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]

Tuesday, December 1, 1998

• 1105

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): We're going to start. Our meeting really has two parts. There is an open part of the meeting, during which we will deal with the resolutions for which we were given notice last Thursday by John Duncan. I'll get John to speak about all those motions in a few moments, and we can maybe deal with them all at once. We then have the motion of Gilles Bernier on a delegation of the committee travelling.

At this point, I'll also tell you that I have received a notice of motion from Mr. Bernier for a future business meeting. I'll just read this motion:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108, this committee send for all documents related to the decision by Canada Post Corporation to change the fee structure of the Canada Post franchisees and to the consultation process of the corporation with its private vendors regarding the implementation of the new fee structure. This order should exclude documents that may be of a commercially sensitive nature.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Do you have copies of that?

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): No, I don't.

The Chairman: I just received it, so Susan will take this and get it translated, and she'll distribute copies to everybody.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: When I bring a motion, should I have copies for everybody and have it translated?

The Chairman: I don't think you're required to, but it's better.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Okay.

The Chairman: In this situation, Susan—you all know Susan Baldwin—will undertake getting it translated and getting it out to everybody.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Are we on the orders at the moment?

The Chairman: We're just doing some miscellaneous stuff before we start with the motions. Did you want to say something, Werner?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, I'd like to follow up on the report that Madame Parrish was to have presented last Thursday but didn't. I think you indicated that the report would be here today. Is it?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): This is all of the content of the verbal part of the report last week. The only thing you don't have here is the schedule of meetings that took place. It was very expensive and was supposed to be translated, but it's still not here, Werner. I can't explain why it isn't.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, I take some exception to that, because I think it affects not only the schedule but also the persons or the groups or franchises with whom the meetings took place. I'm really anxious to get that information because, as you well know, I think it pertains directly to the content of the motion that Mr. Bernier has presented. In fact, I think it goes beyond that. So I would really encourage Madame Parrish, through you, Mr. Chair, to give the report to the committee at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): On that note, Mr. Chair, there were several meetings that took place with the minister responsible for the Treasury Board a couple of weeks ago that haven't been received by the committee.

The Chairman: That's right; for example, on the jobs in Newfoundland.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: If our clerk or researcher could go through the transcripts to find out specifically what requests were made, it would be just to follow up on that as well.

The Chairman: So if we were to have a short business meeting next week before we end up for Christmas, would that be enough time for that, Carolyn? Yes? Okay, so when we're debating Gilles' motion next week, that could be part of that discussion. Is that okay, Werner?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm sure it will be.

The Chairman: Carolyn.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Could I just comment, please? On this press release that has come out, you'll note that the changes went in after midnight last night, but the commitments in this are vastly different from the original proposal. I think that's directly due to an extensive consultation with this committee and with all the backbenchers of both parties. It's a rather dramatic change. Quite frankly, it's like night and day. The people under $149,000 are now going to get a 2.5% fee based on twelve equal payments, which they didn't have before.

• 1110

The really important commitment, too, is what you'll notice on the second page: for the little postal outlets—the little guys, like smoke shops that were buying stamps from the bigger franchisees—if the franchisees don't want to handle those stores any more, we'll supply them directly. That's brand new, so nobody who currently sells stamps will go without selling stamps. In actual fact, the little corner stores that get them at 5% will probably be making more money than they were when they were getting them jobbed out by the franchisees. This is a rather remarkable response, both to this committee, as I say, and to all the caucuses that have had serious concerns about it.

I'm even more impressed than you probably are. I watched the machinations that went on behind the scenes. This is vastly different, and there will be no one suffering across the country. If you read the second page, even people with tiny outlets will be, on an individual basis, guaranteed that they're not going to lose any money.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't know what more can be done by Canada Post and by the minister, but I think he has really gone 360 degrees on this.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's right, 360 degrees, so he's back where he started. The difference is 2.5%.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, and you know that's not true.

An hon. member: There's a mathematician in the crowd, is there?

The Chairman: Colleagues, we might be actually getting into future business, if any. At the future business part of the meeting, when I'm going through a list of things we've done and what not, maybe you can say something at that time.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And I promise I'll have those at the meeting on Thursday.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you for that, Carolyn.

You're going to get notice of a meeting tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. Colleagues, you will remember that a few months ago, in the spring, the committee was asked to interview the then proposed Information Commissioner—and you had a delegation here from your party. The Information Commissioner was appointed by Parliament, as opposed to being appointed by cabinet. This committee agreed to conduct that interview with John Reid, and, based on that meeting, Parliament appointed Mr. Reid as Information Commissioner.

In this public setting, I can't give you the name of the person making the request—I can give it to you later—but we have been asked to do a similar interview tomorrow, this time for the Commissioner of Official Languages, whose office again falls under our committee's purview. Unless there is some procedural reason why we can't do it, I'm proposing a meeting of the committee for 3.30 p.m. tomorrow.

I'm not sure if this was done in camera the last time or not; I can't remember. Anyway, whatever the basis was the last time, if it was acceptable to all the House leaders, we'll use the same basis tomorrow. And as I said, I can tell you confidentially who made the request, but it would be an interview with the lead candidate for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, another parliamentary appointment.

