy for returning after the last time. It's good to see you again.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Thank you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to keep them specific to B.C. forest products and the possible embargo of our product in Europe.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I said I'd try. We can go off on a tangent pretty easily.

There's something I have a bit of a problem wrapping my head around. In the forest industry, we talked ten years ago about ISO certification through the International Standards Organization and the Canadian Standards Association, but there was never really any integrated plan that set down a specific strategy of how this was going to happen.

There are other certifiable groups—and I say that tongue-in-cheek—

The Chairman: I get it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: —very good—specifically the Forest Stewardship Council, which has, I think, another agenda and other criteria.

We've supported some of those groups, to a degree, with Canadian tax dollars, and have ended up with a hodge-podge certification where you can go for one of three possible programs. I'm just wondering if we could get the three groups together, understanding that we can't ignore any one group, to come up with a really coordinated plan of somehow striving for a certification.

That's my first question.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Certification in Canada came to birth in terms of a reaction. People were reacting to each other. The FSC did something, and the CSA, and they went on parallel paths. Once the process was in place, there was no real demand; it's only been very recently.

What my colleague here tells me is that in Europe, where they seem to be ahead of us by 12 months or something like that, there's one condition for a certification scheme to be accepted. It's a moral condition that somehow, whatever the name of the system, whoever put it into place, it would have to have some type of green stamp on it.

So the wedding of CSA and FSC might very well be a solution. I can only speculate at this point in time if that will happen, but I would not be very surprised if it did happen within a 12- to 18-month horizon, and the best of these two processes did come together to make a credible system.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think there's going to be some difficulty bringing the two groups together.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Well, five years ago it was impossible, but...

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are some very divergent points of view and a lack of respect sometimes between the two groups. There seems to be a lot more science and a lot more guts on one side than the other.

That aside, I think that's a point to our panel and to the chair, certainly, that we need to be pursuing as politicians some type of integrated plan with the European market.

The other thing that I don't think we can be vigilant enough on is that every time we lose a small battle, we almost look away. We've gone to other markets, whether it be in the U.S. or wherever, and that's hurt us on the international market.

I won't get into a discussion with Yvan on the pine-bore nematode, because we've had it many times, but it's a case in point where we lost a $900 million market to Europe. Some of that was our own fault. Some of that was from a lack of will to really regulate our own suppliers.

If we're going to put a strategy in place where we have certification, we also have to have someone in there, through the Canadian government or someone else, to be a regulator, to make sure we have certification and the players abide by it.

• 1635

So that's the other part. Obviously, that would be someone in government, I would expect, whether that be Canadian Forest Service or another branch that's developed.

Are we looking down the road at that?

Does anyone want to try that?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: Mr. Keddy, I would suggest that you may not want that. Certification is a voluntary private sector initiative. It's arm's length from government. As long as it stays there, while it poses some challenges for trade and competition we're somewhat sheltered from intergovernmental actions that can limit trade. We're sheltered from rules that may emerge, government-level rules that may put us into difficult circumstances with regard to protecting our rights relative to trade and market access.

It's very important that Canadian industry come together on the challenge of certification, and it's very important that governments help technically, as they can do. It's very important that we remain vigilant against other countries taking actions that would limit our access to their markets.

If we assume a regulatory responsibility, that changes the rules, and it may not offer us many benefits.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate those comments very much. At the same time, I guess what I'm saying is that, still, we've been dependent upon industry for some time to self-regulate, and it simply has not happened. We have one player in eastern Canada—on either side of the boat, we might as well say—actually certified. That's not sufficient.

I agree with you that government would be the last place we'd want to go, but somehow or another we have to bring all the groups to the table. At the same time, either they set up a group themselves—and CFS or someone could sit on that board—or, if we're going to have a plan, we have to have some type of regulation for it. I've sat on too many private industry boards that had no regulators. To me, they wasted too many hours in debate. It becomes a serious flaw if you can't have...

Enforcement should mean that you're going to make a profit, and that you're doing this for the right reasons, but sometimes you can't have that, and that's a difficulty.