We don't have a room yet, but Susan will be getting this notice out to you.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chairman, where do these nominations come from?

The Chairman: I think they're vetted through the Primer Minister's Office.

It's not a requirement that this committee interview any of these positions. I think it worked well with the Information Commissioner, though, and I understand that all House leaders have asked this committee to do it again for the languages commissioner.

John?

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): I just want to get a point of clarification. If the individual's candidacy is not a matter of public information, then the meeting would obviously have to be in camera.

The Chairman: I can't remember how we even gave notice of it last time. It might be that by the time the notice is given this afternoon, it can be public. At this point in time, though, I can't give it to you publicly. I can only give to you one on one.

• 1115

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I remember that one well, because I raised the point in the committee that it wasn't in camera and that in the future people who are applying for the job would be able to hear the testimony, so to speak, of the previous candidate.

The Chairman: It was on the record, was it?

Mr. Gerry Byrne: It was definitely on the record. As soon as the motion of notice went out...there were a lot of press people in the room at the time because they were anxious to hear what this guy had to say.

The Chairman: Thank you. It is indeed fairly tight timing. At some point today it has to be made public who we're interviewing, but I just can't say in this public setting, right now, because it's not my call.

As he did before, the House leader has agreed to a request of this committee to conduct the interview. It worked very well last time. We gave the opposition 95% of the time to ask the questions to clear any.... So Susan is working on getting a room as soon as this meeting is over. I just want to give you notice of that.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Does that mean the Wednesday meeting will replace the Thursday meeting?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Are we meeting on Thursday?

The Chairman: There's a chance we won't be. I've been trying to get Mr. Oulton here, the greenhouse gas secretariat director. I'm still hoping that's on Thursday. Okay?

We have received five motions. Four were from John Duncan and one was from Mr. Bernier. You were all given copies and we have more here in both languages.

I'll let John speak to those motions, generally related to the eight-point plan that came out of the presentation from the coastal delegation we received last week. Then we'll have Gilles' motion on travel.

John, I give the floor to you. Do you want to do all four as a package?

Mr. John Duncan: I would prefer to do them one at a time. It would be easier to deal with them that way.

Just for openers, though, I would like to let the committee know that yesterday a British Columbia shipment in the Netherlands was once again boarded by Greenpeace. This thing is not going away. It's expanding. The campaign is continuing. It's going to get worse before it gets better. This is just a reminder to us all that this is a very serious issue and it has consequences and ramifications.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Could I ask a question of John?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: John, given these incidents, have you contacted the Department of External Affairs and International Trade to see what they are doing with the host country in order to stop this?

Mr. John Duncan: Put it this way. You have seen me ask questions in the House? Almost without exception, Goodale has been the minister to respond. The first question I asked was about the ship in Connecticut. The second question I asked was about the ship in Long Beach, California.

It was apparent, between Goodale and Marchi, they had no idea what I was talking about at that time. This thing has only just gone on their radar screen, in my view anyway. What you're asking me is if I've done it. No, I haven't. Do I think I should be doing it? Yes, I do, absolutely.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: It is very different with the United States, as you know, because of the free trade agreement. I was going to talk about that later. Internationally, in Europe especially, we don't necessarily have agreements with them. Local police forces should do something with this.

Mr. John Duncan: We used to have free trade in lumber until two and a half years ago. We no longer have free trade in lumber with the United States.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's right. I know all about that. Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Reg.

John, did you want to finish your comments?

Mr. John Duncan: On motion one, there was some concern about the way it was written, but I didn't hear a lot of concern about the intent of the motion. I've numbered the eight bullets in this report just so that I can follow it.

• 1120

Bullet two says that the federal government has to establish forest trade offices in key market areas to promote and support the Canadian forest industry.

When we had the chief foresters here we heard them talk specifically about the U.S. I would say that goes further since most of our trade is with the U.S., but an awful lot of trade now is with Japan, and the Greenpeace campaign has now expanded to Japan. We'd be well served to have something in both countries; nevertheless, the motion doesn't specify that.

The Chairman: Gerry.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Regarding the last little while, John, I think you're right. This is not going away, and it is of major concern and interest to Canadians and the Canadian economy. A number of motions are in front of us that stem really from the fact that we had some extremely interesting and knowledgeable witnesses who appeared before us last week. They just wanted to tell their side of the story and to prompt us to act.

Quite frankly, there is something to be said for this. There's something to be said for looking into some of the issues around the B.C. industry and examining it a little more closely, and using the standing committee as a vehicle to do so.

One of the things we perhaps shouldn't do is just take one small component of the investigation. What's being drawn out here is that there are some environmental issues, some legal issues, some justice issues, some trade issues. This committee for a while has been struggling for an issue to grab hold of and run with. Perhaps a broad-based discussion on B.C. forest issues may be appropriate.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: We may have a couple of government folks ask us some questions, John.

I'll have Roy, then Ben.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The meeting last week was useful to get the issue on the table, to give it more attention. The area I'm still confused about is that the motions here are general. Although the witnesses talked about what the federal government and the various stakeholders are doing already, it seems to me that this would need to be looked at.