The other issue—and I'm not sure it hasn't been answered—is the bigger issue of the forest owners and the forest users, and that association with Europe. I haven't been to see an old-growth forest anywhere else in the world but British Columbia, but I would assume you'd get the same type of feeling when you walk through that type of timber. Many of us just look at it and wonder what it would sound like when it hit the ground, but at the same time, a lot of people who look at it think it should never hit the ground, and believe in their minds that it would never fall down, either, or be eaten by insects, or be destroyed by fire. So somehow or another, those two groups...

That's a bigger question, and one I don't know if we're going to solve. I don't know if there's a plan. The educational part of it sounds a little hollow. We can educate and educate until we're blue in the face and it doesn't do it, not even within Canada let alone Europe.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerald.

Any comments on Gerald's last points?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Does anybody want to try that, or shall we leave it as a comment?

The Chairman: No takers, Gerald.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: On the certification question, would the model be the CSA model of enforcement?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: At this point in time, there is absolutely no model for government enforcement. The CSA has developed a standard for sustainable forest management, and companies may choose to pursue certification under that standard. The evaluation of their efforts would be done through independent arm's-length auditing. The auditors would be accredited through national auditing accreditation bureaus.

That's not a government activity.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, I know it's not.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: That's a private sector activity.

• 1640

The Chairman: Werner, I have you on the list. I'm going to let Gerald have his last minute, and then we're going to go to John and then you.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's fine.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's a fair question, but I guess the other question concerns the cost of certification. Do you have a handle on the cost of certification per industry or per company?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: No, sir, I don't.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It would vary, I realize.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: It would vary. I've heard lots of grumbling, but I don't know what that means in number terms. It's not cheap.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I know it's not cheap. I think we all realize that.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerald.

John Duncan, then Werner.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): I wasn't going to start with certification but I might as well, because that's where we are.

I was really happy to hear Mr. Ketcheson's response in terms of this being a private sector initiative and so on. Inevitably, though, the federal government and the representatives bring up certification in their public utterances. Inevitably, politicians on all sides of the House bring up this issue. Inevitably, industry brings it up, and inevitably, parts of industry will say, okay, what has the federal government done for me lately in terms of certification? What are they going to do for the small players in certification? The worker representatives, the unions, ask similar questions.

I guess it begs the question that there really isn't clarity or a clear mission statement of what is the real role of the federal government when it comes to this whole issue of certification.

I realize it's been a very fluid circumstance, and a very dynamic circumstance, but I think it's probably really appropriate at this time to have exactly that—a clear statement of the government's intent in reference to the whole issue of certification. Now, maybe you have it, but at this point, I suspect not.

That's my question.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: I've spent a lot of time over the last year or so talking to people about certification. While it is a moving target, I would suggest that the role of the federal government is quite clear. It may not coincide entirely with the expectations of the populace at large, but it's quite clear.

First and foremost, our responsibilities for trade and market access cause us to be vigilant on the part of Canadian companies in terms of having certification not turn into a barrier to trade. We would deal with that in the context of our constitutional responsibilities and in the context of international trading rules.

Second, we're very active in developing, through various processes, approaches to the definition of sustainable forest management. Many certification schemes around the world, including the CSA, use that work as a reference relative to development of standards for forest management. We've been extremely active providing technical support to various developmental schemes, whether it's CSA or Forest Stewardship Council, on the development of standards.

We're very active in providing a liaison and coordination/information service amongst the governments in Canada whose responsibilities touch the subject to a greater or lesser degree.

Finally, we provide advice—and some people would say too often—to interested parties in Canada who are interested in certification and where it might be going.

• 1645

So I think, sir, we're very active, and have been very active and very supportive on the certification front. The government has not taken a formal position on certification, which relates to earlier comments in this meeting, but the government certainly has been attentive to and is active in this area.