In other words, rather than just having them come back with a proposal, it would be useful if we understood what's being done already by which stakeholders, and if we tried to sift through what is a B.C. problem.

We know there are lots of problems in the B.C. forest industry with certain government policies and the tanking out of the Asian markets. What are we doing as a federal government and what are other stakeholder groups doing with respect to this particular issue? Are there any focused activities that we can embark upon? By just blindly going into some new program, where there could be duplication, we really wouldn't be adding much value for money. I don't think I would support that.

The Chairman: Before I go to Ben, do you want to say anything, John?

Mr. John Duncan: First of all, a standing committee has already, in the last Parliament, made recommendations in this regard. There's no appetite or taste in British Columbia for this committee to do a bunch of wheel-spinning in terms of looking at this issue. This issue is fairly straightforward in terms of who is responsible and who isn't. The parties that can effectively make recommendations were largely at the table here, the exception being the Forest Alliance. Those two groups there would get together with the Forest Alliance so that they would be part and parcel of any proposal. I'm thinking particularly of motion four.

• 1125

I think the committee would actually be much better off to focus on...we're talking about what we're going to focus on next year. In terms of the forest industry, I think what's more important is not that we take a slice of the B.C. forest industry, but that we do look at the softwood lumber agreement in its entirety from a four-province perspective.

The Chairman: Benoît.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my intervention is basically in the same line as John's. I'm probably the oldest member of this committee except for Reg. I've been a member of this committee since the election of 1993. I'm sitting here this morning and I feel I'm rehashing a whole bunch of stuff we've been through twice over.

We prepared a report—I think it was tabled in 1994—called Canada: A Model Forest Nation in the Making, which John alluded to. We made recommendations in that report. We conducted hearings across the country, we saw the practices of the forest industry in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and all over Canada. We made recommendations, we had witnesses, we even had Greenpeace appear before this committee. I remember in one instance they didn't like what I had to say and they walked out of the meeting. Unfortunately they came back the next day.

We've been through all this, and I agree with John, there's no need to go through all this process again and rehash and reinvent the wheel. It's all there. The issue is quite clear. These people are hurting our industry, and they're hurting our economy with misinformation and tactics that are unfair and, most of the time, illegal.

I agree with the presenters of last week; it's time for action. I think the government has done quite a bit in the last couple of years in terms of addressing this issue. I would also like to have somebody from External Affairs and International Trade appear before this committee and tell us exactly what they've been doing. I think that would be more constructive in terms of advancing the issue. I believe we as a committee should adopt those recommendations and maybe try to reinforce to the government the need to accentuate and do a little more of what they've been doing to protect the industry. Maybe I'm mixing things up a bit here, but I want to address Gilles' motion at the same time.

I don't think there's any need to go and see that. You just need to read the 1994 report; it's all there. We've looked at I don't know how many different companies, and the committee has done a thorough study of this issue, and it's all there. Just read the report and you'll have a very good idea of what's going on and what needs to be done.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ben.

I have Gerry, then Roy. I'll put Gilles in between there.

Gerry.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I guess the issue is whether or not we already have a starting point and terms of reference and know exactly where we want to go. Or has the situation changed a little bit since 1994?

It seems to me we've heard from one group of witnesses that are, I would say, very powerful and effective in terms of voicing industry positions. Before we go on to vote, John, on your four motions—and Gilles, you have a motion to go to B.C. and look at the industry—maybe in the short term what we should be doing is getting a little broader depth in witnesses. Say, ask someone from Environment Canada, Foreign Affairs, NRCan, and Industry Canada to appear before the committee. What we really have to do—I agree with Roy, and I think that John and Roy are on the same page—is focus on what it is we're studying. Also, we have to concentrate on what is within our constitutional power or parliamentary power to actually change or recommend be changed.

Rather than dealing with these motions individually...in essence what I sense is that these five motions really go down a very common path, which is to investigate some important aspects of what's happening in particular in the B.C. forest industry. I think, John, that if you had your druthers, you'd want to look specifically at the coastal forestry sector.

• 1130

Maybe what we have to do is just add a little bit more depth to our discussion, and the best way to do that in the very short term is to get a broader witness base. There are people around this table—and, Ben, you are one of them—who understand the issues a little bit better than others. But in fairness, each individual member of the committee has to be educated and to decide for themselves what are the issues and what we should really be doing. I want to do that in the short term rather than in the long term.

Mr. Benoît Serré: If I could interject, Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record straight, I don't think we're dealing with the B.C. forest industry alone. I had the same problem in Temagami in my riding, so it's a national issue. So when we do our study or talk about this issue, we talk about the Canadian lumber industry and not B.C. per se. Maybe it's more prevalent because it's being targeted at this point in time, but it's a national issue.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask our clerk to make sure every member of this committee gets a copy of the report that was tabled in 1994. I think if every member of the committee read that report thoroughly, they would have a lot better understanding of the issue.

The Chairman: Okay.

Gilles, Roy, and then Colleen.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Gilles, could I just interrupt for one quick second. That's exactly my point. Where this is coming from is that last week we heard from witnesses specifically from the B.C. industry, and what you're saying now is that you want to expand it to be national in scope. Are we as a committee going to base a national study on input from witnesses—

Mr. Benoît Serré: The report was a national report. We went to New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and B.C. I think we went to every province except maybe Newfoundland, I'm not sure, but we went to almost every province in the country. I think we did go to Newfoundland.

The Chairman: Gilles, please.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to comment on what Ben and Gerry said. I brought in that motion last week, and believe me, I'm not the type of guy who likes to fly. I travel by vehicle every week. So it's not that I don't want to go to B.C.

With regard to the other thing those two gentlemen talked about a while ago, I was not here in 1994. Ben was here, so he's better educated than I am. But I'm a fast learner, and I'm here to get educated.

I'd like to get a copy of that report. It's true also that it's a national problem. It's not just a B.C. problem. It becomes a national problem. If it's the wish of the committee not to go to B.C. or to send a delegation so that some of us would go to B.C., let it be, as long as the committee has a mandate. And our mandate is to get ourselves a plan of action and to get that plan into gear and to do something. I'm not talking about a long-term plan. As Gerry said, it should be a short-term plan, because it's getting bad in B.C., as we all heard last week.

And it's not just in B.C. If you look at forestry issues, this is the economy of our country we're talking about, and we're talking about billions of dollars. If we leave it to these radicals to do away with our economy, who are we as a country?

So I think we have a job as a committee. If you guys don't feel you want to go to B.C., I'll stay home, but I'd like to get a copy of the report. I want to study it. After I do study the report, if it's a recommendation of the committee not to go to B.C., I might decide during the Christmas holidays to go by myself. I know that some members of the Reform Party were already there, because I looked at the video, and I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you've looked at it. But I was not there.

Forestry, as I said, is not my trade and I'm not well educated in it, but it really interests me. Maybe after I've read the report, if I need more stuff or whatever—I'm like St. Thomas in that I like to see, I have to touch, and I have to taste—I'll decide to go by myself, because I really want to see it first-hand.

• 1135

But I will understand the decision of the committee this morning. If the committee decides it doesn't want to go to B.C., I would like at least to have a copy of the report so that I can start studying it.

The Chairman: Next on the list is Marlene.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I admit I know nothing about forestry. So I have to tell you, Mr. Duncan, that if we are to vote today on what you are proposing, I would abstain, because I am not in a position to support or reject you.

I'm glad to learn that we will receive a copy of the 1994 report. I would like to study it to see what kind of recommendations were made given the situation at the time.

After I've read the report and other relevant information, I will know whether or not to support the recommendations. Would it be a good idea to invite those people targeted by the report's recommendations and ask them what they've done? Specific recommendations were made for specific areas. Perhaps the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of International Trade were called to act in a recommendation. Have they followed up on the recommendations made in the report we received on November 26?

In short, I just want to state that I'm not ready to vote on the motions. But I agree with their general thrust and objective.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll now turn to John, and then Roy, Ben, and Gerry.

Mr. John Duncan: We seem to be going around quite a bit here, but there seems to be a bit of a consensus developing here, and—

Mr. Roy Cullen: Which is what?

Mr. John Duncan: The consensus I think I'm hearing is that people would like to hear from Foreign Affairs and International Trade and possibly one or two other government departments, and that they would like to reserve judgment on some of the motions until they've heard from those groups. My suggestion at this point would be that we do that—that we invite those people before the committee, and that we defer motions one to three until such time as we've heard from them.

In terms of motion four, it is not binding in any way on the government or on the committee, but I think it would be very timely for us to ask these people to try to put together a plan. There's no sense in deferring that decision. Irrespective of what the committee does on motions one to three, that will affect our deliberations down the road, but it won't affect the deliberations of these people where we're asking for their ideas on a plan and a budget. So I would still like to see us proceed with motion four.

In terms of the travel motion, I think this is a national issue, but you have to remember that we're being invited to go to the place that's the target, and in order for people on this committee to feel comfortable with the position they're going to be taking on this issue, I think they need to see the target, they need to see what's actually going on there. In the same way, you will remember that committee members were saying that now that the issue has spread from Europe to the U.S. to Japan, we should be taking our European diplomats, who are experienced and versed in this, and putting them in the position where they can teach and train our U.S. and Asian diplomats about what's coming down the road from Greenpeace and other groups.

• 1140

So it's all part of the package, as I see it. It's a national issue, but we need to go and see the target.

The Chairman: Roy.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I really commend the member opposite for his initiative, and also the companies and unions involved, but when he talks about it being representative, let's face it, there are two companies in his riding on the coast and a union in the riding, so that it is maybe a bellwether of things to come. But let's understand that the idea of forest product boycotts in Europe and other places is nothing new. It may be intensifying—that is correct—but it's something that has been around. In fact, when the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association put an office in Brussels in 1992 or 1993, it was basically to deal precisely with this issue.

I think we should be clear. We are not dealing with something new here. We're not dealing with something on which the federal government has not been active.

On motion four, if we agree on that and if Western Forest Products, Interfor, and the IWA pull together a plan that doesn't reflect the testimony that we hear from the departments in terms of what is going on, what some of the developments and trends are, then it could be a waste of their time.