As the various groups looking at certification proceed towards achieving it, whether it's on Vancouver Island or in the Maritimes or in other parts of Canada, some of the frustrations related to the pursuit of certification are I think clarifying. This is a long road. In Europe it was a long road, and it's a long road here. We're just finding out, really, what the landscape may look like along that road.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

What, to your mind, would be the number one thing the government could do that would turn into a potential barrier to trade? Let me guess—would it be that the government would go out and subsidize someone or pay for a company to achieve certification? Would that soon be perceived as an unfair trading practice, for example?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: I think the most obvious barrier to trade would be where a country took overt action to demand certification in the marketplace for trade in that country, and went beyond that and specified which particular scheme would have preference.

Mr. John Duncan: That would be external. I'm thinking of internal.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: What's the greatest barrier internally to certification?

Mr. John Duncan: That would lead to a challenge by one of our trading partners about internal Canadian practice.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: I think it would work the other way, sir. I don't think they're going to challenge us as exporters. I think we would be challenging them as exporters.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. I thank you for the clarity of your answers.

To change the subject here, a recent news article talks about a group called “Ruckus”. This is directly related to our B.C. trip.

One of the things that happens in B.C. is that we get external influences, such as professional protesters from Europe or the States, demonstrating against Canadian or British Columbian natural resource industries. This has always frustrated British Columbia individuals, or many individuals in the resource industries. We get people tying themselves to logging equipment or placing themselves in a fashion where they prevent people from going to work. These people are here on visas and so on. They're entering Canada to put Canadians out of work, basically.

Now we have a professional protest group that's announced they're going to be doing the same thing in the province of Alberta. They're from outside the country as well. These people target natural resource industries.

Do you have any knowledge of the federal department of natural resources, the forestry sector or whatever, complaining? Are you aware of any actions the federal government might be taking in this regard to level the playing field so that if you want to come here to work, you need a visa, and that if you want to come here to try to put people out of a job, you need special permission?

Mr. Richard Ballhorn: I'll try to answer that one.

I don't think B.C. or Alberta are very shy about looking after their own interests. Obviously it's happened in British Columbia that there have been cases where people have been in courts and been tried, and in some cases found guilty. That was done by B.C. courts, under the B.C administration of justice. I think they seem to be able to handle the issue. I suspect Alberta could probably do much the same.

• 1650

The challenge, of course, is that we don't have a border that has a history of visas. With most developed countries, we don't have a visa system, so it's pretty hard to know exactly, when people are coming across the border... to really be able to say that it would exclude them on the basis that they were going to take on some kind of protest activity.

I'm certainly not aware of this exact group, but there is a lot of activity among NGOs in the forest area.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm told by friends in the RCMP that one simple change could be made to the Criminal Code that would actually allow them to take virtually immediate action on some of these groups—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You'll never get the death penalty.

Mr. John Duncan: —because currently it's virtually impossible. I think possibly you're underestimating how much these protests have cost not only workers but also companies, and the economy in general.

Another question relates to charitable status. Canada took the lead and removed the charitable status of Greenpeace after about a three-year investigation. If you look at some of the files, you'll find that Canada had very good reasons indeed for removing charitable status from that organization. However, most of the revenues of that organization are raised internationally, and a lot of their political work is directed against Canadian forest practices.

Has there ever been a complaint from the government, or one that you're aware of, directed to the countries that are the major source of funding for that organization to have a look at the appropriateness of their granting charitable status?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Not to my knowledge.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

I now have only Werner on my list. There's no one else. We can finish up with Werner.

Do you want to take us to 5 p.m., Werner, or John?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Sure, if it takes that long. I'm not sure it will.

I want to follow up on that CSA model. It's a voluntary model, as I understand it, by and large. It probably has a very unique application to the forestry industry, but it's very powerful when it comes to the other industries. It is very effective. It works very well.

I was just wondering whether that was the model, from that point of view, being pursued by the people behind the certification process.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: As I understand it, Canadian companies have chosen just to pursue certification under all of the certification standards available to them, including the CSA standard. As well, companies have chosen to pursue certification under the Forest Stewardship Council. At this point, the great majority of them have expressed a preference for the ISO 14001 approach to certification.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I guess I didn't ask my question well. It has to do with the regulatory powers that I think Gerald Keddy was asking about. I think that's the issue here.