I'm sympathetic to some of the items proposed here. In fact, there's a council, the Forest Sector Advisory Council of Canada, that was set up by this federal government to hear the views of the forest products industry. It's a labour-management group. It's co-chaired by an executive in the forest industry and an executive in the union. It meets regularly, and they raise issues from time to time. It's all the major stakeholders in the industry across Canada. In fact, I understand they are meeting in mid-December. That's doesn't take away from any work we could do here as a committee, but this council is very representative.

It seems to me we'd have to focus the discussion. If you're talking about the B.C. forest industry, we know all the problems, and if we, as a committee, went out there without a focus, you know what we'd be landed with. It would be forest practices code, stumpage, bad business climate, you name it—things we can't do anything about.

We'd also hear about the softwood lumber agreement, which I think many of us—

Mr. John Duncan:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Roy Cullen: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I have the floor, and I'm going to have my say on this.

Many of us have informally agreed—or maybe the chair has even agreed—that we'll be looking at the softwood lumber agreement in the next year or two, because it is coming up. But again, the forest products industry—and I know this categorically—pleaded with our government to implement the five-year softwood lumber agreement, to get five years of labour peace. I know that absolutely to be a fact. That's not to say that some things can't be done and shouldn't be done when it's up for renewal.

But if we look at trade missions, the first bullet, “Trade Missions to specifically promote Canadian forest products”, my understanding is that Ralph Goodale has had about three or four of them, and there are more planned. Maybe there needs to be more of them. Maybe they were ill-targeted. Maybe enough people didn't sign up; I don't know.

Regarding the next bullet, “Federal Government to establish Forest Trade Offices in key market areas”, personally, I have some sympathy with that. The Forest Sector Advisory Council recommended in 1992 that we put forestry expertise in many of our missions abroad, particularly those in sensitive markets. With program review and our deficit targets, I gather that couldn't be done, but maybe that's something that needs to be revisited.

The next one says “expand the Canadian Forestry Tour”. Expand—that sort of connotes that there's something being done now. What in hell is it? Maybe it'll come through in this plan, but I'd like to see from our own government departments what we're doing.

“Federal Government to initiate a comprehensive Buy Canadian Wood advertising campaign”: Well, the federal government is very active in trade shows all around the world. For the Canadian Wood Council, it's their business. The Canadian Wood Council is to promote the use of wood products.

“Federal Government to sponsor a Canadian Delegates Speaking Tour”: We know some of that is already being done. Maybe it needs to be more targeted.

Then, regarding “Federal Government to help promote Certification of Canadian Forest Products”, that council has been active for some time. I gather one of the problems is that there are so many different stakeholder groups that it's hard to come up with a certification that meets everybody's needs. Maybe we need to revisit that. Where is it going? What is the pace? This kind of statement here not only needs more fleshing out by the presenters but we also need to understand what our government departments are doing. I would agree with the parliamentary secretary that we need to hear from the departments.

• 1145

As far as the groups that came last week representing an industry view are concerned, while I agree it's sort of a generic thing and it's fairly well understood that forest boycotts are a national issue, to say they are representative...they happen to be companies and a union in Mr. Duncan's riding. I commend him for his initiative. But I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. We don't need to travel the country and hear thousands of witnesses. We need to look at that old report. We need to look at what the Forest Sector Advisory Council has recommended. We need to hear what we're doing now. We need to have a targeted response. It doesn't have to drag on for months and years. With the recess, we could maybe do it in a month or two.

We need to be very targeted. Something like “threat of Canadian forest products boycotts and the federal government response” would really focus it. There may be something in there. It may be embodied in these motions, but I for one need to know a lot more about it and wouldn't support going on some kind of dog-and-pony show where we would have every forest industry issue dumped in our laps that we can't do anything about.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Ben.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: As I listen to committee members, I feel they need to be brought up-to-date as soon as possible. I will therefore withdraw my objection to the trip to British Columbia. In fairness, all committee members should have the same opportunity I did to acquaint themselves with the issues. My experience goes back four or five years. So, to be fair, everyone should share the same experience.

However, I want to insist on one thing, Mr. Chairman. I call certain groups "ecoterrorists". They include, for instance, Greenpeace, Earth First! and the Unabomber, who was a member of Earth First!, which is associated with Earthroots of Toronto, which in turn is active in my riding. These people are ecoterrorists, not ecologists. They object to various activities, mining being only one of them.

I said earlier that they are not only active in British Columbia; they agitate across the country. I'm going to go even farther. Their actions don't only target the forestry industry, but also mining, and more recently farming and the fur industry. When they try to block construction of an access road to a forest, they are also impeding access to mines located in the same area. They in effect affect 62% of all our exports.

The problem is worse than people think, and we must study the problem as soon as possible, and be well informed.

In my opinion, we should first see whether this has been done already. Mr. Duncan's recommendations were followed up, at least by the federal government. But we must ask ourselves whether that was enough.

It's true, Mr. Cullen, that this is not a new problem. It goes back to the 1980s. But the movement is growing. Governments have given a lot of advice to various industrial sectors to improve forestry practices. But it's never enough for those people. It will never be enough. So the problem is growing and we must act as quickly as possible.

I repeat, our priority should be to meet with External Affairs and International Trade officials. They'll tell us exactly what is being done. Only then will the committee be in a position to decide whether it's enough and what recommendations should be made to strengthen existing practices.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ben.

I still have a number of speakers left, so unless there's a revolt against the chairman, I'm going to end with John and Gerry. We'll get in Pierre and Marlene and Reg. Then I'll attempt, if you like, to put out a consensus. If it's agreeable we'll go; if not, we'll have some motions.

• 1150

Pierre.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Let me try to summarize the situation as I see it. The committee has heard from witnesses who raised the alarm. There is a problem. Mr. Serré calls it ecoterrorism. Let's call it that unless we find a better name.

There is a problem. I think we all recognize and want an appropriate and intelligent solution.

Mr. Cullen has also said that there are already governmental and paragovernmental organizations responding on-site. However, we don't know precisely how they plan to fight ecoterrorism. We should ask them to come before the committee to tell us.

I think that would be a wise decision, because we could ask them the fundamental question. Have you refocussed your activities to fight ecoterrorism? If you have not yet done so, are you planning on doing so? If, for instance, we were told that there was a plan of action but not enough resources to carry it out, or that other things still need to be done, then the committee could make relevant recommendations to help these organizations. As well, I'm in the same situation as Ms. Jennings, Mr. Bernier and other members of the committee; I don't know enough about the issue. I know a little bit, but it's hard for me to grasp certain aspects of a problem which appears to be serious and which might eventually threaten many other regions.

So, yes, I think it appropriate that those of us who don't know enough about the problem should be able to inform themselves. Of course, any papers or reports already produced by the committee will help us brush up on the subject, which will be very useful once we get into the heart of the matter, as we must.

Then, and only then, will we be able to come back to the motions and make our decision with all the facts at our fingertips. It will also help us to focus on what counts, rather than scatter our efforts and waste our time on less important things.

In short, I think we all want a quick solution to the problem, and we are in a position to do so in an organized and efficient manner.

[English]

The Chairman: Marlene, then Reg.

[Translation]

Ms Marlene Jennings: I completely agree with the way you have outlined the situation, Mr. de Savoye.

The Chairman: Reg.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: I feel we have a consensus on the urgency of the situation. It's obvious that this is just the beginning of a new wave of terrorism on the part of Greenpeace. I therefore suggest that we ask the Minister of International Trade to come before the committee before the Christmas break.

How about next Tuesday at 11 a.m.? The Minister has to understand that something has to be done immediately. As several witnesses mentioned, there are already mechanisms in place; we just have to activate them. So we must bring Mr. Marchi before the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Reg. Carmen hasn't spoken yet, so we'll give Carmen a chance.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I don't want to be left out after everyone's had a chance to comment here. I would adopt the comments of Mr. Bélair and not repeat them. Also, with respect to Mr. Cullen's comments, there's much I agree with there. If we're going to do this, we need to be focused.

• 1155

In the discussion I couldn't help—I never thought it would happen—recalling what my father used to do to me. I would walk to school and he would ask me if I saw certain things, with the idea that no matter how many times you travel a path, if you're looking you'll see different things each time.

So it doesn't matter to me whether we've been there and done that, because we can go there and do that again and it might be different. It doesn't matter that the government is already involved in almost every one of those items or perhaps all of the six points. I don't think we ever waste our time travelling a road again and again, because you can come up with new solutions and different approaches.

I would say I'm in favour of the spirit of intent of the motions.

The Chairman: Roy, do you feel you have to speak again?

Mr. Roy Cullen: I just want to say if we're going to invite the relevant departments and ministers—just a suggestion—maybe we should bring in, for example, the head of the Ontario Forest Industry Association, the five big producing provinces and COFI. Without making it a cumbersome exercise, you could do that in a day with the departments and a few key industry stakeholders to get their perspectives on what's being done and what could be done better, or what we could be doing more of.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll get concluding comments from John and Gerry, and I'll try to see if I can express a consensus, unless you gentlemen want to try to do that.

Mr. John Duncan: The first thing I want to refer to is the travel motion. There were concerns expressed by Roy that somehow we'd get the kitchen sink thrown at us in terms of all the other issues.

I've been on that trip. It's two days. It's totally restricted to the Great Bear Rain Forest. The issue is land use; that's it. They don't want to talk about softwood lumber or any of those other things. They don't even want to bring them up, Roy. I can assure you there's no intent to do that on their part. It doesn't help their case. It just dilutes their case. It's a land use issue, a market access issue, a boycott issue.

In terms of how much of a vested interest I have here, 90% of the Great Bear Rain Forest is not in my riding.

WFP and Interfor, the two companies that were here, have almost 50% of the coastal cut. Another big player is MacMillan Bloedel, which is not interested in this exercise at this time.

The other big player, the local we had here, is the largest local of the IWA. It has all the loggers from Terrace and Prince Rupert, down the coast into the Queen Charlottes. They've dealt with land use issues on the Queen Charlottes and northern Vancouver Island. They are very significant. They're the ones that are targeted. They're the ones that have the expertise.

The Forest Alliance is the other big player in B.C. in terms of this issue. They would willingly participate with these players in this exercise if we adopt motion four—and as I say, motion for is not binding on anyone. I see it as a way to expedite things potentially.