I don't particularly care whether it's ISO 5000 or 10000 or 1000, or whether it's CSA or something else. The issue is, what's the mechanism that will encourage compliance?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: As I said, sir, the certification is a voluntary activity. Companies may or may not choose to pursue certification. They may choose to pursue whatever method or scheme is appropriate to their circumstances and need.

The government does not have a position of preference relative to any of these schemes. As a voluntary measure, the choice of approach rests with the private sector.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm still not asking my question well. I quite accept the fact that they can register wherever they want to, but having registered—under CSA guidelines, for example—if they suddenly don't abide by those guidelines, what happens? Do they lose their certification under CSA, even though it's voluntary? Would there then be voluntary decertification?

• 1655

Dr. Yvan Hardy: You have to start one step backwards. The first thing to remember with regard to sustainable development in Canada is that forestry acts are in each one of the provinces. Each province claims, with reason, that their forestry act regulations and so on, and everything that comes with them, meet, if you abide by them, high standards of sustainability.

Now, that's where certification comes in.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's right.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: People don't believe that; the laws are not applied and so on. So they say, okay, let's have a third party who's credible look at what we've done, and if we have abided by the provincial legislation and the other things added, if need be, to measure up to certain standards, then we'll be certified. If we don't, we'll lose our certification, or we'll never get it.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's what I was after. If you deviate, you lose it.

That clarifies it, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Werner.

I guess we can have a short concluding question from Reg.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the last ten or twelve years, a lot of research has been done on multiple uses of especially hardwood fibre in the making of pulp. Has this been used in any way to defuse the misinformation that has been going on in your...

[Translation]

Do you want me to put the question in French, Yvan?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: During the past 10 or 12 years, a great deal of research has been done to find out whether hardwood fibre can be used to produce pulp.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Pulp and paper, yes.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Were the results published? And if so, are these results being used to dispel the false information being spread in Europe?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: I'm not sure if I understood the second part of the question, but I'll come back to it.

Regarding research on using poplar, aspen or other species...

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Or birch.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: ...which were not previously used, this research has been completed, and many factories are currently using it. Mixtures are being made. They use 80% hardwood pulp and 20% softwood pulp to make a very marketable product.

You also asked me whether the results of this research were used to dispel—

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Some say that we're not using all the available pulp in Canada and that this is wasteful. This image is being used. They're saying that hardwood is being killed with herbicides.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: All right, I understand.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: They say that this is a waste of wood and fibre, and I was asking you whether the research has allowed us to use this hardwood now in order to use as much of the fibre as possible?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: We use hardwood. Currently, in Canada, 0.4% of the wood that is cut or 1% of the commercial forest, as your colleague put it, includes hardwood. There are several provinces where the use of hardwood and softwood has almost reached a limit.

• 1700

As regards waste or the killing of trees, we are no longer doing much killing currently with insecticides or herbicides. In the early 1980s, some experiments got out of hand. For instance, they would cut a stand of hardwood and plant a stand of softwood in its place, but the hardwood, such as aspen, would grow back and we would have to spray. We learned through experience, and we have abandoned such practices.

The negative effect of this is that competing countries are also using the technology that allows quality pulp to be produced from our hardwood. For instance, eucalyptus until recently was considered as a very cute species, fast growing, but useless for any practical purpose. Currently, very good pulp is being produced with the species by using thermomecanical techniques that damage the fibre less than the formerly used chemicals and other procedures would.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Is this information being broadcast in Europe?

Mr. Yvan Hardy: Yes, but only on request.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Greenpeace is basically saying the opposite simply to impress people.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: If Greenpeace is using that, we will certainly broadcast this information.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: We must do this.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: I'm rather surprised because I did not hear this in the Greenpeace messages.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Oh, really.

Mr. Yvan Hardy: But I do not mean to say that I've heard everything, especially with regard to Greenpeace.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Reg.

[English]

I'd like to thank my colleagues, and I'd also like to extend our appreciation to all our witnesses today for their assistance in helping us to prepare for our study of international trade issues with respect to management of Canadian forests.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Thank you.

The Chairman: We're adjourned.