I'm still very much a proponent of motion four. Defer the other ones based on the committee talking to government people. I'm still very much a proponent of the travel motion. Mind you, the time to do the travel is not in the winter or even in the early spring. It's probably in the April or May break at this point.

The Chairman: We'll see if there's a consensus, because you're offering to defer your first three in lieu of a consensus. Then we'll just deal with your motion four as a resolution and Gilles' motion, and deal with it that way.

I will conclude with Gerry. If you want to try a consensus, Gerry, I've had a hint of one from many of you, including John, then I'll wind up.

• 1200

Mr. Gerry Byrne: The thing I'm hearing around the table is that there is a very strong interest in the issue or issues; that some members of the committee feel more comfortable talking about them or actually recommending specific courses of actions than others; and that this is of general broad-based interest to the committee members themselves. I think it's the basis of something to build on and actually put a bit of a structure to this committee, one that, in terms of a future workplan, we really didn't have much of before in many respects.

I think it's important, though, that all members, one, feel as though they can contribute to the conversation whether or not they were here in 1994. Right now the issue is that this standing committee has convened with these members, and it's our responsibility collectively that everybody is involved. We've had a request. I think it seems practical and sensible that when you start to go down a path...once you actually write the terms of reference it's very difficult to change them, nor should you really. You're preconceiving the outcome if you do.

So I think it's not unhealthy, or unrealistic or anything else, to say let's get a little bit broader-based information, let's get the people in from Foreign Affairs, from Environment Canada, from Natural Resources, from Industry Canada, and from Justice. Some of the issues here relate in terms of strengthening laws against foreign protesters, and that's obviously a Justice issue. We should get a base of information in order to deal with this.

We should get a little bit broader-based industry input than just a certain segment of the B.C. industry. Granted, this is very important, and in many respects it is the most affected by the Asian economic downturn, but we really should get some input from Ontario, from Alberta and from others. This could be the building blocks of a major substantive study for the committee. As for which direction it takes, that's up to us. But I do agree that it has to be focused and it has to be something by which we can actually influence a change in policy or make a difference. It can't be something related to what the provincial government's jurisdiction is. Obviously that's doomed to failure from the start.

Let's get a base of information. Let's get some more witnesses in. Let's do it relatively quickly, as quickly as possible. Then, after that, after we're educated ourselves, let's decide what the terms of reference would be.

In terms of dealing with motion four, in terms of actually dealing with motions one to three and motion five, quite frankly, I think it would be more appropriate to withdraw them for now. That's not to say...you have them written, they're there. But let's not preconceive outcomes. Let's not keep them on the table and say, no matter what we decide, or no matter what we hear or no matter what we learn, we're still going to have to deal with these specific motions.

My request would be this. Let's draw up a witness list, and let's withdraw the motions as they stand now. Let's draw up a witness list and let's hear them, and then come back to decide at a future business meeting what would be the terms of reference for a future study.

The Chairman: I'm going to try to bring this to closure, then. The first question would be to John on that recommendation, and I'll try to verbalize a consensus. Do you want to do the three or do you want to defer or withdraw whatever the four—

Mr. John Duncan: I don't want to withdraw motion four. None of motion four will be compromised by anything the committee learns.

The Chairman: That's fine. Then we'll just vote on it.

Mr. John Duncan: And in terms of motion five, the travel, I think it's—

The Chairman: I think we can do it.

Colleagues, in the interest of expediency, the consensus I read then on the first three motions is that we invite witnesses as soon as we can arrange it, and it may include ministers—all or some of them as appropriate and if we can get them—from Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Environment, Natural Resources, Industry Canada—

• 1205

Mr. Benoît Serré: Do we have the consensus of the committee to put in a priority for Foreign Affairs and International Trade? All the others have consequences, but in terms of dealing specifically with this issue, the two major ones would be International Trade and Foreign Affairs.

The Chairman: There's no question there. I would plan meetings on your behalf and with any input you would provide on witnesses as soon as we can. I would arrange them with witnesses from any department that may have some bearing on the issues raised in the six points that are the subject of the first motion.

So John is then deferring or withdrawing the first few motions in lieu of a consensus that we're going to have briefings as soon as we can so that we're aware of what the governments have done and what's doable. In the absence of a revolt on this, that's what we'll do concerning the first three motions.

On the fourth motion, let's just vote on it. It's John's motion that we request a budget from our witnesses having to do with the points that were raised.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Is it too late to comment?

John, if they were going to do something like this, would they do it in contemplation of what's already in place or would they just...? I'm concerned about getting them to do something and wasting their time. I support the idea, but are they going to be wasting their time if they haven't the benefit of this other testimony?

Mr. John Duncan: They're very aware of what's gone on to date and they've been involved. They have the expertise to draw together stakeholders' views of how things should happen. This is going to be different from a bureaucratic view of how things should transpire, and that's the value in the exercise.

The Chairman: We'll have Pierre, then Ben.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: When we hear from the witnesses, we can ask them to provide us with additional information through the clerk. I don't think anyone would object to receiving more information.

Furthermore, the motion we have before us would result in exactly the same thing. We would ask them for information, but in the name of the committee as a whole and not only on behalf of Pierre de Savoye or Benoît Serré. I personally have nothing against receiving more information. We can decide whether it is useful or not once we go through it. I certainly won't ignore any extra information. With that, I will support the motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Ben.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I just want to speak in favour of that motion. I'm the one who asked the witnesses at the last meeting to...because I know everything costs money. I want every shareholder to dish in; I want the industry to dish in, the union and what not. I'm the one who asked for that, so I have to agree and I will be voting for the motion.

The Chairman: John, I'm not saying I'm voting for or against it, but instead of requesting that we invite them...inviting is one thing, requesting is saying here's $10,000 to go and do your work. If we invite them, it's if they want to do it.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: It's their responsibility.

The Chairman: To protect the budget of the committee, if John would take a—

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Unanimous consent.

Mr. John Duncan: I have no difficulty with amending the motion to read “invite” rather than “request”.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We will do that by letter.

Gilles, you had a motion on committee travel. We didn't deal with it in the consensus, so I'm going to ask for it now.

It is moved by Gilles that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations send a delegation of members to the mid-coast of British Columbia to meet with representatives of the B.C. forest industry, forestry unions, environmental groups, Greenpeace and aboriginal groups. Through their meetings, the delegation should assess current practices in the industry, sustainability and environmental issues and report back to the committee upon their return.

Is there any discussion? I'll let Gilles go first, then Roy.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to repeat what I said the first time, but I really liked Carmen's comment when he said you can go there five or six times but you will always see new things, the comment made by my colleague from the Reform Party when he said that this is maybe not the right time of the year to go because of winter and all that. I know what kind of winters we have in Atlantic Canada, but I don't know what kind of winters they have in B.C. At the same time, if as a committee we decide to go and if it's not the right time to go, I don't want the committee to go there and waste our time and money. If it's the pleasure of the committee to wait, as you said, until next April or next May.... Well, I'll leave it up to the committee.

• 1210

The Chairman: Can I suggest a friendly—I may be out of order doing this—amendment that sends a message but gives us flexibility. If you simply put in there “that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations should send a delegation at an appropriate time”, then an appropriate time is left up to us.

Mr. John Duncan: May I recommend an appropriate time? I've discussed this with the group that issued the invitation.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Duncan: I've discussed appropriate times with the IWA, who extended the invitation. We have a break during the week of May 17. If we were to do it on the previous Friday and Saturday or Thursday and Friday when we're still sitting here, then if people want to stay on the west coast for a day or two with their spouse or whatever, that can happen. So what I'm suggesting as dates would be Friday and Saturday, May 14 and 15. You would end up leaving from Vancouver and returning to Vancouver by charter, Vancouver airport, that is. You'd leave the Friday morning—

An hon. member: Would that be chartered from Ottawa?

Mr. John Duncan: No, it would be chartered from Vancouver to Bella Coola.

The Chairman: Roy.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I guess the timing depends on the host, but by that time we may have dealt with this report and everything.

We went to the interior last year. The interior industry is totally different from the coastal one, and members of the committee who haven't been through an old-growth forest or a rain forest should go and talk to of all these stakeholder groups, because it really affects the industry all across Canada. There are no coastal rain forests in Ontario or Quebec, but the same applies.

I'm just concerned about the timing. If it takes place in May, probably we will have dealt with this.

The Chairman: Perhaps we could attempt to resolve it in this way. First of all, any travel has to be approved by the budget committee and ultimately by the House leaders. I'm advised that we have to be specific as to dates and destination so that a budget can be developed by staff and proposed. That would actually be part of next year's budget if it takes place in May.

I propose that if there is a willingness to travel, we simply state that so that people know that sometime we're going to come. If it is that far ahead, the committee at an appropriate time can work out the details. I can't go to a budget meeting without pretty exact destinations and dates. If we pass a motion with approximate dates, I can't do anything with it.

So perhaps we could just agree on the principle, and then work on the details afterwards. Gilles' motion is really on the principle of it, and I couldn't go to the budget committee with this, anyway. Then I would come back to you and say, “Okay, folks, it's time to get down to the nitty-gritty. If you have decided to travel, now we have to talk about details.” So perhaps we can just deal with Gilles' motion as it stands, until such time as I would come back to you asking for some details. I don't think it's going to be in January or February.

Mr. John Duncan: It's not so much the weather, it's that you don't have enough daylight.

The Chairman: Let's just call the question on Gilles' motion, which is on the intention to visit.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Then we'll come back to it.

The meeting tomorrow with the candidate for the position of official languages commissioner will take place in the this room at 3.30 p.m. For anybody who wants to know the name, if you just see me privately, I'll give it to you on a confidential basis until it's made public.

• 1215

Mr. Roy Cullen: Is it a household name?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Benoît Serré: An old friend of mine?

The Chairman: And this person is not from my riding.

Colleagues, before we leave the table, we were supposed to do future business. But in the sense that we have a little motion of Gilles to do, maybe before we go on next week to Canada Post.... This issue we've been discussing is an item of future business, but I might try to get Oulton in on Thursday or sometime soon. He's from the climate change office. Maybe we could adjourn—since you're all standing around with your coats on—on the basis that we will be looking at future business very soon in the near future.

We're adjourned.